Floor Statements

Gladly. The FTC's red flags rule implementing section 114 of the FACT Act became effective on January 1, 2008. The rule applied to ``creditors,'' defined under the FACT Act the same way as in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, ECOA, to include any person that sells a product or service for which the consumer can pay later.

After the red flags rule became final, many businesses and other entities indicated that they were not aware that they would be covered by this rule. At first, the FTC delayed enforcement of the rule several times to allow these entities time to come into compliance with the rule. Then, a number of professional organizations, including the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association, sued the FTC for taking the position that professionals were ``creditors'' when they allowed consumers to pay later, and would have to comply with its red

flags rule. On May 28, 2010, the FTC announced that it would delay enforcing its red flags rule through December 31, 2010, and asked Congress to pass legislation that would resolve any questions about which entities should be covered as ``creditors'' and to obviate the need for further enforcement delays.

Yes, I agree that this bill narrows the applicability of the red flag identity theft provisions of the FACT Act to cover those creditors where identity thieves can do the most harm--creditors that use consumer reports, furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, and other creditors that loan money, such as payday lenders, that do not necessarily use consumer reports or furnish information to consumer reporting agencies.

The legislation also makes clear that lawyers, doctors, dentists, orthodontists, pharmacists, veterinarians, accountants, nurse practitioners, social workers, other types of health care providers an other service providers will no longer be classified as ``creditors'' for the purposes of the red flags rule just because they do not receive payment in full from their clients at the time they provide their services, when they don't offer or maintain accounts that pose a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft.

I want to address the issue that has been talked about by my friend from Georgia; that is, the Food and Drug Administration Food Safety and Modernization Act. I commend my colleagues and those who have been involved, as we have been, for weeks and weeks on end now to produce this bill, which I am hopeful our colleagues will support.

We have enjoyed a few days off to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday, the centerpiece of which is, of course, the great meal with family and friends. It is fitting at the wake of that, that we gather to deal with the issue of food safety, a bill that is intended to help ensure the safety of the food we feed our families and loved ones each and every day in this country.

One of the great things about being in this country is that every day we consume products with a sense of security that what we are ingesting or using is not going to cause us any great harm or put our lives in jeopardy. So it is important, particularly when you deal today with the processing of food that occurs, that reassurance, that sense of security that all Americans would like to have is going to be guaranteed to the maximum extent possible. Never perfect, obviously. None of us can engage in casting or creating ideas or legislation that is designed to produce perfection. But we have come close with this bill to providing that sense of security that all Americans deserve.

Before I speak about the substance of the bill, I want to take a moment to highlight the collaborative process that characterizes the construction of this bill. The bill is a bipartisan effort on the part of Senators Harkin, Enzi, Durbin, Gregg, Burr, and myself, along with 14 of our colleagues in this

Chamber and is designed to strengthen the country's ability to address and hopefully prevent foodborne illnesses.

I realize the bipartisan road is not always easy to follow, but I can confidently say when we approach legislation in this manner we often end up with a better, stronger, and more responsive law in the end. I think this bill is an example of that. It was not always easy. We had our differences, obviously, but we overcame them in an effort to respond to an issue that impacts all Americans regardless of political affiliation and economic circumstance; that is, again, foodborne illnesses.

This collaborative process is not limited to Members and staff. I am including outside advocates and organizations. In fact, an impressive range of constituent groups, including the Consumers Union and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, have provided valuable input in support during this process. Looking at the list of groups which support this bill says a great deal about the product itself. It says we cannot afford to ignore the topic of food safety any longer. It says our industries and consumers want to see good consistent policy in place to help prevent, and when they do occur, address these illnesses.

We have all heard the statistics. On average, 76 million Americans are sickened each year, and 5,000 die each year because of foodborne illnesses. But these are not just numbers. These are the lives of our fellow citizens in every region and economic group in the Nation. As the recall of a half billion eggs this summer due to Salmonella contamination has shown, foodborne illness is something that can impact a significant portion of our population at any given time.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1,800 people became ill due to these contaminated eggs. Let's not forget that the most vulnerable of our population suffer the most when stricken with foodborne illnesses, especially children.

One such life significantly impacted by a strain of E. coli was a constituent of mine in Wilton, CT. She survived the contaminated lettuce she consumed, but her life has been changed as a result.

There is a lot in this bill we can be proud of. I want to focus on one particular area that I have a concern with and have been involved in for years and years--it is food allergies.

Long before I had a family of my own, I got involved in the issue. But with the arrival of my first child, Grace, in 2001, we discovered shortly thereafter that she had serious food allergies. She had been in anaphylactic shock four or five times by the time she was 4 or 5. This is a great concern to her parents, obviously, as it is for millions of people in this country. Twelve million of our fellow citizens have food allergies, many with life-threatening ones, and we are watching the numbers grow.

According to those who keep these statistics, from 1997 to 2007 the prevalence of food allergies among children increased by 18 percent. Today, approximately 3 million children in the United States are suffering from one kind of food allergy or another. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, they now rank third among chronic diseases in children under the age of 18. Peanuts are among the several allergenic foods that can produce life- threatening allergic reactions in children.

With this bill, what we have done here, is to develop a voluntary food allergy management guideline for preventing exposure to food allergens and ensuring a prompt response when a child suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. It also provides for school- based food allergy management incentive grants to local educational agencies to assist with the adoption and implementation of food allergy management guidelines in grades K through 12.

My State of Connecticut is one of eight that has already done this on their own. But a lot of other States, obviously, 42 have not. This bill voluntarily provides small amounts of grant money to States to help them develop these procedures that will minimize the kind of dangers that occur to children when they are exposed to food that can cause them life-threatening diseases and illness.

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for regulating 80 percent of the Nation's food supply. But for too long, the FDA has lacked the resources and authorities necessary to adequately protect our food. This bill recognizes we cannot underfund this critical agency and gives the FDA the tools necessary to protect our food and our health.

In fact this bill establishes, for the first time, a mandatory inspection schedule, which was a priority for many who worked so tirelessly on food safety. Under the provisions of S. 510 the number of inspections conducted by the FDA will increase from 7,400 in 2009 to nearly 50,000 in 2015. Mr. President, we need these inspections. We need to pass this bill.

I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize the importance of passing the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Because every family sitting down to dinner tonight deserves to know that all reasonable measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the food they are eating. It's time we put politics aside for the sake of America's families and get this bill passed.

I want to comment quickly, before my time expires, on the comments of my good friend from Georgia who just spoke, Saxby Chambliss. This was a difficult bill to put together. I commend my colleague from Montana, Jon Tester, who represents an awful lot of small farmers, small food processors.

