Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1617, the Klobuchar-Roberts Agriculture Hours of Service amendment and ask the clerk to report the amendment by number.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the Klobuchar-Roberts amendment would clarify the way the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration currently implements and enforces an exemption to hours of service rules as they apply to the agriculture industry during spring planting and fall harvesting. Our amendment reinforces existing law and brings the exemption back to the way it was implemented from 1995 to 2009. This is a commonsense change with broad support. It has the backing of the American Trucking Association as well as 50 agricultural organizations which includes the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union. I thank Senator Roberts for his leadership on this important issue, as well as Senators Nelson, McCaskill, Johanns, and Lugar for their strong support and cosponsorship. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I support moving forward with the Keystone Pipeline. TransCanada needs to resubmit an application with a route that resolves Nebraska's local concerns before we make the decision to approve this project. The company has said they will submit the application soon. I have voted to expedite the approval process, and once the new application that resolves the Nebraska issues is submitted, the approval should be granted.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I come to the floor today on another topic; that is, to thank and congratulate the House of Representatives, which earlier handed a great victory to the people of Wisconsin and Minnesota by passing legislation that will finally allow construction to begin on a stronger, safer bridge in the St. Croix River Valley. After 30 years of debate and delay, we have finally gotten it done, and I am proud to say it was done with broad support in both Chambers. The legislation I introduced in the Senate to allow this bridge to be built passed unanimously in January, and our Senate bill has passed the House today with the overwhelming backing of 339 Members, making the final vote count 339 to 80. This was truly a team effort, and it is an inspiring example of what we can accomplish when we are willing to put politics aside and come together to do what is right for the people we represent. I thank my colleagues in the House for their hard work and dedication in moving this legislation forward: Representatives Ron Kind, Sean Duffy, Michele Bachmann, Chip Cravaack, and Tammy Baldwin. I also thank Secretary Ray LaHood and his staff at the Department of Transportation, as well as Governors Mark Dayton and Scott Walker for their leadership at the State level. In both Minnesota and Wisconsin, there is overwhelming consensus about the critical need for a new bridge in the St. Croix River Valley. There are sometimes disputes on what that bridge should look like, but there tends to be consensus that we simply can't have a lift bridge built in the 1930s, with 18,000 cars going over it. The current lift bridge was built in 1931. Chunks of rusting steel and concrete fall off and into the river below. Traffic backs up behind it, especially in the summer months, sometimes for a mile. Cars are lined up by houses, cars are lined up by businesses, and it is not a desirable situation for anyone in the town of Stillwater. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has listed the bridge as being ``structurally deficient'' and ``fracture critical,'' meaning if one component of the bridge fails, the entire structure fails. Simply put, the bridge cannot meet the needs of the region either in terms of public safety or in supporting traffic caused by a growing population. As the bridge has aged, we have seen significant increases in congestion. This is an especially big problem in the summer months when the bridge lifts frequently to allow watercraft to pass, causing traffic to back up on both sides of the bridge, increasing gridlock and air pollution, hindering economic activity, and threatening public safety, particularly when emergency vehicles are unable to pass through. Here are the numbers: The current structure was designed to support 11,200 vehicles a day. It cannot handle the average of 18,400 cars that cross it every day, let alone anticipated increases in usage. But with this new bridge, 48,000 vehicles will be able to cross safely and efficiently every day. This is important from a public safety perspective, but it also means new channels for economic growth. Without a new bridge, anticipated usage would reach 23,500 by 2030. With a new bridge, anticipated usage will meet 43,000 vehicles per day. Those 20,000 additional vehicles will mean more opportunity for local industry and more customers for local businesses made possible by an infrastructure capable of supporting new growth and development. When we look at the numbers, it is easy to see why my Senate legislation was able to pass not only the Senate without any opposition, but it is easy to see why the House passed the bill by such a wide bipartisan margin. We are less than an inch away from the finish line. Now we need the President of the United States to sign the bill. I spoke with Secretary LaHood this morning. I don't anticipate there will be an issue. He was very positive about the bridge. But we need a prompt signature. The people of Minnesota and Wisconsin have already waited 30 years. They cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot afford to delay. It is time to finally get this bridge done. I, once again, thank all of my colleagues who worked hard to advance this bill. Michele Bachmann in the House led the effort on the Minnesota side, and I led the effort in the Senate. I thank the other Senators who were so good to support this bill, including Senator Franken, Senator Kohl, and Senator Johnson. I look forward to standing with all of my colleagues when the President signs this bill into law. I look forward to standing with my colleagues again on that proud day in the near future when we finally break ground on a stronger, safer bridge for the St. Croix River Valley. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the two Senators for their good work on this very important resolution.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Blunt. It is discouraging that when we should be having a debate on our Nation's infrastructure and surface transportation needs, we are instead talking about women's health and contraception. As the Senator from California noted earlier, my State is a State that understands the importance of upgrading our infrastructure and investing in surface transportation. I live just a few blocks from the bridge that collapsed in the middle of that river on that sunny day in Minnesota, an eight- lane highway, in the Mississippi River. So we understand the importance of investment in infrastructure, and that is what we should be focusing on in this bill. Instead, we have taken a different turn. I understand there are many different perspectives and opinions when it comes to issues related to contraception and women's health; however, we shouldn't be talking about them when we are supposed to be talking about infrastructure, highway, roads, and bridges. People are free to give speeches, they are free to talk about whatever they want, but this amendment doesn't belong on this bill. Nevertheless, it is here, and I think it is very important that we address it and the American people understand what it would mean. Unfortunately, this amendment impacts more than just contraception. This amendment ultimately limits our ability to address our health care challenges through prevention and wellness. Chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer can be avoided through prevention, early detection, and treatment. We all know that. That is pretty common knowledge in our country. During health care reform, we made great strides in improving the health and well-being of our Nation by strengthening preventive services. We addressed prohibitive costs by eliminating