Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2010

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. We can make progress by starting with the laws that already exist. My bill would enhance our core immigration and enforcement laws for both legal and illegal immigrants.

Much has been discussed this Congress on how to proceed on the very complex and, unfortunately at times, partisan issue of immigration reform. Some have introduced non-binding resolutions others have tried to attach

immigration-related measures to non-germane legislative vehicles. But, we're never going to get anywhere with these political stunts which do little to get to the root the problem.

Throughout my service, I have spent considerable time with my constituents and, quite frankly, have anguished with them on how to best address the considerable strain the illegal alien population is having on Utahns. Among other things, I have taken the initiative to increase immigration enforcement in Utah include bringing ICE Quick Response teams to our state, creating an immigration court, and establishing an ICE Field Office Director position to address Utah's immigration concerns. I also brought the 287(g) cross-deputizing program and just recently the Secure Communities program to Utah.

There is no question that more needs to be done. That is something everyone will agree on. Just recently legislation was enacted to enhance border security. I was pleased that this was a bipartisan effort. Some argue that the bill is sufficient to secure our border, but I disagree. There is much work to be done before the border is properly sealed. I continue to work with and support my colleagues whose states are located along the Southwest border. They know what resources we need to deploy to secure the border.

While Utah is not a border state, we still share the same concerns of our neighbors along the border. However, our problems result from a residual effect of a porous border and a breakdown of our immigration enforcement system.

For years, I have been saying most immigration problems could be solved if we would enforce the laws on the books. Unfortunately, the current Administration continues to explore ways to exploit current law and score political points.

During the past several months, the Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status, on a mass basis, to illegal immigrants via deferred action and parole. If the Administration is successful, it would be the equivalent of back-door amnesty for millions. For this reason, my bill specifies that an alien may only be paroled or granted deferred action on a case-by-case basis--not en mass--the way these laws were intended to be used.

The 287(g) and Secure Communities programs continue to be valuable tools to our law enforcement officials in detaining and deporting criminal aliens. For example, in Fiscal Year 2010, the 287(g) program was responsible for detaining 29,295 criminal aliens. What I don't understand is why some cities would choose to not participate in these effective programs. That is why my proposed legislation would require eligible states, counties, or cities to actively participate in the Secure Communities or 287(g) programs or forego compensation for incarceration expenses. Turning a blind eye to these law enforcement programs poses a serious risk to the public and creates sanctuary cities.

When I meet with my constituents, one of their top concerns is how we fix our visa programs. Many are concerned, and with good cause, about how some of these folks are getting into the country. Disturbingly, some visa holders are active participants in organized crime. They come to this country and infiltrate our communities, wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods.

In an effort to address this problem, my bill would provide our State Department consular officers the necessary legal authority to deny members of known gangs from coming into our country. It's not acceptable to allow these thugs to slip through the cracks.

After 9/11, many areas of our immigration system came under scrutiny. One of the top recommendations for reform to our system is to create an exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. Departure information is vital for determining whether foreign visitors are departing the U.S., maintaining their visa status, and evaluating future visa eligibility for these visitors. Not to mention, the ability to track departures goes to the heart of keeping America safe.

Without such exit procedures, however, the task of determining whether an alien has overstayed their visa in the United States is nearly impossible. Since 2004, the Department of Homeland Security has been testing exit programs and departure controls at U.S. airports for visa holders leaving the United States. As recently as July 2009, another pilot program was concluded by the Department of Homeland Security. To date, we still haven't seen any implementation of exit procedures for our country's visitors, nor have we seen any final conclusions made by the Department. It has been over 6 years since the first pilot program concluded. It is time to act.

Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a mandatory exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. This should have been done years ago.

Additionally, the proposed legislation would eliminate the fraud- laden visa lottery, known as the Diversity Visa program. At present, applicants of the visa lottery program are open to being defrauded by so-called service providers who offer to assist them in obtaining Diversity Visa status. Unlike other immigrant visa categories, this is one of the few visas that allows people to immigrate to the United States without having any connection to the country. In other words, the applicants may not have any family, employment, or even provide an economic tie to the United States. And because of limited availability of verification, the program presents serious national security concerns.

Let me be clear: if anyone is a proponent of a diverse nation, one that enjoys the influence of many cultures, it is me. But what we have right now in the visa lottery program does not accomplish the intended goal.

After careful consultation with State Department officials, I have been advised that the Diversity Visa program needs serious reform, and some have even called for complete elimination of the program. In light of this guidance, I propose to sunset the Diversity Visa program, unless the State Department recommends to Congress how best to combat fraud and eliminate abuse currently in the program.

One of the most heated issues that is continually raised by my constituents, and many across the country, is the impact that illegal aliens are having upon our welfare programs. It came to my attention that Los Angeles County, California, actually tracks this information. Much to my amazement, L.A. County confirms that in 2009 alone, they distributed over $2.4 billion in Federal-State welfare and food stamp programs. Of that amount, $569 million was issued to households that include illegal aliens. Let me reiterate: the illegal alien population in L.A. County received over a half-billion dollars of welfare benefits in one year alone.

In order to have an honest discussion about the drain illegal aliens are having upon our welfare systems, we must be armed with state- specific information to understand the extent of this problem.

Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and any other appropriate Federal agency, to submit an annual report to Congress outlining the total dollar amount of Federal welfare benefits received by households of illegal aliens for each state and the District of Columbia. The annual report would also include the overall dollar amount each state spends on Federal welfare benefits.

Without having this information, we will continue to dismiss the serious economic ramifications to our country's prosperity. We cannot afford to perpetuate this problem any longer.

My legislation also includes a provision which revisits the legal immigrant policy included in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, P.L. 111-3. The CHIP Reauthorization law overturned language requiring a 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants may be eligible for federal health coverage. The 5-year waiting period was included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. As my colleagues will recall, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act required sponsors of legal immigrants to be responsible for individuals' expenses during the first 5 years of residency in our country. States had the option of offering legal immigrants CHIP and Medicaid coverage with State only dollars. In other words, States could not

receive Federal matching dollars for covering these legal immigrants.

The 2009 CHIP law overturned that policy. Today, States may still cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women who have been in the U.S. less than 5 years. However, the big difference is states now receive Federal matching dollars for covering those individuals.

The provision in the bill I am introducing today would permit states to continue receiving federal matching dollars for covering legal immigrant children and legal immigrant pregnant women but two conditions must be met. First, the state must demonstrate that it has covered 90 percent of its U.S. citizen children and pregnant women eligible for CHIP or Medicaid. These individuals' family income may not exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Second, the State must demonstrate that it is not supplanting state dollars which were being used to cover legal immigrants prior to passage of the 2009 CHIP reauthorization law with Federal dollars.

