Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided equally between both sides.

Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 10, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on S. 797, a bill to amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve the prosecution of, and response to, crimes in Indian country, and for other purposes; S. 313, a bill to resolve water rights claims of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes; S. 375, a bill to authorize the Crow Tribe of Indians water rights settlement, and for other purposes; S. 965, a bill to approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and for other purposes; S. 1105, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to develop water infrastructure in the Rio Grande Basin, and to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque; and S. 1388, a bill to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes, to be followed immediately by a hearing to examine S. 1635, 7th Generation Promise: Indian Youth Suicide Prevention Act of 2009. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would make a request that Senator Whitehouse be recognized following the presentation by the Senator from Arizona, that I be recognized following Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Inhofe be recognized following my presentation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me follow on the remarks of my colleague from Rhode Island as he discussed briefly at the end of his remarks the loss of our colleague and friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. The desk that is now cloaked in black and adorned with flowers is a desk that was once occupied by Senator John F. Kennedy, then occupied by Senator Robert Kennedy, and for many years occupied by Senator Ted Kennedy. He was an extraordinary friend to all of us, a remarkable legislator. This is not a case of the Senate just losing one Senator. He was such a much larger presence than that in the public life of our country and particularly in the workings of this Congress. My thoughts and prayers have been with Ted Kennedy and his family over these many months as he has battled brain cancer. Now, since his death, we have all reflected on what he meant to us and to this country. Today it seems inappropriate to take the floor of the Senate without at least acknowledging the absence of our friend, Ted Kennedy, and to send our prayers to his family.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, when Senator Kennedy would come to the floor with a booming voice, full of passion about an issue, it was an extraordinary thing to watch and to listen to. He had that kind of passion. I do want to say there are a lot of things for us to be passionate about. One of the things I have talked about on the floor of the Senate is the waste, fraud and abuse in public spending. All of us believe in investing in programs that work to try to help make life better in this country and advance the interests of this country. But it makes me furious to see the kinds of things I see from time to time that represent waste, fraud, and abuse and unbelievable incompetence. Let me describe just one. We know this not because of some extraordinary work by this body. We know this because of some extraordinary work by C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt at the New York Times because they wrote a story about it. Let me tell you the story, and I am sure it will make every American as angry as it makes me. This is a picture of Efraim Diveroli, a 22- year-old CEO of a firm awarded $300 million in U.S. contracts to provide armaments, bullets, and guns to the Afghan fighters. That is right. A 22-year-old man using a shell corporation established by his father, working out of a building with an unmarked door in Miami, got $300 million in contracts from the Department of Defense. He was a CEO. By the way, there is no evidence of any other employees except him and his vice president. Yes, his vice president was older, 25 years old and a massage therapist. Let me say that again. The Department of Defense gave $300 million in contracts to a 22-year-old CEO of a company--a company that was run by a 22-year-old CEO--and a 25-year-old vice president massage therapist. Why do I tell you this today? Because a new story just recently described the fact that Mr. Diveroli pled guilty to a fraud conspiracy charge relating to the $300 million in U.S. contracts. He faces up to 5 years in prison. I have spoken about this man and this circumstance probably three or four times on the floor of the Senate to ask the question: How on Earth could this have happened? Let me just show, if I might, what this was about. This was about products. No, not staplers or reams of paper. These were killer products, ammunition; ammunition that was supposed to be provided to the Afghan fighters. As it turns out, ammunition that spills out of boxes. Here are some other examples. In this chart, these are bullets, 40-year-old, Chinese-made cartridges they found somewhere in the world and sent them over to Afghanistan and the Afghan fighters. Here we can see spilling out of boxes 42-year-old Chinese ammunition that was delivered in Afghanistan from these two folks. The 22-year-old CEO with whom both the Defense Department and the State Department did business, by the way had previous contracts with the State Department. They were unsatisfactory, and despite that, he got $300 million in contracts from the Defense Department. This photograph is from 2007. That is when he got the $300 million in defense contracts. This photograph happens to be a police photograph because he was arrested for assaulting a parking lot attendant. At the time, he was found to have had a forged driver's license which made him out to be 4 years older than he really was. He said he forged the license and didn't need it any longer now that he is 21 because he only wanted to buy alcohol in the first place. They ran the company, AEY--the 22- and 25-year-olds getting $300 million in defense contracts after they had gotten contracts with the State Department and judged to be unsatisfactory--out of a building in Miami. It was an unmarked door in a Miami Beach building. That is all you could see. The only evidence that exists suggests that this was a company with just two people. Mr. Packouz, the 25-year-old massage therapist, has also pled guilty. So both have now pled guilty. I have shown examples of the arms they were supposed to have procured for the Afghan fighters, and when they were delivered, the Afghan fighters