Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, over the past few weeks of meetings and hearings, both the Senate and the American people have witnessed the intelligence, the legal understanding, and dedication to the law that makes Judge Sonia Sotomayor well qualified to be our next Supreme Court Justice. Today, I rise to support her nomination and share a few thoughts on why I think Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. When I was in college I took a freshman seminar on the Bill of Rights. Each week, our professor would give us the facts of a Supreme Court case without the opinions and would ask us to draft our opinion of a situation. After we had prepared our opinion, we would share them the next week, and then and only then read the official majority and minority opinions of the Justices. It was quite an education in the Bill of Rights. Over the course of the semester, many of us came to identify with the approach and viewpoints of one Justice or another. It was very helpful in gaining insight into my own thinking and that of our Supreme Court. So when I met Judge Sotomayor, I posed a question to her: Which judge do you most identify with? Her answer was Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about Benjamin Cardozo. A native of New York, he served on the New York Court of Appeals, the highest State court in New York, from 1914 to 1932, and then on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1932 to 1938. Cardozo was descended from Portuguese Jewish immigrants who long ago had fled the Spanish Inquisition, and Cardozo was the first Jewish person to serve on the New York Court of Appeals. His careful, brilliant opinions on New York law earned him wide recognition as one of our Nation's most outstanding judges. When he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1932, he was confirmed by the Senate by a unanimous voice vote. I can see many reasons why Judge Sotomayor, as a native New Yorker, as a child of Spanish-speaking immigrants from Puerto Rico, and as a longtime judge in New York might identify with Justice Cardozo. I am sure Judge Sotomayor would love to extend the parallel to Cardozo's unanimous Senate confirmation vote. But Judge Sotomayor cited none of these reasons. Rather, she pointed to his particular approach to judging--the careful, fact-intensive approach that was Cardozo's hallmark. Let me put that observation in context. Cardozo served as a judge during the industrializing early 20th century. Because of the rapidly changing times in which he lived, he was faced with a wide range of cases that raised new and difficult issues. His opinions became recognized for drawing deeply on the facts of individual cases and relied heavily on the development of the law that came before him. He was innovating and forward-looking but also deeply respectful of careful development of the law. He described his style as one of steady, hard work. Justice Cardozo and Judge Sotomayor share a love for steady, hard work--the steady, careful development of law that comes from fact-intensive, careful judging. These are approaches to law that will serve the judge well as our next Supreme Court Justice. Interpreting the Constitution is, of course, a challenge. Our Constitution is mostly written in broad, general directives. For example, our first amendment says Congress shall pass no law ``abridging the freedom of speech.'' Our fourth amendment ensures persons shall be free in their homes from ``unreasonable searches and seizures.'' The fourteenth amendment declares that no State shall ``deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' Those broad phrases do not provide easy answers to complicated cases. When is a search or seizure unreasonable? When does a practice or law abridge freedom of speech? When does a practice or law abridge equal protection under the law? Our first Chief Justice, John Marshall, correctly noted it is the responsibility of the judicial branch to provide answers. How should a Supreme Court Justice go about providing these answers? Judge Sotomayor's background and record offer a model for how it should be done. First, she brings to her work extraordinary academic and experiential qualifications. She graduated at the top of her class from Princeton University and from Yale Law School. She brings valuable life experience from growing up in public housing in the Bronx, from serving as a prosecutor in New York City, and from working as an attorney in private practice. In 1992, she was appointed to the Federal bench by President George Herbert Walker Bush. During the following 17 years, including 11 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, she weighed in on over 3,000 panel decisions and authored about 400 published opinions. What this body of work shows, more than anything else, is that Judge Sotomayor is diligent and prudent in her approach to hearing and deciding cases. She thoroughly weighs the facts and carefully adapts the principles expounded by previous courts to reach a just result in each new set of circumstances. In fact, the reason many find it difficult to pin a label on her--be it conservative or liberal--is because her decisions do not follow ideological lines. Rather, they emerge from close readings of previous cases and careful thought about the implications of the particular facts. Clearly, the judge's respect for Justice Cardozo isn't just an off-the-cuff remark. Hers is record a judicial record that Benjamin Cardozo would be proud of. Just as Cardozo faced the challenge of interpreting the Constitution in a newly industrialized state, so, too, do we face the challenge of interpreting the Constitution in a high-tech, globally interconnected world. The answers to tomorrow's constitutional questions will not be easy. But if we follow Judge Sotomayor's approach, our constitutional interpretations will be built on the wise interpretations of the past. We will, with this approach, have confidence that our Supreme Court will stay true to the body of principles of justice and freedom that are at the heart of our constitutional tradition. Let me summarize. Judge Sotomayor has a stellar academic background. She brings diverse and valuable life experiences. She has a distinguished record on the bench, and she will bring a carefully measured judicial approach and valuable insights to our Supreme Court. Moreover, the value of the diversity that Sotomayor would bring to the Court, as a woman, as an American of Puerto Rican descent, cannot be overstated. We often talk about government by and for the people. That is a cherished part of our tradition. We often talk about it in terms of the diversity of those who serve in the executive branch. We often talk about it being important in the diversity of those who serve in the legislature, so we can bring valuable insights to bear. But government by and for the people extends to the judicial branch as well. We need to have the insights that flow from having judges with many different life experiences. I am confident Sonia Sotomayor will be a wise guardian of our Constitution. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in casting their votes to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. 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 the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much for his presentation and leadership on health care. The Senator was just talking about Medicare, and when our HELP Committee was meeting, I heard a very interesting statistic; that is, while Americans spend 17 to 18 percent of our GDP on health care--more than any other country on the planet--our health outcomes overall are significantly less than several dozen other nations in the world. That is part of the puzzle we are addressing. But then I heard another piece of the puzzle; that is, for American citizens who are 65, their health prospects are among the best in the world. The question was posed before the committee: What is the difference? The difference is very simple, as the Senator from Connecticut has so described, and that was the creation of the Medicare Program. All of our citizens 65 and older have health care. If we can take it and make it a nation where all of our citizens 65 and under have health care, wouldn't it make a tremendous difference?

