Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act

Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates Sunshine Week--a time to educate the public about the importance of open government. In recognition of Sunshine Week 2010, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the Faster FOIA Act of 2010, a bill to improve the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies.

Our decision to reintroduce the Faster FOIA Act this year is the most recent example of our bipartisan efforts to help reinvigorate FOIA.

Today, thanks to the reforms contained in the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act of 2007, millions of Americans who seek information under FOIA will experience a process that is much more transparent and less burdened by delays. In 2009, President Obama signed the OPEN FOIA Act into law. That bill is the result of another successful collaboration with Senator Cornyn and me that is making the process for creating new legislative exemptions to FOIA more transparent.

While both of these legislative accomplishments are strengthening FOIA, more reforms are needed.

According to the Department of Justice's Freedom of Information Act Annual Report for fiscal year 2009, the Department had a backlog of almost 5,000 FOIA requests at the end of 2009. The Department of Homeland Security's report for the same period shows a backlog of 18,918 FOIA requests. These mounting FOIA backlogs are simply unacceptable.

The Faster FOIA Act will help to reverse these troubling statistics by establishing a bipartisan Commission to examine the root causes of agency delay. The commission created by this bill will make recommendations to Congress for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of FOIA requests.

The commission will also examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. Lastly, the commission will be made up of government and non- governmental representatives with a broad range of experience in both submitting and handling FOIA requests, in information science, and in the development of government information policy.

Thomas Jefferson once wisely observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' I share this view. I also firmly believe that the Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of Government information, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free.

I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue--it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. As we celebrate Sunshine Week, it is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the Nation in celebrating an open and transparent government. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support the Faster FOIA Act.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Refugee Act, which was signed into law on March 17, 1980. In the years since, our statute and case law have evolved in ways that place unnecessary and harmful barriers before genuine refugees and asylum seekers. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Levin of Michigan, will restore the U.S. as a beacon of hope for those who suffer from persecution around the world.

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was negotiated in 1951 to protect those who suffered persecution in war-torn Europe prior to 1951, yet the U.S. did not sign it at that time. In 1967, the U.S. signed and ratified a Protocol to the Convention, which expanded its geographic and temporal scope, establishing a definition of refugee that applied around the world. It was not until 1980, however, that Congress enacted implementing legislation to bring our laws into compliance with the Convention and Protocol. During the intervening years, our Government acted in an ad hoc manner to bring in refugees fleeing Southeast Asia by boat, to protect Jews and other refugees from the Soviet bloc, and to provide safety for victims of persecution in Africa. Our Nation acted generously in those years, providing aid and relief, but our policies needed to be grounded in law.

The Refugee Act of 1980 was championed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, who fought for decades to protect victims of persecution who had been forced to flee their home nations,

leaving behind livelihood, family, and security. I supported the Refugee Act in the 96th Congress, and voted for it when it passed the Senate. When the Senate debated the bill, Senator Kennedy spoke of its dual goals: to ``welcome homeless refugees to our shores,'' thereby embracing ``one of the oldest and most important themes in our Nation's history,'' and to ``give statutory meaning to our national commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns.'' 125 Cong. Rec. 23231-32 Sept. 6, 1979.) We lost our dear friend last year, but we can honor Ted Kennedy's memory by carrying forward the mantle of refugee protection.

The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 contains provisions of a bipartisan bill that I previously introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses to repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a law that had tragic consequences for asylum seekers. It also corrects agency and court misinterpretations of law that limit access to safety in the U.S. for asylum seekers. Finally, it modifies the immigration statute to ensure that innocent persons with valid claims are not unfairly barred from the U.S. by laws enacted after September 11, 2001, while leaving in place provisions that prevent dangerous terrorists from manipulating our immigration system.

In the years since the Refugee Act was enacted, over 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the U.S. I am proud that my home State of Vermont has long welcomed refugees and helped these new Americans to rebuild their lives. More than 5,300 refugees have been resettled in Vermont since 1989, from countries as diverse as Burma, Bhutan, Somalia, Bosnia, and Vietnam. In the early days of resettlement, Vermont accepted refugees fleeing persecution from Southeast Asia and the Soviet Union, and from the war in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda.

Vermonters' welcoming spirit is illustrated by the ``Lost Boys'' of Sudan. Beginning in the 1980s, thousands of boys in Sudan traveled hundreds of miles by foot to escape war and ethnic and religious-based persecution. Some had seen family members killed before their eyes. They walked from nation to nation, searching for safety in Ethiopia and Kenya, before reaching camps that helped them find a permanent and secure home in the U.S. The first group of Lost Boys arrived in Vermont in 2001. Many of them have thrived. I am proud that a number of them are now college graduates, and some have attended graduate school.