Another top concern I regularly hear about is identity theft--that of both adults and children who have to spend a great amount of their time and money to clear their good names and restore their credit history.

In 2006, parents of Utah 2-year old Tyler Lybbert realized their daughter's identity had been stolen by 38-year old Jose Tinoco. By the time the Lybberts became aware of the fraud, Mr. Tinoco had already taken out two loans and opened credit cards--saddling Tyler with over $15,000 in debt. Little Tyler was left holding the bag.

Fortunately, when Mr. Tinoco tried to obtain a loan from a local Utah bank, an employee spotted the discrepancy and alerted Tyler's parents. Mr. Tinoco was caught, but the Lybberts were left with countless hours of work to correct the fraud perpetrated against their child.

This past weekend, the Utah press reported on another identity theft case. A newly married radiology student at Weber State University has been battling to reclaim his identity for the last 15 years. When Cameron Noble was 7 years old his Social Security number was stolen by Mr. Jose Zavala of California--an over 60-year-old man.

Noble's parents thought they had corrected the error but when Cameron began working at the age of 16 he started receiving notices that his wages were being garnished to pay child support. The problem has continued to haunt him ever since--in the form of tax withholdings and credit report confusion. He is now nearing the end of the process to obtain a new Social Security number.

It is not a secret that many in the illegal immigrant community perpetuate identity theft with stolen or fabricated Social Security numbers, SSN. The identity theft they commit often affects the very young--who may not notice problems for years or decades until they are old enough to apply for their first job, car or school loan, or credit card.

As in little Tyler Lybbert's case, why did it take a bank employee to pick up on the theft? Because there is no formal system established to alert SSN holders when potential fraud or improper usage have occurred.

The federal agency that is best suited to track the use of mismatched SSN numbers is the Internal Revenue Service, IRS. That is why my bill requires the IRS to send a notice to an employer that an inaccurate SSN has been discovered for an employee. If the employer does not respond to the notice within 60-days to correct the inaccuracy, my legislation will require the IRS to notify the SSN holder or to parents and guardians of a minor, that a discrepancy has been detected and to do the following: if it is an actual mismatch to contact the IRS; if they suspect fraudulent use, the SSN holder is provided with contact information for the FTC and various credit bureaus to report the problem; and finally if no response is received by the SSN holder, the IRS would be required to refer the account number to appropriate Federal agencies for possible investigation.

Let me pause here to underscore a point. Currently, the original SSN holder never receives notice when a mismatch has occurred. Quite frankly, I do not have the assurances that the IRS is requiring much of the employer to correct or verify the submission. That is not acceptable. In this day and age, when at a click of a mouse, someone can apply for credit cards, mortgages, or even car loans, there is no excuse why SSN holders are left in the dark.

One can only imagine that if this simple notification step was taken in the case of little Tyler Lybbert or the Noble family that years of laborious efforts and countless hours of notifying credit bureaus, banks, and other authorities, could have been greatly reduced if not avoided all together.

To make matters more confusing in this area of the law, the Supreme Court has more or less tied the hands of prosecutors in going after these thieves and those who are involved in so-called document mills. The case of Flores-Figueroa v. United States undermined prosecutors' longstanding practice of using the aggravated identity theft statute by requiring them to also prove that a defendant knew that he or she was using a real person's identity information, as opposed to counterfeit information not connected to an actual person.

To clarify the Criminal Code and provide our prosecutors with the latitude they need to pursue these cases, my bill makes clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own, without lawful authority, and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendants' ``knowledge'' of the victim.

Finally, my bill's identity theft would require the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the FTC, and the Commissioner of Social Security to conduct a study to determine the most feasible and cost- effective ways to protect the credit worthiness of individuals, especially that of children.

Mexican Cartel drug violence has been placed front and center by the media and members of this body. Some of my fellow colleagues have called for more resources directed to this problem. As additional federal law enforcement personnel and military units continue to be deployed to the southwest border the focus has been on weapons, drug interdiction and bulk cash smuggling. While I recognize the importance of these border enforcement activities, too little attention is being paid to outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations is causing increasing environmental damage, especially on publicly owned lands. From 2004-2009 more than 11 million marijuana plants have been eradicated from federal public lands. Outdoor marijuana cultivation is the chief source of revenue for Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Growing marijuana in the U.S. saves traffickers the risk and expense of smuggling their product across the border and allows gangs to produce their crops closer to local markets. Illegal alien workers are smuggled in from Mexico to serve as laborers and provide security to the grow plots. Mexican gang plots can often be distinguished from those of domestic-based growers based on their plant volume and security measures. Many of the plots are encircled with crude explosives and are patrolled by armed illegal aliens providing security for the crop.

In my home State of Utah, the Drug Enforcement Administration and local law enforcement have seized more than 110,000 marijuana plants this year. Each plant can yield one pound of marijuana with a street value of $1,000. These remote plots were on federal land and nestled under the cover in a national forest or hidden high in the rugged-yet- fertile tracts of federal land. All of the sites were far from the eyes of law enforcement, where growers can take the time needed to grow far more potent marijuana. Growers of these fields have even created irrigation systems to disrupt or divert water sources. They even use illegal fertilizers that damage the environment and the local eco- system.

In one recent incident in Garfield County, Utah an illegal alien grow worker was armed with a shotgun and confronted six teenage girls who inadvertently hiked into the marijuana field. The worker brandished a shotgun and demanded to use their cell phone. Fortunately, the group of girls were able to run away from this armed man

and prevented what could have been a very tragic outcome. The girls were quite traumatized and reported the incident to local police. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the local authorities apprehended the man a short time later.

So far this year in Utah, as a result of joint investigative efforts between Federal, State and local law enforcement, 20 arrests have been made in connection with the outdoor cultivation of marijuana on Federal lands. Out of the 20 arrests made, 19 were illegal aliens. This is not a problem that is unique to Utah. Other States with substantial federal lands are also seeing a spike in marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, including Colorado, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Michigan.

It is for this reason why my legislation would provide tougher penalties for cultivating marijuana on federal lands and destroying the environment. Provisions of this legislation would also require the Office of National Drug Control Policy to formulate a comprehensive and coordinated action plan to address marijuana cultivation on Federal lands. This plan will be a broad strategic approach to disrupt Mexican drug trafficking organizations' central source of revenue and a key reason for organized alien smuggling.

The fight to control the border is no longer isolated to just the physical boundary between the United States and Mexico. Securing the border now means addressing Mexican cartels; prohibiting mass deferral or parole; streamlining the visa process; requiring participation in key law enforcement programs; clamping down on identity theft; tracking the amount of welfare benefits being diverted by illegal immigrant households; ensuring that dollars are being used to cover newly eligible American children in CHIP and Medicaid; and keeping our great national parks and Federal lands safe and free from drug traffickers, drug cultivation, and environmental damage.