called them ``junk''--junk--stuff that was made in the 1960s in China. The way they purchased this so-called junk violated U.S. law in the first place. The New York Times originally published this story. That is when I saw it. That is when I came to the floor of the Senate and asked a very simple question: How did this happen? How on Earth could this have happened? Who is minding the store? If the Army had made the slightest effort to look into the backgrounds of Mr. Diveroli and Mr. Packouz, they never would have granted contracts to them. The award was made in January 2007 by the Army Sustainment Command. On May 7, 2008, I met with Army LTG William Mortensen to find out why on Earth they gave contracts in this circumstance. Mr. Mortensen was a three-star general, Deputy Commander of the Army Materiel Command, which commanded authority over the Army Sustainment Command. They had awarded this contract. General Mortensen has since retired. He was completely unapologetic about this, by the way. He said the Army contracts were with companies, not individuals, and on paper the Diveroli company looked just fine. Of course it didn't because they had not looked at the paper. Had they looked at the State Department with which that company previously contracted, they would have found out this is nobody with whom to contract. He told me nobody in the Army had thought to look through the background of Mr. Diveroli and Mr. Packouz, even though this was a company which consisted, as we know, of just two people. He told me, under similar circumstances, the Army would probably make the same decision again and give contracts to such people again. Then he told me if Mr. Diveroli and Mr. Packouz were acquitted, the Army would go back to doing business with them. If General Mortensen had wanted to know a little bit about with whom they were doing business to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars he could have gone to MySpace. Mr. Diveroli had a page on MySpace. He describes himself as a super nice guy. He said on MySpace: I had problems in high school so I was forced to I work and probably grew up way too fast. He said: Basically I'm just chilling with my boys. And he likes to go clubbing and see movies. He could have checked, of course, more than MySpace. He could have checked perhaps a criminal record and found he had been charged with domestic violence and with drunk driving. He could have Googled his name and discovered the vice president, in addition to being a massage therapist, was a professional song writer. With these kinds of backgrounds, I am just wondering, where is there accountability? Where is the accountability? I understand that because two enterprising reporters for the New York Times broke this story, and we probably would not know it now because this did not come from oversight hearings, it did not come from a Truman committee we should have in this Chamber investigating these things, but it was enterprising reporting that did this. I understand that. So because of that, we have a couple of people charged criminally. The question I ask is, where is the accountability in the Department of Defense for deciding they are going to move $300 million through the hands of these two? Who did that? Who is responsible? Were they asked to account for it and to answer for it to the American taxpayers and the government for which they worked? The answer is no, and that is what is wrong, and it is why I come to the Senate floor to recite this again. There is some good news. Finally, we have criminal charges that have been adjudicated, and the fact is, two people have pled guilty. But will this be happening today somewhere in the Pentagon? Will it? Did it happen with water that was sent by a contractor to all the military bases in Iraq, the nonpotable water that has more contamination than raw water from the Euphrates River? Did it happen there? The Army said no. The inspector general, at my request, investigated and said, yes, it did happen. I can go on at length about dozens and dozens of similar circumstances. The question is, who is accountable for the spending of this money? Who has been made to be accountable? Who had to answer for it? I ask the Secretary of Defense and others: Is there somebody made accountable for this situation? I understand there is criminal accountability for these two people. But is there accountability for the people who decided to employ them, despite all the evidence that this made no sense for our country? I ask that question for a very important reason. We are going to have a debate about Afghanistan. I have very strong feelings about that issue as well. What we are seeing now is more and more contracting being done in Afghanistan just as the ratcheting up of contracts occurred in Iraq. More and more and more contracting. Who is minding the store? What kind of oversight can we expect? Or will we a week from now, a month from now, or a year from now read another story by a couple of good reporters who dug it out to say something happened that is unbelievable and the American people got defrauded to the tune of millions of dollars or, in this case, hundreds of millions of dollars. All of us have responsibility at this point to make accountable those who allowed this sort of thing to happen and not just in this case. I have done 20 hearings now as chairman of the Policy Committee, which have helped to unearth a great amount of evidence of waste, fraud and abuse. Well, I know my colleague in Oklahoma is patiently waiting, and I wish to give him an opportunity to speak. I only want to say this. This is a conclusion with criminal charges and guilty pleas with respect to this issue, which I think is a metaphor for a much larger set of problems that we in the Congress and in the administration have a responsibility to address and to address soon. This issue of big Federal budget deficits is very real. They are unsustainable and dangerous. One of the ways to deal with them is to tighten our belts and start cutting spending where spending is being wasted. This was an unbelievable waste of the taxpayers' money, and my hat is off to the reporters who discovered it. I have been following it now for a couple years on the floor of the Senate, and at least I am able to say guilty pleas have been received. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, could we point out that we are to go to the bill at 4:30. I discussed with my colleague that we have 30 minutes on each side on the bill, and if we could go to the bill and then have my colleague speak on that portion of the bill, I think that would be the right approach.