Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleagues, Senator Franken, Senator Lugar, Senator Collins, Senator Shaheen, Senator Wyden, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Brown of Ohio, to introduce an important piece of bipartisan legislation, the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012. Our legislation makes a wise investment in seniors' health by extending the proven

success of the National Diabetes Prevention Program to Medicare. Nearly 26 million American adults have diabetes, and if this disturbing trend doesn't stop, over half of the adult population will either have Type 2 diabetes or its precursor, ``prediabetes,'' by 2020.

Sadly, my home State of West Virginia has one of the highest diabetes rates in the Nation. In 2009, approximately 174,000 adults, which is 11 percent of West Virginia adults, had diabetes. According to Centers for Disease Control estimates, as many as 50 percent of the nearly 380,000 people with Medicare in West Virginia may be at risk of developing this serious, but preventable, illness. If current trends continue, one in three children born in West Virginia after the year 2000 will develop diabetes within his or her lifetime and people with diabetes risk developing terrible complications down the road, including heart disease, stroke, blindness, and amputations.

Diabetes is also one of the main cost drivers in our health care system. The direct economic burden of diabetes was $116 billion for medical expenses and indirect costs totaled $58 billion due to disability, work loss, or premature death in 2007. The costs associated with this preventable disease for Medicare beneficiaries are expected to grow to $2 trillion over the 2011 to 2020 period.

We simply cannot stand idly by in the face of such overwhelming statistics--and fortunately, there is a way to prevent Type 2 diabetes. The National Diabetes Prevention Program, NDPP, is an innovative approach that has demonstrated its effects in preventing the onset of Type 2 diabetes. The NDPP is a proven, community-based intervention that focuses on changing lifestyle behaviors of prediabetic overweight or obese adults through activities that improve dietary choices and increase physical activity in a group setting. In a large-scale clinical trial that has been replicated in community settings, NDPP successfully reduced the onset of diabetes by 58 percent overall and 71 percent in adults over 60.

Because of the impressive success of the National Diabetes Prevention Program, I believe our seniors should have access to its benefits. The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012 will help seniors prevent Type 2 diabetes by allowing Medicare to provide the National Diabetes Prevention Program through community settings like the YMCA, local health departments, or even the local church, reaching people with Medicare wherever they live. In the past, physicians have had few tools for their patients who are found to be at risk of diabetes. Under this bill, if a senior is found at risk for diabetes, for example, through their annual wellness visit, their doctor will be able to refer them to an NDPP program in their area.

Unlike Medicare, which needs a Federal legislative change to cover this program, State Medicaid programs already have the authority to pay for this innovative initiative, and it is my hope that more states will do so. By 2020, Medicaid is expected to cover 13 million people with diabetes and about 9 million people who may have pre-diabetes, and states will spend an estimated $83 billion on individuals with diabetes or pre-diabetes. The National Diabetes Prevention program presents an opportunity for States to reduce the incidence of diabetes among individuals enrolled in their Medicaid programs, an especially strategic investment when combined with the expansion of the Medicaid program under health reform.

The coverage of proven solutions under Medicare is nothing new. Yet, rather than providing a traditional drug or procedure, NDPP allows at- risk individuals to change their lifestyles through a community intervention. Implementing NDPP is a unique response to the alarming and escalating rates of diabetes. This public health solution has demonstrated tangible results that can enable our country to prevent diabetes, while reducing health care costs. The NDPP is a strategic and cost-effective intervention that costs less than $500 per person to deliver, compared to the estimated $15,000 per year spent on each Medicare beneficiary with diabetes. According to the Urban Institute, implementing the NDPP nationally could save $191 billion over the next 10 years, with 75 percent of the savings, $142.9 billion, going to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Better yet, the National Diabetes Prevention Program is a job creator, bringing diabetes trainers to more communities nationwide to provide the program. West Virginia has already received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through a Community Transformation Grant that will allow the State to train at least 100 community health workers to help disseminate the Diabetes Prevention Program in the State over the next 5 years.

The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act has been endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, National Council on Aging, Novo Nordisk, Trust for America's Health, the YMCA of the USA, and State YMCA affiliates in over 45 States. With so many Americans at risk for developing diabetes and its potentially severe complications, today is the right time for Medicare to extend the proven National Diabetes Prevention Program as a covered benefit to seniors.

I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleagues, Senator Franken, Senator Lugar, Senator Collins, Senator Shaheen, Senator Wyden, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Brown of Ohio, to introduce an important piece of bipartisan legislation, the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012. Our legislation makes a wise investment in seniors' health by extending the proven

success of the National Diabetes Prevention Program to Medicare. Nearly 26 million American adults have diabetes, and if this disturbing trend doesn't stop, over half of the adult population will either have Type 2 diabetes or its precursor, ``prediabetes,'' by 2020.

Sadly, my home State of West Virginia has one of the highest diabetes rates in the Nation. In 2009, approximately 174,000 adults, which is 11 percent of West Virginia adults, had diabetes. According to Centers for Disease Control estimates, as many as 50 percent of the nearly 380,000 people with Medicare in West Virginia may be at risk of developing this serious, but preventable, illness. If current trends continue, one in three children born in West Virginia after the year 2000 will develop diabetes within his or her lifetime and people with diabetes risk developing terrible complications down the road, including heart disease, stroke, blindness, and amputations.

