Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Health Security Act of 2011.

This legislation is designed to make several important changes to current law to address pressing public health challenges along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In 1993, along with Senators Hutchison and McCain, I introduced the original United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act. With the support of Members from both chambers, and from both parties, we passed this landmark legislation, which was signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton. I was gratified when the bi-national agreement to establish the Commission was signed in 2000. And, I have monitored with interest the important work of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission in the years since.

As the Commission enters its second decade, the problems it seeks to deal with are no less pressing than those we originally set out to tackle with the Border Health Commission Act.

Health disparities and chronic diseases for the over 14 million people who live in the border region, comprised of two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four states in the United States and six states in Mexico, remain at unacceptable levels, far outpacing rates in most of the United States. Far too many border residents remain uninsured. Texas and New Mexico, for instance, rank first and fifth, respectively, in the percentage of residents who are uninsured. Many who live in the region still do not have access to adequate primary, preventive, and specialty care. If the border region were considered a state, it would rank at or near the bottom on many key health indicators, such as rates of tuberculosis, hepatitis, diabetes, and access to health professionals. Compounding all these problems are high rates of poverty; three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area.

In addition, communicable diseases that can easily travel across borders, such as tuberculosis and H1N1, strain our border's public health systems. Amplifying our public health surveillance efforts at our border can help mitigate the impact of such diseases, as well as other bio-security threats, in the rest of the nation.

I believe, just as I did when I introduced the original legislation, that the public health problems the border region faces are truly bi- national in nature. As such, they demand a truly bi-national public health architecture. Over the last 11 years, the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission has provided this structure as it worked to address these issues. It has had a number of successes, including notable conferences and reports on infectious disease surveillance, childhood obesity, and tuberculosis, developed jointly by both its U.S. and Mexican members. Its programs were particularly helpful as we coordinated our response to the H1N1 pandemic in 2009.

Still, the public health challenges in the border remain great. As the Commission enters into its second decade, this bipartisan legislation will strengthen the capacity of the Commission and authorize appropriate federal resources for its important work.

The legislation does this in several ways. First, through a new grant program, it authorizes additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and research.

Second, it authorizes new, funding for the successful Early Warning Infectious Disease Surveillance, EWIDS, program in the U.S.-Mexico border region. EWIDS is designed to bolster preparedness for bioterrorism and infectious disease. The legislation also establishes a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate this system.

Third, it strengthens the capacity of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission by undertaking several key organizational reforms.

Finally, the legislation encourages more coordination, recommendations, and study of these complex border health challenges. The bill affirms the need for integrated efforts across national, federal, state and local agencies to properly address border health issues. It specifies that recommendations and advice on how to improve border health will be communicated to Congress. Further, the legislation authorizes two key studies conducted by the Institute of Medicine: the first on bi-national health infrastructure and a second on health insurance coverage for border residents. A total of $31 million is authorized to carry out the act.

Without the changes and resources this legislation envisions, border residents will continue to lag behind the United States in many key indicators of good public health. Without this bill, both of our countries will be less prepared when the next bi-national health security threat hits.

I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation today. She has also been the lead Senator in getting funding for the U.S.-

Mexico Border Health Commission since its inception.

I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Blunt of Missouri, and Senator Akaka of Hawaii, that will provide duty- free treatment to U.S. imports of finished Philippine apparel in return for purchasing and using fabrics and yarns made in the United States. This bill will promptly create an incentivized export market for our shrinking textile industry, and create new jobs.

The Philippine apparel industry estimates that U.S. fabric sales spurred by the SAVE Act could reach potentially hundreds of millions of dollars and translate into upwards of 2,000 additional jobs in the United States fabric mill sector. With almost 99 percent of the U.S. apparel market now served by imports, U.S. textile manufacturers are reliant on export markets for their survival.

The SAVE Act is patterned after the Dominican Republic, Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, which permits tariff-free import of apparel assembled in those countries in return for using cotton and manmade fiber fabrics still made in the United States. The SAVE Act will provide our textile companies with a new opportunity to export fabrics into the dynamic Asian market.

