Prairie Island Land Conveyance Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with regard to the transfer of students from certain schools. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 includes a requirement that schools not meeting adequate yearly progress--the AYP--for 2 consecutive years must provide transfer within the school district, and if no such schools exist, make efforts to provide transfers between school districts to the extent practical. This is the school choice provision. However, the current law's guidance on school choice does not adequately define practicality or feasibility, and where definitions are provided, they are overly broad.

We have just come off the Easter break. We had an opportunity to talk to a lot of educators and students. We return to our work starting today to make some significant--maybe not significant changes, but little changes to No Child Left Behind to make it more practical and make it more common sense in States such as Montana.

When we start looking at these maps, and as the President pro tempore leaves the Chamber, he understands what rural is when he looks at his State of Alaska. We are not nearly as big as Alaska. However, when we look at the State of Montana--and for those who wonder about distances and sizes, from the Yak, which is up in the northwest corner of the State, to Alzada in the southeast corner, it is farther than it is from Chicago to Washington, DC. So there is a pretty fair chunk of land out here, and we have young folks who go to school in just about every part of the State.

These are the elementary schools I am going to talk about as I speak on No Child Left Behind and the legislation I am introducing today.

The bottom line is No Child Left Behind is not a one-size-fits-all legislation. We have some of the greatest teachers there are in the country, and we have some of the brightest minds to teach. Accordingly, it is imperative that Congress continues to hear the needs and concerns of America's rural education communities.

Just to give my colleagues an idea, I had a little bit to do with the passage

and the shaping of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In that bill, we had a piece included called broadband. Back in those days, most folks had not heard of the Internet, broadband, or digital. There were not very many of us around here who were even computer literate. We are getting better. We are getting a little younger.

I can remember when we put the broadband section in the bill, primarily to do two things in my State: distance learning, allowing these smaller schools in rural areas to access the Internet and classes to be taught via a two-way interact from another location so that their curriculum could be broadened, just like a school, say, located in Billings, Great Falls, Missoula. Just because someone was born way out here and went to school in Jordan, MT, where we have a county the size of Rhode Island--it only has 1,800 folks and only one high school. It used to be a boarding school. I do not think it is anymore. But it used to be when you took your student to school on Monday morning, you did not see them until Friday night after the football game was over. So we deal in a little bit different kind of environment and situation.

The Federal law must recognize the significant differences between urban and rural school districts with regard to student transportation, school spacing, and, of course, the school-of-choice options. Although No Child Left Behind leaves the State of Montana in control of determining the feasibility of transfers between different school districts, it is much less flexible when it comes to transfers within the same school district.

My legislation would add to existing guidelines on the practicality and the feasibility of school choice that a school district would not be required to provide a student with a transfer option to another school if providing the option is impractical due to the distance to be traveled, a geographical barrier or hazard, the duration of the travel, or an unusually high cost of travel. However, if choice is not offered under the latter circumstances, students in affected schools will still receive valuable supplemental education services, and school districts will still have the option to provide students school learning choices through distance learning programs or virtual schools or several other options offered under current law.

We are pretty sparse in eastern Montana. From Miles City to Jordan is about 90 miles. I was talking about Jordan a while ago up on the big dry creek. You heard me say I have a lot of dirt between light bulbs out there. Well, we have a lot of land between schools out there also, and school districts can be quite large. The centers of Billings, Great Falls, Missoula, the Flat Head, or even Bozeman are grouped pretty closely. In eastern Montana, however, they are far apart. We have elementary schools not even on paved roads, still on gravel. I know one that is still on a mud road. If it rains real hard or during the spring thaw, they cannot get a car in there or a pickup truck or even a four- wheel drive vehicle, so they all ride horses, which is not a bad idea. It saves on gas, and as high as gas is, it probably isn't a bad idea at all. This is a map of the elementary schools to give an idea of where they are located way out there.

Now, I want to take a look at the high schools. There are not as many of them. What are you going to do if a school in Miles City is in need of improvement under the current law? Where are you going to send them? To Broadus? I don't think so. That is another 80 or 90 miles. Pretty soon the miles start adding up.

