A bill to ensure that methodologies and technologies used by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to screen for and detect the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons in municipal solid waste are as effective as the methodologies and technologies used by the Bureau to screen for those materials in other items of commerce entering the United States through commercial motor vehicle transport.

Mr. President, I am going to speak for 2 or 3 minutes in a brief introduction, and then turn it over to my colleague from Louisiana. We are both very excited and enthusiastic to present to the Senate and to Congress work that has been underway for almost a year.

As you know, next week on April 20, we will be marking the 1-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, which killed 11 men-- they are still in our thoughts and prayers, and their families to this day--injured dozens of others and shocked millions with the explosion that occurred a year ago next Wednesday.

There are many steps our Nation has to take and must take to respond to that horrific incident. Senator Vitter and I are on the floor today to introduce the Restore the Gulf Coast Act of 2011, which we believe is one of the most important things that needs to be done in response to this incident.

It was frankly long overdue even before this tragedy happened, and I will briefly explain. This gulf coast is a very important coast of America.

I know all of the people of our coasts believe they are all important--but we who live on the gulf coast are particularly proud of the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida because on this coast not only do we have port and maritime activities, which is true of every coast, we also support the Nation in hosting a very important domestic oil and gas industry, which is primarily offshore, but a great deal on shore, both close and on our marshes.

In addition, we have a very vibrant and robust fishing industry, both commercial and recreational. We have ecotourism and migratory bird routes from the south going north. Obviously this is a flyway for migratory birds and extremely important to wildlife enthusiasts and hunters and fishermen. May I also add--and not let us forget--the tourism industry. So we say proudly in the gulf coast, we are America's working coast. We seek a balance between mining and exploring for and using our natural resources, and balancing that so this coast can be sustainable.

This is a great opportunity for the Nation to do right by the gulf coast. It is a great opportunity for the polluters to step up and do the right thing. It is a great opportunity to give a break to taxpayers because the bill Senator Vitter and I are putting forward--and we hope our other colleagues will join us in--will basically say the fine BP is going to pay--and maybe other contractors as well--that 80 percent of that fine should go to the area where the injury occurred.

I am going to take the next minute to put up this horrifying picture that people will remember because a year ago this is what the site looked like when the Deepwater Horizon exploded and 5 million barrels of oil escaped from this tragedy and marred the beaches and marshes and ocean, and we are still recovering, and will for years.

But because of the 5 million barrels of oil that were spilled, this polluter, BP, and its contractors are going to have to pay a very serious fine to the Federal Government. We believe that fine is best directed to help the environment which was injured and to get the taxpayers off the hook and put the polluters on the hook for picking up this tab, and to do so in a way that is fair to the Gulf Coast States. That is what Senator Vitter will speak about in more detail.

Let me show you one picture, happily. Today, the beaches along the gulf coast--in large measure--look like this, as shown in this picture. This is the way they normally look. Because not only do we drill for oil and gas off of our waters, but our children swim in this water. We recreate and have picnics along the beach. This is the way we would like this beach to look for decades to come.

If we are successful in getting our bill passed through the Congress and signed by the President in the near future, this is possible, along with pictures like this one I show you, which represents a great and proud industry: the shrimping industry on the gulf coast, which supplies fresh seafood for restaurants all over our Nation and, in some cases, the world.

So at this point, let me turn it to Senator Vitter for some more detail. I want to say, it has been a pleasure and I thank the Senator for his support. We want this to be a bipartisan effort. Both the industry and environmental groups are very interested in working with us on this issue. We think it is the right policy for our country.

I yield to Senator Vitter.

Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor waiting to speak so I will try to wrap up these remarks in about 5 minutes. But I do want to add a few things and thank my colleague again. He is on the committee that will take this bill into consideration. That committee is chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer. I want to thank her, our colleague from California, the Chair of the EPW Committee, and her staff, who have been working with us very closely over the last year as we fashioned this approach. I think the Senator, of course, will speak for herself, but I think it is in her philosophy that the polluters should pay, not the taxpayer, and that the area that was injured should be the area that receives the response. It is important that the environment that was injured should be first attended to first. That is the essence and nature of our bill.

