Cyber Security and American Cyber Competitiveness Act of 2011

As the senior Senator from New York relinquishes the chair to his colleague from New York, I want to thank both of them for their amazing leadership in every issue we turn to today.

Senator Schumer's work to help us bring this transportation bill to the floor is exemplary. And Senator Schumer knows, as Senator Gillibrand

knows and every one of us knows, we cannot have a strong economy if we cannot move goods, if we cannot move people, if commerce comes to a halt. So we have to pass a transportation bill to make sure our highways are adequate, our bridges are safe, our commerce can move, and our transit systems can carry people from one place to another.

I want to say to my colleague who is now sitting in the chair, Senator Gillibrand, that I listened to her remarks. I am very touched by them. She talked about women's voices, and she is dedicated to ensuring they are heard. Let me assure my friend that her voice has been heard on this and so many other important issues. And it is an effective voice. She was the one who came to me when the Republicans started to say they did not think it was necessary for women to have access to birth control with no copay through their insurance, and said: Barbara, do you understand that a full 15 percent of women are prescribed birth control pills because they want to avoid ovarian cancer, they want to make sure that a cyst on an ovary does not get out of control, they want to avoid debilitating monthly pain, and even it is used for terrible skin conditions?

So when we hear our colleagues talk about birth control as if it is some unnecessary prescription--although you never hear them say it when it comes to Viagra, I would note--let me point out it is necessary. We will be on our feet day after day, month after month, hour after hour, and minute after minute, because we are not going to let them take away medicine from women. Oh, no. They are not. They will not. And the women of this country will not have it. They are engaged in this debate. They understand it. My friend from New York has been an incredible voice.

So here we are. We are on the highway bill. You may wonder, why is it that the Senator from New York came and talked about the issue of birth control and women's health when we are on a highway bill? Well, here is the news: My Republican colleagues are so intent on taking away women's rights, rights to health care, that they insisted on having a vote to take away these rights before they would allow the highway bill to move forward. Can you imagine?

I think it appropriate that at this point I pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, who has been an amazing colleague, who has been a voice of reason, a voice of progress, over the many years she has served. I have served with her in the House and the Senate, I do not know, decades. I will miss Olympia Snowe. But let's listen to what she said. She said: This place has become so polarized, so partisan we cannot move forward.

I would submit to you that the situation we find ourselves in at this moment is exhibit A on why someone such as Olympia Snowe is saying this has been a privilege and a wonderful thing, but I think I am going to move on. Because here we have a highway bill that is completely bipartisan. And again, my colleague in the chair from New York, Senator Gillibrand, is a very important member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We passed a bill out of our committee with a vote of 18 to 0. We had 100 percent support in a polarized time because everybody understands we have to make sure we have a No. 1 transportation system, a class A transportation system in this great country of ours, a vision that was first brought to us by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s when he said, we have to be able to have a network of national highways.

So here is a bill that comes out of the EPW Committee 100 percent bipartisan. The section that dealt with banking comes out of the Banking Committee 100 percent bipartisan. It comes out of the Finance Committee very bipartisan, not 100 percent but very. And in Commerce it had a problem, which we have rectified, and it is now bipartisan.

So four committees have done their work on the transportation highway bill, and all of them have been bipartisan. So we come to the floor--I think this is now the third week or the second week on the bill--the second week on the bill--and we have gone nowhere, because in order for us to move forward, the Republicans are insisting on a vote to take away women's health care. So Senator Reid said to them: Fine. We will vote on it Thursday morning. But let it be known throughout this land what is going on.

Sometimes people tune in and they say: Oh, it is so complicated, I cannot follow it. It is not complicated. Here is where we are: We have a bipartisan bill, 2.8 million jobs are at stake. We have to do it. The transportation bill is going to expire, the authorization, so we will not have any program in place March 31. We have to do this work, and we cannot move forward unless we have a vote on a polarizing amendment--a polarizing amendment.

How did it come about, this polarizing amendment? It came about because we passed the health care law that made some incredible breakthroughs. Two of the biggest breakthroughs, I think, in that bill is that we for the first time said to insurance companies and employers: When you provide insurance for your people, it must include a list of essential health care benefits and preventive health care benefits.

Let me read you the list of essential health care benefits that people of America are going to have unless the Blunt amendment passes and takes this away. This is the list of essential benefits the Blunt amendment would take away: Emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health treatment, preventive and wellness services, pediatric services, prescription drugs, ambulatory patient services, rehabilitative services and devices, and laboratory services.

These are categories of services that health insurance plans must cover under health care reform. But if the Blunt amendment passes--and we know it started because of birth control, but it has reached beyond that to every single essential health benefit that any employer in this Nation, if Blunt passes, could say: I do not want to do any of these. I do not want to do some of these, because I have a moral objection.

So if you worked for an employer who believes that prayer is what we need to cure illness--and by the way, that is their right. I would fight for their right to believe that. They would be able, however, to tell you that that is your alternative, and they do not have to provide any of those essential health benefits in their insurance plan.

The other thing the Blunt amendment does is it says that no more preventive health benefits will be required. Under the law, these are the preventive health benefits that are required to be offered to you. You do not have to take them if you are an employee who has an objection to any of these things. You do not have to do it, but they have to be offered to you: Breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings, hepatitis A and B vaccines, measles and mumps vaccine, colorectal cancer screening, diabetes screening, cholesterol screening, blood pressure screening, obesity screening, tobacco cessation, autism screening, hearing screening for newborns, sickle cell screening, fluoride supplements, tuberculosis testing for children, depression screening, osteoporosis screening, flu vaccines for children and the elderly, contraception.

Contraception is a preventive health benefit because we know it prevents unintended pregnancies and prevents abortion and prevents illness. Fifteen percent of people take it to prevent illness. Also, well-woman visits, HPV testing, STD screening, HIV screening, breast feeding support, domestic violence screening, and gestational diabetes screening--all of these have to be provided. But if you don't want to take contraception, you can say, no; I am not interested in that. If you don't want to have your child to have a vaccine--personally, I think that is terrible--but you don't have to. But that is what is required.

Under the Blunt amendment, let's be clear. Any employer who simply says they have a moral objection can say: Sorry, see this list. We are not going to do 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 things here. For example, obesity screening, we believe that is your problem, and we have a moral objection to that. Colorectal cancer screening, I have an objection to that because, again, my religion says it doesn't do any good.

This is why Blunt is so dangerous. It is about denying women the absolute right to have contraception offered to them--it does that, but it does a lot

more than that. Again, we are on a highway transportation bill. It is 2.8 million jobs. It came out of four committees, and it is bipartisan. It will keep this country moving. It will keep this economy going.

Madam President, I want you to imagine one Super Bowl stadium filled with people. Think about what that looks like in your mind's eye. Every seat in that stadium is filled. Now imagine 15 of those stadiums filled. That is how many unemployed construction workers there are in this great country today.

Yes, we are making progress. Yes, President Obama took us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression that he inherited. Yes, he turned it around. But he and we say, we have to do more. We cannot just say, because we are creating jobs now, it is enough. The President knows it; we know it. We were bleeding 800,000 jobs when he took over, and now we have stemmed it and we are creating a couple hundred jobs a month--100,000, 200,000--thank goodness. We have created, in the last 6 months or so, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Here is the point: Why on Earth would we take a U-turn as we are on the road to economic recovery, as we are on the road to a bill that is absolutely necessary, and take up the issue of women's health? I am telling you, I believe it is radical. I believe it is taking us backward. I believe it is hurtful to women. I call on every woman, regardless of political party, to make your voice heard against the Blunt amendment. You are being attacked.

What the President did in dealing with the issue of contraception showed the wisdom of Solomon. He basically said: If you are a religious institution and you have an objection to offering contraception, you don't have to do it. So 335,000 churches are exempt. I feel sorry for the employees who may not agree with the church, but they work for the church and therefore that is the rule.

Religiously affiliated hospitals and universities raised a question-- you know, they serve a broad array of people. They hire a broad array of people, not just people of one faith but of many faiths and of many points of view. They raised the question, saying: We don't feel comfortable. The President came up with a compromise that has been embraced by Catholic Charities, Catholics United, and the Catholic Health Association. The only group that doesn't support him are the bishops.

If I could respectfully say to them, they don't deliver the health care services; Catholic Charities does, and the Catholic Health Association does. They represent thousands of providers. So they have embraced the President's compromise. But not my Republican friends. They didn't. They want to cause trouble and take away the ability for women to have access to contraception, without a copay--while they support supplying Viagra to men. It is stunning.

I think this is rippling across the land. I don't know if we have the photo--I don't think we have it on the floor--of the last panel that was held in the House, and my friend from New York talked about it. We do have it.

This is a picture. A picture is worth 1,000 words. This is a panel on women's health focused on contraception. Where are the women? Where are the women? One, two, three, four, five men; they are talking about women's health care. Not one of them ever had a baby. Not one of them ever had a monthly cramp. They are talking about women's health care like they know all about it.

The chairman, Chairman Issa, didn't see immediately that there was a problem. There was a woman sitting there, and she asked to be heard. She said, ``I have a story to tell this panel.'' Oh, no, he didn't want to hear from her. He said she wasn't qualified. Do you know what her story was? It was about how a friend of hers who was denied the contraceptive pill and instead developed a terrible tumor on her ovary. He didn't think that was worthy of discussion.

This issue is rippling through the land. It says everything to me. We women in the Senate are not going to allow this to go unnoticed. That is a symbol of what is happening to women in this country. In the very States that are passing legislation that some have dubbed ``State rape,'' because it would require a woman to be subjected to an invasive vaginal probe without her consent, now they are backing off. That was the bill that almost passed in the Virginia Legislature. Now they have said: OK, it is a sonogram. There is another way to do it. It took women crying out and saying: Wait a minute. Are you kidding? And they are backing off.

Well, they better back up overall because this is the 21st century. Women should be trusted and respected and honored and believed. When you tell a woman she needs to be lectured by some stranger on her own personal decisions, right away you are questioning her worth. So the issue goes so far beyond the ability to obtain birth control pills. The issue goes so far beyond that. It really does. You can stand up here and say it is not about women's health, it is really about religious freedom, but as Patty Murray, my colleague from Washington, has said: When they say it is not about contraception, it is about contraception.

Others have said: When they say it is not really about the money, it is really about the money. When they say it is not really about politics, it is about politics.

This is about contraception, making it difficult for women who don't have the means to have some sense of control over their reproductive lives and to be able to access a pill that could help them live a healthier life and live longer and free of pain.

So they will come and say: Oh, Senator Boxer, this isn't about contraception; it is about religious freedom. The President has taken care of the religious objection. I described how he did it, and I will say it again. He said if you are a religious institution, you don't have to provide contraception. If you are a religiously affiliated institution, there will be a way for a third party to deal with it. The Catholic health organizations support it, Catholic Charities. He has come up with a compromise. There is no reason to have this polarizing debate. Everybody should have religious freedom, including the employees, including the boss, including everybody. So no one under the President's plan is forced to do something they don't want to do. We just want to make sure when the Institute of Medicine tells us that availability to contraception saves lives and protects health, women get a chance to get it if they want. If they don't want it, they don't have to get it. Of course not.

Again, I will end where I started, talking about my colleague Olympia Snowe, who is retiring, not running again, because she said we are so polarized. This is exhibit 1. We are on a transportation bill that is bipartisan, but the other side can't let it rest, cannot move forward on it, and cannot move to make sure our businesses and our workers have a brighter future. Oh, no, they have to delay it.

By the way, it is not only with this birth control amendment and women's health amendment but with other amendments that have nothing to do with the subject. It is what makes the American people wonder what we are doing here.

I want to show some charts that deal with transportation issues right now. I will continue talking about Olympia Snowe for a minute. I went through some of the issues that I worked on with her. I want to talk about them. She and I wrote the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act. We were very strong because we knew our constituents were getting stuck on aircraft hour after hour, stuck on the tarmac, with no food, kids screaming, nightmare scenarios, 9, 10 hours on the runway. We thought passengers deserved a bill of rights.

We worked with outside groups, some wonderful people. Lo and behold, it passed as part of the FAA bill that finally got enacted. We didn't get 100 percent of what we wanted, but we got 90 percent. I was proud to work with her.

In 2009, following a tragic Buffalo commuter plane crash, which I know the occupant of the chair remembers, Senator Olympia Snowe wrote a bill to implement the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board to make sure these pilots get enough rest and that they are well-trained. We were very pleased that moved forward. We worked together--Olympia and I--on the Purple Heart for POWs to make

sure the Purple Heart included prisoners of war who died in captivity and they could get that to bless their memory.

We worked together against the global gag rule.

We worked together and wrote a letter to the President--President Obama--asking him to appoint a woman to replace Justice David Souter.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter I will be quoting from.

I am so proud of this letter we wrote together. In the letter, we said:

The most important thing is to nominate an exceptionally

well-qualified, intelligent person to replace Justice Souter.

. . . Women make up more than half of our population, but

right now hold only one seat out of nine. . . . This is out

of balance. In order for the Court to be relevant, it needs

to be diverse and better reflect America.

Then, of course, the President nominated Sonia Sotomayor and we were very excited about that.

So it was wonderful to work with her on that, and we worked together on respecting human rights in Tibet and led 27 Senators in a letter to Chinese leader Hu Jintao asking that Tibetans be respected. Regarding women in Afghanistan, we worked together to ask Afghan leaders to revise a law that would legalize marital rape and impose other Taliban restrictions on Shiite women in Afghanistan.

This is just a partial list of issues I have worked on with Olympia Snowe, and I will do a longer tribute for the record at a later time.

But, again, as I heard this news, I was first filled with worry about her health, and I hoped she was OK. But she has clarified she absolutely is. So I wish her nothing but the best. I know she will always work on issues because she is so good at looking at a problem and solving it and not thinking first whether it is Democratic or it is Republican or where it falls on the political scales. So I have appreciated working with her on so many of these important issues that have come before us.

I think the Senate should take a minute to think about this in relation to this bill. The whole world is watching us. When I say that, I don't mean the whole world literally, but I think the country is watching us. Why do I say that? Because 1,000 groups have endorsed our moving ahead with this bill--a coalition of 1,075 organizations from all 50 States. Here is what they said about this Transportation bill:

There are few Federal efforts that rival the potential of

critical transportation infrastructure investments for

sustaining and creating jobs and economic activity.