Right now the law requires the schools to pay for students to transfer them in the same district unless doing so is too expensive. In Montana, as with many rural schools in rural States, there are considerations greater than just cost. While the law makes sense in Billings, it does not work in districts where the schools are farther apart.

Take the Broadus County School District in southeastern Montana as an example. As we can see, there is a lot of distance between schools. There are not very many schools out there. These are high schools. These are not elementary schools but high schools. Some may take up to 2 hours one way to drive. It not only hurts the family life of the students, but it disrupts what they do and also has an adverse effect on their academic performance.

Sometimes this type of commute may be necessary. My legislation makes this decision a matter for rural States to decide instead of the politicians here in Washington, DC, or by a rule written into a law that just is unworkable in my State.

I realize No Child Left Behind had some built-in flexibilities, and I also realize that some States did not take advantage of some of those flexibilities. Now we are locked into a situation where it is almost impossible to change unless we change the legislation and reword it. My legislation simply clarifies what is feasible and practical for school choice transfers within school districts and gives the States, especially my State, the ability to treat schools in rural Broadus differently than it treats schools in more urbanized Billings, MT.

I would imagine the Senator from Florida who is new to this body and a terrific addition to this body has some rural areas in Florida. We think of Florida as more urbanized, but they have some rural areas too, just like Montana. That does not mean there are kids out there whose needs should not be addressed.

When we visit schools, we get all kinds of questions from the students. I was visiting a sixth-grade class the other day. They came up with all kinds of questions. Some of them were pretty good, some were not so good. I did have one that was just a little bit different. This young man stood up in sixth grade, and he said: Senator, what do you want written on your tombstone? My gosh, I never had that question before, and I did not know exactly how to handle it, so I just told him: He's not here yet. That is the only way I could answer him.

These young people are very bright. They like their schools in these areas with distance learning. And we have telemedicine. We are delivering medical care much differently now. We are doing it with broadband services. We have 14 counties that do not have a doctor. It is done by physician assistants and many other people.

The other day a student from our part of the country enrolled at Montana State University at Billings. He had taken enough courses in his senior year in distance learning from MSUB that he has a full semester completed. So when he goes away to school, he already has half a year done.

This is why we have the Telecommunications Act. This is why we have the No Child Left Behind Act. We have to look at schools and libraries and some of the kinks we have to work out in that law so that these smaller schools and libraries can get their moneys so they can offer this online education. This is just another part of tweaking the No Child Left Behind law to make it work in rural areas.

I urge my Senate colleagues, especially those from rural States, to join me in cosponsoring this bill because it is very important. If we are really dedicated to the program of No Child Left Behind, we cannot leave rural children behind either, and we have to make it work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to re- authorize a critical program for our energy future. It is widely believed that the U.S. must diversify its energy portfolio and explore new domestic sources and technologies for energy to curb our dependence on foreign oil. As a senior member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I know we have

been assessing the potential for a variety of energy sources for the future including natural gas, clean coal technology, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and others. This bill, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2005, will reauthorize a small but important program on methane hydrate research and development, a key and abundant non-conventional source of energy.

I would like to extend my appreciation to my cosponsors, Senators Murkowski and Stevens, who share my interest and determination in exploring the potential of methane hydrates for energy production. We share a common goal to see that we fully understand the prospects for this domestic energy resource. This new legislation will foster the research and development needed to expand our knowledge to better assess both the opportunities and challenges this potential energy resource presents. Our legislation provides for a higher level of scientific research and partnering between government agencies, academic institutions, and industry.

The United States and the world will require substantially increased quantities of natural gas, electricity, and transportation fuels over the next 20 years. Global competition for tightening supplies of oil and natural gas with emerging economies such as China and India will drive energy prices higher, and makes it apparent that the United States needs to capitalize upon its domestic energy resources. The United States must continue to diversify and expand the Nation's access to natural gas supplies through continuing research and development efforts in technologies for tapping non-conventional natural gas supplies, such as methane hydrates.

