Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is desperately needed in West Virginia and across the country--the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2013. It is an important bill aimed at addressing the rapid increase in deaths and overdoses from methadone and other opioid prescription drugs in the United States. These deaths have hit my home State of West Virginia particularly hard, but I know that every State is struggling with this serious problem.

In the 111th Congress, Senator Corker and I, along with our colleague, the late Senator Kennedy, introduced the Methadone Treatment and Protection Act of 2009--a similar piece of legislation that stemmed from a disturbing rise in deaths due to methadone, a synthetic opioid prescription drug that had been increasingly used for pain management. Before 1990, it was used primarily to treat opioid addiction. Because of its high efficacy and low cost, methadone is frequently used for pain management. However, if not used correctly, methadone can be a powerful and deadly drug because it works differently than other painkillers. Methadone stays in a person's body for a longer period of time than the pain relief lasts so a person who does not know better might take far too much of the drug, possibly leading to respiratory distress, cardiac arrhythmia and even death.

Methadone prescriptions for pain management grew from about 531,000 in 1998 to about 4.1 million in 2006--nearly eightfold. During that time, poisoning deaths involving methadone increased nearly sevenfold from almost 790 in 1999 to 5,420 in 2006. Deaths from other opioids have also skyrocketed in the last decade. These deaths may actually be underreported, because there is no comprehensive reporting system for opioid-related deaths in the United States.

Overdoses from methadone are part of a larger disturbing trend of overdoses and deaths from prescription painkillers, or opioid drugs--a trend driven by a knowledge gap about how to treat serious pain in a safe and effective manner, by misperceptions about the safety of prescription drugs, and by the diversion of prescription drugs for illicit uses. In 2009, there were nearly 4.6 million drug-related emergency department, ED, visits of which nearly one half, 45.1 percent, or 2.1 million were attributed to prescription drug misuse or abuse, according to data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, DAWN. Emergency department visits involving misuse or abuse of pharmaceuticals nearly doubled between 2004 and 2009, to more than 1.2 million visits.

This bill takes multiple steps to address these problems. First, with respect to the knowledge gap about safe pain management, the bill includes a training requirement for health care professionals to be licensed to prescribe these powerful drugs. Currently, the Controlled Substances Act requires that every person who dispenses or who proposes to dispense controlled narcotics, including methadone, whether for pain management or opioid treatment, obtain a registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. But, there is no requirement as a condition of receiving the registration that these practitioners receive any education on the use of these controlled narcotics, including methadone. Physicians struggle every day with determining who has a real need for pain treatment, and who is addicted or at risk. They struggle with our failure to provide adequate treatment facilities for those who are addicted. This bill will help physicians get the information they need to prescribe safely and better recognize the signs of addiction in their patients.

Second, this bill addresses the knowledge gap among consumers--with a competitive grant program to States to distribute culturally sensitive educational materials about proper use of methadone and other opioids, and how to prevent opioid abuse, such as through safe disposal of prescription drugs. Preference will be given to states with a high incidence of overdoses and deaths.

Third, this bill creates a Controlled Substances Clinical Standards Commission to establish patient education guidelines, appropriate and safe dosing standards for all forms of methadone and other opioids, benchmark guidelines for the reduction of methadone abuse, appropriate conversion factors for transitioning patients from one opioid to another, and guidelines for the initiation of methadone and other opioids for pain management. A standards commission will provide much- needed evidence-based information to improve guidance for the safe and effective use of these powerful and dangerous controlled substances.

Fourth, this bill provides crucial support to state prescription drug monitoring programs. As of 2008, 38 states had enacted legislation requiring prescription drug monitoring programs and many states were able to fund these initiatives in part from grants available through the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. A second program created in 2005 through the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, NASPER, would provide even more assistance, and requires interoperability among states to reduce doctor shopping across state lines and diversion. Unfortunately, NASPER has only recently been funded with $2 million in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus legislation and $2 million in fiscal year 2010.

Here is just one example of why NASPER funding matters: recently, the governor of Florida announced a

budget that would not fund a planned prescription monitoring program in his State, due to State budget difficulties. This directly affects States in Appalachia because of the rampant drug trafficking between the two regions. In fact, the roads from West Virginia to Florida are well-travelled by drug traffickers and people seeking pain medication. It is crucial to finally give NASPER the funding it needs, and this legislation would do so, with $25 million a year to establish interoperable prescription drug monitoring programs within each state.

Fifth, this bill requires that quality standards be developed across the range of providers engaged in the prevention and treatment of prescription drug abuse. It is essential as we move ahead that quality always be front and center in our efforts. With lives at risk, this is, if anything, only more important in the areas of addiction prevention and treatment. Every effort to address this problem must be as effective as possible, and the development of quality standards required by this bill will make sure that each provider, regardless of his or her background or approach, can provide high caliber services to their patients.

Finally, this bill would help solve the data gap when it comes to opioid-related deaths. Right now there is no comprehensive national database of drug-related deaths in the United States, nor is there a standard form for medical examiners to fill out with regard to opioid- related deaths. Since there is no comprehensive database of methadone- related deaths, the number of deaths may actually be underreported. To truly reduce the number of methadone-related deaths, quality data must be collected and made available. This bill would create a National Opioid Death Registry to track all opioid-related deaths and related information, and establish a standard form for medical examiners to fill out which would include information for the National Opioid Death Registry.

Today we have an opportunity to change the harrowing statistics and stem the rising tide of deaths from methadone and other opioids by supporting the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2013. This legislation provides a multifaceted approach to preventing tragic overdoses and deaths from methadone and other opioids. This is exactly what we need to improve the coordination of efforts and resources at the local, state, and federal levels.

I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation. In doing so, we will be on our way to saving lives and reducing the needless deaths that otherwise will continue to cause so much suffering for too many individuals, families, and communities in this country.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is desperately needed in West Virginia and across the country--the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2013. It is an important bill aimed at addressing the rapid increase in deaths and overdoses from methadone and other opioid prescription drugs in the United States. These deaths have hit my home State of West Virginia particularly hard, but I know that every State is struggling with this serious problem.