Diabetes is also one of the main cost drivers in our health care system. The direct economic burden of diabetes was $116 billion for medical expenses and indirect costs totaled $58 billion due to disability, work loss, or premature death in 2007. The costs associated with this preventable disease for Medicare beneficiaries are expected to grow to $2 trillion over the 2011 to 2020 period.

We simply cannot stand idly by in the face of such overwhelming statistics--and fortunately, there is a way to prevent Type 2 diabetes. The National Diabetes Prevention Program, NDPP, is an innovative approach that has demonstrated its effects in preventing the onset of Type 2 diabetes. The NDPP is a proven, community-based intervention that focuses on changing lifestyle behaviors of prediabetic overweight or obese adults through activities that improve dietary choices and increase physical activity in a group setting. In a large-scale clinical trial that has been replicated in community settings, NDPP successfully reduced the onset of diabetes by 58 percent overall and 71 percent in adults over 60.

Because of the impressive success of the National Diabetes Prevention Program, I believe our seniors should have access to its benefits. The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012 will help seniors prevent Type 2 diabetes by allowing Medicare to provide the National Diabetes Prevention Program through community settings like the YMCA, local health departments, or even the local church, reaching people with Medicare wherever they live. In the past, physicians have had few tools for their patients who are found to be at risk of diabetes. Under this bill, if a senior is found at risk for diabetes, for example, through their annual wellness visit, their doctor will be able to refer them to an NDPP program in their area.

Unlike Medicare, which needs a Federal legislative change to cover this program, State Medicaid programs already have the authority to pay for this innovative initiative, and it is my hope that more states will do so. By 2020, Medicaid is expected to cover 13 million people with diabetes and about 9 million people who may have pre-diabetes, and states will spend an estimated $83 billion on individuals with diabetes or pre-diabetes. The National Diabetes Prevention program presents an opportunity for States to reduce the incidence of diabetes among individuals enrolled in their Medicaid programs, an especially strategic investment when combined with the expansion of the Medicaid program under health reform.

The coverage of proven solutions under Medicare is nothing new. Yet, rather than providing a traditional drug or procedure, NDPP allows at- risk individuals to change their lifestyles through a community intervention. Implementing NDPP is a unique response to the alarming and escalating rates of diabetes. This public health solution has demonstrated tangible results that can enable our country to prevent diabetes, while reducing health care costs. The NDPP is a strategic and cost-effective intervention that costs less than $500 per person to deliver, compared to the estimated $15,000 per year spent on each Medicare beneficiary with diabetes. According to the Urban Institute, implementing the NDPP nationally could save $191 billion over the next 10 years, with 75 percent of the savings, $142.9 billion, going to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Better yet, the National Diabetes Prevention Program is a job creator, bringing diabetes trainers to more communities nationwide to provide the program. West Virginia has already received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through a Community Transformation Grant that will allow the State to train at least 100 community health workers to help disseminate the Diabetes Prevention Program in the State over the next 5 years.

The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act has been endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, National Council on Aging, Novo Nordisk, Trust for America's Health, the YMCA of the USA, and State YMCA affiliates in over 45 States. With so many Americans at risk for developing diabetes and its potentially severe complications, today is the right time for Medicare to extend the proven National Diabetes Prevention Program as a covered benefit to seniors.

I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

My dear colleague, I would feel better if the Senator from Maine spoke before I did.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse.) The Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I wish all negotiations proceeded with such comity. For those of us who have lived long enough, we have seen, obviously, enormous transition. We are in a totally new age.

Today, as we begin our debate, over 200 billion e-mails will be sent around the world to every continent. Google, a company that really is just 10 years old, will process over 1 billion searches and stream more than 2 billion videos today. And in the next minute, about 36,000 tweets will be posted on Twitter. So we are now connected as we never have been before.

Here in the United States we have been the leader in both its development and adoption of the initial structure. Actually, it is interesting because it was created by our own government. The open nature of the Internet can be traced back to our initial decision in the government to relinquish control of what we had invented, so to speak. So to this day our Nation remains a leader in using the Internet's innovation and growth.

In just over a decade, we have digitized and networked our entire economy and our entire way of life. Every one of our most critical systems now relies upon these interconnected networks: power grids, transportation systems, gas pipelines, telecommunications. They all rely on networks to function. They all rely on the Internet. Yet the ramifications of this new era remain poorly understood by many; frankly, by most.

History teaches us that disruptive technological advancements can bring about both opportunities and also dangers. We cannot let our exuberance blind us from this simple truth. We cannot ignore the part of the equation in this happy adventure of ours that is unpleasant. This is it. These technological advances can compromise our national security and indeed are already doing so.