This is what they wrote. So they know this is the way to sustain and revive economic activity. This is what is at stake: Right now, 1.8 million jobs are created because we have a transportation bill. That bill ends March 31. So 1.8 million jobs are at stake if we don't act. Because of the way we wrote our bill, we leveraged funding, and this gained great bipartisan support. We have greatly increased the TIFIA Program, which is the transportation infrastructure financing program, which leverages funds by 30 times. Because of this, we believe we will see another 1 million jobs created. So we are talking 2.8 million jobs that are at stake. Yet we have an amendment on women's health. I just keep coming back to how insane that is.

I also wish to note again the many unemployed construction workers. Remember, I said 15 stadiums could be filled with unemployed construction workers. This is the number: 1.48 million construction industry workers unemployed. The unemployment rate is 17.7 percent among construction industry workers; whereas, the national unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. We know the housing sector is still having major problems getting out of the funk it is in. It is tough. So we have to do this bill.

I have a picture, just in case your mind's eye wasn't able to conjure it up. Here is a picture of a stadium filled with about 100,000 people. So 15 of these stadiums would basically reflect all the unemployed construction workers.

Which are the groups that are supporting us and are they bipartisan? Oh, my goodness. I don't think I could share with everyone a more bipartisan list of organizations than the AAA, the American Association of State Highway and Transit Officials, the American Bus Association, the American Concrete Pavement Association, the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American Moving & Storage Association, the American Public Transportation Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers--and it goes on and on--the trucking association, the Metropolitan Transportation Organizations, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, Governors Highway Safety Association, International Union of Operating Engineers, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, National Asphalt Pavement Association, National Association of Development Organizations, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, National Construction Alliance.

Oh, it goes on. That is just a partial list of those 1,000-plus organizations.

When we started our bill the Presiding Officer will remember we made history because we had Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL CIO, sitting next to Tom Donohue, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Donohue and Trumka, the odd couple. They are fighting and arguing on everything. Yet they came together in front of our committee because they know we will all benefit. All of America benefits when we do a bill such as this.

I think I have shared a lot, but there is one more point. If we allow this bill to go away, and we are stuck with an extension because the transportation fund is not collecting enough gas tax revenues--and there is a good-news reason for that, which is we are getting better fuel economy and we are using public transit a lot more, so the gas tax is not coming in at the rate it normally does--we will be down 35 percent in the fund. So right away--right away--631,000 jobs are gone. But what is so great about our bill is that four committees, including the Finance Committee, filled the gap in a way that was bipartisan.

Our story is a great story to tell. If I had to tell my grandkids a story, I would say: Once upon a time in America, we didn't have a national road system. But a Republican President named Dwight Eisenhower had a vision. He was a general. He knew it was important to move things in a reliable way, and he had a vision of a national transportation system, and everybody in the country said: What a great idea. So we started to have a bill every few years to authorize a highway fund. Then somebody came up with the notion of it being funded by the users, so that the gas tax would go--part of it--to this fund and we would have enough in that fund to build our highways and our bridges, and then, later on, our transit systems. People said: We have a lot of wear and tear on the roads. What if a lot of people took public transit and got out of their cars? It would be better for the air quality. It would be better for everybody and for the state of the roads, and so they were married up, highways and transit and bridges.

Now we have to live up to that legacy and not bog this bill down with birth control amendments and women's health amendments and amendments

about Egypt or anything else. There is time for that. We don't mind those battles but not on this bill. Infrastructure is the name of the game. We all know it--Republicans and Democrats.

So I say, let's stop playing games with this bill, please. Let's dispose of this birth control amendment, this women's health amendment. It doesn't belong on here. But if that is what it takes to get us off dead center, fine, let's go. To coin Olympia Snowe's phrase, it will be polarizing. It will not be pretty, but we will dispose of that and then we will move on and dispose of this bill.

I hope we will not have to face 5, 10, 20, 30 unrelated amendments. I hope we can get it down to a small number and move on. Let's pass this bill, lift the workers and lift our businesses. Every dollar, almost-- most of the dollars--goes straight to the private sector through our States, through our local entities.

Then let's hold our head up high when we go home. So when I go to the supermarket I don't have people coming to me and saying: What is going on over there? Birth control on a highway bill. What, are you kidding? I don't want to have those conversations every time I go to the supermarket. What are these guys thinking, they say. I say: I don't know. I can't speak for them. I think it is an agenda that appeals to the far right of this Nation. It is not a mainstream way to go.

In closing now, for those who say Republicans and Democrats never work together, that is not true. Senator Inhofe and I are as far away from each other politically as two human beings can get, but we teamed up and put aside our ideologies, put aside our pet peeves, put aside things that, perhaps in our hearts, we truly wanted to do on this bill, and we met in the middle. He was over here and I was over here and we ended up right in the middle. We said: We can do this, and we proved we could do it. It was a challenge that was put to us by the leadership of both our parties and we met that test and other committees met that test.

So here we are. Are we now to say to committee chairs and ranking members, Republicans and Democrats alike, forget about it? It is not worth it. Work your heart out.

I pay tribute to my staff, my Democratic staff, and to Senator Inhofe's Republican staff. They worked night after night after night to come together on this bill. Then we were given an assignment 2 weeks ago to resolve the germane amendments and they have come together and they have resolved I don't know how many but dozens of amendments. So is the message, work your little hearts out, have your staff give up their nights with their families and come up with a bipartisan bill and all of a sudden have it subjected to some polarizing amendments that have nothing to do with the subject?

Please, let's not see this bill go down. Because if this bill goes down, let me tell you, I, for one, will go to as many cities as I can and counties in this country and tell the truth about what happened. There is no reason for us not to get this done, especially when we have the Chamber of Commerce working with the AFL CIO, we have Republican- leaning business organizations working with Democratic-leaning worker organizations all throughout this country--over 1,000 of them. I talk to them every week to say thank you to them for keeping the pressure on all of us to keep moving forward. When we have that kind of bipartisanship in our committees, when we have that type of bipartisan bill on the floor, when we have that type of bipartisan support in the country, it is time to move forward and get the job done for the American people.

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, do we have a specific order here for speaking?

Mr. President, I am on the floor here today, as I was earlier, to talk about the dangers of this Blunt amendment.

Senator Blunt says it has nothing to do with providing health care to women; it has nothing to do with that. It is just about freedom of religion, he says. Well, as many people say, when someone comes up to you and says it is not about the money, it is about the money. And when someone says it is not about access to women's health, it is about religious freedom, it is about access to women's health care. Why do I say that? Because that is what this debate is all about. And we see it all over the country with rightwing Republicans trying to take away women's health care. Why are they trying to do this? You would have to ask them. But we are here to say no.

The thing about the Blunt amendment is, it would not only say that any insurer or any employer for any reason could stop women from getting access to contraception; it could also stop all of our families from getting access to essential health care services and preventive health care services.

Why do I say that? Let's take a look at the Blunt amendment. Enough of this chatter. Let's take a look at it. Here is what it says: A health care plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health care benefits package described in our law or preventive health care services described in our law if they exercise what they call a moral objection.

So say someone has a moral objection to someone who has smoked, and the person wants to give up smoking and they want to get a smoking cessation program as part of their insurance. If the insurer says, That is your fault, you are not getting it; or someone may have diabetes and the employer or the insurer says, You know what? That was your problem. You ate too much sugar as a kid. Too bad.

That is what the Blunt amendment does and that is a fact. Here it is. I placed it here because this is the amendment. That is what it says.

I wish to show a list of preventive services and essential health care services that the Blunt amendment threatens. Remember, the Blunt amendment says there is a new clause that now says any insurer or any employer can deny any one of these benefits: emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health treatment, pediatric services, rehabilitative services--that is just some.

Here is the list of the preventive health care benefits that any insurer or any employer could deny: breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer, hepatitis A and B vaccines, yes--contraception, HIV screening, autism screening, hearing screening for newborns.

This is the list. Why do I show this list? Particularly because I know the Senator served on the HELP Committee and helped put this together. This is the list of services that was put together by the expert physicians in the Institute of Medicine, this list, preventive health care, and this list, essential health benefits.

I was stunned to come on the floor and hear Senator Ayotte invoke the name of our dear colleague and our dearly missed colleague, Ted Kennedy. She tried to imply that he would support the Blunt amendment.

She is not the first Republican to do it. I am calling on my Republican friends to stop right now because there are several reasons why they are wrong to do that. First of all, Ted Kennedy, in one of his last acts, voted for the health care bill. He voted for the health care bill that came out of the HELP Committee. He helped to write the preventive section. He helped to write the essential health benefits section. He would never ever--as his son has said--support the Blunt amendment that would say to every employer in this country if they don't feel like offering any of these, they don't have to.

He fought hard for these. He wouldn't give an exception to an insurance company or a nonreligious employer, never.

How else do I know that to be the case? I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of bills that Senator Kennedy cosponsored.

What are these bills? These are bills that called for equity for women to get contraceptive coverage. If they were given other coverage, they had the right to get contraceptive coverage. Ted Kennedy was a leader. He is a cosponsor on all these bills. Do you know for how many years? Thirteen years. For thirteen years, Ted Kennedy fought for women to get access to contraceptive coverage in their insurance.

I say to my Republican friends, don't come to the floor and invoke the name of our dear colleague. I was so proud that the first thing I did when I came to the Senate, he asked me if I would help him work on a bill to protect people who were going to clinics, women's clinics, who were being harassed at the clinic door. You know what. I worked it for him. I helped him on the floor, and I was so proud we won that. Now there is a safety zone for women when they go to a clinic for their health care, their reproductive health care. That was Ted Kennedy.

Yes, Ted Kennedy supported a conscience clause--we all do, and President Obama has taken care of that. He has stated clearly in his compromise that if you are a religious institution, you do not have to offer birth control coverage. If you are a religiously affiliated institution, you don't have to cover it directly but you do indirectly. That was a Solomon-like decision by our President. But that is not enough for my Republican colleagues. They have to fight about everything.

I ask unanimous consent also to have printed in the Record the letter Patrick Kennedy wrote to Senator Brown.

In that letter, he said: ``You are entitled to your own opinions but I ask that, moving forward, you do not confuse my father's position with your own.''

He said: ``I appreciate the past respect you have expressed for his legacy, but misstating his positions is no way to honor his life's work.''

I ask my colleagues in this debate, come and state their own views, but don't misstate the views of a dear departed colleague who for 13 years supported a woman's right to have access to contraception.

I think people watching this today have to be a bit confused because when they look up at the screen it says we are on a transportation bill. Indeed we are. Indeed we have been on it for almost 3 weeks now. I say to my colleagues who know the importance of this bill: Please, let us get to it. Let us get to the heart of the matter. We have a huge unemployment rate among construction workers. The unemployed construction workers could fill 15 Super Bowl stadiums. That is how many are unemployed. We need to get to this bill.

It is important to our businesses. It is important to our workers. It is important to our communities. It is important for our safety. It is important to fix the bridges and the highways. It is important to carry out the vision of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who said it was key that we be able to move people and goods through our great Nation.

When Olympia Snowe, our very respected colleague from Maine, told us yesterday she would not seek reelection, she said it was because there is so much polarization here. I said this morning, this bill is exhibit 1. Here we have an underlying bill that came out of four committees in a bipartisan way. It means we can save 1.8 million jobs, create up to 1 million new jobs, and guess what. The first amendment is birth control, women's health, an attack on women's health. We have to come to the floor and stand on our feet and fight back.

You know what. I am proud to do it. I am proud of the men and women who have stood on this floor and have come to press conferences and been on conference calls fighting for women's rights. But this issue was decided a long time ago. We know access to contraception is critical for people. A full 15 percent of women who use it use it to fight debilitating monthly pain or to make sure tumors do not grow any larger or for severe skin conditions, and the rest use it to plan their families.

When families are planned do you know what happens? The babies are healthier. The families are ready. Abortions go down in number. It is a win-win. We all know that and I always thought we could reach across the aisle and work together to make sure there was family planning. But today just proves the opposite, our colleagues on the other side, the Republicans, are bound and determined to go after women's health.

I stand opposing the Blunt amendment, thanking my colleagues for their eloquence, and hoping we can dispose of it, defeat it, and get back to our Transportation bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before the Senator from Maryland leaves the floor, I think it is an opportunity to thank her so much for speaking the truth today on the floor of the Senate--just the facts-- and what the Blunt amendment is about and isn't about. Also, I watched her recite the history of trying to bring preventive care and essential health care benefits to our people, realizing that she was in that pivotal position in the HELP Committee.

I remember her looking at me one day--because we are very close friends; we are not on that particular committee together--and she said to me: Senator Kennedy asked me--I just get the chills when I think of it--to take on this issue of prevention and work with Tom Harkin and Chris Dodd and step to the plate on these essential benefits and on preventive benefits. She literally raised this issue, particularly on the prevention side--I don't know if the Presiding Officer remembers-- in caucuses, on the floor, in the committee, at press conferences, that we could have a new day in health care in this country because although we spend more than any country in the world, we are not getting the same results because we haven't invested in prevention.

As she said, it is not up to politicians to decide what prevention should look like; it is up to the doctors. Under the Senator's leadership and that of Senators Harkin and Dodd and all the wonderful members of the HELP Committee, as well as the Finance Committee--and, yes, Ted Kennedy in the background because he was quite ill, but he sent his messages, and his staff helped--they came up with a list of essential health care services that nobody could ever quarrel with. They also came up with a list of preventive health care services that were so critical to all of us, particularly to women. The great news: Proving to us that when we invest in prevention, we save so much down the line. We all know this is a fact.

Access to contraception, by the way, was put on the list not by politicians but by the Institute of Medicine because it is known that if the individual chooses that route to plan their families, that means we have fewer abortions and it means we will have healthier families, healthier babies. And many people take the birth control pill as medicine to prevent debilitating monthly pain. It is prescribed for skin diseases. It is prescribed to make sure cysts on ovaries do not keep growing and growing and possibly lose an ovary.

But what has happened--and I guess I want to ask my friend one question before she leaves--is that the Blunt amendment would say that anybody, for any reason, any day, could cancel out that whole list of preventive and essential health care services that she fought so hard for.