Vermonters have made a strong and sustained commitment to assisting refugees with resettlement. Caseworkers and volunteers help new Americans adjust to the new culture, learn English, and navigate daily life, from grocery shopping to public transportation, to school and sports programs for their children. The Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program has led the effort with its compassionate and experienced staff, and a roster of more than 250 volunteers. I also want to recognize the organizations, churches, synagogues, and libraries in Vermont that have offered support, contributions of food, clothing, furniture, English classes, tutoring, and perhaps most importantly, companionship and friendship to refugees resettled in our state. These groups include the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, the Association of Africans Living in Vermont, the Vermont Agency of Human Services-State Refugee Coordinator, Vermont Interfaith Action, the Housing Resource Center, the Salvation Army, the First Congregational Church of Burlington, the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, the Islamic Society of Vermont, Ohavi Zedek Synagogue, the Fletcher Free Library, and Vermont Adult Basic Education. These volunteers and organizations demonstrate the Vermont spirit of tolerance and generosity. They deserve our thanks and praise.

I am proud of the Vermonters who have devoted countless hours to help victims of persecution build new lives in our state. And I am continually amazed by the resilience of the refugees and asylees in Vermont. Refugees in Vermont enrich the communities in which they live, opening small businesses, farming, and participating in cultural activities. They put all they have at risk to reach the U.S., and once here, strive each day to make our country better and to give their children every opportunity that America offers.

The bill I introduce today will give refugees and asylum seekers a fair chance of finding safety in the U.S. For those who seek asylum, it eliminates the requirement added to the law in 1996 that asylum applicants file their claim within 1 year of arrival. By definition, worthy asylum applicants arrive in the U.S. after suffering serious harm abroad, often experiencing post-traumatic stress. They often must spend their first months here learning the language and adjusting to a culture that in many cases is extraordinarily different from the one they know. I understand the desire to have asylum seekers submit timely applications, but the 1-year rule was deemed unnecessary by the Immigration and Naturalization Service when it was enacted. In practice, it has barred genuine applicants from gaining the benefits of our asylum law, resulting in their return to the country in which they were persecuted.

The bill also makes a number of modifications to give asylum seekers a fair opportunity to respond to requests for corroborating evidence, to clarify inconsistencies, and to provide evidence of the persecution they suffered or that which they fear if returned. None of these changes to the law will encourage fraud or frivolous claims; they simply ensure that no asylum seeker is denied the opportunity to present a full application for relief.

The 1996 immigration law created the system called ``expedited removal,'' which enables an immigration officer to prevent certain non- citizens from entering the U.S. I fought against expedited removal in 1996 because I feared that asylum seekers could be turned away from our borders without being given the chance to seek protection. In 2005, the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan Commission established by Congress, documented widespread problems in the implementation of expedited removal. The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 responds to the Commission's findings by requiring that asylum seekers who pass an initial ``credible fear'' interview proceed to an interview with an asylum officer instead of being sent straight to the immigration removal system. Any asylum seeker who is not granted protection by the asylum officer would then be placed in removal proceedings and proceed to an adversarial hearing before an immigration judge.

Under current law, an asylum seeker who arrives at our borders and immediately requests protection is detained. We should not detain people whom our own Government has found to be likely candidates for asylum as if they were awaiting a criminal trial. Moreover, the cost to the Government to detain an asylum seeker for months at a time cannot be justified, especially if they have family members or nongovernmental organizations that are willing to house them and ensure that they appear for their asylum hearing. The Refugee Protection Act would clarify that the Secretary of Homeland Security should release asylum seekers as long as they do not pose risks of flight or to public safety. It would codify DHS guidance announced in December 2009 stating that it is the policy of the U.S. to release asylum seekers who have been found to have a credible fear of persecution and who meet the criteria for release.

The bill also instructs the Secretary to promulgate regulations to authorize and promote the use of alternatives to the detention of asylum seekers, such as releasing them to private nonprofit voluntary agencies. For those who would still be detained, the bill would guarantee access to legal and religious services, humane treatment in detention, and medical care where needed. These changes will reduce the detention of asylum seekers, offer them fundamental due process, and improve the conditions of their confinement in those cases where detention is appropriate. I have long urged an improvement of the shameful conditions of immigration detention, and this need is particularly acute for asylum seekers.