The connectivity brought about by the Internet and the new ability to access anything, combined with our decision as a country to put everything we hold dear on the Internet, means we are now vulnerable in ways that were unfathomable just a few years ago. Yes, we rushed to digitize and connect every aspect of the American economy and way of life. We have spent little time focusing on what this actually means with respect to our security. We have left ourselves extraordinarily vulnerable.

The consequences, as pointed out by the Senator from Connecticut, are devastating. Our intellectual property is our greatest asset as a nation. It is our greatest advantage in the world. It is currently being pilfered and stolen because it is connected to the Internet and therefore is unsecure.

Well, we did not think about that, did we? Experts have called this, as the Senator from Connecticut said, the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. That is a dramatic statement, but it is just an absolute terrifying fact--terrifying fact.

Our most important personal information, including our credit card numbers, our financial data is now accessible via the Internet and is stolen through data breaches that occur all the time.

Most importantly, our critical infrastructure: water facilities and gas pipelines to our electric power grid and communications networks are now vulnerable to cyber attacks, and they are happening. Many of those systems were designed before the Internet. In fact, virtually all of these systems were designed before the Internet came about, and were never intended to be connected to a network. Yet they are. Therefore, they are unsecure.

If these systems are exploited via cyber vulnerabilities, lives could be lost. Yes, there is lots of other things that could happen before that, but this has the potential to be far greater than even the tragedy of 9/11.

In recent months we have learned that hackers penetrated the networks of companies that control our Nation's pipelines--gas pipelines. There have been attempts to penetrate the networks of companies that run nuclear power plants. Last year, a foreign computer hacker showed that he could access the control systems of a water facility in Texas with ease. He accomplished this task in minutes at a computer thousands of miles away.

Our critical infrastructure is being targeted, and it is vulnerable. The major general of our National Guard, James Hoyer, recently shared a frightening story with me. He was talking about his work on cybersecurity. He said in West Virginia, he learned that a critical infrastructure facility in the State--critical infrastructure facility; that means a really important one--its engineers were being allowed to operate control systems on their home computers. How naive. But who would know? Who would have guessed?

The Internet and what it has done for our country is unparalleled, but everything we have accomplished in this Internet age is now vulnerable and, in starker terms, undoable. We have built a castle in the sand and the tide is approaching. Our systems are too fragile, too critical, and too vulnerable. It is a recipe for disaster. It is time to do something about it before it is too late.

We have all known about the seriousness of our cyber situation for years. Our national security experts know it. Our law enforcement experts know it. And there is a bipartisan agreement that something needs to be done. But that does not tell us a lot, to make that statement in the Senate. In my capacity both as the chairman of the Commerce Committee and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and still on that committee, I have become very familiar with the threat posed by cybersecurity. I have been working with my colleagues to address it.

For the past 3 years, a number of us have been working with both Republican and Democratic Senators to find

common ground on these issues so we can have a bill to get control of this. We have held hearings, we have held markups, we have held countless meetings with the private sector and interest groups. It is an endless, endless process, and the staff does four times as much.

We have been very patient in working to find a compromise. Now is the time to make that compromise happen. It will not happen today; it could happen in the next several days. We know what we need to do, I do believe. So here is what we know right now: The Federal Government needs to do a better job of protecting its own networks.

Companies control most of our Nation's critical infrastructure, and they need to do a better job of eliminating cyber vulnerabilities in their systems. There are no clear lines in the authorities and responsibilities in the Federal Government for cybersecurity, which will cause confusion in the event of a cyber catastrophe.

The private sector and the Federal Government need to be able to share information about cyber threats. Over the last year, the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate have worked together. The committees have worked together to finalize legislation that addresses each of those concerns.

Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, Collins, and I have made it a priority, as well as others, to finish this work together and with a broader group. We believe every Member of this body will be able to support some kind of legislation. We have put legislation before the Senate, but it is subject to change. In fact, it may be in the process of changing in a good sense because we held a long meeting this morning. We are going to have another one tomorrow, perhaps on a daily basis.

The basic thing we have done is that we took a more regulated approach. In other words, we have to do this. This is what we should do. At one level we should do it.

We have taken that away, and we have made it much more voluntary. We made it a voluntary approach. Some say that is worse than no bill at all, to which I reply, no, if we incent people properly with a voluntary approach, the pressure to do something is greater, particularly if they have to submit to audits as to the standards of work they are doing to protect themselves.

There are a variety of ways to do this. We could have a council--a DHS council that would decide what the standards should be. There was talk this morning about having a convening session called by NIST, National Institute of Science and Technology--which is very good at this stuff--convene the private sector and have those two work out a system. NIST has no regulatory authority, so they could let them come up with their suggestions. Then there was an idea that maybe DHS could look at that and certify it, stamp it with approval, on basic critical infrastructure. Of course, we would have to pick out which was the critical infrastructure because there is lots of it. Which one would be subject to special regard is something we would still have to work out.

This bill, however it works so far, and I think in the future, is bipartisan. There is some sort of tribulation about let's let bygones be bygones, we have all given up and compromised, to which my point of view is some of us have been working on this for a very long time, and we have been joined by others with good ideas. But don't close off the past or the future.

