Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask that the Senate recess until 2:15, as under the previous order. Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:28 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Acting President pro tempore.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. According to the author, a physician, we are in ``a battle for the soul of American medicine.'' On one side is a fragmented, volume-driven model that too often crosses into profiteering. There are good parts about our health care system, believe me. I know this because I live in Minnesota. We have to maintain those. But we have to fix this broken cost structure. On the other side, you see this model offered by Mayo and other peer institutions across the country where doctors collaborate to provide the best, most efficient care for their patients. On one side is more of the same, which is both financially and morally unsustainable; on the other side is a new direction that promises to curb cost while expanding affordable coverage. It is time to choose sides. For the sake of our fiscal health and for the sake of millions of Americans struggling to afford the care they need, I urge my colleagues to choose the latter. Yesterday, I met with a bipartisan group of Senators, and I have to tell you I still have hope that we are going to get this done and I have hope that there will be bipartisan support for this. What I am talking about today--cost reduction, putting these incentives in place--isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is an American issue. This is an American cause, and we can find a uniquely American solution to this problem so that we can reduce costs and make health care better quality. I can tell you, having spent my entire life in the State of Minnesota and having a daughter who was born very sick, who couldn't even swallow when she was born, I know we can get high-quality health care at lower cost. They do it every day in my State, and we can do it in the rest of the country. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the time for health care reform is now. We cannot afford to wait any longer. For some time, Peter Orszag, now President Obama's Budget Director, has warned that rising health costs are unsustainable and represent the central fiscal challenge facing the country. At $2.4 trillion per year, health care spending represents close to 17 percent of the American economy, and it will exceed 20 percent by 2018 if current trends continue. Hospitals and clinics are also providing an estimated $56 billion in uncompensated care. Meanwhile, businesses are squeezed on the bottom line, forced to reduce or drop health coverage for their employees. Without action, costs will continue to rise and waste will proliferate. We need to make health care affordable for everyone, and we need to reduce the waste and fraud that plagues the current system. To my colleagues who are conjuring up reasons not to pass reform this year, using scare tactics about nationalized health care and engaging in fear mongering, I say we cannot stay where we are. We cannot stay where we are. They must be getting different mail than I am. I am getting mail, and I am getting people coming up to me all over the State. Even though our State has some of the most affordable health care in the country, people know their money is being spent in other States that are not as efficient. They know health care coverage when the economy is tough is very difficult to come by, and that is what they are coming up to me and talking about. They are not saying let's stay the way we are. They are saying reform this system. In 2008, employee health premiums increased by 5 percent, two times the rate of inflation, and the annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. Families cannot continue to bear the burden of runaway health costs. If we do not act, these costs are going to break the backs of the American people. We must remain committed to enacting a uniquely American solution to our Nation's health care problem. We must keep what works and fix what is broken. As Congress prepares to take up landmark health care legislation, many in Washington are looking to my State, the State of Minnesota, as a leader. Among them is the President of the United States. President Obama has provided leadership and vision on this issue, and in a recent weekly radio address, he has highlighted how the Mayo Clinic and other innovative health care organizations succeed in providing high-quality care at relatively low cost. As he has said, we should learn from the successes and promote the best practices, not the most expensive ones. In Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic is not alone. Health partners Park Nicollet and Essensia Health are already among those working to deliver the best health care at the least price. At 92 percent of the State covered by some kind of health care insurance, Minnesota has a strong history making sure the health care system promotes both quality care and access--92 percent coverage. Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, Iowa, Utah, and North Dakota are just a few of the States that can help provide leadership to help Congress and the administration as we work to develop a quality integrated health care system that reduces cost to the taxpayer and improves health care outcomes. It is no coincidence that as we speak, the President is in Wisconsin, another State that understands to have high-quality care, you do not necessarily have to have high prices. In fact, it is the opposite. I will distill this cost issue into some understandable language. I grew up watching the Minnesota Vikings. Year after year, our State has waited for the Vikings to win the Super Bowl. We have been to the Super Bowl four times, and we have never won the Super Bowl. All during that same amount of time, the people of our country have been waiting for health care reform. They have been waiting for something to happen to make health care more affordable. The people of this country cannot wait any longer. We might be able to wait on the Vikings; the people cannot wait any longer. The importance of Minnesota's best practices can be outlined in a game plan for national health care reform with a few key