Putting this bill together required compromise. It is what we do in this Chamber every single day, and so had we not included the Tester language in this bill I think we would have had a hard time passing the legislation. The argument would have been: Well, you have included the small truck farmers who, frankly, cannot subject themselves to the kind of rules that large produces of food can, and we would have put the whole bill in jeopardy.

By adopting the modified Tester language, we have made it possible for this bill to become law. So I commend my fellow Senator from Montana for his work. I commend Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee, for bringing this all together to the point where, despite all of the allegations that this body cannot come to a common agreement on a matter as important as this one is wrong. We can when we work at it, and we have done so with this bill.

I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this very important and historic piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Monica Anatalio, a detailee to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, be granted floor privileges for the reminder of this session.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a critically important bill to guarantee women equal pay for equal work. I am proud to lead the effort in the Senate to pass this legislation, which my dear friend and colleague Rosa DeLauro has already shepherded through the House of Representatives.

I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering this commonsense legislation and am grateful to the majority leader for his strong support and his recognition of how important this bill is to American families.

Americans must be assured of equity in the workplace. Unfortunately, the fundamental principle of equal pay for equal work has yet to be realized in this country. In my view, it is high time that Congress step in to remedy this injustice.

Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act over 40 years ago, which was intended to ensure that women are paid the same as their male counterparts, a large wage gap still persists. Women are paid, on average, just 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. To put it another way, the pay gap means that the average woman is paid more than $10,000 less per year than she deserves. The gap is even larger in the African American and Hispanic communities, with black women earning 70 cents and Hispanic women earning merely 67 cents for every dollar a man earns. In my view, it is an outrage that in the year 2010 we are still not treating women as equals in the workplace.

Even a college education doesn't suffice to correct this inequality. In my home State of Connecticut, the median wage for a woman with a bachelor's degree is $55,000--which puts her on par with a man who only has a high school diploma. This wage gap means that, cumulatively, a working woman will be shortchanged by $400,000 to $2 million over her lifetime in lost wages, pensions, and Social Security benefits.

Now, some will argue that the wage gap is a product of the choices women make, such as what they study in college, what field they pursue careers in, and whether to take time off to raise their children. But study after study has corrected for every possible variable, and still has found that only part of the wage gap can be explained by measurable factors. The rest of the gap is a result of discrimination in the workplace. One study compared men and women who had pursued the same majors, attended equally good schools, and were entering the same industry, and found that women are already paid less than these identically qualified men just one year out of college.

This is not just a matter of fairness but of economic necessity. Every dollar that women are shortchanged means a dollar less spent in her community, to take care of her family. The problem is particularly acute during the current economic recession, in which women are increasingly the primary or sole breadwinners for their families. Since the recession began, approximately 70 percent of jobs lost were jobs that had been held by men. In the typical married-couple family, this translates into forcing the family to survive on just 42 percent of its former income. This means families have less money to spend on everything--groceries, going out to eat, new school clothes, home and car repairs--all of which means less money going into our local economies. Paying women fairly is not just the right thing to do, it is also an immediate economic boost.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would finally give women tools strong enough

to end wage discrimination. It provides a long-overdue update to the Equal Pay Act, which has not been amended since it was signed into law by President Kennedy in 1963. I would add to my colleagues who may be undecided on whether to support the upcoming cloture vote--it has been forty-seven years since the Equal Pay Act was enacted. If we fail to pass this critically important legislation now, there may not be another opportunity to do so for a decade or more.

The Paycheck Fairness Act improves on the Equal Pay Act by toughening penalties for pay discrimination. It puts gender-based discrimination on equal footing with discrimination based on race or ethnicity by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. It closes a significant loophole in the Equal Pay Act that for too long has allowed to justify unequal pay without a legitimate business need. It prohibits employers from punishing whistleblowers. Furthermore, it will require better data collection by the Department of Labor and Equal Opportunity Commission and set up training programs to help women learn more effective salary negotiation skills.

To continue our economic recovery, I believe that we must not only work to create jobs. We must also ensure that those jobs are good jobs. Making sure that all workers are confident that they are being treated and compensated fairly is critical to that goal.

This bill will ensure that workers are paid what they deserve and will provide them with security and fairness in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a friend and former colleague, former Senator Ted Stevens, who passed away this August in a plane crash. I know that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say how difficult it was to receive news of Ted's passing this summer, and I would like to take this moment to convey my heartfelt condolences to everyone who knew, worked with, and enjoyed Ted during his life.

I believe that Ted will long be remembered as a man of the Senate. First appointed to his seat more than four decades ago, Ted Stevens became the longest-serving Republican in the history of this body in 2007. Throughout his tenure in Washington, Ted served in a number of key leadership positions, including as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and as President pro tempore.

Over the years, I had the pleasure of being able to collaborate with Ted on a number of critically important issues, including, perhaps most recently, legislation that I introduced during the 110th Congress to provide paid leave to workers under the auspices of the Family and Medical Leave Act. And while Ted and I did not substantively agree on much, he didn't shy away from reaching out across the partisan divide to get things done. In fact, it was his willingness to work with Democrats--to seek out common ground and compromise on areas of contention when necessary--that made him such a prolific, effective, and well-respected member of this body.

The incredibly strong bonds Ted forged with his colleagues over the years were in full display at his memorial service in Alaska over the summer. I made the trip up north to attend his funeral, and I found it incredibly moving to hear the words of Ted's longtime friend, my colleague Senator Inouye, who delivered Ted's eulogy, and our Vice President Joe Biden, who also made some remarks during the service. Clearly, this was a person who left not only an indelible mark on the Senate as a body, but on many of the individual Senators who had the opportunity to serve with him over the years.

That was certainly the case for me. Years ago, Ted Stevens and I participated in the U.S.-Canadian interparliamentary meeting together. It was one of the most enjoyable 4 days I spent in my 30 years in the Senate for one simple reason--in addition to all his substantive talents, Ted Stevens was great fun--he loved his family, Alaska, his country and his friends.

And on that last point, while it is true that Ted was a creature of the Senate, I believe Ted Stevens will be remembered far into the future first and foremost as a man of Alaska. Ted truly loved his home State, and over the years, he cultivated a strong reputation as one of its greatest champions.

Indeed, Ted's own life was inextricably linked to many of the major events and advancements that occurred in Alaska's history over the past half century. Having served with distinction in World War II as a pilot for the U.S. Army Air Corps in Asia, Ted graduated from Harvard Law School in 1950 and moved to Fairbanks to practice law. Several years later, Ted was brought on to work for the Interior Department under President Eisenhower. In that capacity, Ted advocated very persistently for Alaskan statehood, finally helping make that goal a reality in 1959. Later on, as a Senator, Ted once again worked hard on behalf of his State, its people and interests, fighting to direct federal resources to that vast, sparsely populated, and incredibly beautiful corner of our country.

