Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, in cosponsoring a bill to modernize the tracking of hazardous waste. The federal waste law requires the tracking of hazardous waste from ``cradle to grave.'' This tracking system is designed to provide an enforceable chain of custody for hazardous wastes. The law provides a strong incentive for transporters to manage the waste in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis estimates that over 139,000 regulated entities track between 2.4 and 5.1 million shipments a year.

This system provides for appropriate stewardship of the hazardous waste products of our modern world. Unfortunately, the tracking system itself is in serious need of modernization.

Currently, the tracking is handled entirely through a paper manifest system. The paperwork burden is enormous. Each manifest form has seven or eight copies, which currently must be manually filled out and signed with pen and ink signatures, physically carried with waste shipments, mailed to generators and state agencies, and finally stored among facility records.

The paperwork burden is so great that 22 States and the EPA do not even collect copies of the forms. Those that do so get their copies months after the waste has been shipped. In the vast majority of cases, the only time regulators look at the manifests is during inspections or after a disaster to identify the responsible parties.

Under the Thune-Cardin bill, the paper manifest will be replaced by an electronic manifest. The bill sets up a funding system for the manifest paid for by the users of the system, the generators, and waste companies that handle hazardous waste.

An e-manifest system would remove a tremendous paperwork burden, assist the States in receiving data more readily in a format they can use, improve the public's access to waste shipment information and save over $100 million every year. First responders could get data in real- time. That is why groups as varied as Dow Chemical, Sierra Club and the Association of State, Territorial, Solid Waste Management Officials support this bill.

EPA does not have the funding to set up this system, so the bill uses a unique way to contract for the work. Companies will ``bid'' to set up the system at their cost and risk. They will be paid back on a per manifest basis by the users, waste generators, and handlers. This puts the burden on the private company or companies to meet the needs of the users of the system. The legislation is needed so that the funds collected go to the operation of the program rather than go to the general treasury.

A hearing was held on this issue in 2006 on a similar bill, S. 3871 introduced by Senators Thune, Jeffords, and Inhofe. No serious objections were made at that time and strong support was expressed by all the witnesses including EPA.

In September of 2008, an equally similar bill introduced by Senator Thune was reported favorably out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the House did not take up the measure.

This is legislation that is overdue. I ask members to join us in supporting this legislation which has garnered the backing of industry, states, and environmental groups. It is time for the waste manifest system to move into the 21st century.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, in cosponsoring a bill to modernize the tracking of hazardous waste. The federal waste law requires the tracking of hazardous waste from ``cradle to grave.'' This tracking system is designed to provide an enforceable chain of custody for hazardous wastes. The law provides a strong incentive for transporters to manage the waste in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis estimates that over 139,000 regulated entities track between 2.4 and 5.1 million shipments a year.

This system provides for appropriate stewardship of the hazardous waste products of our modern world. Unfortunately, the tracking system itself is in serious need of modernization.

Currently, the tracking is handled entirely through a paper manifest system. The paperwork burden is enormous. Each manifest form has seven or eight copies, which currently must be manually filled out and signed with pen and ink signatures, physically carried with waste shipments, mailed to generators and state agencies, and finally stored among facility records.

The paperwork burden is so great that 22 States and the EPA do not even collect copies of the forms. Those that do so get their copies months after the waste has been shipped. In the vast majority of cases, the only time regulators look at the manifests is during inspections or after a disaster to identify the responsible parties.

Under the Thune-Cardin bill, the paper manifest will be replaced by an electronic manifest. The bill sets up a funding system for the manifest paid for by the users of the system, the generators, and waste companies that handle hazardous waste.

An e-manifest system would remove a tremendous paperwork burden, assist the States in receiving data more readily in a format they can use, improve the public's access to waste shipment information and save over $100 million every year. First responders could get data in real- time. That is why groups as varied as Dow Chemical, Sierra Club and the Association of State, Territorial, Solid Waste Management Officials support this bill.

EPA does not have the funding to set up this system, so the bill uses a unique way to contract for the work. Companies will ``bid'' to set up the system at their cost and risk. They will be paid back on a per manifest basis by the users, waste generators, and handlers. This puts the burden on the private company or companies to meet the needs of the users of the system. The legislation is needed so that the funds collected go to the operation of the program rather than go to the general treasury.

A hearing was held on this issue in 2006 on a similar bill, S. 3871 introduced by Senators Thune, Jeffords, and Inhofe. No serious objections were made at that time and strong support was expressed by all the witnesses including EPA.

In September of 2008, an equally similar bill introduced by Senator Thune was reported favorably out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the House did not take up the measure.

This is legislation that is overdue. I ask members to join us in supporting this legislation which has garnered the backing of industry, states, and environmental groups. It is time for the waste manifest system to move into the 21st century.

Mr. President, I wish to go back to the SBIR bill itself and compliment Senator Landrieu, the chairman, and Senator Snowe, the ranking Republican member. This bill is an important one. I think it is important we get back to it and that we deal with amendments relevant to this legislation and move it forward. We have been on this bill for a period of time. It is time to move on. I urge my colleagues, let's take up the amendments that are relevant to the legislation and move it forward.

This is bipartisan legislation, passed out of committee by an overwhelming vote of Democrats and Republicans. It is a bill that will help create jobs in our community. We are talking about how America, as the President said, can outeducate, outinnovate and outbuild our competitors. We have to outinnovate. The SBIR bill makes it easier for small companies to innovate for America, to help this Nation grow, to help our economy grow. It is about jobs and innovation.