So when they say this is about religious freedom, no, no, no; that has been taken care of by our President. In terms of any provider that is religious or religiously affiliated, they do not have to provide contraception directly. Even Catholic Charities' response was ``We are hopeful that this is a step in the right direction . . . '', the Catholic Health Association supports the compromise, and so on. So I want to ask my friend, is she aware that when Congressman Issa held a hearing on women's health care, there was not one woman on the panel, on that first panel? Did she see those photos of that panel that was called to speak on women's health?

Yes, I do.

Absolutely.

Madam President, I just want to thank my colleague from Maryland for her eloquence and for her fighting spirit. The year I came here was following on the Anita Hill issue, when the world saw and this country saw we had no women on the Judiciary Committee. Now, our Presiding Officer sits on that committee. Senator Feinstein and Senator Moseley-Braun were the two women to serve on that committee after we saw there were no women, and they paved the way for my good friend to bring her fabulous background and expertise to the table.

But when Congressman Issa, the chairman of the committee that had no women on a panel talking about women's health--imagine, no women. Do we have that photo, Cerin? Do we have the photo of the five men testifying about women's health, talking about women's access to contraception, talking about birth control? Not one of those men ever gave birth as far as I know, unless they are a medical miracle. This photo I have in the Chamber I think is changing this country this year because a picture is worth thousands of words. Look at this picture, and we see over on the House side on that Republican side, that is who they want to hear from. When a woman in the audience said to the chair of that committee: Can I speak? I think I have some important information, he said she was not qualified. So I suppose if a person wants to be qualified to speak about women's health, they have to be a man. Her story she wanted to share was of a friend who was unable to get access to birth control because her employer did not offer it, and she was too financially strapped to purchase it. As a result, a cyst on an ovary became so large and so complicated she lost her ovary.

Now, I just want to say to my colleagues, we are on a highway bill. We have to be kidding that we have now wasted 3 weeks because we are so consumed with attacking women's health. Get over it. We are not going to go back. The women of this country will not allow it.

Look what happened in Virginia. They had a plan. They were going to

mandate an invasive procedure, a humiliating procedure, a medically unnecessary procedure to women. In Virginia the women said: What? And the Governor said: Whoops, I have some ambitions to do more than this. I better change.

I just want to say to my colleagues: Vote this down. Table this amendment, this Blunt amendment. This is not going to get us anywhere. What does it do to create one job--except new jobs for attorneys, as it sets up a whole no right of action. I am sure the trial lawyers are going to love the Republicans for this bill. It sets up a whole new right of action because somebody is going to say: I have a moral objection against giving cancer treatment to a child because I think prayer is the answer. Somebody will sue, and that employer will sue, and they will sue and they will sue and there will be money, money, money going to lawyers. Great. What did that do to help one child? What did that do to make somebody feel better? What did that do to create one job?

I know the leaders on both sides are trying to figure out a pathway forward on this highway bill. I am just saying, we better have a pathway forward. I want to say to the Presiding Officer sitting in the chair, who was a proud member of the Environment and Public Works Committee--and I hated to lose her, but everybody wanted her on their committee, so I lost her--she knows how it is. She lives in a State where a bridge collapsed. She fought hard to get that bridge rebuilt in record time. She knows how important it is to protect people by making sure our bridges are safe, that we have safe roads to schools, that we have good transit alternatives, that we fix our roads and our highways.

Madam President, 70,000 of our bridges are deficient, 50 percent of our roads are not up to standard, and we are voting on birth control? Come on. What is next? Egypt? They have a whole list of things that have nothing to do with the highway bill. Bring it on. Let the people see who is stopping progress, who is stopping this bill because at the end of March do you know what happens. We run out on the authorization of the highway bill. We run out on the authorization of the Transportation bill. We run out, and we will lose 630,000 jobs right then and there.

Instead, we can get this bill done. It is terrifically bipartisan. It came out of the committee 18 to 0. It came out of other committees with a bipartisan vote. We can get on with it, protect 1.8 million jobs, and create up to another 1 million jobs. Madam President, 2.8 million jobs are at stake, and we are debating birth control.

I think this is resonating in the country. All of a sudden, people wake up and they say: What are they doing there? What is happening there? When they see this, it is going to be very clear we have a bill that has been stuck on the floor for 3 weeks because the Republicans are demanding votes on matters that have nothing to do with the highway bill. The first one is on birth control. They are talking about something on Egypt. They are talking about something on--oh, this is a good one--repealing an environmental law that is keeping arsenic, lead, and mercury out of the air. They want to repeal that law. Great. That is great. That will really do something to make us safe.

So I am ready for these amendments. Come on to the floor. Give us a time agreement. Let's get on with it. Let's then allow the germane amendments to be offered.

The last comment I will close with is this because it is haunting me: The picture of 15 football stadiums, with every seat filled, would equal the number of unemployed construction workers we have out there today. Well over 1 million suffering because they cannot find construction work.

So I can only say, it is time to get this birth control amendment behind us. Let's beat it. Let's beat the Blunt amendment. It is a disaster. It is dangerous. It is hurtful. It is irrelevant to this bill, and it is dangerous for the country. Stop invoking the name of a departed colleague. Respect his family. Respect his memory. Let's get this vote over with. Let's go to the business at hand and create the jobs the American people are crying for.

I am very pleased to see a colleague has arrived, so I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island for his words. Also, he is an exceptional member of the Environment and Public Works committee. First and foremost, he brings us the point of view of his State and he fights on every issue every day. He brings national leadership to the floor on the issue of infrastructure and the need to keep up with our incredible failing infrastructure--the fact that we have to fix these bridges, 70,000 of which are insufficient, and 50 percent of the roads that are not up to par. In Rhode Island, we have serious problems, and the Senator has brought those to the floor. He is a leader on a clean and healthy environment, protecting the air and water for his people.

The Senator could not be more eloquent. He is making a point that we could come up with very difficult amendments and slow things up and gum up the works, et cetera, but doesn't my friend think that with so many construction workers out of work--they have well over 15 percent unemployment in the construction industry, which is about twice the national rate, which is too high as it is--we have a chance to protect 1.8 million jobs and create another million jobs, and isn't it time to say that birth control was an issue that was resolved decades ago and let's move on to the task at hand and put people back to work?

I know my colleague worked very hard on the health care bill, am I right on that?

I remember him being so proud of the prevention piece he brought to us. He made the case to us publicly, and privately in caucus, that it would save so much money for the American people. Right now, we know, for example--and I just read this--if you have colorectal screening, you are 50 percent less likely to die of colorectal cancer. This is a screening test.

We certainly know about mammography and all of this. Is my colleague aware that what the Blunt amendment says is that any employer, religious or not, any insurance company, religious or not, can withhold any one of those preventive services from being offered to employees if they had some kind of vague moral objection? Is my colleague aware that all the work he put in on making sure that insurers cover our people for preventive services, such as mammography, colorectal screening, HIV screening, and all of these important benefits, plus a list of essential benefits just as important, that all of that could come to nothing if the Blunt amendment passed and an employer woke up and said: I know how to save money, I will have a moral objection and not offer anything? Is my friend aware of how deep this Blunt amendment reaches into health care reform?

Exactly.

Right.

I thank my friend. When I looked at him, I thought, He is one of the few people who have such a personal stake in two issues that have been merged together, unfortunately: the Blunt amendment, which would allow anyone to opt out from providing so many of the services my friend worked to make sure the American people have, plus 3 weeks we are now delayed on a bill my friend helped me with so strongly and so powerfully. So I wanted to make sure people in his State understood that he has worked so hard to make sure people have access to health care, and the Blunt amendment would drive a big Mack truck through this--not to use a kind of funny analogy on the highway bill, but that is what it would do, in the meantime stopping us from getting on to our work in creating all these jobs.

My feeling is we will defeat the Blunt amendment tomorrow. I am very hopeful. But with that in mind, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters speaking to the Blunt amendment.

Madam President, the first letter is from the Cancer Action Network asking us to vote no on the Blunt amendment.

On behalf of millions of cancer patients, survivors and

their families, we write to express our opposition to the

amendment proposed by Senator Roy Blunt.

They talk about the fact that it would permit employers to refuse employees insurance coverage for any health care benefit guaranteed by health reform. And they are very strong on this issue. They say:

The implications of this provision could result in coverage

denials of lifesaving preventive services such as mammograms

or tobacco cessation based on employer discretion.

That is a new letter, dated today.

Then we got a letter from the Trust for America's Health. They say:

The Blunt amendment would allow any health insurance plan

or employer, religious or not, to exclude any preventive ser-

vice. . . .

The SEIU--Service Employees International--calls the Blunt amendment ``an extreme proposal that turns back the clock.''

The Human Rights Campaign Letter:

. . . The Blunt amendment would place the moral objections of

any employer over the health of millions of Americans. . . .

Eighty organizations signed a letter, and, referring to the Blunt amendment, part of that letter says:

That means employers and insurance companies can not only

deny access to birth control, they can deny access to health

care service. . . .

That is signed by Advocates for Youth, America Votes, the AIDS Institute, American Association of University Women, American College of Nurses and Midwives, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Students, Black Women's Health Imperative, Catholics for Choice, Reproductive Rights Center, Center for Women Policy Studies, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Choice USA, Concerned Clergy for Choice, Doctors for America, EQUAL Health Network--I mean, this goes on and on--the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, Planned Parenthood, Population Connection, Progressive Majority, Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine, National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign, Union for Reformed Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. This is a long list of organizations that oppose the Blunt amendment.

This letter came in from the Academic Pediatric Association and a number of other youth organizations. They urge us to oppose the Blunt amendment because it doesn't protect children's access to preventive services.

This is another letter signed by many more organizations, including the Spina Bifida Association, Voices for America's Children, Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Easter Seals, Family Voices, First Focus Campaign for Children--it goes on and on--American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Association of University Centers on Disabilities, CHILD, Inc. All these organizations have come together, and they say:

As organizations committed to the health and well-being of

infants, children, adolescents, and pregnant women, we urge

you to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Roy Blunt. . .

.

So all you are going to hear from the other side is misstatements about how the Blunt amendment is nothing more than what we have always done. Then why are you doing it? It is because it reaches so far.

We all support an exemption for religious providers. We all support that. We do not support the ability of any insurance company, nonreligious, or any employer, nonreligious, to stand up and say: You know what, I don't believe vaccines work; therefore, I don't think they should be made available to my people. And when you ask why, they say: I have a moral conviction. I have a moral conviction that people should have known better before they took that first cigarette when they were 11 or 12; therefore, I am not going to give any treatment. Too bad. They will just get lung cancer.

I mean, seriously. That is what the Blunt amendment will do. It will allow anyone--nonreligious--to say they have an objection and not offer a host of preventive and essential health care services, including contraception.

So tomorrow is our time. We are going to defeat the Blunt amendment, and when we defeat the Blunt amendment, we are going to move on to the highway bill. Hooray. And maybe, just maybe people will listen to Senator Olympia Snowe, who said we should not get tied up in knots over these controversial things and we should do what is right for the American people. I certainly support that.

There is just one more thing I want to put in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the testimony of a woman who tried very hard to be allowed to speak with a panel of men at a congressional hearing.

Madam President, this is a panel of men who were called by House Republican Chairman Issa to testify about women's health--not one woman there, but they were the experts. They denied this woman the chance to speak. If she had been allowed to speak, this is what she wanted to say:

She had a friend who went to the doctor, and the friend had a cyst on her ovary. The doctor said: You have to take birth control. That is going to help. Those pills are going to help reduce the size of that cyst.

She couldn't afford the birth control pills and her employer wouldn't cover them, so she couldn't take them. She is a student. She wrote her friend saying that the cyst ``was so painful, I woke up thinking I'd been shot.''

I will quote part of the friend's testimony relaying what her friend told her.

Without taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size

of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have

surgery to remove her entire ovary. She's not here this

morning. She's in a doctor's office right now. Since last

year's surgery, she has been experiencing night sweats,

weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a

result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old. As

she put it, ``If my body is indeed in early menopause, no

fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me

have my own children. I will have no chance of giving my

mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because

the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by

my school wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control

when I needed it.''

And so her friend says:

Now, in addition to facing the health complications that

come with having menopause at an early age--increased risk of

cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis--she may never be able to

be a mom.

So when we talk about the Blunt amendment, we are not talking about some obtuse issue, we are not talking about some philosophical issue. What we are talking about when we talk about the Blunt amendment is a young woman, a student at law school who couldn't afford to pay for the birth control pills which would have saved her fertility, which would have saved her horrific pain--a painful operation where she lost her ovary simply because she couldn't have access to her birth control pills.

This is not about some argument that doesn't have real consequences for our people. The Presiding Officer's constituents and my constituents deserve

to have access to preventive care. They deserve to have access to essential health care. The Blunt amendment will take that away from them. It will take that away from them. And all on a highway bill. All on a highway bill.

So let's keep the Blunt amendment away from this highway bill. This highway bill is a product of strong bipartisanship, as the Presiding Officer has told the Senate. Let's keep it clean. Let's keep out these extraneous amendments that will roll back environmental laws that are cleaning up the air, that will keep the arsenic and the mercury out of the air and the lead out of the air. Let's not roll back these laws on a highway bill. Let's get the highway bill done. When we have other arguments about other issues, let's put those issues on a relevant bill.

This is the time now for us to pull together, not pull apart. The Nation needs us to work together. It is an election year, and it is a difficult time. There is a lot of name-calling going on out there on the campaign trail, but we are still here, last I checked, and we are supposed to be doing our work for the American people. We have a chance to do it on this highway bill. Let's defeat the Blunt amendment in the morning.

I thank my friends for coming over to the floor and speaking so eloquently today against this dangerous, precedent-setting Blunt amendment that will turn back the clock on women's health and on our families' health.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California.

I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the 5 Delta Counties to prepare this legislation and support their efforts to fully partner with the State, the Federal agencies, and other local governments to improve and care for the Delta.

This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area.

The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of federal, state, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history.

It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property.

Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it.

In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does is impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure.

Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States.

The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries.

These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and 3 million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the state.

Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America.

The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.

Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians, and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally.

Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.

The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors.

Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other infrastructure.

Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure.

The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and the water it supplies so many Californians.

The Delta Protection Commission, established under state law, has been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National Heritage Area in the Delta.