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to begin the discussion, then I believe my colleague, Senator Ensign, who has worked hard on this legislation, will follow. Then Senator Klobuchar who also has played a significant role in this will follow with comments. If others arrive, of course we want them to be able to involve themselves in the debate. At a time when there is so much discussion about partisanship and how things don't work so well, this legislation, the cloture motion we vote on at 5:30 today, is bipartisan. Unlike some other discussions about partisanship, this is bipartisan. This legislation is called the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. It has 53 cosponsors. There are many Democrats and Republicans cosponsoring this legislation. Just today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to all Members of Congress saying they strongly support this legislation. The Chamber urges Members to support the legislation and to vote for cloture. Let me talk just for a moment about what this is. First of all, at a time when we need jobs, this is about jobs. At a time when we need to find ways to address budget deficits, this is one piece of legislation that is not going to cost money. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office scores it as actually a $425 million reduction in deficits over a 10-year period. Let me say again, it is pretty unusual. It is bipartisan, doesn't cost money--actually saves money--and addresses one of the most critical areas of our need, and that is jobs. What is the Travel Promotion Act and why the concern? Let me describe it this way. We all know travel and promoting travel and tourism is job creating. It creates jobs in many areas--yes, hotels and gas stations and restaurants and tourist attractions, but with visitors just traveling across our country means people are spending money. It creates a lot of jobs. Let me talk especially about the issue of international or foreign travel to the United States. Did you know foreign travel is up very dramatically in this world? There is a great deal of foreign travel--56 million more overseas trips were taken in 2008 than were taken in 2000. So in 8 years the number of overseas trips increased by 56 million people. But at the same time, overseas travel to the United States has decreased. We had 634,000 fewer foreign visitors to the United States. It means a lot of people are traveling, but since the year 2000 we have had a loss in our share of international tourists. Why is that important? Because when overseas travelers come to this country, on average they spend about $4,500. That supports a lot of jobs and a lot of businesses in this country. So why do we have 600,000-plus fewer visitors to the United States? In 2001, after the terrorist attack against our country, we tightened visa requirements and so on. The Iraq war occurred. There was a lot of concern by people that maybe the United States didn't want them to come: They have tightened visa requirements. All of a sudden we discover that more people are traveling overseas, but they are not traveling here. Incidentally, the tourism that is happening internationally is not accidental. Most other countries are very aggressively going after the international traveler, saying: Come to our country. Let me go through a list of just a few of those. Here is a big travel promotion campaign that talks about ``Come to Australia. Arrived looking for an experience to remember, departed with an adventure we'll never forget.'' The country of Ireland saying: ``Come to Ireland. Go where Ireland takes you.'' The list goes on. Virtually every country is saying we want foreign tourists to come to our country. ``Sweet secrets from Japan.'' Come and visit Japan. We have all seen these. All of these countries are very aggressive. Come to France. I can't read the French piece down here, but I know what it says. It says come to France. Come here, be a part of what we are doing. Belgium, here is the Belgian approach: ``Where fun is always in fashion. Visit Belgium.'' Finally, India. ``One special reason to visit India in 2009. Any time is a good time to visit the land of the Taj, but there is no time like now.'' Virtually every country is saying: Come to our country; come visit us. But we are not, and we propose that we do promote our country because it will create a lot of jobs. Just as important, when people come here and experience what this country is about, they leave with a wonderful impression about what America is. So what we have put together is a piece of legislation that is bipartisan. It is funded by and large with an entry-exit fee--that is imposed by most other countries, by the way--a $10 fee on visa waiver countries, the people who come from those countries who visit our country. It is a minimal fee compared to what many other countries are charging. We establish with that fee a corporation for travel promotion, an independent nonprofit corporation governed by an 11- member board of directors appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. It sets up this travel promotion fund financed by a public-private matching program. In short, this is a very simple proposition. It will not only create a lot of new jobs in this country at a time when we desperately need new jobs by saying to foreign travelers come to our country, be a part of what America has to offer you, come see our wonderful country, experience what America is about, we know when they come to this country they have an unbelievably good impression of what they have just seen--the greatest democracy on the face of this planet by far, and they experience the magic and wonders of this country. What we are saying to them is, at a time when travel around the world is up, that is visitors to other countries, and ours is down, let's solve this problem and let's do it without breaking the bank. In fact, this will not cost money; this will save money. Let's do it by working in a bipartisan way on one of the significant problems we face in America, and that is the loss of jobs. In case someone thinks perhaps there are just a few of us who think this is a good idea, here are a few examples of others who think this is a great idea. The Dallas Morning News: The travel promotion act is a sensible first step toward putting the welcome mat back on America's doorstep. What a wonderful way to put it. The Los Angeles Times: Considering the U.S. spends hundreds of millions of dollars on public diplomacy with dubious results and