The SBIR Program provides funds for small-tech firms to innovate and grow and create jobs and for America to continue to lead the world in innovation. That is what this bill is about. It provides predictability so if you are going to go into a business, you know the program is going to be here to give the permanency of reauthorization. It provides a greater share of the pie for our smaller companies. Why? Because that is where we are going to get the job growth in America and that is where innovation is going to come from.

This is commonsense legislation we need to move forward. I know everybody has their particular amendment they want to get on that is not related at all to this bill. Let's do our small businesses a favor, let's do the American economy a favor, let's do something that can help not only create jobs but move America forward in innovation and let's get this bill moving for the sake of our economy.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues of legislation I have introduced today to establish a national Blue Alert Act. This would establish a nationwide program for blue alert. It would be similar to what we do for AMBER alert today. With AMBER alert, when children are abducted, we use that communication system nationwide to get information out about the abductor so we can get the public assisting law enforcement in apprehending the individuals responsible for the abduction of a child. My legislation would establish a similar system of disseminating information when a police officer has been murdered or severely injured as a result of a violent attack. This bill would help in keeping law enforcement safer by removing these individuals who have committed these horrible crimes from the streets sooner and holding them accountable for their acts.

Every day 900,000 law enforcement officers go out in our communities to keep us safe. They are the frontline for public safety. They put their lives on the line. Our communities are much safer as a result of their actions, so we want to do everything we can to help our law enforcement officers. In recent years, too many have lost their lives in the line of duty. We need to do something about that.

In Prince George's County, MD, today I joined with law enforcement officers at the FOP Lodge 89 to talk about this legislation. There is a fallen heroes memorial located at that FOP lodge to honor law enforcement officers in Prince George's County who gave their lives in the line of duty. Unfortunately, there are 26 individuals honored at that memorial. They have lost their lives since 1937. The Superintendent of State Police was also there, and we recalled State trooper Wesley Brown who died in June of last year in Forestville at the age of 24 serving his community. I mention Trooper Brown specifically because as a result of Trooper Brown's death, Governor O'Malley took executive action to establish a blue alert system in the State. We now have nine other States that have joined Maryland--10 States altogether--in establishing their own blue alert programs so we can assist in the capture of those who murder or seriously injure law enforcement officers.

We need to use technology the best we can to help those who are serving our communities. My legislation would make that program nationwide. I am proud we have bipartisan cosponsors in Senators Graham, Leahy, Klobuchar, and Coons. It complements the work being done by Attorney General Holder in his Law Enforcement Officer Safety Initiative. The purpose here is try to keep our law enforcement officers safer and keep the community safer. We think both will be achieved by using a blue alert system nationwide.

I am also pleased to say it has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Concern of Police Survivors, COPS. I urge all colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I hope we can get it enacted shortly. This can help in living up to our commitment to those who serve us.

Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues of legislation I have introduced today to establish a national Blue Alert Act. This would establish a nationwide program for blue alert. It would be similar to what we do for AMBER alert today. With AMBER alert, when children are abducted, we use that communication system nationwide to get information out about the abductor so we can get the public assisting law enforcement in apprehending the individuals responsible for the abduction of a child. My legislation would establish a similar system of disseminating information when a police officer has been murdered or severely injured as a result of a violent attack. This bill would help in keeping law enforcement safer by removing these individuals who have committed these horrible crimes from the streets sooner and holding them accountable for their acts.

Every day 900,000 law enforcement officers go out in our communities to keep us safe. They are the frontline for public safety. They put their lives on the line. Our communities are much safer as a result of their actions, so we want to do everything we can to help our law enforcement officers. In recent years, too many have lost their lives in the line of duty. We need to do something about that.

In Prince George's County, MD, today I joined with law enforcement officers at the FOP Lodge 89 to talk about this legislation. There is a fallen heroes memorial located at that FOP lodge to honor law enforcement officers in Prince George's County who gave their lives in the line of duty. Unfortunately, there are 26 individuals honored at that memorial. They have lost their lives since 1937. The Superintendent of State Police was also there, and we recalled State trooper Wesley Brown who died in June of last year in Forestville at the age of 24 serving his community. I mention Trooper Brown specifically because as a result of Trooper Brown's death, Governor O'Malley took executive action to establish a blue alert system in the State. We now have nine other States that have joined Maryland--10 States altogether--in establishing their own blue alert programs so we can assist in the capture of those who murder or seriously injure law enforcement officers.

We need to use technology the best we can to help those who are serving our communities. My legislation would make that program nationwide. I am proud we have bipartisan cosponsors in Senators Graham, Leahy, Klobuchar, and Coons. It complements the work being done by Attorney General Holder in his Law Enforcement Officer Safety Initiative. The purpose here is try to keep our law enforcement officers safer and keep the community safer. We think both will be achieved by using a blue alert system nationwide.

I am also pleased to say it has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Concern of Police Survivors, COPS. I urge all colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I hope we can get it enacted shortly. This can help in living up to our commitment to those who serve us.

Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Landrieu for her extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. This is a critically important bill for our economy. It helps small businesses. It helps the economic engine of America. It helps with innovation with small businesses.

We already know small businesses will be where most of the job growth will take place. We know that. We also know small businesses are where most of the innovation will take place. When we look at patents that are filed, there are more from the small businesses per employee than we see from large companies. But in order to help small businesses be able to be innovative, the SBIR Program is critically important.

I congratulate Senator Landrieu for bringing this bill forward. It has received strong bipartisan support within the Small Business Committee. It provides the resources where small companies can take risks and innovate for America's future. It extends the program for 8 years, giving predictability to companies and investors, so they can go out and do what is best for this country, extending the program to 2019.