But to put a couple of other things in the Record, Senator Vitter mentioned this, but it is worth repeating. President Obama has already endorsed this general concept, and I want to thank him for his early leadership on this issue. I had some real reservations early on about the national oilspill commission. I honestly did not think there were enough people representing the industry perspective, only the environmental perspective. But I was happy to see that commission report came out fairly balanced. Both Bob Graham, who is a former colleague of ours from Florida, and Bill Reilly, the former EPA Director under President Bush, came to the same conclusion: that one of the best ways to spend this fine money would be restoring this very important coastal area. This should not just be for the gulf coast but for the Nation. Frankly, the world should take notice and to try to find a path forward for coastal communities to have sustainable economies.

This is an important question, not just for the gulf coast, not just for the east coast, not just for the west coast, but I might say, this might be one of the great questions in the world today. 60 percent or more of the population of the world lives near coastlines. The question of how can people live there productively, safely, and how the environment can sustain them in that growth and development is an important question to get answers to.

Let me say, as a resident of the gulf coast, we do not have enough answers. We do not have enough money to ask questions. That is what this money will go for: some science and technology, some basic research, and, most importantly, some money to restore our coast--to do the right things by this environment.

I want to recognize the entities that support this cause. Secretary Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy added to his portfolio to examine this issue, and he, too, arrived at the same conclusion: that a very excellent and smart way to spend some of these fine moneys would be on these programs.

Just a couple of minutes more to put some facts into the Record; and other Senators from other States--Florida, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama--can enter their own data.

I think it is important for people to understand, when we talk about the coast of Louisiana, just the coast of Louisiana--this is going to be hard for people to believe, but it is actually true--if you count the tidal miles of Louisiana, which is about 7,000 tidal miles from the tip here, as shown on this map, all the way over to Texas from our Mississippi border--7,000 tidal miles--if you stretch that out, it is the same as going from Miami to Seattle. I need people to get that in their mind.

I know this looks like a little shore because it is not a big shore like California or Florida. But the nature of this shore--because it is not just a beach; it is America's greatest wetlands and marshes--if you stretched it out with all of its inlets and bays and estuaries, it would go from Miami to Seattle.

This area is threatened, and has been for years. Yes, the oil and gas industry, unfortunately, has contributed to some of this damage. But it is also because the Mississippi River flows through here, and it has been dammed and tamed as best as men and women can try to tame natural things. The hydraulics have changed. The sea level has risen. This area is under great threat.

Mr. President, 1,500 square miles have been lost since 1930; 25 square miles of wetlands each year, which means a football field every 30 minutes. This is an urgent matter. There is no loss of land anywhere in the continental United States that has as much threat to it as there is to this coast. We have struggled for years to find a revenue stream to help fix it. We understand the rest of the country says: Why should we fix it? It is not our coast. But what we say back is: This coast is important to the whole Nation. It drains 40 percent of the continent. It is the greatest river system in North America. No one can get wheat out of Kansas or Iowa without coming through this Mississippi River. So there is a national interest.

Seventeen percent of GDP is basically supported and created by this gulf coast economy.

We are also willing to pay our own way as well. Our parishes have taxed themselves. The State has set up a constitutional safeguard, a lockbox--if we had only done that with Social Security. We are happy to have a lockbox for the wetlands money that comes in, so it can only be used for that purpose. So we are very proud of the actions our locals have taken. Now it is time for the Federal Government to act.

A few more statistics: 30 percent of the commercial fisheries in the United States come off this coast, and $1.7 billion in economic impact for recreational fishing--again, over 50 percent of the domestic oil and gas, because we drill for oil and gas here, that keep lights on and electricity flowing in Chambers such as this, in rooms and buildings all over our country. So that is why this is so important.

I am going to add some other statistics for the Record about some of the economic impacts of this. Again, this is an important coast to the country and it is an important effort for the world for us in America to get this right. Think about the drilling that is occurring off the coast of Africa or Brazil or Australia or Israel and what happens. Let's prevent any explosions. Let's prevent these disasters. We are struggling to do that, and the record is pretty good, despite the criticism that comes, and that is a speech for another day.

But the question is, When there is an accident, when this happens, how do we take that penalty money and invest it in the coast so it is more resilient and it will benefit people in every way over a long period of time in a very balanced fashion.