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, if I could carry on a second point related to the Senator's comments, and that is simply as you address small business and Kevin Galvin, your constituent, to help organize small business, whereas we did a tremendous job in regard to our seniors 65 and older, we haven't done such a good job for our small businesses. I know that over the past many years, small business owners have been coming to me and saying: Jeff, we just can't afford these double-digit increases we are getting every year in health care premiums, and we are having to shift some of the cost to our employees. We are having to consider shutting down our insurance program completely. We as small businesses can't get the same good deal the large businesses are able to get. Can't you do something about that? I think with the bill the Senator from Connecticut has steered through committee, he has done such great work in laying out a plan that will help our small businesses in several different ways. First is to create a pool where they will have the negotiating power of hundreds of thousands of individuals rather than having to go as a small business of 5 or so or 25 employees to the health care market, because when you go by yourself with 5 or 10 or 25 employees, it is like leading a lamb to slaughter. Now they will be able to go to the health care marketplace where they will be able to be a part of a larger pool and negotiate a much better deal. The second is, they will have so many options when they get to that health care marketplace, whereas now there may be only one company that will hear them out and give them a possible plan, and then they will have many more to choose from. So I think those pieces are a tremendous improvement to what I think has been a long neglected part of the health care puzzle.

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator very much. The distinguished chair, Senator Dodd, mentioned earlier that this bill is not just for the uninsured; this is for the insured because we have a broken health care system for the insured. My colleague from Oregon made this point, that we need to close the deal for insurance in this country. I can tell you that folks with insurance have been telling us lots of stories about the challenges they face under our current broken status quo health care system. The first is that right now, their insurance is largely tied to their job, so if they should lose their job, it is a huge calamity--not just because they lost their job but also because they lost their insurance. It is a double whammy. This bill would change that for our families who currently have insurance. Second, our families who currently have insurance, their costs are being driven up, in part because they are covering the costs of the emergency room treatment for those who don't have insurance. In the last couple of years, we have had more and more people without insurance transferring more costs in the emergency room and, therefore, more costs to the insurer. Therefore, more companies--particularly small ones--are saying we cannot afford health insurance anymore. This is a downward cycle, a death cycle in insurance that we break with this bill--helping out those who have insurance by taking away the burden of paying for the emergency room for those who don't. A third factor is that other pieces are driving up health care more than 10 percent a year of health care premiums. That means health care is going to double every 7 years. That is unsustainable in this country for those of us who are fortunate enough to have insurance. Then, also, citizens have been recognizing that they would like to have portability--to be able to take the insurance they have and, should they change jobs--as Americans do, on average, every 3 years--be able to have the same insurance plan, the same set of choices, the same doctors, the same doctor for themselves and their spouse and their children. That portability becomes an inherent feature of the bill, helping those who have insurance. The list goes on. Those who currently have insurance sometimes get it at a very poor deal. As the chairman pointed out, it is 18 percent more for an individual than a small business. Now they will be able to be part of a larger pool and get a much better deal. Finally, many of those who currently have insurance don't have existing conditions covered. If they have a bad back or a heart condition or cancer or diabetes, and they cannot have that fundamental health care issue covered by their insurance, then they don't have any form of health care insurance that matters for the issue they are wrestling with. So in so many ways, the plan the committee has put together profoundly improves on our broken health care system for those who have insurance today in America.

Mr. MERKLEY. There is just one last point I wish to make, but I am happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator for that offer. I think that would be a period of about 5 or 6 more minutes, if that would be acceptable.

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MERKLEY. I would certainly defer to the Senator from North Dakota, if he feels there is other business he wishes to conduct. But I will proceed if he feels that is acceptable. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, we have looked at the reserves side of this, but now let's look at the consumption side. As this chart shows, America, which has only 2 percent of the reserves, consumes 24 percent of the world's oil. So we only have one-fifth of the supply but we consume one-fourth of the output. That is a formula for trouble. A nation would be in a strong position if it had very high reserves and very low consumption, but it is vulnerable if it has very low reserves and high consumption. Unfortunately, that is right where America is. To make things worse, the price of petroleum is going to continue to rise as the thirst from China and India increases. Because of the position we are in, our addiction to imported oil will only grow if we don't significantly change our energy strategy. So what about other fossil fuels? In my home State, energy speculators are looking to build terminals to import LNG or liquefied natural gas. There are vulnerabilities there as well. Where does LNG come from? Top producers include Qatar, Indonesia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, and Oman. Other folks argue we can extract more oil from Canadian tar sands or turn our abundant oil into transportation fuel. But it is worth observing that these strategies require extraordinary energy to produce fuel and emit extraordinary amounts of pollution in the process. So we have to look elsewhere to find a solution, and the place to look is energy efficiency and renewable energy. Energy efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way out of our dependence, and we know it works. In response to the 1970s oil crisis, the Nation doubled the required gas mileage performance of our cars and trucks and saw per capita oil consumption plummet, even as our economy grew. Our progress in this area has not been steady, however. It has stagnated over the last two decades. Progress resumed this year, when President Obama made the announcement that we would increase gas mileage standards to more than 35 miles per gallon 5 years ahead of the date scheduled. But we can do better. China will beat us to 35 miles per gallon, and 35 miles per gallon is not sufficient. We could aggressively develop and employ plug-in hybrid technology--cars with highly regenerative braking that can go at least 30 miles on a charge, enough to cover the daily commute, with no petroleum at all. We need to deploy efficient strategies for the trucks that carry out our commerce--similar strategies with efficient body design. We need to move goods by rail and barge. A barge can move a ton of cargo 576 miles on a gallon of fuel, and a train can move a ton of cargo 413 miles on a gallon of fuel. We should give our families and workers better transportation options, better access to rail and bus lines. We know from experience that with the right policy choices, we can use far less energy to power our economic activity. We use a fraction of the energy today for gross domestic product that we did 30 years ago. If we give American scientists, engineers, and businesses the right incentives, tomorrow's economy will be orders of magnitude more