A bill to stabilize the matching requirement for participants in the Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program.

Mr. President, on December 12, 2006, Immigration and Customs Enforcement staged raids on Swift & Company meatpacking plants in six states--Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and my home State of Minnesota.

Over 1,500 unauthorized immigrants were arrested in these raids. They also left countless children--most of them citizens and legal residents--without their parents and with no way of finding them. One second-grader in Worthington, MN--a U.S. citizen--came home that Tuesday night to find his 2-year-old brother alone and his mother and father missing.

For the next week, this boy stayed at home caring for his 2-year-old brother while his grandmother traveled to Worthington to care for her grandchildren.

On June 22, 2007, ICE agents staged another raid, this one in the Jackson Heights Manufactured Home Park in Shakopee, MN. Early that Friday morning, around 6 a.m., Federal agents seized a husband and his wife for suspected immigration violations. Somehow, they didn't even notice their daughter, who was sleeping. So later that morning, that 7- year-old girl was found wandering the park, looking for her parents.

Stories like these happen every day. They are happening to innocent children, most of them United States citizens. Children who have committed no crime, who have hurt no one, but who have had their lives torn apart because of the sins of their parents.

According to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, over 100,000 parents of U.S. citizen children were deported in the past 10 years. Four million U.S. citizen children in our country have at least one undocumented immigrant parent. Forty thousand of those children live in Minnesota.

Our country is not doing enough to protect these innocent kids. That is why Senator Kohl and I have crafted a bill to fix that.

So I am proud to stand today with Senators Kohl, Menendez, Klobuchar, Feingold, Durbin and Feinstein to introduce the Humane Enforcement and Legal Protections for Separated Children Act, or the HELP Separated Children Act. This is a simple but strong bill to protect our Nation's kids from unnecessary harm from immigration enforcement actions.

I want to take a few moments to talk about what this bill does--the problems it solves, and how it solves them.

But before I do that, I want to take a second to talk about what this bill does not do. This bill is strictly about protecting children. It doesn't change our laws on immigrant admission, exclusion, or removal. No one is going to get in or stay in this country because of this bill. It has nothing to do with so-called amnesty or any decisions about deportation.

So what does this bill actually do?

This bill fixes four problems in our immigration enforcement system.

The first problem is notice to State authorities. Invariably, in almost all immigration enforcement actions, it is our local communities that have to clean up after the government's dirty work.

It's state and child welfare services that take in kids who have lost their mom or dad in a raid. It's local shelters and churches that feed those kids--again, most of whom are citizens--when their family breadwinner is taken away. And it's local schools that have to take care of kids when no one picks them up after soccer practice.

After the Swift raids, the Bush administration finally understood this. And so in 2007, it put in place humanitarian guidelines that call upon ICE to reach out to state authorities and child welfare services before major enforcement actions. Again, that is the Bush administration. President Obama expanded these guidelines in 2009 so that they would cover more worksite actions.

But it still isn't enough. Local authorities still don't find out about actions until way too late--and when they are notified, they aren't given enough time to help. In 2008, after these guidelines were put into place, the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department testified before the House of Representatives that they still did not receive notice of enforcement actions before they happened.

State authorities in Massachusetts were notified months ahead of a raid in New Bedford. But almost immediately after it happened, the detainees were transferred to Texas, leaving state agencies unable to help. Governor Deval Patrick called it a ``race to the airport.''

Our bill makes sure that whenever possible, the Governor, local and state law enforcement, and child welfare agencies find out about raids ahead of time. It also makes sure that schools and community centers are notified after these actions so that they too can help.

That brings me to the second problem. If they want to help, state child welfare agencies and community organizations must be allowed to help identify detainees who have children at home. Mothers and fathers detained in enforcement actions often don't tell ICE agents that they have children at home--because they are afraid that ICE will detain them, too.

As Troy Tucker, the sheriff of Clark County, Arkansas said after an action there, ICE is ``not doing their job by simply questioning [people] and asking them whether they have children and not contacting anyone locally.''

Even though the Bush administration guidelines allow state authorities and local non-profits to help screen detainees, this is not happening often enough. So our bill requires ICE and State agencies enforcing immigration laws to allow these groups to confidentially screen detainees and identify those who have kids at home.

Our bill makes another critical fix in our immigration enforcement system. The Bush and ICE detention guidelines require authorities to give detainees free emergency phone calls. But again, it isn't being done enough, and it isn't being done right.