I conclude by urging my colleagues along the gulf coast, from Florida to Alabama to Mississippi and Texas, Republicans and Democrats alike, Members of the House as well, to step forward and join me and Senator Vitter. We are open to ideas and thoughts about how the money should be allocated but within general sets of principles we have outlined today. I wish to, again, thank Senator Boxer whose committee will consider this in the very near future. We are hoping for a hearing in the very near future and then a markup on this bill to move it forward to the President's desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some further statistics about this horrific spill and our valuable coast.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, in cosponsoring the Combating Designer Drugs Act of 2011. All too often we are confronted with new and emerging drugs that spread quickly on the scene. However, what is most concerning about this new generation of drugs is how quickly these substances are sold and marketed to kids. Although these substances were created for scientific research they are now packaged as innocent products and sold on the shelves of local stores or via the internet.

Recent reports in the media along with increasing calls to poison control centers and visits to emergency rooms reveals that more and more kids are using products laced with substances that are very dangerous. Although these products are currently legal and can be sold in stores and online, many people who use products are under a false impression that these products are safe because they are legal. However, use of these products is anything but safe.

Last month, a teenager from Blaine, MN, died after overdosing on a substance called 2C-E that he and others used at a party. Police report 10 other individuals were hospitalized after using this substance. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, 2C-E along with its cousins in the 2C family are used for their hallucinogenic qualities. These drugs are marketed as similar to illegal drugs like LSD or Ecstasy and can be used in similar ways. A popular way to pass these drugs off as safe is by labeling them as ``fake,'' but clearly the victims of this drug have suffered very real consequences.

Last month, I, along with Senator Feinstein, introduced legislation to ban the chemicals found in synthetic or ``fake'' marijuana. This legislation came in part from the death of Indianola, IA, resident David Rozga, who committed suicide shortly after smoking a package of K2, a product laced with synthetic marijuana compounds. Since then the Drug Enforcement Administration has identified more substances that are used in a similar way such as 2C-E and others. The Combating Designer Drugs Act of 2011 is part of the ongoing effort to identify drugs that are being marketed as legal, safe alternatives to illegal drugs and places them among their rightful place as dangerous drugs like meth and cocaine. Specifically, this legislation targets drugs found in the 2C family, which were invented for scientific research but never intended to be used for humans and makes them schedule I controlled substances.

Mr. President, the sale and use of synthetic drugs like those in the 2C family represent a new and dangerous trend in drug abuse. We must take strong action to eliminate the ease in which these substances can reach the market before their use gets out of hand. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to remove these dangerous drugs from our society.

Mr. President, the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was specifically designed ``To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.'' Going into the next reauthorization of this law, there has already been much discussion about the extent to which each element of that goal has been achieved. While there is some evidence of a narrowing of the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their more advantaged peers when it comes to meeting minimum ``proficiency'' goals, the achievement gap among high-ability students has been widening. Some of our most promising students, the scientists, inventors, and problem solvers of the future, are being left behind.

I want to be clear that I am not necessarily talking just about high- achieving students. I am talking about high-ability students with gifts and talents that go beyond simply the ability to master grade level content. There is sometimes a tendency to assume that gifted students are the straight A students and vice versa, the students we needn't worry about because they are doing fine on their own. Sadly, that's far from true. A student may get straight A's because his or her abilities and pace of learning just happen to be exactly matched with the grade level curriculum and pace of instruction. Those are not the students I am talking about. By definition, a gifted and talented students is one who gives evidence of high achievement capability and needs services beyond the standard content provided in the standard way in order to fully develop those capabilities.

In fact, gifted students may significantly underperform. Many high- ability students get poor grades due to boredom. Some drop out of school or exhibit problem behaviors, and gifted students are often well represented in alternative schools. Still, even if they are getting straight A's on content that is not challenging to them, they are still underperforming. That hidden gap between achievement and potential ought to be alarming to all of us who are concerned about our Nation's future economic competitiveness.

On the most recent international tests, students in China topped the charts in math, science, and reading, while U.S. students were in the middle to bottom of the pack. Few American students are reaching the most advanced achievement levels on national and state-level tests, with miniscule numbers of children of color or children from poverty reaching those levels. A dynamic economy needs a steady supply of individuals capable of achieving at advanced levels, yet we rely on imported talent while systematically holding back our brightest young minds here at home.