Methane hydrates were discovered in the 1960s and consist of methane gas trapped in lattice-like ice. They are found largely in ocean bottom sediments lying below 450 meters and in permafrost. There are several published estimates of the total amount of methane stored in gas hydrates worldwide. These estimates vary. However, it is widely believed that there is more energy potentially stored in methane hydrates than in all other known fossil fuel reserves, combined. The National Commission on Energy Policy's December 2004 report, Ending the Energy Stalemate--A Bipartisan Strategy To Meet America's Energy Challenges, estimated that the United States could possess one quarter of the world's supply of methane hydrates.

The United States will consume increasing volumes of natural gas well into the 21st century. United States natural gas consumption is expected to increase from approximately 22 trillion cubic feet in 2003 to more than 32 trillion cubic feet in 2020--a projected increase of 40 percent. Natural gas is expected to take on a greater role in power generation, largely because of the increasing demand for clean fuels and the relatively low capital costs of building new natural gas-fired power equipment. The National Commission on Energy Policy reported that the United States resource base may contain up to two hundred thousand trillion cubic feet of methane, onshore in the Alaskan permafrost, and offshore on much of the Nation's deep continental shelf. If even one percent of the estimated domestic resource base proves commercially viable, it would roughly double the Nation's technically recoverable natural gas reserves, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy.

Given the growing demand for natural gas, the development of new, cost-effective supplies can play a major role in moderating price increases and ensuring consumer confidence in the long-term availability of reliable, affordable fuel. Today, the potential to extract commercially-relevant quantities of natural gas from hydrates is not yet viable. With no incentive to fund its own research and development, the private sector is not vigorously pursuing the research currently needed that could make methane hydrates technically and economically viable. Therefore, cooperation between the federal government and private industry remains the best effort in which the United States can explore the viability of an energy resource whose long-range possibilities might one day dramatically change the world's energy portfolio.

Uncertainties exist regarding the nature of these deposits and, in particular, how best to extract the enormous quantity of natural gas they contain in an economic and environmentally sensitive manner. However, some alternatives are worse. For example, transporting natural gas from foreign gas fields to the United States by shipping it in liquid form at negative 162 degrees Celsius is an expensive undertaking and one that is attractive to terrorists. Methane hydrates, on the other hand, can be found domestically, in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, and with our ally to the north, Canada. Hydrates are likely to provide commercially viable natural gas supplies by 2025. Their long term potential to meet United States energy demands for natural gas is considerable.

The Methane Hydrate Research Act of 2000 invigorated methane hydrate research in the United States. The act also mandated that the National Research Council study the program initiated by the act and to make recommendations for future research and development needs. Without a doubt, the National Research Council concluded in its 2004 report, Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States, that the U.S. must continue its investment in hydrates research and development because of the size of the resource. Furthermore, the report commended the program's excellent coordination and cooperation between federal agencies, industry, and academia involved in methane hydrates research. The legislation I am introducing incorporates the recommendations of the National Research Council, and improves upon the act by requiring external scientific peer reviews, strengthening the advisory panel, broadening the field work proposals to include test wells, increasing the appropriations needed to conduct the research, and emphasizing the need to promote education and training in the field of methane hydrate research and resource development. The bill also incorporates comments from the Department of Energy.

Mr. President, science and technology have and will continue to help us learn more about our world, and I believe, help us solve some of our toughest problems, not only domestically but globally. These are complex and significant problems relating to the impact of human activities on our environment, our heavy dependence on finite fossil fuels from sources that may not prove reliable, and limited energy supplies in the face of growing demands of expanding national economies that are increasingly intertwined in a global economic network. I believe the Federal Government must continue to foster the needed research and development in the field of methane hydrate research.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish an Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors, which will help the Federal Government work with its partners to meet the growing housing and related needs of senior citizens around the country. The Interagency Council will work to better coordinate Federal programs so that seniors and their families can access the programs and the services necessary to allow them to age in place or find suitable housing alternatives.

It is important that we take note of the needs of this rapidly growing senior population. In 2000, the population over 65 years of age was 34.7 million. This number is expected to grow to over 50 million by 2020. By the year 2030, nearly one-fifth of the United States population will be above 65 years of age.