For years, I have fought to modify a law that prevents genuine refugees and

asylum seekers from obtaining protection in the U.S. The law, which contains an overly broad definition of ``material support'' to terrorist organizations, has the effect of barring some who were victims of terrorist organizations. More than 2 years ago, Senator Kyl and I worked together to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security had the authority it needed to provide waivers and exemptions in certain ``material support'' cases. The Obama administration convened an interagency process to try to resolve the matter, but thousands of refugees with pending adjustment of status applications are still being held in limbo while the Government studies how to exercise its exemption and waiver authority. This bill contains language that would fix this problem once and for all. The bill modifies definitions in the statute to ensure that innocent asylum seekers and refugees are not unfairly denied protection as a result of the material support and terrorism bars in the law, while ensuring that those with material ties to terrorist activity will be denied entry to the U.S.

This bill makes common sense changes to refugee adjudication and resettlement. It eliminates the 1-year waiting period for refugees and asylees to apply for lawful permanent residence, facilitating assimilation into our communities. The bill also allows certain children and family members of refugees to be considered as derivative applicants for refugee status, as long as they pass standard security checks and expedites the adjudication of family reunification petitions.

The potential effect of these changes is best illustrated by an example. One of the Lost Boys originally resettled in Vermont is a young man named Jacob. He attended my alma mater, St. Michael's College, at some point visited Kenya, got married and fathered twin sons before returning to Vermont. After he became a U.S. citizen, he visited his wife in Kenya again, this time fathering twin daughters. I am happy that my office was able to assist Jacob, and his entire family is now happily living in the U.S. Had the Refugee Protection Act been enacted, Jacob's family might have been reunited much sooner. The bill I introduce today will greatly facilitate family reunification, which is at the core of American values.

This bill will also help children who have been separated from their families during war or flight from persecution. For a child who has been separated from immediate family, and where it is in the best interest of the child, the bill would authorize refugee status and enable such a child to come to the U.S. I am committed to working with the Departments of State and Homeland Security to ensure that the ``best interest of the child'' protects families that are separated for months or years, but later discover that children lost or feared dead can be reunited with their immediate relatives.

The need for such authority is illustrated by a Vermont resettlement case I know very well. After the Rwandan atrocities, Martha believed her son Eric had been killed. A number of years later, she learned that her son was alive and living in the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya, along with his two young first cousins. Eric had fled the violence with these two boys on his back, and he is the only father figure they have ever known. Martha petitioned to bring her son and nephews to Vermont, but only her son was granted refugee status as a derivative child. Martha had not seen her son for 10 years, but until my office intervened, the case had languished due to miscommunication. After the case was reactivated, Eric had to decide whether to join his mother in Vermont or to stay in the refugee camp to continue caring for his two young cousins. Eric made the heart-wrenching decision to resettle in Vermont. Eight months after Eric arrived, with the help of my office, his two young cousins were successfully resettled with him. Martha is fully employed, just passed her naturalization exam and is about to be sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Eric has been working two jobs, studying, and raising his cousins, who are both doing quite well in school. This case has a happy ending, but it should not have been so hard or taken so long to resolve. The Refugee Protection Act will help to bring families like Martha's together more quickly.

This bill authorizes the Secretary of State to designate certain groups as eligible for expedited adjudication as refugees. Such a change to law would assist those who are at a particularly high risk of harm, such as certain groups of Iraqi refugees, groups targeted for genocide, or gay men in countries that impose the death penalty on homosexuals. Congress has tried to respond to specific crises with Special Immigrant Visas and other limited forms of relief, but something more must be done.

Again, an example is illustrative. An Iraqi family, a mother and two daughters, came to Vermont as refugees from Iraq by way of Syria, after the father had been killed. The son believed his life to also be in danger in Iraq, because he had worked as a driver for a U.S. military contractor. Just before completing the resettlement process, the adult son was forced by Syria to leave the country, and he made his way to Sweden. While he was safe there for a short while, Sweden soon started taking action to deport many Iraqi refugees that it had previously welcomed. The separation was extremely painful for this close-knit family. They were having a difficult time reopening his resettlement case, but my office was able to help this young man finally receive a Special Immigrant Visa for Iraqis Employed on Behalf of the U.S. Government. He was finally reunited with his family in Burlington. I would prefer to see the Secretary of State be able to designate certain highly vulnerable groups for expedited adjudication, so that stories like this one are not common, and eligible refugees reach safety here in the U.S. as soon as possible.