In the 111th Congress, Senator Corker and I, along with our colleague, the late Senator Kennedy, introduced the Methadone Treatment and Protection Act of 2009--a similar piece of legislation that stemmed from a disturbing rise in deaths due to methadone, a synthetic opioid prescription drug that had been increasingly used for pain management. Before 1990, it was used primarily to treat opioid addiction. Because of its high efficacy and low cost, methadone is frequently used for pain management. However, if not used correctly, methadone can be a powerful and deadly drug because it works differently than other painkillers. Methadone stays in a person's body for a longer period of time than the pain relief lasts so a person who does not know better might take far too much of the drug, possibly leading to respiratory distress, cardiac arrhythmia and even death.

Methadone prescriptions for pain management grew from about 531,000 in 1998 to about 4.1 million in 2006--nearly eightfold. During that time, poisoning deaths involving methadone increased nearly sevenfold from almost 790 in 1999 to 5,420 in 2006. Deaths from other opioids have also skyrocketed in the last decade. These deaths may actually be underreported, because there is no comprehensive reporting system for opioid-related deaths in the United States.

Overdoses from methadone are part of a larger disturbing trend of overdoses and deaths from prescription painkillers, or opioid drugs--a trend driven by a knowledge gap about how to treat serious pain in a safe and effective manner, by misperceptions about the safety of prescription drugs, and by the diversion of prescription drugs for illicit uses. In 2009, there were nearly 4.6 million drug-related emergency department, ED, visits of which nearly one half, 45.1 percent, or 2.1 million were attributed to prescription drug misuse or abuse, according to data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, DAWN. Emergency department visits involving misuse or abuse of pharmaceuticals nearly doubled between 2004 and 2009, to more than 1.2 million visits.

This bill takes multiple steps to address these problems. First, with respect to the knowledge gap about safe pain management, the bill includes a training requirement for health care professionals to be licensed to prescribe these powerful drugs. Currently, the Controlled Substances Act requires that every person who dispenses or who proposes to dispense controlled narcotics, including methadone, whether for pain management or opioid treatment, obtain a registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. But, there is no requirement as a condition of receiving the registration that these practitioners receive any education on the use of these controlled narcotics, including methadone. Physicians struggle every day with determining who has a real need for pain treatment, and who is addicted or at risk. They struggle with our failure to provide adequate treatment facilities for those who are addicted. This bill will help physicians get the information they need to prescribe safely and better recognize the signs of addiction in their patients.

Second, this bill addresses the knowledge gap among consumers--with a competitive grant program to States to distribute culturally sensitive educational materials about proper use of methadone and other opioids, and how to prevent opioid abuse, such as through safe disposal of prescription drugs. Preference will be given to states with a high incidence of overdoses and deaths.

Third, this bill creates a Controlled Substances Clinical Standards Commission to establish patient education guidelines, appropriate and safe dosing standards for all forms of methadone and other opioids, benchmark guidelines for the reduction of methadone abuse, appropriate conversion factors for transitioning patients from one opioid to another, and guidelines for the initiation of methadone and other opioids for pain management. A standards commission will provide much- needed evidence-based information to improve guidance for the safe and effective use of these powerful and dangerous controlled substances.

Fourth, this bill provides crucial support to state prescription drug monitoring programs. As of 2008, 38 states had enacted legislation requiring prescription drug monitoring programs and many states were able to fund these initiatives in part from grants available through the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. A second program created in 2005 through the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, NASPER, would provide even more assistance, and requires interoperability among states to reduce doctor shopping across state lines and diversion. Unfortunately, NASPER has only recently been funded with $2 million in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus legislation and $2 million in fiscal year 2010.

Here is just one example of why NASPER funding matters: recently, the governor of Florida announced a

budget that would not fund a planned prescription monitoring program in his State, due to State budget difficulties. This directly affects States in Appalachia because of the rampant drug trafficking between the two regions. In fact, the roads from West Virginia to Florida are well-travelled by drug traffickers and people seeking pain medication. It is crucial to finally give NASPER the funding it needs, and this legislation would do so, with $25 million a year to establish interoperable prescription drug monitoring programs within each state.

Fifth, this bill requires that quality standards be developed across the range of providers engaged in the prevention and treatment of prescription drug abuse. It is essential as we move ahead that quality always be front and center in our efforts. With lives at risk, this is, if anything, only more important in the areas of addiction prevention and treatment. Every effort to address this problem must be as effective as possible, and the development of quality standards required by this bill will make sure that each provider, regardless of his or her background or approach, can provide high caliber services to their patients.

Finally, this bill would help solve the data gap when it comes to opioid-related deaths. Right now there is no comprehensive national database of drug-related deaths in the United States, nor is there a standard form for medical examiners to fill out with regard to opioid- related deaths. Since there is no comprehensive database of methadone- related deaths, the number of deaths may actually be underreported. To truly reduce the number of methadone-related deaths, quality data must be collected and made available. This bill would create a National Opioid Death Registry to track all opioid-related deaths and related information, and establish a standard form for medical examiners to fill out which would include information for the National Opioid Death Registry.

Today we have an opportunity to change the harrowing statistics and stem the rising tide of deaths from methadone and other opioids by supporting the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2013. This legislation provides a multifaceted approach to preventing tragic overdoses and deaths from methadone and other opioids. This is exactly what we need to improve the coordination of efforts and resources at the local, state, and federal levels.

I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation. In doing so, we will be on our way to saving lives and reducing the needless deaths that otherwise will continue to cause so much suffering for too many individuals, families, and communities in this country.

Mr. President, I still well up with deep emotion when I see Newtown parents remembering their lost children, recalling what they wore to school that day or their last sweet words before boarding the school bus. The memory of that horrifying day, and of those children and their teachers, has not waned, nor should it ever. It should be an enduring call to action to do everything we can to save innocent lives.

That is why I have championed a comprehensive approach to combating gun violence, and support the President's plan to protect the Nation's citizens. West Virginians have a proud tradition of hunting and understand the importance of the Second Amendment. I know we can protect those traditions and rights as we look at ways to prevent senseless acts of violence.

One piece of this comprehensive examination concerns violent content, including video games and video programming. I have long had concerns about how the violent content that kids see and interact with every day affects their wellbeing. This is a very important issue, and one that deserves further research, as even the President recognized. That is why, as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am introducing today the Violent Content Research Act of 2013. Under this legislation, the National Academy of Sciences would conduct a comprehensive study on the connection between exposure to violent video games and video programming and harmful effects on children.

Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.

These court decisions show we need to conduct additional groundwork on this issue. This report would be a critical resource in this process. It could inform research by other organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control, and provide guidance to lawmakers. I call on my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation quickly.

Separately, I will be calling on the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to expand their work in this area. The FTC has reviewed the effectiveness of the video game ratings system. The FCC has looked at the impact of violent programming on children. Changes in technology now allow kids to access violent content on-line and increasingly from mobile platforms with less parental involvement. It is time for these two agencies to take a fresh look at these issues.

Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions on marketing and selling violent content to children. They have a responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count on the Congress to take a more aggressive role.

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

Mr. President, I still well up with deep emotion when I see Newtown parents remembering their lost children, recalling what they wore to school that day or their last sweet words before boarding the school bus. The memory of that horrifying day, and of those children and their teachers, has not waned, nor should it ever. It should be an enduring call to action to do everything we can to save innocent lives.

That is why I have championed a comprehensive approach to combating gun violence, and support the President's plan to protect the Nation's citizens. West Virginians have a proud tradition of hunting and understand the importance of the Second Amendment. I know we can protect those traditions and rights as we look at ways to prevent senseless acts of violence.

One piece of this comprehensive examination concerns violent content, including video games and video programming. I have long had concerns about how the violent content that kids see and interact with every day affects their wellbeing. This is a very important issue, and one that deserves further research, as even the President recognized. That is why, as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am introducing today the Violent Content Research Act of 2013. Under this legislation, the National Academy of Sciences would conduct a comprehensive study on the connection between exposure to violent video games and video programming and harmful effects on children.

Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.

These court decisions show we need to conduct additional groundwork on this issue. This report would be a critical resource in this process. It could inform research by other organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control, and provide guidance to lawmakers. I call on my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation quickly.

Separately, I will be calling on the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to expand their work in this area. The FTC has reviewed the effectiveness of the video game ratings system. The FCC has looked at the impact of violent programming on children. Changes in technology now allow kids to access violent content on-line and increasingly from mobile platforms with less parental involvement. It is time for these two agencies to take a fresh look at these issues.

Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions on marketing and selling violent content to children. They have a responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count on the Congress to take a more aggressive role.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to talk for just a couple minutes about Senator Inouye. I know I am late in the process, and that is partly why I am doing it--because I wanted to be late in the process.

I had been in the Senate 1 day back in 1985, and Dan Inouye came to visit me in my office. He was up here; I was down here. He introduced himself. We talked about our States. He had all kinds of seniority and amazing qualities, I was nothing and he came to see me. I am sorry, but you don't forget things such as that. It says something about him, which went through his life. That is just the way he was.

From there, a long friendship began. While I believe he looked at me as a friend, I looked to him as so much more than that. He was in a total sense a mentor with sort of a Confucian touch. He was of Japanese heritage and I had an interest in Japan and he had a way of imparting judgments and wisdom which were in the Eastern method, very subtle. He was not always that way, but he could be, and he was with me.

I learned from him how this Chamber works and how to get things done. I watched the way he did them--not with a heavy fist or sharp words but with thoughtfulness and hard work, a commanding presence, that voice-- that voice--and genuine relationships, including across the aisle. He believed in action. He believed in getting things done through hard work and through determination. He had very much of an agenda.

Dan, of course, was one of our Nation's ultimate war heroes--not only because of his service and sacrifice but also somebody who stood for his country, even when his country did not immediately stand for him.

Dan's courage and iron will were evident as he fought on the battlefield, taking bullet after bullet, yet continuing to get back up. A tough soldier. He fought for the people of Hawaii every single day that he lived in public service.

His love of his State and every Hawaiian was so abundantly clear through his massive list of accomplishments--an overwhelming list of accomplishments. Since Hawaii became a State, Dan had been working for it as the first Congressman ever elected by the State and only the third Senator. His efforts are clear in his State's roads, bridges, airports, schools, military bases, health care, oceans, and almost every aspect of American life that reached to the Islands. He played a truly momentous role in making Hawaii what it is today.

Dan and I worked together on the Commerce Committee for 27 years. I always felt very close to him. I remember sitting with him quietly, maybe sharing a joke when I was lucky enough to be sitting beside him but most often just listening. He was thinking, waiting for a discussion to ripen. He never once spoke just for the sake of it. Yet when he did speak, watch out.

I watched him a number of times, which I could well recite, when he took an argument that the Commerce Committee had let ripen, and then, through the force of his argument, his quiet demeanor, and that powerful face and his calmness, turned the argument 180 degrees from a yes to a no or from a no to a yes, people simply following the power of his logic and strength.

Dan didn't want us to be in awe of him, but many of us were anyway. His integrity and his authenticity were momentous. He approached policy and public service with a pure heart.

As chairman of the Appropriations Committee--to be succeeded by the wonderful Senator from Maryland--and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, he was respected by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He was a task master. He could be tough. He ran a tight and highly disciplined ship but was unfailingly courteous and generous.

I have no doubt that one of the most difficult decisions he ever had to make was to implement the ongoing ban on congressional earmarks. Dan Inouye believed in congressional earmarks, as does the current speaker. He was adamant in his support and the constitutional right of Members to direct investments to their States, but he recognized that his bills had no chance of being enacted into law in the current political climate.

He fought back against Draconian funding cuts in the Ryan budget and, in a very partisan environment, moved all 12 of his bills for the 2012 fiscal year. He wasn't inactive. He was always on his game. Just in this lameduck session, he turned a disaster relief request from the President into a finished bill to help so many States and families impacted by Hurricane Sandy. These are large accomplishments.

His family was so deeply important to him. It has been wonderful for my wife Sharon and me to see the utter joy that Dan's wife Irene brought to him in these recent years, the happiness she gave him, the twinkle in his eye and the privilege of just getting to know her, a remarkable and strong woman. Our hearts obviously are with Irene and Dan's son Ken now.