In recognition of the importance of this issue, in 1999 Congress established the Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors--``Seniors Commission''--to assess the Federal role in senior housing, health and supportive services. The Seniors

Commission made a number of significant findings. For example, the commission found that seniors require a wide array of housing options with access to services, including meal preparation, transportation, health care, and assistance with daily activities. According to the Seniors Commission, over 18 percent of senior citizens--over 5.8 million seniors--who do not reside in nursing facilities have difficulty performing their daily activities without assistance. Over a million of these seniors are severely impaired, requiring assistance with many of their basic tasks. Many other seniors, those that can perform their daily functions, still require access to health care, transportation and other services. Without enhanced housing opportunities, such as service-enriched housing or assisted living facilities, these seniors find it increasingly difficult to remain outside of nursing homes or other institutional settings. In fact, the Seniors Commission found that ``many seniors across the income spectrum are at risk of institutionalization or neglect due to declining health and the loss or absence of support and timely interventions.'' For many seniors, in-home care, service-enriched housing, retrofitted homes and apartments, and assisted living-type facilities are sorely needed so that seniors can access necessary services where they live.

While there are numerous Federal programs that assist seniors and their families in meeting these needs, they are fragmented across many government agencies, with little or no coordination. In fact, the Seniors Commission found that ``the most striking characteristic of seniors' housing and health care in this country is the disconnection of one field from another.'' For example, housing assistance is available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, while health care and supportive services are most likely accessed through various branches of the Department of Health and Human Services, such as the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services and the Administration on Aging, as well as through the Department of Transportation and the Department of Labor.

The Seniors Commission concluded that ``the time has come for coordination among Federal and State agencies and administrators.'' The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors Act of 2005,'' answers the commission's call to action by implementing the recommendation for better federal coordination.

Through a high-level interagency council the Federal Government will take a simple, but critical, step in addressing this fragmentation. This Council will have a variety of functions. The council will review all Federal programs designed to assist seniors, identify gaps in services, make recommendations about how to reduce duplication, identify best practices for relevant programs and services, and most importantly, work to improve the availability of housing and services for seniors. The council will also monitor, evaluate, and recommend improvements in existing programs and services that assist seniors in meeting their housing and service needs at the Federal, State, and local level, and will work to more effectively coordinate programs at the federal level, as well as at the state level, where many of the decisions regarding health and service needs are made. In addition, the council will be responsible for collecting and disseminating information, through a variety of means, about seniors and the programs and services relating to their needs. Through collaboration with the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Statistics and the Census Bureau, the council will consolidate data on these needs and identify and address unmet data needs.

With improved collaboration and coordination among the Federal agencies and our State partners, we can ensure that seniors are better able to access housing and services. To ensure its effectiveness, the council will be comprised of top-level officials who oversee the programs which assist seniors in this country, including the Secretaries of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Health and Human Services; the Department of Labor; the Department of Transportation; and the Department of Veterans Affairs; as well as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and the Administrator of the Administration for the Aging.

This is a step we must take. It is essential that we make it easier for seniors and their families to access housing and supportive services together, so that when faced with difficult decisions, they do not have to navigate a confusing maze of programs and services, and work through multiple bureaucracies. We must also make it simpler for developers and providers to link housing and services so that greater supportive housing opportunities are available to the senior population. Through the Interagency Council, it is my hope that we will move toward a model of providing housing and services to seniors around the country.

If we are to successfully address these growing needs, it is clear that much work must be done. The establishment of an Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors is a critical first step in this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill together with letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, H.R. 3351, the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2005, was passed by the House on November 16, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Many of the provisions in the House bill have already been acted on by the Senate in various bills. I will ask the Senate to pass the bill with a substitute amendment which includes most of the provisions in the original House version of the bill as well as some amendments that were not in the House version. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