The Philippine apparel manufacturing industry is well established and known for its quality needlework and high-end fashion. It has been supplying top American brands and U.S. retailers for decades. With the growth of China in apparel production and the end of the quota system, Philippine apparel exports to the United States have dropped by 50 percent in the last five years. The Philippine apparel sector is in critical decline, with employment dropping by 75 percent since 2003.

The Philippines has been, arguably, our closest and most steadfast friend in Southeast Asia. They were our protectorate and strategic partner from the Spanish-American War through World War II. 10,000 American and Filipino servicemen died together in the infamous Bataan Death March after our forces were overwhelmed by the Japanese Army in 1942. More than 100,000 Filipinos then volunteered to fight alongside the United States and under U.S. command.

More recently, the United States and the Philippines have partnered in successful efforts to combat terrorists in and around their islands. Campaigns by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, trained in counterterrorism by U.S. troops, resulted in the deaths of the Abu Sayyaf leader and his deputy in 2006, as well as two other leaders in 2010.

Our close partnership deserves to be mutually rewarding on an economic level. The SAVE Act would represent the first trade initiative with the Philippines in nearly four decades. Unlike other countries in the region, the United States and the Philippines share a balanced trade relationship. The SAVE Act would continue to build on this positive trade relationship and strengthen our economic ties with the Philippines by helping each other reestablish competitive textile industries.

The SAVE Act would also allow duty-free treatment for a limited range of apparel not using U.S. fabrics so Philippine manufacturers can offer a complementary product line to U.S. brands and retailers. This category of apparel, which includes certain lines of coats, dresses, skirts, blouses, and infants' wear, will not contain any components that could have been made in the United States. These lines of apparel also will not compete against imports from third countries using U.S. components.

With the Republic of the Philippines as a partner, we can expect proper customs enforcement. We believe the enforcement provisions of the SAVE Act are more rigorous than any comparable bill. At our request, Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, conducted an informal technical review of the SAVE bill. With their recommendations included, CBP concluded that the SAVE Act can be administered and enforced. The Philippine Department of Trade and Industry then reviewed and agreed to all the enforcement provisions.

This bill will provide our manufacturers with new export markets and provide mutual benefits to a longstanding and erstwhile friend in Southeast Asia. The Philippines, in my view, should never be relegated to secondary consideration even as our focus shifts from one priority to another.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act with the support of Senators Risch, Tester, and Bennet. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort.

This bill would provide funding flexibility to the states to help construct and maintain needed public shooting ranges, designated areas where people can sharpen their marksmanship skills and safely enjoy recreational shooting.

For a variety of reasons, the number of places where people can safely engage in recreational shooting and target practicing has steadily dwindled. This includes areas on our public lands. In an effort to establish, maintain and promote safe and established areas for such activities, this legislation would allow States to allocate a greater proportion of their Federal wildlife funds for these purposes.

Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This act established an excise tax on sporting equipment and ammunition that is used to fund many state activities, including wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety programs. Pittman-Robertson funds can also be used for the development and maintenance of shooting ranges. However, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act contains certain restrictions on the use of Pittman-Robertson funds that limit their effectiveness for establishing and maintaining shooting ranges.

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to adjust certain funding limitations so that States have greater flexibility over the use of funds available for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges.

To be clear, the bill would not allocate any new funding to the construction of shooting ranges, it would not raise any fees or taxes, nor would it require states to apply their allocated Pittman-Robertson funds to shooting ranges. Instead, by reducing the amount of other funds states would have to raise and allowing states to ``bank'' Pittman-Robertson funds for 5 years for shooting ranges, the bill gives States greater flexibility to use their existing Pittman-Robertson funds as they think best. Also as a result of this bill, States will be able to extend their existing license fee revenue and other State- generated funds on other important programs, such as wildlife habitat conservation.