pointers: rewarding quality, not quantity; promoting coordinated, integrated care; and focusing on prevention and disease management. We are never going to be able to move the ball for that next first down unless we start talking about costs; otherwise, we are simply going to have different people pay for the same expensive health care but not do anything to reduce the cost. First, our game plan for health care reform to reduce costs is to be sure to keep score. That means measuring outcomes and rewarding providers who deliver quality results. Right now in many places, we are not getting our money's worth from our health care dollars. In Miami, Medicare spends twice as much on the average patient as it does in Minneapolis, even though quality is much better in Minnesota--twice as much. If we look at this chart, we will see that the areas in dark blue are the higher spending regions of the country. They receive the lion's share of Medicare payments. The light blue areas--States such as Minnesota, Montana, and Iowa--are areas where Medicare spending is low but quality of care is often high. In a recent New York Times article, some explained these differences in spending as they were trying to explain how can this happen that you have twice the Medicare, twice the taxpayers' dollars for the same kind of medical treatments as you would in another part of the country. Some said it is a difference in cost of living, sicker people, more teaching hospitals. But research shows those factors only explain 18 percent of the variation in spending. It is no surprise. Most health care is purchased on a fee-for-service basis, so more tests and more surgeries mean more money. Quantity, not quality, pays. According to research at Dartmouth Medical School, nearly $700 billion per year is wasted on unnecessary or ineffective health care-- $700 billion per year. That is 30 percent of total health care spending. So to my colleagues who are fear mongering and saying we should do nothing, I say how about $700 billion, 30 percent of total health care spending that we have the opportunity to change around to benefit the people of this country? Just look at this fact, if you want to look at quality care. The Mayo Clinic ranked as one of the highest quality institutions in this country. If you look at the last 4 years of the lives of chronically ill patients, some of the most difficult times for people in this country, an independent study from Dartmouth came out after they looked at what the Mayo Clinic did. They have a team of doctors working together with quality ratings incredibly high. Then they looked at what was going on in other regions of the country. If all the hospitals in this country used the same protocol that Mayo Clinic used in the last 4 years of a patient's life, where the quality rating is incredibly high, we would save $50 billion every 5 years in Medicare spending--$50 billion. So, no, I don't think the answer is just to throw away health care reform and do a lot of fear mongering. I think the answer is to work together to bring this kind of cost savings to the rest of the country. There is general consensus that Medicare should reward value, and value consists of both quality and efficiency. However, value is not taken into account when Medicare determines payment for providers. To begin reining in costs, we need to have all health care providers aiming for high quality, cost-effective results. That is why I plan to introduce legislation with Senator Cantwell and others that would authorize the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary to create a value index as part of a formula used to determine Medicare's fee schedule--paying for value. This indexing will help regulate overutilization because those who produce more volume will need to also improve care or the increased volume will negatively impact fees. You have to have those incentives in place in how you do the payments or you are never going to reduce costs. In adding a value index, my bill would give physicians a financial incentive to maximize quality and value of their services instead of volume. 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. I am also interested in the idea that the President has proposed to give increased consideration to recommendations made by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MedPAC, a commission created by a Republican Congress. MedPAC's recommendations for payment reform include bundling, which has potential significant cost savings. Giving the recommendations made by experts increased authority could be a valuable tool to help rein in health care spending and improve quality in a responsible way. So the first part of our game plan for reducing costs for health care is focusing on value. The second part of the game plan for making health care more affordable is to focus on teamwork. Understandably, patients like it when their health care providers talk with one another and even work together. This means higher quality care, as well as more efficient care. In too many places, however, patients must struggle against a fragmented delivery system where providers duplicate services and sometimes work at cross-purposes--an x ray here, an x ray there, an expert here, an expert there. It is like a football team with 11 quarterbacks but no wide receivers, no running backs and no offensive line. This does not work in football, and it is not going to work in health care. The beauty of integrated care systems is that a patient's overall care is managed by a primary care physician in coordination with specialists, nurses, and other care providers as needed. It is one-stop shopping. In our rural communities, critical access hospitals utilize this model and provide quality health care for residents in their community with a team of providers. To better reward and encourage this collaboration, we also need to have better coordination of care and less incentive to bill Medicare by volume. Increasing the bundling of services in Medicare's payment system has the potential to deliver savings and start encouraging quality, integrated care. When it comes to improving care, changing who pays a doctor will make no more difference. The lesson of high-quality, efficient States such as Minnesota and Wisconsin is that someone