Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. We are in a very similar situation here, where we have a noncompetitive industry, costs going through the roof. There is a basic factor at work which is, if we introduce competition in health care, service will improve, costs will come down. Choice is much more important in this area than just about any other. If you are not satisfied with the cost of your insurance or the service you are receiving, then you should have multiple places to go. That is the underlying point of creating a health care marketplace or exchange, as it is called, so citizens can say: Here are all the plans competing against each other. What are they going to offer? A year later, if you are not happy, you get to switch, which says to every single insurance company, if we don't do well, we are going to lose our customers. That is the marketplace. That is competition. That is what we need in America. It will be helped by having a public option.

Mr. MERKLEY. I can tell you a couple stories from Oregon. There was an article in the Bend Bulletin in October about two families. One individual, Dale Evans, went to his doctor because he was experiencing pain in his chest. His doctor recommended he have an MRI to find out what was going on. The request was made three times. The insurance company turned it down three times. Because he didn't have this test, there was no diagnosis made of the cancerous tumor he had. His tumor proceeded to damage the nerves in his spinal cord and left him unable to walk. Then it became too large to be operated on. Mr. Evans died the following year, in 2008. As a result of the choice made by the insurance company, a for-profit insurance company, the test was not conducted and the individual died. Richard Paulus of Bend, OR, has a similar case being filed right now. He, fortunately, is still alive. He was denied repeated requests for back surgery. His doctor argued for a second opinion. The request was made, turned down again. One factor is, you want to have an insurance company that is making decisions related to healing, not related to profits. The second factor is, one of the best ways to drive that, if Mr. Evans and Mr. Paulus were not satisfied, if they had a choice, they would be much more likely to create accountability with the company they are with right now.

Mr. MERKLEY. Your point is well taken. The overhead in the private health care industry is now 25 to 30 percent. That is a whole lot of folks sitting around desks operating with paper rather than nurses and nurse practitioners and doctors practicing the craft of medicine, the craft of healing. Whereas, if you look at Medicare, instead of 25 to 30 percent overhead, it is somewhere around 3 percent--much less and, therefore, a lot more dollars going into actually assisting folks in getting well. Again, competition is going to drive down that overhead.

Mr. MERKLEY. I say to the Senator, let me give you an example of how that competition can work in a health insurance marketplace. In Oregon, we have a public option in workers compensation, which is health insurance for injuries that occur on the job. We have had this public option for 80 years. It did not work that well. It was not that well designed, and it was not that well managed. About 20 years ago, a group of businesses got together, and the businesses said: We need a better insurance policy. We need a better competitive market for on-the-job health insurance. So in a deal that was called the Mahonia Hall deal, Mahonia Hall rewrote and improved the management of our public option. The result is, rates today in workers compensation in Oregon are half of what they were 20 years ago, because competition was introduced, efficiencies occurred, service improved. I can tell you, there is not a business in Oregon to be found campaigning to eliminate the State accident insurance fund, which is a public option in work-based health care. Our colleague Sheldon Whitehouse was involved in establishing a very similar program in Rhode Island. Their workers comp, he told me--and I think he has told this Chamber--introduced by Rhode Island adopting a work-based health care public option resulted in their rates dropping by half. Wouldn't it be great if competition could reduce health care costs in America rather than having 10 to 15 percent increases every single year?

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, there was a time when our colleagues across the aisle were in favor of competition. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the past, we used to have a highly regulated, noncompetitive airline industry. Was it not our good friends across the aisle who said we need to create competition so consumers have real choice and this will drive the cost of airline tickets down? Am I mixed up on that or is that fairly accurate?

Mr. MERKLEY. Yes. The reason we have lost competition is twofold. One, in many markets, a single company dominates the market. Second, even if you have multiple companies, they are exempt from the antitrust laws and, therefore they can communicate with each other in a way that reduces or even eliminates real competition. That is why this is so important. There is one feature of this public option that I think is important to recognize. It represents a huge compromise, and that compromise is that many of our Senators said: We are not sure our folks back home are quite sold on this idea, and we do not want to see it ``forced on them.'' Quite frankly, I think it would be good to have competition everywhere in the country, everyone have more choices. But in deference to that Federalist tradition in America, in deference to the laboratory of State experimentation, a provision has been included in Senator Reid's merged bill that says if a State does not want to participate, it can opt out. So there is no Senator in this Chamber who should have any concern about saying my folks back home do not want this, and they are going to be forced to have it, because no State will be put in that position. Any State can choose to say: We do not wish to participate. I think that means we will have a situation where many States--most States, I believe--perhaps virtually all States will say: We do want to participate. But those States that are not so convinced will have a choice to watch this unfold to decide if they wish to join this movement for competition and choice later on.