I would recommend to my colleagues the book Genius Denied by Jan and Bob Davidson of the Davidson Institute in Nevada. It describes the many obstacles faced by some of our brightest students in trying to get an appropriate education. The book tells the story of a boy named Carlos who didn't speak until he was 3\1/2\ years old, but then began to speak in complete sentences like a much older child. His mother had been told he might be autistic or have a learning disability, but when she had him tested, she learned he was actually gifted. He learned to read and write with incredible speed and was able to grasp simple algebra problems. However, in his Kindergarten class, they were learning to add single digits by grouping teddy bears. He was miserable, and despite his natural love of learning, he cried to stay home from school. He was teased for being different and the stress of school got to be so great that his hair started falling out. He began talking about wishing that he was dumb or even dead.

The book also talks about a boy named Tim who is dyslexic and also profoundly gifted. His gifts compensated for his inability to read so he was able to earn normal grades, but his school would not make appropriate accommodations for his learning disability because he was achieving at acceptable levels. School officials also maintained they had no obligation to accommodate his gifts. This left Tim frustrated. His zeal for learning waned because his disability held him back while his gifts went undeveloped, but both went unaddressed by his school because he was not failing. Eventually, his mother was forced to pull him out of the public school and educate him at home.

Many schools have special gifted and talented programs with staff trained in gifted education strategies, but a great many others do not. This leads to the uneven availability of appropriate services. Title I schools are far less likely to have any services for gifted students. Is this because there are no high-ability disadvantaged students? Certainly not. There are high-ability students in every school and low income doesn't mean low ability. It is of course appropriate to ensure that struggling students receive the support they need to achieve to their potential, but when disadvantaged high-ability students go unrecognized and unchallenged, thus falling short of the level of achievement they are capable of attaining, the tremendous loss of human

potential is truly tragic both for the students and for our society.

So should every cash-strapped Title I school hire special teachers with a background in gifted and talented education and start offering gifted education programming? Well, that would be ideal, and would likely help improve the academic achievement of all students in those schools, but a lack of funds need not be a barrier to schools meeting the unique learning needs of their high-ability students. For instance, a report by some of the leading experts in the field at the University of Iowa's Belin-Blank Center titled ``A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students'' outlines both the problem of schools systematically failing to support their high-ability students and an almost no-cost solution--acceleration. Simply allowing students to take classes with their intellectual peers, where the curriculum is matched to their ability rather than to their age, often results in better academic results as well as happier, better adjusted students. Also, knowing that all teachers have high-ability students with unique learning needs in their classrooms, there is a great need for professional development opportunities to incorporate the ability to recognize and meet those needs.

Today, I am introducing a bill, with Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, to ensure that Federal education policy no longer overlooks the needs of high-ability students. It's called the TALENT Act, which stands for: To Aid Gifted and High-Ability Learners by Empowering the Nation's Teachers. My bill corrects the lack of focus on high-ability students, especially those students in underserved settings, including rural communities, by including them in the school, district, and state planning process that already exists under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It also raises the expectation that teachers have the skills to address the special learning needs of various populations of students, including gifted and high-ability learners. To that end, my bill provides for professional development grants to help general education teachers and other school personnel better understand how to recognize and respond to the needs of high-ability students. Finally, because we have much to learn about how best to address the very unique learning needs of this often overlooked population of students, my bill retools and builds upon the goals and purpose of the existing Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act so that we continue to explore and test strategies to identify and serve high-ability students from underserved groups. These strategies can then be put into the hands of teachers across the country.

Meeting the needs of our brightest students, the ones our country is counting on for our future prosperity, is not a luxury, it is a necessity. That isn't a justification for embarking on some sort of new spending and sticking them with the bill, however. Instead, my legislation would accomplish its goals in a cost-effective way by amending existing law to account for the needs of gifted and high- ability learners as well as retooling the old Javits program to have a greater impact. For too long, Federal education policy has been so focused on preventing failure that we have neglected to promote and encourage success. We can no longer afford to ignore the needs of our brightest students and thus squander their potential. My legislation will put our country on track to tap that potential which is so essential to the future happiness of the students and the future prosperity of our Nation.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex binational couples the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. This is the fourth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation, and I am proud to be joined by 17 Senators, many of whom also cosponsored this bill when it was introduced in the last Congress. I want to thank Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Boxer, Cardin, Casey, Coons, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Kerry, Lautenberg, Merkley, Murray, Schumer, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me as original cosponsors today.

