Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman for crafting a strong fiscal year 2010 Agriculture appropriations bill and thank him for his efforts to assist me on this important initiative.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, health care reform is a very personal matter for me and a personal matter for so many people in my State. I first got interested in this issue, as I think many of us did, after something happened to me when my daughter was born. When she was born, she was very sick. She could not swallow. Back then, insurance companies had a rule that new moms and their babies were kicked out after 24 hours. After she had been in intensive care, I was kicked out of the hospital after 24 hours. As my husband wheeled me out in a wheelchair, I remember thinking: This wouldn't have happened to the wife of the head of the insurance company, but it happened to me. I went to the legislature, along with a lot of other mothers, and said we have to change this to at least guarantee new moms and their babies a 48-hour hospital stay. Minnesota was one of the first States in the country to adopt that rule, which later, under President Bill Clinton, became national policy. I remember going to the legislature and standing there at the conference committee, and some of the insurance companies were there trying to make sure the implementation of this 48-hour rule was delayed. I decided to take all the pregnant women I knew to the conference committee. We outnumbered the lobbyists two to one. So when the legislators said, When should this new bill take effect which guarantees new moms and babies 48 hours, all the pregnant moms said, ``Now.'' And that is what happened. That is my experience, and that is how I got involved in this issue. As I have traveled our State, I have heard from Minnesotans about the importance of doing something about health care. They want cost- effective health care. We have one of the best health care systems in the country. The President has lauded Minnesota. We know it is good. We have something like 93 percent coverage, and it tends to be run a lot more efficiently. But still there are people in my State, as there are all over the country, who are saying: We can't have the status quo because we know our premiums are going up and up. Maybe we can afford it this year, but we are not going to be able to afford it next year; or, if I lose my job, I am not going to have health care tomorrow. That is what the people in my State are saying. I heard from Dawn in Staples, MN, who is struggling to afford the prescription drugs necessary to treat her multiple sclerosis, and John in Oakdale, MN, who has insurance for his wife and three sons but ends up paying thousands of dollars in deductibles and coinsurance if one of his boys gets sick. Meanwhile, a new study by the White House Council of Economic Advisers found that small businesses pay up to more than 18 percent--18 percent more--to provide health insurance for their employees, often forcing these businesses to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage. I was up in Two Harbors, MN, about a month ago visiting a little backpack company that has done amazing things. They are actually making some of the backpacks now for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said that their health care premiums now are something like $20,000 for a family of four--small businesses paying that much, for one family, for health care insurance. It cannot go on. I was down in southern Minnesota in the southeastern corner of our State and met with one of the clinic heads there, someone who heads up one of the hospitals in Wisconsin and Minnesota. He said they had three emergency appendectomies in just a 2-week time period and they should not have happened at that point, they should have been caught earlier. When they talked with the three people who showed up for the emergency appendectomies, they said: Why are you here? Two said: We are in small businesses, and we thought if we came in too early--we thought we could just get over this because we were afraid what it would do to the premiums. The third person who had the emergency appendectomy said: I just don't have the money to pay for this. That is what we are hearing all over our State, in a State that tends to have one of the best health care systems in the country. The American people know inaction is not an option. If we do not act, costs will continue to skyrocket and 14,000 Americans will continue to lose health insurance every single day. That is the status quo. We must not waiver in our efforts to enact a uniquely American solution to our Nation's health care problems. We must keep what works and fix what is broken. We must also level the playing field between consumers and insurance companies, preserve choice, expand access, and provide safeguards so that people do not lose their coverage if they lose or change their jobs, have preexisting medical conditions, or simply grow older. As we prepare to take up landmark health reform legislation, many in Washington are looking to Minnesota as a national leader. In Minnesota, we have developed a health care system that rewards quality, not quantity. It promotes coordinated, integrated care, and it focuses on prevention and disease management and controls costs. That is why we tend to have healthier people in our State. That is why we tend to have more people covered. That is why we tend to have more quality health care, because we focus on the system as a whole. Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf recently testified before the Senate Budget Committee that to truly contain health care spending, Congress must change the way Medicare pays providers in an effort to encourage cost-effectiveness in health care. I couldn't agree more. Shifting to a value-based system is critical to controlling health care costs. Because you know what--and people would be shocked by this--when you look at States that have some of the highest quality, they tend to have some of the lowest costs, and States that have the highest costs tend to have the lowest quality care. That is messed up. Most health care is purchased on a fee-for-service basis, so more tests and more surgeries--if not done appropriately, with the patient in mind--can mean more money; quantity, not quality, pays. According to researchers at Dartmouth Medical School, nearly $700 billion per year is spent on unnecessary or ineffective health care. That is 30 percent of total health care spending. To rein in costs we need to have all health care providers aiming for high-quality, cost-effective results, as they do in Minnesota. That is why I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Martinez, that would create a value index as part of a formula used to determine Medicare's fee schedule. This indexing will help reduce unnecessary procedures because those who produce more volume will need to also improve care or the increased volume will negatively impact fees. To correct myself, that legislation was actually introduced with Senator Gregg, and Senator Martinez and I have introduced a bill to focus on Medicare fraud. Linking rewards to the outcomes for the entire payment area creates the incentive for physicians and hospitals to work together to improve quality and efficiency. In too many places patients must struggle against a fragmented delivery system where providers duplicate services and sometimes work at cross-purposes. We must also look at other areas where we can help reduce inefficient health care spending because, in the end, this is about focusing on quality care and getting that care to the patients who need it. It is focusing on the patients instead of all the insurance providers and all the other people who feed off the system. It is focusing on what works best for the patients. Recent studies show if all the hospitals in the country followed the protocol the Mayo Clinic uses in the last 4 years of a chronically ill patient's life--lives where the quality index is incredibly high--I think most people in this country and their families would love to have that kind of health care. If we used the model the Mayo Clinic uses, we would save $50 billion every 5 years in Medicare spending. That money can be used to bring more people into the system. That money can be used to make health care more affordable for the people of this country. That is what we are talking about when we talk about health care reform. The bill we have on Medicare costs and Medicare fraud--the bill I have with Senator Martinez--would require direct depositing of all payments to providers under Medicare and Medicaid so they are not ripping off the system or scamming the system; that it is going to the people who need it. The bill has been endorsed by the AARP, the National Association of District Attorneys, and the Credit Union National Association. Representative Patrick Murphy is carrying the legislation in the House. It is no small task, but we must reform America's health system. I strongly believe in reaching this goal to reform, making sure we don't have the status quo, where it is becoming harder and harder and harder for people in this country to afford health care. We need a system that depends on rewarding and controlling costs, that rewards quality and stopping fraud and making the system work for the people of this country. For the sake of our fiscal health and for the sake of the millions of Americans struggling to afford the care they need, enacting effective health care reform in this country is essential. We know it is not easy and it will not happen overnight. It is 17 percent of this economy. But we also know that doing nothing and saying no to everything and calling things names, when we are effectively trying to find a solution, is the wrong way to go. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will start working on this bill constructively so we can get something done for the people of this country. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for his great leadership and for his important words about Burma. No one would know better than Senator McCain about the human rights violations of someone held in a prison such as that. As he is aware, on a bipartisan basis, the women Senators have come together to support Aung San Suu Kyi and her fight in Burma. I would also add, I recently met with a Burmese community in my State. They are concerned about their relatives there and everything that is happening in that country. We have someone in our office whose relatives are in Burma. So I thank the Senator for his words and also for his leadership on the amendment, the Levin-McCain amendment to strike the $1.75 billion added to the bill that is on the floor to purchase additional F-22 aircraft that have not been requested by the Pentagon. This is a very difficult issue for many people in this Chamber, including the Senator from Arizona. But we all know in the end what counts is to do the right thing for our troops and for our national security. This amendment truly gives us an important choice: Will we continue to pour billions into unproven weapons systems, despite repeated cost overruns and program delays or are we going to make the hard choices necessary to ensure that our troops in the field have what they need to fight present and future conflicts? These F-22s, we know, possess unique flying capabilities, but not one has ever flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. We have much more pressing needs. Both the past President and the current President support this amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it as well. I am actually here to speak in support of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation which will help us fight hate crimes and make our communities safer. Among other things, the bill would impose criminal penalties for targeting a victim on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation or disability. I wish to thank Senator Leahy for his work on this bill and, of course, Senator Kennedy for his work and leadership on the issue over the years. I have been involved with this piece of legislation for many years. If you go way back to 2000, when I was the county prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county, I was actually called to Washington for the first time to take part in a ceremony in which the bill was introduced. I remember this moment well because there I was with the President at the time, President Clinton, and Attorney General Reno. We were ready to walk in for this ceremony to introduce the hate crimes bill. I was standing outside, and the military band struck up ``Hail to the Chief'' because the President was entering the room. I started to walk, and all of a sudden I felt this big hand on my shoulder, and this voice said: I know you are going to do great out there, but when they play that song I usually go first. It is something I will never forget. So here I am now, 9 years later, with this same bill. We are working very hard to get this bill passed. I am hopeful we will be able to do that. What I remember most about that day back in 2000, however, was the meeting I had with the investigators in the Matthew Shepard case. They were two burly cops from Wyoming, and they talked about the fact that until they had investigated that horrible crime, they had not considered what the victim's, Matthew Shepard's, life was like. When they got to know the family in the case, when they got to know the mom, and they got to know the people surrounding Matthew Shepard, their own lives changed forever. I hope by passing this bill we can prevent other Matthew Shepards from being targeted and deter hate crimes. Attorney General Eric Holder recently appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to talk about his support for this bill, and he gave us some somber statistics. He reported that ``there have been over 77,000 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI'' from 1998 to 2007 or ``nearly one hate crime every hour of every day'' for the past decade. In my State of Minnesota, there were 157 reported offenses in 2007. But when I think about this issue, it is not just about the statistics. It is about the victims of these crimes. When I was county prosecutor, we had a number of cases that were clearly motivated by hate. That was one of the reasons, actually, I was chosen to go out to Washington. And part of it was we had worked well with the Federal prosecutors on some of the cases. We had the case of a 14-year-old African-American boy who was minding his own business, and a guy who did have some mental health issues told his friends: I am going to go out and--he used a different word--but shoot a Black kid on Martin Luther King Day. And he did. And he almost killed this little 14-year-old boy. But he survived, and we prosecuted the case. I also think about a young Hispanic man. He was working in a factory, and his boss got mad at him because he did not speak English and he was speaking Spanish at work. His boss took a 2 by 4 and hit him over the head, resulting in bleeding in his brain and brain damage--all for speaking Spanish. I also think about the case we had with a Hindu temple that was severely vandalized by young kids. And I think about the case of a Korean church that had all kinds of hateful graffiti written on it. Some of these cases, as I said, were major attempted murder cases. Some of them were simply graffiti cases. But to the people in that church, to the people in that temple, it meant something much more. That is why I was glad, at least in a few of these cases, we were able to use our State hate crimes legislation. Those were cases in Minnesota--a place where you might not think you would see these kinds of cases. But we did. This bill in front of us, the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill, will strengthen the ability of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It increases the number of personnel at the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice working on hate crimes. It gives grants to State and local law enforcement officials investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It authorizes the Attorney General to provide resources and support to State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials for hate crime investigations and prosecutions. In addition, this bill authorizes the Federal Government to step in when needed and prosecute hate crimes, when needed, after the Justice Department certifies that a Federal prosecution is necessary. While most of these cases will continue to be handled by State and local jurisdictions, the bill provides a Federal backstop for State and local law enforcement to deal with hate crimes that otherwise might not be effectively investigated and prosecuted or for when States request assistance. It is a backdrop. Think about how many other areas of the law where we have these kinds of backdrops. In the gun area, as the Presiding Officer is aware from his work in the State of New Mexico, sometimes we have overlapping jurisdictions. The gun crime is a perfect example. State laws can apply, but sometimes the Feds will come in or you will want them to come in and handle the case. The same with drug crimes. It helps to have that Federal backdrop for the investigating power, for the sentencing power, and for many other things. So this bill won't usurp the role of local law enforcement but, rather, supplement it when needed. Finally, I wish to note that this legislation has the support of numerous law enforcement organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs, and the National District Attorneys Association. For years we have recognized the need for this legislation. I think back to 2000 when I was standing outside of the East Room with President Clinton when it was first introduced. For years we have known we need this legislation, but year after year the forces of reaction have stalled and blocked and tried to do everything they can to make it go away. This must end. A little over 40 years ago, Robert Kennedy broke the news to a crowd in Indianapolis that Martin Luther King, Jr., had just been assassinated. During his speech, Kennedy called on the crowd and the country to make an effort, to understand and to comprehend, and to replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed with an effort to understand with compassion and love. We should answer his call today. I look forward to the day--and I hope it will be very soon--when the Hate Crimes Prevention Act becomes law. It is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, who wishes to speak for 10 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my support for the Levin-McCain amendment to strike $1.75 billion added to the bill that is on the Senate floor to purchase additional F-22 aircraft that have not been requested by the Pentagon. I believe this amendment presents us with an important choice of what our national security priorities will be going forward: Will we continue to pour billions and billions of dollars into weapon systems despite the fact they are not requested and despite cost overruns and program delays, or will we make the hard choices necessary to ensure that our troops in the field have what they need to fight present and future conflicts? I believe the choice is clear. I am aware this means, for some States that are making this plane or have subcontracts--and we have some in our own State--that this means jobs. But if we don't move forward to what we really need to produce for our troops today, we are never going to be able to do the best for our troops and do the best for our country. By the way, as we move forward, that means jobs. I was just up in northern Minnesota visiting a little company that has no contacts with the military, no political connections to get contracts, and they had been in a very open, transparent process because they make an incredibly light backpack that is good for the troops, good for their back, and they got the contract. This is a new era, and part of this new era is transparency. Part of the new era means we actually will look at what our military needs. No one can dispute that the F-22 possesses unique flying and combat capabilities or that it will serve an important role in protecting our Nation in the future. The question is not whether we should keep the F- 22 in service, the question is whether we should purchase additional planes at the expense of more urgent needs for our troops. Our Armed Forces are currently fighting in two major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. After more than 7 years in Afghanistan and more than 6 years in Iraq, the F-22 has not been used in combat. It has not flown over those countries. Over the course of these conflicts, we have seen the tragic consequences when our troops don't have the equipment and resources they need, such as enhanced body armor or vehicles to protect them from IEDs. We have seen what happens when we don't give our troops what they need. We cannot continue on this course. We must focus our defense resources on the personnel, equipment, and