Ted viewed himself as Alaska's chief advocate here in Washington, and throughout his four decades in the Senate, he never deviated from that mission. Known by many of the Alaskans he helped over the years simply as ``Uncle Ted,'' Ted Stevens was singularly devoted to serving his constituents and ensuring their needs and concerns were given a voice on Capitol Hill. And it is that level of dedication to the people who sent him here to represent their interests that will ultimately be Ted Stevens' greatest legacy.

Once again, I would like to express my sincere condolences to Ted's wife Catherine; his children Susan, Elizabeth, Walter, Theodore, Ben, and Lily; and his 11 grandchildren. And I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ted for his years of tireless and selfless service on behalf of his State and country.

I thank my colleague. I am pleased to join my good friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, in this effort. Five years ago, we stood on this floor discussing the risks, costs, and toll of premature birth. Following three decades of increases, in 2008, the Nation achieved the first 2-year decline in the preterm birth rate to 12.3 percent. This rate is still too far from the Healthy People 2010 goal of 7.6 percent and our Nation earns only a ``D'' on the March of Dimes annual prematurity report card. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in an average week in Connecticut, 84 babies are born preterm. More than half a million babies still are born preterm each year, a serious health problem that costs the United States more than $26 billion annually, according to the Institute of Medicine. I believe that the recent 2-year nationwide decline, albeit small, is encouraging and this should be the beginning of a positive trend. The recent developments must be supported by access to better health care, new research and new programs to lower the risk of preterm birth.

This is why the Senator from Tennessee and I have introduced the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers Who Deliver Infants Early Act. This important bill expands research into the causes and prevention of prematurity and increases education and support services related to prematurity. The March of Dimes has been an important partner through its leadership of a national prematurity campaign, but they cannot combat this serious and costly public health crisis alone. The Federal Government must partner with them to increase research on the causes of preterm birth. I hope more of my colleagues will join us in supporting this important bill.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to John Kluge, a very close friend of mine who passed away on September 7, 2010, at the age of 95. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt condolences to his wife Maria; his children John and Samantha; and his stepchildren Joseph, Diane, Jeannette, and Peter. For all of us who had the privilege of getting to know him, this is a tremendous loss.

It is no exaggeration to say that John led a truly remarkable life. Having made a substantial fortune from a communications empire that included everything from television and radio stations to mobile phones and the Harlem Globetrotters, John regularly graced Forbes magazine's annual list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.

But John was not born with the proverbial ``silver spoon'' in his mouth. He didn't inherit his wealth. John Kluge built his company, Metromedia, on his own, through nothing more than hard work, spot-on business instincts and, as John himself often freely admitted, a little bit of good luck.

Indeed, John's life reads like a pitch-perfect version of a classic American success story--a potent reminder of what individuals can accomplish with dedication, tenacity, and a healthy dose of self- confidence and optimism.

Born in Chemnitz, Germany, in 1914, John moved with his family to Detroit in 1922 and took his first job as a payroll clerk for his stepfather's business when he was just 10. From a very early age, John was driven to make the most of the educational opportunities available to him. During his teenage years, when his stepfather asked him to drop out of school so he could work full time at the family business, John instead opted to leave home and live with his typing teacher so he could continue his education.

That decision ultimately paid off. During his high school years, John worked extremely hard to get good grades and eventually won a scholarship to college, later graduating from Columbia University with a degree in economics.

In the 1950s, following a brief stint working for a Michigan paper company and several years of service in the U.S. Army during World War II, John started purchasing radio stations throughout the country. By the time he founded Metromedia, the country's first major independent broadcasting company, in 1961, he had already made a small fortune from his radio stations and a regional food distribution business he founded in Baltimore. When he sold Metromedia two decades later, John increased his net worth even more substantially, making nearly $4.7 billion in the process.

Clearly, it would have been incredibly easy for John to have simply taken his money ``. . . and joined the country club and gotten into this pattern of complaining about the world and about the tax law,'' as he once put it in an interview for the New York Times. But John Kluge never had any desire to spend the rest of his life sitting around and frittering away his wealth. He placed a tremendous amount of value on a hard, honest day's work. And it was the sense of fulfillment he derived from his own work that ultimately served as the driving force behind his numerous accomplishments.

Indeed, John Kluge was the consummate workhorse. More inclined to avoid the trappings of fame and recognition than many contemporary corporate executives, John never retained a public relations staff. He was content to work behind the scenes, building his telecommunications empire and cementing his position as one of America's most gifted business strategists with little fanfare.

But John was much more than a talented entrepreneur who rose from humble beginnings to strike it rich. In large part, I believe, because he was not born into a life of privilege, John was absolutely committed to putting his largesse to work for others. He was a prolific philanthropist, and among the many worthy causes and organizations that benefitted from his generosity over the years, the presence of John's contributions can probably be most clearly felt at his alma mater, Columbia.

Throughout his life, John donated substantial sums of money to Columbia, primarily to fund scholarships for underprivileged and minority students. But in 2007, John surprised everyone when he pledged that, upon his death, the university would receive a gift of $400 million from his estate. To provide a sense of scale here, that single gift is the largest Columbia has ever received, and by far the largest ever given to an institution of higher learning specifically to help students afford tuition.

And that is exactly the way I think John would have wanted to be remembered as an individual who used his good fortune to make sure others would be able to benefit from the same opportunities he had growing up. As someone who worked to ensure that bright, hard working students from low-income families who were accepted to one of the country's most prestigious universities would be able to make the most of their college educations. As someone who gave back to the people and institutions that helped make his meteoric rise in the corporate world possible.

For my part, I will certainly remember John Kluge for his uncanny business acumen and singular dedication to philanthropy. But at the end of the day, I will also recall John as a wonderful, dear friend who was always a pleasure to be around.

You see, in spite of everything, John never let his wealth or position in life get to his head. During the time that I knew him, John was always an extremely kind, good-natured, and genuinely fun person. He was always accessible and easy to talk to, and I will miss his company immensely.

And so it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to say goodbye to such a special individual. Once again, I would like to extend my sincere condolences to his loving family and to all those individuals who, like me, were so lucky to have John in their lives.

Mr. President, today I recognize the accomplishments of Colonel Richard Root, of the U.S. Army, who was recently promoted from the rank of lieutenant colonel. Until his recent transfer to the highly competitive Senior Service College, Colonel Root worked for more than 3 years in the Army's Legislative Affairs Office as a Senate liaison officer. I had the pleasure of working with Colonel Root frequently during that time, and was therefore proud to be able to join my colleague and good friend Senator Corker in hosting his promotion ceremony in the Capitol. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Colonel Root and his family for this well-deserved recognition.