A core tenet of our immigration policy is preserving family unity. Yet gay and lesbian Americans are still forced to choose between their country and being with those they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and forces hardworking Americans to make the heart- wrenching choice to leave the country they love and start over in one of the countries that now recognize immigration benefits for same-sex couples. I hear from Vermont couples who face this difficult decision every year. No American should face such a choice.

Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have loving relationships. As a result of this cultural shift, 5 States, including Vermont, now allow same-sex couples to get married. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, a 17 year old policy that barred gay and lesbian service men and women from openly serving in the military. I hope that my colleagues who supported this important civil rights reform will join me in calling for fairness and equality in our immigration laws.

Some opponents of the Uniting American Families Act have argued that it would increase the potential for visa fraud. I share the belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud, but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 years of age and in a committed, lifelong, financially interdependent relationship with another adult. The American ideals that respect human relationships and family bonds should not be impeded by fears of fraud, which the immigration agency is very capable of controlling.

Since I last introduced the Uniting American Families Act in 2009, more than six additional countries have begun to offer immigration benefits to same-sex couples, bringing the total to at least 25 nations. Some of these nations are our closest allies, including our good friends to the North. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Unfortunately, among developed countries with a culture of respect for human rights and fairness, the United States is falling behind by denying Americans an equitable immigration policy. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their jobs and country, and their loved ones. I urge all Senators to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in the 111th Congress, after hearing the concerns of Vermont's dairy farmers, I introduced the H-2A Improvement Act in order to give the dairy industry access to legal foreign workers under our agricultural visa program. I am proud to introduce this legislation once again, and I am especially pleased to have Senator Enzi join me as a cosponsor of this bill. I thank the senior Senator from Wyoming for his support, and I look forward to working with him to advance this legislation. I also thank Senators Sanders, Schumer, Kohl, and Gillibrand for their support.

Our bill adds an explicit provision to the H-2A law to allow dairy workers, sheepherders, and goatherders to obtain visas through the H-2A visa program to assist American farmers. Under current law, the dairy industry is completely excluded from obtaining lawful H-2A workers. Under current Department of Labor regulations and guidance, the employers of foreign sheepherders and goatherders in the Western States can use the H-2A program. The authority for these employers to do so is not codified, however, and is therefore subject to the whims of a Federal agency. This legislation will provide the express authority and certainty for these important agricultural industries to use the visa program as Congress intended.

Although milk prices have improved over the past year, dairy farmers still struggle to meet their labor needs. I have heard from Vermont farmers, Vermont's Secretary of Agriculture, and the broader dairy industry about the challenges the current situation presents. I recognize that the H-2A program is imperfect, and I recognize that the best solution is the comprehensive approach in the AgJOBS bill. But basic access to the H-2A program is a better option than what dairy farmers now have, which is no access at all. It is simply illogical to subject such an important agricultural sector to unequal treatment. The denial of access to lawful, willing agricultural workers places a substantial burden on employers.

The H-2A Improvement Act contains provisions designed to accommodate the specific needs of dairy farming, sheepherding, and goatherding. It will allow workers in these industries to enter the United States for an initial employment period of 3 years. The bill grants U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the authority to approve a worker for an additional 3-year period as needed. After the first 3 year period is completed, the worker is eligible to petition for lawful permanent residency.

The provisions contained in this bill are very similar to provisions that have been a part of the long pending AgJOBS bill, legislation that I continue to strongly support. But the dairy farmers who continue to operate under this unfair system need help now. Just as much as any other segment of agriculture, they too deserve access to the H-2A program to meet their legitimate labor needs.

For years, I have urged the Department of Labor to use its regulatory authority to give dairy farmers access to H-2A workers. I was disappointed that, despite those requests and the recommendations of the broader dairy community, the final H-2A rule released by the Department in February 2010 failed to extend access to the dairy industry.

As a Senator from a State that prides itself on its dairy products and a long tradition of family farming, it is unacceptable that dairy farmers are put in a position of choosing between their livelihoods and taking risks with a potential employee's immigration status. I strongly believe that the vast majority of dairy farmers want to hire a lawful workforce, and our policy should support these goals.