nearly nothing on promoting tourism, it might do well to invest a little money in wooing travelers. Sacramento Bee: This country needs to reclaim its stand as a global magnet for visitors even in this post-9/11 climate--and Congress can help by passing the Travel Promotion Act by the end of this year. Duluth News Tribune: Ideas to bolster economic recovery without plunging the Nation any deeper into debt would be welcomed by taxpayers from coast to coast. The Detroit Free Press: Doesn't it make sense to encourage, at no cost to taxpayers, foreign visitors to come here and leave us some money? There is no good reason not to pass this bill. I needn't go on. This is not rocket science. This is something our country should do. If, in fact, in a smaller and smaller world, more and more people are traveling, then why should fewer people travel to the United States of America? This ought to be one of the great destination places on the entire planet. I expect and hope most people want to come to this country and see what America has to offer. But I think post-9/11 what we have done with visas and so on, which we are now correcting and have corrected by and large--longer waiting times, we have made them shorter and so on--I think there was a notion out there somehow that the welcome mat doesn't exist. We are changing that. Republicans and Democrats can work together to change that. This legislation is good legislation, and I hope my colleagues will join me today in voting for cloture and moving this bill as soon as possible through the Senate, through the House, and to the President for signature. When we do, those people who have had to come home to say to their spouse: Honey, I have lost my job--some of those millions of people, are going to be able to come home someday and say: I have a new job. There is some new activity going on in our State. I have a new job that relates to the substantial increase in international tourism to the United States. That will be a good thing for our country. So as the principal author, along with Senator Ensign, of this legislation--and let me say also the chair of the Tourism Subcommittee, Senator Klobuchar--I am pleased to be able to work together with my colleagues to get this legislation completed today. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 10 minutes of our time to Senator Klobuchar.

Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Klobuchar for her work, and Senator Ensign. I think they have said what needs to be said. If 48 million more people are now traveling internationally, foreign travelers moving around the world, 48 million more, but 600,000 fewer are traveling in the United States as foreign travelers, then something is wrong and we need to fix it. I want to market this country to foreign travelers, to say: Come to all of America. Yes, come to see the Statue of Liberty, and come to see New York City and its vibrancy, and the Empire State Building, and Las Vegas, and Universal Studios in Los Angeles, and the Golden Gate Bridge. And in my State, the Pembina Gorge, the Red River Valley, and the Badlands I would love to have foreign tourists come to experience the history and the culture the values of all of our country. I have told the story before on the floor of the Senate about Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt was in his home in New York when on the same day, on different floors of his home, his mother died and his wife died. In his diary for that day, there is a big mark. It is just an X for that day. He lost both his wife and his mother. Same day, different floors of his house. A broken spirit, he went to what was then North Dakota and began to ranch in the Badlands of North Dakota, in what is now the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I would love to encourage foreign tourists to come to the heartland of America, the northern Great Plains, and see what restored the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt. What a great way to understand and see the history and the culture and values of this country. Isn't it interesting and alarming that 48 million more people are traveling around the world as foreign tourists and 600,000 fewer are traveling in the United States? The United States, which should be the premier destination for travel of anywhere on this Earth, and yet we have 633,000 fewer foreign travelers than we had 9 years ago. There is something not connected here. We propose to connect it with something that is bipartisan, something that doesn't cost money but something that reduces the Federal budget deficit, something that creates jobs when we have lost so many, to be able to do that working together, to say: Here is something on which we can agree. Here is something we think would boost America's economic strength, here is something we believe would contribute to building new jobs, and, most importantly for me, here is something that when people come to our country and leave, it will allow them to leave America with a positive impression about what this country is, who the American people are, what they believe, what they practice. This is a remarkable place. To come here and then leave here after having visited America is to experience one of the great travel opportunities on this planet. When we look at a problem and see that something is not working right, the question is, How do we fix it? I have said so often before, but I will say it again--because I know we have had some discussion today in opposition to this that I think mischaracterizes it--Mark Twain, when asked if he would engage in a debate, said: Of course, as long as I can take the negative side. They said: We haven't even told you the subject. He said: It doesn't matter. The negative side will take no preparation at all. So it is with legislation. It is so much easier with no preparation to come and say: I am opposed to this; I don't support this; this won't work. The fact is, this is a problem that hurts this country. Losing our share of international tourism at a time when more people are traveling around the world, finding fewer people traveling to our country, that is a problem. We can fix it in a way that doesn't spend more, doesn't increase the Federal budget deficit, but attracts more people to this country and creates more jobs. What a remarkable piece of legislation that is a good investment in the future. We have a lot to be proud of in this country, all of us. We take it for granted every day because we wake up in this country, but, boy, do we have a lot to be proud of. We want to show it off to foreign visitors. Since 9/11, I understand there has been a notion somehow that it is harder to come to America. It is more hassle. What we want to say is: That is done. It is not a hassle. We invite you to come here. Come here and be a part of our experience. Here is what we see in the Sidney Morning Herald: ``Coming to America Isn't Easy''; in the Guardian, United Kingdom: ``America--more hassle than it's worth?''; the Sunday Times of London: ``Travel to America? No thanks.'' These are all 2008 headlines. We want to say: This country has a welcome mat out for you. Come here. Experience what we have to experience in America. We invite you to be a part of our experience. We want you to come to the United States when you are considering traveling internationally. That is what this legislation is about. This is not complicated. It is the right thing to do. It is the reason there are so many Democrats and Republicans who have joined together in something we think will strengthen the country. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I should also mention that Senator Reid, along with Senator Ensign, has played a significant role in working on this legislation. That is very important to mention. Obviously, both come from a State that relies a great deal on tourism. My State's tourism industry is second in the State. It plays a very large role in every State, even though most of us don't have a traditional tourist destination city like Las Vegas, for example. Early on Senators talked about how companies advertise because advertising works. It is the case that companies advertise only on behalf of their company. I just described circumstances of aggressive efforts for countries to advertise on behalf of their countries saying: Come to Italy, experience what Italy has to offer. Come to France. Come to India. The countries are very aggressive in saying: If you are thinking of traveling around this planet, take a look at this; come to see the Eiffel Tower. Our country is not doing that. We are not involved in trying to reach out to people to say: You are welcome in this country. We have so much to offer, so much for you to see. We want you to come here and experience it, to understand it. This legislation creates a public-private partnership in which our country will advertise to the world and say: Come to America. Isn't that the case with respect to advertising of companies versus countries?

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, the fact is, we have lost a lot of jobs in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. All of us are striving to find ways to put people back to work. There is not going to be some Big Bang theory by which everyone goes back to work. We can do this incrementally. We need manufacturing to be restored. We need tourism, a significant job creator. A lot of people don't understand that it is not some big hotel that benefits from tourism. In most cases, it is a small business someplace struggling to make a living. It is a lot of small businesses, rental car companies, and so on. That is why we have such faith that if we do what we say we can do in this legislation, we will put a lot of people back to work.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me mention again the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has sent out a letter today in strong support of this legislation precisely because of the job-creating nature of this legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Let me explain why I am supporting her. Judge Sotomayor's impressive life story is an American story of working hard and making the most of every opportunity. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx nurtured by a working mother who instilled in her the values of America. She understood that education was the key to unlocking the greatness that is available in our country. She won a scholarship to Princeton University, where she graduated with highest honors. But she did not stop there. She then attended one of America's finest law schools, where she also excelled and was a member of the prestigious Law Review. In addition to her extraordinary academic achievements, Judge Sotomayor's many work experiences in the legal profession make her ideally suited to be a Supreme Court Justice. She has been a prosecutor, an attorney in private practice, a trial judge and an appellate court judge. She has been a Federal judge for more than 17 years. When she is confirmed, she will have had more judicial experience than any other Supreme Court Justice in more than 100 years, and she will be the only justice on this Supreme Court to have had experience as a trial judge. The knowledge she has gained over those many years will serve her, the Court, and our country well. After reviewing her career on the bench and closely following her confirmation hearings, I have concluded that Judge Sotomayor is sincere in her commitment to apply the law, rather than to make the law. Her record shows that she cannot be fairly labeled ``left'' or ``right.'' For many years, she has looked at the facts and law of the many cases that have come before her and she has called them as she sees them without regard for anything else. Her record clearly demonstrates that she is a moderate, mainstream judge with great respect for the law, our Constitution, our country, and its institutions. In my own meeting with Judge Sotomayor, I found her to be intelligent, measured, deliberate, and thoughtful. Judge Sotomayor assured me that she holds great respect for settled law. The more than 3,000 cases she has participated in support that conclusion as well. This extensive record, and all of her experiences in life and law, likely explain the remarkable breadth and scope of people and organizations, many from opposite ends of the political and ideological spectrum, supporting her nomination. For example, the Chamber of Commerce and labor unions support her as well as numerous police organizations and defense lawyers. These are not natural allies, but they have seen what I have seen: a person of exceptional intelligence, wide-ranging experience, judicious temperament, and a commitment to even-handedly and fairly applying the law without fear or favor. This is also demonstrated by her appointments to the bench. It is telling that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed to the Federal bench by President George H. W. Bush, who nominated her to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Sotomayor was then promoted by President Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is rare