It increases the allocations available for the small business community over time from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. It increases the individual size of the grants from $100,000 to $150,000 in phase I and in phase II from $750,000 to $1 million. It does one other thing that is critically important. It allows small businesses to bring in venture capitalists and still be able to qualify for an SBIR loan.

For all these reasons, I strongly support the efforts of Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe and would encourage my colleagues to support the legislation that has been brought forward.

But I come to the floor, and I am going to ask consent that the pending amendment be set aside, but first let me explain the amendment I would like to offer. It is an amendment that would continue a policy that was started in 2009 to allow small businesses the opportunity to be able to get surety bonds to be able to compete on government procurement in the construction industry.

Current law requires that for all Federal and State construction projects--Federal and State construction projects--exceeding $100,000, the company must provide a surety bond. Congress established the Surety Bond Guarantee Program more than 30 years ago because they knew it was difficult for small businesses to be able to get a surety bond. The limit had been $2 million under that program. So we assisted small companies in being able to get surety bonds of up to $2 million until 2009.

As part of the Recovery Act, I offered an amendment with Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe--this was a bipartisan amendment; as a matter of fact, I do not know of any objections to the amendment--that increased the amount from $2 million to $5 million and gave the Administrator the authority to guarantee bonds of up to $10 million to permit small companies to be able to compete with large construction companies for procurement work.

What is so difficult? Well, you talk to a small business owner, and they will tell you what they have to go through with their bankers in order to get any type of financing. Then, if they try to get a surety bond, it is the same assets that the surety bond company wants them to guarantee in order to get the surety bond, putting them in a catch-22 situation, where they cannot get the surety bond and financing. They have to choose between one or the other. That is the reason why we established the Surety Bond Guarantee Program 30 years ago.

The higher limit had been in place from 2009 to 2010. The SBA had estimated they would issue $147 million in bonds in support of projects over $2 million. In March of 2010, the SBA Performance Report indicated that more than $360 million in bonds was actually issued. It has been an unquestioned success--the higher limits.

One other point: There have been absolutely no losses under the surety bond program, zero. That is why the Congressional Budget Office has given us an informal estimate that this amendment would have no direct impact on spending or revenue. This is a no-cost amendment that is strongly supported by the small business community because they know it is critically important for them to be able to compete fairly on construction contracts. It has bipartisan support.

What the amendment does is extend the limits we put in law in 2009 that expired at the end of 2010. That is the amendment.

Mr. President, I do want to make a unanimous consent request, but I understand we are under an agreement now that we cannot ask that. I am getting word from my chairman. But let me go on record to say I would request that there be an opportunity for this amendment to be offered or included. I do not believe it is controversial. It does not cost, as I said, any expenditures. It is very important for the small business community. It has bipartisan support, and I hope I will be given the opportunity to be able to offer that amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I applaud the President in declaring March 2011 Irish-American Heritage Month, and I speak in celebration of the rich Irish history, culture, and customs still alive today in the hearts and minds of Irish Americans everywhere.

The association of our two nations began early in our country's history. Irish immigrants arrived in the early colonial days as indentured servants, which was often the only affordable method of passage to the ``New World.'' Close to a quarter of a million Irish immigrated during the colonial era, and many of them to Maryland. Upon their arrival, they set immediately upon the heady things of the time: independence, and the building of a nation. Irish immigrants took up their new national identity with fervor, especially in Maryland, and helped to found lasting institutions. Charles Carroll, his family descendants from the O Cearbhaill lords of Eile, was a member of the second Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence. His cousin, John Carroll, born in Upper Marlboro, was elected the first bishop of Baltimore, and was elevated to the first Archbishop of the United States when Pope Pius VII made Baltimore the first American Catholic archdiocese. James Calhoun, of Irish descent, was the first mayor of Baltimore City, and held a commission with the Baltimore militia.

From these auspicious beginnings, those reporting Irish ancestry in Maryland have today grown to over 700,000, according to the 2006 American Community Survey. These sons and daughters of Eire did not grow without tribulation. As famine and hunger gripped the Emerald Isle, nearly 3.5 million Irish immigrants fled to America between 1820 and 1880, engendering discriminatory reactions that often strayed into violence. Signs of ``No Irish Need Apply'' appeared in business windows, and young Irishmen were often drummed into service on the quayside to fight for the Union Army. Indeed, in my own home town of Baltimore, the mayoral elections of 1856, 1857 and 1858 were marred by violence, political intimidation and well-founded accusations of ballot-box stuffing, fomented by nativist political organizations, such as the Know-Nothing Party.

Irish Americans pushed past these shortsighted prejudices, time and again, and put their shoulders to the wheel of industry in America. They helped settle and farm the breadbasket of America, they took up arms in the defense of freedom and liberty, and they helped build an ever strengthening bond with the island nation of Ireland. They built strong communities around the values of hard work, perseverance, faith, and a shared remembrance of an ancestral home across the sea. Irish Americans have ever understood that great joy is only earned with great hardship, and our 35th President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, showed this ethic. In service to our country, he faced down the threat of worldwide nuclear annihilation, and pushed our Nation to do the impossible: to claim the Moon as the province of man. Irish Americans proudly continue this tradition of service, and serve at every level of public office, including in the Governor's Mansion in Annapolis, MD, where Maryland's favorite Irish-American son, Governor Martin O'Malley, resides.

The millions of Irish that immigrated to the United States, escaping hunger and religious persecution, chasing the elusive American dream, forever knitted Ireland and America together. It is right that we honor this bond, and take this occasion to reflect on the deeply inlaid threads of American history and tradition that sound, look, feel, and are distinctly Irish.