By expanding the H-2A program to include dairy workers, sheepherders and goatherders, the H-2A Improvement Act would protect both American and foreign workers. It would prevent American workers from having to compete with an unauthorized work force, which enables unscrupulous employers to pay lower wages and make employees work under unsafe labor conditions. It would protect foreign workers by requiring that employers comply with existing H-2A regulations, wage and hour laws, and occupational safety laws. It would grant foreign dairy workers the dignity and stability of lawful status, and the opportunity to step out of the shadows and be productive members of the communities in which they work. Despite the imperfections of the current H-2A system, these are the objectives this legislation strives to achieve.

The H-2A Improvement Act is a straight-forward, targeted fix that makes sure all law abiding farmers in America have the same access to foreign agricultural labors. I recognize that many agricultural employers have legitimate frustrations with the current regulatory process. I intend to maintain my strong support of AgJOBS legislation, which would provide the most immediate and substantial benefit to our Nation's farmers and foreign agricultural workers. But I am unwilling to forego an opportunity to enact meaningful, bipartisan legislation to promote basic fairness for dairy, goat, and sheep farmers under our immigration laws. I hope Senators will support this common sense legislation.

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

Mr. President, the month of April is set aside as Autism Awareness Month. This is a time when people and families affected by autism raise awareness about the challenges people with autism face. I am proud today to introduce with my colleagues Senators Casey, Menendez, Lautenberg, and Gillibrand the Autism Services and Workforce Acceleration Act of 2011, which authorizes federal funding for services, treatment, support, and research on autism spectrum disorders.

Everywhere I go in Illinois, I meet people whose lives have been affected by autism. My office receives hundreds of letters and phone calls each year from Illinoisans asking Congress to do something to help with the burden that autism brings, and we are hearing from more and more families every year.

Nationally, 1 out of every 110 children has autism. Autism affects children and families physically, psychologically, socially, and financially. It is often a major factor contributing to severe family financial difficulties, marital and family disruption, parental overburden that may lead to neglect and other developmental delays in siblings, as well as educational and employment challenges throughout the autistic person's life cycle.

Unfortunately, parents are not only worried about getting the services they need for their autistic children when they are young. Parents must worry about how to care for their children as they mature into adults. I met two concerned parents from Illinois whose 20-year- old son is profoundly affected by autism and has struggled with major behavioral problems. He was in a special education program at school, but his teachers didn't know how to deal with his behavioral problems and he was suspended on numerous occasions. Eventually, his parents found a school that was a better fit and his behavior improved. He is doing well now, but when he turns 22 he will no longer be eligible for services through the public school system. They are trying to find a place for him in a day program for adults with autism, but there are not enough of these programs, and the waitlists are long. These parents love their son, but worry every day about what will happen to him when they are too old to care for him.

Across the country people with autism confront a precipitous drop in services after early adulthood. We need to help people with autism achieve their full potential by ensuring they can access to vital services that enhance their quality of life. This bill includes a provision that helps youth and adults with autism access essential post-secondary education, vocational training, employment, housing, transportation, and health services.

During the 109th Congress, I cosponsored the Combating Autism Act, which was signed into law in December 2006. That bill called on the Federal Government to increase research into the causes and treatment of autism and to improve training and support for individuals with autism and their caretakers.

The legislature in my home State of Illinois has also listened to the voices of the 26,000 families in the state living with autism. In response to the overwhelming cost of autism-related services, the State passed legislation signed into law in December 2008, requiring health plans to provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of autism.

It is time now for the Federal Government to renew and build upon the commitments it has already made to help the millions of families across the nation struggling with autism.

My legislation would support these individuals and families in several ways.

First, the legislation creates a demonstration project to develop Autism Care Programs. These programs are designed to increase access to quality health care services and promote communication among health care providers, educators, and other service providers. Families who choose to access services through these programs would be able to designate a personal care coordinator as a source of contact for their family. This personal care coordinator would help to refer and coordinate a full array of medical, behavioral, mental health, educational and family care services to individuals and families in a single location.

Next, the bill authorizes a grant program to provide services to youth and adults with autism. These services include post-secondary education, vocational and self advocacy skills, employment, residential services, health and wellness, recreational and social activities, transportation, and personal safety. These services will help youth and adults with autism live as independently as possible and improve their quality of life. With the increasing number of children diagnosed with autism, these services will only become more important over time.

The bill authorizes grants to develop a national multimedia campaign to increase public education and awareness about healthy developmental milestones and autism throughout the lifespan. These campaigns will be targeted to general public audience and professional groups such as medical, criminal justice, or emergency professions.