Dan's is an awesome legacy and always will be, a legacy of character, of honor, and of service. So I say: Dan, thank you for what you have shared with each of us and for the life of service you gave to this country and your State that you loved so very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments of

the Senator from Iowa. My expectation is that the Coast Guard study and report will include the consideration of the specific needs of individuals with disabilities with respect to their use of survival craft, and will not make any recommendations that could be considered discriminatory against people with disabilities, or require individuals with disabilities to perform actions which they may be unable to do as a result of their specific disability. The goal of the study and report should be an inclusive one which allows people with disabilities to participate fully in the underlying activity, and provides a full and equal opportunity for each person with a disability to utilize these survival craft in a safe manner, as necessary. I will continue to work with my colleague from Iowa and the Coast Guard on these issues and I will encourage the Coast Guard to complete their report within the 6 month period so that new requirements will take effect in a timely manner.

Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the final passage of a reconciled Coast Guard authorization bill for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. This achievement is the culmination of several months of careful negotiation between the Senate and the House, and is a tribute to what can happen when we rise above trivial partisanship, roll up our sleeves, and reach across the aisle on behalf of the American people.

The United States Coast Guard is truly unique among the services and agencies of the Federal Government. As a branch of our Armed Forces, it defends the Nation in time of war, but it also functions as a Federal agency with law enforcement and regulatory authority in a number of areas critical to our national security, economic security, and environment. Today, the Coast Guard is charged with 11 statutory missions that include saving lives at sea; protecting our ports, waterways, and maritime infrastructure from terrorists; responding to natural disasters; interdicting drugs and migrants at sea; and protecting our marine environment.

Each and every day, we ask the 42,000 men and women of the Coast Guard to put their lives on the line to carry out these important missions. Over the past few years, we have seen the Coast Guard take the lead in responding to numerous crises like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the earthquake in Haiti, and the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In all of these cases, the Coast Guard has met and exceeded our expectations. We have asked them to do more with less and they have responded. The least we can do is to make sure they have the tools essential to carrying out their missions successfully. With the passage of this year's Coast Guard reauthorization bill, I believe we're on our way towards meeting that responsibility.

This bipartisan bill authorizes additional funding and personnel levels for the Coast Guard over fiscal years 2013 and 2014, improving its ability to carry out its three overarching roles of maritime security, safety and stewardship successfully. The bill also makes a number of changes to the Coast Guard's major acquisitions authorities critical to the ongoing and needed recapitalization of its aging fleet. Additionally, the bill addresses America's increasing presence in a changing Arctic by ensuring that the Coast Guard maintains and strengthens its capability to conduct polar ice operations in support of its statutory missions and operational needs of the United States Navy. Importantly, the bill also gives the Coast Guard greater parity with its sister Armed Services by further aligning Coast Guard management and personnel authorities with statutory authorities of the Department of Defense to better support its service members and their families.

The bill's passage would not have been successful without the tireless efforts of many here in Congress. I first want to thank Senator Begich, who, after assuming the chairmanship of the Oceans Subcommittee at the beginning of this Congress, quickly went to work on drafting the Senate's version of the Coast Guard bill. His legislation, of which I was a proud cosponsor, served as a blueprint for the Senate's negotiations with the House.

I also want to thank my dear friend and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hutchison. Her efforts were instrumental to moving the ball down the field. It is increasingly difficult to get consensus in this body, particularly for legislation that needs unanimity. Without her efforts to hammer out differences across the aisle, today's achievement would not have been possible. Senator Hutchison will be missed.

In recent weeks, much attention was given to the efforts to pass needed reauthorization for the Department of Defense and each of the Armed Services under it. It was a tough slog, but in the end it demonstrated what can be achieved when the Senate works as it should. In its own quiet way, the passage of this legislation for this essential service branch is a testament to that as well.

Mr. President, for 4 years, we have been pushing the United States Senate to pass a bill to improve our Nation's cybersecurity. During this time, the cybersecurity threat to our country--to our way of life--has only grown. We have now seen cyber attacks against our Nation's pipelines, against our financial industry, and even against nuclear power plants.

The good news is we have not yet suffered a devastating cyber attack. At this point, we are still only talking about the potential impacts. We have not yet suffered an attack that greatly disrupts our financial industry, or an attack that cripples our electric grid. But these potential outcomes are real. And it is imperative that we begin addressing the risks.

Today, we have the opportunity to begin this important work by moving forward with the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. We have the opportunity to show the American people that we can rise above politics to do the job that they expect of us.

National security is one of our most sacred obligations as Members of this body. If a vote on cybersecurity fails today, we will have failed to meet that obligation for the 112th Congress.

I will be the first person to admit that this bill is not perfect. I have been clear that I believe a regulatory approach was the best approach to ensure that our country's most critical infrastructure addresses its cybersecurity vulnerabilities. We moved to a voluntary approach to seek a compromise. Yet it was not enough for some of our colleagues. Frankly, I do not understand why.

I know the Chamber of Commerce decided that it did not like this bill. But sometimes we need to make decisions that the Chamber of Commerce is not happy with. Because it is not the Chamber's job to worry about national security. That is the job of our military. And they have been quite clear about what is needed. They have told us that they need this legislation. They have implored us to act. General Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency, knows what is at stake. And his warnings have been dire.

He has said: ``The cyber threat facing the Nation is real and demands immediate action.''

He has said: ``the time to act is now.''

General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote me a letter earlier this year about the urgent need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. In the letter, he explained that our: ``adversaries will increasingly attempt to hold our Nation's core critical infrastructure at risk.''

He stated that: ``we cannot afford to leave our electricity grid and transportation system vulnerable to attack.''

Both Generals agreed that we must do something and they both pushed the Senate to adopt comprehensive cybersecurity legislation that tracks the specifics of the bill we have been debating. Despite this urgent advice from our nation's top military advisors, that we need to act and that we need to do it now, some Senators suggested in August that we needed more time to debate cybersecurity. I strongly disagreed with this notion. But now we have had another few months to think about this bill. Today, there is simply no more reason for delay.

We passed a Cybersecurity bill out of the Commerce Committee in March 2010. And it passed unanimously. The Homeland Security Committee, led by Senators Lieberman and Collins, passed their cybersecurity bill by a voice vote in June 2010. The bills both went through Committees well over 2 years ago. Since that time, we have had hundreds of meetings with the private sector, interest groups, and national security experts. Senators have received multiple classified briefings about the nature of this threat. Everyone has had plenty of time to think about this issue. And we have made it quite clear that we are looking to compromise on this legislation. But to compromise you need a partner. I am hoping that our Republican colleagues are now willing to be our partners on this legislation.