copays and cost sharing for essential services such as mammograms and colonoscopies. We addressed access issues by ensuring coverage for preventive autism or cholesterol screenings, to name a few. I also fought to include the EARLY Act, which promoted early detection for breast cancer for young women. These types of preventive and early detection services are vital to so many people in this country. As a cochair of the Congressional Wellness Caucus, a bipartisan caucus, I have also heard from numerous employers that understand a healthy workforce only increases productivity and output. It would be unfortunate if we eliminated access to prevention and wellness services that keep our Nation's workforce strong and productive. Because of the necessity of these services and the benefits they provide to men, women, and children, including contraception, I asked my colleagues to oppose the Blunt amendment. The Blunt amendment would allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover any of the prevention services, any essential health benefit or any other health service required under the health care law, allowing these entities to deny critical health care to the millions who rely on these entities for insurance. The consequences of this provision could mean employers and other organizations for any reason refusing to offer coverage of lifesaving preventive services such as mammograms or tobacco cessation would be based on employer discretion. That is why I don't think it is a surprise that organizations such as the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the March of Dimes oppose this amendment. I think we all know the American Cancer Society, March of Dimes, American Academy of Pediatrics, and these groups tend not to get involved in contraception issues, and that goes to show us right now this amendment is much broader than just talking about contraception. According to the American Cancer Society: Annually, seven out of ten deaths among Americans are attributed to chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. The Affordable Care Act made significant strides to stem this epidemic by ensuring patients would have access to essential care that could address prevention, early detection, and treatment--all necessary elements to improve the health and well-being of our nation. Unfortunately, the expansive nature of the proposed Blunt amendment would directly undercut this progress. I am concerned the broad-based nature of this amendment would prevent men, women, and children from getting the preventive services they need as a result of the personal beliefs of a single individual or an employer or an insurance company. I do not believe this is the way to protect Americans in need of health care services, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2012, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``National Security and Foreign Policy Priorities in the FY 2013 International Affairs Budget.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SH 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``State of the Housing Market: Removing Barriers to Economic Recovery, Part II.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session on February 28, 2012, to conduct a Joint hearing with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on the legislative presentation of the Disabled American Veterans. The Committee will meet in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2012, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Local Government Perspectives on Water Infrastructure.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, recently I came to the floor of the Senate to talk about the lack of faith the American people have in the political system and in our government. My focus that day was on campaign finance laws and the impact of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court 2 years ago. Today I am here to discuss, along with my colleagues, another dynamic of Capitol Hill that is making people lose faith in Washington: the apparent inability of Congress to get routine business done; specifically, the failure of the Senate to fill the dozens of judicial vacancies that exist around the country. This doesn't need to be a partisan debate. I know Senators on each side have their own reasons why it is the other party's fault. But we need to put those arguments behind us and agree to do the people's business. We have actually done a good job, as Senator Cardin has pointed out, on the Judiciary Committee with having a number of judges who have come through that committee and are waiting approval on the floor. But often, we approve judges and they don't get floor votes for months and months. Also, the vast majority of judges who get approved, get approved unanimously in committee. That was my experience with the judge I recommended from Minnesota who now is a judge. So we got her done, but there are so many more, as you know, and so many jurisdictions with heavy caseloads which are awaiting judges. Once these judges get to the floor, almost all of them get a handful of no votes. Why is that? They have been vetted. They have been vetted, their records have been looked at, they have gone through a committee hearing, they have been looked at by Senators on both sides of the aisle in the Judiciary Committee. And if they have reached that point of being on the floor of the Senate, it is no surprise that they might get a few no votes. So I don't see this as a partisan issue, but it is an issue we must get done. If almost all the Senators support almost all the judges, this isn't about pushing one side's agenda or judicial philosophy. These are extremely qualified judges who Senators believe will be fair, impartial jurists, committed to objectively interpreting the law. But the fact is that we are lagging way behind in the confirmation pace under previous Presidents of both parties and with the Senate controlled by either party. By this time in the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the Senate had confirmed 183 judges. By this time in the Presidency of George W. Bush, the Senate had confirmed 170 judges. And yet as of today, we have only confirmed 129 judicial nominees of President Obama. It is important to note that President Bush actually ended up getting five more judges approved in his first term than President Clinton. So we don't have a case where there has suddenly been a decline over time with the judges' approval. In fact, it went up after Clinton and now, as we can see, it is going down. There doesn't seem to be any indication at this very moment in time that we are speeding up the process. While earlier in the year we did confirm a number of judges, there was an agreement. There are still way too many out there, and we need to move on them now. Typically, the Senate will approve noncontroversial judicial nominees before the end of the session in December. But that did not happen this past year, and we have not made too much progress since returning in January. It doesn't take too long to approve a judge on the floor. Often, we have an hour or two of debate and then vote on two or three judges. So we can get these judges confirmed quickly if both sides consent. Some people listening are probably thinking there must be an explanation; that I am somehow leaving out key numbers when I have just explained that we only need an hour or two for each of these 20-some pending judges. Maybe they are thinking there aren't as many vacancies as under previous Presidents. But, no, under President Clinton there were about 53 vacancies at this point in his Presidency. Under President Bush, there were 46 vacancies. Right now, under President Obama, there are in fact 85 judicial vacancies. Maybe people at home are thinking the slow process is a result of controversial nominees but, no, it is not that, either. As I mentioned earlier, most of the judicial nominees awaiting a floor vote were approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is not a committee, as the President knows from serving on that committee, of shrinking violets. There are people with very diverse