efficient. The other half of the equation is renewable energy, produced right here in America. It is the second major weapon in the war against oil addiction. Renewable electric energy can replace oil by providing power for plug-in electric vehicles. I have heard Senator Reid describe Nevada as the Saudi Arabia of solar power renewable electric energy, and I have heard the good Senator from North Dakota describe North Dakota as the Saudi Arabia of wind power renewable electric energy. We need to seize this Nation's potential for renewable electric in wind, solar, wave, and geothermal. We can also transition to homegrown renewable liquid fuels in the form of biofuels. In my State of Oregon, as one example, we have lots of fiber that can be converted, forced biomass that can be converted into fuel. We can produce biobutanol, biodiesel, and bioethanol. Producing biofuels from agricultural and forestry waste and waste from cellulosic nonfood crops raised on marginal lands, we can produce significant quantities of energy and create jobs and wealth for America's farmers and timber workers. If an American car can go 30 miles with renewable electricity and then, if needed, switch over to a 50-mile-per-gallon engine burning cellulosic biofuels derived from forest biomass, that car is not using a single drop of imported foreign oil. It is running on 100 percent red, white, and blue energy. In energy efficiency and renewable energy, we have twin elements that can break our addiction to foreign oil, but to achieve that self- sufficiency we need a comprehensive energy policy, a comprehensive strategy for saving energy and producing our energy here at home. That is what President Obama called for and what the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is developing--drafting a comprehensive system of incentives and investment that, in combination with energy policies crafted by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, will reduce our fossil fuel dependence and put us on the track to energy self- sufficiency. Some say that energy conservation and renewable energy are too expensive. They could not be more wrong. Every economist will tell you that the cheapest energy is the energy you never use. Even today, renewable solar, wind, and geothermal are cheaper than imported oil when you factor in the huge price we pay to maintain our access to that oil. Let me add, when we stop spending $2 billion a day on imported oil and spend that money on renewable fuels here in the United States, we are going to create a lot of good-paying jobs for America's families. Depending on a few foreign nations for imported oil is a colossal mistake. We need to change course, improve our national security, and spend our energy dollars here in America to create jobs. That is why I hope every Member of the Senate will join me in supporting our 2009 clean energy and jobs bill when it comes to the Senate floor this fall. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address one of the defining challenges of our time--the restructuring of our Nation's energy supply. Reforming our energy policy is critical for multiple reasons: to improve our national security, to create jobs and rebuild our economy, and to protect our children and our communities from the damaging effects of carbon pollution. Today I want to focus on just the first of these--improving our national security. It has been said before and it will be said again, but it deserves repeating until we in Congress act to change it: Our Nation is addicted to foreign oil. This dependence makes us vulnerable to the whims of nations that do not have our best interests at heart. This afternoon, I will examine this problem in some detail and consider the implications for a national energy policy that will strengthen our national security and end our addiction to imported oil. I emphasize that there is a cure. If we as a nation focus on smarter, wiser use of energy and aggressive development of homegrown renewable energy sources, we can indeed greatly reduce or eliminate dependence on imported oil, improve our national security, and strengthen our national economy, all at the same time. Well, let's talk about dependence on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil comes from two intertwined factors: First, our economy depends upon oil for transportation. Cars, trucks, trains, planes, boats that we use to move ourselves and our goods around the country are entirely dependent on oil. Indeed, 95 percent of the energy used in our transportation sector comes from oil. Second, our oil addiction relies on foreign imports: 58 percent of the oil we consume is imported. Thus, access to foreign oil is essential to the vitality of our economy. The result is that maintaining access to this oil becomes a very high priority for our national security. Exactly whom do we depend on? The good news is, nearly 30 percent of our imported oil comes from our democratic neighbors to the north and south in North America. But that is where the good news ends. Take a look at this chart. Seventy percent of our imported oil comes from outside North America, and this chart shows the top four nations outside North America from which we import oil. All four of these countries represent security challenges for the United States. Saudi Arabia is No. 1 on the list. It is the source of one in nine barrels of imported oil. Before addressing the fact that it presents national security challenges, it should be noted Saudi Arabia has often been a significant ally to the United States in our interests, in a relationship going back decades. Nevertheless, the dependency on their oil creates two national security issues: First, the oil infrastructure and delivery systems of Saudi Arabia are vulnerable to terrorist attack or to manipulation by governments in the region. Consider the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is a vulnerability for all Persian Gulf oil, 90 percent of which moves through the Strait. The Strait is 21 miles wide, with a narrow shipping channel. So, geographically, it is vulnerable to disruption, and Iran has explicitly threatened to put pressure on traffic going through the Strait or attempt to control it outright. Second, the wealth we send to Saudi Arabia in exchange for petroleum has not always served us well. Former CIA Director James Woolsey testified in the Senate a few years ago that over the last three decades the Saudis have spent between $70 billion and $100 billion to support conservative institutions that often promulgate viewpoints and actions hostile to the United States. The wealth dispensed in this manner has, in some cases, migrated into terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida to recruit and build institutional capacity. This has led former CIA Director Woolsey to say of our current military conflicts: This is the first time since the Civil War that we have financed both sides of a conflict. Venezuela is No. 2 on the list. It is, of course, led by President Hugo Chavez, a vocal critic of our country who has expressly threatened to cut off U.S. oil supplies. He told an Argentine newspaper that Venezuela has: A strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage . . . a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States. The third nation on this list is Nigeria. Nigeria has had a series of disruptions just this year due to civil unrest. In February, oil companies reported to Reuters that 17 percent of the country's oil capacity was cut off from export because of attacks and sabotage by militants. According to testimony given to our Senate Foreign Relations Committee by the National Defense Council Foundation in 2006, Nigeria loses 135,000 barrels per day to theft. Iraq, No. 4 on our list, has gone through enormous upheavals. Saddam Hussein's forces destroyed much of the nation's oil infrastructure when President Bush launched the Iraq war in 2003. That infrastructure has been subject to ongoing sabotage over the last 6 years. A significant share of Iraqi oil, similar to its neighbors, moves through the Strait of Hormuz, an additional point of vulnerability. Moreover, Iraq has not succeeded yet in passing a national law to share oil wealth among the ethnic groups in the nation, and the friction that comes from this continues to allow the possibility of factional conflict and disruptions in supply. Iran isn't on this list. We have an embargo against