For more than 21 years, including 3 in combat, Colonel Root has been faithfully serving our Nation as a member of the Armed Forces. Beginning in 1989, when he was commissioned as a field artillery lieutenant, Colonel Root's assignments have taken him around the country and the world, including several deployments during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and, more recently, during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Throughout his more than two decades in the Army, Colonel Root has been recognized on a number of occasions for his superior service and valor, receiving, among other decorations, the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Air Assault Badge, Army Staff Badge, and Combat Action Badge.

Most recently, in his role as a liaison officer to the U.S. Senate, Colonel Root once again distinguished himself, developing outstanding relationships with Senators and staff members alike. During his 3 years of service in the Office of Legislative Affairs, Colonel Root escorted 40 congressional and staff delegations, accompanying Members to more than 50 countries, including active combat theaters.

I myself travelled with Colonel Root on a number of occasions during his time in the Senate, and was always extremely impressed by his close attention to detail, flexibility, and unflinching dedication to his work. I know many of my colleagues felt the same way, and it is therefore no surprise that Colonel Root was often requested by name to help assist in the planning and coordination of congressional fact- finding and oversight delegations.

And so, once again, it is a great honor to be able to congratulate Colonel Root today on this seminal achievement. His unwavering commitment to serving his country as a professional soldier in the Army is truly laudable, and I would like to extend my sincere thanks to him for his years of service. Colonel Root, and all of the men and women of our Armed Forces, are an indispensable asset to this country, and I hope my colleagues will join me today in honoring this top-notch soldier and dear friend, and wonderful human being.

Mr. President, I express my gratitude to my friend and colleague from Iowa and his terrific work. He, along with so many others, brought us to the point that has defied administrations and Congresses for more than half a century. Together, we were finally able to expand access, try to stabilize costs, and increase the quality of health care. It is no easy task. These efforts, obviously, consumed a great amount of this Congress's time and attention.

Despite the rigid opposition of those opposed to these changes, without an alternative ever being offered, for the first time the American people can look forward in the years to come to having increased access to health care, improved quality, in my view, but also stabilizing costs. Without these changes, we would put our great economy in this country at significant risk, beyond the other problems we are grappling with today.

I say respectfully--because my friend from Wyoming knows he and I have worked together on many issues over my tenure and his--it is with a deep sense of respect for him that I rise today in opposition to what his resolution would attempt to achieve and to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Harkin, Senator Baucus, and others who worked day to day, along with their staffs, to achieve this health care reform package.

We are told health reform is not popular. I listened to one of my colleagues give a presentation that this is not terribly popular in the polls, as if somehow that is going to determine whether what we are doing is right or wrong.

I recall 1948, the Marshall Plan. If popularity in the polls had been the deciding factor as to whether we passed the Marshall Plan, it would have failed miserably. About 17 percent of Americans thought we should rebuild Europe. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act--I can guarantee to this day there were those who said this was not a terribly popular idea. I am not sure how it would fare in certain quarters. I do not think anybody in this Chamber would disagree we are a better country today because of what we did in the Marshall Plan, what we did with the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and others.

I think it is disturbing that we ought to determine the outcome of trying to make America achieve its great potential by the results of polling data. I know that has become the standard some people use. It ought not be the standard by which the Senate determines its course of action.

Health reform is the culmination of more than a half century--in fact, arguably going back to Teddy Roosevelt's day, almost a century ago--a struggle by Democrats, Republicans, and Congresses to try and get to a point where we can get our arms around this very important issue. At long last, we set ourselves on a course to manage this issue.

At the center of that struggle was the question: Who would control a person's health care? On this issue there seems to be unanimity. I think all of us would like individuals and their health care providers to be in control when it comes to deciding what a person's health care coverage would be, and not the insurance industry that has a history of abusing those who fall ill and need coverage.

Just 6 months ago, we answered this question definitively. Americans should be able to control their own health care, and the insurance industry should not. This resolution before us today would take us backwards once again on that fundamental, underlying question at the heart of the long debate that consumed this Congress: Who would control whether a person had good health care, the insurance industry or the individual, their family, and their providers?

The law we passed phases in many new protections over several years protecting Americans' rights while ensuring stability of the health care system.

Just last Thursday on the 6-month anniversary of the passage of the health care reform bill, many consumer protections came into effect making up what we call the Patients' Bill of Rights.

This Patients' Bill of Rights, which my colleagues and I fought so very hard to include in our final bill, provides that sense of security to people across the Nation and in each of our respective States by prohibiting the worst of the insurance companies' abuses and practices. These abuses went on year in and year out, disadvantaging average citizens in our country. As a result of that bill of rights we adopted in our health care reform bill and as a result of last Thursday, the following rights became the law of this land:

All insurance plans must end lifetime limits on coverage. How long have we heard that debate and how important is it today that protection exists?

All insurance plans must stop canceling coverage when you get sick. How many of my colleagues at townhall meetings heard the frustrations expressed by our constituents that just when they needed the coverage the most, they would be dropped by the insurance industry?

And, today, parents who have adult children but under the age of 26 know they can carry those kids on their plan. How many families, because of the economy we are in with high unemployment, particularly among younger people, go through sleepless nights worrying about their children who have been dropped from their plans, knowing they are struggling to get on their feet? The law today protects those families and those young adults.

New insurance plans must offer additional benefits and protections to consumers under our bill such as preventive services--which Senator Harkin championed day in and day out to be included as part of this bill--covered with no cost sharing, an increased choice of providers, and no prior authorization requirement for emergency care. Those protections benefit millions of people across this country.

If they knew what was at stake with this kind of a resolution, which can throw these back and change these plans in such a way, I suspect those using polling numbers to identify a reason for being for this resolution or against the health care bill might have second thoughts. When we began to debate the health care reform bill, the President of the United States made clear that part of having control of one's health care was having the right to keep what you have. We enshrined that in the bill during the HELP Committee markup, the Finance Committee markup, and the Senate debate on this bill.

No matter how important we thought those protections were, we said you can keep what you have, if that is what you want. But this was not carte blanche for the insurance industry to ignore the new law and continue abusive practices that have been in place for too long. They can continue their old plans as long as they did not dramatically increase the cost to their customers.

It made no significant negative changes to the coverage consumers were paying for. In other words, you can keep what you have. But if the insurance companies try to take away what you have, the law will protect you. In the parlance of Washington, this is called grandfathering.

To clarify to businesses, insurers, and all Americans what this meant in practice, the administration released a regulation on June 17. This regulation strikes an important balance of keeping our businesses strong while ensuring that employees and their families are able to weather difficult economic times, such as the ones we are in.

Under the regulation adopted on June 17, grandfathered plans are not required to offer the additional benefits included in the Patients' Bill of Rights. I wish they were, but they are not. The grandfather regulation provides insurers and businesses flexibility to continue to innovate and to grow and still maintain their status.

Businesses' health plans will not lose their grandfather status unless significant changes are made to policies which unduly burden employees and average American families.