has to be responsible for the care of the patient from start to finish, from one goal line to the other. Bundling will ensure that practice is rewarded. This is a very interesting chart. It does not look interesting, but it is. A lot of people think the more you pay, the better quality care you get. This was a MedPAC analysis of county level fee-for-service expenditures, a national study. Do you know what they found? They found that those areas of the country, those counties that had low utilization--in other words, maybe someone called a nurse line or a doctor referred them to one specialist instead of them going to three on their own--they found they had the highest quality care. Why is that? It makes sense. You have one primary doctor who knows exactly what is going on, is checking your charts and can send them to one specialist so mistakes are not make. You go to one specialist who does not know you are taking a certain medication and you are allergic to another. High-quality care with low utilization; lowest quality care with high utilization. That is probably the opposite of what most people in this country think. But, literally, you get the highest quality care in those parts of the country where you are paying less money. As I said, if people start to say our area of the country is so expensive, only 18 percent of that difference with the high-quality, low-cost States and the low-quality, high-cost States can be attributed to cost of living. Research has shown that moving toward a better integrated and coordinated delivery system would save Medicare alone up to $100 billion per year. So if people don't want to talk about reform and they want to make a bunch of fear-mongering statements, let them explain to the American people why we are not going to save $100 billion per year. Finally, the last game pointer is that the best offense is a good defense. My dad covered football his whole life for the newspaper, and this is what he would always say to me: It works on the football field and it works in health care. It is a lot better for both the patient and the patient's pocketbook if a chronic medical problem can be prevented or managed early to stave off complications and the need for costly care. Right now, physicians are paid to treat diseases, not prevent them. Yet a payment system that encourages prevention and disease management could generate enormous savings because a large portion of health care spending is devoted to treating a relatively small number of people with chronic medical conditions. Let me give an example of this. This is Health Partners, which is a clinic in Minnesota--all over our State. A lot of patients are members of it. They started looking at how can we do a better job with diabetes. They did this back in the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to the fourth quarter of 2008. You see here an increase in quality for the patients, an increase in percentage of patients with optimal diabetes control, because they put in some practical protocols. What do you see with costs? You see an actual major decrease in the cost per patient. That is the green line. The yellow line is an increase in the patients with optimal diabetes control, as the doctors determined. The green line is a decrease in cost. The red line is patients with diabetes who had asked that they recommend Health Partners clinics. So even as they saw this dramatic reduction in cost, they were still on the up in terms of recommending using Health Partners clinics. Most people don't like their HMOs very much. They always have reasons to complain. So I think this is amazing that they were able to show this kind of result. At Park Nicollet in Minnesota, they have implemented a congestive heart failure program with Medicare. In the 3 years since the program began, Park Nicollet has saved nearly $5,000 per patient, per year. Diabetes, congestive heart disease, and back problems all contribute to the excessive cost and growth in our health care system and cause decreased productivity in our economy. One study found that the most costly 20 percent of Medicare patients in a given year account for 84 percent of total Medicare spending. By contrast, the least costly 40 percent of Medicare patients accounted for just 1 percent of overall spending. As the examples from Minnesota and other places demonstrate, effectively managing these and other chronic illnesses is essential to health care reform. A recent New Yorker magazine article showcased the Mayo Clinic in the context of health care's cost conundrum. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to speak in support of the Travel Promotion Act, which is bipartisan legislation. I first want to thank Mr. Dorgan, the Senator from North Dakota. I have visited the Teddy Roosevelt Park, and I want to thank him for his great leadership on this bill over many years. I also want to thank Senator Ensign for his leadership. I believe this legislation will help our economy to do better, to create jobs without any taxpayer expense. As the chair of the Commerce Subcommittee that includes tourism, I recently held a hearing--a well-attended hearing--with many Senators and people there to examine the state of our tourism industry during these troubled economic times. I want to thank my ranking Republican member, Senator Martinez. We did it together. I also held a field hearing in Duluth, MN, to highlight the importance of tourism to midsize and smaller towns in the United States. During the hearings, we heard about the importance of tourism and travel to our economy and the urgent need to increase international travel to the United States. As the Presiding Officer, Senator Udall, knows, coming from Colorado, America has so much to offer our travelers: whether it is the mountains of Colorado or--Senator Kaufman is here--the beaches of Delaware or the stunning national landmarks, such as the Grand Canyon, Mount Rushmore, and the Statue of Liberty or the oceans, lakes, and rivers or our mountains, forests, and beaches or our scenic country towns or the bright lights of the big cities or centers of fun and entertainment such as Las Vegas or Disney World or Duluth. From the heartland to the coasts, every State has an economic stake in the tourism industry, which is now a major part of the