This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the Delta.

This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area and federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the commitment the Federal government must make to the Delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of

government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, improve water quality in the Delta, and; sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the Delta.

The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway.

Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011,'' a bill that would ban the chemical Bisphenol A, known as BPA, from all children's feeding products. I thank my cosponsors Senators Schumer, Kerry, Sanders, and Franken for their support.

I vowed in the last Congress not to give up, and this is why I am introducing a bill that bans the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, and baby food containers: the products used to provide food and beverages to the most vulnerable.

I have a deep, abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and chemicals in the daily lives of Americans. BPA is an endocrine disruptor, which means that it interferes with the way hormones work in the body.

The evidence against BPA is mounting, especially its harmful effects on babies and children who are still developing.

I believe we have an obligation to safeguard babies and children from unnecessary exposure to this chemical that is linked to so many health problems.

Over 200 scientific studies show that even at low doses, BPA is linked to serious health problems including: Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Early puberty, Behavioral problems, Obesity.

This chemical is so widespread it has been found in 93 percent of Americans.

Babies and children are particularly at risk to the exposure of BPA because when they are developing, any small change can cause dramatic consequences.

It may not surprise you that the chemical industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. According to at least one study, there is reason to be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies.

In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies on BPA to BPA studies funded by industry.

The difference is glaring.

Ninety-two percent of the government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems.

Overwhelmingly, government studies found harm. None of the industry funded studies identified health problems as a result of BPA exposure. Not one.

Clearly, serious questions are raised about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. The results also illustrate why our nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research on their own products.

The fact that so many adverse health effects are linked to this chemical, the fact that this chemical is so present in our bodies, and the fact that babies are more at risk from its harmful effects leads me to believe that there is no good reason to expose our children to BPA.

This is why we are introducing legislation that protects all babies across the country, no matter which state they happen to live.

This bill will ensure that parents no longer have to wonder whether products they buy for their babies and children will harm them now or later in life.

This bill: Bans the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups within 6 months; Bans the use of BPA in baby food within 1 year; Bans the use of BPA in infant formula within 18 months; Requires that the FDA issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012; and Includes a savings clause to allow states to enact their own legislation.

This bill makes sense. It's a reasonable step forward to protecting our children's health.

Major manufacturers are already phasing out BPA from their food and beverage products for children.

Food and beverage products for children all have safe, alternative, BPA-free packaging available right now.

Major baby food and formula manufacturers offer BPA-free alternatives including: Nestle's GOOD START, Similac powdered infant formula, Enfamil powdered infant formula, Nestle liquid formula, and Similac liquid formula.

At least 14 manufacturers of baby bottles either offer some BPA-free alternatives or have completely banned its use. They are: Avent, Born Free, Disney First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, Green to Grow, Klean Kanteen, Medala, Munchkin, Nuby Sippy Cups, Playtex, Think Baby, and Weil Baby.

Many major retailers have taken action and sell BPA-free baby bottles and cups: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us and Babies ``R'' Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans, and Whole Foods.

Eight states have already enacted laws banning BPA from children's products: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Other countries have already moved forward to restrict this chemical. Canada declared BPA a toxic substance, and banned it from all baby bottles and sippy cups. Denmark and France have national bans on BPA in certain children's products.

The European Commission banned BPA from baby bottles, protecting consumers in the European Union.

Clearly, the problem has been recognized and steps are being taken by countries, states, companies, and retailers to remove this harmful chemical.

Let me briefly explain what BPA is.

BPA is a synthetic estrogen. As I stated previously, it is a hormone disruptor and interferes with how hormones work in the body. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products to harden plastics, line tin cans, and make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets, grocery store receipts, and to make dental sealants.

It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. And, as with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without us knowing whether it was safe or not.

Alternatives exist because there is growing concern about the harmful effects of BPA. The chemical industry continues to try to quiet criticism by reassuring consumers that BPA is safe.

I don't buy it.

As I previously stated, over 200 scientific studies show that exposure to BPA, particularly during prenatal development and early infancy, are linked to a wide range of adverse health effects in later life.

Because of their smaller size and stage of development, babies and children are particularly at risk from the harmful health effects of

Mr. President, in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, on March 23, 2010, the 111th Congress made great strides towards protecting consumers from egregious health insurance company practices. However, despite the passage of this historic legislation, the urgent need to protect Americans from unfair health insurance rate increases remains.

Health insurance premiums have been spiraling upwards nationally at out-of-control rates--10, 20, 30 percent every year--all while big national insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.

Without further legislative action, health insurance companies will continue to do what they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people.

Over the past decade, family health insurance premiums have more than doubled, growing a shocking 130 percent, while workers' hourly earnings rose by only 38 percent, and inflation rose just 29 percent.

From 2000-2008, individuals in the employer-sponsored market saw premiums increase an average of 90 percent.

The cost of health insurance continues to outpace income and inflation for other goods and services, and these rapidly escalating costs strain businesses, families, and individuals.

In 2009, 57 percent of people attempting to purchase insurance in the individual market found it difficult or impossible to afford coverage.

All the while, in the third quarter of 2010, the six-largest investor-owned health insurance companies (Aetna, Coventry Health, United Health, Humana, WellPoint, and Cigna) saw a 22 percent increase in combined net income, putting them on pace to break their own profit record.

The problem is that the health reform law did not go far enough to control these unfair premium increases, it leaves a loophole.

Simply stated, there is no federal authority to do anything about these rate increases, even if they are unfair.

We need to close this loophole.

This is why today I am introducing, with Senators Boxer and Inouye, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011. Representative Schakowsky is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

This legislation creates a federal fallback rate review process, and grants regulatory authority to block or modify rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

This legislation is a simple, common-sense solution: for States where the insurance commissioner does not have or

use authority to block unfair rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so.

On March 4, 2010, I introduced similar legislation to what I am introducing today. I worked with the Administration and the Finance Committee in putting it together, and with Representative Schakowsky.

President Obama included it in his health reform proposal, but unfortunately, it did not meet the criteria for reconciliation.

The time has come now to take action.

This legislation is necessary in order to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of insurance companies, especially before the majority of the consumer protections included in health reform are fully in place in 2014.

It is disturbing that year after year, health insurance premiums spiral out control, all while insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.

Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income than ever before, meaning that more and more families have to choose between health care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education.

This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers.

Everyone by now is familiar with the increases that Anthem/Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, was set to impose--as much as 39 percent--for 800,000 Californians.

It turns out that Anthem Blue Cross used flawed data to calculate health insurance premium increases to hundreds of thousands of policyholders in California, resulting in increases that were larger than necessary.

According to an independent analysis, the 25 percent average increase proposed by Anthem should have only been 15.2 percent.

What is most disturbing is that Anthem's case is not an aberration. Far from it.

This is not a problem unique to California. In the spring of 2010, health insurance companies pursued rate hikes in a number of States: as much as 60 percent in Illinois; 72 percent in Georgia; 50 percent in New Jersey; and 40 percent in Virginia, to name a few.

The White House reports that premium rates have been rising across the Nation, with substantial geographic variation.

For employer-sponsored family coverage, premiums increased 88 percent in Michigan over the past decade compared to a 145 percent increase in Alaska.

A report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that this summer, WellPoint pursued double digit increases in the individual market for 10 other States: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The reporting requirements in the health reform law will improve the information available, but right now, comprehensive data on the premium increases insurers are imposing does not exist.

In 2009, despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., set a full-year profit record. These companies saw a 56 percent increase in profits from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion.

Furthermore, when many Americans were experiencing double-digit premium increases in 2009, high unemployment, and an average wage growth of only 2 percent, insurance CEOs gave themselves a 167 percent raise.

CEO pay for the 10 largest for-profit health insurance companies was $228.1 million in 2009, up from $85.5 million in 2008.

This doesn't even include the tens of millions more dollars in exercised stock options, and means that these CEOs raked in nearly $1 billion in total compensation.

In the first three months of 2010, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., recorded a combined net income of $3.2 billion--a 31 percent jump over the same period in 2009.

Meanwhile, large insurance companies now insure 2.8 million fewer Americans than they did on December 31, 2008. An estimated 59.1 million Americans were uninsured in the first quarter of 2010.

The California HealthCare Foundation reported that 6.8 million California residents lack health coverage.

That is 20 percent of the State's residents who are not able to afford health insurance.

All the while, insurance companies have been reducing the amount they spend on actual health care. As profits and CEO pay increased, the amount of money insurers spent on medical care went down.

The top six insurers drove down the portion of premiums spent on medical care. For example, the share of premium dollars that CIGNA spent on medical care decreased 6.4 percent in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the prior year, and Humana's decreased 7.4 percent.

Now, because of legislation in the health reform law, insurance companies have to spend 80-85 percent of premiums on medical care and quality improvement services, not on profits.

This will go a long way to keeping insurance company greed in check, but we need to go farther.

Clearly without additional legislative requirements, health insurance companies are not going to change.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently published proposed rules defining the rate review process. These regulations are a first step towards protecting consumers and keeping insurers in check.

But they fall short of creating a strong rate review system, and rely too heavily on the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance companies to change their behavior.

The regulations do not grant explicit regulatory authority--either State or Federal--to deny, modify, or block rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

The health reform law requires insurance companies to provide justification for unreasonable premium increases to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and post them on their Web sites.

The regulations subject rate increases of 10 percent or greater to additional scrutiny and review, but the State-specific thresholds in 2012 could sanction increases higher than 10 percent.

Transparency and increased scrutiny are steps forward, but there is still this loophole where there is no authority to block or modify even excessive, unjustified, and unfairly discriminatory increases.

This is why I am again introducing my rate review legislation, which will grant this authority.

I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review.

This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to block premium or other rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

In some States, insurance commissioners already have that authority, and that is fine. The bill doesn't touch them.

In Maine, for example, the State superintendent of insurance was able to block Anthem's proposed 18.5-percent increase last year. She approved only a 10.9-percent increase.

In at least 17 States, including my own--California--companies are not required to receive prior approval for rate increases before they take effect.

In these States, the Secretary would review potentially excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rate increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase, providing rebates to consumers, or adjusting an increase.

Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement the rate review process. States already doing this work will continue to do so unabated and unfettered. The legislation would not affect them.

However, for the consumers in the other 17 States with no authority, such as California, protection from unfair rate hikes would be provided.

Given the variation in State rate review authority and process, I think this proposal strikes the right balance.

There is no need for involvement in States with insurance commissioners that are able to protect consumers. So the legislation I am introducing simply

provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of large health insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line.

This legislation is particularly important given a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation showing that many States lack the capacity and resources to conduct adequate rate review, regardless of the State's statutory authority to review rates.

I strongly believe that we need to take action on this. The health reform law made great strides towards holding companies and shareholders accountable for providing health care at a reasonable rate.

However, there is this loophole.

So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many States have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair.

There needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review. In States where the Insurance Commissioner is not equipped to review, modify, and block unreasonable rates, my legislation would grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do so.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011, which will close this loophole.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the California Desert Protection Act of 2011.

This bill is an effort to plan for the competing uses--such as conservation, off-highway vehicle recreation, development, and military training--that are now being proposed for the desert. These uses of our public lands can coexist through comprehensive planning, but in the absence of such planning, it's quite possible that none will thrive.

During the previous Congress I introduced similar legislation to help preserve pristine desert lands that were donated to the Federal Government for permanent conservation a decade ago, but that more recently have come under threat of development because of a flawed bureaucratic process that failed to protect them.

Over the last year the bill was endorsed by more than 100 organizations and agencies, and it had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

I am grateful to Senator Bingaman and his staff for working with me to prepare the bill for further action in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe we can revise the bill to address further the needs of renewable energy developers, the Department of Defense, off-road recreation enthusiasts, local government and others, and I look forward to continuing that effort in the new Congress.

I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California Desert--and this legislation strikes a carefully conceived balance between these sometimes competing concerns.

The key provisions of this bill would designate two new national monuments--the Mojave Trails and the Sand

to Snow National Monuments; add adjacent lands to the Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve; designate 5 new BLM wilderness areas and protect 4 important waterways--including the Amargosa River and Deep Creek--as Wild and Scenic Rivers; and enhance recreational opportunities in the desert and ensure that the training needs of the military are met.

This bill is the product of painstaking discussions with key stakeholders including environmental groups, local and State government, off-highway recreation enthusiasts, hunters, cattle ranchers, mining interests, the Department of Defense, wind and solar energy companies, California's public utility companies, and many others. I am grateful for all of their efforts.

The previous version of my bill proposed specific improvements to the Department of the Interior's rules governing the development of renewable energy on public lands. I'm pleased that the Department has instituted a number of new policies over the last year which have greatly improved the process. Consequently, the current bill focuses primarily on conservation, recreation and other important uses of the California desert.

However, I intend to work with my colleagues from the West on separate legislation to further expedite the development of wind and solar energy in California and the West.

The California Desert Protection Act, which was enacted in 1994, was a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at conserving some of the most beautiful and ecologically significant lands in my home State.

The law created Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve, as well as 69 desert wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM.

Collectively, it protected more than 7 million acres of desert lands, making it the largest land conservation bill in the lower 48 States in U.S. history.

To this day, it remains one of my proudest accomplishments since joining this body.

Much has changed since the passage of the California Desert Protection Act. Many of the impediments that prevented conservation of other pristine desert lands in the area no longer exist.

For example the Department of Defense concerns with designating some wilderness areas near Fort Irwin have been resolved; many mining areas inside national parks and potential wilderness have closed; grazing allotments on both BLM and National Park Service land have been retired by willing sellers; hundreds of thousands of acres of privately owned land have been donated to or acquired by the Federal Government.

Yet even as these issues were resolved, new challenges have emerged. There are now competing demands over how best to manage hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the desert.

Some believe the lands should be used for large-scale solar and wind facilities and transmission lines. Others would like to conserve critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.

Some would like more acreage available for grazing or for off-road recreation.

Finally, some would like to see additional lands made available for military training and base expansion.

Two years ago, I learned that BLM had accepted applications to build vast solar and wind energy projects on former railroad lands previously owned by the Catellus Corporation. These lands had been donated to the Federal Government or acquired with taxpayer funds with the explicit goal of conservation.