In the Swift raid in Worthington, one mother told ICE agents that she had kids at home, but still wasn't allowed to call them or let anyone know what had happened until later the next day. In Iowa, after a raid in Postville, some children went 72 hours without seeing their parents or knowing what happened to them.

Any parent knows how scared kids get just when you come home late. Can you imagine how scared they would get if you went missing for a whole day? For 3 days? Can you imagine what would happen if they didn't know who to call? Can you imagine what would

happen if they didn't have anything to eat?

Our bill requires Federal and State authorities to allow parents, legal guardians, or primary caregivers to make free phone calls to their family, to lawyers, and to child welfare agencies to make sure that their kids aren't abandoned.

Finally, our bill averts one other major problem.

When a parent is detained, even if their kids know where they are, it is still extremely difficult for kids and parents to stay in contact. And it is extremely difficult for parents to participate in legal proceedings that affect their kids.

This means that parents can't tell a family court judge about a brother or sister or neighbor that could take care of their child. Children have actually been adopted by well-meaning families or put into foster care because their parents were unable to participate in custody proceedings.

Our bill makes sure that after they're detained, parents can continue to have access to phones to call their kids, their lawyers, and family courts. Our bill also requires ICE to consider the best interests of children in decisions to transfer detainees between facilities, or put them into reliable and cost-effective supervised release programs.

Our immigration system isn't broken. It is in shambles. And while our bill doesn't fix 99.9 percent of those problems, it takes a small but important step to make sure our kids don't suffer any more than they have to already.

I am proud to say that because this is such a critical, albeit narrowly targeted measure, our bill has gained the support of the top faith, child welfare, and immigrant advocacy organizations in the country.

I'm also proud to say that it has won the support of faith leaders across Minnesota, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Chief Tom Smith of the St. Paul Police Department, and countless immigrant advocacy groups in the State.

While immigration may be complicated, protecting our kids isn't. It's something we can all agree on.

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

Mr. President, two years ago the United Nations' Human Rights Committee observed a problem that ``discourage[d] critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affect[ed] the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work,'' and ``affect[ed] freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.'' That problem was ``libel tourism,'' a troubling trend of foreign lawsuits that have stifled Americans' First Amendment rights. Today, I am introducing legislation to put a stop to this harmful trend.

The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy. Freedom of speech and the press enable vigorous debate over issues of national importance, and enable an exchange of ideas that shapes our political process. Authors, reporters and publishers are primary sources of this information, and their ability to disseminate their writings is critical to our democracy.

Over recent years, American authors, reporters and publishers have fallen victim to libel lawsuits in countries with significantly weaker free speech protections that what our First Amendment affords. In many cases, the foreign plaintiff sought out that country, where there is no regard for freedom of the press, so that they could easily prevail. These suits occur regardless of whether the plaintiff or the publication has significant connections to the foreign forum. On a broad scale, this results in a race to the bottom, and causes U.S. persons to defer to the country with the most chilling and restrictive free speech standard, to determine what they can or cannot write or publish. This is libel tourism. As the son of a printer, I consider this a matter of great national importance.

Today, I am introducing with Senators Sessions, Specter, Schumer and Lieberman legislation that will ensure American authors, journalists and publishers are shielded from the chilling effects of libel tourism. This legislation guarantees that a foreign defamation judgment cannot be enforced in the United States if that country's libel standards are inconsistent with American law. Our legislation also provides American victims of unconstitutional libel suits the opportunity to clear their name by filing for a declaratory judgment in an American court.

Over the past several years, the problem of libel tourism has grown. Today, countries whose weak libel laws impact American authors are no longer confined to a small number. England, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, and Singapore are just a few of the countries whose weak libel protections have attracted libel lawsuits against American journalists and authors. This threat to American free speech must end, and the time to act is now.

New accounts of libel tourism lawsuits emerge every day. This is because the dissemination of materials through the Internet, as well as the increased number of worldwide newspapers and periodicals, has compounded their threat. The likelihood that a book or story will have some contact with a foreign country is simply that much higher, as is the probability that a foreign court will determine that it has a basis for asserting jurisdiction over an American author or publisher. As we heard at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, this has a dramatic chilling effect on Americans' free speech.