systems necessary to respond quickly to unconventional and evolving conflicts while maintaining the ability to counter conventional foes. For years, Members on both sides of the aisle have come to the Senate Floor to denounce wasteful spending in our defense budget and called on the Pentagon to be more responsible in its budgetary and procurement policies. Hearing this call, our military leaders have produced a plan this year to address wasteful and unnecessary defense spending so we can ensure that we are providing our Armed Forces the tools they need to keep America safe and strong while also ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly. We have a major debt in this country. Some of it is because of mistakes made in the past. With this economy, there is enough blame to go around everywhere. We have a major debt, a major deficit, and we have troops who need to get the equipment they deserve. What is the answer, put $1.75 billion into some planes the Pentagon says they do not need? I don't think that is the answer. It should be noted that the limit on the number of F-22s that the Levin-McCain amendment would restore is supported by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and both the current and the immediate past Presidents of the United States. I believe Senators Levin and McCain should be commended for their dedication to improving our defense posture and budget and for putting their own political interests aside--their own jobs, in their own States. Earlier this spring, I was traveling with Senator McCain in Vietnam when the Pentagon's proposed reductions, including the F-22s, were announced. I discussed with him at length what this would mean, the difficult decisions that Members are going to have in their own States. But I also talked to him about what the troops need. Right now the troops and their commanders are telling us they do not need these planes, so it is a testament to the service of Senator McCain to our Nation and the work Senator Levin has done for years that they are leading the fight to defend the recommendations of our military and civilian leaders. I am proud to join them. This amendment presents us with an opportunity. We can begin making decisions based on security interests and fiscal responsibility and cut $1.75 billion for additional F-22 aircraft that our military commanders say they do not need or we continue on a course that cannot be sustained. I urge my colleagues to do what is in this Nation's best long-term interest, in the best interests of our troops, and to vote for the Levin-McCain amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here today to speak about Senator Coleman, who was my colleague for my first 2 years in the Senate. As everyone knows, last week the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its ruling on the outcome of last November's Senate election. As I did this week, I congratulate Al Franken for his hard-earned and long- awaited election victory. He has had a good first week in the Senate, and we all welcome him. But I do wish to take this time to talk about Norm Coleman. First of all, after 6 months without having a second Senator, Senator Coleman made a very difficult decision, and he did it with such grace. He could have appealed that decision. He could have gone to Federal court. It was his right. But he made a decision which he felt was best for the State of Minnesota, and the State. I wish to talk a little bit about what Norm Coleman meant to me to have him as a colleague in the Senate. When I first came to the Senate, Norm had been a Senator for many years, and he was very gracious to me. He reached out with his staff. We basically got along from the moment I started to the end of his term as a Senator. We worked very hard at that. When we had disagreements, we talked them out and our staffs would talk them out because we felt the most important thing was that we represent the State of Minnesota. Each one of us knows Norm in our own way, but I think all of us agree this is someone who cares so much about his family, his wife Laurie, and their two children, Jacob and Sarah. Theirs is a family that has known tremendous tragedy. Two of their children died in early infancy from a rare genetic disease. While Norm doesn't talk about this much, his reverence to life and his devotion to family are very clear. Second only to his family has been his dedication to public service. It has literally defined his adult life. Maybe it was sheer destiny that he found his way to the Senate. After all, he is a graduate of James Madison High School in Brooklyn, which is also the alma mater of two of our Senate colleagues--Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders. Norm hit the ground running in politics, and he has not stopped. In college, he was a student activist, and in law school, he served as the president of his class. Immediately after getting his law degree, he joined the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, recruited by my good friend, legendary attorney general Warren Spannaus. Norm was in the Attorney General's Office 17 years, most of that time doing criminal prosecutions, ultimately rising to the position of solicitor general for the State of Minnesota. In 1993, Norm was elected the mayor of St. Paul at a time when the city, especially its downtown, was suffering economically. During his 8 years as mayor, he worked to turn St. Paul around. Building public- private partnerships, he redeveloped the industrial riverfront into a recreational greenspace. A new Minnesota science museum was built overlooking the Mississippi River. Most famously, he brought hockey back to Minnesota, securing a new National Hockey League franchise that moved into the new arena. Hockey is very important in Minnesota. In 1998, Norm was narrowly defeated in a three-way race for Minnesota Governor. The winner, of course, was Jesse Ventura--something not many people across the United States expected to happen. I think Norm once said that not everyone can say they lost to a candidate whose previous career highlight was being killed by an alien creature in the movie ``Predator.'' But he took it in stride. In 2002, Norm was elected to the Senate under tragic circumstances. Just days before the election, my good friends Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila and their daughter Marcia and members of their staff were killed in a tragic plane crash in northern Minnesota. Norm became the Senator. Like Paul, Norm took his duties very seriously, and I could see that in my 2 years in the Senate. He cared deeply about the work he did in foreign relations, some of which people never really talked about, never made the front page of the newspaper, but it was something he cared deeply about. Together, we worked on several issues in our State which were of key importance, legislation to benefit our State. The most dramatic example of this spirit of cooperation was our response to the sudden collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge into the Mississippi River on August 1, 2007. Thirteen people were killed and 150 were injured, many with severe and permanent injuries. Literally our cities came to a stop. For our State, out of this unprecedented disaster, this public trauma was something to which they immediately responded. I still remember when Senator Coleman and I came in the very next morning--we flew in with the Secretary of Transportation, Mary Peters-- and there were already billboards up, literally 12 hours later, directing people where to go with the traffic and how to get buses to get to where they had to go. As I said that day, a bridge in America should not just fall down, but when one does fall down, we rebuild it. In the 72 hours immediately following the bridge collapse, Norm and I worked together to secure $250 million in emergency bridge construction funding. Representative Jim Oberstar led the way in the House. Approval of this funding came with remarkable speed and bipartisanship. Capitol Hill veterans tell me it was a rare feat, aided by unity among Minnesota's elected leaders across the aisle, across the political spectrum. I am pleased to report that just 13 months after that collapse, Minnesota drivers were able to drive over a safe new 35W bridge and eight-lane highway. That is just 13 months after the collapse. While the bridge is the most visible example, Norm and I had many other opportunities to work together on issues that mattered to the people in our State. There was another Minnesota disaster in August 2007 when severe flooding hit the southeastern corner of our State. We worked on this together, along with Congressman Walz, to ensure a rapid, effective response by Federal agencies to help communities, businesses, and families in need. We worked together on the Agriculture Committee. We both served on that committee. We succeeded in passing a new farm bill that was very important to our State. We worked together with a bipartisan group of Senators on energy legislation, to move forward in unity. We worked together in securing Federal funds for the security costs of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, along with our colleagues in Colorado. I still remember standing before this Chamber saying that I stood tall to obtain the funding to protect the security of the Republican leadership from across this country. We did that together. We joined to secure educational benefits owed to our National Guard and Reserve troops returning from Active Duty overseas. We are so proud of our National Guard in Minnesota. The Red Bulls have served longer in Iraq than any other National Guard unit in the country. And Norm and I worked together to make sure we expanded the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program to help those Guard and Reserve who really have no base to go home to but go home to little towns across our State. We worked on that together. Our State has a proud tradition of electing both Democrats and Republicans to office. They expect us to work together. From the very beginning, Norm and I knew that was part of our duty to the people of our State, that was part of our obligation, no matter if we disagreed on issues, that we were going to work together. So today I acknowledge my former colleague, Norm Coleman, for the strength he has shown during this long campaign, for the grace he showed last week when he made that difficult decision, and for the fine work he did for the people of Minnesota. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here to talk briefly today about food safety, something about which I care deeply. As you probably know, the last few food epidemics, from the jalapeno peppers to peanut butter, would not have been solved except for the hard work of the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Health, which is a model for how we can solve these epidemics. Thirteen people died with the last peanut butter one. It was only when someone died and was sick in Minnesota that it got solved. Clearly, while we are proud of the work we do, we have to bring out this model nationally. I am proud to be doing a bill with Senator Chambliss to try to bring out this model for the rest of the country. I do note today that the Washington Post has a strong editorial recommending we do something to improve the food safety of this Nation. I think it is worth reading that editorial. They are talking about the need to get something done. Just this week, the White House came out with its food safety recommendations which include, as I said, building a new national trace-back and response system, including clear industry guidance, a new unified incidence command system, and improved use of technology to deliver individual food safety alerts to consumers. We can truly do better. There is also a bill--the bill Senator Chambliss and I have sponsored focuses on the end of this problem when a foodborne illness is out there--there is also a bill to prevent it in the first place, a bipartisan bill in the Senate. Senator Dick Durbin is heading up that bill, along with Judd Gregg, Ted Kennedy, Richard Burr, Chris Dodd, and Lamar Alexander, and Senator Chambliss and I are also sponsors of that legislation. The idea of that legislation is to beef up the FDA to improve our capacity to prevent food safety problems. As we all know, the tragedy that happened in Georgia where the information did not get to the right people, where inspectors had come in or not enough inspections had come in--the information did not get up the food chain, so to say. No one knew what was going on, that there were violations at this plant, and 13 people died. That has to change. We also have to improve our capacity to detect and respond with inspections, surveillance, and traceability. We also have in this bill ways to enhance U.S. food defense capabilities and to increase FDA resources. We have seen just recently the problem with the refrigerator cookie dough manufactured by Nestle. So we know this problem has not ended and it continues. I am urging the Senate to take action, first of all, on the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, the bipartisan bill, to give the FDA more tools to do what it does. We have already seen the good work the Agriculture Department does with certain fields, and we need to build on this work and make sure we are able to catch these things before they get out into the food stream and the people of our country. Secondly, when it does happen, when salmonella or something does get out there, we have to respond quickly. I also urge the Senate, as part of these FDA measures, to pass the Food Safety Rapid Response Act, a bill I have with Senator Chambliss. This is a smart bill. It uses these models of epidemiology tools that should be used all over the country. It should not have to be the case that people have to get sick in Minnesota before we solve this problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control, foodborne disease causes about 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States every year. We should not wait. We should be acting on these two bills. We have a full agenda, but we have before us two bills that have bipartisan support. We have not heard people attacking them. They are the way to go. We have food industry people involved in both of these bills who also want to get them passed. Obviously, they do not want to keep losing profits because of food scares across this country. Let's get these bills done and improve our food safety system in the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, today, a new Senator from Minnesota is being sworn in. It is my honor, along with former Vice President Mondale, to escort Al Franken as the new Senator from our State. I think it was Al who told me the third year of his campaign would be the best, and he was right. I did want to thank my staff, first of all--some of them, many of them, are here--for the hard work they did in the past 6 months doing double duty. They never complained, they did it without extra resources, and they are as happy as can be this has finally been resolved. I also wanted to say something about Norm Coleman. Last week, he made a difficult decision. He had the right to pursue a legal challenge, but he did what was right for Minnesota. Norm was my Senate colleague for 2 years. We often worked together on issues for Minnesota, and we all wish him and his family the best. So despite a little delay, to be exact, 246 days since election day and 183 days since the Senate convened--why would I know that--Al Franken now joins me in representing the State of Minnesota. I have gotten to know Al very well over the past few years. I know he will be getting acquainted with his fellow Senators in the coming weeks and the coming months. This a special place with special people. I know Al looks forward to working with every Member of the Senate. I also know Al arrived in Washington ready to get to work and ready to serve the people of Minnesota. He brings with him that same high energy and passion and idealism of our friend Paul Wellstone. I was telling Al when I first came to the Capitol I was stunned at how many people would come up to me, when I said I was a Senator from Minnesota, and say: That is where Paul Wellstone was from. It was not just other Senators, it was people such as the tram operators, the secretaries at the front desk, the cops who work on the front line. They remembered Paul because of his dignity and how he treated people. And Al, I know, will do the same. Before seeking elected office, Al had a full career. Among other things he was an Emmy Award-winning television writer and producer, a best-selling author with three of his books going to the very top of the New York Times Bestseller List. He was the host of a national radio show and a Grammy Award-winning satirist, who, with the USO, has gone overseas several times--seven times in fact. He went four times to Iraq to entertain our troops and to visit our wounded solders. We all know Al spent some time in comedy, but during this long campaign, he has demonstrated to Minnesotans that he takes his job very seriously. I know he is taking his new job as a Senator incredibly seriously. Al's heart is with middle-class families who work hard, live responsibly, and follow the rules. He knows their hopes and fears, their dreams and their struggles. He knows it because he has lived it. When Al was 4 his family moved to the town of Albert Lea in southern Minnesota. Al always tells the story about that move. His dad never graduated from high school and never had a career. But his mom's father owned a quilting business out East, and he gave Al's dad a chance to start up a factory in Albert Lea. After about 2 years the factory failed, and Al's family moved to the Twin Cities. Years later, Al asked his dad: Dad, why Albert Lea? His dad said: Well, your grandfather wanted to open a factory in the Midwest, and the railroad went right through Albert Lea. So then Al asked: Why did the factory fail? His father said: Well, it went through Albert Lea, but it didn't stop in Albert Lea. Eventually the family, including Al and his older brother, settled into a two-bedroom, one-bathroom home in the Minneapolis suburb of St. Louis Park. His father became a printing salesman and his mom was a homemaker and worked as a real estate agent. Because of the security and opportunity his family enjoyed living in America, he says he felt like the ``luckiest kid in the world.'' While Al likes to tell jokes, and he has some good ones, he is not one to make fun of family values because there is no husband or father who is more devoted to his family than Al is. He met his wife--I see her right now up there in the gallery--Franni during his first year at college. They have been married 33 years, and together they have raised two children. Al often tells the story about Franni's family. Her dad, a decorated World War II veteran, died in a car accident when she was 17 months old. Her dad left her mom suddenly widowed and alone with five children. It was a lesson for the family, and it was an example of how one family pulled themselves up with help. He knows how difficult it is for so many families who are struggling to make it, squeezed over high health care costs, college costs, housing costs. During the past 2 years, Al has traveled to every corner of Minnesota, from the Iowa border to the Canadian border. He has had coffee at the Main Street cafes, and he has spoken at local bean feeds. He has toured homegrown businesses, and he has stood with workers. He has been to veterans halls, and he has gone to college campuses. He has been there day in and day out listening to the people of Minnesota. Now he has the honor and the responsibility to serve them in the U.S. Capitol. The Senate is an old and established institution. For any newcomer, it takes some getting used to the arcane rules and unique customs, but I am confident Al can adapt. This is a big moment for Franni and their kids as well. Al and his friends and relatives have been waiting for a while. The State has been waiting. The Senate has been waiting. But, most importantly to me, Franni has been waiting. My favorite image from the last few months was this idea that Franni had actually packed a bag with her toothbrush in it; that she had it right next to her bedside in case at any moment the court would come with a decision and she and Al would have to rush to Washington so he could take a critical vote. Well, today the time has come and Al will cast his first vote. If there is any silver lining to the past 8 months, it is that Al has had time to prepare for this moment. The times are tumultuous, the stakes are high, and history will forever judge whether we fail or succeed, whether we are courageous or timid. Al Franken is ready for this job. It is time to get to work, and, Al Franken, there is a desk waiting for you in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I will be joined on the floor today by some of my fellow women Senators to talk about the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. I will note that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to the floor yesterday to, as one news report described it, ``kick off their campaign against her.'' So we wanted to take this opportunity to get the facts out to correct any misconceptions and to set the record straight. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Sotomayor will begin on July 13, but my consideration of her will not begin then. I began considering her the day she was announced because, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I wish to learn as much as I can about President Obama's choice to fill one of the most important jobs in our country. Even though there are many questions that will be asked and many areas we will want to focus on, I wish to speak today about how Judge Sotomayor appears to me based on my initial review. After meeting with her and learning about her, I am very positive about her nomination. Judge Sotomayor knows the Constitution, she knows the law, but she also knows America. I know Americans have heard a lot about her background and long career as a judge. But it is very important for us to talk about what a solid nominee she is because we have to keep in mind that there have been accusations and misstatements, many made by people outside of this Chamber on TV and 24/7 cable. There have been misstatements. It came to me a few weeks ago when I was in the airport in the Twin Cities in Minnesota. A guy came up to me on a tram in the airport and said: Hey, do you know how you are voting on that woman? I said that I want to listen to her and see how she answers some of the questions. He said: I am worried. I said: Why? She is actually pretty moderate. He said: She is always putting her emotions in front of the law. I said: Do you know that when she is on a panel with three judges-- which they often do on the circuit court where she sits now, and they have her and two other judges--95 percent of the time she comes to an agreement with the Republican-appointed judge on the panel? You must be thinking the same thing about those guys because you cannot just say that about her. That incident made me think we really need to set the record straight here about the facts, that we should be ambassadors of truth and get out the truth about her record and the kind of judge we are looking for on the U.S. Supreme Court. We need to make sure she gets the same civil, fair treatment other nominees have been given. Judge Sotomayor's story is a classic American story about what is possible in our country through hard work. She grew up, in her own words, in modest and challenging circumstances and worked hard for every single thing she got. Many of you know her story. Her dad died when she was 9 years old, and her mom supported her and her brother. Her mom was devoted to her children's education. In fact, her mom was so devoted to her and her brother's education that she actually saved every penny she could so that she could buy Encyclopedia Britannica for her kids. I remember when I was growing up that the Encyclopedia Britannica had a hallowed place in the hallway. I now show my daughter, who is 14, these encyclopedias from the 1960s, and she doesn't seem very interested in them. They meant a lot to our family and also to Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor graduated from Princeton summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and she was one of two people to win the highest award Princeton gives to undergraduates. She went on to Yale Law School, which launched her three-decades-long career in the law. So when commentators have questions about whether she is smart enough--you cannot make up Phi Beta Kappa. You cannot make up that you have these high awards. These are facts. Since graduating, the judge has had a varied and interesting legal career. She has worked as a private sector civil litigator, she has been a district court and an appellate court judge, and she taught law school. The one experience of hers that particularly resonates for me is that, immediately graduating from law school, she spent 5 years as a prosecutor at the Manhattan district attorney's office, which was one of the busiest and most well thought of prosecutor's offices in our country. At the time, it paid about half as much as a job in the private sector, but she wanted the challenge and trial experience, she told me when we met, and she took the job as a prosecutor. Before I entered the Senate, I was a prosecutor. I managed an office of about 400 people in Minnesota, which was the biggest prosecutor's office in our State. So I was very interested in this experience we had in common. One of the things that I learned and that I quickly learned that she understood based on our discussions is that, as a prosecutor, the law is not just some dusty book in your basement. After you have interacted with victims of crime, after you have seen the damage crime can do to a community, the havoc it can wreak, after you have interacted with defendants who are going to prison and you have seen their families sitting in the courtroom, you know the law is not just an abstract subject; you see that the law has a real impact on real people. As a prosecutor, you don't just have to know the law, you have to know people, you have to know human nature. Sonia Sotomayor's former supervisor said that she was an imposing and commanding figure in the courtroom who would weave together a complex set of facts, enforce the law, and never lose sight of whom she was fighting for. Of course, she was fighting for the people in those neighborhoods, the victims of crime. Judge Sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor tells me she meets one of my criteria for a Supreme Court nominee: She is someone who deeply appreciates the power and impact that laws have and that the criminal justice system has on real people's lives. From her first day at that Manhattan district attorney's office, Judge Sotomayor learned that the law is not just an abstraction. In addition to her work as a prosecutor, I have also learned a lot about Judge Sotomayor from her long record as a judge. She has been a judge for 17 years--11 years as an appellate judge and 6 years as a trial judge. President George H.W. Bush--the first President Bush--gave her the first job she had as a Federal judge. She was nominated by a Republican President. The job was to be a district judge in the Southern District of New York. Her nomination to the Southern District was enthusiastically supported by both New York Senators, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Senator Alfonse D'Amato. If you watch TV or read newspapers or blogs, you know that Judge Sotomayor has been called some names. It always happens in these Supreme Court nominations--the nominees are called names by talking heads on TV and on the radio. In most cases, these commentators may have read a case or two of hers or, even worse, a speech and took a sentence or so out of context, and they have decided they are entitled to make a sweeping judgment about her judicial fitness based on a few words taken out of context. I think just about everything in a nominee's professional record is fair game to consider. After all, we are obligated to determine whether to confirm someone to an incredibly important position with lifetime tenure. That is a constitutional duty I take very seriously. But that said, when people get upset about a few items and a few speeches a judge has given, I have to wonder, do a few statements someone made in public, for which they said they could have used different words, do those trump 17 years of modest, reasoned, careful judicial decisionmaking? I don't think so. If we want to know what kind of a Justice she will be, isn't our best evidence to look at the type of judge she has already been? Here are the facts. As a trial judge, Sonia Sotomayor presided over roughly 450 cases on the Second Circuit and participated in more than 3,000 panel decisions. She has authored more than 200 appellate opinions. In cases where she and at least one Republican-appointed judge sat on a three- judge panel, she and the Republican-appointed judge agreed 95 percent of the time, as I mentioned. The Supreme Court has only reviewed five cases where she authored the decision and affirmed the decision below in two of them. The vast majority of her cases have not been in any way overturned or reversed by a higher court. It is worth noting that this nominee, if confirmed, would bring more Federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in 100 years. With that, I see one of my colleagues, the Senator from New Hampshire. We will have a number of women Senators here today. I will come back and finish my remarks sometime in the next half hour. I think it is very important that Senator Shaheen, the Senator from New Hampshire, be able to say a few words about the nominee. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Shaheen, for her remarks and for her reminiscence of meeting with the judge and once again the judge showing how she perseveres in the face of adversity. I wish to talk a little bit more--I was ending my last comments talking about how, in fact, this nominee would bring more Federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in 100 years. I had earlier noted my exchange with someone in an airport, where he wondered if she was worthy of this, if she was able to apply the facts, apply the law. Clearly, when you look at this experience she brings and you compare it to any of these other nominees on the Supreme Court, she stands out. She stands out not only because of her unique background, as she overcame obstacles to get here, but she stands out as to her experience, all those years as a prosecutor, all those years as a Federal judge. That makes a difference. I wish to address one other point that has been made about Judge Sonia Sotomayor in her capacity as a judge. It is something Senator Shaheen mentioned, this temperament issue. There have been some stories and comments, mostly anonymous, I note, that question Judge Sotomayor's judicial temperament. According to one news story about this topic, Judge Sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments and for being sometimes brusque and curt with lawyers who were not prepared to answer them. So she was a little curt, one anonymous source said. Where I come from, asking tough questions and having very little patience for unprepared lawyers is the very definition of being a judge. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen judges get very impatient with lawyers who were not prepared and who did not know the answer to a question. As a lawyer, you owe it to the bench and to your clients to be as well prepared as you possibly can be. As Nina Totenberg said on National Public Radio, if Sonia Sotomayor sometimes dominates oral arguments at her court, if she is feisty, even pushy, then she would fit right in on the U.S. Supreme Court. I would add this to that comment. Surely, we have come to a time in this country where we can confirm as many gruff, to-the-point female judges as we have confirmed gruff, to-the-point male judges. Think how far we have come with this nominee. When Sandra Day O'Connor graduated from law school 50-plus years ago, the only offer she received from a law firm was for a position as a legal secretary. She had this great background, a very impressive background, and yet the only offer she received was as a legal secretary. Judge Ginsburg, who now sits on the Court, faced similar obstacles. When she entered Harvard in the 1950s, she was only 1 of 9 women in a class of more than 500. One professor actually asked her to justify taking a place that would have gone to a man in that class in Harvard. Mr. President, 9 women, 500 spots, and someone actually asked her to justify the fact that she was there. I suppose she could justify it now, saying she is now on the U.S. Supreme Court. Later Justice Ginsburg was passed over for a prestigious clerkship despite her impressive credentials. Looking at Judge Sotomayor's long record as a lawyer, a prosecutor, and a judge, you can see we have come a long way. She was confirmed by this Senate for the district court. She was nominated at that point by the first President Bush. She was confirmed by this Senate for the Second Circuit, and she now faces a confirmation hearing before our Judiciary Committee and confirmation, again, for a position with the U.S. Supreme Court. I will tell you this, after learning about Judge Sotomayor, her background, her legal career, her judicial record, similar to so many of my colleagues, I am very impressed. To use President Obama's words, I hope Judge Sotomayor will bring to her nomination hearing and to the Supreme Court, if she is confirmed, not only the knowledge and the experience acquired over the course of a brilliant legal career but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life's journey. Actually today, Justice O'Connor was on the ``Today Show.'' She was asked about her work on the Court and what it was like. She was actually asked about Judge Sotomayor. She was asked: When you retired, you let it be known you would like a woman to replace you and you were sort of disappointed when a woman didn't replace you. So what is your reaction to Judge Sotomayor's nomination? Justice O'Connor said: Of course, I am pleased that we will have another woman on the Court. I do think it is important not to just have one. Our nearest neighbor, Canada, also has a court of nine members and in Canada there is a woman chief justice and there are four women all told on the Canadian court. Then she was asked: Do you think there is a right number of women who should be on the Court? Justice O'Connor, this morning, said: No, of course not. But then she pointed out: But about half of law graduates today are women, and we have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers and they ought to be represented on the Court. She was also asked later in the interview about opponents of Judge Sotomayor who have brought up this term ``activist judge.'' She was asked: I know that is a term you have railed against in the past. What is it about the term that you object to? She answered: I don't think the public understands what is meant by it. It is thrown around by many in the political field, and I think that probably for most users of the term, they are distinguishing between the role of a legislator and a judge, and they say a judge should not legislate. The problem, of course, Justice O'Connor says, is at the appellate level, the Supreme Court is at the top of the appellate level. Rulings of the Court do become binding law. So it is a little hard to talk in terms of who is an activist. I, again, ask people to look at Judge Sotomayor's opinions. When I talked with her about this, she talked about how she uses a set formula, laying out the facts, laying out the law, showing how the law applies to the facts, and then reaching a decision. We can also look at her record where, in fact, when she was on a three-judge panel with two other judges, when you look at her record of what she agreed with judges who had been appointed by a Republican President, 95 percent of the time they reached the same decision. So unless you believe those Republican-appointed judges are somehow activist judges, then I guess you would say she is an activist judge. But I think when you look at her whole record, you see someone who is moderate, sometimes coming down on one side and sometimes coming down on another. I can tell you, as a former prosecutor, I did not always just look at whether I agreed with the judge if I was trying to figure out if someone would be a good judge. I would look at whether they applied the laws to the facts, whether they were fair. Sometimes our prosecutor's office would not agree with a judge's decision. We would argue vehemently for a different decision. In the end, when we evaluated these judges, when we decided whether we thought they were a fair person to have on a case, we looked at that whole experience, we looked at that whole experience to make a decision about whether this was a judge who could be fair. That is what I think when you look at her record--and I am looking very much to her hearing, where we are going to explore a number of these cases--again, colleagues on one side of the aisle will agree with one case or disagree with another, and the other side of the aisle would have made a decision one way or the other. You have to look at her record as a whole. When you look at her record, you will see someone of experience, someone thoughtful, someone who makes a decision based on the facts and based on the law. I am very much looking forward to these hearings. I know that some of my colleagues are coming to the Chamber as we speak. I am looking forward to their arrival as we become, as I said, ambassadors of truth to get these facts out as so many things have been bandied about in names and other things that get into people's heads. I think it important for all those watching C-SPAN right now and for all of those who are in the galleries today, that people take these facts away with them--the facts of her experience, that in over 100 years of judicial experience, when you look back 100 years, she has more experience on the bench than any of the Justices who were nominated. You have to go back 100 years to find someone with that much experience. You look at that work she has done as a prosecutor, you look at the work she has done throughout her whole life, where she basically came from nothing, worked her way up, got into a good college, got into a good law school, did it on her own, with maybe a little help from her mom who bought the ``Encyclopedia Britannica.'' As I said at the beginning, this is a nominee who not only understands the law, understands the Constitution but also understands America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, again I thank the Senator from Kansas, and also Senator McCaskill, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Landrieu, who spoke today. I also know that Senators Gillibrand, Feinstein, Mikulski, Boxer, and Murray will be speaking, or may have already and will be in the next few weeks on this nominee, as will many of my colleagues. I appreciate this time, Mr. President. We are very excited about this upcoming hearing, and we are glad to be here as ambassadors for the truth. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank my colleague Senator Landrieu for her very kind and thoughtful remarks about the nominee. We are now joined by the Senator from Missouri, Senator McCaskill, who as a former prosecutor I am sure will shed some light on the subject. I also thank the Senator from Kansas for allowing us to take an additional 5 minutes. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, who has spoken many times in the past about the importance of fair judges and strong judges, is here today to discuss this nominee.

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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to stand here today with Mr. Chambliss, the Senator from Georgia, in speaking out in favor of our bill to bring food safety to this country. It is interesting that we introduced this bill together because, of course, this latest outbreak that got so much attention nationally with the Peanut Corporation of America started in Georgia. No one knew that at the time as people got sick across the country, and it ended in Minnesota where, after three deaths in my State, it was the Minnesota Department of Health and the University of Minnesota working together that once again solved the problem, figuring out where the salmonella was coming from. Today a Republican Senator from Georgia and a Democratic Senator from Minnesota have come together to introduce this bill to say we want to do everything we can to prevent this from happening in the first place. That is why we both support the FDA bill. But it is also to say, when it does happen, we want to catch things as soon as possible so we have less people who get sick, less people who die, and a lot of that has to do with best practices. I am proud to stand with the Senator from Georgia today. This past week, our country saw another food recall due to the outbreak of E. coli caused by refrigerated cookie dough manufactured by Nestle. The outbreak has sickened at least 65 people in 29 States, and it is the latest in a series of foodborne outbreaks in the last 2 years, or at the least, the outbreaks we know of since many cases of foodborne illness are never reported or those that are reported are never linked to an identifiable common source. In the spring and summer of 2007, as you may recall, hundreds of people across the country were getting sick from salmonella. The source was ultimately traced to jalapeno peppers imported from Mexico. Last fall, hundreds of people, as we just talked about, across the country again fell ill to salmonella. Again, this was traced back to the peanut butter processing plant in Georgia. In the meantime, nine people died from salmonella poisoning, three of them in my home State of Minnesota. In both of