The Senate amendment to H.R. 3551 that I am offering contains the following: Section 104 is the same as S. 1484, which passed the Senate on July 26, 2005, and it amends the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 to adjust the spending rule set forth in that act for the Tribe's Settlement Fund. The provision would authorize expenditure of 6 percent of the average market value of the Settlement fund over the preceding 3 years. Section 201 is the same as S. 706, which passed the Senate on July 26, 2005, and it authorizes the transfer of lands, now held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the benefit of the Prairie Island Indian community in Red Wing, MN. The transfer will have no effect on the tax status of the lands, nor will the Prairie Island Indian Community be permitted to develop commercial or gaming facilities on the land; section 202 authorizes various 99-year leases. Part of this section passed Senate in S. 1485 on July 26, 2005, while other provisions were contained in H.R. 3351. Section 203 addresses the problem of lack of appraisers in Indian country by providing that for purposes of obtaining agricultural loans, the market value of land is the default appraisal value. This section is the same as S. 1489, that passed the Senate on July 26, 2005. Section 301 previously passed the Senate in S. 1295 on December 12, 2005, and it authorizes the National Indian Gaming Commission to collect fees up to 0.08 percent of gross gaming revenues, and eliminates $12 million cap, and subjects NIGC to the Government Performance and Results Act. Section 401, like S. 1758, that passed the Senate on August 22, 2005, amends the Indian Financing Act of 1974 to clarify that nonprofit tribal entities are eligible for Bureau of Indian Affairs Loan Guaranty Program. In addition, because the BIA is fast reaching its $500 million limit on the amount of loans it can have outstanding, and this section will increase that number to $1.5 billion.

The four new provisions that have not passed the Senate as stand- alone measures do the following: Section 101 corrects a drafting error to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; section 102 facilitates exchanges between Alaska Regional and Village Corporations of land obtained through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act by clarifying that undeveloped land received by each Native corporation participant in the exchanges is deemed to be land conveyed under ANCSA; and section 103 will allow the State of Mississippi to pay the Mississippi Choctaw for work already preformed, through a newly established BIA Trust Fund. The final new provision is section 501, the Native American Probate Reform and Technical Amendment, described in more detail below.

Section 501 corrects drafting errors and clarifies and includes new provisions relating to amendments made by the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004, AIPRA, and S. 1481, which was enacted into law in December of 2005. One of these provisions is an amendment to 25 U.S.C. 464. In 2004, this section was amended in AIPRA so that it would conform to the new uniform Indian probate code that was the centerpiece of AIPRA; however, after reviewing the various amendments that were made by AIPRA, which was a very complex piece of legislation, we concluded that the AIPRA amendments to 25 U.S.C. 464 was drafted in a way that its execution was unclear. So in the 109th Congress, we attempted to correct this in S. 1481--P.L. 109-157, enacted on December 30, 2005, by restating section 464 as it should have read. Unfortunately, there were drafting errors in S. 1481 that were not picked up prior to its enactment. Accordingly, my substitute amendment includes a new restatement of section 464 correcting these drafting errors and conforming the statute to the new uniform Indian probate code enacted as part of AIPRA. I would like to make the point here that the purpose of the amendments restating section 464, both in S. 1481 and in the current substitute amendment to H.R. 3351, were and are intended to do nothing more than to conform the provisions in that section relating to the devise and inheritance of lands to the new uniform probate code contained in the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004. As the author of both S. 1481 and the substitute amendment, I want to make it clear

that neither measure intends to affect any of the other sorts of transactions that might otherwise be subject to section 464 or to affect in any way the application of any other Federal laws that might apply to lands that are covered by section 464.

We are also making clarifying amendments to AIPRA relating to the effective date of its amendments and to its amendments to the ``Applicable Federal Law'' provisions of section 207(g) of the Indian Land Consolidation Act. With respect to the former, the substitute includes technical amendments to the effective date section of AIPRA, section 8(b) of AIPRA, to make it clear that the amendments that were made to 25 U.S.C. 464 and 25 U.S.C. 348 are intended to take effect 1 year after the date on which the Secretary of Interior certified that notice of the AIPRA amendments had been given to Indian country in accordance with AIPRA section 8(a), and that sections 348 and 464, as they read immediately prior to the passage of AIPRA, would continue to apply until the effective date of the new amendments.