The impact and extreme nature of these foreign libel lawsuits is best understood through examples. The most well known is the case of American journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a book about the financiers of the 9/11 attacks. She did not market her book in England yet was sued for libel there by a Saudi businessman she linked to terrorism. The content of her publication would have been protected under our laws, but a British court applying its laws issued a multimillion dollar default judgment against her. Today, Ms. Ehrenfeld continues to experience reluctance from American publishers who fear that plaintiffs will target her and bring another libel action against anything she writes on the subject of terrorism financing.

The scientific community has also been affected by libel tourism. An article last year in New Scientist magazine notes that now ``Challenging the scientific validity of a product or claim can be fraught with danger. . . [because] such challenges are leaving scientists and science writers [to] fac[e] an expensive libel action before the English high court. Many individuals and publications have been threatened with libel actions, and some have had proceedings launched against them. Many more writers have had their work edited before publication to avoid any risk of such legal action.'' Publications exposing financial improprieties, consumer protection issues, medical malpractice, and sexual abuse have all fallen victim to libel tourism lawsuits around the world.

Even Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair for libel in England. Mr. Polanski, a fugitive from justice who fled America after being convicted of sexually abusing a young girl, filed the suit in 2004. He has fought extradition while living in Europe. The Vanity Fair article recounted a story of his alleged aggressive sexual advances made just after his wife was murdered, and portrayed him as being insensitive to her death. The article was written in the U.S., edited in the U.S., and primarily sold in the U.S., but the British court claimed jurisdiction, and ruled in favor of Mr. Polanski.

Foreign libel judgments impact American authors' livelihood, credibility and employment potential. They also have the potential to limit the types of books and articles that talented and reputable authors can get published in the future. But most importantly, their suppression limits the information that Americans have a constitutional right to access. Journalists writing about issues of national security and safety should not be chilled. These lawsuits are designed to stifle the dissemination of that information in both the United States and the world. Journalists willing to investigate and write about such important issues deserve protection.

I am encouraged that some countries have taken steps to strengthen their

libel protections and jurisdictional requirements in the wake of these lawsuits, but that is not enough. As one country tightens its libel protections, another may just emerge as the next-best-available forum of choice for libel plaintiffs willing to travel to file suit.

I want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, for working with me on this legislation. I also want to thank Senators Schumer and Specter, for their support in moving toward a legislative compromise on this important issue. Their bills provided a valuable basis from which the bipartisan compromise that we are introducing today emerged.

We cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling protected speech in our country. What we can do, however, is ensure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine our First Amendment or due process rights. We can also provide American authors and reporters the ability to clear their name in our courts.

I hope all Senators will support our bipartisan effort to pass this important legislation this summer to protect the free speech rights of all Americans.

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the proposed Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2010, to focus on enhancements that can be made to adjudicate veterans' disability compensation claims in a more timely and accurate manner.

VA has seen a dramatic rise in the number of claims, driven by a number of factors, including the aging of the general veteran population and our prolonged involvement in two overseas conflicts. Further complicating matters, many claims are increasing in complexity, as veterans seek service-connection for multiple disabilities and for disabilities that are difficult to diagnose, such as traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder.

Claims adjudication is an intricate process that has seen many piecemeal changes in recent years. Unfortunately, these changes have yet to produce the results that veterans deserve. My goal, a goal that I am sure is widely shared, is to ensure that veterans are provided accurate and timely resolution to their claims.

This legislation I am introducing today would make several improvements in the claims adjudication process. Provisions in title I of the bill would establish a pilot program that would utilize ICD codes to identify disabilities of the musculoskeletal system. Over fifty percent of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom veterans that the Department of Veterans Affairs has had some health care contact with have a possible musculoskeletal diagnosis. ICD codes are standard medical condition identification codes used in electronic records that have been adapted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for electronic transmission of medical data.

This proposed pilot program would take place in six to ten regional offices and require VA to develop a new method of rating claims, which would consider the frequency, severity, and duration of symptoms of the disability in rating the claim, rather than the current rating schedule published in the Code of Federal Regulations. The current rating schedule adds to the complexity of claims adjudication, because many disabilities claimed are not exactly as described in the regulation and several rating codes may need to be considered. The new rating schedule would focus on the impact of the disability, for example, an inability to walk normally, rather than a particular VA rating code classification. All limitations resulting from all disabilities of the musculoskeletal system would be combined to provide one rating, rather than separate ratings for each individual disability. This information would be placed into an organized and searchable electronic record. A veteran could elect to not participate in the pilot program. I believe that such an approach will result in fairer, comprehensive ratings for the entire musculoskeletal system.