Madam President, I take this time to reflect with my colleagues and say that we celebrate today the 1-year anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and to reflect how much happened to improve health care in America since the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

We have reason to celebrate. If you are a senior in the Medicare Program, and you now know that you can see your primary care doctor every year for an annual wellness exam, and that wellness exam will now be covered under Medicare, and you will have an opportunity to meet with your doctor and take charge of your own health, you have a reason to celebrate passage of the Affordable Care Act.

If you are a senior who happens to fall within the coverage gap under the prescription drug benefits in Medicare, the so-called doughnut hole, and you have been forced at times to leave prescriptions on the counter of a drugstore because you could not afford to pay the cost of the prescription, and you now know that there is coverage in Medicare if you fall within that gap--for last year, 3.2 million seniors who fell within the gap received a $250 check. This year, the seniors who fall within this coverage gap will receive a 50-percent discount on their brandname drugs. Next year, their benefit will be worth as much as $2,400 and, by 2020, we will close the gap entirely, all as a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. So you have reason to celebrate that Congress finally got the job done.

If you are an American family, like many, and you celebrate your child's graduation from college, only to find that your child could no longer be covered under your health insurance policy because of the age restriction, and now you learn that Congress has changed that age to 26, so you can keep your youngster under your family insurance program, and that child now has health insurance, and you are one of 1.2 million people who benefit from this provision that was in the Affordable Care Act, you have reason to celebrate the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

If you are a small business owner who can now afford to cover your employees because of the small business tax credit that was included in the Affordable Care Act--4 million eligible institutions will be eligible for that tax credit, and soon you will be able to get competitive rates. Small businesses today pay 20 percent more for the same coverage large companies have. Congress took action last year to eliminate that disparity. If you are one of those small business owners now benefiting from that tax credit or who will benefit from more competitive rates and better choice, you have reason to celebrate the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

If you happen to be a consumer of health insurance, as almost all of us are, and you want value for your premium dollar, you now know that with passage of the Affordable Care Act, the lion's share of your health premiums must go for health benefits, reining in the excessive administrative costs of private insurance companies, and you know now that Congress has taken action to prevent the abusive practices of private insurance companies, you have reason to celebrate the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

If you happen to be the woman in Maryland, who was hiking in the mountains of West Virginia and fell off a cliff, was unconscious, and was flown to the closest emergency room to receive care and was denied coverage because she did not call ahead for preauthorization, you have a reason to celebrate the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.

Yes, insurance companies have denied coverage for emergency care because of requirements for preauthorization or have denied coverage because the ultimate diagnosis did not meet their standard for reimbursement, even though your symptoms indicated you should seek emergency care. I started working on that issue in 1995, known as the prudent layperson's standards for requiring insurance companies to reimburse their policyholders for visits to emergency rooms, where their symptoms indicated they should go to the emergency room.

In 1997, Medicare and Medicaid were changed in order to provide for the prudent layperson's standard for reimbursement. Now all insurance companies must comply with that standard because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

If you are a parent who has a child who has asthma or you have been told that the insurance company won't provide full coverage because of your child's preexisting condition, and now you can get full coverage for your child, you too have a reason to celebrate the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

If you are an adult and have been told you cannot get insurance because of a preexisting condition, such as high blood pressure, or you happen to be like a couple from Montgomery County, MD, who had to get two separate insurance policies because of preexisting conditions, paying two separate premiums and two separate deductibles, and now you know you can get one insurance plan that will cover your family, you have a reason to celebrate, because that too was corrected by the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress 1 year ago.

If you happen to be a taxpayer who is concerned about the fiscal soundness of Medicare or the budget deficit, you too have a reason to celebrate enactment of the Affordable Care Act, because the Affordable Care Act extended the solvency of the Medicare system by 12 years, putting it on a safer basis, making it less vulnerable for our budget.

The enactment of the Affordable Care Act reduced the Federal budget deficit by over $100 billion during the first 10 years, and over $1.5 trillion during the first 20 years. This is because, quite frankly, this bill manages illness much more cost effectively. It uses health information technology more effectively and it invests in wellness, and it brings down the cost. That is not what this

Senator is saying has been established; it is what the CBO has told us will bring in savings on our budget deficit. Taxpayers have a reason to celebrate the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.

There is one other reason to celebrate the year's anniversary of the enactment of this legislation. Let me give one more example. A couple of weeks ago I was at the Greater Baden Health Center located about 7 or 8 miles from where we are today. They are doing something about the infant mortality rate in our community. We have too high of an infant mortality rate because of low birth weight babies. Some do not survive and become part of our infant mortality numbers in America where we are much higher than we should be. Others survive and have complications that need to be addressed by our health care system, making it challenging for the infant and expensive for our society.

At the Greater Baden Health Center, they are doing something about that situation. They are expanding their qualified health center to include prenatal care so pregnant women can get the type of attention they need to have healthy babies. That money comes from the Affordable Care Act because of the expansion of our qualified health centers.

We all celebrate what we are able to accomplish. It will keep our children healthier and save us money and have less use of the emergency rooms by expanding care at our qualified centers.

Madam President, if you are concerned about health disparities in America--and you have reason to be--minorities are two times more likely to suffer from diabetes and 33 percent more likely to die from heart disease. In the African-American community, the infant mortality rate is 2.3 times higher than the White community. When we look at the number of people who have access to health care and health insurance, the minority population represents one-third. Yet they are one-half of the people who do not have health insurance.

I think we all agree that we need to do something about that situation. That is not right in our sense of fairness. But let me give one more reason it will save us money.

A study done at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland points out that we can save $260 billion in excess direct medical care costs if we can deal with the minority health disparities. We had done something about that in the Affordable Care Act. An amendment that I was proud to offer established the Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities within the National Institutes of Health. We have developed minority health and disparity offices in each of our agencies that deal with health care to do something about health disparities in America. We can all celebrate that we are able to move that forward in the Affordable Care Act.