Mr. MERKLEY. There are folks who have said: Well, now, hold on. Isn't this a government takeover of health care? Since that has been said so many times on this floor by those who oppose health care reform, I think we should address it directly. Introducing a competitor does not have the government taking over health care. It is an option citizens can choose--if they are not satisfied with the current performance-- competing on a level playing field. This is exactly what you need when you have markets that have lost their competition. It is important to note this phrase ``government takeover'' came out of a study that was contracted for by my colleagues across the aisle to say: How can we defeat health care? They polled folks in America and said: What are the scariest terms we can use--even though we do not know what the plan is; even though we do not know whether the plan is going to invest in prevention; we do not know if the plan is going to invest in disease management; we do not know if the plan is going to have healthy choice incentives that will help improve the quality of life of Americans and decrease health care costs; we do not know if we will have insurance reforms that will get rid of dumping, the practice of throwing people off their health care plan once they get sick; we do not know whether there will be reforms that say there will be guaranteed issue, you cannot be denied the opportunity to have health care because of preexisting conditions. We do not know any of that, but whatever it is, we are going to be against it. So let's do a study now. And they contracted to do the studies. Let's find out how to scare Americans. The result was: Let's call it a government takeover. I have to tell you, this is too important an issue to the citizens of our Nation. Health care touches every individual, touches every small business trying to succeed. It touches every large business trying to compete around the world, with much more efficient--much more efficient--health care systems in other countries. It is too important than to do studies to try to find words to scare Americans. How about we try to solve problems in this Chamber? I am going to tell you, I think this bill put forward last night by Majority Leader Reid is about solving a problem absolutely critical to our economy, critical to our small businesses, critical to the quality of life of our families.

Mr. MERKLEY. Many Americans are familiar with the tradition of a filibuster, and they envision it where Senators stand up and speak and speak on an issue of principle. That was used very rarely in the past. In fact, now all that is required is for one Senator to object to unanimous consent, and then you need to have a 60-vote test. This 60-vote test is most often used at the end of a debate to say: Do we go to a final vote? Are we going to wrap up debate and go to a final vote? But in this case, as the Senator has described it, it is going to be used even to hold a debate on health care in this Chamber. All my life--I first came to this Chamber when I was an intern for Senator Hatfield in 1976--all my life, I have heard the Senate described as ``the world's greatest deliberative body.'' Well, that is a pretty cool thing. But are you telling me that folks are going to try to block this Chamber from even debating health care?

Mr. MERKLEY. I join the Senator in saying to all my colleagues, do not fear debate on health care. We are here, and it is our job to come and debate. It is our job to come and talk about how important it is to have insurance reforms so people are not barred because of preexisting conditions, people are not dumped after a decade of being provided insurance because they get sick. It is so important we have this debate, and I look forward to having it, and hope all colleagues will join in saying: Yes, no matter which side of this issue you are on, it is time to debate, as our citizens have sent us here to do.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Ron Wyden, Max Baucus, and Jon Tester, as I introduce the Forest Harvest Opportunity Act. This legislation will provide a very simple, yet critical, solution to a significant problem currently facing timber communities across the country. As we all know, rural communities across the country have been hit particularly hard by our current economic recession. The unemployment rate for rural counties is far greater than the national average; it surpasses 20 percent in many of the rural communities in my own home state. As my colleagues have heard me mention on numerous occasions, many of our rural communities have been doubly hurt by the current economic recession because they depend on harvests from federally-owned forest land as a major component of their economies. These communities have already been struggling because timber harvests on our Federal land have been declining, but they are facing even worse situations today because the collapse of the housing market has caused a precipitous drop in timber prices. For some of our forestry companies, this creates an even worse situation: the contracts they have to harvest timber on Federal land are now worthless. Many of these contracts were signed with the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management before the recession, when timber prices were still high. However, because of the decline in timber prices, harvesting today would cost forest companies more than the wood is worth and could cause ruinous problems for some of these companies. The solution is simple common sense: allow companies to apply for additional time to harvest wood they have contracted for in times of unique economic circumstances. This simple change would allow these companies to delay the harvest until the price of timber had returned to a point that enabled the forest companies to earn a profit on the harvest. This change is not a novel idea. In fact, the Forest Service has rules in place allowing to do exactly that. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management does not have similar rules in place. So, based simply on which agency a company has a contract with--and in Oregon Forest Service and BLM lands can be side-by-side--these companies may be forced to harvest timber at a loss or walk away from a contract they have won after a fair bidding process. The Forest Harvest Opportunity Act provides a simple solution and allows these companies--and only companies who have contracts right now during the current recession--to petition for and receive an extension so they can harvest when timber prices return to a normal rate. This bill is a simple solution to address an important problem. Enacting this legislation would provide significant economic help for communities that are already among the hardest-hit by this economic downturn. I look forward to working with my colleagues for its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Ron Wyden, Max Baucus, and Jon Tester, as I introduce the Forest Harvest Opportunity Act. This legislation will provide a very simple, yet critical, solution to a significant problem currently facing timber communities across the country. As we all know, rural communities across the country have been hit particularly hard by our current economic recession. The unemployment rate for rural counties is far greater than the national average; it surpasses 20 percent in many of the rural communities in my own home state. As my colleagues have heard me mention on numerous occasions, many of our rural communities have been doubly hurt by the current economic recession because they depend on harvests from federally-owned forest land as a major component of their economies. These communities have already been struggling because timber harvests on our Federal land have been declining, but they are facing even worse situations today because the collapse of the housing market has caused a precipitous drop in timber prices. For some of our forestry companies, this creates an even worse situation: the contracts they have to harvest timber on Federal land are now worthless. Many of these contracts were signed with the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management before the recession, when timber prices were still high. However, because of the decline in timber prices, harvesting today would cost forest companies more than the wood is worth and could cause ruinous problems for some of these companies. The solution is simple common sense: allow companies to apply for additional time to harvest wood they have contracted for in times of unique economic circumstances. This simple change would allow these companies to delay the harvest until the price of timber had returned to a point that enabled the forest companies to earn a profit on the harvest. This change is not a novel idea. In fact, the Forest Service has rules in place allowing to do exactly that. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management does not have similar rules in place. So, based simply on which agency a company has a contract with--and in Oregon Forest Service and BLM lands can be side-by-side--these companies may be forced to harvest timber at a loss or walk away from a contract they have won after a fair bidding process. The Forest Harvest Opportunity Act provides a simple solution and allows these companies--and only companies who have contracts right now during the current recession--to petition for and receive an extension so they can harvest when timber prices return to a normal rate. This bill is a simple solution to address an important problem. Enacting this legislation would provide significant economic help for communities that are already among the hardest-hit by this economic downturn. I look forward to working with my colleagues for its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my team, Jeanne Atkins, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today in support of our Nation's veterans and in support of their families. Ninety years ago tomorrow, our Nation marked the very first Armistice Day in recognition of the end of World War I. In 1954, Armistice Day became Veterans Day, and every year since, we have marked the occasion through ceremonies, pageants, parades, and other events designed to honor the men and women who have served this Nation so selflessly in the Armed Forces. I encourage all Americans to use the opportunity of Veterans Day to let those around you who have served our Nation, those in your community, know how thankful we are for their contributions. I know that across our Nation there will be remembrances of those we have lost and honors to those who have served in the past or who are serving today, but we can and should do more to honor our Nation's veterans. We should make sure they have access to the health care we have promised. We should make sure their caregivers are given the support they need to assist our wounded warriors. We should expand health services for female veterans. We should do more for veterans in hard-to-reach rural areas. We should increase our mental health services for veterans because injuries to the brain deserve the same attention as injuries to the body. These programs--access to health care, support to caregivers, services for female veterans, services to rural veterans, improved mental health services--are all included in the bills that have been put into the veterans package, the Caregiver and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009. I have cosponsored a number of these bills and will passionately support this package. Our servicemembers stand up for America when on duty. America must stand up for our servicemembers when they return home. The legislation before us has wide bipartisan support. It has been endorsed by organizations, including the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. It has been endorsed by the American Legion. It has been endorsed by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It has been endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It has been endorsed by the Wounded Warrior Project. Each of these groups wants to see a vote on this omnibus package of support for our veterans and to see that vote happen now. But we in the Senate are not here debating this package, we are not here preparing to vote on this bill because a single Senator has objected to having an up-or-down vote. Our veterans deserve to have this Chamber debate this bill. They deserve to have this Chamber vote up or down on this bill. Tomorrow we will honor our veterans through ceremonies across this Nation. But we should do more than simply honor our veterans; we should act to stand up for our veterans. We need to stand with them and their families as they have stood up for us when on duty. We should move expeditiously, and I encourage all Senators to support the effort to quickly have this bill before us for a debate and an up-or-down vote. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow, Nadine Kokolus, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I will.