Iran. We don't import oil from there, but it is still worth mentioning. Many of our allies get oil from Iran and their oil supplies are large enough to affect the world markets and thereby the stability and cost of our own supply. Again, turning to former CIA Director Woolsey testifying in the Senate, he noted that Iran derives 40 percent of its government budget from oil exports. According to the RAND Corporation, higher oil revenues have not just emboldened the Iranian Government to defy the United Nations regarding their nuclear program but also helped Iran to finance the activities of Hezbollah and Hamas. Our dependence on foreign oil makes us vulnerable to a disrupted energy supply, and the risk is heightened because most of the world's proven reserves are controlled by just a few governments. State control means countries can and do manipulate energy supply. We had a case this last year when Russia manipulated gas markets to dominate new democracies in Eastern Europe. The Energy Modeling Forum at Stanford University brought together a group of leading experts to assess the chances of a major oil supply disruption. They identified major areas of the globe where oil disruptions are most likely due to geopolitical, military or terrorist threats. Those areas include Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Persian Gulf, Russia, the Caspian states, and a group of nations in Africa and South America--which account for 60 percent of world oil production. So the threat of disrupted supply is a serious one for our economy, as we found out during the oil shocks of the 1970s, which cost our economy about $2.5 trillion. If repeated today, such a crisis would cost our American economy about $8 trillion. We were reminded of the threat of supply disruption again when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupted supplies and caused price spikes here in our Nation. These don't supply the United States, but they do supply our allies, and in a global oil market these supplies are interdependent. A disruption of European oil supplies would have effects on our economy. We also expend extraordinary resources to maintain our access to foreign oil because it is so important. It is important to the success of our economy. While estimates vary, according to a study produced by the National Defense Council Foundation, the indirect security and military costs relating to securing our access to oil amount to about $825 billion. That equates to more than $5 a gallon, on top of the price we pay at the pump. So we cannot allow our Nation's security and the health of the American economy to rely on the whims of unstable, unreliable, even hostile governments. If we refuse to address our single greatest point of vulnerability, we fail in our most fundamental duty to protect this Nation. It is clear we need to end this addiction. We need to be energy self- sufficient. But how are we going to get there? One answer, which we heard chanted in rallies across America last year, was: Drill, baby, drill. It is true we could increase production from American reserves in the short term with an aggressive drilling strategy. In fact, I support changing leases on hundreds of thousands of acres already approved for petroleum drilling and converting those into ``use it or lose it'' leases because major oil companies have secured those leases, and they are sitting on them without doing a thing. Nevertheless, drilling is not, and cannot be, a long-term strategy for the security of our Nation for one simple reason: America uses a lot of oil but has, globally speaking, limited reserves. In fact, the United States has just 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, as this chart shows right here. Here we are, down here at the small end, with Mexico and Europe. Then, we see Eurasia, with 7 percent; Africa, with 9 percent; Central and South America, with a little bit more; then Canada; and then the whopper, the Middle East, which makes my point about security for our supplies.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Patrick Chaney, be accorded the privilege of the floor for the duration of today.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we stand at a critical juncture today as we grapple with how to fix our broken health care system. Rapidly escalating health care costs are compounding the current economic crisis in America. Families and businesses across the country are struggling to afford increased premiums, copayments, and deductibles. Premium increases are taking an increasing portion of workers' wages, and more firms are under pressure to reduce or possibly eliminate health care coverage for their workers. Helping middle-class families and small businesses afford health care coverage is a critical component of improving the Nation's economy. Families and business owners in Oregon have told me at length how concerned they are about the rising costs of health care. Those families who have health care are concerned about losing it, and they are concerned about the rising cost of premiums and the copays. And those citizens without health care--nearly 47 million Americans are unable to afford the cost of health care--those citizens are worried about getting sick or they are sick and they are worried about how to pay for the drugs and treatments to get well. Under this system, our small businesses that are working hard to provide health care coverage for their employees are worried they will not be able to continue, that they will have to raise the share of the costs the workers carry or maybe they will have to eliminate the health care plan altogether. I wish to share with my colleagues the experience of one of my constituents, Jeanette Hall of Milwaukee, OR. She was employed, but she could not afford health insurance. Jeanette had a mole on her arm. It was a mole she thought should be looked at. Her friends and family urged her to have it looked at. Finally, she went to the emergency room to have it examined. The diagnosis was melanoma, but Jeanette could not afford to have the surgery to address it. Sometimes one gets a fortunate turn in life, and Jeanette just got such an example. She was interviewed by a local news station that was doing a story about the plight of the uninsured. Jeanette says she is only alive today because of that moment when a news station covered her story because after that story aired, she received a call from a local hospital that offered to help. They basically said that in exchange for being the subject of an observational surgery for medical students, the hospital would cover the cost of the surgery. Jeanette is now cancer free, and she feels very blessed about that. What is more, she now has a job where she has health insurance, and that certainly puts a brighter horizon in place for her. But while she is pleased about her personal health and her personal health insurance, she is worried about health insurance for families and friends and health insurance for all Americans in this broken health care system. Her brother is very ill. Her brother does not have health insurance. Her brother needs an operation to save his life, but he is not getting that operation. She anticipates that his life expectancy is very short now as a result. She sees it very personally, very directly. Just as she hopes for health care for her and her family and for American citizens, so do citizens across this Nation. Citizens such as Jeanette are not looking for a government handout. They don't expect something for free. But what they do want is access, choice, quality health coverage, affordable health coverage for their families and their workers. We need to offer citizens such as Jeanette a lifeline in these hard economic times. As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I am very proud of the bill we passed 2 weeks ago which puts us a significant stride closer to providing affordable, quality health care for every American. It is a plan that will lower costs, provide consumers with more choices, and increase competition. That act, the Affordable Health Choices Act, is a landmark bill. It gives every American a full range of health insurance options, including a community health plan. It ensures that those who like their current health care coverage can keep it. And it guarantees that no American will be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. That act makes sound investments in disease prevention, in