Finally, the substitute also makes some minor changes to the wording of section 207(g) of ILCA just to further clarify congressional intent that nothing in ILCA supercedes or affects the application of special laws that relate to specific Indian tribes or the allotted lands of specific tribes.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Alexander in reintroducing the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers Who Deliver Infants Early (PREEMIE) Act--legislation intended to address the growing crisis of premature birth in our nation.

I think when many of us hear about a baby being born early, we don't give much thought to what it means. After all, it is not all that uncommon--I'm sure that almost all of my colleagues knows someone born prematurely. Thanks to modem medicine it is also not uncommon for a baby born early to end up healthy and happy.

But this feeling that prematurity is somehow ``normal'' or to be expected masks a growing health crisis. Prematurity has real consequences in health and economic terms. We need to bring to light this issue that affects some of the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn babies.

As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee I, along with my colleagues, have devoted much time and effort to improving the health of our nation's children and infants. And yet despite our efforts, the problem of prematurity continues to persist and even grow. What is so striking about prematurity is how many parents face these enormous emotional and financial burdens. Nearly 1 out of every 8 babies in the United States is born prematurely--that's 1,300 babies each day, and over 470,000 each year (including more than 4,000 in my home state of Connecticut).

Despite all of the health care advances of the last decades, the problem of prematurity is not in any way abating. According to recent data released by the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2002 the infant mortality rate actually increased for the first time since 1958. Much of this increase is attributable to infant death in the

first month of life--of which prematurity is the leading cause. Since 1981, the premature birth rate has increased by 27 percent. This stands in stark contrast to some of the breathtaking medical discoveries of the past two decades. We can now treat and even cure many types of cancer, but we can't prevent babies from being born too soon.

Mr. President, the consequences of prematurity are devastating. As I mentioned earlier, it is the leading cause of neonatal death--a tragedy that no family should have to face. For those infants that survive, a lifetime of severe health problems is not uncommon. Prematurity has been linked to such long-term health problems as cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. Premature babies have the deck stacked against them from the moment they are born. And even in the fortunate cases where there are no life- long health consequences, the experience of a premature birth takes an enormous emotional toll on a family.

Prematurity also carries a significant economic cost. According to a recent study conducted by the March of Dimes, hospitalizations due to prematurity cost a total of $15.5 billion during the year 2002-- accounting for nearly half of all hospital charges for infants in this country. And this number does not even include the cost of care for problems later in life resulting from a premature birth. Much of this cost falls on employers who are already bearing the weight of skyrocketing health care costs.

Given the emotional and economic toll that prematurity takes on this country, we know remarkably little about why it happens, and how it can be prevented. Some of the risk factors associated with preterm birth are known, including advanced age of the mother, smoking, and certain chronic diseases. But nearly 50 percent of all premature births have no known cause. And because we know so little about the causes of prematurity, we also do not know how to prevent it.

For such a large (and growing) problem, it is astounding how little we know. It is critical that we make a national commitment to solving this puzzle. We must do everything we can to expand research--both public and private--into the root causes of prematurity.

Senator Alexander and I are introducing the PREEMIE Act for precisely this reason. Our bill would coordinate and expand research related to prematurity at the Federal level. It would also educate health care providers and the general public about the risks of prematurity, and measures that can be taken before and during pregnancy to prevent it. Pregnant mothers need to know the warning signs and symptoms of premature labor--and they need to know what to do if they begin to notice those signs.

Finally, because we will never eliminate prematurity completely, our legislation would provide support services to families impacted by a premature birth. As we're investigating the causes of prematurity and increasing awareness in expectant parents, we need to reach out to the mothers and fathers across our country whose children are born too soon. We need to give them emotional support during the difficult days, weeks, and months that often follow a premature birth. We need to make sure that the doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff who care for premature babies are sensitive to the needs of their parents, their brothers, and their sisters. And we need to make sure that when the time finally comes to bring a premature baby home, parents have all the information they need to make that transition.

It is my hope that this legislation will complement and support some of the efforts going on in the private sector--such as the March of Dimes ambitious campaign to increase public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm birth. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.