Approximately $45 million of private donations--including a $5 million land discount from Catellus Corporation--and $18 million in Federal Land and Water Conservation grants was spent to purchase these lands, with the intent of conserving them in perpetuity.

As the sponsor of the legislative provisions that helped secure the deal to acquire the roughly 600,000 acres of former private land, I found the BLM's actions unacceptable.

We have an obligation to honor our commitment to conserve these lands--and I believe we can still accomplish that goal while also fulfilling California's commitment to develop a clean energy portfolio.

I believe the development of these new cleaner energy sources is vital to addressing climate change, yet we must be careful about selecting where these facilities are located.

I plan to work with senators from Western States to improve the renewable energy permitting process to allow quicker development of renewable energy projects on private and disturbed public land. This effort likely requires separate legislation and improved regulation.

I applaud the Department of the Interior's efforts over the last year to address this problem, especially Interior's proposed designation of 24 solar energy zones encompassing 677,000 acres of public land in 6 Western States. By designating these zones in appropriate areas and streamlining the permitting process for projects proposed there, the Department has helped ensure that sensitive areas of the desert can be preserved.

As BLM finalizes the creation of these Zones and its new Solar Energy Program, I will push BLM to create a development zone in the West Mojave, conduct sufficient study of zones to ensure projects in these locations can be permitted quickly, and establish the program's rules as expeditiously as possible.

I will continue to suggest ways that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can improve permitting on private lands, the Defense Department can welcome development on its bases, and the Forest Service can utilize its own lands. These matters may require legislation.

There is enough land in California's desert to protect the most precious areas of the Mojave and aggressively develop renewable resources where permitting will be rapid. California must develop 15,000 to 20,000 megawatts of renewable power to meet its climate goals by 2020, and the current permitting process will need to vastly improve for the state to meet this goal.

First, this bill will ensure that hundreds of thousands of acres of land donated to the federal government for conservation will be protected by creating the Mojave Trails National Monument. This new monument would cover approximately 941,000 acres of federal land, which includes approximately 266,000 acres of the former Catellus-owned railroad lands along historic Route 66. I visited the area and was amazed by the beauty of the massive valleys, pristine dry lakes, and rugged mountains.

In addition to its iconic sweeping desert vistas and majestic mountain ranges, this area of the Eastern Mojave also contains critical wildlife corridors linking Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. It also encompasses hundreds of thousands of acres designated as areas of critical environmental concern, critical habitat for the threatened desert tortoise, and ancient lava bed flows and craters. It is surrounded by more than a dozen BLM wilderness areas.

The BLM would be given the authority to both conserve the monument lands, and also to maintain existing recreational uses, including hunting, vehicular travel on open roads and trails, camping, horseback riding and rockhounding.

The bill also creates an advisory committee to help develop and oversee the implementation of the monument management plan. It would be comprised of representatives from local, state and federal government, conservation and recreation groups, and local Native American tribes.

Before I go on to the other conservation provisions in the bill, I would like to address one important issue--and that is what should be done about some of the proposed renewable energy development projects proposed for lands included in this monument.

Although it is true that the monument will prevent further consideration of some applications to develop solar and wind energy projects on former Catellus lands or adjoining lands in the monument, it is important to note that of the proposals in question, not a single one has been granted a permit, nor is a single one under review at the California Energy Commission or under formal NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, review at BLM.

To ensure that creation of the monument does not unnecessarily harm the

firms that worked in good faith and invested substantial time and resources to produce renewable energy in California, the legislation will offer these companies an opportunity to relocate their projects to federal renewable energy zones currently being developed by the Department of the Interior.

Additionally, the monument would not prevent the construction or expansion of necessary transmission lines critical to linking renewable energy generation facilities with the electricity grid.

Second, the bill would establish the ``Sand to Snow National Monument,'' encompassing 134,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley up to the top of Mount San Gorgonio, the highest peak in Southern California.

The boundaries of this second, smaller new monument would include two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon, the BLM and U.S. Forest Service San Gorgonio Wilderness, the Wildlands Conservancy's Pipe's Canyon and Mission Creek Preserves, and additional public and private conservation lands, including two wildlife movement corridor areas connecting the Peninsular Ranges with the Transverse Ranges.

This area is truly remarkable, and would arguably be the most environmentally diverse national monument in the country. It serves as the intersection of three converging ecological systems--the Mojave Desert, the Colorado Desert, and the San Bernardino mountains--and is one of the most important wildlife corridors in Southern California.

This monument designation would protect 23.6 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail and the habitat for approximately 240 species of migrating and breeding birds, the second highest density of nesting birds in the United States. It also serves as a home and a crucial migration corridor for animals traveling between Joshua Tree National Park, the oasis at Big Morongo, and the higher elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains.

I'd like to make one additional point, and that is that despite its ecological significance, this area is not particularly well-known-- largely because it is managed by a number of distinct entities, including the BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service and private preserves and conservation agencies. So, the monument designation would help to attract more attention to one of California's natural gems.

Third, the bill establishes new wilderness areas and allows more appropriate use of lands currently designated as Wilderness Study Areas.

The 1994 California Desert Protection Act extended wilderness protection to many areas in the desert, yet several areas near Fort Irwin were designated as wilderness study areas in order to allow the base to expand.

Now that Fort Irwin's expansion is complete, it is time to consider these areas for permanent wilderness designation.

The bill protects approximately 250,000 acres of BLM land as wilderness in five areas. These areas contain some of the most pristine and rugged landscapes in the California desert.

Beyond Fort Irwin, the bill also expands wilderness areas in Death Valley National Park, 90,000 acres, and the San Bernardino National Forest, 4,300 acres, inside the Sand to Snow National Monument created by this bill.

The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes.

Fourth, this bill would create the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area.

The agreed-upon designation for this area in Imperial County, near the Colorado River, was reached after careful discussion with key stakeholders.

Although the land possesses some wilderness characteristics, there are also competing interests. The Navy Seals currently use some of this area for occasional training. Additionally, many local residents enjoy touring the rolling hills in the area by jeep.

Through the combined efforts of conservation groups, local residents and county government, and the Department of Defense, a compromise conservation designation was developed.

For the land known as the Vinagre Wash, the bill will create a ``special management area'' covering 76,000 acres, including 12,000 acres of former railroad lands donated to the federal government.

Of these, 49,000 acres are designated as potential wilderness and only become permanent wilderness if and when the Department of Defense determines these lands are no longer needed for Navy Seal training.

This designation will permit the area to continue to be accessed by vehicles and be used for camping, hiking, mountain biking, sightseeing, and off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and protect tribal cultural assets in the area.

Fifth, the bill adds to or designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 76 miles in length. These designations will ensure the rivers remain clean and free-flowing and that their immediate environments are preserved. These beautiful waterways are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park.

Sixth, the bill adds approximately 74,000 acres of adjacent lands to the three National Parks established by the 1994 California Desert Protection Act: 41,000 acres in Death Valley National Park. This includes former mining areas where the claims have been retired and a narrow strip of BLM land between National Park and Defense Department boundaries that has made BLM management difficult; almost 30,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve. This land was not included in the original Monument because of the former Viceroy gold mine. However, the mining operations ceased several years ago and the reclamation process is nearly complete. Additionally, a 2007 analysis by the Interior Department recommended that this area would be suitable to add to the Preserve; 2,900 acres in Joshua Tree National Park. This includes multiple small parcels of BLM land identified for disposal on its periphery. Transferring this land to the Park Service would help protect Joshua Tree by preserving these undeveloped areas that border residential communities.

Seventh, the bill designates new lands as Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.

One of the key goals I have strived for in this bill is to find balance to ensure that the many different needs and uses in the desert are accommodated with the least possible conflict. Some of the most frequent visitors to the desert are the off-highway recreation enthusiasts.

In California alone, there are over 1 million registered off-highway vehicles, many of which can be found exploring thousands of miles of desert trails or BLM designated open areas.

However, in order to meet military training needs, the Marine Corps is studying the potential expansion of Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms into Johnson Valley, the largest OHV area in the country. I strongly support providing our troops with the best possible training, but if the Marines need to expand the base into Johnson Valley, this could have potentially resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of acres of OHV recreation lands.

In 2009 I met with Major General Eugene Payne, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics, and Brigadier General Melvin Spiese, Commanding General, Training and Education Command, to discuss this issue, and I am very grateful for their efforts to consider base expansion options that would preserve much of Johnson Valley for recreation.

As the result of those meetings, the Marine Corps has committed to studying an alternative that would allow for a portion of Johnson Valley to be used exclusively for military training, another portion to be used exclusively for continued OHV recreation and a third area for joint use. While the environmental review process must first be completed, I am hopeful that this option will prevail for the benefit of the Marines and recreational users of Johnson Valley.

The lesson learned from Johnson Valley is that, despite the vast size of the California desert, there are relatively

few areas dedicated to OHV recreation, and even those areas face increasing competition from other types of uses. These areas are important not only to the hundreds of thousands visitors who enjoy them, but also to the local economy that depends on their tourist dollars. Additionally, by protecting these areas, we also protect conservation areas by providing appropriate places for OHV recreation.

This bill will designate five existing OHV areas in the Mojave desert as permanent OHV areas, providing off-highway groups some certainty that these uses will be protected as much as conservation areas. Collectively, these areas could be as much as 314,000 acres, depending on what, if any, of Johnson Valley is ultimately needed by the Marines.

This section of the bill also requires the Secretary of the Inerior to conduct a study to determine which, if any, lands adjacent to these recreation areas would be suitable for addition. This will help make up for some of the lost acres in Johnson Valley should the Marines decide to expand there.

Finally, this bill includes other key provisions that address various challenges and opportunities in the California desert, including state land exchanges. There are currently about 370,000 acres of state lands spread across the California desert in isolated 640 acre parcels. Because many of these acres are inside national parks, wilderness, the proposed monuments or conservation areas, they are largely unusable. The bill seeks to remedy that problem by requiring the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a plan with the state to complete the exchange of these lands for other BLM or GSA owned property in the next ten years. These land exchanges will help consolidate the state lands into larger, more usable areas that could potentially provide the state with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation or other commercial purposes.

Military activities. The bill ensures the right of the Department of Defense to conduct low-level overflights over wilderness, national parks and national monuments.

Climate change and wildlife corridors. The bill requires the Department of the Interior to study the impact of climate change on California desert species migration, incorporate the study's results and recommendations into land use management plans, and consider the study's findings when making decisions granting rights of way for projects on public lands.

Tribal uses and interests. The bill requires the Secretary to ensure access for tribal cultural activities within national parks, monuments, wilderness and other areas designated within the bill. It also requires the Secretary to develop a cultural resources management plan to protect a sacred tribal trail along the Colorado River between southern Nevada and the California-Baja border.

Prohibited uses of donated and acquired lands. In order to ensure that donated and acquired Catellus lands outside the Mojave Trails National Monument are maintained for conservation, the bill prohibits their use for development, mining, off-highway vehicle use, except designated routes, grazing, military training and other surface disturbing activities. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make limited exceptions in cases where it is deemed in the public interest, but comparable lands would have to be purchased and donated to the federal government as mitigation for lost acreage.

All of these provisions, when taken together, would serve to complement the lasting conservation established by the California Desert Protection Act--while ensuring that other important local uses are maintained in appropriate areas.

Though I have lived in or near San Francisco for most of my life, over the years I have come to truly appreciate California's sweeping desert landscapes.

I remember my first visits to the desert years ago. It was treated like a waste dump. It was full of abandoned cars. Old appliances littered the landscape.

But we have worked very hard to clean it up.

We have worked to make sure that the vast vistas and pristine desert habitat are respected by humanity, and that we give to our children a healthier, more beautiful desert than we inherited.

But if we are to remain successful in the long run, we must not only protect the desert land itself, we must also protect the broader environment from the ravages of climate change, and we must offer economic opportunity to those who live in these areas.

That is the purpose of this legislation. There are many places in the California desert where development and employment are essential and appropriate.

But there are also places that future generations will thank us for setting aside.

I have worked painstakingly with stakeholders to ensure that this legislation balances sometimes competing needs.

This bill, if enacted, will have a positive and enduring impact on the landscape of the Southern California desert by conserving pristine areas while meeting the needs of all desert stakeholders.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' ``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. This legislation will extend these three authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 2013.

The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so they, too, last until the end of 2013.

I firmly believe that the United States Government needs these authorities to help prevent against future terrorist attacks against our nation and to collect vital intelligence insights into the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries. We remain a nation under threat and need to remain vigilant in our defense.

Let me briefly describe the three expiring provisions.

First, court-ordered roving authority is directed against foreign intelligence targets who attempt to thwart FISA surveillance by such actions as rapidly changing cell phones. In a September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice reported to Congress that this authority ``has proven an important intelligence-gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders.''

Second, lone wolf authority allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been identified. In the last Congress, when the Department of Justice advised that it had not yet been necessary for the Government to use this authority, the Department stated that it could foresee circumstances in which a terrorist target had not actually contacted a terrorist group or was known to have severed his association from a terrorist group.

From the events of the last several years, we have all become aware that we may be attacked by a lone, unaffiliated terrorist--or one whose links to

terrorist groups are only clear after an individual is apprehended.

Third, the collection of business records pursuant to court orders. This provision allows the Government to require the production of ``tangible things'' in order to obtain foreign intelligence information as part of an investigation. In the September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice urged reauthorization of that authority because ``[t]he absence of such authority could force the FBI to sacrifice key intelligence opportunities.''

I cannot elaborate into the use of these authorities in this unclassified context. I can say, however, that as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and as one who reviews the intelligence on the threats we face, we remain a nation under attack. Providing the authorities to collect intelligence to identify and prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland remains necessary.

It is also important to allow Congress, in the future, to conduct a complete review of FISA provisions. By synchronizing the dates when different pieces of the law expire, Congress can consider changes to FISA at once, prior to the end of 2013.

In closing, l would like to assure all Members of the Senate and the American public that extending these sunsets does not shield them from oversight. There is a system of review and oversight in place that consists of the FISA Court, Inspectors General in the Department of Justice and in the intelligence community, regular oversight reviews by the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, a new Director of Compliance at the National Security Agency, and reporting to the Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can assure colleagues that the Senate has placed, and will continue to place, oversight of the Government's surveillance authorities as a major priority.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act, which I also introduced in the 111th Congress. This critical bill reauthorizes and strengthens the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, a program that I was pleased to originally sponsor in the 106th Congress establishing the Coral Reef Conservation Program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.