health promotion, and it strengthens the health care workforce. The Affordable Health Choices Act gives small businesses better choices for high-value health insurance by creating a new health insurance marketplace, or gateway as it is called, which will help lower costs and increase competition. In fact, let me explain this a little bit more. Right now in America, if you are an individual trying to get health care, you have to pay an extraordinary premium because you don't bring any market share clout to the negotiating table. And right now in America, if you are a small business, you don't get a good deal because you don't bring any market clout to the negotiation. This health care bill at its heart addresses this problem. It creates an exchange where you would purchase health care, not as an individual but as a group of hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens. That health care plan would bring the combined negotiating clout of those hundreds of thousands or even millions of individuals, so you get a much better deal as an individual and you get a much better deal as a small business. I know that every individual and small business in America that has gone through this process of trying to get a fair, decent health care plan knows exactly what I am talking about. And that is the heart of this reform. But even as we make historic progress on guaranteeing affordable quality health care for all, there are powerful forces underway to halt this effort. There are those who favor the status quo, and they are working on their talking points, they are rallying their special interests, they are doing polls to see what phrase will most scare Americans from changing. They want to defeat this historic march toward quality, affordable health care for every single citizen. One thing is clear: We cannot afford to fail. Maintaining the status quo is not an option. The last time we attempted to tackle the problem in 1992, health care spending was $849 billion. Today, health care spending in America is $2.2 trillion and growing by over 10 percent a year. March it forward next year, and it will be over $2.4 trillion; the year after that, $2.7 trillion; the year after that, $3 trillion, and so forth. We will be spending nearly $40 trillion under the status quo over the next 10 years. Premiums in the early 1990s were 7 percent of a family's income. Today, premiums eat up 17 percent of a family's budget. In 1996, employers paid about $3,700 toward a family plan. Now that is well over $10,000 and growing, and workers are picking up an increasing share of the costs. Today, under the status quo, 60 percent of bankruptcies are due to health care costs--more than half. More than half of personal bankruptcies are due to health care. What is more, more than half those personal bankruptcies due to health care are with folks who have health care insurance, but their health care insurance simply was not adequate to cover the extraordinary costs of a medical emergency. Indeed, 75 percent of those individuals who are going through bankruptcy due to health care costs had health insurance. If we look to the future, the consequences of inaction are even more dire. But, despite all that, every day we hear from special interests, we hear from their allies who are standing up, using their poll-tested phrase such as ``government takeover'' in order to scare the American people into rejecting health reform. Here are citizens who know firsthand the challenge and the stress of health care. But they are being manipulated. There is an effort to manipulate them by powerful special interests that want to scare them, to turn them against reform and change. The opponents of reform have a health strategy. Their strategy is the status quo. Why do they like the status quo so much? Because the special interests are making so much money with the current health care system--huge profits for insurance companies, huge profit for other health care players. But here is the problem. Soaring profits for health care companies equate to out-of- control, unaffordable premiums for America's working families. Let's examine the status quo plan put forward by the opponents of reform. Under the opponents' status quo strategy, the premiums that are paid by a family would go from about $13,000 a year now to, just 8 years into the future, $24,000--nearly double in a short period of time. If you want out-of-control premiums, then support the opponents' status quo efforts. Second, under the opponents' status quo plan, the cost of health care for a small business would more than double. The cumulative costs are extraordinary. We see the costs here, in billions of dollars, start in 2009 at $156 billion--the cost imposed on small businesses--and soaring to $2.4 trillion by 2018--cumulative costs. So over a 10-year period, small businesses carrying a multitrillion-dollar burden under the status quo. Third, under the opponents' status quo plan, the number of uninsured Americans increases. Why is that? It is very simple: Families cannot afford these premiums, small businesses can't afford these premiums, even large businesses may not be able to afford this more than 10- percent-a-year increase in premiums. Indeed, under one study, the number of uninsured Americans, under the status quo, the opponents' plan, would reach 66 million Americans over the next 10 years, up from about 47 million right now. That is a huge increase. Fourth, under the opponents' status quo plan, our community hospitals would see uncompensated care go through the roof. Why is that? Because we have more uninsured. They have to go to the emergency room to get their care. So the hospitals end up carrying that burden. What does that do? That results in a cost shift from those who do not have insurance and go to the emergency room--those costs get shifted to those with insurance. It continues the death spiral in soaring insurance premiums that we have right now in America. What is more, under the opponents' status-quo approach, we get the same failure to invest in prevention and disease management. Insurance companies do not have an incentive to invest in disease management that might make you healthier 10 years from now or 20 years from now because they assume you probably will not be their customer 10 or 20 years from now. We get the same investment in a fee system, in a cost-plus system, that is driving up the cost of health care. Let me make this very clear. If you have any form of expense in which the compensation is cost-plus, the person providing those services is going to provide as many services as possible. If you are building a fighter and you say: We will pay your costs plus 10 percent, you are going to make sure that fighter plane is as expensive as possible. The same is true in health care. Yet that model of compensation is the dominant model in health care today. We need to invest in an integrated approach, such as the Mayo Clinic does, where the doctors are not motivated by profits but by providing health care to their patients. They have no incentive to run you through that MRI machine four or five times. Their only incentive is to help you get well. That is a very different approach, an approach we need to expand on in America, an approach that says we need an integrated health care system, not a cost-plus fee system. When the opponents of reform try to scare you and say we don't need to change anything, remember how scary their plan is. I know you understand what I am talking about because you see it every day. The opponents are saying it is OK if insurance companies routinely deny necessary medical care and cancel policies in order to increase their profits. The opponents are saying they prefer an America where parents will lie awake at night, worried if they can afford health care their children need because they do not have health insurance for their children. The opponents want an America where workers are just one pink slip away from losing their job and their health care. That is a double calamity that strikes millions of families in America every year. The opponents are arguing for an America where a would-be entrepreneur who works hard and wants to start a business may not do so because he or she cannot afford health coverage in a volatile, expensive small business market. The opponents want an America where small businesses that do offer insurance are faced with double-digit, budget-straining premiums