Finally, this bill makes targeted improvements to the resettlement process in the United States. Most importantly, it prevents newly resettled refugees from slipping into poverty by adjusting the per capita refugee resettlement grant level annually for inflation and the cost of living. The current per capita grant is $1,800, but it was just raised in January 2010 from roughly half that amount. I thank the Obama administration for recognizing the need to raise the per capita grant level, but believe it must be adjusted annually for inflation and the cost of living. This bill will ensure that the per capita grant level does not decrease in real terms over time.

This bill is supported by leading refugee resettlement organizations across the Nation including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, Lutheran Immigrant & Refugee Service, the Episcopal Church, Refugee Council USA, Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, Church World Service, and the Interfaith Refugee and Immigration Ministries of Illinois. The Congressionally-created and bipartisan U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom endorsed the provisions that make improvements to the expedited removal system. It is endorsed by advocates and legal aid providers serving the refugee and asylee community, including the American Bar Association, Human Rights First, National Immigrant Justice Center, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at U.C. Hastings College of the Law, Tahirih Justice Center, American Immigration Lawyers Association, National Immigration Forum, Refugees International, Immigration Equality, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, and the American Civil Liberties Union. And in Vermont, it has the support of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, and the Association of Africans Living in Vermont. All of those organizations that stand with me in support of this legislation have my sincere thanks.

The 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act is this week. It is time to renew America's commitment to the Refugee Convention, and to bring our law back into compliance with the Convention's promise of protection. Our Nation is a leader among the asylum-providing countries, and our communities have embraced refugees and asylum seekers, welcoming them as Americans. Our laws must now match that humanitarian spirit. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2010.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am pleased to credit the Bush administration for originally proposing this fee, which is again proposed in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget. This fee carries proposed savings of an estimated $24 million per year, and could save as much as $115 million over 5 years.

We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and safety standards. Businesses that do not meet Federal standards should bear the burden of the reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's expense.

One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. I have worked throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Kohl to introduce the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part of my continued efforts to improve student achievement in our Nation's schools. One part of student performance that is often overlooked is nutrition, which can have a significant impact on student achievement. I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide more nutritious food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack program.

I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I was lucky never to have to worry about going hungry, and my parents did not have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast. The fact is, that is a choice many parents do have to make today, even if they get the help of reduced price meals. The current economic difficulties and rising unemployment have only increased the burdens facing low income families in Wisconsin and around the country as they struggle to provide nutritious meals for their children.

The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and

on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to the class. I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, in my home State of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Public Schools have been working with the Hunger Task Force for the past few years to implement universal school breakfast programs, which they have in place now in more than 80 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents.

This bill would target the most in-need schools--those with 65 percent or more of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program--with the funds necessary to implement a universal free breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways, aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers faced in trying to create a school breakfast program.

Our Nation faces a series of pressing education challenges in its schools, including most significantly a large achievement gap and graduation rate gap among minority and low income students. After decades of civil rights struggles, public education should provide all our students with access to equal opportunities, but the quality of public education provided to students of color and low-income students in urban and rural Wisconsin and around the country still does not come close to affording many of these students an equal chance for success. Too often these students learn in crumbling and outdated buildings, they do not have the same access to high quality technology in their classrooms, they are taught by the least experienced teachers, and they often do not have adequate access to important resources like school counselors and nurses.

These and a number of other factors contribute to the achievement gap in our Nation's schools and the Federal Government can help to address this gap by promoting smarter and more flexible accountability structures and increased supports for schools during the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congress should also help to address some of the many other issues facing our nation's students living in poverty issues that may not seem directly related to education, but impact the academic growth of students including hunger, affordable housing, and crime. This bill takes an important step to address hunger and also seeks to improve nutrition education by providing funds to expand school breakfast programs, boost collaboration between local farmers and schools, expand service- learning opportunities in our classrooms, and improve nutrition education programming for students.

In this economy, more and more parents are forced to make these kinds of decisions, and the school meal programs can provide a tremendous relief. As we look forward to reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act, it is vital that we take stock of the successes and limitations of existing programs. School breakfast faces a number of hurdles that, quite simply, other school feeding programs do not. Chief of those is time. For some students, getting to school early is impossible; for some, the lure of breakfast is not a strong enough draw to get up earlier. These are problems that schools across the country are facing and solving with creativity and dedication. This legislation will help support the innovative work going on in some of our nation's schools and will help to scale up successful nutrition programs in other schools so that hopefully one day, none of America's students will start the school day hungry.