I hope that my colleagues will reconsider the path we are on. At some point, if we do not do anything, there will be a major cyber attack and it will do great damage to the United States. After it is over, the American people will ask, just as they asked after 9/11, what could we have done to stop this?

If we do not pass this legislation, they will learn about days like this one and their disappointment in us and the United States Senate will grow. And we will deserve their disappointment. Because we have had the opportunity to act and we have failed.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the so- called Ryan budget plan, endorsed and fully absorbed by Governor Romney--which, when you read it, is nothing more than a diabolical blueprint for slashing services that help families, seniors, and children all across the country.

The Ryan-Romney plan--which is the centerpiece of the Republican Presidential campaign, and certainly will grow more so--has finally come under the new scrutiny that it needed as people got a good look at it leading up to the GOP convention last month. I, for one, have been ashamed of this document for much longer. I was proud the Senate voted against it, although it was equally discouraging that a majority of the House voted for it.

I am here today because I want to set the record straight on what, in my judgment, the Ryan-Romney plan would do to people in my home State of West Virginia, to the Presiding Officer's home State, and to the country.

The Ryan budget proposal tackles the deficit by shredding something called the safety net. If people aren't clear what that is, it is the net of public policy underneath the worst possible situation that somebody can come to in terms of health care or inability to live. Families have counted on that safety net for years in rough times, because they have had that safety net and they have used that safety net.

In essence, the unbalanced Ryan proposal guts programs for seniors, people who are disabled, children, families struggling to make ends meet, and then--most fascinating--turning those cuts into $4 trillion worth of tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans and corporations. And people say class warfare, but it is mathematics. They give the average millionaire a tidy little tax cut of $265,000 under the Ryan- Romney plan while desperately undermining our economy.

He says he hopes his plan will balance the budget by 2040. That is not very encouraging, and it is probably optimistic on his part if it were ever to take place. The Ryan plan does not contribute a single penny to deficit reduction, which is the great problem we are facing and which we are going to deal with--not a single penny.

Consider how they shred health care, with $2.9 trillion in health care cuts, not just from repealing health care reform--an amazing thing to do--but also by gutting Medicare and Medicaid. In the passing of the health care act, all of a sudden 30 million Americans--by no means all those who are uninsured--get health insurance coverage. The act makes sure that they get health insurance coverage. The Ryan budget, backed by Romney, would take that possibility away from 30 million people who have lived without health insurance for many years.

The Ryan-Romney plan would take Medicare that more than 50 million seniors rely on and turn it into a privatized voucher system. I know this has been said, and it has been said because it is true. They would cap how much the government spends on seniors' health care, regardless of their health care needs--letting profit-seeking private health insurance companies decide what to cover and what not to cover. That alone would cost every individual senior an additional $6,000 per year if that plan were to come into effect. If seniors are not able to pay the difference, then they are simply out of luck under the Ryan-Romney budget plan.

This plan also rips apart the Medicaid Program by turning it into a block grant program. On this one, I get pretty indignant. Right now, Medicaid is a lifeline to 70 million Americans, including families and children living in or near poverty. Medicaid today provides long-term care for more than half of seniors in the United States of America. They can spend down--get rid of their assets--so they qualify for Medicaid so they can get long-term care. There isn't anybody in this country who isn't going to be faced with long-term care. The difference is that some can pay for it and some will have families absorb it through love and cultural tradition, but most can't. They have to have help. There is a little bit that is Medicare, but it is virtually Medicaid that provides long-term care. That is when you are in your declining years. That is when you are approaching death. That is when you are at your most dangerous and vulnerable situation. That is when you are scared. That is when your children come from other States to try to help--but then they start spending down the money they have saved for their kids to go to college. It is a desperate situation, even as it is today with full Medicaid coverage. This would affect those who need care at home, a lot of home health, and it would also affect seniors in nursing homes in terrible ways.

The fact is that middle-income families in this country cannot afford the $80,000 or more per year that it costs to keep a loved one in a nursing home in something called long-term care. The only way to do it without bankrupting the entire family is with the help of Medicaid. Yes, it is a big program. Yes, we are going to have to face reality in some respects on its size. But scaling back Medicaid the way they do it in the Ryan-Romney plan so badly hurts American families, and it forces State governments to do things which they are not going to be able to afford to do. They are going to have to cut services or they are going to have to go more deeply into debt themselves.

So the real prospect is of people in their seventies, eighties, nineties, et cetera, with no long-term care because of a theological point of view that government is awful--but what this is awful to is people. It is just terrible for people. The Ryan-Romney plan would mean millions more Americans could not afford basic health care--and we know what happens next. More people will get sick with untreated illnesses. Then health care costs will go up for everyone.

That implies that people get health care. Yes, they do because they can go to the emergency room of a hospital. They will not always get services, but for the most part they get those services. But they are not paying for that; the average American is, which adds about $2,000 to their family budget every year, paying for other people's health care because the uninsured do not have insurance and therefore they have no place to go. The idea of repealing the health care act and taking 30 million Americans--really, if we had more money we would have done the 45 or 50 million who are really uninsured and underinsured and taken care of them, but we did not have the money to do that.

The nursing homes and the 1.8 million people who work there would be forced to slash their services or close their doors or certainly turn away seniors. In their frenzy to repeal health care reform, and with not a single proposal to replace it--the great silence--Ryan-Romney would also completely undo all of the new consumer protections to fight back against cruel health insurance practices.

I chair the Commerce Committee. That is about all we dealt with for the past 2 years, health insurance companies and their practices. It is pretty depressing. For example, the new provision ending discrimination by health insurance companies against people with preexisting conditions--that is law. Under Ryan-Romney that would

end. I reiterate, women who are pregnant, millions of Americans who have diabetes, people with asthma, people with acne, have frequently been just turned down by health insurance companies when they ruled the roost. Now they don't rule the roost under the new health care bill, and a lot of money is being rebated to American people who were overcharged.

The reform we passed allows parents to keep their children on their insurance plan until the kids are 26 years old. That is one of the most popular aspects in the country. That would disappear under the Ryan- Romney budget plan.