these outbreaks, more than half of the people who got sick or died did so before there was any consumer advisory or recall. Half of these people got sick or died before there was a consumer advisory or recall. In the case of the jalapeno peppers, people had been getting sick for almost 2 months before the advisory was issued about tomatoes, the original suspect, which turned out to be incorrect, hurting that industry. It was nearly 3 months before the first illness was reported in Minnesota, and then, once again, solved in Minnesota. In the case of the peanut butter, people were getting sick for 3 months before the first illness was reported in my home State. For 3 months people got sick all across the country, and it was only when they got sick or died in Minnesota that it got solved. We have to fix this situation. I am proud of my State. I am proud it was able to catch these two major food outbreaks. But we have to be doing it in other places as well. The breakthrough in identifying the sources of contamination did not come from the Centers for Disease Control, despite their good work. It did not come from the Food and Drug Administration. It did not come from the National Institutes of Health. The breakthrough came from the work of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, as well as a collaborative effort with the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. This initiative has earned a remarkable national reputation. With all due respect to their exemplary work, the Nation should not have to wait until someone from Minnesota gets sick or dies from tainted food before there is an effective national response to investigate and identify the causes. The problem is that the responsibility to investigate potential foodborne diseases rests largely with local and State health departments, and that is OK, if it worked everywhere the way it does in Minnesota. There is tremendous variation from State to State in terms of the priority and the resources they dedicate to this responsibility. In Minnesota, it is a high priority, and we have dedicated professionals who have developed sophisticated procedures for detecting, investigating, and tracking cases of foodborne illnesses. The peanut butter salmonella outbreak was so extensive and so shocking that it has finally put food safety on the agenda in Washington. It is a crowed agenda, as we all know, but food safety must be there. In March, I joined with a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, which would overhaul the Federal Government's food safety system. Other cosponsors are Senators Dick Durbin, Judd Gregg, Ted Kennedy, Richard Burr, Chris Dodd, Lamar Alexander, and Saxby Chambliss. This legislation is a comprehensive approach to strengthening the Food and Drug Administration's authority and resources. But I believe there is still much more that can and should be done. That is why, along with Senator Chambliss, I have introduced the Food Safety Rapid Response Act. This legislation focuses on the Centers for Disease Control, as well as State and local capabilities, for responding to foodborne illness. It has three main provisions. First, it would direct the Centers for Disease Control to enhance foodborne surveillance systems to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and usefulness of data on foodborne systems. This includes better sharing of information among Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as with the food industry and the public. It also includes developing improved epidemiology tools and procedures to better detect foodborne disease clusters and improve tracebacks to identify the contaminated food products. I can tell you, our State is proud to be the home of Hormel, Schwan's, Land O'Lakes, General Mills, and many other food processing companies, and they are eager to help because oftentimes they know the best way to trace back these foodborne illnesses. They want to have safe food and they are interested in helping. Second, it would direct the Centers for Disease Control to work with State level agencies to improve foodborne illness surveillance. This includes providing support to State laboratories and agencies for outbreak investigations with needed specialty expertise. It also includes--and this is key--developing model practices at the State and local levels for responding to foodborne illnesses and outbreaks. This is about the Minnesota model, these best practices. What happens in Minnesota, I will tell you--and I will bet it is as expensive in some other States, but what we do is smart. We take a team of graduate students--sort of food detectives--and they work together. Instead of having it go all over the State to a county nurse in one county and someone else in another county, this group of graduate students, working under the supervision of doctors and people who are professionals in this area, literally calls all at once. They work next to each other and they call people who have been sick or who are sick and that way, at one moment in time, they are able to immediately figure out what the people were eating and where the food came from. There are sophisticated laboratory techniques that go on everywhere, but what works here is this teamwork with graduate students. Finally, this legislation would establish Food Safety Centers of Excellence. The goal is to set up regional food safety centers at select public health departments and higher education institutions. These collaborations would provide increased resources, training, and coordination for State and local officials so that other States can be doing exactly what Minnesota does. In particular, they would seek to distribute food safety best practices such as those that have become routine in my State. Dr. Osterholm, at the University of Minnesota, is a national food safety and disease expert. Many of you may have seen him featured nationally with the latest H1N1 flu outbreak. He is credited with the creation of the Minnesota program. He has said that the creation of regional programs modeled on Minnesota would go a long way to providing precisely the real-time support for outbreak investigations at the State and local levels that is so sorely needed. No one believes we are going to be able to do this all out of Washington. That is why we simply have to upgrade the places that our States are using, so when there is an outbreak we don't have to wait for people to get sick or die in Minnesota to solve these problems. The recent outbreaks have shaken our confidence and trust in the food we eat. According to the Centers for Disease Control, foodborne disease causes about 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. Yet for every foodborne illness that is reported, it is estimated that as many as 40 more illnesses are not reported or confirmed by a lab. The annual cost of medical care, lost productivity, and premature deaths due to foodborne illnesses is estimated to be $44 billion. So there is a lot at stake, both in terms of life and money. I believe we can do so much better. I believe it because I have seen it in my State. Senator Chambliss, from the State of Georgia, where this latest outbreak occurred, believes it because he has seen the devastation to an industry's own State, where when you have one bad actor and then it gets out there and more people get sick and die, it doesn't help anyone in this country. The tragedy of so many families--three in my own State--hurts tremendously. So we know we can do better, and that is why we are introducing this bill on a bipartisan basis. As a former prosecutor, I have always believed the first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. When people get sick or die from contaminated food, the government must take aggressive and immediate action. I believe that together the Food Safety Rapid Response Act and the Food Safety Modernization Act will strengthen food safety in America and ultimately save both lives and money. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Ten thousand.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. If the majority leader would yield for a question, one of the things I found out with our hearing that you so kindly testified at about tourism--and I am chairing that subcommittee--now is, one, this was bipartisan, as you pointed out. There were Republicans there. They pledged their support for this bill. But the second thing is when we talk about tourism, it is not we are not only talking about the CEOs of airline companies. The jobs, as you know, we are talking about in Nevada, are jobs such as maids or the people who work at the flower shops or the people who work in the frontline in the restaurants or the people, the bellboys. Those are real jobs. One out of eight people employed in this country is employed in the tourism industry. What I heard in Nevada was something like 400 conventions had been canceled out of Las Vegas. We are just starting to see some improvements in our State. We call Duluth the Las Vegas of Minnesota. But we are starting to see improvements with business travel picking up, with some hope for consumers. This bill would bring in those key people to spend $4,500 every time they come into this country, and that is the international travelers. So if the majority leader would comment on what this means to real people, the bill the Republicans have now stopped, as we are trying every day to get more jobs in this country.