Hunting and recreational shooting are an integral part of the Colorado way of life, activities that also are appropriate where not prohibited on our public lands. This bill is designed to improve the quality of the recreational shooting experience by promoting safe, designated places to shoot. In addition to the improvements this bill contains, it is my hope that the public land management agencies will continue to work with the States, sportsmen and women, the recreational shooting interests, local communities, and others so that these opportunities are safe and available.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act with the support of Senators Risch, Tester, and Bennet. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort.

This bill would provide funding flexibility to the states to help construct and maintain needed public shooting ranges, designated areas where people can sharpen their marksmanship skills and safely enjoy recreational shooting.

For a variety of reasons, the number of places where people can safely engage in recreational shooting and target practicing has steadily dwindled. This includes areas on our public lands. In an effort to establish, maintain and promote safe and established areas for such activities, this legislation would allow States to allocate a greater proportion of their Federal wildlife funds for these purposes.

Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This act established an excise tax on sporting equipment and ammunition that is used to fund many state activities, including wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety programs. Pittman-Robertson funds can also be used for the development and maintenance of shooting ranges. However, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act contains certain restrictions on the use of Pittman-Robertson funds that limit their effectiveness for establishing and maintaining shooting ranges.

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to adjust certain funding limitations so that States have greater flexibility over the use of funds available for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges.

To be clear, the bill would not allocate any new funding to the construction of shooting ranges, it would not raise any fees or taxes, nor would it require states to apply their allocated Pittman-Robertson funds to shooting ranges. Instead, by reducing the amount of other funds states would have to raise and allowing states to ``bank'' Pittman-Robertson funds for 5 years for shooting ranges, the bill gives States greater flexibility to use their existing Pittman-Robertson funds as they think best. Also as a result of this bill, States will be able to extend their existing license fee revenue and other State- generated funds on other important programs, such as wildlife habitat conservation.

Hunting and recreational shooting are an integral part of the Colorado way of life, activities that also are appropriate where not prohibited on our public lands. This bill is designed to improve the quality of the recreational shooting experience by promoting safe, designated places to shoot. In addition to the improvements this bill contains, it is my hope that the public land management agencies will continue to work with the States, sportsmen and women, the recreational shooting interests, local communities, and others so that these opportunities are safe and available.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Blunt and I have introduced the Near East and South Central Asia Religious Freedom Act of 2011. The purpose of this legislation is to establish within the State Department a special envoy to promote freedom of worship for religious minorities in this important region of the world.

It is a tragic fact that in many of the nations of the Near East and South Central Asia, this universal human right, the freedom to worship in keeping with one's conscience, is in doubt. I would point my colleagues to the State Department's most recent Report on International Religious Freedom, published late last year. The report concludes, among other things, that: in Iran, ``government respect for religious freedom in the country continued to deteriorate''; in Iraq, ``violence conducted by terrorists, extremists, and criminal gangs restricted the free exercise of religion and posed a significant threat to the country's vulnerable religious minorities''; in Afghanistan, respect for the rights of religious minorities deteriorated; in Pakistan organized violence against religious minorities had increased; and in Tajikistan the government passed new laws restricting religious practice.

The legislation we introduce today seeks to combat such abuses by placing a high-level official within the State Department to focus the Nation's diplomatic efforts on promoting freedom

of worship. The special envoy would be tasked with promoting religious freedom within the Near East and South Central Asia; monitoring and combating intolerance and incitements to violence against religious minorities within the region; and working with the region's governments to address laws and practices that infringe on religious freedom.

It is in the interest of the United States to promote freedom of worship and the rights of religious minorities around the world, and especially in nations where those freedoms are under threat. Such violence is a threat to regional stability in a part of the world where U.S. interests are great. Moreover, our support for these universal human values affirms the principles upon which our own Nation was founded.

I thank my colleague from Missouri for joining with me in introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to protect the lives and freedoms of religious minorities, and to promote the universal values upon which our Nation is built.