that threaten the economic viability of that small business. I wish to see our small businesses thrive. Our small businesses are incredibly creative, with far more patents per capita than large businesses. Our small businesses expand and grow and absorb more workers. We want them to expand and thrive, and a major challenge they have today to their thriving is our broken health care system. I do not accept that vision for America, the vision put forward by opponents of health care reform. We need to create a simple health care exchange, where individuals and small businesses can go and be part of a large pool so they can negotiate a fair deal. Today we do not have that fair deal. Tomorrow we will. We need a health care system that invests in prevention and disease management. We need a health care system that works to expand the health care workforce, because we have a big challenge. Many of our health care workers in America, our doctors and our nurses, are retiring. They are baby boomers. They are reaching retirement age. We will have increasing demand for more of their services as baby boomers retire. The bill we put forward works to address that discrepancy; otherwise, greater demand and lower supply will drive up the cost of health care. We need to create a system that eliminates insurance that doesn't cover preconditions. What kind of health care do you have if you have a bad back but your bad back is not covered? What kind of health care system do we have if you have melanoma, such as Jeanette did before her operation, and you cannot get it covered because it is a preexisting condition? This bill changes that. I believe we need to create a health care system that expands citizens' choices instead of constraining them as in our current system. We have many markets in America that only have a single dominant provider. We need to create a Community Health Care Plan to hold the feet of insurance companies to the fire. Competition in the marketplace--a 100-percent apple pie, American concept--is needed in health care to help control costs. Americans across the country are counting on us to work together to find a solution, to help ease the burden of health care costs on family and business budgets and create more affordable health care options. I urge my colleagues to set their partisanship aside, set aside the goal of trying to torpedo America's future because you want to torpedo the Presidency of Barack Obama. Think about the quality of health care for our working families and what we in this Chamber could do to make that quality of life far better. The costs of inaction, the costs of our broken status quo system, are too great to allow their solution to fall to petty, bitter partisan bickering. Let's come together. Let's fight for a brighter future for America's families. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, David Toepen, be granted the privilege of the floor for today's deliberations.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the Tillamook County Creamery Association, a farmer-owned dairy cooperative that was founded 100 years ago. In 1909, 10 small independent cheese plants formed an association in Tillamook County, OR, to produce, distribute, and market quality cheese products that are now sold across the country. Today, Tillamook Cheese is cooperatively owned by 115 dairy farming families. As a national leader in the dairy industry, the Tillamook County Creamery Association produces some of the highest quality milk for cheesemaking. Tillamook County Creamery Association has been honored, not only for their quality dairy products, but for their commitment to community and environmental stewardship. The farmer-owners have been recognized nationally for their dedication to maintaining healthy herds and farmland. They have worked to improve water quality, protect local salmon habitat, and rebuild stream habitats in Tillamook County. In addition to being responsible stewards for Oregon's environment, they've also been advocates in addressing hunger in Oregon communities. In partnership with the Oregon Food Bank, the Tillamook County Creamery Association has contributed countless meals to families in need and worked with school districts to help provide cheese for school lunch programs. In addition to cheese production, the Tillamook County Creamery Association contributes to the local economy by attracting nearly 1 million tourists every year, making it one of the top tourist attractions in the State. The Tillamook County Creamery Association is a shining example of dedication to the State of Oregon and to the health of the coastal economy. The cooperative's mission is ``the controlled and profitable growth of consistent, high quality, great tasting Tillamook branded products to meet the demand of the marketplace while optimizing returns to members.'' The Tillamook County Creamery Association has achieved that vision and much more in Oregon for a century and will undoubtedly carry on that tradition for years to come. I encourage my fellow Oregonians, my colleagues in the Senate and the entire nation to recognize this anniversary and to congratulate the Tillamook County Creamery Association on 100 years of excellence.

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 because of a document our forefathers signed 233 years ago, the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the Declaration stated: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That simple phrase created the bedrock foundation for a nation founded under equality under the law, freedom from persecution, and the pursuit of happiness by our citizens--government by and for the people under the concept of quality and freedom from persecution. It is an honor to rise to advocate for that philosophy. I rise in strong support of the Leahy amendment that would amend the Department of Defense bill to include the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. First, I thank and acknowledge Senator Kennedy for his strong decade-long commitment to this legislation. I extend my appreciation to Senator Leahy for leading this effort in Senator Kennedy's absence. It has been more than 10 years since Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered simply because of his sexual orientation. It is long past time that we take action to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. There is no room in our society for these acts of prejudice. Hate crimes fragment and isolate our communities, and they tear at our collective spirit. They seek to terrorize our society through brutal violence against targeted individuals. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a critical step to protect those who are victimized simply for who they are. Hate crimes legislation is not a new concept. In fact, the United States of America has had hate crime laws in place for 40 years. The Hate Crimes Act of 1969 was passed shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King. That assassination motivated Congress to action. That law says it is illegal to ``willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin.'' That hate crimes law was passed by our parents' generation to address the hate crimes so evident through the assassination of Martin Luther King and so many other actions in the 1960s. Now it is time for our generation to pass a hate crimes bill that will strengthen the work done by our forefathers 40 years ago and that will address new forms of hate crimes that have become far too prevalent in our society. We need to add provisions to prosecute those who commit violent acts based on gender, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. Of the 7,624 single-bias incidents reported in 2007, more than 16 percent resulted from sexual orientation bias, indicating that members of the gay and lesbian community are victimized nearly six times more frequently than an average citizen. Just this past spring, we experienced a terrible incident in my home State. In March, two men, Samson Deal and Kevin Petterson, were visiting the Oregon coast during their spring break. They wandered away from an evening campfire and ran into a group of four strangers who asked if they were gay and then called them derogatory names. Then these two men were beaten brutally and left unconscious on the beach. This was in the town of Seaside, a place I have visited many times in my life, a beach I have walked on many times in my life. Seaside police chief Bob Gross said the Seaside police have ``had some hate crimes before, mostly threats, but have never dealt with anything this serious.'' I am happy to report that Samson and Kevin lived through this incident, but many do not. The attack could have been worse. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2007 saw the greatest number of anti-LGBT murders in 8 years: 21 gay and transgender people were murdered in the United States in 2007--more than double the number of 2006. Currently, only 11 States and the District of Columbia include laws covering gender-identity-based crimes. We must make sure gender identity is a protected characteristic included in this legislation. But members of the gay community are not the only victims. We were all shocked last month when Stephen Johns, a guard at the Holocaust Museum, was shot and killed by a White supremacist. Recent numbers suggest hate crimes against individuals in the Hispanic community increased by a staggering 40 percent between 2003 and 2007. According to a recent report from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, in the nearly 20 years since the enactment of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the number of hate crimes has hovered around 7,500 annually, nearly one every single hour. As if that figure is not high enough, it is well known that data collected on hate crimes almost certainly understates the true numbers because victims are often afraid to report these crimes or local authorities do not accurately report the incidents as hate crimes, which, unfortunately, means they do not get reported to the Federal Government. What specifically is in this legislation? It gives the Department of Justice the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence. It provides the Department of Justice with the ability to aid State and local jurisdictions. It makes grants available to State and local communities to combat violent crimes. It authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, and other assistance to State and local governments. It authorizes grants from the Justice Department of up to $100,000 for State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials who have incurred extraordinary expenses in the prosecution or investigation of hate crimes. It authorizes the Treasury Department and Justice Department to increase personnel to better prevent and respond to allegations of hate crimes. It requires the FBI to expand their statistic gathering so we can better understand the types and structures of hate crimes in the United States of America. These provisions will strengthen the original facets of the legislation from 1969. That legislation, as I noted, addressed issues related to race, color, religion, or national origin. All of that is improved in this legislation. In addition, we expand this legislation to address the hate crimes we now see so prevalent in the LGBT community as victims. Our Constitution laid out a vision. We did not have complete equality under that vision in 1776. Indeed, it was a vision far ahead of its time. We have gradually worked toward it. We have extended our law to protect women, to include more folks to vote, to enable people to get rid of the racial boundaries that existed for voting, and so on. We have steadily sought to take strides toward that vision of equality under the law and the ability to pursue happiness without the fear of persecution. Today I am advocating that we take another important stride toward that vision our forefathers laid out before us. Martin Luther King said the long arc of history bends toward justice, but it doesn't bend by itself. It is bent by citizens who say this is wrong, and we are going to do something about it. This great strengthening of the hate crimes legislation in the United States is a huge stride toward equality under the law and freedom from persecution. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in taking this historic stride forward. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Gabrielle Dreyfus, a fellow in Senator Dorgan's office, be granted the privilege of the floor until the end of this session of Congress.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today, colleagues, I rise to give voice to my strong support for President Obama's proposal to create a consumer financial protection agency separate from our prudential banking regulators. I believe establishing this new independent agency is critical to protecting the economic security of the American middle class and ensuring the stability of our financial system and the banks within it. Let me share with you a story about Ira Cheatham. Ira is a 73-year- old retired veteran of the Korean war. I think his story helps explain why we need to do more to protect middle-class economic security. Ira and his wife lived in Portland, OR, for 21 years. By 2002, this couple had nearly paid off their mortgage. But a few years ago, in the midst of the subprime boom, the family received what looked like a check from their bank, their mortgage company, a check for $1,000. Ira cashed in the check. Ira did not realize that the check actually represented a high-interest loan. Within a week or two after cashing the check, the family received a call from their mortgage company urging the couple to consolidate this $1,000 loan with their credit card debt into a single mortgage. This family had excellent credit, and the mortgage company promised the couple they would receive an interest rate between 5 and 6 percent, which would have reduced monthly payments. Based on this promise, the couple agreed. But what they soon discovered was they had been assigned an interest rate of 11.8 percent. Moreover, the loan contained discount points financed into the loan, inflating the loan amount and stripping away equity in the house. Under this new subprime loan, the mortgage payments swelled to $1,655--nearly 60 percent of the family's monthly income. Having discovered this, it would have been great if this family could have simply refinanced. But in the loan was a $7,500 prepayment penalty; in other words, stripping them of another $7,500. Once they discovered what they had been trapped into--what they had been tricked into--they were then locked into this prepayment penalty that would further decimate their equity. They did not have many good options--an unsustainable interest rate, an outrageous prepayment penalty--but, finally, they took and did what they had to do, which was to pay that prepayment penalty in order to refinance their mortgage with another lender. Our financial marketplace has become infested with these kinds of predatory lending products and practices that exploited this elderly couple and millions of other families across this Nation. Now these practices are commonplace because they are not regulated. They are commonplace because they are highly profitable. They are embedded in documents inches thick in a home loan. They are written in light gray ink on the back of a check. When deposited, you have actually signed a financial document. Well, these types of tricks and traps are unacceptable. Mr. President, $2.7 trillion in losses to subprime writedowns only scratches the surface of the total cost of this economic catastrophe--a catastrophe that would have been avoided if banks had sold stable prime loans instead of tricking and trapping families into volatile subprime loans. In short, we need to reestablish strong consumer protection in our financial markets. The solution is simple and should have been adopted a long time ago: centralizing financial consumer protection regulation in a single agency, an agency that is not compromised by having another mission, another mission of regulating monetary policy or another mission of overseeing the stock market or another mission here or there; no, a mission responsible to the consumers of this Nation of financial products that says our transactions are going to be transparent, the terms are going to be clear, we are going to get rid of the tricks and traps. Many of you know we recently passed a bill in this Chamber on credit cards to get rid of the tricks and traps we know of in the credit card industry. That is a tremendous step forward. But who would doubt--who in this Chamber would doubt; who in America would doubt--that within 12 months we will have a new set of tricks and traps? You cannot simply legislate every time one of