American economy. Throughout the United States, many communities have discovered and developed the economic potential of travel and tourism. I keep using the example of Duluth because at some point in the 1970s, the economy was so bad there they actually had a billboard, so when you drove out of town, it said: The last one to leave, please turn off the lights. Well, that billboard is not there anymore, as tourism is the biggest part of their economy, on beautiful Lake Superior, with beautiful museums and an aquarium and a children's museum. It has changed the life of that town. Tourism creates good jobs that cannot be outsourced. Mr. President, one out of every eight Americans is employed in our travel economy. Each year, travel and tourism contribute approximately $1.3 trillion to the American economy. International visitors, as Senator Dorgan just noted, spend an average of $4,500 per person. In economic terms, international tourism to the United States counts as an export. Instead of shipping our product to a customer overseas, the customer is coming here to spend money on our goods and our services. Last year, travel and tourism exports accounted for 8 percent of all U.S. exports and 26 percent of all U.S. services exports. In fact, tourism is one of the few economic sectors where we enjoy a substantial trade surplus. Travel is a part of the fabric of our State and our country. But over the past decade, we know it has been stretched to the brink. While more people around the world are traveling, a smaller percentage of them are visiting the United States. This is not just about our troubled economy right now. This was going on long before that. It actually started after 9/11, where, for good reasons, security measures were put in place. But some of those good reasons have turned into very difficult times for tourists to come to this country, and that needs to be fixed. That is part of this bill: to make it easier for tourists to visit our country. 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. Last year, nearly 200,000 travel-related jobs were lost. The Commerce Department predicts we will lose another 247,000 jobs this year. Remember, this is not about airport CEOs. This is about the janitors who work at the airports. This is about the maids who are doing the beds. This is about the waitresses who are working at the restaurants. This is about the people who do the flowers for the hotels and for the banquets and for the business travelers. These are real jobs in America. This has always been a country that has opened its arms to people from around the world. That is why we are so great. We have to bring that back. We have to bring people in to visit this country. The Travel Promotion Act will do just that. By boosting travel to the United States it will also give a boost to our economy. So it is a win- win for the tourism industry, for jobs for America, and for the American people. Senator Dorgan went through the bill. I do want to emphasize that not only will this consist of travel promotion and promoting our country, like other countries have been doing for years that have been leapfrogging us in this market, additionally, this legislation will establish the Office of Travel Promotion in the Department of Commerce to work with the Corporation for Travel Promotion and the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to encourage travel and to make sure international visitors are processed efficiently. It does not cost taxpayers a cent, as Senator Dorgan pointed out, and economists expect it to generate billions for our economy. According to an analysis by Oxford Economics, this tourism program is estimated to attract 1.6 million new international visitors annually and create $4 billion in new spending in our country, creating 40,000 new jobs. We know we need to bring back business travel. We should not let a few bad actors influence the decisions of good companies around this country. We know we have to look, this summer, for affordable deals for our families, and people are staying close to home. We want our Minnesotans to go fishing in Minnesota. I say to the Presiding Officer, I would love to ask you if you know how much money people spend alone in Minnesota on bait and worms every year. I will tell you the answer. It has probably never been uttered before in this Chamber: $50 million a year. Minnesotans and visitors to our State spend $50 million a year on bait and worms for recreational fishing--just to give you an idea of what we are talking about when we talk about tourism spending. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I look forward to working on this bill on the floor in the days to come.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to speak out in support of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, which will help to end the abusive practices of the credit card industry that are hurting so many hard-working middle-class families. I thank Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for their efforts to come together on a bill that protects consumers and brings so much needed relief to Main Street families. It has been a long time in coming. I wish we had been able to pass this a few weeks ago, but I am hopeful we will be able to get it done this week. As families are sitting around the kitchen table looking at their budgets, they have a lot of expenses to deal with--the basics such as food, electricity, the rising cost of college and health care, and growing credit card bills. Seventy-eight percent of households in this country have at least one credit card. At the end of last year, Americans' credit card debt was more than $972 billion. The average household debt is more than $8,300. This does basically track--when you look back over the last 8 to 10 years--where wages have gone down and expenses have gone up. I know that before we entered this economic crisis, it was about $6,000 that the average middle-class family was behind. Now you see $8,300--their credit cards. But it is not just debt that families are paying off. In 2006, two-thirds of the credit card companies' profits came from interest payments. So millions of families are dealing with huge amounts of credit card debt at the same time they are dealing with the many other challenges that