The bill will be bipartisan. It will incorporate the good ideas and suggestions that have been made by many colleagues. We have settled on a plan that creates no new bureaucracy. However that plan forms, it will have no new bureaucracies or heavy-handed regulation. That is already understood. It is premised on companies taking responsibility for securing their own networks, with government assistance where necessary. This bill represents a compromise, and it is time to move forward with it.

I think, in closing, back to the year 2000 and 2001. I was on the Intelligence Committee at the time of 9/11. The fact is, we get reports on all this which never surfaced, but we know the facts. There were signs of people moving around the country, and they weren't just sort of haphazardly moving around. In San Diego, a certain safe house there would appear and people were coming and going from there. Then there was the FBI office in Minneapolis and the Moussaoui case, and the FBI office in Minneapolis reported to the FBI Osama bin Laden office--and perhaps that didn't happen.

We all knew something was new and that the world was getting different. We knew the danger could come upon us. Our intelligence and national security leadership took these matters very seriously. However, they did not take it seriously enough, nor did we. So then it was too late and 9/11 happened, and the world changed forever.

Today, we have a new set of warnings flashing before us with a wide range of challenges to our security and safety and we once again face a choice: Act now and put in place safeguards to protect this country and our people or act later when it is too late. Obviously, the conclusion is we must act now.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, the criminal justice system relies on forensic science to identify and prosecute criminals and exonerate the falsely accused. But in a pathbreaking 2009 report to Congress, the National Academy of Sciences found that the interpretation of forensic evidence is severely compromised by the lack of supporting science and standards. They concluded, ``The bottom line is simple: In a number of forensic science disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions, and the courts have been utterly ineffective in addressing this problem.''

In a series of recent articles, the Washington Post reported on flawed forensic work that may be responsible for the wrongful convictions in thousands of criminal cases. An April Post editorial urged the Justice Department to conduct a full review of all cases that ended in conviction, and a July 11 story reports that the Justice Department and the FBI have now launched such a review. The National Academy of Sciences, the Washington Post, the Innocence Project, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, among others, have all called for strengthened forensic science and standards.

The Forensic Science and Standards Act of 2012 responds to this call by promoting research. The bill would establish a National Forensic Science Coordinating Office, housed at the National Science Foundation, NSF, to develop a research strategy and roadmap and to support the implementation of that roadmap across relevant Federal agencies.

NSF would establish a forensic science grant program to award funding in areas specifically identified by the research strategy. NSF would be directed to award two grants to create forensic science research centers to conduct research, build relationships with forensic practitioners, and educate students. All agencies with equities in forensic science would be encouraged to use prizes and challenges to stimulate innovative and creative solutions to satisfy the research needs and priorities identified in the research strategy.

The bill requires standard development. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, would be directed to develop forensic science standards, in consultation with standards development organizations and other stakeholders. NIST could establish and solicit advice from discipline-specific expert working groups to identify standards development priorities and opportunities.

The bill requires implementing uniform standards. To advise on the application of the new standards, a Forensic Science Advisory Committee chaired by the Director of NIST and the Attorney General would be established. The Advisory Committee, composed of research scientists, forensic science practitioners, and users from the legal and law enforcement communities, would make recommendations to the Attorney General on adoption of standards. The Attorney General would direct the standards' implementation in Federal forensic science laboratories and would encourage adoption in non-Federal laboratories as a condition of Federal funding or for inclusion in national databases.

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

Mr. President, the criminal justice system relies on forensic science to identify and prosecute criminals and exonerate the falsely accused. But in a pathbreaking 2009 report to Congress, the National Academy of Sciences found that the interpretation of forensic evidence is severely compromised by the lack of supporting science and standards. They concluded, ``The bottom line is simple: In a number of forensic science disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions, and the courts have been utterly ineffective in addressing this problem.''

In a series of recent articles, the Washington Post reported on flawed forensic work that may be responsible for the wrongful convictions in thousands of criminal cases. An April Post editorial urged the Justice Department to conduct a full review of all cases that ended in conviction, and a July 11 story reports that the Justice Department and the FBI have now launched such a review. The National Academy of Sciences, the Washington Post, the Innocence Project, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, among others, have all called for strengthened forensic science and standards.

The Forensic Science and Standards Act of 2012 responds to this call by promoting research. The bill would establish a National Forensic Science Coordinating Office, housed at the National Science Foundation, NSF, to develop a research strategy and roadmap and to support the implementation of that roadmap across relevant Federal agencies.

NSF would establish a forensic science grant program to award funding in areas specifically identified by the research strategy. NSF would be directed to award two grants to create forensic science research centers to conduct research, build relationships with forensic practitioners, and educate students. All agencies with equities in forensic science would be encouraged to use prizes and challenges to stimulate innovative and creative solutions to satisfy the research needs and priorities identified in the research strategy.

The bill requires standard development. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, would be directed to develop forensic science standards, in consultation with standards development organizations and other stakeholders. NIST could establish and solicit advice from discipline-specific expert working groups to identify standards development priorities and opportunities.