There is a lot of lack of understanding of the health care bill, and it is not wildly popular in some parts of the country. Where you and I come from, Mr. President, that is true. But, on the other hand, when one thinks of it as a bill, people do not know what is in it. When one explains to people what is in it and give them examples, such as up until the age of 26 children can stay on their family's health insurance plan; curtailing the restrictions of lifetime limits, the annual limits first and then lifetime limits in 2014, they are lifted so people get the health care they need.

Pretty much every night on television we see stories of kids born with some terrible set of health problems. I remember one I talked with, an 8-year-old boy who had cancer, and his family. He had run into his annual lifetime limit. He died. This was 2 years ago. He died. He would not have died under the health care act, but the Romney-Ryan people want to scrap all that.

One thing that is very well known is the prescription drug doughnut hole, which our reform bill actually had closed. It is a very big deal. It is very hard to understand how that comes about. What is a doughnut hole? But seniors understand it because they spend quite a lot of time paying premiums to health insurance companies but getting no benefits or health care coverage during that period in which they are in the doughnut hole. We stopped that in the health care bill. That would be repealed. They open that doughnut hole right back up, the Ryan-Romney budget plan, putting that $4,200 a year right back on the shoulders of our individual seniors all across the country.

We can see a pattern here. It is absolutely appalling. It is appalling. They do not talk about it, but even Social Security is threatened by their plans. Social Security is a contract the American people have made with themselves. Virtually everyone pays in throughout their working years so that everyone has a safety net when they retire or they become disabled or they die young and have others in their family to care for--leaving a surviving spouse and children to struggle without help. Under our bill, of course, nothing is changed. They want to change that.

Paul Ryan, for whatever reason, has been trying, since 2004, to privatize Social Security. He just flatout has. He can say what he wants. He can say he doesn't think that anymore--he actually doesn't say that, but that is what he believes because if someone has been doing something for the past 10 years, they probably believe in it pretty strongly--meaning he would like to see the American people bet their retirement savings on the stock market, which is usually not stable. I don't buy that. West Virginia seniors do not buy that.

Think back to 2008 when the financial crisis hit. If every American had privatized Social Security accounts then, their retirement security would have been wiped out. Instead, while many people lost a whole lot of money in that stock market crash back then, their Social Security benefits were safe, and they knew it.

People are fragile. Not everybody is a venture capitalist or an entrepreneur. Not everybody is born wealthy. People are living at the edge. Psychologically, they are living even more closely to the edge. Fear comes to them easily. So when we do something good like pass a health care bill which is going to help them, and then people come in and say they are going to repeal the whole act and everything about it, and then, yes, something about Social Security too--it is cruel. It is appalling and it is cruel. We need to protect and strengthen Social Security, not destroy it.

Don't just take that from me. There is far-ranging opposition to the Ryan-Romney budget plan from economists to religious leaders. A group of Catholic Bishops--this interested me greatly because the candidate for Vice President on the Republican ticket said he got his sort of social values from his Catholic teaching.

There is a group of Catholic Bishops recently who asked Republicans to stop championing Ryan's proposals because they were appalled by it-- Catholics are very strong on fairness for people and always have been-- because it is so hurtful to the poor. It fails their morality test.

My colleague, Senator Kent Conrad, shared with us this week an amazing quote that I cannot stop myself from giving to you because it was from one of Ronald Reagan's economic advisers, a fellow named Bruce Bartlett, which bears repeating. He said the following:

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich

would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would

be shredded to pay for [those tax cuts]. Even as an opening

bid to begin budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan

plan cannot be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list

than a fairy tale utterly disconnected from the real world,

backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable

assumptions. Ryan's plan isn't even an act of courage [Bruce

Bartlett says]; it's just pandering to the Tea Party.

I think Mr. Ryan is of the tea party, so I don't know of his need to pander to it. But anyway that is what this Reagan person indicated.

A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as

all serious budget analysts know, that revenues will have to

rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize the debt.

In the coming weeks and months we will continue to hear a lot of back-and-forth about the heartless policy proposals coming from Paul Ryan and Members of Congress who support his plan. This is a deadly serious debate--deadly serious, with enormous consequences for our country and for every person in it.

It is my sincere and urgent hope that as more Americans come to understand exactly where the Ryan-Romney plan would take our Nation and its lifesaving programs and others, that they will decide to run in the opposite direction away from it. The Republican budget is a slap in the face to millions of Americans. We can and will reduce our deficit. We are going to do that because we have to. There is a strong and enduring consensus on that point. But we do not have to do it this way, and we must not do it this way.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, before I say what I originally came down here to say, I want to join my colleagues in condemning the senseless, horrible attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya and pay tribute to the four Americans, including our Ambassador there, Chris Stevens, who were killed. I think all of us hope the killers will be brought to justice quickly, and I suspect that will be the case.

Our country has lost four true public servants in the part of public service which is the least known and sometimes the most important. It is a high calling, public service in general, but especially in dangerous places around the world. Ambassador Stevens was a serious, dedicated, and highly experienced diplomat with a tremendous depth of expertise in Libya and the region. He and his colleagues spent their lives working on behalf of the United States of America and I hope their proud families and the entire diplomatic corps know we are deeply grateful as a people.

This cowardly attack is a setback, but it will not stop us from our mission of promoting freedom and democracy for the people of Libya, and it should not. It will not keep our diplomats from their important work overseas.

I remember when I was a student in Japan, the Ambassador there at the time, back in the early 1960s, was a fellow named Dr. Edwin Reischauer, who was probably at that time the preeminent Japanologist in America. He was a gentle, wonderful, marvelous person whom the Japanese loved. He was stabbed in one of those senseless things that happen. It can happen on American streets, but it can happen on the streets of other countries, even with security. Some mad person got in and stabbed him in a traditional Japanese manner with a Japanese sword. It was a horrible event, but he survived and it enlarged his legend. There was no bitterness from his family or his wife, and it didn't set anything back. The person was brought to justice.

Now I wish to speak also about other ways we must join together to help those who serve our country, and that is in creating job opportunities for our unemployed veterans. We have many veterans, and too many of them are unemployed or homeless. I am now talking about the Veterans Jobs Corps Act. This is a responsible investment and we should do it promptly.

Standing for our veterans has been one of my top priorities since I began public service. You can't help but be that way if you live in West Virginia. I suspect it is true in Oregon and lots of places all over the country. By definition it is true, but it is always personal, and in the Senate it has never waned.