Let me conclude by saying this bill represents key issues that are important to my Utah constituents and Americans across the country. They are common sense solutions to strengthen our commitment to legal immigration and American's security. I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3919, an act to remove Endangered Species Act, ESA,

protections for gray wolves. Delisting of this species is long overdue.

Gray wolves are listed as endangered under the ESA in the United States, except in Minnesota where they are listed as threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed ESA protection from these wolves in 2009, but subsequently reinstated protection under a court decision following a lawsuit.

Legislative action is the only solution to stop the endless cycle of litigation and return the sovereign ability of states to manage their wildlife. Gray wolves are the iconic species of the ESA. But we cannot let the preconceived and inaccurate perceptions surrounding this animal prevent us from doing our due diligence in providing protections and safeguards for other species including elk, deer, moose, and big horn sheep. With a population growth rate of 24 percent, gray wolf overpopulation is now doing significant damage to wildlife populations throughout the West and Midwest.

Gray wolf predation is erasing decades of effort and hundreds of millions invested in rebuilding healthy big game populations. Wolves do not know or care where recovery plan lines are drawn. They will roam wherever necessary to find adequate food and habitat. Research indicates that wolf and ungulate populations are generally inversely proportional and cyclical over relatively long periods of time.

Ill-advised experimentation and anti-management philosophy continues to be pushed by extreme animal rights and anti-sportsmen special interest groups. This war on the west threatens big game herds, proactive State wildlife management, use of renewable wildlife resources, and the western way of life. This bill, while viewed with suspicion and opposed with philosophical arguments by some environmental organizations, ensures that delicate wildlife populations are restored to healthy levels.

When Congress passed the ESA, it envisioned legislation to make certain that species would not become extinct. The key to success of the new law was finding a way to conserve and protect species truly in danger of becoming extinct. The gray wolf is not endangered as a species. There are thousands alive and well in North America. The ESA has become a vehicle by which some organizations and individuals seek to halt all activities on our public lands which they happen to oppose. I would submit to you that such use of the ESA was not envisioned nor would it have been condoned by a majority of those who originally crafted the law.

Some groups want to use the gray wolf as a surrogate for other agendas. Others have used it to raise a lot of money from citizens of this country truly concerned about the place of the wolf in our environment. Still others have used it for political purposes. What a shame that the laws of this great Nation can be subverted for purposes other than the reason the law was originally written.

The gray wolf has been protected by the ESA since 1973, the year the ESA was passed. The single exception to that classification is in the State of Minnesota where they are classified as threatened. The original recovery plan for the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies was written in 1974. The main States involved are owned largely by the Federal Government. Thirty percent of Montana, 50 percent of Wyoming, and 64 percent of Idaho is federally owned. Access to and use of the public lands and resources on them has a great deal to do with the economy of these sparsely populated States. When the economy suffers, so do these communities and these people.

The working men and women of our States have no alternative but to rely on continued access to and the use of grass, water, timber, and minerals from public lands to support their families. Those working people have mortgages to pay just like you and I; they have bills that are due each month; and they want to be able to feed and clothe their children just as you and I do.

We must recognize the legitimate concerns of the hundreds of honest, hardworking citizens who are being directly affected by the continued listing of the gray wolf on the ESA. In my opinion, we have a responsibility to protect their right to make an honest living and to live the lifestyle they have chosen.

I hope my colleagues will join me in this attempt to resolve this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act to create a safe environment for students and school personnel by creating minimum standards around the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In December, I introduced a similar bill. But today, I come to the floor with my good friend and colleague Senator Burr, with a revised act that incorporates additional protections for students.

In 1998, the Hartford Courant ran an award-winning series of stories about the use of seclusion and restraint in hospitals, residential facilities, and group homes for individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities. The Courant uncovered a hidden epidemic, confirming 142 deaths occurring during or after the use of seclusion or restraint.

One of those 142 cases was an 11-year-old boy from my home State of Connecticut. He was restrained face-down in a position that restricted his air flow. He died as a result.

In response, I led the charge to establish Federal standards to prevent the misuse of these practices. I helped pass The Children's Health Act of 2000, which included the Compassionate Care Act that I originally drafted to put these standards in place in certain hospitals and residential facilities. We

wanted to include schools in this legislation, but were unable to do so. Sadly, the need could not have been greater.

Over the past year, reports from the National Disability Rights Network, NDRN, the Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions, and Seclusion, APRAIS, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., COPAA, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have painted a picture disturbingly similar to the one the Hartford Courant discovered more than a decade ago.

The statistics are chilling--hundreds of incidents of physical injury, psychological trauma, even death--but the stories are even more devastating.

The GAO found many examples of the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint in the report it released on May 19, 2009.

A 14 year-old boy was restrained face-down by a teacher because he would not stay seated in class. The 230 lb. teacher sat on the 129 lb. boy, restricting his airflow and resulting in the boy's death.

A 4 year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism was restrained in a wooden chair with leather straps for being ``uncooperative.''

In one school district, children with disabilities as young as six years old were allegedly placed in strangleholds, restrained for extended periods of time, confined to dark rooms, and tethered to ropes and prevented from using the restroom until they urinated on themselves.

To be clear, school personnel go to work every day with the goal of educating children, not harming them. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the difficult job they do and want to make it clear that my concern signifies no disrespect for their challenging jobs, or the dangers they sometimes face.

However, these tragic stories reflect inadequate training and a lack of resources on the state and local levels to implement effective interventions, such as school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. According to a report by COPPA, over 71 percent of the 185 incidents they identified occurred in schools with no positive behavioral interventions or supports. If school personnel are provided with the necessary tools to prevent dangerous situations, the number of incidents requiring restraint and seclusion will decrease.

Just as students have a right to learn in a safe environment, educators have a right to work in a safe environment. They should be provided with the proper training and support to prevent injury to themselves and others.

In some states, parents have successfully advocated for laws that provide these resources, as well as guidelines to ensure that they are used effectively.

But the patchwork of state laws and regulations is confusing and especially troublesome for transient students.

According to the GAO study, 19 states have no law or regulations concerning seclusion and restraint in schools. Some laws apply to only certain schools or situations, and some apply to restraint but not seclusion. Only 19 states require parental notification, only 17 states require staff training, and only eight specifically prohibit restraints that restrict air flow.

Therefore, Senator Burr and I will today introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act, a bill that will address these issues.

Our bill will establish clear minimum standards for the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, closely based on the Children's Health Act of 2000. It will also provide resources to assist with policy implementation and provide school personnel with necessary tools, training, and support.

It will improve data collection, analysis, and identification of effective practices to prevent and reduce seclusion and restraint in schools, so we may better understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of our solutions.