these is created. You need a consumer financial products agency to oversee this process, to make sure we protect the consumer from new, clever ways of stripping Americans' wealth. Establishing a strong consumer financial protection agency would be a major step forward in protecting the economic security of working Americans. There are folks who say: You know what, we are making a lot of money. We don't want this type of regulation. Let's draw a parallel here to consumer products in other areas. How about toys for our children. There are folks who would say: No, we shouldn't regulate the quality of toys, we shouldn't regulate whether there are small parts that will choke our child, we shouldn't regulate whether there are exploding parts that might take out an eye, we shouldn't regulate the lead in the paint, because this reduces choice. But we have recognized that when it comes to consumer products appearing in our homes, we need to have ongoing oversight to make sure products are fair and safe, and we need to do the same thing in the financial world. The failure to regulate has had an enormous toll: $700 billion in taxpayer money spent to bail out our banks, $12.2 trillion in household wealth lost in America since 2007, and the tragedy of millions of Americans losing their homes and their jobs. Those are the real costs of failing to regulate financial consumer protection. Let's look at a few things such an agency would do. First, it would mean less bureaucracy and less cost. Each of our banking regulators already has a consumer protection obligation, a consumer protection division. Three of four Federal banking agencies have separate consumer protection functions from the rest of the agency. Now, that mission is often set aside, that mission is often ignored, in light of the other missions of the agency, but it is far more effective, cost-effective, to have these missions combined into a single entity with the responsibility directly to consumers. A second concern has been that it would be a mistake to have folks who offer financial products provide a simple, plain-vanilla product as a comparison to give them a framework for the contract being put before them. But these types of straightforward, plain-vanilla comparisons are very useful to consumers to allow them to make an informed choice. In the long term, a smarter consumer produces better competition between those who provide these products because now they are forced to compete not on tricks and traps but on transparency, on consumer service-- customer service--and that is a positive thing. It means real competition in terms of price. I think our community financial institutions in particular would have a stronger claim in such new business because who provides better consumer service than our local community bankers? Third, a consumer protection agency would clear the field of unregulated bad actors whose competition lowers standards across financial products. Well, I wish to draw a bit of an analogy here to a football game. Imagine a football game where only one side gets called for penalties. That is what happens when you have one responsible financial player and another that isn't abiding by any sort of fairness or transparency. That does not produce good competition. If only your opponent can jump the line or face mask or get away with just about anything without penalty flags being thrown, how is your team going to compete? That is the challenge the responsible players have in the marketplace today. Well, let's not put them in such a difficult position. Let's make sure all of the players are acting responsibly, and that is the role such an agency would carry on. We need a consumer financial protection agency to protect the hard- earned wealth of hard-working Americans--Americans like the elderly couple I told the story about earlier, Americans like Maggie from Salem, OR. Maggie paid her credit card bill on time, and then what happened? She was charged a late fee. So she called up and said: Why is that? The credit card company said: Well, you know what, we get to sit on your payment for 10 days before we post it, so technically you are late even though you paid us early. Maggie said: Where is the fairness in that? Folks like Maggie across this country are asking that simple question: Where is the fairness in that? Our consumers deserve fairness. Let's not try to have short-term profits that undermine the success of our families by stripping wealth through tricks and traps. Let's have our consumers say: Isn't it great that here in America we make sure there is fairness in our financial products, that we don't try to depend on tricks and traps that strip wealth from elderly couples, strip wealth from young families trying to raise children, that take away the opportunities of those families to provide for their children. Let's put a referee into the game again. We need this agency. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation that will make it significantly easier for small businesses to open their doors. Providing a helping hand to small businesses is important at any time, but never more so than now, when so many Americans are out of work. Small businesses are the engines of our economy. By some estimates, they employ approximately half the private workforce, and, in rural America, comprise nine out of ten businesses. In my home State of Oregon, many of the rural counties have unemployment rates approaching--or even surpassing--20 percent. Clearly, small businesses are going to be instrumental in turning things around. Furthermore, small businesses are innovators--they produce 13 times more patents per employee than large firms. Right now, the U.S. needs this kind of innovation more than ever. Our economy cannot thrive if small businesses are not doing well. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult for small businesses to succeed. Start-up expenses are often prohibitive and it can take a few years before business owners begin to see a profit. There are administrative systems to create, employees to hire, a client base to build and supplies to purchase. This adds up to a lot of expenses. A Gallup poll showed that the average small business incurs $10,000 in expenses during that first year. However, if a business can last 4 years, it is much more likely to survive in the long term. We need to do more to help these businesses get through this difficult period. Today, I am joining with my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, to introduce legislation that will help small businesses through their first year. The Small Business Jump Start Act of 2009 lessens the tax burden on new small businesses by doubling the deduction they can take for start-up expenses to $10,000. The Act also widens the pool of businesses eligible to take the full amount of the deduction in their first year of business. The Small Business Jump Start Act gives these new businesses a boost that first year, and for some, will eliminate the tax complications of amortizing start-up expenses. The Small Business Jump Start Act of 2009 is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Association of the Self-Employed, and the National Association of Small Businesses. I will highlight one Oregon small business that the Jump Start Act could have helped. Jack and Giovanina Giaccarini moved to Grants Pass, Oregon after Hurricane Katrina came through their town in Mississippi. It was their dream to start a business installing systems to help quadriplegics and disabled veterans maneuver around their homes. The first year of their business was tough--finding start-up capital was difficult and purchasing just one system to use for demonstrations cost $10,000. They struggled. Now they are in their third year of business and finally making a profit. Having a Jump Start in that first year would have made a significant difference early on. This bill will go a long way for new small businesses looking to open their doors and employ people in their communities. Colleagues, in order to help America's small businesses and the economies of rural America, I urge you to support the Small Business Jump Start Act of 2009. It is time to reach out a helping hand to entrepreneurs and assist them in starting that new business now, to jump start our economy and create new jobs across America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

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