The bill requires implementing uniform standards. To advise on the application of the new standards, a Forensic Science Advisory Committee chaired by the Director of NIST and the Attorney General would be established. The Advisory Committee, composed of research scientists, forensic science practitioners, and users from the legal and law enforcement communities, would make recommendations to the Attorney General on adoption of standards. The Attorney General would direct the standards' implementation in Federal forensic science laboratories and would encourage adoption in non-Federal laboratories as a condition of Federal funding or for inclusion in national databases.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to bring attention to a small town in my home State. Sophia, WV, began its 100- year anniversary celebration on June 2, 2012, and will hold a litany of festive events throughout most of the summer.

Many of you present today will recall that Sophia is the town our dear friend and colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd, so often referred to when he spoke of his home among the hills. This beautiful community served as his and Erma's haven for much of their lives.

The town of Sophia is reportedly named for Sophia Gravley McGinnis, who was born 200 years ago, in 1812. Mrs. McGinnis and her husband, Pyrrhus McGinnis, owned nearly 2,000 acres of land in and around the area according to the family's historical documents. Sophia became the first official citizen and its endeared namesake when the town incorporated in 1912. She went on to live to the ripe age of 104 years old and died in March of 1916. She is buried near Flat Top, WV.

Many times over, Senator Byrd reflected on his and Erma's time in Sophia, fondly remembering the friendships and once-bustling economy. Historically, the town of Sophia was known as the epicenter of the Winding Gulf region where countless tons of coal have been mined and transported all over the world via the extensive rail network intersecting the region.

Senator Byrd is certainly Sophia's favorite son. The memories he shared so freely with all of us act as a reminder of the importance of coal and its far-reaching impact on the State of West Virginia and our Nation. They also bring to mind the tremendous character of the people who helped create those memories and how they helped guide him in his duties as the longest serving member of the Congress.

Unfortunately, as with many towns across our great land, Sophia fell on hard times for a number of years. With the march of technology and the mechanization of the coal industry, fewer men were needed to mine coal and service the railroads, causing Sophia's population to quickly dwindle. Grocers and markets and small shops began to close their doors. Schools helping to educate the children of Sophia were consolidated. The town soon became a shell of its former glory.

However, like other parts of West Virginia that have experienced decline, the citizens of the town of Sophia never gave up. Their story continues today and proves to be a testament of the talented and dedicated residents living there. Many of the efforts to revitalize this rural village have resulted in enormous success. Economic development initiatives have culminated in a bright future for Sophia that includes an economy of growth and a renewal of the spirit that lies deep within the hearts of the people Senator Byrd held in such high regard.

Evidence of the revitalization in the town of Sophia includes the opening of the Affinity Coal mining operation and the regular passage of railcars once again full of coal. Burning Rock Outdoor Adventure Park is bringing visitors from all across the Nation and the rich heritage of the coal industry is creating new tourism proposals and interest in the studies of mine safety and engineering. The young men and women of Sophia are no longer forced to leave their homes to find gainful employment because opportunities are once again available to them and their families.

All of these measures bring me to the floor to recognize what should be considered a shining example of dedication and commitment in times of hardship and adversity. On behalf of the people of the town of Sophia, it brings me great pride to present this statement in recognition of a community spirit that has fostered ongoing transformation, while always holding true to a history rich with fortitude.

Madam President, in the shadow of one seemingly narrow Senate vote, that being the Inhofe resolution of disapproval of the EPA's rule on mercury and air toxins, I rise to talk about West Virginia, about our people, our way of life, our health, our State's economic opportunity, and about our future.

Coal has played an enormous part in our past and can play an enormous part in our future, but it will only happen if we face reality.

This is a critical and a very contentious time in the Mountain State. The dialogue on coal, its impacts, and the Federal Government's role has reached a stunningly fevered pitch. Carefully orchestrated messages that strike fear into the hearts of West Virginians and feed uncertainty about coal's future are the subject of millions of dollars of paid television ads, billboards, breakroom bulletin boards, public meetings, letters, and lobbying campaigns.

A daily onslaught declares that coal is under siege from harmful outside sources, and that the future of the State is bleak unless we somehow turn back the clock, ignore the present, and block the future.

West Virginians understandably worry that a way of life and the dignity of a job is at stake. Change and uncertainty in the coal industry is unsettling and nothing new. But it is unsettling. My fear is that concerns are also being fueled by the narrow view of others with divergent views and motivations, one that denies the inevitability of change in the energy industry and unfairly--and I feel this strongly--leaves coal miners in the dust.

The reality is those who run the coal industry today would rather attack false enemies and deny real problems than solve problems that would help them and the people they employ and the States in which they work.

Instead of facing the challenges of making tough decisions, similar to men of a different era, they are abrogating their responsibilities to lead. Back in the 1970s, I remember a fellow from Consolidation Coal named Bobby Brown. He got together with the United Mine Workers on his own. We were having a lot of temporary restraining orders and strikes at that time. They sat down, and because Bobby Brown was not a timid man--he was the head of a company, but he was a forceful leader--they worked out something which gave us peace in the coalfields of West Virginia--which is something--for a long time. It was a courageous act by a courageous nontimid man.