For example, if a health plan increases co-payment charges for a working mother in Hartford, CT, as has been pointed out by Senator Harkin, by more than 15 percentage points, it will lose the grandfather status. Or if a health care plan significantly reduces benefits for a family in New Haven, CT, it loses its grandfather status, as it should.

These are not unreasonable requirements as we strive to protect average families in our country.

My colleague from Wyoming and I disagree about this new law. We sat together day in and day out during those long markup periods. He is a good man, a good Senator, and a good friend. But I disagree with him strongly on this resolution. In my view, he wrongly claims this repeal would benefit small businesses. I say today that adopting this resolution would not only hurt small businesses but also roll back the important consumer protections that ended some of the worst insurance industry abuses across our country.

If we repeal the grandfather regulations, we will harm small businesses and their employees because nothing would protect them from the insurance companies raising premiums by double digits each year, without offering any new and better benefits to the very people who would suffer.

Nothing would protect them from insurance companies deciding to drop benefits or price them out of reach for these very employees.

This resolution would not guarantee the right to keep what you have. What this resolution does guarantee is that the insurance industry can decide what you are going to get from them--not what you want. That is the fundamental difference if we adopt this resolution.

Health reform changed that by handing control, as we all agreed on, back to you and your family. If we adopt this resolution we fundamentally shift that equation once again. In order to help small businesses more easily provide coverage to their workers and make premiums more affordable, the law provides tax credits for that coverage. In Connecticut alone, there are 54,000 small businesses that will benefit from these tax credits. This is just the first step toward bringing health care costs down, as we all want, and ensuring quality care, as we all want as well, for coverage of average Americans and their providers.

This resolution is not about small businesses and harming them. This is another effort to dismantle health reform, and I believe it is fundamentally wrong for thousands of small businesses and employees across the country. It is a gift to the insurance industry, which all of us agree should no longer be the ones to decide what you get based on what they want to charge you, but whether you have insurance and confidence you are going to get for your family what you need not what they decide you get.

For those reasons, I strongly oppose this resolution and hope my colleagues will join us in that effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to mark the passing and honor the service of Army soldier, PFC Gebrah Noonan of Watertown, CT.

Private First Class Noonan died in Fallujah, Iraq, on September 24. He was a member of the Headquarters Company of the Third Infantry Division stationed out of Fort Stewart, GA. His company had deployed to Iraq in July and Gebrah was eager for the opportunity to serve his country-something he had always wanted to do.

Gebrah Noonan graduated from Watertown High School in 2002, where he is fondly remembered by friends for having a larger than life personality, a smile on his face and a joke to share. His humor and wit earned him the title of class clown his senior year. Gebrah loved life and was an avid Yankees fan, but even more so a Michael Jackson enthusiast. He even dressed up like Michael Jackson during School Spirit Days.

Private First Class Noonan was always outspoken about his love of country. He enlisted in the Army last October because he felt it was an opportunity to serve his country as well as an opportunity for self- improvement. Private First Class Noonan's Army recruiter remembered him as a committed soldier who also brought his fun personality to everything he did. He truly had an infectious smile.

Private First Class Noonan leaves behind a family that has supported him through every part of his young life. Our thoughts and prayers are with his parents William and Ling Noonan, as well as his brothers and sister. There are no words to express the debt of

gratitude we owe to Gebrah and his family. PFC Gebrah Noonan's selflessness and sacrifice will not be forgotten by those of us who mourn his tragic loss.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act to create a safe environment for students and school personnel by creating minimum standards around the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In December, I introduced a similar bill. But today, I come to the floor with my good friend and colleague Senator Burr, with a revised act that incorporates additional protections for students.

In 1998, the Hartford Courant ran an award-winning series of stories about the use of seclusion and restraint in hospitals, residential facilities, and group homes for individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities. The Courant uncovered a hidden epidemic, confirming 142 deaths occurring during or after the use of seclusion or restraint.

One of those 142 cases was an 11-year-old boy from my home State of Connecticut. He was restrained face-down in a position that restricted his air flow. He died as a result.

In response, I led the charge to establish Federal standards to prevent the misuse of these practices. I helped pass The Children's Health Act of 2000, which included the Compassionate Care Act that I originally drafted to put these standards in place in certain hospitals and residential facilities. We

wanted to include schools in this legislation, but were unable to do so. Sadly, the need could not have been greater.

Over the past year, reports from the National Disability Rights Network, NDRN, the Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions, and Seclusion, APRAIS, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., COPAA, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have painted a picture disturbingly similar to the one the Hartford Courant discovered more than a decade ago.

The statistics are chilling--hundreds of incidents of physical injury, psychological trauma, even death--but the stories are even more devastating.

The GAO found many examples of the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint in the report it released on May 19, 2009.

A 14 year-old boy was restrained face-down by a teacher because he would not stay seated in class. The 230 lb. teacher sat on the 129 lb. boy, restricting his airflow and resulting in the boy's death.

A 4 year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism was restrained in a wooden chair with leather straps for being ``uncooperative.''

In one school district, children with disabilities as young as six years old were allegedly placed in strangleholds, restrained for extended periods of time, confined to dark rooms, and tethered to ropes and prevented from using the restroom until they urinated on themselves.

To be clear, school personnel go to work every day with the goal of educating children, not harming them. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the difficult job they do and want to make it clear that my concern signifies no disrespect for their challenging jobs, or the dangers they sometimes face.

However, these tragic stories reflect inadequate training and a lack of resources on the state and local levels to implement effective interventions, such as school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. According to a report by COPPA, over 71 percent of the 185 incidents they identified occurred in schools with no positive behavioral interventions or supports. If school personnel are provided with the necessary tools to prevent dangerous situations, the number of incidents requiring restraint and seclusion will decrease.

Just as students have a right to learn in a safe environment, educators have a right to work in a safe environment. They should be provided with the proper training and support to prevent injury to themselves and others.

In some states, parents have successfully advocated for laws that provide these resources, as well as guidelines to ensure that they are used effectively.

But the patchwork of state laws and regulations is confusing and especially troublesome for transient students.

According to the GAO study, 19 states have no law or regulations concerning seclusion and restraint in schools. Some laws apply to only certain schools or situations, and some apply to restraint but not seclusion. Only 19 states require parental notification, only 17 states require staff training, and only eight specifically prohibit restraints that restrict air flow.

Therefore, Senator Burr and I will today introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act, a bill that will address these issues.

Our bill will establish clear minimum standards for the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, closely based on the Children's Health Act of 2000. It will also provide resources to assist with policy implementation and provide school personnel with necessary tools, training, and support.

It will improve data collection, analysis, and identification of effective practices to prevent and reduce seclusion and restraint in schools, so we may better understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of our solutions.

Specifically, the legislation will prohibit the use of seclusion and restraint in schools unless a student's behavior poses an immediate danger of serious physical injury and less restrictive interventions would be ineffective.