Before I was a Senator, the person who held my seat for a long time was Senator Jennings Randolph. I took his place on the Veterans Committee and I have been on it now for 28 years. It is a glorious committee, brilliantly led now by Senator Patty Murray. I was chairman once myself, perhaps not quite so brilliantly.

So many brave servicemembers, men and women, have fought to defend our way of life. People say that, and it is true, and they protect us each and every day. After such courageous and selfless actions, the least we can do is make sure when they return home they get good jobs, because they deserve those good jobs.

Military experience builds leadership, dedication, bravery, and teamwork, and these traits are learned from working on the frontlines. Not everything in the military happens on the frontlines, but I just happen to be talking about that particular aspect in my short remarks. No experience could prepare these workers better for the jobs they hope to do after they leave their military service.

I have a nephew who has just come back from Afghanistan. He may be 23, maybe 25, but he is almost unreachable in his strength, his patriotism, and what has happened to him as a human being internally, intellectually, and in broad vision. He has grown so large and so great. He has a job, so I am not talking about him, but with so many brave servicemembers--men and women--we need to pay attention to them when they come home.

Political rhetoric and partisanship have no business delaying efforts to help our veterans. Everybody likes to talk about veterans--actually, a lot of bills do pass but not as many bills as should. Veterans did not delay or decline when we called them for deployment, so we should not delay now.

It is tragic that the unemployment rate for younger returning veterans is so much higher than the national unemployment rate. In 2011, the unemployment rate for young male veterans was over 29 percent, more than 11 percent higher than nonveterans of precisely the same age. It is heartbreaking that those who bravely served face unemployment or homelessness. This bill will not solve all problems, but it will solve many of them.

West Virginians understand the importance of military service. With nearly 170,000 West Virginian veterans, we need to be sure they have our full support: getting a job, getting health care, and getting their pensions. These words come out of one's mouth easily; getting the job done is harder.

The Veterans Job Corps Act invests in our veterans and in our communities. Veterans would have a new opportunity to serve and protect America by gaining priority placement in first responder positions, such as police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. That makes sense, doesn't it? Our veterans have the experience and the instinct to do these jobs--they did it while they served--and our communities need their help.

I don't know what is going to happen to the budget, but it is not going to be rosy and happy, and we need to have those jobs which help protect us and keep us safe in play, for our veterans and for others too. It would create conservation and resource management jobs for veterans, enlisting them in efforts to rebuild America through restoration of our forests, parks, coasts, and public lands. I think the Presiding Officer would agree that is important.

The Veterans Job Corps Act would establish a pilot program to provide veterans with access to the Internet and computers to assist in job searches and would offer the military's Transition Assistance Program to eligible veterans--and their spouses--at sites outside military installations in order to make it easier to relocate and pursue job opportunities.

The legislation would also provide veterans in rural areas, such as West Virginia and Oregon, with greater access to career specialists to help them write resumes and prepare for interviews and therefore to find jobs. The programs in the Veterans Job Corps Act are supported by a fully paid-for $1 billion investment in our veterans' futures. It is a responsible effort to support our veterans and provide help for communities across America.

In closing, I would like to especially thank Leader Reid and Chairman Murray for working with me to protect West Virginian jobs as part of this bill. The Veterans Job Corps Act is an important investment in our Nation's veterans and our economy, and I hope we can quickly move this bill through the Congress.

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

Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize a fellow West Virginian who has devoted himself to the service of our State and the advancement of our education system. As a former college president, I know how invaluable education is to building our communities, growing our economy, and raising and inspiring the next generation. I commend West Virginia State school board member Lloyd Jackson for his enduring commitment to such an important cause.

My friend, Lloyd Jackson served as a State senator for 12 years and he has been a leader in improving both the early and higher education systems of West Virginia. While a senator, he was the primary sponsor of the PROMISE scholarship legislation, a merit-based financial aid program that has helped thousands of West Virginians afford college.

He has also been a vocal advocate for prekindergarten care, and his dedication has led to vast improvements in our State's preschool education. He began his fight through personal experience; his wife had to drive their children long distances to a private day care because of the lack of access in their area. Mr. Jackson believed that all children should have the same chance to receive a quality early education.

As State senate education chairman, Mr. Jackson championed comprehensive early childhood legislation. In 2002, he helped create West Virginia Universal Pre-K and put the State on track to have universal access by 2012. Thanks to his efforts, West Virginia is today considered a leader in providing public and universal preschool education. In the 2011-12 school year, over 15,000 children were enrolled in prekindergarten, and this year every 4-year-old in the State will have access to quality schooling. In a 2011 report, West Virginia ranked fifth in the Nation in preschool access for 4-year-olds and fourth in spending on prekindergarten programs.

Lloyd Jackson has fought long and hard to make sure our children are receiving the education they deserve. I applaud his commitment to education, and I am proud of the success he has helped West Virginia achieve. Providing our children with a strong education is the greatest investment we could make in the future of our State and of our Nation. Lloyd Jackson deserves our appreciation, and I am proud to have worked with him for years and I am delighted to congratulate him for all he has done for education in West Virginia.

Mr. President, every year I have the honor, as a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, to recognize a West Virginia family for its efforts to promote adoption and provide homes for our Nation's vulnerable children. It is a wonderful program that highlights the change one couple can make in the life of a child.

Throughout my career, I have been a strong advocate of legislation that supports adoption and other permanency efforts. I am inspired by the men and women who devote their lives to caring for these children. Today, I would like to recognize one such West Virginian family: Kenneth and Vanese Cedar, who are truly angels in adoption.

Kenneth and Vanese have cared for 57 children over the years, including two biological sons of their own. Currently, they have adopted three children and serve as guardians for two teenagers. They also care for a foster child. They have raised their children in a close and devoted family, taking them to church, teaching them gardening and cooking, and playing sports together.

Even when challenges have arisen, Kenneth and Vanese have remained dedicated to helping their own family and other children in need. In 2009, Kenneth lost his job. Yet the couple took the obstacle as an opportunity to go back to school and earn regents bachelor of arts degrees, which they hope to use in social work and child protective services. When one of their sons nearly passed away from acute respiratory disease syndrome, they stood together as a family until he recovered, and he recently welcomed a child of his own.