Scare tactics are a cynical waste of time, money, and worst of all, coal miners' hopes. Coal miners buy into all the television they hear, are controlled by it, have large salaries. So in a sense they are stuck where they are, happily funded but without a place to look forward to. But sadly these days, coal operators have closed themselves off from any other opposing voices and almost none has the courage to speak out for change--any kind of change--even though it has been staring them in the face for decades. They have known about it. They have ignored it.

This reminds me of the auto industry, which also resisted change for decades. Coal operators should learn from both the mistakes and the recent success of the automobile industry. I passionately believe coal miners deserve better than they are getting from coal operators, and West Virginians certainly deserve better also.

Let's start with the truth. Coal, today, faces real challenges, even threats, and we all know what they are

First, our coal reserves are finite and many coal-fired powerplants are aging. The cheap, easy coal seams are diminishing rapidly and production is falling, especially in the Central Appalachian Basin in southern West Virginia. Production is shifting to lower cost areas such as Illinois and the Powder River Basin in the Wyoming area. The average age of our Nation's 1,100-plus coal-fired plants is 42.5 years, with hundreds of plants even older. These plants run less often, are less economic, and are obviously less efficient.

Second, natural gas use is on the rise. Power companies are switching to natural gas because of lower prices, cheaper construction costs, lower emissions, and vast, steady supplies. Even traditional coal companies such as CONSOL are increasingly investing in natural gas as opposed to coal.

Third, the shift to a lower carbon economy is not going away. It is a disservice--a terrible disservice--to coal miners and their families to pretend it is, to tell them everything can be as it was. It can't be. That is over. Coal companies deny that we need to do anything to address climate change, despite the established scientific consensus and mounting national desire--including in West Virginia--for a cleaner, healthier environment.

Despite the barrage of ads, the EPA alone is not going to make or break coal. Coal operators would love to think that is the case because it is a great target, and it is much easier to criticize than to do something. But there are many forces exerting pressure, and that agency is just one of them.

Two years ago, I offered a time-out on EPA carbon rules, a 2-year suspension that could have broken the logjam

in Congress and given us the opportunity to address carbon issues aggressively and legislatively.

But instead of supporting this approach, coal operators went for broke--they saw a fatter opportunity--when they demanded a complete repeal of all EPA authority to address carbon emissions forever. They demanded all or nothing. They turned aside a compromise and, in the end, they got nothing.

Last year, they ran exactly the same play, demanding all or nothing on the cross-State air pollution rule, refusing to entertain any middle ground and denying even a hint of legitimacy for the views of the other side and they lost again--badly.

Here we are with another all-or-nothing resolution, which is absolutely destined to fail, and we are arguing as months, weeks, and years go by. This foolish action wastes time and money that could have been invested in the future of coal. Instead, with each bad vote the coal operators get, they give away more of their leverage and lock in their failure.

This time, the issue is whether to block an EPA rule, as has been said--the mercury and air toxics standards--that require coal-fired powerplants to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution.

I oppose this resolution because I care so much about West Virginians.

Without good health--demeaned in this debate so far--it is hard to hold down a job or live the American dream. Chronic illness is debilitating. I have made a career in the Senate of health care. It impacts families' income, their prosperity, and ultimately families' happiness. The annual health benefits of the rule are enormous. EPA has relied on thousands of studies--thousands--that establish the serious and long-term impact of these pollutants on premature death, heart attacks, hospitalizations, pregnant women, babies, and children. Do West Virginians care about these kinds of things? I think they do.

Moreover, it significantly reduces the largest remaining human-caused emission of mercury, which is a potent neurotoxin with fetal impact. Maybe some can shrug off the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics and many other professional medical and scientific groups, but I do not.

The rule has been in the works through a public process for many years. Some businesses--including some utilities in West Virginia--have already invested in technology and are ready to comply.

Others have not prepared because they have chosen to focus on profit rather than upgrading or investing in these smaller, older, and less- efficient coal-fired plants that were paid for decades ago and that they will tell us would be retired anyway.

That is right. Every single plant slated for closure in West Virginia was already on the chopping block from their own corporate board's decision.

It is important to be truthful with miners. It is sort of a forgotten art, and that is a travesty. We have to be truthful with miners that coal plants will close because of decisions made by corporate boards long ago, not just because of EPA regulations but because the plants are no longer economical as utilities build low-emission natural gas plants.

Natural gas has its challenges too, with serious questions about water contamination and shortages and other environmental concerns. But while coal executives pine for the past, the natural gas folks look to the future, investing in technology to reduce their environmental footprint, and they are working with others on ways to support the safe development of gas. We are all going to be watching that very closely, are we not?

It is not too late for the coal industry to step up and lead-- leadership--by embracing the realities of today and creating a sustainable future. It has not been too late for a long time. Discard the scare tactics. Stop denying science. Listen to what markets are saying about greenhouse gases and other environmental concerns. Listen to what West Virginians are saying about their water, air and health and the cost of caring for seniors and children who are most susceptible to pollution.