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New Jersey for his remarks, for his reminder that health care is not about profits, it is not about salaries of the CEOs, it is about health care for Americans so that all citizens have access to affordable and quality health care. That is what this debate is about. One component of that debate is extending the opportunity for health care to those who do not have that opportunity right now. Another part of this debate is about improving the way insurance works for those who already have insurance. That is what I want to address tonight. There are common practices in our insurance industry, our health care system, and that includes exclusion of preexisting conditions, gender discrimination, arbitrary annual spending limits or lifetime spending limits, and dumping--the practice of kicking people off policies when they get sick. They go against the very idea of insurance. What people expect is that their health insurance will be there if they need it. What they often find is it is not there. For example, many people do not realize their insurer has placed an arbitrary limit on how much care they can get in a single year or over the course of their lifetime. A person may be paying monthly premiums, perhaps $500 a month in premiums, every month for years, adding up to tens of thousands of dollars. That person may be going forth in that fashion, needing not so much as a checkup, but then they are struck by a serious illness or a serious accident and they need regular and sometimes expensive care. Suddenly they find out that the thousands of dollars in premiums they have paid do not actually guarantee they will get the care they need. I will give an example from my home State of Oregon. Alaya Wyndham- Price is a healthy 27-year-old from Lake Oswego, OR. She had insurance but had no reason to think she would actually need it, given that she was healthy and she was young. Imagine her surprise when she was diagnosed with a tumor the size of a golf ball just below her brain. Then imagine her further shock when she found out that her insurance policy caps treatment at $20,000 a year. It took $30,000 of tests--and it doesn't take a whole lot of testing to run up that kind of bill--to determine the best treatment for her tumor. The surgery to remove that tumor is going to cost $50,000, but because of Alaya's limit, she has to put off the surgery until next year. That means further hardship on her, for her family--emotionally, physically, and financially. As she told me this story a couple of weeks ago, I kept pondering, what will that delay do to her ultimate health outcome? How much opportunity is that delay affording to a tumor that doesn't have her health in mind as it grows? These caps are not right. It is not right to tell someone who is gravely ill that they can only have so much health care in a given year. It is not right to ration treatments on the ability to pay. It is not right to collect premiums year after year and then in the fine print put in an annual cap that denies care when it is desperately needed. Alaya has insurance but she has already amassed a massive amount of debt. Hopefully, she will be able to continue paying her bills and not have this critical health care issue also drive her into a critical financial situation, into bankruptcy. Indeed, that is what happens to many Americans who have health insurance. Half the people who declare bankruptcy do so because of medical bills, and three- fourths of those who declare bankruptcy because of medical bills had insurance. Insurance at the least is supposed to be the way to keep yourself financially solvent in the case of a disaster, but that is not what is happening for millions of Americans. It is not working for many Americans. Insurance failed Kathryn Peper of Tigard, OR. Katherine had trouble getting any insurance because she had high cholesterol, a common condition but enough to allow the insurers to deny her application because of this preexisting condition. She did finally find a policy-- $550 a month. She paid that premium and one would think insurance at that price would pay some of her medical expenses, but she found out it did not. Her insurer routinely refused to pay for even simple doctor appointments. So she was paying a huge amount for insurance and getting no coverage as a result, when she needed it to go to the doctor. She finally canceled her policy, and she now pays out of pocket for each visit, and she hopes she does not have a debilitating condition come up or an accident. There are other practices. I mentioned dumping. This is egregious. Imagine you pay your premium year after year, month after month, stretching over 10, 15 years, and then you have that accident or that disease that lands you in the hospital and you need a lot of care. You get a letter from your insurance company saying: We don't think you are a good insurance risk anymore so we are canceling your insurance. At the end of that year you are suddenly stuck with massive bills and no insurance coverage to pay for the ongoing treatments you need. That is not right. We have built our health care system around private insurance and private insurance remains an integral part of health care reform. But things have to change. We can't continue to have our citizens pay millions to insurers and see so little in return. It is not good for the health of the American people or our Nation. We need an insurance policyholder bill of rights. It needs to have guaranteed issue, no blocks as a result of preexisting conditions, no rejection because of preexisting conditions. It needs to have no arbitrary annual or lifetime limits. It needs to say no dumping, and it needs to say no gender discrimination. Each and every one of these concepts was debated in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and incorporated into the bill that came out of that committee. These are principles I want to see carried straight through until we put this health care reform on the President's desk. It is time to act for the citizens of this Nation. It is time to have a health care system that works for working Americans.