We should all take pride that America at long last, after decades of unsuccessful attempts, has acted. Health care is a right, not a privilege. As our dear friend, the late Senator Kennedy, said: We no longer have a sick care system. We have taken action to include all under health care in America.

I understand the Republicans in the House want to repeal each and every one of these improvements and accomplishments. They offer no hope of taking up these issues in a serious manner during this Congress. Speaking on behalf of our seniors, speaking on behalf of our small business owners, speaking on behalf of the consumers of health insurance in America, speaking on behalf of what is right, as far as covering and making sure everyone has access to affordable care, we do not want to see that happen. We do not want to move backwards. We have reason to celebrate the accomplishments of moving forward with health care. We want to move forward, not back, and continue to build on an American health care system that provides affordable quality care to all Americans.

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

Mr. President, I understand Senator Vitter will seek recognition to offer some amendments. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Vitter has offered his amendments, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts on the hearings held last week in the House of Representatives called ``The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response.'' Congressional hearings are supposed to serve as an important role of oversight, investigation, or education, among other purposes. However, this particular hearing--billed as the first of a series--served only to fan flames of fear and division.

My first concern is the title of the hearing--targeting one community. That is wrong. Each of us has a responsibility to speak out when communities are unfairly targeted.

In 1975, the United States joined all the countries of Europe and established the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, now known as the OSCE. The Congress created the U.S. Helsinki Commission to monitor U.S. participation and compliance with these commitments. The OSCE contains commitments in three areas or baskets: security, economics, and human rights. Best known for its human rights advancements, the OSCE has been aggressive in advancing these commitments in each of the OSCE states. The OSCE stands for religious freedom and protection of minority rights.

I am the Senate chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. In that capacity, I have raised human rights issues in other countries, such as in France when, in the name of national security, the Parliament banned burqas and wearing of all religious articles or when the Swiss restricted the building of mosques or minarets.

These policies were restrictive not only to the religious practice of Muslims but also Christians, Jews, and others who would seek to wear religious symbols and practice their religion as they saw fit.

I have also raised human rights issues in the United States when we were out of compliance with our Helsinki commitments. In that spirit, I find it necessary to speak out against the congressional hearing chaired by Congressman Peter King.

Rather than constructively using the power of Congress to explore how we as a nation can use all of the tools at our disposal to prevent future terrorist attacks and defeat those individuals and groups who want to do us harm, this spectacle crossed the line and chipped away at the religious freedoms and civil liberties we hold so dearly.

Radicalization may be the appropriate subject of a congressional hearing but not when it is limited to one religion. When that is done, it sends the wrong message to the public and casts a religion with unfounded suspicions.

Congressman King's hearing is part of a disturbing trend to demonize Muslims taking place in our country and abroad. Instead, we need to engage the Muslim community in the United States.

A cookie-cutter approach to profile what a terrorist looks like will not work. As FBI Director Mueller recently testified to the Senate:

. . . during the past year, the threat from radicalization

has evolved. A number of disruptions occurred involving

extremists from a diverse set of backgrounds, geographic

locations, life experiences, and motivating factors that

propelled them along their separate radicalization pathways.

Let us remember that a number of terrorist attacks have been prevented or disrupted due to informants from the Muslim community who contacted law enforcement officials.

I commend Attorney General Holder and FBI Director Mueller for increasing their outreach to the Arab-American community. As Attorney General Holder said:

Let us not forget it was a Muslim-American who first

alerted the New York police to a smoking car in Times Square.

And his vigilance likely helped to save lives. He did his

part to avert tragedy, just as millions of other Arab-

Americans are doing their parts and proudly fulfilling the

responsibility of citizenship.

We need to encourage this type of cooperation between our government and law enforcement agencies in the Muslim community.

As the threat from al-Qaida changes and evolves over time, the piece of the puzzle is even more important to get right. FBI Director Mueller testified before the House recently that:

At every opportunity I have, I reaffirm the fact that 99.9

percent of Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and Arab-

Americans are every bit as patriotic as anyone else in this

room, and that many of the anti-terrorism cases are a result

of the cooperation from the Muslim community and the United

States.

As leaders in Congress, we must live up to our Nation's highest ideals and protect civil liberties, even in wartime when they are most challenged. The 9/11 Commission summed up this well when they wrote:

The terrorists have used our open society against us. In

wartime, government calls for greater powers, and then the

need for those powers recedes after the war ends. This

struggle will go on. Therefore, while protecting our

homeland, Americans must be mindful of threats to vital

personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task,

but we must constantly strive to keep it right.

I agree with Attorney General Holder's recent speech to the Arab- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, where he stated:

In this Nation, our many faiths, origins, and appearances

must bind us together, not break us apart. In this Nation,

the document that sets forth the supreme law of the land--the

Constitution--is meant to empower, not exclude. And in this

Nation, security and liberty are--at their best--partners,

not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all.

Actions, such as the hearing held last week, that pit us against one another based on our religious beliefs, weaken our country and its freedoms and ultimately do nothing to make our country any safer. Hearings such as the one held last week only serve as a distraction from our real goals and provide fuel for those who are looking for excuses to find fault or blame in our way of life.

Let's not go the way of other countries but instead hold dear the protections in our Constitution that safeguard the individual's right to freely practice their religion and forbid a religious test to hold public office in the United States. Our country's strength lies in its diversity and our ability to have strongly held beliefs and differences of opinion, while being able to speak freely and not fear the government will imprison us for criticizing the government or holding a religious belief that is not shared by the majority of Americans.