Kenneth and Vanese Cedar are a selfless and giving couple who deserve our respect and admiration. They have provided so many children with not simply a home but a family. I would like to thank these angels in adoption for the love and care they have provided to so many. They are truly an inspiration.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Murray for her work on the Veterans Jobs Corps Act.

The unemployment rate for our young, returning veterans is higher than that national average, and this is a travesty. This important bill would invest $1 billion in creating a Veterans Jobs Corps to help our veterans transition into civilian life and get job placements in important areas of law enforcement, first responders positions, or positions in parks and forests involving restoration and protection of our public lands.

The bill makes other strategic investments to improve our infrastructure to help veterans with their job search. Veterans deserve access to Internet at one-stop job centers, as well as qualified outreach specialists to help disabled veterans seek employment. It is designed to help ensure that veterans get the credit they deserve for their training and military experiences when they seek civilian certification and licenses.

I would also like thank Leader Reid and Chairman Murray and their staffs for working with me to find an acceptable offset for this legislation, which would have had an impact on the National Energy Technology Laboratory, NETL, located in West Virginia. NETL does critically important research on improving the safety and environmental sustainability of offshore oil and gas development and importantly for my State they are working on identifying measures that can be taken to reduce the environmental impact and improve the safety of shale gas production. I am pleased that we will be able to switch out the objectionable offset and move this bill forward quickly as soon as we return from recess.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a resolution on the importance of quality data from the Census Bureau, including the American Community Survey. I am proud to introduce this resolution as a companion to the similar House legislation by my distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. The Congresswoman has shown real leadership on this issue and I am eager to work with her to highlight the importance and significance of quality data for good government oversight and management, as well as helping American businesses.

Each year, more than $400 billion Federal dollars are distributed to local communities based on the data from the American Community Survey. This survey is the largest data set of its kind, and helps strategically target federal funding for a broad range of programs for health care, transportation and education. The American Community Survey has improves data for the Child Health Insurance Program, CHIP, that means so much to vulnerable children. Another specific and compelling example is how law enforcement uses the data to predict criminal activities like methamphetamine production. Local communities use the survey to choose locations for new schools, hospitals, and fire stations.

The survey is also important to American business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, and the National Association of Home Builders support investments in this survey. It is the only source of small area estimates on social and demographic characteristics. Manufacturers and service sector firms use the survey to identify the income, education, and occupational skills of local labor markets they serve. Retail businesses use the survey to understand the characteristics of the neighborhoods in which they locate their stores. Homebuilders and realtors understand the housing characteristics and the markets in their communities, thanks to the American Community Survey.

Such a survey of American households has existed in some form since 1850, either as a longer version of or richer supplement to the basic decennial census. The newer American Community Survey provides more timely data. The Census Bureau estimates the ACS is sent to 2.5 percent of homes each year, requiring an average of 38 minutes per household to review instructions and answer questions. At this rate, the typical American would respond to the survey about twice in their lifetime. Census workers are sworn to protect confidentiality, facing prison sentences up to five years for disclosing any personal information and there has no employees are known to have violated the provisions so the privacy questions are unfounded.

In closing, I would like to share a statement by Mr. Lawrence Yun, the Chief Economist of the National Association of Realtors: ``Without the data, the nation would essentially be flying blind in relation to important housing market conditions and business decisions. Accurate economic and demographic data inspire business confidence that is so critical to the free enterprise system. We would not be able to provide an accurate estimate of many housing metrics if they cannot be benchmarked against the America Community Survey data.''

Mr. President, I rise in support of a bipartisan resolution to designate National Chess Day as October 13, 2012. I greatly appreciate the support of my colleagues, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

National Chess Day is designed to enhance awareness and encourage students and adults to engage in a game known to enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

There are over 80,000 members of the Chess Federation with many of these members joining before the age of 10. Studies indicate that chess programs aid in improving students' scores in math and reading and interest students of all learning styles and strengths. Engaging students in such activities can make learning fun and help them develop a lifelong pastime to exercise their skills.

Engaging students in chess is a wonderful opportunity to promote education, and I hope as school begins in a few weeks, more students will join the Chess Federation and learn to love this historical game.

S. Res. 540

(Designating the week of August 6 through August 10, 2012, as

``National Convenient Care Clinic Week'')

Whereas convenient care clinics are health care facilities

located in high-traffic retail outlets that provide

affordable and accessible care to patients who have little

time to schedule an appointment with a traditional primary

care provider or are otherwise unable to schedule such an

appointment;

Whereas millions of people in the United States do not have

a primary care provider, and there is a worsening primary

care provider shortage that will prevent many people from

obtaining one in the future;

Whereas convenient care clinics have provided an accessible

alternative for more than 15,000,000 people in the United

States since the first clinic opened in 2000, the number of

convenient care clinics continues to increase rapidly, and as

of June 2012, there are approximately 1,350 convenient care

clinics in 35 States;

Whereas convenient care clinics follow rigid industry-wide

quality of care and safety standards;

Whereas convenient care clinics are staffed by highly

qualified health care providers, including advanced practice

nurses, physician assistants, and physicians;

Whereas convenient care clinicians all have advanced

education in providing quality health care for common

episodic ailments including cold and flu, skin irritation,

and muscle strains and sprains, and can also provide

immunizations, physicals, and preventive health screening;

Whereas convenient care clinics are proven to be a cost-

effective alternative to similar treatment obtained in

physicians' offices, urgent care clinics, or emergency

departments; and

Whereas convenient care clinics complement traditional

medical service providers by providing extended weekday and

weekend hours without the need for an appointment, short wait

times, and visits that generally last only 15 to 20 minutes:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) designates the week of August 6 through August 10,

2012, as ``National Convenient Care Clinic Week'';

(2) supports the goals and ideals of National Convenient

Care Clinic Week to raise awareness of the need for

accessible and cost-effective health care options to

complement the traditional health care model;

(3) recognizes that many people in the United States face

difficulties accessing traditional models of health care

delivery;

(4) supports the use of convenient care clinics as an

adjunct to the traditional model of health care delivery; and

(5) calls on the States to support the establishment of

convenient care clinics so that more people in the United

States will have access to the cost-effective and necessary

emergent and preventive services provided in the clinics.