Title II of the bill includes a number of provisions that are intended to yield some near-term changes to the claims processing system and should help reduce the overall time a claim is under consideration by VA. During the last several years, the Committee has held oversight hearings on the claims processing system. Many of the provisions in this legislation were first suggested by veterans service organizations and other interested parties in connection with those hearings. Others have been recommended by the administration. The legislation I am introducing today serves as a starting point to move forward in our effort to improve VA's claims adjudication process.

Provisions in title II would allow for VA to issue partial ratings of claims that include multiple issues for those issues that can adjudicated expeditiously; give equal deference to private medical opinions during the rating process; and clarify that the Secretary is required to provide notice to claimants of additional information and evidence required only when additional evidence is actually required. It would also modify filing periods for notices of disagreement from one year to 180 days and require a claimant to file a substantive appeal within 60 days of the Department issuing a post-Notice of Disagreement decision both of these modifications would contain good cause exceptions to the filing deadlines.

Other provisions in title II would automatically waive the review of new evidence by the agency of original jurisdiction, usually a Regional Office, so that any evidence submitted after the initial decision would be subject to initial review at the Board of Veterans' Appeals unless the claimant or the claimant's representative requests in writing that the agency of original jurisdiction initially review such evidence. This legislation would also replace the Secretary's obligation to provide a Statement of the Case with an obligation to provide a post- Notice of Disagreement decision. The post-Notice of Disagreement decision would be in plain language and contain a description of the specific facts in the case that support the decision including, if applicable, an assessment as to the credibility of any lay evidence pertinent to the issue or issues with which disagreement has been expressed; a citation to pertinent laws and regulations that support the decision; the decision on each issue and a summary of the reasons why the evidence relied upon supports such decision under the specific laws and regulations applied; and the date by which a substantive appeal must be filed in order to obtain further review of the decision. The Secretary would also be required to send, with a rating decision, a form that if completed and returned, would suffice as a notice of disagreement.

This is not a comprehensive recitation of all of the provisions within this important veterans' legislation but does, I hope, provide an overview of the changes encompassed in this bill.

Everyone involved realizes that there is no quick fix to solving the myriad issues associated with disability claims processing, but the Committee intends to do everything within its power to improve this situation. To bring optimal change to a system this complicated and critical, we must be deliberative, focused, and open to input from all who are involved in this process.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate to help the United States minerals industry resume production of rare earths in this country. These metals are increasingly important to our military, strategic, and economic priorities due to their use in clean energy technologies and many other high-tech applications.

For many years the United States was a leader in the mining and processing of rare earths--a group of 17 elements that, while widespread in nature, are difficult to find in concentration, extract from the earth, and process for commercial use. Rare earths are increasingly vital to a host of modern defense technologies, from radar and sonar systems to weapons systems and advanced lasers. They are essential to the production of clean energy technologies, including advanced batteries, electric motors, high-efficiency light bulbs, solar panels, and wind turbines.

The U.S. is estimated to contain 15 percent of the world's rare earth reserves, but with the closure of the nation's only operating rare earth mine at Mountain Pass, CA, America has become dependent upon China for imports of nearly all rare earths, oxides, and alloys. In fact, China now produces 97 percent of the world's rare earth supply.

More importantly, China recently moved to implement rules announced in March that will cut production and exportation of rare earths in an effort to raise world prices for the minerals. While the world demand for rare earths tripled to 120,000 tons per year over the past decade, China announced on June 2nd that it will stop issuing new domestic licenses for rare earth production and cap production at 89,200 tons for this year. As a result, only 35,000 tons of rare earths will be exported annually over the next five years, on average.

These actions may work out well for China, but they will harm the United States. Fortunately, we can do something about it. Rather than sit on our hands while China corners the market on these strategic minerals, we can and should pursue timely production of the rare earth supplies that exist within our own borders.