On September 11, 2001, our country was attacked by terrorists in a way we thought impossible. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children of all races, religions, and backgrounds were murdered. As the 10-year anniversary

of these attacks draws closer, we continue to hold these innocent victims in our thoughts and prayers, and we will continue to fight terrorism and bring terrorists to justice.

After that attack, I went back to my congressional district in Maryland at that time and made three visits as a Congressman. First I visited a synagogue and prayed with the community. Then I visited a mosque and prayed with the community. Then I went to a church and prayed with the community. My message was clear on that day: We all needed to join together as a nation to condemn the terrorist attacks and to take all necessary measures to eliminate safe havens for terrorists and bring them to justice. We all stood together on that day regardless of our background or personal beliefs.

But my other message was equally important: We cannot allow the events of September 11 to demonize a particular community, religion, or creed. Such actions of McCarthyism harken back to darker days in our history. National security concerns were used inappropriately and led to 120,000 Japanese-Americans being stripped of their property and rights and placed in internment camps in 1942, though not a single act of espionage was ever established.

The United States should not carry out a crusade against any particular religion as a response to 9/11 or other terrorist attacks. The United States will not tolerate hate crimes against any group, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, and we should not allow our institutions, including Congress, to be used to foment intolerance and injustice. Let's come together as a nation and move forward in a more constructive and hopeful manner.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 12 years ago this very day, the Senate passed a joint resolution that honored Harriet Tubman, with Harriet Tubman Day, on March 10. That resolution was sponsored by Senator Carper and then-Senator Biden. In the House of Representatives, I served and I cosponsored a similar resolution.

Harriet Tubman was a remarkable woman. She was born in Dorchester County, MD, in 1822. She was a slave for greater than 25 years of her life. At age 25, she married John Tubman. She escaped slavery in 1849. She returned to the eastern shore of Maryland, not once but 19 times that we know of within a 10-year period, in order to rescue slaves and to set them free.

She rescued slaves in Dorchester County and Caroline County in Maryland and throughout the entire Northeast. She was known as the modern day ``Moses'' for the Underground Railroad.

In the Civil War, she joined Union forces as a spy, as a scout, and as a nurse, operating in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina.

After the Civil War was over, she settled in Auburn, NY, and was very actively involved in the women's suffrage movement, and she established one of the first African-American homes for the aged.

She died in 1913.

Harriet Tubman embodies the American spirit. She was a strong-willed person who fought for the rights and freedom of those who were oppressed in the barbaric institution of slavery.

Her personal freedom was not enough for her because she recognized there was injustice in this country, and she wanted to be involved. As the joint resolution that passed the Senate 12 years ago said:

. . . Harriet Tubman--whose courageous and dedicated

pursuit of the promise of American ideals and common

principles of humanity continues to serve and inspire all

people who cherish freedom. . . .

A major part of learning and understanding the significance of history is being able to experience the places where that history occurred.

From Fort McHenry in Baltimore, MD, to the Lincoln Memorial here in the Nation's capital, we have preserved our history for future generations. Millions of visitors and schoolchildren visit these iconic places in American history.

The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park is legislation I have filed so we can preserve the history of Harriet Tubman with these historic places for future generations.

I am joined in this effort by Senator Mikulski, Senator Schumer, and Senator Gillibrand. The natural landscape on the eastern shore that existed during Harriet Tubman's day exists today. Her homestead, where her father was born, Ben Ross, exists today. Stewart's Canal, where her father worked, exists today. The Brodess Farm, where Harriet Tubman worked as a slave, exists today. Right adjacent to it, and including part of that property, is the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. So we have the landscape in which the Underground Railroad was operating to free slaves in the 19th century. It exists today on the eastern shore of Maryland.

In Auburn, NY, the home in which Harriet Tubman lived still exists, the home for the aged that she started still remains. The Thompson Memorial AME Zion Episcopal Church is still there, and the Fort Hill Cemetery, where she is buried. They are all intact, and all are available for preservation.

The legislation we have filed will preserve these places in American history under our National Park System for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to honor a great American, and to preserve our heritage for future generations.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about asthma and the impact of health disparities. I have pointed out on the floor before that race and ethnic health disparities exist in America. I have talked on the floor before about sickle cell disease. Well, the same thing is true with the chronic inflammatory diseases of the body's airways that impede breathing, such as asthma.

As I pointed out before, the Affordable Care Act includes a provision I helped write that establishes the Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH. The purpose for including this information about asthma in the Record is to point out that we still have challenges that need to be met. I look forward to working with my colleagues on that issue.

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the body's airways that impairs breathing and affects more than 20 million Americans. People with this condition have overly reactive airways that constrict in response to allergens, temperature changes, physical exercise, and stress. During asthma attacks, the airways spasm and prevent oxygen from getting to the lungs. This leads to chest tightness, shortage of breath, wheezing and mucus production. Severe attacks can require intubation and even result in death. Of the 20 million Americans affected by asthma, about 7 million are children. In fact, about 10 percent of all American children have asthma.

Genetics play a significant role in the development of asthma in children and adults, but asthma is also influenced by environmental factors and racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors. Asthma is consistently found to be more prevalent among certain minority groups, particularly among Blacks, Native Americans, and Puerto Ricans. To be more precise, research indicates that asthma is 30 percent more prevalent in Blacks than in Whites; American Indians and Alaska Natives are 20 percent more likely to have asthma than Whites; Asian/Pacific Islander children are three times more likely to have asthma than White children; and Puerto Rican Americans have twice the asthma rate as the Latino American population overall.