Stop and listen to West Virginians--miners and families included--who see the bitterness of the fight we are having now and which has been going on forever. The bitterness of the fight has taken on more importance than any potential solutions. The point is put up block after block, which loses time after time, but at least they have a fight and something to scream about, all with no progress.

Those same miners care deeply about their children's health. They care about them. They are family people. I know that. I went there in 1964 and lived among miners for 2 years, and I have now lived among them ever since, closely and intimately. They care about what people all over the country care about. They care about the streams and mountains of West Virginia. They know down deep we can't keep to the same path. They are not allowed to say so, but they know that.

Miners, their families, and their neighbors are why I went to West Virginia. They are why I made our State my home. I have been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with coal miners, and we have done a lot of good together over the years.

For more than 36 years, I have worked to protect the health and safety of coal miners, everything from the historic Coal Act back in 1992 to my safety laws, pensions and black lung benefits--always with miners' best interests in mind.

Despite what critics contend, I am standing with coal miners by voting against this resolution.

I don't support this resolution of disapproval because it does nothing to look to the future of coal. It moves us backward, not forward. Unless this industry aggressively leans into the future, coal miners will be the big losers.

Beyond the frenzy over this one EPA rule, we need to focus squarely on the real task of finding a long-term future for something called clean coal. That is possible. We have demonstrated that. That is being done in various places in the country right now. This will address legitimate environmental and health concerns and, of course, global warming and all that counts.

Let me be clear. Yes, I am frustrated with much of the top levels of the coal industry, at least in my State of West Virginia, but most of the corporate headquarters are elsewhere. However, I am not giving up hope for a strong clean coal future. I am not giving up. To get there, we will need a bold partner, innovation, and major public and private investments.

In the meantime, we should not forget that coal-fired powerplants would provide good jobs for thousands of West Virginians. It remains the underpinning for many of our small communities, and I will always be focused on their future.

Instead of finger-pointing, we should commit ourselves to a smart action plan that will help with job transition opportunities, sparking new manufacturing and exploring the next generation of technology--not just be dependent upon coal but a lot of things.

None of this is impossible. Solving big challenges is what we do in West Virginia. I would much rather embrace the future boldly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Military Family Home Protection Act, a bill to strengthen the legal protections our military personnel are guaranteed under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA.

Entering military service can sometimes make it difficult or impossible for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to meet their civilian legal and financial obligations. In laws dating back to the Civil War, Congress has given active-duty military personnel special protections against legal actions that might be taken against them while they are away from home because of military service. The purpose of these laws, according to a 1943 Supreme Court decision, is ``to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burden of the nation.'' Congress re-wrote the World War II-era ``Soldiers and Sailor Relief Act'' in 2003, as full-time military, Reservists, and National Guard personnel were deploying in large numbers to Iraq and Afghanistan. This comprehensively updated statute was re-named the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.''

Since the September 11 attacks, we have asked our military personnel--both our active-duty and reserve components--for unprecedented service and sacrifice. We have asked them to deploy multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have asked their families to live without their loved ones for long periods of time. We have asked our National Guard and Reserve personnel--not just once, but sometimes two or three times--to leave their jobs, put their civilian lives on hold, and answer their country's call to service. The promise the SCRA makes to these Americans is that while they are engaged in the defense of our country, we will protect them and their families from adverse financial actions on the home front. One important way the SCRA protects these servicemembers is by lowering their mortgage interest rates while they are on active duty, and by prohibiting banks from foreclosing on their homes without first getting court approval.

Unfortunately, as I learned during a joint House-Senate forum I held in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing room in July 2011, not all banks have been following the law. In May 2011, for example, the Department of Justice settled lawsuits with the former Countrywide Home Loans, now a subsidiary of Bank of America, and Saxon Mortgage, a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, for $22 million. In these lawsuits, DOJ alleged that the companies violated the SCRA by foreclosing on more than 170 servicemembers without court orders. At the House-Senate forum, which I organized with Representative Elijah Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we heard from two members of the military and other experts about how these SCRA violations can devastate military families. Mrs. Holly Petraeus, who is the Director of Servicemember Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as the wife of General David Petraeus, told us that:

. . . [W]hile a foreclosure is devastating for any American

family, it can be especially painful for military families.

Both the family back home and the deployed servicemember, who

feels helpless to take action to prevent the foreclosure, are

put in a terrible situation. It is vital that servicemembers

receive all the protections afforded to them by the SCRA.

At the time we held this forum, legislators in both houses were already hard at work on legislation to strengthen the SCRA and improve banks' compliance with the SCRA. In late 2010, Congress passed a new law, P.L. 111 275, that allowed deploying soldiers to terminate their cell phone contracts without penalties, and that gave the United States Attorney General new powers to enforce the SCRA against creditors. In June 2011, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, on which I serve, approved a bill sponsored by Senator Begich, S. 941, which included a provision to extend the period of SCRA mortgage protections from nine months to twelve months after a servicemember leaves military duty. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee is also actively considering other proposals to improve the SCRA.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Cardin was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 5747 on May 15, 2012, by Ranking Member Cummings, along with the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Adam Smith, and the Ranking Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Representative Bob Filner. Two days later, it was adopted as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming vote of 394 27.