Mr. President, last year we were all transfixed by the non-stop news coverage of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike as they grew into monster storms, crossing the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and leaving a trail of misery in their wake. Ike, the third most destructive storm in the history of the U.S., made landfall in Galveston, Texas, and then tracked through Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, killing 112 people and causing more than $24 billion in damage.

Since 2003, hurricanes and other tropical cyclones have caused more than 2,000 deaths in the U.S. Forty percent of all hurricanes that make landfall in the U.S. hit Florida.

Insured losses from hurricanes average more than $5.2 billion per year. A recent study of hurricane-related damages over the last century suggests that economic losses will double every 10 years. With more than 50 percent of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of the coast, and with 180 million people visiting the coast annually, the risks to life and property are growing.

Hurricanes, however, do not just impact the coasts. These extreme events also have national consequences, such as increased fuel prices, displaced populations, and severe inland flooding.

The American public is increasingly aware of the potential for high recovery costs and financing of natural disaster losses. I cannot overstate the importance of prior preparation and insurance coverage for large catastrophic risks--including natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes--as well as efforts to promote a stable, affordable catastrophic insurance market.

This is why today Senator Martinez and I are introducing four bills: the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009, S. 1487, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009, S. 1486, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009, S. 1484, and the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009, 1485. These bills take a pro-active approach in addressing these natural catastrophe concerns.

The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009 will expand the scope of fundamental research on hurricanes. The bill is aimed at improving hurricane forecasting and tracking and helping us find better ways to mitigate their impact. The Act will establish a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant program for hurricane and tropical cyclone research and bring together a task force, jointly chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and NSF.

The second bill, the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009, establishes the bipartisan Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance. This commission will assess the condition of the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance markets in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, as well as the four major hurricanes that struck the U.S. in 2004. It will also evaluate the country's ongoing exposure to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods. Finally, the commission will recommend and report legislative and regulatory changes that will improve the domestic and international financial health and competitiveness of property and casualty insurance markets, assuring the availability of adequate insurance when an insured event occurs, as well as the best possible range of insurance products at competitive prices.

The Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009 amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow property and casualty insurance companies to create tax-exempt disaster protection funds and to make tax deductible contributions to those funds for the payment of policyholders' claims arising from certain catastrophic events, such as windstorms, earthquakes, fires, and floods.

Finally, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009 amends the Internal Revenue Code to create tax-exempt catastrophe savings accounts. Individuals could take tax-free distributions from these accounts to pay expenses resulting from a presidentially declared major disaster. The bill limits catastrophe savings account balances to $2,000 for individuals with homeowner insurance deductibles of not more than $1,000, and the lesser of $15,000 or twice the homeowner's insurance deductible for individuals with deductibles of more than $1,000.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the entire country experiences financial losses when hurricanes hit. It is time for us to take the bull by the horns and pass legislation that plans in advance for these and other natural disasters.

As we are in the hurricane season, it will become painfully apparent just

how precarious a lot of the construction is, how precarious building codes are not being fairly and judiciously administered, and it will become evident what an economic disaster even a mild hurricane can cause when it hits the coast. And Lord knows, if the big one hits an urbanized part of the coast--and the big one is a category 4 or a category 5 hurricane--it is going to create economic chaos. It is going to cause the insurance industry to be on the brink of total collapse. And it will ultimately, just like Katrina, end up having the U.S. Government pay a major part of the economic bailout consequences of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane or an earthquake hitting the United States. We ought to get ahead of it and we ought to plan for it, and that is what this package of four bills Senator Martinez and I are offering will do.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act of 2010.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have been involved in encouraging the development of nanotechnology for many years. Although I am gratified by the tremendous advancements that have already been achieved in nanotechnology, there are significant hurdles that could prevent the U.S. from realizing the full potential that nanotechnology holds for job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness.

During this challenging period when the economy is faltering and the government is working to help create jobs, nanotechnology represents an opportunity to provide long-term, well-paid employment for millions of Americans. In fact, the National Nanotechnology Initiative--the Federal Government organization that coordinates nanotechnology research across all Federal agencies--estimates that the global nanotechnology workforce will require 2 million trained workers by 2015. It is estimated that only 20,000 workers are currently employed in this field.

To ensure that many of the needed jobs will be created here in the U.S., it is necessary to provide our students

with the tools that will provide the skills and knowledge that nanotechnology companies need. This is exactly what the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act will do.