Specifically, the legislation will prohibit the use of seclusion and restraint in schools unless a student's behavior poses an immediate danger of serious physical injury and less restrictive interventions would be ineffective.

It will prohibit the use of mechanical, chemical, and physical restraints that restrict air flow to the lungs.

This legislation will require adequate training and state certification of school personnel imposing seclusion or restraint, immediate parental notification when such an incident occurs, and a debriefing session to prevent future incidents.

As a result of this act, the Department of Education will conduct, and provide to Congress, a national assessment that analyzes data on seclusion and restraint and determines effective practices in preventing and reducing the number of incidents. This assessment will provide us with a more accurate picture of the extent of seclusion and restraint in schools, and will help direct additional future efforts to ensure that our children and those who educate them are safe.

The Keeping All Students Safe Act includes language that solidifies Protection and Advocacy agencies', P&A, abilities to serve the students who are in need of protection. This legislation is meant to ensure that these P&As are spending their time and resources protecting our Nation's children in schools, and not in court about this already settled issue.

Finally, this legislation will amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as the Higher Education Act, to provide additional planning for and training on the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports.

I want to thank the many organizations representing individuals with disabilities, students, teachers, and schools that all came to the table with recommendations. Their time, energy, and input made this a much stronger and more effective bill, and I truly appreciate their hard work and support. I am especially thankful for Senator Burr's commitment to this issue and his insights that have strengthened the bill. I am also grateful to Secretary Duncan for his leadership on this issue at the Department of Education. Finally, I want to thank my colleague and good friend, Chairman George Miller in the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, he introduced companion legislation that passed the House in March. Senator Burr and I look forward to working with him to pass this into law.

Every child has a right to be safe in the place where he or she goes to learn and grow. Every educator deserves the training and support he or she needs to do his or her job safely and effectively. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will help to prevent tragedies in our schools. I am proud to introduce it today, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue that affects many Americans, and that is premature births. More than half a million babies will be born preterm this year and approximately 28,000 babies will die before they turn 1 year old.

In my home State of Connecticut, there were more than 4,000 preterm births in 2007, representing approximately 11 percent of all live births in the State. Between 1997 and 2007, the rate of infants born preterm in Connecticut increased 3 percent.

The incidence of preterm birth represents a huge disconnect between our scientific knowledge and our capacity to meet basic and critical needs in maternal-child health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, babies who died from preterm birth-related causes accounted for more than 36 percent of infant deaths in 2006. For newborns, prematurity is the leading cause of death.

Of the surviving preemies, approximately one-fourth will have serious health complications including hearing loss, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, acute respiratory diseases, and other maladies. These health problems not only affect the child, but also place a financial and emotional burden on many families. According to the Institute of Medicine, the annual societal costs associated with preterm birth were $26.2 billion in 2005 or $51,600 per infant born preterm. Nearly two-thirds of this cost was for medical care. More importantly, the $26.2 billion estimate does not include the cost of medical care beyond early childhood or caretaker costs such as lost wages.

In nearly half of all cases, physicians and scientists cannot pinpoint a cause for preterm labor and delivery. However, research has shown that causes of preterm birth may include neighborhood characteristics, environmental exposures, biological factors, and medical conditions. Many of these factors can occur in combination, particularly for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority groups. Accordingly, there are significant disparities in the rates of preterm birth across these groups, with the highest rate of preterm births for non-Hispanic African Americans at 17.5 percent in 2008, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. It is clear that a greater commitment to eliminating these inequalities is needed. As the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' Subcommittee on Children and Families, ensuring the health of America's children has been my life's work, making the correction of these inequalities an issue of great importance.

In 2006, my colleague Senator Alexander and I worked to pass the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act or PREEMIE Act, Public Law 109-450, which authorized finding to enhance Federal research related to preterm labor and delivery and increased public and provider education and support services. Among the results of the PREEMIE Act were the 2008 Surgeon General's Conference on Preterm Birth and expanded research activities at CDC. The most notable accomplishment to date is a 3 percent decline in the preterm birth rate from 2007 to 2008. But there is still much work to be done. We must build on the progress recently achieved and use both public and private efforts to accelerate this decrease in the rate of preterm birth.

For these reasons, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee to introduce the PREEMIE Act to reauthorize these vital activities. It is my hope that this legislation will complement many of the efforts being conducted by the private sector, such as the March of Dimes campaign to raise public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm births. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting a healthy start for America's children by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, I rise today to introduce the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Sherrod Brown. This legislation provides an excellent opportunity to address a critical disparity that exists in our Nation's health care system.

Individuals with disabilities can face a myriad of challenges in accessing the health care they need and deserve. Such was the case for Debbie Blanchard, a woman who lived with Spina Bifida for nearly 56 years, and who passed away in August 2008 from cervical cancer. Due to the challenges she faced in finding a physician whose office and examination tables were accessible for individuals with disabilities, Debbie was not able to seek regular well-woman exams, including cervical cancer screenings. The barriers Debbie faced in physically accessing the regular preventive care she needed unfortunately contributed to her cervical cancer going undetected until it was too late. The lack of accessible care clearly contributed to her untimely death.

The Spina Bifida community is devastated by Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing, and we in the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus wish to help ensure that the challenges and barriers that contributed to her illness and death are eliminated. To that end, we have developed the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act in an effort to help facilitate access to health care by individuals with disabilities, including, but not limited to, those with Spina Bifida, and help them to identify providers whose offices and examination rooms are accessible for individuals with disabilities.

Before I discuss the details of this bill, I believe it is important to recognize the scope of the problem we are dealing with. According to the U.S. Census, more than 54 million Americans, about one out of every five, live with some level of disability. Approximately 34 million of those are classified as having a severe disability. In Connecticut, more than 540,000 individuals are living with some level of disability. Of those individuals, close to 22,000 have physical disabilities.

Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that individuals with disabilities have difficulty in accessing routine and specialized health care. Numerous barriers exist for these patients, including the inability to find a health care provider who understands how to treat individuals with disabilities and is willing to have those individuals as patients. According to a survey commissioned by the National Organization on Disability, 19 percent of persons with disabilities reported they needed medical care within the previous year and did not get it. This is a number more than three times the percentage for those without disabilities.

Women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. A study by the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities showed that nearly one- third of women with disabilities surveyed reported being denied services at a physician's office solely because of their disability, and 56 percent described their physicians' offices and hospitals as ill-prepared to accommodate their specific needs. Research by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research shows that women with disabilities are less likely to have Pap smears and mammograms and are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of breast cancer. These women are less likely to receive standard treatments and more likely to have poor outcomes.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-l48, includes an important component to establish standards for medical diagnostic equipment such as examination tables and chairs to improve access to health care for individuals with disabilities and I applaud Senator Harkin for his leadership on that provision. As such, the legislation I propose today seeks to complement existing programs and other pending proposals. The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would empower individuals with disabilities with the information and tools they need to identify accessible providers. It would also increase awareness among health professionals of the need to provide an accessible environment. The bill provides for four key programs to achieve these goals.

First, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide formula-based grants to States to create on-line directories of health care providers accessible to individuals with disabilities. States would not be required to engage in this activity, and the grants are strictly voluntary.

Second, it authorizes HHS to develop a pilot program to increase health care provider awareness of the need to provide accessible environments, examination rooms, and examination tables for individuals with disabilities.

Third, it authorizes the HHS Office on Disability, with the help of national organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to develop resources to support individuals with disabilities in their efforts to find accessible providers. Such resources include ``tips cards'' and questions to ask when calling a provider for the first time to make an appointment.

Finally, the bill authorizes HHS to create a National Advisory Committee on Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities to ensure intra-agency coordination of efforts to improve access to care for individuals with disabilities.

The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would be a significant step in ensuring health care equity for the more than 50 million Americans who live with a disability. Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing should serve as a lesson on the barriers that exist for individuals with disabilities in accessing basic quality health care. We should take action to ensure that these barriers are eliminated to prevent Debbie's story from being repeated. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, this is a big day because in the House, they are about to consider the NASA bill we passed by unanimous consent in the Senate back in the first week of August. It is on what is called the consent calendar in the House which, in order for any of the six items on that consent calendar to be considered, they have to pass with a two-thirds vote. They are generally items that are less controversial in nature. It is certainly my hope that is going to be the case later this afternoon when the House takes up the NASA authorization bill.

This is so important because the new fiscal year starts this Friday, October 1, and NASA is without direction. Even though the appropriation is going to be decided in our lameduck session starting in November-- probably by taking a whole bunch of appropriations bills and putting them together into what is known as an Omnibus appropriations bill and therefore the funding for NASA would be determined at that point. But this bill, the authorization for NASA for funding, for appropriations, is the blueprint, the roadmap. Even though certain appropriations may not be available until November or December, this gives direction to NASA to know what to do.

For example, in our bill--there is an additional shuttle that is ready to fly beyond the two that are scheduled, one for November and one for February. That hardware is ready to go, and there is still additional equipment and supplies that we need to get to the space station. So our proposal in the authorization bill is, which was agreed to by the Senate Appropriations Committee that appropriated very closely to what the NASA authorization bill was in the Senate, it gives the direction to NASA to go ahead and start the preparations for that third flight of which all the hardware is already there. But they have to know that. They can't wait around until next January or February to start that preparation; they have to start it now. These are some of the critical issues.

It is also critical that, for example, at the Kennedy Space Center, there are 1,100 jobs that are going to terminate tomorrow. This NASA authorization bill lays out the program for the future so they can start planning on some of those jobs that would be lost that may not be lost or recalled. That is why it is my fervent hope that we are going to get at least, if not more than, two-thirds of the House voting this afternoon to pass the NASA bill and then send it to the President for signature next week.

Most of us have seen Ron Howard's dramatic film starring Tom Hanks called ``Apollo 13.'' Tom Hanks played the commander of that mission, who was Jim Lovell. Remember, that was the mission, Apollo 13, where en route to the Moon there was a major explosion onboard. We thought we had basically three dead men because how were we going to bring them back. It is one of the greatest space successes coming out of failure because, real time, astronauts back in Houston and the engineers all over America--at the cape, at Houston, all in different NASA facilities, the industries, the aerospace corporations--they all came together trying to figure out how we were going to get this crippled spacecraft back that had just lost its power, that had just lost its engines. Of course, that is one of the great success stories, that they brought it back, and ``Apollo 13'' chronicles that enormous success.

Tom Hanks, who is playing Jim Lovell--in a part of the film, a person asks Jim:

Jim, people in my State are asking why we're continuing to

fund this space program, now that we've beaten the Soviets to

the Moon.

This is back in the late sixties and seventies because, remember, it was President Kennedy who said: We are going to the Moon. And we landed well before the Soviet Union did. They tried, but they never could make it. We landed in 1969.

That person said:

Jim, people in my State are asking why we're continuing to

fund this program, now that we've beaten the Soviets to the

Moon.

What does Jim Lovell say? He said:

Imagine if Christopher Columbus came back from the new

world--and no one ever returned in his footsteps.

If we had not had discoverers who were willing to discover the unknown, if they had not gone back to the new world, we would not be here today. We would not have this wonderful country that has been built.

I think it is a truth that a society which does not seek to expand and explore is not going to be a society that will foster freedom and creativity, individuality, or progress.

Think about the birth of this Nation. We are, by nature as Americans, our character is that we are explorers, we are adventurers. We set out and explored this Nation, following the longings of our souls. And each generation born since has advanced constantly and consistently, such that today we have to decide where do we go next.

This country always had a frontier. When John F. Kennedy announced that we were going to the Moon, he had an administration that was called the New Frontier. We remember the development of this country. The frontier developed westward. Where is that frontier now? That frontier is upward. Then with the discoveries we are finding in science, it is also inward. It is the discovery of matter. It is the discovery of the workings of the human body and how to keep it healthy. And it is the exploration upward of space.

What President Kennedy said was:

The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in

it or not.

He said:

It is one of the great adventures of all time--and no

nation which expects to be the leader among other nations can

expect to stay behind.

Since those prophetic words of President Kennedy back in the early sixties, when the Soviet Union had beat us into space with the first satellite and then beat us into space with the first human to orbit, we see what this Nation has done. Look at what we have received on Earth from the first 50 years of exploring space. We went to the Moon, and we have gone beyond. We have gone out of the solar system with exploring satellites, spacecraft. During this time, this space program has produced thousands of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. And it has helped make our Nation one of the most advanced and powerful in history. It has advanced the cause of science, and it has dramatically improved the quality of life on the surface of the Earth.

Why do you think we have the GPS that can tell us, at a moment, the pinpoint location of where we are? Why do you think we now take it for granted to turn on our TVs and have instant, uninterrupted communication on the other side of the globe real time? Why do you think we take it for granted that we turn it on if we hear of an inbound hurricane and that we can also monitor climate change?

We now, fortunately, have airbags in our automobiles. We have modern medical miracles such as kidney machines and heart ultrasound equipment and LASIK surgery. Where do you think all these things came from? They came from the spinoffs of the development of technology for the space program.

Look at a little watch such as this, which I have had for years. That came out of the microminiaturization revolution. Where did that come from? Back when we were going to the Moon, we had to develop highly reliable systems that were small in volume and light in weight. That set off the microminiaturization revolution.