Finally, it creates a national training initiative on autism and a technical assistance center to develop and expand interdisciplinary training and continuing education on autism spectrum disorders.

Taken together, these initiatives would go an enormous way in supporting and improving the lives of individuals with autism and their families.

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

Mr. President, Congress will soon debate the budget resolution for fiscal year 2012, and one of the issues under consideration is how to contain the cost of the Medicare program. While there is significant disagreement about some of the proposals already put forward, one part of the solution that members on both sides of the aisle agree on is cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse.

For several years, the Government Accountability Office has designated Medicare as a high risk program because its size and complexity make it a target for waste, fraud and abuse. Medicare pays 4.5 million claims per work day, so catching false or inflated claims is a challenge. As a result, every year an estimated $30-60 billion in Medicare spending is wasted on fraud and abuse.

Under President Obama, the Executive branch has stepped up its enforcement activities. The Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice joined together to form Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Teams to combat Medicare fraud. These strike forces have netted hundreds of potential criminals in the past couple of years.

Nongovernmental groups can also play a role in detecting fraud. Normally, individual Medicare providers' billing data is not available to the public as a result of a 1979 lawsuit that blocked disclosure of this information. But under a special arrangement, The Wall Street Journal and Center for Public Integrity were allowed access to a 5 percent sample of the Medicare payment data.

Even using just this small sliver of the data, the newspaper was able to identify suspicious billing and potential abuses of the Medicare system. However, based on the agreement with CMS, the paper could not name individual physicians.

I think that the exercise by the Wall Street Journal shows that outside group provide a valuable complement to the government's own fraud detection research. That is why I am introducing the Medicare Spending Transparency Act today.

The legislation would increase transparency of the Medicare program by providing two things.

First, it would provide access to aggregated claims data.

It would require CMS to annually publish on its website summary level information about how and what Medicare is paying to individual Medicare providers such as hospitals, physicians and home health agencies.

Information would the include the total amount paid, number of unique patients seen, total number of patient visits, and a summary of the services provided. This will provide a snapshot of Medicare spending to interested groups. It will also discourage fraudulent providers from overbilling Medicare.

Secondly, a complete set of Medicare data would be made available to qualified groups or individuals for the purposes of fraud detection and research. All patient identifying information would be protected, consistent with HIPAA and other privacy laws.

To access this information, the individual or group would have to demonstrate technical capacity to make prudent and productive use of the data. Any published analysis of the data must disclose the names, funding sources, employer or other relevant affiliations, and data analysis methods of the researchers.

This legislation would bring transparency to the Medicare program by providing basic information about how taxpayer dollars are being spent. If nongovernmental groups want to dedicate their own resources to rooting out fraud, we should welcome those efforts. I encourage my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011. This bill extends important programs that help to protect our nation's critical shipping lanes and seaports from attack and sabotage.

The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 is cosponsored by my colleague,

Senator Murray. Senator Murray and I drafted the original SAFE Port Act in 2005, leading to its enactment in 2006. I am pleased that she has again joined me to extend and strengthen this important law. Several stakeholders have expressed their support for our efforts, including the American Waterways Operators, National Association of Boating Law Administrators, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Association of Marina Industries, National Boating Federation, and National Marine Manufacturers Association.

The scope of what we need to protect is broad. America has 361 seaports--each vital links in our Nation's transportation network. Our seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2010, United States ports logged 57,600 ports-of-call by foreign-flagged cargo vessels, bringing 11 million shipping containers to our shores.

Coming from a State with three international cargo ports--including Portland, the largest port by tonnage in New England--I am keenly aware of the importance of seaports to our national economy and to the communities in which they are located.

Our seaports operate as vital centers of economic activity; they also represent vulnerable targets. As the air cargo plot emanating from Yemen last fall demonstrated, terrorists remain committed to exploiting commercial shipments as a way of moving explosives or weapons of mass destruction.

Maritime shipping containers are a special source of concern. A single obscure container, hidden among a ship's cargo of several hundred containers, could be used to conceal a dirty bomb. In other words, a container could be turned into a 21st century Trojan horse.

The shipping container's security vulnerabilities are so well known that it has also been called ``the poor man's missile,'' because for only a few thousand dollars, a terrorist could ship a weapon or explosive across the Atlantic or the Pacific to a U.S. port.