Coral reefs are among the oldest and most economically and biologically important ecosystems in the world. They provide habitat for more than one million diverse aquatic species, a natural barrier for protection from coastal storms and erosion, and are a potential source of treatment for many of the world's diseases. From a commerce perspective, reef-supported tourism is a $30 billion industry worldwide, and the commercial value of United States fisheries from coral reefs is more than $100 million.

However, our coral reef ecosystems face many threats including pollution, climate change and coral bleaching, and overfishing to name a few. Coral reefs cover only one-tenth of one percent of the ocean floor, yet provide habitat for more than twenty-five percent of all marine species.

The original Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 recognized the need to preserve, sustain and restore the condition of these valuable coral reef ecosystems. The Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2011 would strengthen NOAA's ability to comprehensively address threats to coral reefs and empower the agency with tools to ensure that damage to our coral reef ecosystems is prevented or effectively mitigated. It also establishes consistent practices for maintaining data, products, and information, and promotes the widespread availability and dissemination of that environmental information.

Finally, the bill allows the Secretary to further develop partnerships with foreign governments and international organizations-- partnerships that are critical not only to the understanding of our coral reef ecosystems, but also to their protection and restoration.

Thank you and I would urge you to support this important legislation to continue supporting NOAA's leadership role in coral reef conservation.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the need for inclusion of pharmacists in the National Health Services Corps, NHSC, student loan repayment program. It is imperative that our Nation focus its efforts on increased access to affordable, high quality healthcare for our Nation's underserved communities. Today's pharmacist graduates with a professional doctorate degree. My home State of Hawaii is home to our only school of pharmacy program located at the University of Hawaii at Hilo and this year will mark the school's very first graduating class. Pharmacists are vital to our intent of increasing access to patient-centered, team-based healthcare for all individuals. They collaborate with providers across the continuum of care to improve medication-use related outcomes, provides access to prevention and wellness screening that, among others, can reduce tobacco use and increase immunization rates all of which support provider effectiveness and organizational efficiencies. The integration of the pharmacist across the continuum of care helps increase access to primary and preventive care and allows for better management of chronic disease. Pharmacists support prescribers by focusing on the management of medications preventing adverse events that lead to avoidable emergency room visits and hospital admissions. This collaborative effort among healthcare providers helps improve clinical and economic outcomes and increases patient satisfaction with their care.

The current approach of recruiting and retaining primary care practitioners may limit access to robust patient-centered, team-based care by patients in underserved communities. Today over 88 percent of pharmacy students borrow over $107,000 to help them pay for their education. The incorporation of comprehensive pharmacy services in these particular communities is a primary objective of the Health Resources and Services Administration patient-safety and clinical pharmacy services collaborative. Making pharmacists eligible to participate in NHSC loan repayment program will ensure that the reorganization of our healthcare system envisioned in legislation, federal action, and community-based models all benefit from patient- centered, team-based models of care that integrate comprehensive pharmacy services.

I urge you to consider the benefits of including pharmacists in the NHSC student loan repayment program.

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

I am pleased to introduce my Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act, Seafood Safety Act. The Seafood Safety Act will strengthen the partnership between the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to coordinate Federal activities for ensuring that commercially distributed seafood in the United States meets the food quality and safety requirements of Federal law. The bill provides for no new jurisdiction and does not alter any existing jurisdiction given to FDA or any other agency. The bill does not include any authorization of appropriations, but seeks only to strengthen existing partnerships and share information.

The bill remains largely unchanged since I first introduced it in the 110th Congress, but this version, like the one I introduced in the 111th, incorporates the FTC as an additional partner since they have broad existing authority for consumer and interstate commerce fraud issues.

Specifically, the bill requires the Secretaries of Commerce, HHS, DHS, and the FTC to enter into agreements as necessary to strengthen cooperation on seafood safety, seafood labeling, and seafood fraud. Those agreements must address seafood testing and inspection; data standardization for seafood names; data coordination for the exportation, transportation, sale, harvest, or trade of seafood; seafood labeling compliance assurance; and information-sharing for observed non-compliance. The bill also increases the number of laboratories certified to inspection standards of the FDA and allows the Secretary of Commerce to increase the number and capacity of NOAA laboratories responsible for seafood safety testing. It allows for an increase in the percentage of seafood import shipments tested and inspected to improve detection of violations. Finally, the bill allows the Secretary of HHS to refuse entry of seafood imports from countries with known violations, and also allows the Secretary to permit individual seafood shipments from recognized and properly certified exporters.

For the safety of the American people, I remain committed to the Seafood Safety Act and look forward to continuing to work to ensure its passage.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act, which I also introduced in the 111th. This bill would harmonize the enforcement provisions of the U.S. statutes for implementing international fisheries agreements to strengthen international fisheries enforcement.

Specifically it would grant the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard authority to implement international fisheries laws, expand their authorities in carrying out investigations and enforcement activities, and establish interference with investigations as a prohibited act. It would also amend the enforcement provisions of statutes for implementing international fisheries agreements to conform to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, while increasing both civil and criminal penalties for violating international fisheries laws.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to maintain and make public a list of vessels engaged in illegal, unregulated, and unreported, IUU, fishing and authorize appropriate action against listed vessels, which will hopefully allow for strong strides in our fight against illegal activity.

Finally, by creating an International Cooperation and Assistance Program that will provide assistance for international capacity building efforts, training, outreach, and education, it is my hope that we are able to more-successfully combat IUU fishing and promote international marine conservation.

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

There be no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed

Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in United States international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than United States registered ships, and are virtually untaxed. Their costs of operation are, therefore, lower than United States ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Seven years ago, in order to help level the playing field for United States-flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108- 357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and Senate conference, language was included, which states that a United States vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in United States domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those United States ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in United States domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages. Specifically, they are built in higher priced United States shipyards; do not receive Maritime Security Payments, even when operated in international trade; and are owned by United States-based American corporations. The inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is a further, unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of sufficient importance that in December 2006 Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading--but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade, Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes

ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 United States flag vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing tax equity to the United States corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other United States flag international operations. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent United States corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between United States flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the U.S. Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval.

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

Mr. President, the legislation I am reintroducing today will extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our teaching hospitals require similar support.

As a result, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. These private hospitals typically have no mandate for community service. In contrast, non-profit hospitals must fulfill a community service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain skilled staffing resulting in closures of non-profit hospitals due to this financial strain.

The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. Non-profit hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma is especially costly.

Despite their financial problem, the Nation's non-profit hospitals strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 2006 issue of Archives of International Medicine had surveyed hospital's quality of care in four areas of treatment. It found that non-profit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. The study also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in treatment and diagnosis, and that investments in technology and staffing leads to better care. In addition, it recommended that alternative payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these improvements.

The success and financial constraints of non-profit teaching hospitals is evident in work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 151-year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit hospital in Hawaii. The Queen's Health Systems serve as the primary clinical teaching facility for the University of Hawaii's medical residency program in medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, pathology, psychiatry, and is a clinical teaching facility for obstetrics-gynecology. It conducts educational and training programs for nurses and allied health personnel. The Queen's Health Systems operate the only trauma unit as well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs, for Native Hawaiians, and a small hospital in the rural, economically depressed island of Molokai. Furthermore, the Queen's Health Systems annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income from its endowment.

In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code, these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.

If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. Non- profit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs as that of universities, schools, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule should be extended to teaching hospitals.

My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted than current law for schools, universities and pension trusts. Under safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a support organization for a teaching hospital cannot buy and develop land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the organization endowment. The staff's revenue estimates show that the provision with its general application will help a number of teaching hospitals.

The U.S. Senate has several times before acted favorably on this proposal. The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the provision in H.R. 7, the CARE Act of 2002, and in S. 476, the CARE Act of 2003, which the Senate passed. In a previous Congress' S. 6, the

Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.

As the Senate Finance Committee's hearings show, substantial health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is time for the Congress to assist the Nation's teaching hospitals in their charitable, educational service.

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

Mr. President, nearly 16 years ago I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Over a decade ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the

ottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28, Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000, Report of Hearing Officer.

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomi were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal; an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomi to cede the remainder of their traditional lands, some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago, and remove their nation west. For years, the Pottawatomi steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomi to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomi who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy- seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomi 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. However, the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.''

Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomi sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomi moved westward, many of the Pottawatomi, particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty, refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomi who remained in the east with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed

by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

After learning of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomi, including most of the Wisconsin Band, vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomi were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864, 13 Stat. 172, Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949. Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties, Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess. By the act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 380, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi that still remained in the east. In addition, Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2,007 Wisconsin Pottawatomi: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1,550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomi in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of the money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this Congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomi then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act, ICCA, granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi from both sides of the border brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823, 1950. The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445, 1983. The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate, and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the Congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left an unfulfilled obligation, and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice, so long delayed, is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations, which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada, and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would establish a Native American Economic Advisory Council. This Council's primary duties would be to consult, coordinate, and make recommendations to Federal agencies for the purpose of improving the substandard economic conditions that exist in our Native communities.

Currently, there is no Council, and despite the Federal Government's ``trust'' relationship with Native American tribes, Native Americans themselves continue to rank lowest in quality of life standings. As a nation we need to preserve our Native communities as they are rich with cultural significance and living history.

Native communities are considered ``emerging economies'' that have stalled because of the current economic situation. This bill is an attempt to keep these communities moving by educating, empowering, and encouraging our future Native American leaders to create sustainable economic growth programs in their own communities.

In Hawaii, the cost of living ranges from 30 percent to 60 percent higher than the national average. We have to start planning for economic stability in the future and this bill provides an opportunity to do so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on reinvesting in our Nation's future.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would provide authority for the establishment of branch banking facilities on Indian reservations so that the Federally-chartered Native American Bank could enable access to financial services to Indian tribes and their citizens.

Many years ago, as part of my service as Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I met with tribal leaders to discuss the challenges of economic development in Indian country. At that time, I suggested that they might give consideration to a means by which tribal governments could pool their resources and thereby provide the capital that other tribal governments could employ on a short-term loan basis to undertake reservation-based projects that held the potential of stimulating economic growth in their tribal communities.

The tribal leaders with whom I met were very interested in this idea, and in the ensuing years, went forward and established the Native American Bank--which is headquartered in Denver--but continues to manage its first affiliated bank on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana.

As my colleagues know, there are few financial institutions located either on or near Indian reservations, and sadly, there is evidence that some financial institutions have found it apparently necessary to either charge very high rates that they associate with the risk of doing business in Indian country, or to deny financial assistance altogether.

The Native American Bank has stepped into that latter void and has been providing meaningful financial services to tribal governments and their citizens for a number of years.

This bill contains amendments to the McFadden Act that have been carefully sculpted to address only this narrow expansion of capacity on the part of financial institutions serving Indian country.

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

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. Government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act. Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the construction of low-income housing for Native Hawaiians and further provides authority for access to loan guarantees associated with the construction of housing to serve Native Hawaiians.

Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of Native Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest in the Nation.

The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now enjoyed by other Americans.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to end space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

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

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act. This bipartisan legislation will dramatically reduce prescription drug costs by preventing one of the most egregious, anti-consumer tactics ever devised to keep generic drugs off the market.

This amendment would combat ``pay-for-delay'' agreements between brand name and generic drug companies which delay entry of low-cost generic competition. These pay-for-delay agreements are estimated by the FTC to cost consumers $3.5 billion each year, and are estimated by the CBO estimates to cost the federal government more than $2.8 billion over the next decade in higher drug reimbursement payments.

In 2008, $235 billion were spent on prescription drugs in the United States. Generic drugs play a crucial role in containing rising prescription drug costs, by offering consumers therapeutically identical alternatives to brand-name drugs, at a significantly reduced cost. Studies have shown that generic competition to brand name drugs can reduce drug prices by as much as 80 percent. However, in recent years generic entry has frequently been blocked by anti-competitive, anti-consumer agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers that limit, delay, or otherwise prevent competition from generic drugs.

In pay-for-delay agreements, a brand-name drug manufacturer settles patent litigation by paying off a generic competitor with large amounts of cash, or other valuable consideration to stay off the market until expiration--or a time close to expiration--of the brand-name patent. For example, in 2006, the CEO of Cephalon, which makes the sleep disorder pill Provigil, praised the deals his company made with four generic drug-makers to keep generic versions of Provigil off the market until 2012. ``We were able to get six more years of patent protection,'' he said. ``That's $4 billion in sales that no one expected.'' Unfortunately, that $4 billion came from the pockets of American consumers.

At their core, pay-for-delay agreements permit brand-name drug companies to pay off competitors not to compete. The brand name drug company wins because it reaps the profits from eliminating competition. The generic drug company wins because they get paid millions of dollars to do nothing more than drop their patent challenge. But consumers and the American taxpayer loses, to the tune of billions of dollars in higher drug costs every year.

Agreements between competitors, like these, are the most nefarious type of antitrust violation. Unfortunately, when the FTC has challenged ``pay-for-delay'' agreements, courts have favored big industry interests over consumers. Courts have wrongly concluded that this type of basic antitrust violation is immune from antitrust law because it involves the settlement of a patent challenge. In other words, it is permissible for competitors to collude to when it involves a patented drug and in order to keep lower cost drugs out of consumers' medicine cabinets. These misguided court rulings are what make passage of our legislation so vital.

For years, we have seen the use of anticompetitive agreements increase. From 2000 to 2004, there were twenty settlements of drug patent litigation, but we saw no pay-for-delay agreements because drug companies assumed they violated antitrust law. But, these settlements became all too prevalent following three courts of appeals decisions in 2005 which effectively found them to be per se legal and prevented the FTC from taking action on behalf of consumers against these settlements.

In the 2 years following these 2005 court decisions, 28 out of 61 patent settlements had provisions in which the brand name drug company made payments to the generic manufacturer in exchange for the generic manufacturer agreeing to delay entry of generic competition. Clearly, pay-for-delay agreements are not necessary to settle a case because during that same time, 33 cases settled without delaying entry to consumers in exchange for a payment.