As a result of all these spinoffs, we have created new companies and tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands of jobs for skilled workers.

Back in the summer, working with the White House, we developed this bipartisan legislation to get NASA on what we think is off the wrong track and on the right track. As I said in my opening comments, the House is taking up the Senate bill in about an hour, hour-and-a-half.

What the President did was he declared Mars to be the ultimate goal. The goal is not to go back to the Moon. We were there 40 years ago. The goal is to get out of low-Earth orbit, get out of Earth's environment, and to explore the cosmos. The Senate bill provides the blueprint for NASA to lead the way for humans to explore beyond low-Earth orbit.

We recognize that more nations and more commercial operators can get into space. Look at all the private services now that you can get from a satellite: photographs of the ground, photographs of buildings-- incredible--high-resolution photography. You can buy that from private companies.

The Presiding Officer used to be a major radio broadcaster off of a satellite radio. Where do you think that comes from? That was developed with technology that came out of the early days of the space program. That has been perfected and is now a multibillion-dollar business that employs Americans. Clearly, the Cold War shaped our space program to begin with--we against our adversary, the Soviet Union, the two nuclear-tipped nations. Look now. We have built the International Space Station with the Russians and 14 other nations.

Now we have the space station there but the shutdown of the space shuttle coming in another year. The space station is being completed in its construction, but NASA was starved over the last decade, and we do not have the new rocket ready. This legislation is going to reduce the time we have to depend on Russia for access to space, even though they have been a good partner, and their Soyuz spacecraft is a reliable way to get to and from the space station. It is going to shorten the time we have to depend just on them to get to the International Space Station.

As a result of this new legislation, many of the space centers that would receive huge layoffs--and as I said at the outset, there are 1,100 pink slips that have been delivered and take effect tomorrow afternoon just at the Kennedy Space Center and 1,000 or so more are coming at the Johnson Space Center and other space centers around. So what our legislation will do is it will push NASA's development of a new heavy-lift rocket that will allow us to explore the cosmos, it will push it forward with a goal to fly by 2016, and it would make a significantly higher investment in commercial space ventures, specifically by accelerating the development of commercial carriers to take both cargo and crew to and from the International Space Station.

Previously, NASA was going to shut down the space station by 2015. This is 2010, almost 2011. We are just completing the space station. Are we going to throw away, in 4 years, an investment of $100 billion? No. What this bill does, upon the suggestion of the President--which I appreciate so much--it is going to keep the space station alive until the year 2020.

Now we have the time to move forward and start to get out and explore the cosmos. The bill develops the inspace technology that can help in the servicing and reusing of equipment to lessen the need to launch from Earth for future trips. By that I mean we take this heavy-lift vehicle, we get components up into low-Earth orbit, and in the zero gravity of the orbit with the capability of on-orbit refueling, we can put spacecraft together up there and not have to expend the energy to get out of gravity when we go out to an asteroid or we go out ultimately to Mars. It requires that this heavy-lift vehicle be designed to get us to other points beyond low-Earth orbit in a flexible path to Mars.

Rather than throw away the investments and capabilities that have already been developed in this space shuttle, we direct NASA in this bill, to pursue an evolvable heavy-lift vehicle, one you can build from the existing technology but you can improve that hardware.

At the same time, we insist that it be affordable. Designing and building within a budget is obviously the new challenge for NASA. NASA, too long in the past, has blown through budgets. It is a different day. It is a different discipline. That discipline is going to be needed at

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

Mr. President, I love the Senate. It is not always a beautiful thing, and surely it is not a picture of a well-oiled machine, but years ago I found a home here. As my colleagues know, I first came to the Senate in 1973 as an aide to a young man who had won a stunning and very improbable election against a respected incumbent. At that campaign victory party 38 years ago--I can remember it as if it was yesterday--I thought to myself I would never again believe that anything is impossible.

In the intervening 37 years I have seen a lot of campaigns. I never saw one that was as big an upset as Joe

Biden's. When I started working for Joe Biden that year, I told the DuPont Company--that is where I worked--I would take a 1-year leave of absence. I stayed for 22 years.

I will soon be leaving the Senate. I am grateful beyond words to have gone through much of Joe Biden's Senate career as his chief of staff and observed his career firsthand. I can say if my Senate career had ended then, if I had not been called on to serve as his successor, that experience, helping to represent Delawareans and fighting for the values that Joe Biden and I shared, would have been more than fulfilling enough. I would have been happy.

I thank our leader, Harry Reid, who is most responsible for the most historic, productive Congress since FDR. I thank my committee chairs. They have been great to me: Pat Leahy, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and Joe Lieberman. I especially want to thank my senior Delaware colleague, Senator Carper, for whom I have the greatest respect and who has helped me tremendously during my last 2 years in all manner of issues. I know I am going to alienate some of my Senators, but he is without a doubt the best senior Senator in the entire Senate.

After almost four decades, I think I finally got used to the unpredictable rhythms of the Senate. In the short time since I was sworn in last January, the Senate has seen heated debate over a basic principle under which this body functions--the filibuster. All Members are frustrated with the slower pace, and they are right to be frustrated when good bills, important bills that promise to help millions of Americans, are blocked for the wrong reasons.

But rule changes should be considered in the light of the fact, which we all know, that the Senate is not the House of Representatives. It serves a very different constitutional purpose, and the existence of the filibuster remains important to ensuring the balanced government the Framers envisioned.

Indeed, the history of the Senate is that of a struggle between compromise and intransigence. But this is the place where we protect political minorities. This is the place where we make sure the fast train of the majority doesn't overrun the minority. While I think there are changes, and good changes, that are being considered, I do think the filibuster should remain at 60 votes because during the long struggle in the Senate, certain traditions have been adhered to by Members on both sides of the aisle. Whenever anyone moves to change one of those traditions in a way that may diminish the comity under which this body must function, I believe they should do it very carefully. I know my colleagues will do that.

Regardless, I continue to have faith that out of the debates in the Senate, the fights we are having now, out of the frustrations of some of the intransigence of others, we will eventually find our way toward the next great compromises we need to solve many of our problems, compromises that will keep America great.

I am incredibly proud of the opportunity I have had to work on important issues during the brief service I have had in the Senate. I feel especially privileged to have served in this historic Congress, when there were so many great challenges facing this country. I have been hanging out in this place since 1973. There has not been another Congress like the 111th, one where we have dealt with more issues. During my first month in office, more than 700,000 Americans lost their jobs on the heels of the economic collapse in late 2008.

People are wondering why are people upset? How soon they forget. Less than 2 years ago, 700,000 people lost their jobs in a month, and it was not the first month and it was not the last month. Action by the Federal Government to stop further decline was critical--and we acted. I am proud of my vote on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I believe the ARRA worked to arrest the financial free fall to jump-start the economy--and if I had another hour and a half, I would show my charts and graphs to demonstrate it.