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, during these tough economic times, American families expect and deserve that we will do everything we can to get the economy moving again. Of course, that involves investing in our country, investing in our infrastructure. It involves getting our financial system in order. It involves getting credit moving again. But we should not forget that one out of eight Americans is employed in the travel industry. I chair the subcommittee of Commerce, that deals with tourism issues, and I cosponsored the bipartisan legislation to bring new visitors and new spending and new jobs to the United States. I thank Senator Byron Dorgan for his leadership and hard work on this bill, and I also thank Senator Ensign for his leadership. I spoke last week, when we first started talking about this bill, about the importance of the tourism and travel industry to our economy. Tourism creates good jobs that cannot be outsourced. It increases sales for local businesses, and it brings in tax revenue for local and State economies. As I said, one out of every eight Americans is employed by our travel economy. Each year, travel and tourism contribute approximately $1.3 trillion to the American economy. The travel economy contributes $115 billion in tax revenues to State, local, and Federal Governments, and last year travel and tourism exports--which means the people coming into the U.S. to enjoy our beautiful country--accounted for 8 percent of all U.S. exports. In fact, tourism is one of the few economic sectors where we enjoy a substantial trade surplus. But things are not going as well as they could or they should, especially when it comes to bringing international travel to the United States. I know you know that, Madam President, coming from the State of New York. I see the Senator from Michigan. I have seen their recent ad campaign on ``Enjoying Pure Michigan.'' But we need to bring more people to this country. What does this mean? What is the problem? As you can see, while more people around the world are traveling--there were 48 million more global overseas travelers in 2008 than there were in 2000--633,000 fewer visited the United States. That is unfortunate. You can see more people around the world are traveling, but fewer are coming to our country. What does that really mean? Since 2000, the U.S. share of the world travel market has decreased by nearly 20 percent, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue. You can see what happened here in our country. This chart is in millions of dollars--$26 million brought in in 2000, only $25.3 million in 2008; while for the rest of the world, $124 million for the rest of the world in 2000--up to $173 million in 2008. When a traveler decides to visit another country, to visit someplace besides the United States, there is a ripple effect across our economy. Fewer airline tickets are sold, fewer cars are rented, hotels and lodges rent fewer rooms, tourist attractions have fewer visitors, local businesses miss out on sales and opportunities, workers lose their jobs, and it goes on and on. The decline in international travel, combined with the current economic downturn, is hitting our country's travel industry hard. Last year, nearly 200,000 travel-related jobs were lost, and the Commerce Department predicts we will lose another 247,00 jobs this year. We are not talking about the CEOs of the airline companies. These are hard- working Americans--the people who work in the hotel rooms, the cooks, the janitors, the shop workers, the people who own little flower stores next to the hotels. They are the ones making the beds. They are the ones making the meals. These are the people we should think about when we talk about the bill before the Senate today. The question before us today is how can we bring international visitors to the United States because--do you know how much they each spend when they come? Something like $4,500 when they come to our country. That is $4,500 that provides jobs for those janitors and maids and shop owners. We have just as much, if not more, to offer travelers than anyplace else. We have stunning national landmarks, such as the Grand Canyon-- and the Statue of Liberty in your home State of New York, Madam President--centers of fun and entertainment from Las Vegas to Disney World, scenic country towns and the bright lights of the big cities and those quiet moments in those little towns in my home State of Minnesota. But we need to do a better job of promoting the United States as a premier travel destination. We have to face it. We are in a competition for international travelers, but we are not competing. Look at what is going on around the world when it comes to tourism. Here are some examples: Yemen has their own tourism promotion for their country. Of course, the Bahamas--I think many of us have seen those on TV. I certainly have. You see Tourism Australia. I have seen a few of those ads. South Africa, Taiwan, Scotland, India--these countries are promoting themselves internationally to bring in other visitors. What do we have right now in our country? We do not have a centralized promotion of our country for tourism. Countries around the world make tourism a national priority because they see it brings jobs to their country. They spend millions of dollars on promotion and programs and senior officials to coordinate national tourism policy. For example, Vietnam, Egypt, New Zealand, Lebanon, and Jamaica have ministries of tourism. Germany has a National Tourist Board, and Australia has a ``Tourism Australia'' program. In 2005, Greece spent more than $150 million on travel promotion; France spent $63 million. That is what we are up against. The Travel Promotion Act would level the playing field so we can compete with the rest of the world and recapture that lost market share. It will create the Corporation for Travel Promotion, a public- private partnership to promote the United States as an international travel destination and finally establish a coordinated national travel program. Under the direction of a board of directors made up of representatives from the States, the Federal Government, and the travel industry, the corporation would be in charge of a national travel promotion, a program with goals to encourage travel to the United States, to communicate our country's travel policies, and to promote international exposure for parts of America that do not have the resources to promote themselves. As I mentioned earlier, our loss in the share of the world travel market is not a new phenomenon. It actually started after September 11, where, for good reasons, security measures were put into place, but some of those good reasons have turned into very difficult times for tourists to come over, and that is what needs to be fixed. That is why part of this bill would make it easier for tourists to get their visas, make it easier for them to visit the country. A lot of times it is just expediting the checks that need to be made, making sure they can get their visas, just as they can get one to go to Canada or Mexico or other countries. The bill will establish the Office of Travel Promotion in the Department of Commerce to work with the Corporation for Travel Promotion and secretaries of state and homeland security to make sure that international visitors are processed efficiently. America is a country that wraps its arms around those who come to visit us, and this bill will make sure international visitors know they are welcome and wanted. The Travel Promotion Act is about more than just encouraging travel. It is also about building our economy. This bill is expected to bring in 1.6 million new international visitors each year. Since international visitors, as I noted, spend an average of $4,500 per person while they are here, this is a huge boost to our economy. That money from overseas coming into our economy, into our towns and cities, into our small businesses is new money. If they are not going to come and spend it here, they are going to go to one of these countries--to the Bahamas, South Africa, Australia. That is new money coming into our country. The U.S. Travel Association estimates this bill will create 40,000 new jobs, and economists at Oxford Economics expect the bill to generate $4 billion in new spending and $321 million in new tax revenue. Just as important as how much it will generate is how much it will cost, which is zero for American taxpayers. This bill comes at no cost to the taxpayer. It will be paid for by a combination of private sector contributions and a $10 fee on international travelers entering the United States of America--zero cost, big benefit. The Congressional Budget Office just released a report that estimates that this bill will reduce budget deficits by $425 million over the next 10 years--that is the bill pending before this body today. The math is undeniable. For no cost to the taxpayer, we can boost travel, boost the economy, and reduce the deficit. That is why this bill has such strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It also has the support of numerous organizations such as the U.S. Travel Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It has many newspaper endorsements. As you can see, newspapers in every part of the country support this legislation. I will read just a few. The Sacramento Bee: The country needs to reclaim its status as a global magnet for visitors, even in the post 9/11 climate, and Congress can help by passing the Travel Promotion Act by the end of this year. Dallas Morning News, September 6: The Travel Promotion act is a sensible first step toward putting the welcome mat back on America's doorstep. Orlando Sentinel: Our position, charging international travelers $10 to pay for promotion of travel to bring in all that money makes sense. Detroit Free Press, September 25, 2008: Doesn't it make sense to encourage, at no cost to taxpayers, foreign visitors to come here and leave some money? There's no good reason not to pass this bill. Finally, I leave the best to last, Duluth News Tribune, Duluth, MN, May 18, 2009: Ideas to bolster economic recovery without plunging the nation any deeper into debt would be welcomed by taxpayers from coast to coast. I know firsthand how important tourism is for the city of Duluth. It has had some very difficult economic times in the seventies and eighties. At one point it was so bad there was a time there was a billboard that someone put outside Duluth that said, ``The last one to leave, please turn off the lights.'' That is what they were dealing with. They bolstered their economy through tourism. I was just up there. I did a field hearing there and they have actually seen an increase in their convention and business travel this year. Maybe a few people are going to places such as Duluth. Businesses are cutting back a little. But the important part of this is that you have one town just like so many across the country that has benefited from tourism. This is what we are talking about across the country. I wonder why we didn't pass this earlier, why we haven't been able to get this through. I can't answer this question. It makes no sense to me. Sometimes people don't want to talk about tourism because they don't think it is important, but when one out of eight Americans is employed in this business it is important. I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope we can get it through intact. I hope we will have a minimum number of amendments and we can simply do something good in a bipartisan way that will help increase jobs in America where one out of eight people is employed. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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