Last fall, the FTC released a report which found a record 19 pay-for- delay settlements in fiscal year 2009, the highest ever recorded in a single year. This report convincingly demonstrates the danger these deals pose to consumers. Each of these deals will lead to higher drug costs for millions of consumers. Each of these deals cost the Federal Government large sums in taxpayer money in higher drug reimbursement costs. Each of these deals deprive consumers of needed drug competition. The time for action to stop these anti-consumer, anticompetitive back room deals is now.

Our legislation passed the Judiciary Committee last Congress with a strong bipartisan majority. The Judiciary Committee made several changes to the legislation as it is was introduced in the 111th Congress, and the legislation I am introducing today includes all of these changes. I believe the current version of this legislation represents a well balanced approach to this problem. Under my bill, these settlement agreements will be presumed to be illegal. However, the FTC will need to pursue legal action prior to these agreements being found illegal, and the drug companies will have an opportunity to convince the Judge why these agreement are not in fact anticompetitive. If found illegal, the FTC will have the authority to assess civil penalties up to three times the profits gained by the drug companies.

I believe this measure strikes the right balance. By presuming these agreements to be illegal, and armed with strong civil penalties, this bill will deter drug companies from entering into anti-competitive and anti-consumer ``pay-for-delay'' settlements in the first place. By giving the drug companies a hearing before a neutral tribunal, the drug companies will have their day in court to go forward with those agreements which truly do not harm competition.

The evidence is clear. These ``pay-for-delay'' agreements between brand name and generic drug companies deny consumers the benefits of generic drug competition and costs consumers and the Federal Government billions of dollars. My legislation will give the FTC strong remedies to prevent these agreements when it concludes they harm competition. Millions and millions of Americans that struggle to pay their prescription drug costs and who need low priced generic alternatives are awaiting action on this amendment. I urge my colleagues support for the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act.

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 essential to restoring competition to the nation's crucial freight railroad sector. Freight railroads are essential to shipping a myriad of vital goods, everything from coal used to generate electricity to grain used for basic foodstuffs. But for decades the freight railroads have been insulated from the normal rules of competition followed by almost all other parts of our economy by an outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemption. So today I am introducing, along with my colleagues, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2011. This bipartisan legislation will eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. This legislation is identical to the legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress by a unanimous 15-0 vote.

Our legislation will eliminate unwarranted and outmoded antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition and result in higher prices to millions of consumers every day. Consolidation in the railroad industry in recent years has resulted in only four Class I railroads providing nearly 90 percent of the Nation's freight rail transportation, as measured by revenue. The harmful result of this industry concentration for railroad shippers is well documented. A 2006 General Accounting Office Report found that shippers in many geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of competition in these markets.'' These unjustified cost increases cause consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay for the high cost of transporting coal, result in higher prices for goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw materials, and reduce earnings for American farmers who ship their products by rail and raise food prices paid by consumers.

A recent staff report, issued September 15, 2010, of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation also makes clear how railroads have benefited from the unique combination of deregulation and large- scale antitrust immunity, to the detriment of rail shippers and consumers. This Report--titled ``The Current State of the Class I Freight Rail Industry''--stated that ``[t]he four Class I railroads that today dominate the U.S. rail shipping market are achieving returns on revenue and operating ratios that rank them among the most profitable businesses in the U.S. economy.'' The four largest railroads nearly doubled their collective profit margins in the last decade to 13 percent ranking the railroad industry the fifth most profitable industry as ranking by Fortune magazine.

Increased concentration and lack of antitrust scrutiny have had clear price effects--according to the Commerce Committee Report, since 2004, ``Class I railroads have been raising prices by an average of 5 percent a year above inflation.'' The recent Commerce Committee Report concluded that ``Class I freight railroads have regained the pricing power they lacked in the 1980s, and are now some of the most highly profitable businesses in the U.S. economy.'' Given the industry's concentration and pricing power, the case for full fledged application of the antitrust laws is plain.

The ill-effects of railroad industry consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers have faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of outmoded exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide.

These unwarranted antitrust exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my state are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.

And similar stories exist across the country. We held a hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee in the 110th Congress which detailed numerous instances of anti-competitive conduct by the dominant freight railroads and at which railroad shippers testified as to the need to repeal the outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions which left them without remedies. Dozens of organizations, unions and trade groups affected by monopolistic railroad conduct endorsed the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act in the last Congress. Supporters of the legislation include 20 state Attorneys General, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, the Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Chemistry Council, the American Corn Growers Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Public Power Association, and the American Bar Association Antitrust Section.

The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions.

No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980-- deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the rules of fair competition. And there is no reason to treat railroads any differently from dozens of other regulated industries in our economy that are fully subject to antitrust law--whether the telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC, or the aviation industry regulation by the Department of Transportation, just name just two examples.

Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of

the Clayton Act, allowing the federal government, state attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses.

Significantly, our bill will not affect in way the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board to regulate freight railroads. It will in no way limit or alter the authority of the STB; the STB will continue to exercise full jurisdiction over the railroad industry.

In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.

It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2011.

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 essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing.'' This bill wil ensure that consumers can obtain discount prices at the very time they need them the most.

In June 2007, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case turned the Sherman Act on its head to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill--identical to legislation I introduced in the last two Congresses--will correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se ban on vertical price fixing. My bill has been endorsed by the National Association of Attorneys General, 38 state attorneys general, as well as numerous antitrust experts, including former FTC Chairman Pitofsky and former FTC Commissioner Harbour, and the leading consumer groups, including Consumers Union, the Consumers Federation of America, and the American Antitrust Institute. This legislation passed the Judiciary Committee last year.

The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price fixing permitted discounters to sell goods at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices.

Ample evidence exists of the pernicious effect of allowing vertical price fixing. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to enact so- called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. Studies the Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the States that allowed vertical price fixing than the States that had not passed such ``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $2.1 billion per year at that time.

Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is even greater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today would be $300 billion, translating into retail bills that would average $750 to $1,000 higher for the average family of four every year.

The experience of the last three years since the Leegin decision has begun to confirm our fears regarding the dangers from permitting vertical price fixing. The Wall Street Journal has reported that more than 5,000 companies have implemented minimum pricing policies. A new business--known as ``internet monitors''--has materialized for companies that scour the Internet in search of retailers selling products at a bargain. When such bargain sellers are detected, the manufacturer is alerted so that they can demand the seller

end its discounting. There have been many reports of everything from consumer electronics and video games to baby products and toys, rental cars and bicycles being subject to minimum retail pricing policies.

Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers.

In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an ``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses involved possess market power ``is a further, significant consideration'' under the rule of reason.

In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores or consumers with limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts and complicated economic evidence necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of former FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a virtual euphemism for per se legality.''

Our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted two extensive hearings into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing the ban on vertical price fixing in the last two Congresses. Both former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky and former FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms discount clothing stores, and a senior executive of the Burlington Coat Factory discount chain testified as well, both citing the likely dangers to the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company ``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position in the market place to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices for consumers.

The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day.

In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Fast Track to College Act, a bill to support the expansion of dual enrollment programs and Early College High Schools. Such programs allow young people to earn up to two years of college credit while also earning their high school diploma.

I believe the key to our country's economic recovery is a strong investment in our young people. By investing in education, we ensure that today's students are well prepared to compete in a global economy.

Far too many of our students are falling behind in school, and as students struggle with their studies or drop out of school altogether, their futures and the health of our workforce are at risk. Young people who drop out of high school are at increased risk for negative outcomes such as unemployment and incarceration, as well as reliance on public assistance for healthcare, housing, and other basic needs--outcomes that have high costs for their communities and our economy. Conversely, adults who earn bachelor's degrees earn on average two-thirds more than high school graduates and $1 million more than high school dropouts over their working lives.

Studies show many youth drop out because they don't see a practical reason to complete high school or go on to get a college degree. Maybe they don't think they can get into college, don't think they can afford to go, or just don't see the point in going. Dual enrollment programs and Early College High Schools address these issues by showing students that they can succeed in college courses while saving time and money. They don't drop out because they can see that they are on track to a degree--and ultimately a job. By earning college credit, and possibly even an Associate's Degree, students are better prepared after high school to continue their education or pursue career training.

That is why I ask my colleagues to support this bill, which provides competitive grant funding for Early College High Schools and other dual enrollment programs that allow low-income students to earn college credit and a high school diploma at the same time. These programs put students on the fast track to college and increase the odds that they will not only graduate, but also go on to continue their education and secure higher-paying jobs.

This bill authorizes $140,000,000 for competitive 6-year grants to schools, with priority given to schools that serve low-income students. The funding will help defray the costs of implementing new programs, strengthening existing programs, and providing students and teachers with the resources they need to succeed in early college high schools and other dual enrollment programs. The bill also includes $10 million for states to provide support for these programs, as well as an evaluation component so we can measure the program's effectiveness.

I am proud to sponsor this legislation, with the support of Senator Brown of Ohio, because I believe this investment in our schools will help solve the dropout crisis and secure America's future by ensuring that all young people can compete in today's global economy. Further, I believe that all children, regardless of income or other factors, deserve equal opportunities to fulfill their potential, and it is both morally and fiscally responsible for this Congress to invest in high- quality educational programs that help our youth reach their potential.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills that I believe will be important for our small businesses, especially our smaller manufacturers. In each of these bills, there is an emphasis on keeping our research and development and manufacturing here in the United States, rewarding our innovative American businesses with predictable credits and equitable treatment, and creating good paying jobs.

The first bill, S. 155, is designed to incentivize keeping jobs in the United States by increasing the existing Research & Development tax credit for companies that produce most of their goods domestically. The Domestic Jobs Innovation Bonus Act would create a bonus R&D Credit that increases incrementally to reward a higher percentage of domestic production. To earn the bonus credit, a company would need to make at least half of their products domestically--and for doing so would receive an additional 2 percentage points on top of the existing R&D credit. The credit would max out at a 10 percentage point increase for companies with 90 percent to 100 percent of their receipts from domestic production. For example, a company with 100 percent domestic production that would normally receive a 20 percent R&D tax credit would receive a 30 percent credit under this proposal.

To be clear, this isn't a tax credit that will benefit every company that has a presence in the United States. It

may not benefit many large, multi-national corporations, but those companies will still have access to the existing R&D Credit, which I support as well.

It is my hope that a credit like this could convince a company that is deciding whether to manufacture and research here or abroad, to choose America.

I am introducing a second bill, S. 156, with Senators Corker and Alexander that would establish a uniform energy efficiency descriptor for all water heaters and improve the testing methods by which that descriptor is determined. Currently, water heaters are lumped into two categories under two federal statutes, based on arbitrary gallon capacity and energy input ratings. ``Smaller'' water heaters are covered by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, NAECA, and must be rated using an energy factor or EF rating. ``Larger'' water heaters are within the scope of the Energy Policy Act, EPACT, and must be rated using a thermal efficiency or TE rating. Not only do the testing methods differ, but a manufacturer is forbidden to place an EF rating on a TE-sized unit, and vice-versa.

This legislation would direct the Department of Energy to work with industry stakeholders to develop a uniform energy efficiency descriptor that applies to all sizes of water heaters. It also would develop a test method to accurately determine that descriptor for all types of water heaters. It is my hope that the water heating manufacturing community can develop and implement the new test method and descriptor that will eliminate confusion and enable consumers and business owners to make informed purchasing decisions on water heaters. In today's tough economy, energy bills continue to stretch family budgets. Families can save money and conserve energy if they have accurate information about how much energy home appliances consume.

The difference between EF and TE ratings was based on the assumption that smaller units were exclusively for residential uses while larger units were exclusively for commercial purposes. Due to advances in manufacturing technology, the assumptions underlying the earlier dividing line are no longer accurate. In fact, both larger and smaller units made by leading U.S. manufacturers are used in residences without regard to which Federal law applies. Yet, Federal legislation continues to be written by taking this distinction into account.

In particular, these American companies are affected by the current disparate energy standards because it can disadvantage some of their products. Establishing one standard will help breakdown a patchwork of incentives and efficiency designations at both the state and federal level. For example, water heaters rated with a TE rating are not eligible for the ENERGY STAR label, and accordingly, not eligible for many state appliance rebate programs that link their incentives to an ENERGY STAR designation. This bill will make it so all products are competing on a level playing field for all incentives.

In addition to the energy savings that this bill will provide, it is also about the jobs potential for companies making these cutting-edge products. A globally-recognized cluster of water technology companies is emerging in the City of Milwaukee and surrounding counties. An important part of this effort is innovative water heater technologies. Incentivizing these products through predictable and equitable standards is vital to these companies.

The third bill, S. 157, would extend the Section 48 investment tax credit to solar light pipe technology. This is a promising new technology that could save our businesses money on their electricity bills, and reduce our overall energy usage--two goals on which we can all agree. Light pipes collect natural light, and then through the use of sensor technology, automatically dim the other lights in a building--thereby using less electricity for the same amount of light.

Despite the clear benefits of the technology, high cost has kept many businesses from using light pipes. Adding this technology to Section 48 will provide that boost that these businesses need to justify the expense.

I became aware of this technology because one of the companies that makes it is based in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. This company, Orion Energy Systems, employs about 250 people, and has been growing even during this tough economic time. In addition to light pipes, Orion makes energy efficient lighting systems, and partners with wind and solar power companies to significantly reduce the energy costs for many of our largest and most distinguished companies. Orion technology has been deployed at more than 6,000 facilities, and has worked with 126 of the Fortune 500 companies. Since 2001, Orion customers have saved more than $1 billion in electricity costs by displacing nearly 600 megawatts.

This credit will help Orion and companies like it create thousands of jobs through the production of the technology as well as installing it.

I urge my colleagues to support all of these bills, and I hope that they are enacted as part of an agenda that focuses on innovation, job creation, and shoring up our vital manufacturing sector.

Mr. President, my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, and I live in a part of the country where these terrible weather events--tornadoes and other things--are not unusual for us. But as Senator Durbin has pointed out, we did have them last night in a number of places in southern Missouri, including Branson, the tourism strip, at one theater and one tourism location after another, as well as in Branson, Lebanon, Dallas County, and other places in southern Missouri. We had way too much experience with this last year.