views. And most of these nominees, as I explained, came through with all of their support. In fact, 16 of the 19 nominees waiting for a floor vote received unanimous votes in committee. They were approved by every single member of the Judiciary Committee from both parties. Most of those unanimous judges have been waiting for a vote for months. We should confirm them right away. We should confirm them this week. We can have a vote so that the few people on the other side of the aisle who do not agree with those nominees can register their objection and vote no. But there is no reason to hold up all of these nominees for all of these jurisdictions across the country. For the judges who have come out of committee more recently, I understand that Senators need time to look at their records and qualifications. That is an important part of the process. But after a reasonable period of time, let's move on to confirm the newer judges as well. Let's vote up or down on all of the judges and get them on the bench. I also want to point out that the judicial nomination process is bipartisan. That may surprise some people watching at home. They may think I am making that up. But the truth is that nominees don't move forward in the Judiciary Committee unless both of the home State Senators sign off. So whether it is two Democrats or two Republicans or one from each party, both Senators have effective veto power over the judicial nominees from their State. And usually the judges proposed by the President first are recommended by Senators. So it is not a question of President Obama picking whomever he wants and appointing them to the judiciary. He has to pick people who are okay with both Senators regardless of party. It forces a President of either party to choose high-quality, well-respected mainstream judges. I remain hopeful we can rectify this situation and start getting judges approved in a timely manner and catch up to where we were under previous Presidents. But it is not about keeping some scorecard from President to President, as much as I have loved using these statistics today, or from Congress to Congress. In truth, it is about justice. And we all know that. We are constantly hearing complaints about the slow pace of Federal courts. Those delays are real, and they impact people-- real people--every day. Whether we are talking about people seeking to protect their rights under the Americans With Disability Act or companies trying to resolve commercial disputes--I have a few of them in my State--unreasonable delays in court proceedings undermine our system of justice, and things won't get any better if we understaff our Federal judiciary. There are many problems facing our country that do not have simple solutions. There are many problems for which the two parties have vastly different solutions. But in this case with judicial vacancies, there is only one solution, and it is well within our grasp given that so many of these judges were noncontroversial. This is the solution, Mr. President. It is two words: Let's vote. Let's vote on all of the pending nominees, and let's continue to vote as more nominees emerge from the Judiciary Committee. If a Senator wants to vote no on a particular nominee, if he or she wants to give a long and glorious speech about why they are opposed to the nominee, please let them do that. Let them do that today. All we are asking for is a vote.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleague, Senator Grassley of Iowa. I thank him for his remarks. I think you can tell this is a very important issue but also one that is bipartisan. As he pointed out with the vote on the House side, this was a bipartisan issue over there. It was bipartisan on the Judiciary Committee. We simply need to allow for a debate and a vote in a timely manner on these bills. I also know Senator Chuck Schumer from New York will be joining us, another senior member of the committee. We are all three on the Judiciary Committee, with Senator Grassley being the ranking Republican on the committee. So we have much support for this bill. Today I want to take a few minutes to add to the comments of Senator Grassley about the growing threat to people of all ages, but particularly to our young people, of the dangerous synthetic drugs that are becoming, sadly, more and more common in our communities. There have been reports from States around the country of people acting violently while under the influence of these drugs, leading to deaths or injuries to themselves or to others. While taking these drugs, people can experience elevated heart rates and blood pressure, hallucinations, seizures, and extreme agitation. They are very dangerous. These synthetic drugs have exploded as an issue in recent years. Until 2006 I was the county attorney for Hennepin County, which is Minnesota's largest county. It actually is about a fourth of our State in terms of the population. During that time two words I never heard were ``synthetic drugs.'' We were focused on crack, we were focused on methamphetamine, we were focused on laws to contain that, but synthetic drugs were not something we talked about. It is an example of how quickly this drug has come on the scene. Poison control centers and emergency rooms from across the United States are reporting dramatic increases in the number of calls and visits relating to synthetic drugs. In 2011, poison control centers across America received more than 13,000 calls about synthetic drugs. Think about that. Do you know what the number was in 2010, a year before? It was 3,200; it was 3,200 in 2010, 13,000 in 2011. In Minnesota there was a total of 392 calls to poison control relating to synthetic drugs in 2011, compared to 111 in 2010, so you are seeing a four-times increase in our State and across the country in terms of the rise of this drug. A recent report by the National Institutes of Health shows that one in nine high school seniors admitted to using synthetic marijuana during this past year, so it is clearly a rapidly growing problem. This all hit home in my State with the tragic death of 19-year-old Trevor Robinson in Blaine, MN, who overdosed on a synthetic hallucinogen known as 2C-E. Last year another young man shot himself in our State under the influence of synthetic drugs. I can only imagine the pain and anguish their friends and families must feel. It is anguishing. This is a life-and-death issue. It is not something where we can put our head in the sand and pretend it is not happening. This is a new type of drug, it is a dangerous drug. We have begun to take action. We have to take action on both the State and Federal level and we are making progress on a few fronts. I introduced a bill which would add 2C-E, the drug that killed the young man in my State, and similar drugs to a list of banned substances so they will be treated in the same manner as other banned drugs that they mimic, such as heroin. I am also cosponsor of the bill Senator Grassley referenced and also Senator Schumer has another bill to ban other types of synthetic drugs. Basically one bans the bath salts, one is focused on synthetic marijuana, and my bill is on the synthetic hallucinogens. All three of these bills passed the Judiciary Committee in July and one has already passed the House with a very strong vote. Unfortunately, as Senator Grassley also mentioned, a hold has been placed on all three of the Senate bills by one Senator. That is extremely unfortunate. These drugs can kill, and if we do not take action they are going to become more and more prevalent and put more and more people at risk. We cannot wait around and let these important bills languish in procedural gridlock, especially because of one Senator. We are going to keep fighting here in the Senate until those laws get passed. We have seen in Minnesota, with the tragic story of Trevor Robinson, what these drugs can do and I for one do not want to see it happen again, not in my State, not anywhere in the country. I understand the Senator who is holding these bills has genuine and philosophical opposition and he deserves to be heard on his objections. My suggestion is that we come to an