indeed to have a judge nominated by Presidents of both parties, and this is a testament to Judge Sotomayor's intellect, impartiality, and judicial conduct. A Supreme Court appointment is for life and many Justices serve for decades, but their influence does not stop there. The cases they write or participate in have an effect on the law of the land for many decades even after they leave the Court. That is why I take my duty as a Senator to confirm a President's nomination for the Court so seriously, as I have done here. One of the things that makes our country great and an inspiration to so many throughout the world is our commitment to ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' which is carved in marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court. Equal justice means that, under our law, who you are does not matter; who you know or are connected to does not matter; how much money you have or do not have does not matter; the color of your skin, your ethnicity, your gender or any other personal characteristic does not matter. The facts of a case and the applicable law are all that matter in our justice system. That is what the phrase ``Equal Justice Under Law'' means in our country and to our country. I am confident that ``Equal Justice Under Law'' will inform and animate Judge Sotomayor's decisions throughout her years on the Supreme Court. If one looks with an open and fair mind at the full breadth of Judge Sotomayor's inspiring life, extraordinary career and superb qualifications, as I have, it is clear that she has earned a place on the Supreme Court and I am proud to be supporting her nomination. I have no doubt that our country will be well served by her.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I introduced a bill entitled 7th Generation Promise: Indian Youth Suicide Prevention Act, to address the crisis of youth suicide in Indian Country. I introduce this legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Johanns, Johnson, Udall of New Mexico, Baucus, and Tester, in hopes that it will help provide prevention and intervention services to Native American youth. Over the past 25 years, youth suicides in Native American communities have reached epidemic levels. Suicide ranks as the second leading cause of death for Native American youth ages 15 to 35--a rate 3.5 times higher than the national average. In fact, adolescent Native American males have the highest suicide rate of any population group in the United States. Over the years, the Indian Affairs Committee, which I chair, has held a series of hearings on the issue of Indian youth suicide. This past February, the Committee explored the progress made in youth suicide prevention in Indian Country. We heard from agencies and organizations, such as the Indian Health Service and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, who provide worthy prevention and emergency response services. During the February hearing, we also heard from a courageous 16-year- old young woman named Dana Lee Jetty who testified about the loss of her 14-year-old sister, Jami Rose Jetty. Her story illustrates the continued need for suicide prevention. In November 2008, Dana Lee found her beautiful little sister, Jami Rose, hanging in her bedroom, on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota. Dana and Jami's Mom had done all the right things--noticing Jami was troubled, they took her to the doctor at the Indian Health Service clinic. The doctors dismissed the mom's concern and said Jami was just being a ``typical teenager.'' Dana told me that she believes her sister would be alive if there had been adequate mental health professionals to diagnose and treat Jami's depression. Jami Rose Jetty serves as a tragic example of the inadequate mental health services in Indian Country and why we need legislation like the one I introduced today. This year, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, located in North Dakota and South Dakota, is experiencing epidemic levels of youth suicide. There have already been 10 suicides and an additional 53 attempted suicides. The majority of these suicides have been among tribal members under the age of 24. Clearly, we must do more for the mental health and suicide prevention in our Native American communities across the United States. The bill I introduced includes three main sections to improve youth suicide prevention services in Indian Country: a youth telemental health demonstration project; language to streamline and improve the process by which Tribes apply for grants through SAMHSA; and encouragement of post-doctoral mental health intern programs in an effort to increase the availability of services in Indian Country. The Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act has been introduced in previous Congresses. This project would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a four-year demonstration project for the use of telemental health services in youth suicide prevention, intervention and treatment. Telemental health services refer to those health care services provided from a remote location through technological means. These types of services are especially important in remote, isolated communities like those in my home state of North Dakota where mental health professionals are scarce. The bill also includes new language to enhance available mental health resources by addressing the many issues and barriers Tribes and tribal organizations face when applying for federal assistance through SAMHSA. For example, this provision requires SAMHSA to monitor the incidence of youth suicide in Indian Country, accept non-electronic grant applications from Tribes, give priority to disadvantaged tribal applicants with high rates of suicide, prohibit cost-sharing requirements, and prevent Tribes and tribal organizations from being required to apply through a state. In addition, this section requires states that apply for a SAMHSA grant using Tribal data to consult with Tribes and include them in any implemented programs. Lastly, the bill includes encouragement for Tribes to use post- doctoral mental health professionals. Post-doctoral psychology and psychiatry interns are able to see patients and provide mental health services under the supervision of a certified mental health professional. The Veterans Administration is currently utilizing post- doctoral psychology intern programs, which have been successful in expanding the availability of mental health services to veterans. We need to promote innovative programs like this to increase the mental health