In addition to occurring more often, asthma is also more severe in minority populations, and this leads to higher mortality rates for Black Americans. Asthma accounts for more than 4,000 deaths in the United States each year. Blacks are 2.5 times more likely to die from asthma-related causes than Whites. Among children, this ratio is even more staggering--Black children are 7 times more likely to die from asthma-related causes than White children. Interestingly, although Latino Americans and American Indian/Alaskan Natives are more likely than Whites to have asthma, they have a 50 percent lower mortality rate.

As I noted earlier, the gap in asthma outcomes is also influenced by several socioeconomic factors. Health disparities can be attributed to differences in education level, independent of race or ethnicity. Research shows that children whose mothers have not completed high school are twice as likely to develop asthma as children whose mothers have a high school diploma, and this difference remains significant even when controlling for race and ethnicity.

Economic status also influences the incidence of asthma. Studies have shown that unemployment is correlated with increased incidence, and that people with incomes below the Federal poverty level are 30 percent more likely to develop asthma as those who are above the Federal poverty level.

One reason is that income level is correlated with quality of housing, and substandard housing is strongly associated with poor asthma outcomes. Substandard housing exposes residents to environmental triggers for asthma such as dust mites, roaches, mold, and rodents.

A study in the journal Pediatrics showed that eliminating these indoor pollutants could prevent 39 percent of asthma cases in children. Other studies have shown that substandard housing accounts for up to a 50-percent increase in asthma cases.

In addition to indoor triggers, outdoor pollutants are also contributing factors. Researchers have shown that among people living within 50 yards of major car traffic, people living near a road traveled by 30,000 vehicles per day are three times more likely to develop asthma that those who live near a road traveled by 10,000 vehicles per day. To put these figures into perspective, the average segment of I-495, our Capital Beltway, carries about 200,000 cars per day.

The built environment comprising roads, factories, and other human- made surroundings is a substantial risk factor for asthma. Many people are stuck in unhealthy living conditions because they can't afford to move elsewhere, particularly in the case of public housing projects, which are often situated in the most polluted locations. Initiatives such as the Healthy Homes Program run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are encouraging, but greater effort must be devoted to raising the quality of the home environment for people living in poverty.

Whether due to one or more of these factors, the impact of disparities in asthma is profound because asthma is such a crippling condition. Untreated or inappropriately treated, asthma makes it difficult to concentrate at school and work, limits physical activity, and often results in absenteeism. It also reaches beyond the patient to family members, as parents are often required to miss work to care for sick children. The Nation's 20 million asthma patients account for more than 100 million days each year in lost productivity due to absence from school and work, according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Yearly, asthma patients account for more than 11 million office visits and 500,000 hospitalizations. That is an annual cost of more than $6 billion in direct and indirect medical expenditures. Much of this expense could be avoided with proper asthma management.

Patients who are diagnosed at an early age and whose conditions are well

managed by a primary care physician and an asthma specialist can avoid many of the complications associated with the condition. The ability to secure medications, such as an albuterol inhaler to alleviate attacks and steroids to suppress inflammation, can allow patients to play sports and live normal lives.

But patients who lack access to specialists or can't afford needed medicines will frequently miss school, must forgo physical activity, and are often hospitalized. So the effect of access to affordable, comprehensive care is apparent.

Even so, coverage is not enough. Asthma disparities have multiple interrelated causes, as I have outlined. We often view health disparities through the narrow lenses of genetic differences and differences in medical care. But upstream determinants such as social inequalities and neighborhood conditions can have a significant impact on health outcomes as well.

Even though we know this, national policies have not effectively addressed the problem of health disparities pertaining to asthma. National asthma guidelines that are supported by the National Institutes of Health recommend preventive services and asthma care by a specialist. These guidelines have been found to save money and improve quality of life. But data still show that patients covered by Medicaid are offered less preventive care and fewer referrals to asthma specialists compared to patients in the private insurance market. This matters when it comes to outcomes because specialists are more likely to prescribe controller medications than primary care providers, regardless of the patient's racial or ethnic background. Decreased access to specialists has been associated with higher rates of hospitalization, emergency room use, and mortality. The bottom line is that Medicaid patients have been receiving lower quality treatment for asthma, despite the guidelines put forth by NIH and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

I am encouraged that there are significant efforts taking place to close the gaps at the local level. In Maryland, the University of Maryland Medical Center has developed an innovative approach to bringing specialized care to children who otherwise would not have access to it. Their BreathMobile program, led by Dr. Mary Beth Bollinger, is an asthma clinic on wheels. It is staffed by a pediatric allergist, a pediatric nurse practitioner, a registered nurse, and a driver who regularly travels to over two dozen schools in Baltimore City. The BreathMobile has provided ongoing care to more than 800 students.

At Johns Hopkins University, the Harriet Lane Clinic provides a comprehensive medical home for asthma patients. Over 90 percent of Harriet Lane's caseload are Medicaid patients, and they are provided with pulmonary specialists, social workers, and case managers who help them secure healthy housing, and seek help from other programs for which they may be eligible.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have additional tools to address the problem of health disparities at a national level. I helped write into that law the new Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH as well as the Offices of Minority Health at CMS and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

These offices are charged with evaluating, coordinating, and advocating for efforts to eliminate disparities, and they can do much to close the gaps with respect to asthma.

The new Institute will be instrumental in overseeing the coordination of asthma research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and ensuring that the focus of biomedical research sufficiently addresses health disparities. We must encourage participation in clinical trials, particularly for underrepresented populations, so that we can speed the discovery of the most effective treatments. Provisions to encourage physicians to practice in underserved areas can improve access to care. The Office at AHRQ can help translate these findings into practice, and the Office at CMS can be instrumental in ensuring that eligible CHIP and Medicaid beneficiaries are enrolled in these programs and that they can receive the best possible care. With the Affordable Care Act, we have the momentum and the tools needed to make a difference in asthma health disparities.