As my friend has pointed out, the Federal Emergency Management people are quickly there. We had a year of experience with this, particularly after the Joplin tornado. They were terrific. We want to remember too the first responders are always our neighbors, and neighbors are coming forward to help families whose houses were lost and possessions were scattered, and even in this particular case where there are occasions where people are injured and lives have been lost as well.

Senator McCaskill and I join with Senator Kirk and Senator Durbin in their efforts in this regard.

Amendment No. 1520

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for 60 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about an amendment that has had lots of attention. It is an amendment that I offered on the floor a couple of weeks ago. We weren't able--the leader didn't want to get to it at the time, but the majority leader brought it up for me yesterday, and I am glad he did. I am glad we are able to talk about it.

This is an amendment that would allow religious belief or moral conviction to be an important factor in whether people comply with new health care mandates. We have long had this exemption for hiring mandates. In fact, when I served in the House of Representatives, I had been the president of a Southern Baptist university and I understood the importance of these institutions, I thought, in maintaining their faith distinctions as part of why they provide education and health care and daycare and other things. So I have long been an advocate of the principle that the Supreme Court upheld a few weeks ago 9 to 0 that there is a difference in these faith-based institutions. Now that we have health care mandates being complied with by these institutions, all this amendment does is extend the same privilege to them and others who have a religious belief or a moral conviction so that they would be able to defend their moral conviction.

We don't do anything about the mandate itself. It is important to understand that the administration--this one or any other--if the Affordable Health Care Act is still in force, can issue all the mandates that the act would allow. In fact, if a person doesn't comply with those mandates, they would have the penalties that the act would allow. But the difference is if the government wouldn't recognize a person's religious belief or moral conviction, as I think they would likely do. For example, the archdiocese in Washington, DC, is saying this is something we have long held as a tenet of our faith that we don't believe should happen, we shouldn't be a part of, and we don't want it to be a part of the insurance policies of our schools, our hospitals. My guess is if we pass this amendment, without any question, the Justice Department would say, Well, you are certainly going to be able to defend that because that has been your belief for centuries, the belief of your faith.

This amendment doesn't mention any procedure of any kind. In fact, this morning we had a reporter call the office who said we can't find the word ``contraception'' in this amendment anywhere. How is this a vote on contraception? Of course we were able to say, as we have said for 4 days, the word ``contraception'' is not in there because this is not about a specific procedure, it is about a faith principle that the first amendment guarantees.

This exact language of religious belief or moral conviction was first used in 1973 in the Public Health Services Act. It was brought to the Senate floor by Senator Church from Idaho, who I

believe was considered one of the liberals of the Senate at the time, protecting health care providers from having to be involved in procedures they didn't agree with. It is part of the Legal Services Corporation limitation in 1974, the foreign aid funding limitation in 1986, the refusal to participate in executions or prosecutions of capital crimes in 1994, the vaccination bill wherein a person comes to this country as a nonresident and they don't want to have vaccinations that are otherwise required, they don't have to have them if they have a religious belief or moral conviction against them.

The list goes on and on: The Medicare and Medicaid Counseling Act, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan of 1998, the contraception coverage for federal employees in 1999, the DC contraception mandate in 2000, the United States Leadership Against AIDS Act in 2003.

Then this exact same language even more specifically has been in bills that weren't passed. In 1994, Senator Moynihan from New York brought a bill to the floor that Mrs. Clinton--later Senator Clinton, now Secretary Clinton--was very involved in, this 1994 health discussion. That bill said: Nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage for abortion or other services if the employer objects to such services on the basis of religious belief or moral conviction.

This is Senator Moynihan less than 20 years ago in what was considered a liberal piece of legislation, putting what the country had thought since the beginning of government-paid health care was a natural part of every health care bill. In fact, the bill we are talking about that this amendment would impact is the first time the Federal Government has passed a health care bill that didn't include this language--the first time it didn't include this language. If one is not offended by the current mandate that some religions are, I think it is important to think of what one would be offended by. What in one's faith would be an offensive thing to be told one had to be a part of, and then imagine the government saying, no, a person has to be a part of that? Even if a person doesn't do it themselves, they have to pay for it, or they have to be sure that a person's employees, their associates, are a part of this thing that is offensive to that person because of religious belief or moral conviction.

Before I yield to my good friend Senator Johanns, who understands this issue so well, let me also say that, as I said, we didn't eliminate a mandate, so we can still have a mandate. The Federal Government can still come in and say: You are not offering these services so you have to pay a penalty, and then you have to go to court and prove that you have a long-held belief that this is wrong. The Court, in 1965, when this particular phrase became the boilerplate language for the law, said, You can't become a conscientious objector the day you get your draft notice, in essence; you have to have these two principles. You have to have a religious belief, a strong moral conviction, and you have to be able to go to court and prove that.

All of the fiction writers out there, in fundraising letters and otherwise, saying things such as women who have contraceptive services today wouldn't have them, of course that is not true. Of course that is not true. The women who have those services today either have them because they have found a way to pay for them themselves or they have an employer who is providing that as part of health care. That employer is not going to be able to turn around and say, I am not for that anymore because I object for some religious reason that I didn't have all the time I was providing it.

This is an important issue. It is a first amendment issue. It is an issue that group after group after group thinks violates the Religious Freedom Act--RFRA. There are six lawsuits already. I suspect they have a good chance of prevailing because it does exactly what the religious freedom law says you can't do and it needlessly forces people to participate in activities that are against their moral principles, their religious principles.

The circumstance in the country is we have 220 years of history on this. We have almost 50 years of history of government-paid health care for one group or another that always included an exemption such as this exemption. To not do this assumes that the government can make people do things that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and others specifically said were among the rights we should defend the most vigorously; that we should hold the most dear; that we should not let a government interfere in these basic rights of conscience, a phrase of Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the New London Methodist in 1809. These rights of conscience are an area that we should not let the government get between the American people and their religious beliefs. Our laws since then, whether it is for hiring or in the case of any health care discussion, have always anticipated the protection of this first amendment right--not a specific thing but, again, if you are not offended by the things that some people are concerned about today, it is important to think about what you would be offended by, what your religious belief leads you to believe would be wrong and how you would feel if the government says now you have to be a part of that activity.

I wish to turn to my good friend from Nebraska who has been a real advocate in understanding the importance of the first amendment and the role it plays in our society.

Mr. President, I thank my friend for those good additions to what we are talking about.

I might say, also, even if there is some accounting issue that makes this appear that maybe someone you are hiring is paying for it instead of you, if this is something you are opposed to for religious grounds, it is not about the cost; it is about the fact that this is something you do not believe you should be part of.

In my particular faith, the contraception part of this is not troublesome for me. But it does not mean I should be less troubled that it bothers others or that I should care less about their religious freedom than I do mine or that I should not care about the government using the heavy hand of these fines to force people to do something.

The other point I would like to make, before I go to my friend from Idaho, is, if the government chooses to fine people, people actually have to go to court and prove they have a deep religious belief. I do not think that would be very hard for Creighton University. The entire history of the university is founded on the principles of faith that would say: This is something we do not want to be part of. If that is the case, maybe that Justice Department would not take them to court or would not make them go to court rather than pay the fine. But they could. We are not saying that anybody can do anything they want to do. We are just creating a way that we can assert your first amendment rights if we choose to do that.

As the Governor of Idaho, Senator Risch was responsible for lots of people who worked for the State of Idaho. He knows about this both from a faith perspective and an employer's perspective, and I am glad he came down to the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

There are a number of waivers on this. The administration has given over 1,700 waivers to 4 million people. If you have a plan that is better than the government plan, if you have a plan that might be taxed under the law because it has been negotiated as part of collective bargaining, if you are a fast food institution that has insurance but, apparently, with high deductibles--those were all reasons to create a waiver. You would think that a faith-based belief would also be a reason that a waiver could have been granted.

This amendment just assures that we can have the same kind of opportunity to exercise our religious beliefs going forward as every American has in health care, in labor, in hiring, and other areas up until right now.

I would like to turn to my friend, the Senator from Texas.

I do too. I hope we find out now that while we do not have as much bipartisan support as we would like to have, we will have some. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, along with Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire and Senator Rubio from Florida and I introduced this bill in August of last year. This is not just something we came up with recently.

Members who were in the Senate when the health care act, the affordable health care act passed, said they believed if it had passed in a more normal way, this would have been in the final bill, that would have been an understanding, as it was in the Patients' Bill of Rights draft and legislation that was introduced in 1994 or the health care bill in 1999. This same language was an accepted and bipartisan part of who we are as a country enforcing the first amendment.

In fact, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it says: ``Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.'' Even a rule that would generally apply, the government should not burden a person's exercise of religion unless it demonstrates a burden that it is in the furtherance of a compelling government interest.

I cannot imagine--nobody has had to do this ever before. Why would suddenly defining insurance policies beyond the faith beliefs of individuals and groups that were long held, why is that a sudden compelling government interest or it is the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest? Surely not.

Again, I am going to repeat for what may be the third or fourth time: We do not do anything in this amendment that would end the mandate. That is for another debate at another time. The government can still have a mandate. The government can still say: Here is what we are telling you a

health care plan has to look like. But this allows people who have a faith-based first amendment right to object to that to have a way to do it.

One of the original cosponsors of the bill; that is, the amendment we are debating today, has joined us and that is Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire. She is an advocate of the first amendment, as a former attorney general. I am glad she is here.

I thank the Senator for her leadership and from the beginning of this discussion back in August when Senator Ayotte, Senator Rubio, Senator Nelson from Nebraska and I introduced this bill, we have been joined in this amendment by three dozen or more other sponsors, one of whom actually I mentioned a piece of legislation he was involved in the first time he was in the Senate. It protected the religious rights of people who were temporarily in the country, with exactly this same language, who might have some religious belief or moral conviction that meant they didn't want to get the vaccines we would require a visitor to have. In 1996 Senator Coats put this in a law that virtually every Member of the Senate serving today, in both parties, voted for, as they have time after time when this issue was brought up. This language was understood to be an important defense of the first amendment in a health care piece of legislation.

I am glad Senator Coats has joined us today. Whenever I researched this, I saw that he had used this very language 15 years ago in a piece of legislation. I know the Senator is an important advocate of religious freedom.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I want to go next to my neighbor in the Congress, and now my neighbor in the Senate, and my neighbor in real life from northwest Arkansas. I am from southwest Missouri. I am glad Senator Boozman came down to discuss this issue.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, let me conclude in the next few minutes by first saying that a growing list of groups support this amendment: Home School Legal Defense Association, Family Research Council, Southern Baptist Convention, Americans United for Life, American Center for Law and Justice, Susan B. Anthony List, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Focus on the Family, Christian Medical Association, National Right to Life, National Association of Evangelicals, Orthodox Union of Jewish Congregations, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Religious Freedom Coalition, CatholicVote.org, American Family Association, Catholic Advocate, Traditional Values Coalition, Christus Medicus Foundation, Alliance Defense Fund, Christian Coalition, Advanced USA, American Association of Christian Schools, American Principles Project, Wallbuilders, Let Freedom Ring Liberty Consulting, Liberty Counsel Action, Free Congress Foundation, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, Students for Life of America, Heritage Action, and there are others that are supporting this amendment.

We can go back to 1965 and a Supreme Court case where the determination of how a conscientious objection would be defined was clearly established in ways that led to this religious belief and moral conviction becoming the standard. It is not just something we came up with for this amendment, it has been the standard since that 1965 case. It said: These are the elements you have to have. You cannot suddenly decide you have a religious conviction. This is a conviction that has to be a provable part of who you are.

The Public Health Service Act in 1973, where Senator Church brought this language into the public health arena, is really the first major legislation after Medicare and the Medicaid discussion. There was also the Legal Services Corporation limitation, the foreign aid funding limitation, and the refusal to participate in executions or in prosecutions of capital crimes limitation. This language was good enough for those things, and almost every Member of the current Senate, if they were there then, voted for these, and since, including the action Senator Coats talked about earlier. The Medicare and Medicaid Counseling and Referral Act, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, contraceptive coverage for Federal employees in 1999, the DC contraceptive mandate in 2000, and the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act in 2003 all included this language. We had to get to the affordable health care act, which passed the Senate, and then suddenly it wasn't possible to go through the final process of legislating here. There was no conference committee, no House bill. My belief is that almost nobody who voted for that act originally thought that would be the final bill.

Frankly, I think that if we had ever had a more normal process, this normal element of protecting the first amendment would have been added, as it was every other time. This is about the first amendment. I understand the

fundraising ability to make it about something else. I understand the PR ability to make it about something else. But it is not about anything else.

A minute ago, we had three Protestants on the floor on the contraception issue who probably have no religious problem at all. There may be other elements I have problems with, but it doesn't matter if I have a problem. What matters is that I represent lots of people who do have a problem with it, and the Constitution is specifically designed to protect those strongly held religious views.

As Senator Coats said, it was the first thing in the first amendment. It was exact in its duplication in 1994 in the great health care effort made then, whether it was the protection of religious freedom or the Patients' Bill of Rights or the effort First Lady Clinton worked hard to do. This wasn't even really a debatable item then because everybody understood this was a necessary part of protecting the first amendment to the Constitution.

Again, I would say if these two or three things that are most objectionable to the Catholic community right now--and many of the people who are opposed to this are opposed to this because they wonder what they could be opposed to that the government would decide they had to participate in, they had to be a provider of, they had to pay the bill for. I would ask my colleagues to think of something in their religious view that they would not want to be forced by the government to be part of, and let's give all Americans that same capacity who have these strongly held religious beliefs.

I would encourage my colleagues to support the first amendment. I am grateful for those groups around the country that have rallied around the first amendment. Freedom of religion defines who we are and has defined who we are since the very beginning of constitutional government, where the first thing added to the Constitution was the Bill of Rights. And the first thing in the Bill of Rights is respect for religion. We need to not give that away just to prove that everybody has to do what the government says because the government knows best rather than our conscience and our personal views.

This is not about whether people provide health care or not, it is about whether they are required to provide elements of health care they believe are fundamentally wrong, and how the government can force people to do things they believe and have a provable religious conviction are fundamentally wrong.

Mr. President, I think we have used the hour we had, but this debate will go on. There will be a vote tomorrow, but this debate will go on until this important freedom is soundly protected in health care, in hiring, in all of the elements that create that faith distinctive in our individuals and institutions that make us uniquely who we are.

I yield the floor.