agreement so we can have a period of debate on these bills, a simple period of debate. This should not be a week-long debate. We can take the floor and speak to this issue and he can speak as long as he likes. We are not asking him to change his position. We want him to be heard but we simply want to have a period of debate and then a vote. That is what the Senate should be about. Luckily, the Drug Enforcement Administration is taking its own action and has temporarily banned some synthetic drugs, but most of the substances in these bills have not been banned, including all of the substances in my bill. On the State level, roughly 40 States have banned some synthetic drugs, including Minnesota, where a major law regarding synthetic drugs took effect in July. But that means that some States have not banned any of these drugs yet and some have banned only certain types, so people can go to other States to buy them legally or buy them on the Internet. That is one of the reasons we need this Federal law. Also, local law enforcement needs a strong ally in the Federal authorities as they try to turn the tide against synthetic drugs. Sadly, many of these instances I have seen in our State with synthetic drugs involve more rural communities--towns that may not have the ability to call in a bunch of lab technicians and experts to be able to testify about what type of synthetic drug it is. That is why, for the sake of that law community, it is important we get it on that Federal list and we also make it very clear it is banned. Passing a Federal law will help create a partnership and will send a strong message that we need to eradicate these substances. I do think we have made progress by raising awareness of this issue, which will lead to better education efforts, more vigilance by parents, and more attention by law enforcement. Now that the DEA has become more familiar with these substances, it will be better equipped to combat the problem. But the fact remains that the most important thing we can do on the Federal level is to pass these three bills that have already been approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. These bills won't solve the problem overnight, but they are the first step we need to take, and we need to do it now. Before we lose more kids, before these drugs spread any further, let's pass these bills. As I mentioned, it is estimated that one in nine high school seniors has tried synthetic marijuana. I don't want to wake up a year from now and read that it has increased to one in seven or one in five. Let's have a debate. Let's hear what the objections are, and then let's pass these bills. I really think we can save lives. While there is still time to catch up, we should be doing everything we can to address these problems. I thank my colleagues, Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican Senator from Iowa on the Judiciary Committee, who has already spoken, and Senator Chuck Schumer from New York, who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. We are doing this as a team. We think it is very important that you, Mr. President, and the rest of the Senate have the opportunity to vote on these bills and have the opportunity to debate them. We hope we can achieve this goal procedurally so we can move forward in the way we are supposed to. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to discuss something that has been a top priority for me in the Senate; that is, the critical need to get serious about building a new energy agenda for America, one that keeps our businesses competitive in the global economy, preserves the integrity of our environment, and restarts the engine that has always kept our country moving forward--and that is innovation. I am specifically focused on the energy tax extenders, those that are so necessary for us to keep going in the area of homegrown and renewable energy. We all know there is no single solution for getting us there. What we need is not a silver bullet; we need a silver buckshot, as we like to say in Minnesota. I have talked about the need with many of my colleagues to continue developing alternative resources such as hydro, geothermal, biofuels, solar, wind, and we have also talked about how we need to continue to develop existing technologies such as domestic oil and gas production while enforcing appropriate safeguards. This is the very ``all-of-the- above'' approach we need to take in order to keep all options on the table. This means exploring some of the new proposals we have seen with promising technologies such as the smart grid. But it also means extending the critical tax incentives that have been so important in advancing the development of the next generation of biofuels and the next generation of renewable energy. That is why I have pushed to ensure that we have the right policies in place for encouraging clean energy innovation, including the biodiesel tax credit which supports over 31,000 jobs and has allowed domestic production to more than double since 2011. It means the production tax credit, which made it possible for wind power to represent over one-third of all new electricity generation capacity in the United States last year. Think of that figure. Think of the strides we have made and where we can go in the future. The advanced energy manufacturing tax credit has leveraged $5.4 billion in private investment, boosting growth and creating new U.S. manufacturing jobs by producing components and equipment for the burgeoning global renewable energy industry. Extending these critical tax credits will help strengthen our country's clean energy businesses so they can continue to grow and thrive. But they are just one part of the equation. Again, there is no silver bullet solution to our Nation's energy challenges, and that is why we need to be willing to come together to hammer out a comprehensive strategy for moving forward. We cannot afford to keep our heads buried in the sand. We cannot afford to let yet another golden opportunity pass us by. Sadly, too many have already come and gone. Over the years, I believe there have been--especially in this last decade--several moments when we could have acted but didn't when we had the full support of the American people who had wanted a new direction in energy policy. The first was immediately after 9/11 when President Bush--if he had made a new energy policy one of the challenges to the country in addition to invading Afghanistan and combating terrorism, I believe we could have moved forward. But that didn't happen, and there is no need to dwell on it today. The second moment was before the arrival of the Presiding Officer in the Congress, and that was in the summer of 2008 when we did take action to raise gas mileage and energy-efficiency standards--something I like to call building a bridge to the next century--but we didn't make the kind of comprehensive progress on a comprehensive energy plan that we should have made. The third moment was when President Obama first came into office. At that time, I advocated for a clean energy standard that I believe could have passed in the first 6 months. It could have been combined with some of the other comprehensive things we were talking about. We had a bipartisan group going at the time, a group of 14 of us. But, instead, a decision was made to focus on cap and trade later, instead of starting with that clean energy standard and building from that. Those were missed opportunities, a chain of missed opportunities. But until we get serious about building a newer energy agenda for America, we are going to continue to struggle with the consequences which have created a vicious cycle of economic and environmental costs, not least of all those caused by climate change. Climate change, as the Presiding Officer knows, is not just about melting glaciers and rising ocean levels. Shifting global trends have the potential to wreak intense havoc on local economies, particularly those anchored in agricultural. The facts stand for themselves. In January 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said for the first time that public companies should add climate change to the list of possible financial or legal impacts that they actually disclose to investors. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, at the Department of Commerce, estimates that at least one-third of the U.S. gross domestic product is weather and climate sensitive, with a potential economic impact of $4 trillion a year. Much of that impact would be wrung out of our farm communities and from States with large rural populations, such as my own. Any farmer will tell you a change in weather can mean the difference between a bumper crop and a complete disaster--regardless of how hard that farmer works. So it goes without saying that any kind of significant swing in climate--paired with increasingly unpredictable rainfall--could pose a problem to Americans who make their living off the land. In 2008, Minnesota's farms, forests, and ranches produced $18 billion in goods and exported close to one-third of that. This is a sector that is critically important to our economy, and we cannot afford for it to be jeopardized. We also cannot afford the rising costs of fire management, as forest fires have become increasingly intense in recent years. The current path is not sustainable. That is why I am on the floor, in the hope that we can spark a meaningful conversation, but, most specifically, that we look at extending those energy tax credits. I believe we can take a page from our State, the State of Minnesota. My home State is proof that policies promoting homegrown energy can also promote business growth and job creation. The unemployment rate in the State of Minnesota is 5.7 percent--well below the national average--and part of that is thanks to our energy policies. In fact, a recent report by the Pew Charitable Trust showed that in the last decade Minnesota jobs in this sector grew by 11.9 percent, compared to 1.9 percent for jobs overall. As I travel around the State, I can see the progress that has been made. I think of places I have visited, such as Sebeka, MN, where a small telephone company felt their customers who were in extremely rural areas needed backup power supplies. So what did they do? They found a way to combine wind turbines and solar panels so their customers could actually purchase backup power. They did it themselves, and they sold it to their customers. It was very popular, and at one point an 80-year-old man came to see them, and he said: I would like to purchase more. I want to do my whole house in solar. The telephone company said: Sir, you can do that, but it will take you about 10 years to get your investment back, but it is going to be worth it. Do you mind if we ask how old you are? The man said: I am 80 years old but I want to go green. That is one of those true stories from the State of Minnesota. Then there is Pentair, a Minneapolis-based water solutions company that has donated a custom-designed Rain Water Recycling System to the new and great Target baseball field. That technology will capture, conserve, and reuse rainwater, saving the ballpark more than 2 million gallons of water each year. In one of General Mills' manufacturing plants, they have developed their own innovative way to reuse water--diverting it to the local municipal golf course to water the grass. These are just a few examples of Minnesota's commitment to energy innovation. There are countless stories out there, but it is not just a Minnesota story, it is an American story. I would note that the renewable energy standard in Minnesota--25 by 25--is one of the most aggressive in the country--30 percent for Xcel-- and yet our unemployment rate is so much better than the rest of the country. The quest to develop clean, sustainable, homegrown energy is not specific to just one part of the country or, for that matter, just one political party. Our renewable energy standard was actually nearly unanimously adopted by the legislature--Democrats and Republicans--and signed into law by a Republican Governor, Governor Pawlenty. This is an issue I believe can and should unite us, and it is a way to address these concerns because it builds a coalition across a broad spectrum; that is, energy policy. It saves money. It is better for the environment. It is certainly better for our national security, producing our own homegrown energy. In the past, Democrats and Republicans have managed to come together to confront tough challenges--from the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, to keeping Social Security solvent in the 1980s, to welfare reform in the 1990s. But perhaps the most fitting example, in the context of combating climate change, is the Clean Air Act. As the Presiding Officer knows, that landmark bill took the first steps to address acid rain and expanded efforts to control toxic air pollutants. When the bill passed in the 1990s, it had strong bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans alike. It is worth mentioning that all 10 Members of the Minnesota delegation at the time, which included 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans--that was our Federal delegation--supported the bill, including Republican Senator Dave Durenberger, who was among its chief authors and staunchest supporters. Since then, the Clean Air Act has helped prevent more than 18 million child respiratory illnesses and 300,000 premature deaths. Policies to protect our rivers, lakes, and streams have also had a positive impact on people's health. Coming from the ``Land of 10,000 Lakes,'' I have a unique appreciation for the importance of clean water. It is the resource that sustains our lakes and rivers, that provides critical habitat to countless fish and millions of migratory birds, that fuels our thriving outdoor economy. Hunting and fishing are more than just hobbies in our State, I say to the Presiding Officer. They are a way of life, and they are critically important to our economy. Every year, nearly 2 million people fish our lakes and our streams, and close to 700,000 people hunt our fields and forests. Nationwide, the hunting and fishing industry is valued at $95.5 billion a year, and it brings in $14 billion in revenue. Clean water is a fundamental pillar in supporting this economic sector and protecting people against dangerous toxins such as mercury. Minnesota has passed some of the most stringent mercury rules in the country. In 2006, our State legislature passed laws requiring our largest powerplants to cut mercury emissions 90 percent by 2015. The Federal Government is finally catching up and will publish a requirement in coming days to make similar reductions by 2016. Yet despite everything we have done to combat mercury pollution, we are still grappling with its consequences. A recent analysis of 25 years of data has found an unexpected rise in average mercury levels in northern pike and walleye from Minnesota lakes. After declining by 37 percent from 1982 to 1992, average mercury concentrations in these fish began to increase in the mid 1990s. During the last decade of that period, 1996 to 2006, average mercury concentrations increased 15 percent. These numbers make one of the clearest possible arguments for supporting Federal protection, because we all have a stake in protecting the health of our fish and wildlife, and we cannot do that if we cannot keep dangerous toxins out of our air and water supply. This is important to our economy, but it is also important to maintaining a certain way of American life, a way of life that many of us grew up with that we ought to be able to pass on to future generations. I grew up in a family that valued the outdoors. I was 18 years old before I took any vacation that did not involve a tent or a camper in one way or another. This did not just start with my parents. My grandpa was an avid hunter and fisherman. He worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines in Ely, MN. You can imagine why for him hunting was his way of life. This was his way out. When he got above ground from those mines, it was something he loved to do. I want future generations of Minnesotans to be able to enjoy these same pastimes. I want them to be able to fish in clean water, to hunt in abundant