are a result of this economic downturn. Their hours have been reduced or one of them may have lost a job or they may have difficulty sending their kids to college. This isn't just an economic issue, it is also an issue of fairness and common sense. I believe Americans have the obligation and duty to pay the debts they owe. But too many credit card companies are using deceptive practices and fine print to take advantage of hard-working American families. The credit card companies are using tiny words on the back of the bills, and they are doing this to pad their own profits. Many companies hide the terms of the agreement behind fine print and confusing language. They apply payments to the low-rate balances before high-rate balances and, worst of all, they raise interest rates without proper notice. According to the Consumers Union, a study of the 12 largest credit card issuers found that 93 percent of credit cards allowed the issuer to raise the interest rate ``at any time'' by changing the agreement; 93 percent of credit cards allow the issuer--the credit card company-- to raise the interest rate at any time by simply changing the agreement. This isn't right. Credit card companies should not be making a profit by pulling the rug out from under American consumers. When I think about this issue, I don't just think about that 93 percent figure, I think about people in my State who have played by the rules and used credit cards responsibly and made timely payments and have good credit ratings--only to turn around and have the rules changed. I heard from one man in Mahtomedi, MN, who had a credit rating of 800. He had never made a late payment, had never been delinquent on his account in any way. He got word in April that his fixed rate of 5.9 percent was going up to 10.9 percent in May and would thereafter be a variable rate; that is, what used to be a fixed rate at 5.9 percent will be changing constantly. He will have no control. He called the credit card company to complain and, do you know what. The credit card company told him he ought to be happy because his was one of the lower rate increases. They told him he should not take it personally. It is awfully hard not to take these rate increases personally when you have not done anything to justify having your rate increased, when you are going to have a tough time making ends meet anyway because of the tough economy, and because you have to pay so much more to keep a card you have had for years and years. I also heard from a woman in St. Joseph, MN. She had her credit card for 12 years. She had never been late on a payment and has her credit card bill automatically paid from her checking account every month. She recently contacted her credit card company because she noticed her interest rate had suddenly gone up a lot in 1 month. She had received no advance notice from her bank about the interest rate increase. But her problems didn't stop there. The problem was that the credit card company applied the new interest rate to her existing balance, and with the new interest rate factored in, her balance suddenly exceeded her available credit. Do you know what? She got hit with another interest rate increase. This woman, who had been a great customer for 12 years, saw her interest rate go up from 8 percent, to 19.3 percent, to 27 percent--all in a matter of 16 days--and through absolutely no fault of her own. She started at 8 percent and she had the money deducted from her checking account every month and she had not had any problems with late payments. She starts at 8 percent, goes up to 19.3 percent, and she ends up at 27 percent--all in a matter of 16 days, through no fault of her own. They raised the interest rate without telling her, applied it to her existing account balance and, suddenly, she was stuck with a problem she didn't even create. In the letter she wrote to me, she asked some valid and heartbreaking questions: How is something like this legal? How can the credit card companies make it even harder in such hard times? These are questions a lot of hard-working Minnesotans and other Americans are asking today, and they deserve answers. We want Americans to pay their debt, and we want our businesses to succeed, but consumers deserve a level playing field, they deserve some rules of the road, and they deserve an end to the abuses and deceptive practices by the credit card industry. The credit card bill that is on the floor is going to do that. The bill will put commonsense rules into place to ensure fairness for consumers. First, the bill protects people from arbitrary interest rate increases, such as we saw with the man from Mahtomedi, MN, and the woman from St. Joseph, MN. It establishes fair rules and makes sense for how and when companies can raise interest rates. Additionally, the bill prohibits credit card companies from increasing rates on a cardholder for the first year when that account is open. Second, the bill requires credit card companies to give people 45 days' notice of interest rate, fee, and finance charge increases. This will ensure that people such as the woman from St. Joseph, MN, who wrote me, would not see any surprises on their credit card statements anymore. They will get a notice. Third, the bill prevents credit card companies from charging abusive fees. For example, credit card companies would not be able to charge you a fee for the ``privilege'' of paying down your credit card. Fourth, the bill requires more transparency from credit card companies. Credit card bills will be mailed 3 weeks before they are due to give consumers plenty of advance warning. Credit card companies will have to disclose any changes to the terms of a credit card agreement when people renew their cards. They will have to be upfront about the length of time and the total interest it will take to pay off the card balance if people only make minimum monthly payments. I think that would be helpful for many people I know, if they knew exactly how long it would take--if they just pay the minimum amount--and how much extra they would be paying. They will have to post their credit card agreements on the Internet so people can look at them anytime and compare them. Fifth, the bill strengthens oversight of the credit card industry so we can hold companies accountable for