And the contents of such a container don't have to be something as complex as a nuclear or biological weapon. As former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told The New York Times, a single container packed with readily available ammonium sulfate fertilizer and a detonation system could produce 10 times the blast that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Whatever the type of weapon, an attack on one or more U.S. ports could cause great loss of life and large numbers of injuries; it could damage our energy supplies and infrastructure; it could cripple retailers and manufacturers dependent on incoming inventory; and it could hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces fighting against the forces of terrorism.

I have had the opportunity to visit seaports and, as one examines some of the Nation's busiest harbors, one sees what a terrorist might call ``high-value targets.'' In February, while touring the Port of Miami and Port Everglades with the Coast Guard, I witnessed firsthand the large and sprawling urban populations, cruise ship docks, container terminals, and bulk fuel facilities that are situated around these ports. At other locations, there are large sports stadiums and ferries operating nearby as well.

Add up these factors, and one realizes immediately the death and destruction that a ship carrying a container hiding a weapon of mass destruction could inflict at a single port.

Of course, a port can be a conduit for an attack as well as a target. A container with dangerous cargo could be loaded on a truck or rail car, or have its contents unpacked at the port and distributed to support attacks elsewhere. In 2008, we saw that the port in Mumbai, India, offered the means for a gang of terrorists to launch an attack on a section of the city's downtown. That attack killed more than 170 people and wounded hundreds more.

To address these security threats, our bill would reauthorize these SAFE Port Act cargo security programs that have proven to be successful the Automated Targeting System that identifies high-risk cargo; the Container Security Initiative that ensures high-risk cargo containers are inspected at ports overseas before they travel to the United States; and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, that provides incentives to importers to enhance the security of their cargo from point of origin to destination.

The bill would also strengthen the C-TPAT program by providing new benefits, including offering voluntary security training to industry participants and providing participants an information sharing mechanism on maritime and port security threats, and authorizing Customs and Border Protection to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure that security practices are robust. The cooperation of private industry is vital to protecting supply chains, and C-TPAT is a necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain security efforts.

The bill also would extend the competitive, risk-based, port security grants that have improved the security of our ports. An authorization for the next 5 years at $300 million per year, as included in the President's budget, is lower than the current $400 million authorization in recognition of the severe budget constraints we face. To address concerns expressed by port authorities and terminal operators from across the country, the bill places deadlines on the Department of Homeland Security to ensure a timely response is provided to port security grant applications, extensions, and cost-share waiver requests.

In addition to continuing and improving critical port security programs, the bill also would strengthen the America's Waterway Watch Program, which promotes voluntary reporting of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior against a vessel, facility, port, or waterway.

Our bill would protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity against the United States. It builds on a provision from the 2007 homeland security law that encourages people to report potential terrorist threats directed against transportation systems by protecting people from those who would misuse our legal system in an attempt to chill the willingness of citizens to come forward and report possible dangers.

In addition, this legislation enhances research and development efforts to improve maritime cargo security. The demonstration project authorized by this law would study the feasibility of using composite materials in cargo containers to improve container integrity and deploy next-generation sensors.

This legislation also addresses the difficulties in administering the mandate of x-raying and scanning for radiation all cargo containers overseas that are destined for the United States by July 2012. Until x- ray scanning technology is proven effective at detecting radiological material and not disruptive of trade, requiring the x-raying of all U.S. bound cargo, regardless of its risk, at every foreign port, is misguided and provides a false sense of security. It would also impose onerous restrictions on the flow of commerce, costing billions with little additional security benefit.

Under the original provisions of the SAFE Port Act, all cargo designated as high-risk at foreign ports is already scanned for radiation and x-rayed. In addition, cargo entering the U.S. at all major seaports is scanned for radiation. These security measures currently in place are part of a layered, risk-based method to ensure cargo entering the U.S. is safe.

This legislation would eliminate the deadline for 100 percent x- raying of containers if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies the effectiveness of individual security measures of that layered security approach. This is a more reasonable method to secure our cargo until a new method of x-raying containers is proven effective and feasible.

The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 will help us to continue an effective, layered, coordinated security system that extends from point of origin to point of destination, and that covers the people, the vessels, the cargo, and the facilities involved in our maritime commerce. It will continue to address a major vulnerability in our homeland security critical infrastructure while preserving the flow of goods on which our economy depends.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.