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address one particular aspect of the bill before us, the Home Ownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009. Home ownership is addressed in this bill through an extension of the $8,000 credit to first-time home buyers. There are some adjustments to that credit encapsulated in the bill, but I will not get into that. I want to address a different aspect. This is an idea that hasn't been fully debated in the Senate. I think it is an appropriate time to put it forward. We need a permanent $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. Folks may say: But we have a mortgage interest deduction, and that is a major home ownership program in America. Why should we have a downpayment tax credit for first-time home buyers on an ongoing basis? In the bill before us, the tax credit is designed to stimulate the economy, stimulate the housing market. But I put this idea forward from a different direction--the direction of empowering our working families through home ownership. Why is that so important? I will tell you and I will give you a few vignettes. I spent years working as director for Habitat for Humanities, working with low-income families trying to become homeowners. The community made it affordable and possible by donating land and materials and participating in the construction of the home. Habitat sold the homes to the individuals on a zero interest mortgage. Those families participated in the construction, which is often called ``sweat equity.'' They were out there hammering nails, putting up walls, pouring foundations, putting on roofing, putting their own labor and sweat into the construction of the house. What I saw through that experience was the profound impact of home ownership on working families. I saw families, who were unstable and had been going from living in a van to living in a basement, become stable. I saw the positive impact on the children, who had never been able to invite a friend over before--now having pride in their home and having the ability to invite friends over, having more self-respect. I saw them doing better in school. I saw parents who didn't believe they had a stake in the community. Now they had a stake in the community, and that affected the way they behaved. They became more involved in the affairs of the community. I want to turn first to laying out the fact that studies that look at the details of home ownership impact find that indeed home ownership has an enormous impact on working families. Sociologist R. J. Bursik found that crime, unemployment, suicides, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, and drug use are decreased by home ownership. The Journal of Urban Economics found that children in home-owning families tend to have higher levels of achievement in math and reading, to have fewer behavioral problems, stay in school longer, are more likely to graduate from high school, and are more likely to go to college. A study by Alba, Logan, and Bellaire titled ``Living with Crime'' found that home ownership resulted in family members being significantly less likely to be involved in crime. All of this is common sense. It is common sense that a family who feels part of a community is going to be less likely to be involved in crime, is going to be more involved in the community, that children who have more stable lives have more self-respect and are going to fare better in school. The stability of home ownership makes it more likely that children are going to graduate from high school. But I think it is important to document those impacts from the studies, as well as from our common sense or from vignettes. We have a major program in America, the home mortgage interest deduction, which is designed to facilitate home ownership. It is a terrific program, but the program does not assist working families getting into their first homes. Let me put up a chart to explain what I am talking about. Take a working family. Maybe they are earning $40,000 or $50,000 or $70,000, and they buy a $150,000 house and put 5 percent down. Right now, mortgage rates are low, so they pay 5 percent interest. Their total interest is $7,078. That is less than the standard deduction for a year. The standard deduction is $11,400. So working families are not assisted by the home mortgage interest deduction in getting into homes. It is still a good program. It still empowers home ownership over the long term. It certainly is beneficial in an increasing way to families who earn more. Here is a family buying a $500,000 house. While the interest is the same, the same assumptions--5 percent down, 5 percent interest, $23,591, far exceeding the standard deduction. So if you are a family who is better off, you can buy a bigger house. The home mortgage interest deduction helps launch you into home ownership. But if you are a working family in America, it does not help much. In fact, often the interest is less than your standard deduction. So it has no impact whatsoever. This is why we should debate fully a permanent $5,000 downpayment tax credit for first-time home buyers. Of course, we always struggle with the cost of programs and that is a very important thing to do. The cost of the home mortgage interest deduction in this last year was about $97 billion. That is the cost of the home mortgage interest deduction, with most of the benefits going to affluent families. So $97 billion is directed in ways that do not help our working families get into their first home. What if we were to spend a fraction of that to help working families become homeowners, knowing that the externalities of home ownership-- the stability for children, the lower crime rates, more likely to finish school, more likely to earn more money, you pay more in taxes, less likely to end up on public programs. All those programs are paid back to us in multiples. What would the cost be of providing a $5,000 downpayment tax credit, a permanent one, to first-time home buyers? It would be on the order of $10 billion, assuming that every family, regardless of income, was eligible. A $97 billion program, an important program, a good program, but it does not help working families get into homes. Why not spend 10 percent of that on a program that would help launch our working families into home ownership, which makes much better lives for them and a much better community, stronger communities for everyone else, and a much better future for their children? I will conclude in this fashion. Home ownership has enormous value to our society--home ownership done right, not with liar loans, not with prepayment penalties, not with steering payments, not with mortgages that are basically scams. But home ownership done right has enormous returns--responsible, good, solid mortgages. We should support our working families to become homeowners, for their sake and for strengthening all of America and for the future of our children.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2009, at 10:15 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''