their behavior. This legislation will give consumers much-needed protections from bad practices that have been going on for too long. It is the beginning of leveling the playing field. If we are going to get our economy moving, we need to restore trust in our financial systems, and when it comes to the credit card industry, that means protecting consumers from unfair practices and putting into place commonsense rules that will bring much-needed transparency and accountability. We will be voting on this bill shortly. When I cast my vote, I will be voting for all the people in my State who are working hard and playing by the rules and just want the credit card companies to do the same. We cannot forget that the ultimate goal of reviving our economy is to make it possible for people in this country--who have worked hard, done everything right, paid their bills, and gotten these credit card bills--to get ahead. This bipartisan legislation, which I cosponsored, will end the unfair practices that have been going on too long for Main Street families, so they can keep more of their hard-earned money. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 appreciate that from the Senator from Maine. The manager of the bill, the Senator from Connecticut, will be returning shortly.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Battery D of the 216th Air Defense Artillery on receiving the U.S. Army's Valorous Unit Award for extraordinary heroism against an armed enemy while deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is the second highest unit decoration in the Army and a proud achievement. Our State and our country are grateful to have these brave men and women serving in the Minnesota National Guard. America's National Guard and Reserve Forces are playing an increasingly important role in today's military, and time and again the Minnesota National Guard has answered the call of duty. Delta Battery answered the call by serving in Iraq during a time of great need, and their actions helped make the formation of an Iraqi government possible. It is stories like theirs that have made the Minnesota National Guard such a well-known and well-respected organization at the highest levels of our Nation's military and Government. As Minnesota's Senator, I will continue to do my part to make sure that our Government serves our men and women in uniform as well as they have served our country. This includes doing more to make sure that members of the Guard and Reserve Forces who have been called to Active Duty are not treated any differently than their Active Duty counterparts when they return home. There wasn't a waiting line when our National Guard troops signed up to serve, and there shouldn't be a waiting line when they need access to the services and support they have earned through their service. Every day I feel honored to represent the members of the Minnesota National Guard in the Senate. We owe our thanks to Adjutant General Larry Shellito for his steady leadership and to our troops for what they do every day. It does not go unnoticed.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment on receiving the U.S. Army's Meritorious Unit Commendation for exceptionally meritorious conduct while deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I join the U.S. Army in recognizing this unit for their outstanding devotion and superior performance in military operations against an armed enemy. Our State and our country are grateful to have these brave men and women serving in the Minnesota National Guard. America's National Guard and Reserve Forces are playing an increasingly important role in today's military, and time and again the Minnesota National Guard has answered the call of duty. The 1-125th Regiment answered the call by serving in Iraq during a time of great need, and their actions helped reduce violence in that country. It is stories such as theirs that have made the Minnesota National Guard such a well-known and well-respected organization at the highest levels of our Nation's military and Government. As Minnesota's Senator, I will continue to do my part to make sure that our Government serves our men and women in uniform as well as they have served our country. This includes doing more to make sure that members of the Guard and Reserve Forces who have been called to Active Duty are not treated any differently than their Active-duty Counterparts when they return home. There wasn't a waiting line when our National Guard troops signed up to serve, and there shouldn't be a waiting line when they need access to the services and support they have earned through their service. Every day I feel honored to represent the members of the Minnesota National Guard in the Senate. We owe our thanks to Adjutant General Larry Shellito for his steady leadership and to our troops for what they do every day. It does not go unnoticed.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Dodd for his efforts to provide solutions to our neighborhoods and middle-class families to address the subprime and foreclosure crisis. As the Nation struggles to deal with the fallout from subprime lending and the credit crunch, it is critical that families have access to safe, fair and affordable mortgages. Borrower protections, like those we have in Minnesota, should be national policy to help safeguard families across the country. A decade ago, just 5 percent of mortgage loan originations were subprime--meaning that they were made to borrowers who would not qualify for regular mortgages. By 2005, 20 percent of new mortgages were subprime. This may have expanded access to home ownership, at least temporarily, for some people; but it also greatly increased the risk our system. In Minnesota, in 2000, there were 8,347 subprime mortgages issued. By 2005, it had increased more than fivefold to more than 47,000 subprime mortgages. However, we now know that between 60 percent-65 percent of people who ended up with subprime mortgages actually qualified for traditional mortgages. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again. That is why I have introduced the Homeowner Fairness Act, which is comprehensive housing reform legislation that proposes tough new national standards based on the successes of the Minnesota mortgage lending law passed in 2007. The bill would put in place a number of key reforms. It would require all mortgage originators to verify a borrower's ability to repay a mortgage before giving loan approval. In addition, the bill would require mortgage brokers to have a minimum net worth of $500,000 while also subjecting them to fiduciary duties obligating them to act in the best interest of their clients. It further bans prepayment penalties and limits up-front fees to no more than 5 percent of the initial principal of the loan. Importantly, the bill prohibits ``steering,'' which is the act of approving a loan at a higher rate than that for which a borrower qualifies. We need to make sure that abusive and exploitative mortgage practices come to an end. For far too long, subprime lenders have put the homes and home equity of Americans at unnecessary risk. These commons sense protections, modeled after Minnesota law, are essential to restoring our economy and preventing a future crisis in the housing market.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 106 submitted earlier today.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 22; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period of morning business for up to 30 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; further, I ask that following morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, as previously ordered.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, as if in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the nomination of Francisco J. Sanchez, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, received in the Senate on April 20, be jointly referred to the Committees on Finance and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 107 submitted earlier today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 48, S. Res. 87.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the 30 minutes on our side?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for being so gracious to allow me to speak at this time. I am speaking today in support of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act which I believe is an important and timely piece of legislation that I cosponsored and helped to vote out of our Judiciary Committee. I also thank Senators Leahy, Grassley, and Kaufman, all of whom spoke this afternoon, for their leadership and their work on this bill. I believe this bill will greatly increase our ability to prosecute and prevent financial crime. I also note that the President and the administration have come out with their statement on administration policy on this bill and it is very positive, and they are supportive of this bill. Unfortunately, the need for this legislation could never have been clearer. The Madoff scandal is only one big example of why we need this bill. Because of one man--one man--$65 billion has been lost in this country. It has been a loss to investors, a loss to people who have nothing left, a loss to some of the charities and charitable organizations in this country that are trying to help people in need during this difficult time. In my home State of Minnesota, literally dozens and dozens of people have lost significant sums of money, and our charities are suffering. This isn't right. After years of lax oversight and investigation, we are beginning to see many financial crimes come to light as the victims of financial fraud have emerged to tell their stories. During a recent Judiciary Committee hearing on fraud enforcement, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Justice Department said that as the economy has declined: What we may be starting to see [are] . . . these sorts of Ponzy schemes that were able to go along for a little while. And then all of a sudden, there's a rush by the victims of schemes who don't know they're victims yet. And then the money's not there when they go to get the money out. In other words, as we would say in Minnesota, the chickens are coming home to roost. All of this reminds me of a famous passage about embezzlement in John Kenneth Galbraith's classic book, ``The Great Crash 1929.'' I remember this because I would often use it as a prosecutor in Minnesota when I would address the legislature about the need to focus on white-collar crimes, especially in times of economic difficulty, and this is what he said: In goods times, people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always many people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows [and] the rate of discovery falls off. In depression, all this is reversed. Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous. Commercial morality is enormously improved. This may be an almost perfect description of our own time. As Galbraith suggested, our bad economy is now exposing financial crimes that have been concealed for many years. In the past 3 years, the number of criminal mortgage fraud investigations opened by the FBI, as Senator Leahy explained, has doubled. And in the past 6 years, there has been a nearly tenfold increase in the number of reports filed with the Treasury Department alleging mortgage fraud. I fear this is the tip of the iceberg. As our economy has declined, crime will be on the rise. And with billions of dollars going out the door to stimulate the economy--important job-creating investments in transportation infrastructure and broadband networks and much more--we know there are going to be people trying to bilk the system, whether it is for that or the TARP money, and steal money for their own personal profit. So it is critical that we have a Justice Department and an FBI that will hold accountable the people who are getting government funds, that will watch over the taxpayers' money, and that will make sure people such as Bernie Madoff are prosecuted and brought to justice. In order to do that, we need to make sure law enforcement has the tools and the resources they need to effectively fight, investigate, and prosecute these crimes. Before entering the Senate, I served as the chief prosecutor for Hennepin County in Minnesota, which consists of Minneapolis and 45 suburban communities. We worked extensively with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI and other Federal agencies on white-collar crime. I remember it well because after the tragedy