This act directs the National Science Foundation to establish a grant program that would provide schools, community colleges, 2- and 4-year colleges and universities and other educational institutions with up to $400,000 to purchase nanotechnology education equipment and materials. Schools participating in the program would be required to provide matching funds of at least 1/4 of the amount of the grant.

In my home State, it has been very rewarding to see the technological advances and entrepreneurial success achieved by the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI. Oregon's first signature research center, ONAMI is a public-private partnership between the State's top research universities, major corporations, and small business entrepreneurs. Working with top scientists and graduate students, and leveraging the nanotechnology equipment available at Oregon's public universities, ONAMI has provided gap funding to 18 start-up businesses, which have created at least 60 new jobs.

While Oregon has been a leader in this arena, it is certainly not alone. Nanotechnology job creation efforts are accelerating in hubs for technology development throughout the country. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, I have had the opportunity to talk with innovators and entrepreneurs from nanotechnology companies working in the areas as diverse as energy management, health technology, environmental sciences, advanced computing, textile and material sciences, and many others. What I have heard in common across all of these fields is the need for qualified workers.

If high school and college students are not exposed to nanotechnology, this emerging field will not be able to reach its full potential. Without a qualified workforce that will allow nanotech companies in this country to scale-up, foreign competitors will be able to fill the vacuum in the global marketplace. With the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act, this country will put the resources into place that will prepare our students to meet the needs of the emerging nanotech economy.

That is why I want to thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this timely, and much-needed legislation. I also want to acknowledge the support and efforts of the nanotech companies that worked with me and other Members of Congress to help build support for this bill. Finally, I call upon my colleagues to move quickly not only to pass this legislation but also the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act reauthorization. These important bills will help advance nanotechnology in this country, and protect the U.S.'s position at the forefront of innovation and economic opportunity.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act of 2010.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have been involved in encouraging the development of nanotechnology for many years. Although I am gratified by the tremendous advancements that have already been achieved in nanotechnology, there are significant hurdles that could prevent the U.S. from realizing the full potential that nanotechnology holds for job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness.

During this challenging period when the economy is faltering and the government is working to help create jobs, nanotechnology represents an opportunity to provide long-term, well-paid employment for millions of Americans. In fact, the National Nanotechnology Initiative--the Federal Government organization that coordinates nanotechnology research across all Federal agencies--estimates that the global nanotechnology workforce will require 2 million trained workers by 2015. It is estimated that only 20,000 workers are currently employed in this field.

To ensure that many of the needed jobs will be created here in the U.S., it is necessary to provide our students

with the tools that will provide the skills and knowledge that nanotechnology companies need. This is exactly what the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act will do.

This act directs the National Science Foundation to establish a grant program that would provide schools, community colleges, 2- and 4-year colleges and universities and other educational institutions with up to $400,000 to purchase nanotechnology education equipment and materials. Schools participating in the program would be required to provide matching funds of at least 1/4 of the amount of the grant.

In my home State, it has been very rewarding to see the technological advances and entrepreneurial success achieved by the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI. Oregon's first signature research center, ONAMI is a public-private partnership between the State's top research universities, major corporations, and small business entrepreneurs. Working with top scientists and graduate students, and leveraging the nanotechnology equipment available at Oregon's public universities, ONAMI has provided gap funding to 18 start-up businesses, which have created at least 60 new jobs.

While Oregon has been a leader in this arena, it is certainly not alone. Nanotechnology job creation efforts are accelerating in hubs for technology development throughout the country. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, I have had the opportunity to talk with innovators and entrepreneurs from nanotechnology companies working in the areas as diverse as energy management, health technology, environmental sciences, advanced computing, textile and material sciences, and many others. What I have heard in common across all of these fields is the need for qualified workers.

If high school and college students are not exposed to nanotechnology, this emerging field will not be able to reach its full potential. Without a qualified workforce that will allow nanotech companies in this country to scale-up, foreign competitors will be able to fill the vacuum in the global marketplace. With the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act, this country will put the resources into place that will prepare our students to meet the needs of the emerging nanotech economy.

That is why I want to thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this timely, and much-needed legislation. I also want to acknowledge the support and efforts of the nanotech companies that worked with me and other Members of Congress to help build support for this bill. Finally, I call upon my colleagues to move quickly not only to pass this legislation but also the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act reauthorization. These important bills will help advance nanotechnology in this country, and protect the U.S.'s position at the forefront of innovation and economic opportunity.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.