forests, and to camp out in our beautiful wilderness. But I also want them to know the same America we know, an America that is innovative, that is forward thinking, that is willing to come together and hammer out hard-won solutions to tough challenges. Nowhere is this more important than our quest to move America forward through smarter energy and environmental policies. I cannot help but think, this is our generation's version of the space race and energy race. But the finish line will not be Neil Armstrong placing a flag on the Moon. It will be building the next generation of energy-efficient windows, and doing it in northern Minnesota instead of in China, or an electric car battery factory in Memphis, TN, instead of Mumbai, India, or a wind turbine manufacturer in San Jose, CA, instead of Sao Paulo, Brazil. This is my vision for an energy America that is energy independent, a stronger, more innovative America. I know you all want to same thing. That is why I am here on the floor today, because I know we cannot continue to get by with piecemeal energy policy. We cannot play red light-green light with our tax incentives as we are doing this year, and that is why we have to put them in place again. What we need now is a comprehensive national blueprint for energy policy, a solution that will serve the integrity of our air, of our water and natural resources, that gives businesses the incentives to research and develop new sources of energy that invest in the next generation of American innovation. That is our challenge. It is not going to happen overnight, but I believe we will get it done. We have before; we will do it again. One way to start is to make sure we extend these energy tax credits. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, better known as the STOCK Act, legislation that is critical to increasing accountability in Federal office and restoring the public's faith in government. I am a cosponsor of the STOCK Act and have been working to address concerns about insider trading in Congress. I appreciate the leadership of my colleague from Minnesota, Tim Walz, in the House who spearheaded the bill, as well as the work of my colleagues, including Senator Gillibrand and Senator Brown, who have shown leadership in moving this issue forward. No one is above the law in this country, least of all the lawmakers. At a time when Americans are crying out for leaders who are willing to put public interest before political gain, the STOCK Act presents a rare opportunity for both parties to come together and pass a bill that not only makes for good policy but that is, very simply, the right thing to do. Over the last few years, we have worked to restore accountability and integrity to the major institutions in this country. We have worked to rein in recklessness on Wall Street. We have enforced greater accountability in Federal budgets. And in 2007, we passed historic reforms to strengthen congressional ethics laws. I am standing here today because we can and must do more. Those of us who have the privilege of writing the rules have a responsibility to play by the rules, to not just talk the talk but walk the walk, and the STOCK Act is about making sure we are doing just that. This commonsense bill will strengthen our democracy by ensuring that no Federal employee or Member of Congress can profit from nonpublic information they have obtained through their position. First and foremost, the legislation clarifies and strengthens laws for regulating insider trading by Members of Congress and their staff. It redefines the practice to clearly state that it is illegal to purchase assets based on knowledge gained through congressional work or service, ensuring Members of Congress are held to the same standards as the people we represent. That seems only fair. Some people have argued that there are already laws on the books for this, but the fact is that insider trading by Members of Congress and their staff is currently not prohibited by the Securities Exchange Act or congressional rules. Furthermore, the status of trading on congressional information has never been explicitly outlawed. The resulting ambiguity has made it incredibly difficult to enforce these rules, which is almost certainly part of the reason not a single violation has ever been prosecuted. The STOCK Act would clear up the ambiguity and make these laws crystal clear. It would give both the SEC and the ethics committee in each Chamber the authority to investigate and prosecute charges of insider trading, and it would make it a violation of the rules of the House and the Senate to engage in such activity, meaning that anyone who uses their role as a Member of Congress to enrich themselves would have to answer to the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bill would also enforce better oversight by significantly strengthening reporting requirements. Members of Congress are already required to disclose the purchase or sale of securities and commodities on an annual basis, and the STOCK Act would take these requirements several steps further. Not only would it mandate that Members and employees disclose any and all transactions of over $1,000 within 30 days of the trade, but it would require that information about the transaction be published online. Finally, to close the revolving door between Congress and special interest groups, the STOCK Act would introduce much needed transparency into the industry known as political intelligence consulting--the practice of reaching out to people working in the legislative and executive branches to gain market intelligence regarding proposed rules, regulations, and bills. The STOCK Act would require the Government Accountability Office to study this issue and see what we can do to ensure that these consultants are subject to the same reporting requirements and restrictions imposed on lobbyists. Trust is the tie that binds our democracy, but with faith in government now at an alltime low, it is clear that some of those ties did break. Why would we not want to strengthen those bonds? Why would we not want to show the people who have sent us to Washington that we have nothing to hide by passing this bill? America was built on the principles of hard work, fair play, and personal responsibility. These are the rules middle-class families in States such as Minnesota and all across America are still playing by today. We in Congress need to be willing to stand up and say we are willing to do the same. I want to end my remarks today by sharing two letters that were sent to my office on the subject of the STOCK Act. The first is from a Minnesotan named Robert, who wrote: Elected officials need to get back to the business of representing those who sent them to Washington to serve, not increasing their personal wealth based on information they learn from holding those offices--information that, were it not for their elected office, they would otherwise not be privy to. The second letter comes from a Minnesotan named David, who makes this issue crystal clear. He says: Voters elect politicians to do what is best for the country, not to become rich. I could not have put it better myself, and I could not agree more. I arrived in this town in a Saturn with my college dishes from 1985 and a shower curtain in the back seat, so clearly this is not as relevant to my personal situation. But I truly believe, if we are going to restore trust in government, we need to pass this bill. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the drug shortage crisis that is continuing to spread across the country. I am proud to stand here today with my friend and colleague, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who has been a leader on this issue and who shares my concern for so many patients who are struggling to find much needed medication. This is a crisis that has grown to such proportion that current drug shortages have impacted individuals all across the country, forcing some patients to delay their lifesaving treatments or use unproven, less effective alternatives. In some cases, drug shortages have even resulted in patient deaths. Enough is enough. We can no longer just simply talk about this issue and have meetings. We need to act. Here is one story. A few months ago, I met a young boy named Axel Zirbes. Axel has bright eyes and a big smile. He also happens to have no hair on his head because he has childhood leukemia. When his parents found he had leukemia, and he was scheduled to start chemotherapy treatment last year, they learned that an essential drug--Cytarabine-- was in short supply and might not be available for their son. Understandably, they were thrown into a panic, desperately looking for any available alternatives. They even prepared and made plans to take Axel to Canada, where the drug was still readily available. Fortunately, it didn't come to that. But Axel and his parents are not alone. Earlier this month, I held a forum in Edina, MN, where a woman by the name of Mary McHugh Morrison shared her story of how she struggled with the shortage of the chemotherapy drug Doxil. When Doxil went into shortage last year, Mary was in the middle of her chemotherapy regimen and was shocked when her doctor told her they had actually run out of the drug necessary to continue her treatment. This is in Minnesota, where we have excellent health care, as you know, Mr. President. Literally, they ran out of the drug in the middle of a chemotherapy treatment. While trying to get herself added to a wait list, Mary was able to call around to other hospitals and clinics in her area in search of any available Doxil and was able to find extra treatments four separate times. She actually talked to the forum about how she grappled with the ethics of the fact that because she knew people and was able to call around and get this, that she was taking this limited drug out of supply for herself and not for other patients. However, because of a few delays in the treatment, Mary's doctor told her that her tumor had, unfortunately, returned and that she was no longer responding to Doxil. She is now going without treatment and, depending on her health condition, could be placed on a clinical trial at the Mayo Clinic in March. But these shortages aren't just affecting cancer patients. There are also shortages in drugs that help people improve their quality of life. Just this week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that hundreds of patients in the Minnesota Sleep Disorder Center at Hennepin County Medical Center have suffered a shortage of Ritalin, Adderall, and their generic equivalents. These shortages have had significant impacts on these patients' quality of life, oftentimes forcing them to pay hundreds more dollars for expensive alternatives or professionals risking their careers to adjust to their diseases and spending extra hours and days of time trying to find ways to fill their prescriptions or their pharmacists doing that or their doctors doing that or their nurses doing that. We know how difficult this health care system is anyway, and now we are putting patients in this position and wasting the time of medical professionals to find drugs that should be readily available. These are just a few examples of real people who are just trying to deal with their disease, and there are many more like them. Across the country, hospitals, physicians, and pharmacists are confronting unprecedented shortages. Many of these are generic drug products that have been widely used for years and are proven effective. Many of them are for cancer. The number of drug shortages has more than tripled over the last 6 years--and if you don't believe my stories, listen to this--jumping from 61 drug products that were in shortage in 2005 to more than 200 last year. That is not 200 instances, that is 200 different kinds of drugs that affect hundreds of thousands and millions of patients across this country. A survey by the American Hospital Association found that virtually every single hospital in the United States of America has experienced shortages of critical drugs in the past 6 months. More than 80 percent reported delays in patient treatment due to a shortage. These aren't just a few stories that come into our office anymore, these are the facts. For some of these drugs, no substitutes are available or, if they are, they may be less effective and may involve greater risk of adverse side effects. The chance of medical errors also rises as providers are forced to use second- or third-tier drugs with which they are less familiar. A survey conducted by the American Hospital Association showed that nearly 100 percent of their hospitals experienced a shortage. Another survey conducted by Premier Health System showed that 89 percent of its hospitals and pharmacists experienced shortages that may have caused a medication safety issue or error in patient care. It is clear that there are a large number of overlapping factors that are resulting in unprecedented shortages. Experts cite a number of factors that are responsible. These include market consolidation and poor business incentives, manufacturing problems, production delays, unexpected increases in demand for a drug, inability to procure raw materials, and even--and this is a new phenomenon--the influence of a ``gray market,'' where middlemen are literally hoarding the drugs because they have heard there is going to be a shortage. Financial decisions in the pharmaceutical industry are also a major factor. Many of these medications are in short supply because companies have simply stopped production. They decided it wasn't profitable enough to keep producing them. Mergers in the drug industry have narrowed the focus of production lines. As a result, some products are discontinued or production has moved to different sites, leading to delays. When drugs are made by only a few companies, a decision by any one drugmaker can have a large impact. To help correct a poor market environment or to prevent ``gray market'' drugs from contaminating our medication supply chain, we must address the drug shortage problem at its root. Last year, I introduced the Preserving Access to Life-Saving Medications Act to address this issue. With the support and leadership of Senator Collins, Senator Bob Casey, and others, this bipartisan bill would require drug manufacturers to provide early notification to the FDA whenever there is a factor that may lead to a shortage. This will help the FDA take the lead in working with pharmacy groups, drug manufacturers, and health care providers to better manage and prepare for impending shortages, more effectively manage those shortages when they occur, and minimize--and that is what we want to do--their impact on patient care. The legislation would also direct the FDA to provide up-to-date public information of a shortage situation and the actions the agency would take to address them. Additionally, the bill requires the FDA to develop an evidence-based list of drugs vulnerable to shortages and to work with the manufacturers to come up with a continuity of operations plan to address potential problems that may result in a shortage. The bill would also direct the FDA to establish an expedited reinspection process for manufacturers of a product in shortage. With manufacturers providing early notification, the FDA's drug shortage team--and they do now have a drug shortage team--can then appropriately use their tools to prevent shortages from happening. If you think this wouldn't work, in the last 2 years the FDA, with more information, has successfully prevented nearly 200 drug shortages. So it does work when they get the information. But nothing requires them to get the information, and that is what we are trying to do today. It is not the end-all, be-all solution for the long term, but at least in the short term, when these patients are experiencing these drug shortages that can impact their treatment, that can impact their lives, it gives the FDA that extra tool to look for alternative drugs. If they can't find them in this country, maybe they can find them in Canada. But it puts the patient first, not the drug companies. At the urging of the bipartisan work group I have been involved in, the FDA held a public workshop last September that brought