It will prohibit the use of mechanical, chemical, and physical restraints that restrict air flow to the lungs.

This legislation will require adequate training and state certification of school personnel imposing seclusion or restraint, immediate parental notification when such an incident occurs, and a debriefing session to prevent future incidents.

As a result of this act, the Department of Education will conduct, and provide to Congress, a national assessment that analyzes data on seclusion and restraint and determines effective practices in preventing and reducing the number of incidents. This assessment will provide us with a more accurate picture of the extent of seclusion and restraint in schools, and will help direct additional future efforts to ensure that our children and those who educate them are safe.

The Keeping All Students Safe Act includes language that solidifies Protection and Advocacy agencies', P&A, abilities to serve the students who are in need of protection. This legislation is meant to ensure that these P&As are spending their time and resources protecting our Nation's children in schools, and not in court about this already settled issue.

Finally, this legislation will amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as the Higher Education Act, to provide additional planning for and training on the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports.

I want to thank the many organizations representing individuals with disabilities, students, teachers, and schools that all came to the table with recommendations. Their time, energy, and input made this a much stronger and more effective bill, and I truly appreciate their hard work and support. I am especially thankful for Senator Burr's commitment to this issue and his insights that have strengthened the bill. I am also grateful to Secretary Duncan for his leadership on this issue at the Department of Education. Finally, I want to thank my colleague and good friend, Chairman George Miller in the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, he introduced companion legislation that passed the House in March. Senator Burr and I look forward to working with him to pass this into law.

Every child has a right to be safe in the place where he or she goes to learn and grow. Every educator deserves the training and support he or she needs to do his or her job safely and effectively. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will help to prevent tragedies in our schools. I am proud to introduce it today, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue that affects many Americans, and that is premature births. More than half a million babies will be born preterm this year and approximately 28,000 babies will die before they turn 1 year old.

In my home State of Connecticut, there were more than 4,000 preterm births in 2007, representing approximately 11 percent of all live births in the State. Between 1997 and 2007, the rate of infants born preterm in Connecticut increased 3 percent.

The incidence of preterm birth represents a huge disconnect between our scientific knowledge and our capacity to meet basic and critical needs in maternal-child health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, babies who died from preterm birth-related causes accounted for more than 36 percent of infant deaths in 2006. For newborns, prematurity is the leading cause of death.

Of the surviving preemies, approximately one-fourth will have serious health complications including hearing loss, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, acute respiratory diseases, and other maladies. These health problems not only affect the child, but also place a financial and emotional burden on many families. According to the Institute of Medicine, the annual societal costs associated with preterm birth were $26.2 billion in 2005 or $51,600 per infant born preterm. Nearly two-thirds of this cost was for medical care. More importantly, the $26.2 billion estimate does not include the cost of medical care beyond early childhood or caretaker costs such as lost wages.

In nearly half of all cases, physicians and scientists cannot pinpoint a cause for preterm labor and delivery. However, research has shown that causes of preterm birth may include neighborhood characteristics, environmental exposures, biological factors, and medical conditions. Many of these factors can occur in combination, particularly for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority groups. Accordingly, there are significant disparities in the rates of preterm birth across these groups, with the highest rate of preterm births for non-Hispanic African Americans at 17.5 percent in 2008, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. It is clear that a greater commitment to eliminating these inequalities is needed. As the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' Subcommittee on Children and Families, ensuring the health of America's children has been my life's work, making the correction of these inequalities an issue of great importance.

In 2006, my colleague Senator Alexander and I worked to pass the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act or PREEMIE Act, Public Law 109-450, which authorized finding to enhance Federal research related to preterm labor and delivery and increased public and provider education and support services. Among the results of the PREEMIE Act were the 2008 Surgeon General's Conference on Preterm Birth and expanded research activities at CDC. The most notable accomplishment to date is a 3 percent decline in the preterm birth rate from 2007 to 2008. But there is still much work to be done. We must build on the progress recently achieved and use both public and private efforts to accelerate this decrease in the rate of preterm birth.

For these reasons, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee to introduce the PREEMIE Act to reauthorize these vital activities. It is my hope that this legislation will complement many of the efforts being conducted by the private sector, such as the March of Dimes campaign to raise public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm births. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting a healthy start for America's children by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, I rise today to introduce the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Sherrod Brown. This legislation provides an excellent opportunity to address a critical disparity that exists in our Nation's health care system.

Individuals with disabilities can face a myriad of challenges in accessing the health care they need and deserve. Such was the case for Debbie Blanchard, a woman who lived with Spina Bifida for nearly 56 years, and who passed away in August 2008 from cervical cancer. Due to the challenges she faced in finding a physician whose office and examination tables were accessible for individuals with disabilities, Debbie was not able to seek regular well-woman exams, including cervical cancer screenings. The barriers Debbie faced in physically accessing the regular preventive care she needed unfortunately contributed to her cervical cancer going undetected until it was too late. The lack of accessible care clearly contributed to her untimely death.

The Spina Bifida community is devastated by Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing, and we in the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus wish to help ensure that the challenges and barriers that contributed to her illness and death are eliminated. To that end, we have developed the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act in an effort to help facilitate access to health care by individuals with disabilities, including, but not limited to, those with Spina Bifida, and help them to identify providers whose offices and examination rooms are accessible for individuals with disabilities.

Before I discuss the details of this bill, I believe it is important to recognize the scope of the problem we are dealing with. According to the U.S. Census, more than 54 million Americans, about one out of every five, live with some level of disability. Approximately 34 million of those are classified as having a severe disability. In Connecticut, more than 540,000 individuals are living with some level of disability. Of those individuals, close to 22,000 have physical disabilities.

Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that individuals with disabilities have difficulty in accessing routine and specialized health care. Numerous barriers exist for these patients, including the inability to find a health care provider who understands how to treat individuals with disabilities and is willing to have those individuals as patients. According to a survey commissioned by the National Organization on Disability, 19 percent of persons with disabilities reported they needed medical care within the previous year and did not get it. This is a number more than three times the percentage for those without disabilities.

Women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. A study by the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities showed that nearly one- third of women with disabilities surveyed reported being denied services at a physician's office solely because of their disability, and 56 percent described their physicians' offices and hospitals as ill-prepared to accommodate their specific needs. Research by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research shows that women with disabilities are less likely to have Pap smears and mammograms and are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of breast cancer. These women are less likely to receive standard treatments and more likely to have poor outcomes.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-l48, includes an important component to establish standards for medical diagnostic equipment such as examination tables and chairs to improve access to health care for individuals with disabilities and I applaud Senator Harkin for his leadership on that provision. As such, the legislation I propose today seeks to complement existing programs and other pending proposals. The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would empower individuals with disabilities with the information and tools they need to identify accessible providers. It would also increase awareness among health professionals of the need to provide an accessible environment. The bill provides for four key programs to achieve these goals.

First, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide formula-based grants to States to create on-line directories of health care providers accessible to individuals with disabilities. States would not be required to engage in this activity, and the grants are strictly voluntary.

Second, it authorizes HHS to develop a pilot program to increase health care provider awareness of the need to provide accessible environments, examination rooms, and examination tables for individuals with disabilities.

Third, it authorizes the HHS Office on Disability, with the help of national organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to develop resources to support individuals with disabilities in their efforts to find accessible providers. Such resources include ``tips cards'' and questions to ask when calling a provider for the first time to make an appointment.

Finally, the bill authorizes HHS to create a National Advisory Committee on Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities to ensure intra-agency coordination of efforts to improve access to care for individuals with disabilities.

The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would be a significant step in ensuring health care equity for the more than 50 million Americans who live with a disability. Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing should serve as a lesson on the barriers that exist for individuals with disabilities in accessing basic quality health care. We should take action to ensure that these barriers are eliminated to prevent Debbie's story from being repeated. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act to create a safe environment for students and school personnel by creating minimum standards around the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In December, I introduced a similar bill. But today, I come to the floor with my good friend and colleague Senator Burr, with a revised act that incorporates additional protections for students.

In 1998, the Hartford Courant ran an award-winning series of stories about the use of seclusion and restraint in hospitals, residential facilities, and group homes for individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities. The Courant uncovered a hidden epidemic, confirming 142 deaths occurring during or after the use of seclusion or restraint.

One of those 142 cases was an 11-year-old boy from my home State of Connecticut. He was restrained face-down in a position that restricted his air flow. He died as a result.

In response, I led the charge to establish Federal standards to prevent the misuse of these practices. I helped pass The Children's Health Act of 2000, which included the Compassionate Care Act that I originally drafted to put these standards in place in certain hospitals and residential facilities. We

wanted to include schools in this legislation, but were unable to do so. Sadly, the need could not have been greater.

Over the past year, reports from the National Disability Rights Network, NDRN, the Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions, and Seclusion, APRAIS, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., COPAA, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have painted a picture disturbingly similar to the one the Hartford Courant discovered more than a decade ago.

The statistics are chilling--hundreds of incidents of physical injury, psychological trauma, even death--but the stories are even more devastating.

The GAO found many examples of the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint in the report it released on May 19, 2009.

A 14 year-old boy was restrained face-down by a teacher because he would not stay seated in class. The 230 lb. teacher sat on the 129 lb. boy, restricting his airflow and resulting in the boy's death.

A 4 year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism was restrained in a wooden chair with leather straps for being ``uncooperative.''

In one school district, children with disabilities as young as six years old were allegedly placed in strangleholds, restrained for extended periods of time, confined to dark rooms, and tethered to ropes and prevented from using the restroom until they urinated on themselves.

To be clear, school personnel go to work every day with the goal of educating children, not harming them. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the difficult job they do and want to make it clear that my concern signifies no disrespect for their challenging jobs, or the dangers they sometimes face.

However, these tragic stories reflect inadequate training and a lack of resources on the state and local levels to implement effective interventions, such as school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. According to a report by COPPA, over 71 percent of the 185 incidents they identified occurred in schools with no positive behavioral interventions or supports. If school personnel are provided with the necessary tools to prevent dangerous situations, the number of incidents requiring restraint and seclusion will decrease.

Just as students have a right to learn in a safe environment, educators have a right to work in a safe environment. They should be provided with the proper training and support to prevent injury to themselves and others.

In some states, parents have successfully advocated for laws that provide these resources, as well as guidelines to ensure that they are used effectively.

But the patchwork of state laws and regulations is confusing and especially troublesome for transient students.

According to the GAO study, 19 states have no law or regulations concerning seclusion and restraint in schools. Some laws apply to only certain schools or situations, and some apply to restraint but not seclusion. Only 19 states require parental notification, only 17 states require staff training, and only eight specifically prohibit restraints that restrict air flow.

Therefore, Senator Burr and I will today introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act, a bill that will address these issues.

Our bill will establish clear minimum standards for the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, closely based on the Children's Health Act of 2000. It will also provide resources to assist with policy implementation and provide school personnel with necessary tools, training, and support.

It will improve data collection, analysis, and identification of effective practices to prevent and reduce seclusion and restraint in schools, so we may better understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of our solutions.

Specifically, the legislation will prohibit the use of seclusion and restraint in schools unless a student's behavior poses an immediate danger of serious physical injury and less restrictive interventions would be ineffective.

It will prohibit the use of mechanical, chemical, and physical restraints that restrict air flow to the lungs.

This legislation will require adequate training and state certification of school personnel imposing seclusion or restraint, immediate parental notification when such an incident occurs, and a debriefing session to prevent future incidents.

As a result of this act, the Department of Education will conduct, and provide to Congress, a national assessment that analyzes data on seclusion and restraint and determines effective practices in preventing and reducing the number of incidents. This assessment will provide us with a more accurate picture of the extent of seclusion and restraint in schools, and will help direct additional future efforts to ensure that our children and those who educate them are safe.

The Keeping All Students Safe Act includes language that solidifies Protection and Advocacy agencies', P&A, abilities to serve the students who are in need of protection. This legislation is meant to ensure that these P&As are spending their time and resources protecting our Nation's children in schools, and not in court about this already settled issue.

Finally, this legislation will amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as the Higher Education Act, to provide additional planning for and training on the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports.

I want to thank the many organizations representing individuals with disabilities, students, teachers, and schools that all came to the table with recommendations. Their time, energy, and input made this a much stronger and more effective bill, and I truly appreciate their hard work and support. I am especially thankful for Senator Burr's commitment to this issue and his insights that have strengthened the bill. I am also grateful to Secretary Duncan for his leadership on this issue at the Department of Education. Finally, I want to thank my colleague and good friend, Chairman George Miller in the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, he introduced companion legislation that passed the House in March. Senator Burr and I look forward to working with him to pass this into law.

Every child has a right to be safe in the place where he or she goes to learn and grow. Every educator deserves the training and support he or she needs to do his or her job safely and effectively. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will help to prevent tragedies in our schools. I am proud to introduce it today, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue that affects many Americans, and that is premature births. More than half a million babies will be born preterm this year and approximately 28,000 babies will die before they turn 1 year old.

In my home State of Connecticut, there were more than 4,000 preterm births in 2007, representing approximately 11 percent of all live births in the State. Between 1997 and 2007, the rate of infants born preterm in Connecticut increased 3 percent.