services available in Indian Country. The 7th Generation Promise in the bill's title is the Native American concept that we need to consider the impacts of our actions on our descendants seven generations in the future. Suicide is devastating our current generation of Native Americans, and we need to do something to protect them and our Native Americans seven generations down the road. I would like to thank Senator Johanns for working with me on this important piece of legislation. Health care, and especially mental health issues, remain a top priority for me as Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I look forward to continuing this important work so that we may stop the high levels of youth suicide and other health disparities among Native Americans. I would like to end by saying that one youth suicide is one tragedy too many. My hope is that passage of this bill will bring some aid to our Native American communities experiencing this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I introduced a bill entitled 7th Generation Promise: Indian Youth Suicide Prevention Act, to address the crisis of youth suicide in Indian Country. I introduce this legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Johanns, Johnson, Udall of New Mexico, Baucus, and Tester, in hopes that it will help provide prevention and intervention services to Native American youth. Over the past 25 years, youth suicides in Native American communities have reached epidemic levels. Suicide ranks as the second leading cause of death for Native American youth ages 15 to 35--a rate 3.5 times higher than the national average. In fact, adolescent Native American males have the highest suicide rate of any population group in the United States. Over the years, the Indian Affairs Committee, which I chair, has held a series of hearings on the issue of Indian youth suicide. This past February, the Committee explored the progress made in youth suicide prevention in Indian Country. We heard from agencies and organizations, such as the Indian Health Service and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, who provide worthy prevention and emergency response services. During the February hearing, we also heard from a courageous 16-year- old young woman named Dana Lee Jetty who testified about the loss of her 14-year-old sister, Jami Rose Jetty. Her story illustrates the continued need for suicide prevention. In November 2008, Dana Lee found her beautiful little sister, Jami Rose, hanging in her bedroom, on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota. Dana and Jami's Mom had done all the right things--noticing Jami was troubled, they took her to the doctor at the Indian Health Service clinic. The doctors dismissed the mom's concern and said Jami was just being a ``typical teenager.'' Dana told me that she believes her sister would be alive if there had been adequate mental health professionals to diagnose and treat Jami's depression. Jami Rose Jetty serves as a tragic example of the inadequate mental health services in Indian Country and why we need legislation like the one I introduced today. This year, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, located in North Dakota and South Dakota, is experiencing epidemic levels of youth suicide. There have already been 10 suicides and an additional 53 attempted suicides. The majority of these suicides have been among tribal members under the age of 24. Clearly, we must do more for the mental health and suicide prevention in our Native American communities across the United States. The bill I introduced includes three main sections to improve youth suicide prevention services in Indian Country: a youth telemental health demonstration project; language to streamline and improve the process by which Tribes apply for grants through SAMHSA; and encouragement of post-doctoral mental health intern programs in an effort to increase the availability of services in Indian Country. The Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act has been introduced in previous Congresses. This project would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a four-year demonstration project for the use of telemental health services in youth suicide prevention, intervention and treatment. Telemental health services refer to those health care services provided from a remote location through technological means. These types of services are especially important in remote, isolated communities like those in my home state of North Dakota where mental health professionals are scarce. The bill also includes new language to enhance available mental health resources by addressing the many issues and barriers Tribes and tribal organizations face when applying for federal assistance through SAMHSA. For example, this provision requires SAMHSA to monitor the incidence of youth suicide in Indian Country, accept non-electronic grant applications from Tribes, give priority to disadvantaged tribal applicants with high rates of suicide, prohibit cost-sharing requirements, and prevent Tribes and tribal organizations from being required to apply through a state. In addition, this section requires states that apply for a SAMHSA grant using Tribal data to consult with Tribes and include them in any implemented programs. Lastly, the bill includes encouragement for Tribes to use post- doctoral mental health professionals. Post-doctoral psychology and psychiatry interns are able to see patients and provide mental health services under the supervision of a certified mental health professional. The Veterans Administration is currently utilizing post- doctoral psychology intern programs, which have been successful in expanding the availability of mental health services to veterans. We need to promote innovative programs like this to increase the mental health services available in Indian Country. The 7th Generation Promise in the bill's title is the Native American concept that we need to consider the impacts of our actions on our descendants seven generations in the future. Suicide is devastating our current generation of Native Americans, and we need to do something to protect them and our Native Americans seven generations down the road. I would like to thank Senator Johanns for working with me on this important piece of legislation. Health care, and especially mental health issues, remain a top priority for me as Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I look forward to continuing this important work so that we may stop the high levels of youth suicide and other health disparities