Efforts are currently underway to reopen Molycorp Minerals' California mine and Ucore Uranium is continuing exploration of a large rare earth deposit found near Bokan Mountain in Alaska, about 37 miles from Ketchikan. Ucore's new Alaska subsidiary, Rare Earth One LLC, has been working to study the deposit on Dotson Ridge at Bokan Mountain since 2007. The U.S. Bureau of Mines more than 20 years ago estimated the site contains at least 374 million pounds of recoverable rare earths, which is more than enough to break China's stranglehold on the market and protect America's access to the rare earths that are vital to the production of cutting-edge technologies in this country.

So what should we be doing to reestablish domestic rare earth? My answer is a companion measure to legislation introduced earlier this spring in the House by Rep. Mike Coffman, a fellow Republican from Colorado. My bill would establish it as the policy of the

United States to take appropriate actions to increase investment in, exploration for, and development of domestic rare earths. To do that it would require--under the leadership of the Secretary of the Interior-- the Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and State along with the Director of OMB and the Chairman of CEQ to expedite permitting, review supply chains, and consider strategic stockpiling of rare earths. The bill would also provide the rare earth industry with access to federal loan guarantee programs meant to advance clean energy technologies.

There is a great deal of emphasis on the need for expansion of clean energy manufacturing in the United States. Promises of ``green jobs'' abound, but they will only be realized if American industries have access to the raw materials needed to produce these new technologies. This legislation represents an important first step in our efforts to grow domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies. The bill will also help to create more jobs in America's minerals industry, where firms provide good, high-wage jobs and pay taxes that will help to reduce our deficit. Furthermore, decreasing our reliance on foreign minerals will reduce our balance of payments deficit and strengthen national security.

I hope this bill advances quickly, and I encourage my colleagues to join as cosponsors of the measure. We have an ambitious agenda given the small amount of time that remains in the current Congress, but there is too much at stake for our military strength and our clean energy goals to ignore the problems we have in accessing affordable and secure supplies of rare earths.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Kohl and Lieberman, to reduce the cost share amount that Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, centers face in obtaining their annual funding. The MEP is a nationwide public-private network of counseling and assistance centers that offer our nation's nearly 350,000 small and medium manufacturers services and access to resources that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. In Fiscal Year 2009 alone, MEP clients created or retained roughly 53,000 jobs; provided cost savings in excess of $1.41 billion; and generated over $9.1 billion in sales. Similarly, clients of the Maine MEP reported saving or retaining 550 jobs, experiencing $8.3 million in cost savings, and generating over $78.3 million in sales in 2009. As such, the MEP's contribution to the health of American manufacturing is indisputable.

At present, individual MEP centers must raise a full 2/3 of their funding after their fourth year of operation, placing a heavy burden on these centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, at the Department of Commerce, in turn, provides one-third of the centers' funding. MEP centers can meet their portion of the cost share requirement through funds from universities, State and local governments, and other institutions.

In today's tumultuous economy, these centers are experiencing increased difficulties finding adequate funding from both private and public sources. As economic concerns weigh down on all of us, states, organizations, and groups that traditionally assist MEP centers in meeting this cost share are reluctant to expend the money--or do not have the resources to do so.

Our bill, which is a modified version of S. 695 that I and several of my colleagues introduced last March, is simple and straightforward. It would reduce the statutory cost share that MEP centers face to 50 percent for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 as a temporary stimulative measure. Frankly, the Nation's MEP centers are subject to an unnecessarily restrictive cost share requirement. And it is inequitable, as the MEP is the only initiative out of the 80 programs funded by the Department of Commerce that is subject to a statutory cost share of greater than 50 percent. There is no reason for this to persist, particularly not during this trying economy when so many manufacturers are trying to remain afloat.

Clearly, Congress must act swiftly to bolster our country's manufacturing industry rather than sitting on the sidelines as other countries surpass our nation's economic leadership in a variety of areas. Indeed, last Sunday's Financial Times included an article titled ``US manufacturing crown slips'' highlighting that, ``The U.S. remained the world's biggest manufacturing nation by output last year, but is poised to relinquish this slot in 2011 to China--thus ending a 110-year run as the number one country in factory production.'' This news should be a clarion call that investing in the manufacturing sector is critical given the detrimental ramifications that losing our leadership would have to our overall economy.

The MEP is an essential resource for the small and medium manufacturers that will help reinvigorate our Nation's economy. With centers in all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, its reach is unmatched and its experience in counseling manufacturers is unrivaled. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this legislation as a direct way to bolster an industry that is indispensible to our nation's economy health.