I look forward to returning to the floor soon to explore the issue of health disparities further by focusing on another condition that disproportionately affects minorities.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This bill promotes long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds that breed in North America in the summer and spend our winters in tropical climates south of our border. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships to countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to one quarter of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects.

This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect pests each year. These vulnerable bird populations face many environmental factors such as pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that threaten their habitat and, ultimately, their survival. As good indicators of a healthy ecosystem, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, at least 29 species of migratory birds are experiencing significant population declines. For example, populations of the Cerulean Warbler and Olive-Sided Flycatcher have declined as much as 70 percent since surveys began in the 1960s.

The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of my home state of Maryland, has been experiencing a decline in population despite being protected by Federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the State of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Destruction of their domestic breeding habitat and tropical winter habitat, coupled with the toxic pesticides ingested by insects which are then eaten by the Oriole, has significantly contributed to this decline. It is essential that we invest in conservation efforts in our country as well as others along the migratory route of the wide range of migratory birds. This legislation accomplishes this goal.

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, between 2002 and 2010, this program has successfully supported 333 projects, coordinated by groups in 48 U.S. State/territories and 36 countries. Additionally, it is a great value for taxpayers as it leverages over $4.00 for each Federal dollar spent. Since 2002, the U.S. has invested more than $25 million in 262 projects and leveraged an additional $112 million in partner funds to support these projects. It also helps to generate $2.7 billion annually for the U.S. economy through wildlife watching activities.

This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This bill promotes long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds that breed in North America in the summer and spend our winters in tropical climates south of our border. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships to countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to one quarter of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects.

This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect pests each year. These vulnerable bird populations face many environmental factors such as pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that threaten their habitat and, ultimately, their survival. As good indicators of a healthy ecosystem, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, at least 29 species of migratory birds are experiencing significant population declines. For example, populations of the Cerulean Warbler and Olive-Sided Flycatcher have declined as much as 70 percent since surveys began in the 1960s.

The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of my home state of Maryland, has been experiencing a decline in population despite being protected by Federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the State of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Destruction of their domestic breeding habitat and tropical winter habitat, coupled with the toxic pesticides ingested by insects which are then eaten by the Oriole, has significantly contributed to this decline. It is essential that we invest in conservation efforts in our country as well as others along the migratory route of the wide range of migratory birds. This legislation accomplishes this goal.

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, between 2002 and 2010, this program has successfully supported 333 projects, coordinated by groups in 48 U.S. State/territories and 36 countries. Additionally, it is a great value for taxpayers as it leverages over $4.00 for each Federal dollar spent. Since 2002, the U.S. has invested more than $25 million in 262 projects and leveraged an additional $112 million in partner funds to support these projects. It also helps to generate $2.7 billion annually for the U.S. economy through wildlife watching activities.

This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues.

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

Mr. President, today we are faced with two alternative versions of a fiscal year 2011 funding bill. The version that came over from the other body contains an endless list of problems. It slashes fundamental programs that are important to the health and well-being of every America, unleashes attacks on our bedrock environmental laws that protect clear and safe water as well as healthy air, and undermine our efforts to reassert America's leading role in education, research and innovation. Casting a vote against this bill will be easy.

The alternative bill offered by the Senate Appropriations Committee is dramatically better. It is a good faith effort at tackling the deficit while maintaining critical investments in America's future. This bill, however, is not without its problems.

The Senate version of the fiscal year 2011 spending bill restores a substantial portion of the cuts to the nation's water infrastructure contained in H.R. 1. I applaud the committee's effort to protect this critical investment, but it doesn't go far enough. As a nation, we see 650 water main breaks per day. That is the rate of one every 2 minutes and results in the loss of $2.6 billion in water annually. The story on wastewater systems is equally dismal, resulting in sewage overflows and broken pipes on a daily basis. Our drinking water and wastewater infrastructure has been given a grade of D- from the American Society of Civil Engineers.

These system failures aren't just expensive, they are also dangerous. Raw sewage flows into our rivers and streams, forcing local health authorities to warn local residents to avoid contact with rivers, beaches and lakes. Drinking water systems are forced to issue boil- water advisories to compensate for broken systems. We must do better. The investments in water infrastructure in the Senate bill are a step in the right direction, but we should be doing more.

There are other examples as well. The cuts to the conservation programs in the Senate version are disproportionately large. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program at USDA, for example, is eliminated entirely.

We need to make hard choices about our funding priorities. But we shouldn't be doing so without also having a frank discussion about tax loopholes that cost us billions of dollars annually.

And finally, the Senate bill is a dramatic improvement over H.R. 1 in terms of environmental policy. The other body approved legislative riders that would stop EPA from being able to protect the air Americans breathe every day and it would stop dead in its tracks the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. The Senate bill, to its credit, eliminates these terrible policy directives. The Senate bill, however, does include a provision that would legislatively de-list the gray wolf from the endangered species list.

I continue to oppose legislative efforts to delist endangered species. We have a regulatory process that is based on scientific data, and we should use it. All that is needed is for the States in the Northern Rockies to submit appropriate management plans to the Department of Interior so that the law can work the way Congress intended.

I have no problem today in voting against the draconian cuts and terrible public policy riders in H.R. 1. My support for the Senate alternative, which is dramatically better, is tempered by my concerns. My vote for the Senate substitute is a reluctant aye. As we move forward to enact a fiscal 2011 spending bill, I hope we will be able to address the issue I have outlined here to make sure that the American people are getting the kinds of investments and savings that they deserve.