All across Delaware I have seen the benefits of this law--the investments in infrastructure and education and new technologies for our future, and I met with the people whose jobs were saved, literally met with the people whose jobs were saved or who found new employment that flowed from these investments.

We succeeded in passing many other initiatives to foster growth and to bring much needed help to those who have been hit hardest by the recession, which was my No. 1 job in the Senate. As Senator Carper knows, it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. We actually did a great many things that I firmly believe helped make us a stronger country.

As you know, as you grow older you realize that life is not about what you accomplish or about winning. It is about having tried, and I feel good that I tried my very best.

I was so pleased to work with Senators Leahy and Grassley on the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, to chair oversight hearings in the Judiciary Committee on law enforcement efforts to pursue financial fraud associated with the financial crisis, and to sit with my friend, Senator Carl Levin, as he and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held hearings on financial fraud. I was honored to be a part, as were all of my colleagues, of two Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

I had the distinct honor, and it is a true honor, of serving on the Foreign Relations Committee with Chairman John Kerry and ranked member Dick Lugar, as well as on the Armed Services Committee with Chairman Levin and Senator John McCain.

I made two trips to Israel and the Middle East, three trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and four trips to Iraq in the last 18 months. I know a number of things: No. 1, we must build our civilian capability for engaging in counterinsurgency, and in this Congress we passed legislation to enhance civil-military unity of effort through joint training at Camp Atterbury.

Along with Senator Brownback, I cofounded the Senate Caucus on Global Internet Freedom to promote greater access to freedom of expression and freedom of press online.

I also highlight the importance of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, especially international broadcasting. As you know, I served on the board for 13 years--there is nothing more important in our battle than international broadcasting and public diplomacy. I sought to raise the awareness of the limitations on press freedom in countries such as China and Iran through the passage of resolutions and have coauthored legislation funding the development of Internet censorship circumvention technology in Iran--getting around the jamming that Iran is doing to deny its citizens the right to get information on the Internet.

I have also had the privilege of working to promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, education during my time in the Senate. As a former engineer, I know firsthand the importance of STEM education.

I spent much of my career in government service, and I decided early in my term to come to the Senate floor each week and recognize the contribution made to this country by our Federal employees. I honored 100 great Federal employees from this desk, sharing their stories and accomplishments with my colleagues and the American people, and I am very pleased that Senator Warner from Virginia is going to be taking that on when I leave. I could not have left it to a better person.

Last but not least, I have tried my hardest to be a voice for the average investor and to work for financial accountability and stability so our economy can thrive. That is what it is about. We can't thrive if we don't have credibility in the markets. I offered legislation with my good friend, Senator Johnny Isakson, to curb abusive short selling. I gave a number of speeches on this floor, from this desk, calling for the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of equity market structure and high-frequency trading and to advance reforms that promote clear and transparent markets--not always clear and transparent to everybody listening. As I said from the floor dozens of times, it is critical that we preserve the credibility of our markets, one of our Nation's crown jewels, if our grandchildren are to live in the most economically powerful country in the world.

Finally, I repeatedly highlighted from the Senate floor the importance

of the problem of too big to fail in the financial reform debate, working with my good friend, Senator Sherrod Brown, to offer the Brown- Kaufman amendment. We made the good fight but, again, trying was better than succeeding--not better but the alternative to succeeding, and I thank every Senator who voted for that amendment. I am proud of that. While our amendment was not agreed to, I will ever be proud of the opportunity to work with Senator Chris Dodd and participate in Senate debate on financial reform.

I could not have achieved anything--and I genuinely mean anything-- during my term without the help and hard work of my excellent staff. I spoke early this week about the staff. They are vital to our work. I am going to tell you as someone who spent years delivering staff work and now someone who has been a consumer, I am more impressed than ever with my staff, and with Senate staffs and the job they do.

I want the American people to understand that one of the reasons I love the Senate is because it is filled with intelligent, hard-working people who are passionate about serving this country. This goes for Members and staff alike. The Senate is a magnet for those who feel called to public service. It is the destiny for countless improbable journeys. Our constitutional Framers would have been relieved to see this noble experiment working, to know that in the Senate today serve a farmer from Big Sandy, a realtor from Cobb County, a mayor from Lincoln, a former Army Ranger from Cranston, a social worker from Baltimore, and a doctor from Casper.

All of them are here for the same reason as the other Senators-- because they love this country and their communities dearly and want to give back. Their paths to public service may have been different in their first steps just like mine was, but they converged here and this is what continues to sustain my faith in the Senate.

Here this leg in my improbable journey comes to an end. Although I leave the Senate as a Member, I will not be leaving the Senate behind. I will continue to teach about the institution to my students and encourage them to pursue their own path to public service. I will continue to speak out on issues that I worked on here because that important work, as always, goes on.

I love the Senate, and I will always cherish the unlikely opportunity I had to serve Delaware as its Senator. With deep gratitude to those who worked with me and stood by me through my journey--to my staff, to my colleagues, to my wife Lynn, to our children, grandchildren--with great appreciation to former Governor Ruth Ann Minner and the people of Delaware for the responsibility they gave me, and with optimism and faith in the future of the Senate and this great Nation, for the last time, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today I wish to describe my disappointment at the vote yesterday, a vote on whether we were going to shut down the drain in this tub of ours down which we are draining American jobs. We are trying to create jobs and put new jobs into the economy. Now what we have discovered is that the drain is wide open. Even as we talk about this, we have American jobs going overseas in search of cheap labor. We actually give a tax break in our IRS Code for allowing companies to shut their American plant, get rid of their American workers, and move jobs overseas. We tried very hard to change that. I have tried that in the past on four occasions. Yesterday was the fifth vote to say, at least let's stand up for American jobs. Let's not give a tax break to move American jobs outside of the country, especially at a time when millions of Americans are out of work. Let's not do that.

The proposal was to shut down that unbelievable tax break. The vote was, no, we can't do it. Apparently on the floor of the Senate there is plenty of support for Chinese jobs. I didn't notice anybody got up in the morning to come to this Chamber to support Chinese jobs. It seems to me the hard work here is to support American jobs.

I see the two leaders. When they wish to seek the floor, I will continue my discussion.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am. Every member of the minority voted against a bill that stands up for American jobs and shuts down the tax break for moving jobs overseas. We did get 53 votes. In other eras of the history of the Senate, that would be enough to pass legislation. Here it is not because everything needs 60 votes.