among Native Americans. I would like to end by saying that one youth suicide is one tragedy too many. My hope is that passage of this bill will bring some aid to our Native American communities experiencing this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, August 6, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on S.J. Res. 14, a joint resolution to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States; H.R. 1129, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide an annual grant to facilitate an iron working training program for Native Americans; and S. 443, a bill to transfer certain land to the United States to be held in trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, to place land into trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, and for other purposes to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 1011, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I applaud the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee for their efforts in putting together a thoughtful, balanced reauthorization of the Small Business Innovations Research--SBIR--and Small Business Technology Transfer--STTR--programs. I know the committee is in negotiations with the House trying to reach a good reconciliation with the right parameters. I hope they do, so that we have these programs in place for years to come instead of another short-term extension. SBIR was set up in 1982 and requires 11 Federal departments and agencies like the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to set aside 2.5 percent of their research and development budgets for small businesses, which is over $2 billion per year. STTR sets aside another 0.3 percent of R&D for small businesses to work in partnership with university and institutional researchers. Both programs have been highly successful, helping propel small business growth, and develop and commercialize the innovations that are the backbone of our economy. I wanted to share a few facts about small business for the record. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses annually create between 60 and 80 percent of the net new jobs in America. Small businesses produce on average 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. Small business employs about 38 percent of the scientists and engineers in America, up from only 6 percent in 1978. Despite all this growth and stellar track record, small business receives only about 4 percent of Federal extramural research dollars. That needs to change. Small business has proven they can do Federal R&D as well as or better than large business, and they deserve more space at the table. Small business is going to be the engine that pulls the country out of this recession, like it has so many times in the past. Looking beyond the recession, small business will again develop the innovative technologies in which America consistently leads the world. The Senate bill wisely supports and extends our support for small business's role in growing a vibrant national economy. In my own State of North Dakota, SBIR has helped fund a number of innovations, and I wanted to mention a few of them. The Technology Applications Group of Grand Forks, located in the Red River Valley Research Corridor, invented the Tagnite coating system through Army and Navy SBIR funds. The technology allows the military to coat magnesium alloys for parts, ships, helicopters and airplanes in a way that is much less toxic than old processes, cuts down on corrosion, and saves on maintenance. Agsco of Grand Forks received an SBIR grant that led to development of the SCOIL and SUN-IT II products that enhance crop herbicide effectiveness. Agsco turned their SBIR grants into two products with a great deal of commercial impact. Dakota Technologies of Fargo has received multiple SBIR grants, including two that led to development of BEAM, or ballast exchange assurance meter, which measures ballast water in ships to make sure they don't contain harmful species or contaminants. BEAM is currently in a pilot program with the Coast Guard. Back in 2002, I secured funding to develop telepharmacy technology to connect pharmacists directly with patients and pharmacy technicians regardless of their location. Technologies like this have been a boon to rural communities because they allow them to compete on a level playing field with urban areas. The USDA just awarded Telepharmacy Concepts of Dickinson, ND, with an $80,000 Phase I SBIR award that will allow them to research whether telepharmacy technology could be used for medication therapy management, which is a way to provide patient education, increase medication compliance and improve health care outcomes. Praxis Strategy Group of Grand Forks has received SBIR awards nine times, including grants from the USDA to develop strategic processes like the High Performance Community Initiative and the Enterprise Homesteading Program that help communities, especially small communities, attract entrepreneurs, develop dynamic economies, and market themselves. While I am happy with the Senate reauthorization, I am concerned about some of the provisions in the House version we are trying to reconcile it with. First, the House bill opens participation in SBIR to companies that are majority-owned by venture capital firms. I have nothing against venture capital companies, but the small businesses that they own have already shown they can successfully attract capital in the private market. SBIR was intended to help small businesses without the connections available to do that. I think the House bill is trying to fix something that isn't broken. Second, given the long-term success of SBIR and STTR, I think it only makes sense to increase the share of agency funds set aside for small business as the Senate's bill gradually does. American business has changed dramatically since SBIR was created. Since 1978, the share of scientists and engineers working for small businesses has, as I said, increased from 6 to 38 percent. Funding for SBIR and STTR needs to increase to reflect that reality. I am concerned that the House bill keeps their allocations where they have been for 27 years, despite the successful track record of the programs. Given the figures I have quoted previously, increasing the set-aside from 2.5 to 3.5 percent is the very least we should do. Small business is the core of our country's economy, and we have here a program that has a strong track record of encouraging growth and innovation in that area. I urge the program's reauthorization with the principles of Senate bill S. 1233.