on 9/11, a number of the white-collar cases that were previously being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office came to our office since we were the largest prosecutor's office in the State. We took both cases on. We got the people in place to handle them. But I saw then how resource intensive these cases can be. Most prosecutors have a simple saying about financial fraud cases: ``Follow the money and you will find the crooks.'' Of course, in reality, it is often very hard to do that. It is very time consuming and very expensive to look through thousands and thousands of boxes of documents and computer files to find that money trail and to follow it to where it goes to mortgage fraud and financial fraud. In fact, many white-collar crimes require complex investigations and significant resources to catch the crooks and prosecute them. They often require special--and expensive--expertise such as individual skills in accounting or computer forensics. Although it is hard and more complex to catch white-collar criminals, it is no less important. For the sake of our economy, for the sake of justice, we must hold people accountable for their crimes, whether it is robbing a convenience store or using a computer to bilk investors out of millions of dollars. Prosecuting financial crimes also has a ripple effect. Increased enforcement acts as a deterrent, sending a clear message to those who might want to commit financial fraud that wrongdoers will be prosecuted and subject to the full extent of the law. So oftentimes these white- collar criminals somehow see themselves above the law because they have a good job and because they know people in town. I can say that once we started prosecuting these people, a lot of people started turning money in. My favorite was when we started prosecuting nine commercial airline pilots for not paying taxes to the Minnesota Revenue Department. We suddenly got millions of dollars into the coffers of the revenue department in the State of Minnesota because it turned out other people were also maybe opening up post office boxes in other States and pretending to live there instead of in our State. So there can be a great deterrent effect and bring money in from people who haven't been paying their taxes or actually committing fraud. Unfortunately, in the last 8 years on the Federal level, I believe there hasn't been enough of this, partly because we haven't had the resources and partly because some of the regulatory agencies have been basically asleep at the wheel. After the attacks on September 11, the FBI understandably reduced its criminal investigator work to expand its national security role, shifting more than 1,800 agents--or nearly one-third of all agents who were in criminal programs--to terrorism and intelligence duties. Current and former officials say that the cutbacks have left the FBI seriously exposed in investigating an area such as white-collar crime. Right now, the FBI doesn't have enough staff to investigate or even review the 5,000-plus fraud allegations that the Treasury Department receives every month. Make no mistake, this is having an effect on our economy. In addition to the many families losing their hard-earned money and their homes, fraud has contributed to the collapse in the mortgage-backed securities market. In the past year, banks and financial institutions in our country lost more than $500 billion because of the subprime mortgage industry. That is why the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act is so important. The bill authorizes $165 million a year for the Justice Department to hire fraud prosecutors and investigators, including funds for the FBI to bring on an additional 190 special agents and more than 200 professional staff and forensic analysts to rebuild its white-collar investigation program. Additionally, the bill will provide resources for the FBI to double the number of mortgage fraud task forces nationwide that target fraud in the hardest hit areas of our country. I am a big believer in these task forces as a way of bringing local and Federal law enforcement together. We have seen it work effectively in a number of areas across the country. In addition to making sure law enforcement has the resources it needs, this legislation also makes sure they have the tools needed to crack down on financial crime. This bill makes it easier to prosecute mortgage lending businesses for fraud--the predatory lenders. These companies were responsible for nearly half of the residential mortgage market before the economic collapse. Yet they currently remain largely unregulated and outside the scope of traditional Federal fraud statutes. This makes no sense. By amending the criminal code, we can hold unregulated mortgage businesses responsible for their actions. Federal fraud laws should apply to private mortgage businesses such as Countrywide Home Loans and GMAC Mortgage, just as they apply to federally insured and regulated banks. I know we have a lot of very healthy banks in Minnesota and they have been fighting for this for years. Why should they be held to a different standard? Why should some of these mortgage companies not be held to the same fiduciary duty as these banks? As a former prosecutor, I know firsthand how challenging it can be to go after these financial crimes, but I also know how important it is. If we are going to get our economy back on track, we have to restore trust in our financial system. That starts with stopping fraud and crime. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act will give our law enforcement agencies the tools and resources they need to do this. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support this incredibly important piece of legislation. The time is right. We not only have the fraud we are already seeing come to light but we also know there are a number of possibilities for fraud as we have seen in the past when government funds go out. There has to be the policeman on the corner. That is our FBI, that is our task forces with local law enforcement, and that is our prosecutors watching what happens so we don't let another Bernie Madoff slip through the cracks. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I say to Senator Inhofe, we will not be. I will only go 10 minutes.