Let me yield the floor with the understanding that when the leaders are completed with their work, I know they have some important work trying to wrap up the business of the Senate, I want them to be able to do that, and then I will be recognized when their activity transpires.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this unanimous consent agreement means we are now on a timeline to finish passing a continuing resolution very soon. I appreciate the work everyone has done. I do want to finish what I was saying.

It was a profound disappointment to me that after all of this time, going back 9 years and five votes, that we were not able to get sufficient votes in the Chamber, 60 votes to shut down a tax provision that rewards people who actually move their jobs overseas from this country. I won't go through the presentations I made previously, but it is quite clear that we need, on behalf of the American people, to say: Our job is to stand up for jobs in this country. Our work is to help people get back to work here and to support businesses which produce in this country, which decide to rent the building and hire the employees and produce here. That is what we ought to stand for. Yet those who produce here and stay here are at a disadvantage, because there is a tax break given to those companies that move overseas and hire foreign workers and then sell back into this country. That was the debate yesterday and the vote. Regrettably, not one Member of the minority voted with us. That is a profound disappointment. We will all get over that. But the people who are unemployed will not, if these jobs keep moving overseas. That is the point.

New York Philharmonic in Cuba

I did want to come for another reason. I will do this quickly. A long while ago I was on the floor talking about something that I think should happen, and it needs the approval of this government to make it happen, the approval of a license to make it happen. That is for the New York Philharmonic to be able to perform in Havana, Cuba. It would be a wonderful thing. They had to cancel a previous appearance because they couldn't get a license from their government to allow them to do it.

Let me describe with a couple charts what brings me to this point and the reason I want to talk about it for a moment. This is in the middle of the Cold War with Russia. This is Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic shown here performing in Moscow in 1959. It is the oldest symphony orchestra in America, since 1842, one of the most renowned cultural ambassadors for this country. It has performed all around the world in 59 countries on 5 continents. It performed many times in Communist countries with the full blessing of the U.S. Government. At the height of the Cold War the orchestra was enthusiastically received in Moscow. The audience applauded for 30 minutes following their performance. Conductor Bernstein took the New York Philharmonic to Moscow. Think of it.

In addition to performing in Moscow, the New York Philharmonic has performed elsewhere. They have performed in North Korea. I have seen the DVD of that performance. It was quite extraordinary, February of 2008 in the capital of North Korea, the first ever concert by a U.S. orchestra within the boundaries of that secretive state. We know that there is a lot wrong with North Korea, but the conductor and the president of the Philharmonic told me and a group of Senators that the State Department encouraged the visit of this orchestra, assisted with arrangements. The concert In Pyongyang was broadcast live on State radio and television. They played music by George Gershwin in North Korea's capital, even played the Star-Spangled Banner. I saw the video. The audience continued to applaud long after the orchestra had completed its music and left the stage.

This is a photograph of Hanoi, Vietnam in 2009.

The New York Philharmonic orchestra performed there, in Hanoi, Vietnam. The demand for tickets was so great they simulcast the concert live out on the streets of Hanoi.

The only country in the world in which the Philharmonic, at this point, is not able to perform in is Cuba. They had to cancel a previous visit to Cuba in October 2009. It was planned. But it was cancelled because they could not get a license from our government to travel to Cuba.

The U.S. government allows anyone, including an orchestra, to travel to North Korea, to Iran, to any other country in the world; but you have to have a license to travel to Cuba. Why is that the case? Because the Castro brothers have stuck their fingers in America's eye for a long time. We have an embargo against the country of Cuba, and we decided we were going to take care of the Castro brothers in Cuba by punishing the American people and restricting their right to travel to Cuba, unbelievably, in my judgment. We say to the American people: We are going to fix you. We will restrict the rights of the American people to travel to Cuba. So they have.

Senator Enzi and I have a bill with a large number of cosponsors in the Senate that would lift that travel restriction.

The reason I brought this issue to the floor of the Senate today is, I feel it is time to get a positive answer from this government--the Treasury Department and the State Department--to give a license to the New York Philharmonic to make this trip and perform in Havana, Cuba. They should not have to keep cancelling their plans because of U.S. government restrictions.

Some say: Well, what is the difference? What matter does it make if they are not able to travel? Do you know what? If you watch the DVD of the New York Philharmonic performing in North Korea in 2008, and then take a look at the clips and the pictures of them in Moscow in 1959, and then ask yourself whether it makes a difference for us to be able to send, in a cultural exchange, this wonderful, unbelievably world- class orchestra to perform in these countries. I think it makes a difference.

We are in a circumstance at the moment where if you do not have a license to travel to Cuba, violators, U.S. citizens, can be fined up to $50,000 by their government. It does not make any sense to me. That needs to change. Criminal penalties could be $250,000 and

10 years in prison for violating the travel ban. We need to change all that.

In the meantime, I believe this government needs to provide a license, and they can do it under existing circumstances without changing the policy at all. They need to provide that license to allow the New York Philharmonic to be able to perform in Havana, Cuba. I am talking to the Treasury Secretary and the Secretary of State and asking for their cooperation. This is not something that is difficult. This can be allowed under existing rules. Members of the New York Philharmonic, and those who work with them and those who sponsor them, who would participate fully in the youth programs in Havana, Cuba, can be, in my judgment, approved with a license from the Treasury Department. I hope Secretary Geithner understands that and will take appropriate action. I know the Secretary of State wishes to see this happen. I believe the Treasury Secretary would as well. I hope within days they will make it happen.

I intend to work next week with all of those principals to see if at last, at long last, we might be able to resolve this issue. This makes no sense to me, to decide that the way we are going to conduct diplomacy is to prevent our Philharmonic Orchestra from playing in Havana, Cuba, given the fact they have played in the capital of North Korea, in Russia, in Vietnam, and more.

Mr. President, I was going to talk a little about energy and my profound disappointment that we are going to end this session without having done something in energy, and how some of us are trying very hard between now and the lameduck session to at least get what is called a renewable electricity standard or at least perhaps get that plus the Electric Vehicle Deployment Act moving so we can advance our country's energy interests. I will find another time to talk about that issue.

I do want to finally say, in addition, before this Congress adjourns sine die at the end of the year, there must--there must--be a solution to two things. One is the Cobell settlement, because American Indians deserve that settlement. It has been negotiated, is done, is ready. This is an abuse of 120 and 150 years. It must be corrected, and that settlement needs to be done. No. 2, what is called the Carcieri fix needs to be resolved.

My colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, well understands this. Every Indian tribe that was recognized after 1934 has every parcel of land they took into trust since that time now in legal question. The Congress cannot possibly leave this session without addressing that issue. The issue arises from a court decision that in my judgment was wrong, but it places in jeopardy a wide range of facilities on Indian reservations with respect to the status of their property ownership and their lease. I hope and I know Senator Inouye shares my feelings that we must, before the end of this year, address both of these issues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.