together patient advocates, industry, consumer groups, health care professionals, and researchers to discuss the causes and the impact of drug shortages and possible strategies for preventing or mitigating future shortages. In addition to the workshop, we have been speaking with a broad range of stakeholders to try to discover why we have seen such a large number of shortages over the past few years. This current explosion of shortages appears to be a consequence of a lack of supply of certain products to keep up with the substantial expansion in the scope and demand for these products. We must ensure we have the manufacturing capabilities to keep up with the demand. There are a lot of ideas for incentives and pricing, but we also know that those will take a long time to take effect on the immediate shortage problem. That is why we want to get this bill passed--and passed very soon. The President has issued an Executive order, which is helpful, but it still doesn't get at the very serious problem of the kinds of drug shortages we are seeing. The Executive order pushes drug companies to notify the FDA of impending shortages, expands the FDA's current efforts, and instructs the FDA to work with the Department of Justice. But there is still much more work to be done. Patients such as Axel or Mary shouldn't have to be burdened with the added stress and worry about whether they have enough medicine. It is time for action. I urge my colleagues to pass our bill. I now turn it over to my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins for her great leadership. This bill is moving. This bill is picking up support across the Nation. Again, we need to get it done. We cannot wait. These patients cannot wait.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the remarkable commitment of a key group of Senate staffers, who worked tirelessly over the last several months to ensure the passage of a critical bill for advancing the bipartisan St. Croix River Bridge Project. By replacing the outdated, 80-year-old Stillwater Lift Bridge with a bridge that adequately meets the needs of local businesses and families, this bill will promote public safety and economic development in communities throughout the St. Croix River Valley. Passing the bill was truly a team effort, requiring all hands on deck from lawmakers at the State, local and Federal level. We could not have done it without the leadership of my co-sponsors in the Senate--Al Franken, Ron Johnson and Herb Kohl--or our colleagues in the House from both Minnesota and Wisconsin. But most importantly, we could not have reached this important milestone without the talent and tenacity of the hard working people ``behind the scenes.'' This includes the staff of the Environment and Public Works and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees as well as the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Interior, who worked closely with my office. And it includes all of the hard-working members of my staff who logged countless long hours to ensure we had a bill that was strong, effective and bipartisan. Their hard work made all the difference. I am especially grateful to my Deputy-Legislative Director Travis Talvitie, who played an indispensible role every step of the way. Travis came into this process with a deep understanding of infrastructure policy, which he immediately put to work on this bill. When he wasn't meeting with community leaders from Stillwater and the St. Croix River Valley, he was coordinating with Federal agencies, and has become an expert on the important Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Thanks to the efforts of all involved, I am hopeful that Minnesota and Wisconsin will soon have a bridge that not only improves public safety and promotes economic growth, but preserves the incredible beauty of the St. Croix River.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I am here today also to talk about something that is very important to the future of our democracy; that is, campaign finance reform and the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court which had its second anniversary a few days ago. I see Senator Gillibrand from New York is also here to speak on this important issue. She is a leader. The Presiding Officer has done some very important work in this area as well, which I will get to in a minute. Most fundamentally, I am here to talk about the public lack of trust and our need to ensure that the American people have a government that is responsive to their concerns. It is vital that the American people have trust and confidence in their government. Right now it is clear they do not have either. The American people believe Washington is focused more on scoring political points for special interests and not looking out for their interests, for the interests of the people of this country, for the interests of the middle class. They have seen the preservation of oil company subsidies while at the same time the price of gasoline has remained painfully high. Simply put, they think the system is broken. While most people probably do not have the time to study the intricate details of campaign finance law, which unfortunately has loopholes and things written in it that make it hard to figure, the American people have a pretty good sense there is something wrong with how we conduct our elections. The American people know spending on campaigns has gotten out of control and that spending by special interest groups is contributing greatly to that problem--and they are right. The Supreme Court Citizens United decision has made it profoundly worse by loosening the rules on special interest spending on political campaigns. We are now in a situation where candidates have to report every single contribution they raise over a certain amount. That is good. But literally millions of dollars in special interest money can come in in attack ads, can come in and do whatever it wants, and you literally cannot prove who that person is who put in that money. It shakes the very foundation of our democracy when the people who are voting in these elections cannot even tell where the money is coming from that is paying for the ads. Citizens United has unleashed a new wave of special interest spending, and the American people have been inundated with negative ads on their televisions. Worse, they are constantly hearing about the increased role that special interests are playing in our elections, and that heightens their suspicions that Washington is working only for the powerful, only for the people who can pay for issue ads. The public justifiably believes the more money outside groups spend on campaigns the less their voices are heard. How can they have a voice when people are drowning out their voices with multimillions of dollars? This is a big problem and it is something I think we need to address. The President touched on this issue of money in politics in his State of the Union this week, and in his address last year he took on Citizens United directly. He knows we need change, and I agree. Unfortunately, the Citizens United decision makes it very difficult to take action legislatively. That is why I am a sponsor of a constitutional amendment which would allow Congress to pass laws regulating campaign fundraising and spending. Tom Udall has worked on one. I know the Presiding Officer also has a similar bill as well. I hope we can advance this amendment, but I realize it will be an uphill battle, especially as we enter an election year. But we must change this system. In the meantime, even before the election, I am hopeful we will take some steps to make it more transparent so at least we can start finding out who is spending this money--the people of Vermont or the people of New York or the people of Minnesota can find out who is putting in millions of dollars, and they can draw their own conclusions--they are pretty smart--about why they are spending that money. We need it to be transparent. We also have to stem this great abuse of power, this great amount of money that is coming into the system. But in the end we will need a constitutional amendment.