The incidence of preterm birth represents a huge disconnect between our scientific knowledge and our capacity to meet basic and critical needs in maternal-child health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, babies who died from preterm birth-related causes accounted for more than 36 percent of infant deaths in 2006. For newborns, prematurity is the leading cause of death.

Of the surviving preemies, approximately one-fourth will have serious health complications including hearing loss, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, acute respiratory diseases, and other maladies. These health problems not only affect the child, but also place a financial and emotional burden on many families. According to the Institute of Medicine, the annual societal costs associated with preterm birth were $26.2 billion in 2005 or $51,600 per infant born preterm. Nearly two-thirds of this cost was for medical care. More importantly, the $26.2 billion estimate does not include the cost of medical care beyond early childhood or caretaker costs such as lost wages.

In nearly half of all cases, physicians and scientists cannot pinpoint a cause for preterm labor and delivery. However, research has shown that causes of preterm birth may include neighborhood characteristics, environmental exposures, biological factors, and medical conditions. Many of these factors can occur in combination, particularly for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority groups. Accordingly, there are significant disparities in the rates of preterm birth across these groups, with the highest rate of preterm births for non-Hispanic African Americans at 17.5 percent in 2008, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. It is clear that a greater commitment to eliminating these inequalities is needed. As the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' Subcommittee on Children and Families, ensuring the health of America's children has been my life's work, making the correction of these inequalities an issue of great importance.

In 2006, my colleague Senator Alexander and I worked to pass the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act or PREEMIE Act, Public Law 109-450, which authorized finding to enhance Federal research related to preterm labor and delivery and increased public and provider education and support services. Among the results of the PREEMIE Act were the 2008 Surgeon General's Conference on Preterm Birth and expanded research activities at CDC. The most notable accomplishment to date is a 3 percent decline in the preterm birth rate from 2007 to 2008. But there is still much work to be done. We must build on the progress recently achieved and use both public and private efforts to accelerate this decrease in the rate of preterm birth.

For these reasons, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee to introduce the PREEMIE Act to reauthorize these vital activities. It is my hope that this legislation will complement many of the efforts being conducted by the private sector, such as the March of Dimes campaign to raise public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm births. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting a healthy start for America's children by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, I rise today to introduce the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Sherrod Brown. This legislation provides an excellent opportunity to address a critical disparity that exists in our Nation's health care system.

Individuals with disabilities can face a myriad of challenges in accessing the health care they need and deserve. Such was the case for Debbie Blanchard, a woman who lived with Spina Bifida for nearly 56 years, and who passed away in August 2008 from cervical cancer. Due to the challenges she faced in finding a physician whose office and examination tables were accessible for individuals with disabilities, Debbie was not able to seek regular well-woman exams, including cervical cancer screenings. The barriers Debbie faced in physically accessing the regular preventive care she needed unfortunately contributed to her cervical cancer going undetected until it was too late. The lack of accessible care clearly contributed to her untimely death.

The Spina Bifida community is devastated by Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing, and we in the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus wish to help ensure that the challenges and barriers that contributed to her illness and death are eliminated. To that end, we have developed the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act in an effort to help facilitate access to health care by individuals with disabilities, including, but not limited to, those with Spina Bifida, and help them to identify providers whose offices and examination rooms are accessible for individuals with disabilities.

Before I discuss the details of this bill, I believe it is important to recognize the scope of the problem we are dealing with. According to the U.S. Census, more than 54 million Americans, about one out of every five, live with some level of disability. Approximately 34 million of those are classified as having a severe disability. In Connecticut, more than 540,000 individuals are living with some level of disability. Of those individuals, close to 22,000 have physical disabilities.

Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that individuals with disabilities have difficulty in accessing routine and specialized health care. Numerous barriers exist for these patients, including the inability to find a health care provider who understands how to treat individuals with disabilities and is willing to have those individuals as patients. According to a survey commissioned by the National Organization on Disability, 19 percent of persons with disabilities reported they needed medical care within the previous year and did not get it. This is a number more than three times the percentage for those without disabilities.

Women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. A study by the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities showed that nearly one- third of women with disabilities surveyed reported being denied services at a physician's office solely because of their disability, and 56 percent described their physicians' offices and hospitals as ill-prepared to accommodate their specific needs. Research by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research shows that women with disabilities are less likely to have Pap smears and mammograms and are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of breast cancer. These women are less likely to receive standard treatments and more likely to have poor outcomes.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-l48, includes an important component to establish standards for medical diagnostic equipment such as examination tables and chairs to improve access to health care for individuals with disabilities and I applaud Senator Harkin for his leadership on that provision. As such, the legislation I propose today seeks to complement existing programs and other pending proposals. The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would empower individuals with disabilities with the information and tools they need to identify accessible providers. It would also increase awareness among health professionals of the need to provide an accessible environment. The bill provides for four key programs to achieve these goals.

First, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide formula-based grants to States to create on-line directories of health care providers accessible to individuals with disabilities. States would not be required to engage in this activity, and the grants are strictly voluntary.

Second, it authorizes HHS to develop a pilot program to increase health care provider awareness of the need to provide accessible environments, examination rooms, and examination tables for individuals with disabilities.

Third, it authorizes the HHS Office on Disability, with the help of national organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to develop resources to support individuals with disabilities in their efforts to find accessible providers. Such resources include ``tips cards'' and questions to ask when calling a provider for the first time to make an appointment.

Finally, the bill authorizes HHS to create a National Advisory Committee on Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities to ensure intra-agency coordination of efforts to improve access to care for individuals with disabilities.

The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would be a significant step in ensuring health care equity for the more than 50 million Americans who live with a disability. Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing should serve as a lesson on the barriers that exist for individuals with disabilities in accessing basic quality health care. We should take action to ensure that these barriers are eliminated to prevent Debbie's story from being repeated. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. President, today Senator Grassley and I resubmitted a resolution designating the third week of October as National Character Counts Week. Last year, Senator Grassley and I worked together on the issue of character education, and I am pleased to continue to designate a special week to this cause. I hope that with this resolution we may highlight the importance of character building activities in schools not only this week but all year long.

Since 1994, when the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project was first established, I have worked to commemorate National Character Counts Week. Character Counts was founded on a simple notion: our core ethical values are not just important to us as individuals-- they form the very foundation of democratic society. We know that in order to face our challenges as communities and as a Nation, we need our children to be both well-educated and trained--and that begins with instilling character in our children. Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship--these are the six pillars of character.

Character education provides students a context within which to learn those values and integrate them into our daily lives. Indeed, if we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we not only miss an opportunity, but we also jeopardize our future.

The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that approximately 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education. Character education programs work. Currently, there are character education programs across all 50 States in rural, urban and suburban areas at every grade level. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community.

This renewed focus on character sends a wonderful message to Americans and will help reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. With this resolution, it is my hope that even more communities will make character education a part of every child's life. I hope that my colleagues will support this important effort.