Now that the House has expressed its bipartisan support for this legislation, I am introducing it in the Senate for consideration. The recent House vote shows that this is an issue that should rise above partisan politics. I hope that the House's recent action will give the Senate new momentum to look at what we can do to strengthen the SCRA and protect our military personnel and their families. A short summary of the bill is provided below.

The Military Family Home Protection Act expands the class of covered individuals under the SCRA's mortgage provisions to include: All servicemembers serving on the battlefield, regardless of when they bought their home. Servicemembers retiring 100 percent disabled due to service-connected injuries and surviving spouses of servicemembers who died in military service.

The act stays mortgage foreclosure proceedings against SCRA-covered persons for 1 year following their service; it also eliminates a current sunset provision that will reduce this protection to 90 days beginning January 1, 2013.

The Act doubles the civil penalty for SCRA mortgage violations to $110,000 for the first offense and $220,000 for subsequent violations.

The act protects servicemembers and their families against discrimination by banks and lenders on account of servicemembers' eligibility for SCRA protections. It also requires banks and lenders to take further steps to ensure SCRA compliance. These steps include: Designating an SCRA compliance officer. Requiring SCRA compliance officers to distribute information to servicemembers about their SCRA protections, and providing a toll-free telephone number and website to help servicemembers better understand their SCRA protections.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Military Family Home Protection Act, a bill to strengthen the legal protections our military personnel are guaranteed under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA.

Entering military service can sometimes make it difficult or impossible for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to meet their civilian legal and financial obligations. In laws dating back to the Civil War, Congress has given active-duty military personnel special protections against legal actions that might be taken against them while they are away from home because of military service. The purpose of these laws, according to a 1943 Supreme Court decision, is ``to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burden of the nation.'' Congress re-wrote the World War II-era ``Soldiers and Sailor Relief Act'' in 2003, as full-time military, Reservists, and National Guard personnel were deploying in large numbers to Iraq and Afghanistan. This comprehensively updated statute was re-named the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.''

Since the September 11 attacks, we have asked our military personnel--both our active-duty and reserve components--for unprecedented service and sacrifice. We have asked them to deploy multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have asked their families to live without their loved ones for long periods of time. We have asked our National Guard and Reserve personnel--not just once, but sometimes two or three times--to leave their jobs, put their civilian lives on hold, and answer their country's call to service. The promise the SCRA makes to these Americans is that while they are engaged in the defense of our country, we will protect them and their families from adverse financial actions on the home front. One important way the SCRA protects these servicemembers is by lowering their mortgage interest rates while they are on active duty, and by prohibiting banks from foreclosing on their homes without first getting court approval.

Unfortunately, as I learned during a joint House-Senate forum I held in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing room in July 2011, not all banks have been following the law. In May 2011, for example, the Department of Justice settled lawsuits with the former Countrywide Home Loans, now a subsidiary of Bank of America, and Saxon Mortgage, a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, for $22 million. In these lawsuits, DOJ alleged that the companies violated the SCRA by foreclosing on more than 170 servicemembers without court orders. At the House-Senate forum, which I organized with Representative Elijah Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we heard from two members of the military and other experts about how these SCRA violations can devastate military families. Mrs. Holly Petraeus, who is the Director of Servicemember Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as the wife of General David Petraeus, told us that:

. . . [W]hile a foreclosure is devastating for any American

family, it can be especially painful for military families.

Both the family back home and the deployed servicemember, who

feels helpless to take action to prevent the foreclosure, are

put in a terrible situation. It is vital that servicemembers

receive all the protections afforded to them by the SCRA.

At the time we held this forum, legislators in both houses were already hard at work on legislation to strengthen the SCRA and improve banks' compliance with the SCRA. In late 2010, Congress passed a new law, P.L. 111 275, that allowed deploying soldiers to terminate their cell phone contracts without penalties, and that gave the United States Attorney General new powers to enforce the SCRA against creditors. In June 2011, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, on which I serve, approved a bill sponsored by Senator Begich, S. 941, which included a provision to extend the period of SCRA mortgage protections from nine months to twelve months after a servicemember leaves military duty. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee is also actively considering other proposals to improve the SCRA.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Cardin was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 5747 on May 15, 2012, by Ranking Member Cummings, along with the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Adam Smith, and the Ranking Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Representative Bob Filner. Two days later, it was adopted as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming vote of 394 27.

Now that the House has expressed its bipartisan support for this legislation, I am introducing it in the Senate for consideration. The recent House vote shows that this is an issue that should rise above partisan politics. I hope that the House's recent action will give the Senate new momentum to look at what we can do to strengthen the SCRA and protect our military personnel and their families. A short summary of the bill is provided below.

The Military Family Home Protection Act expands the class of covered individuals under the SCRA's mortgage provisions to include: All servicemembers serving on the battlefield, regardless of when they bought their home. Servicemembers retiring 100 percent disabled due to service-connected injuries and surviving spouses of servicemembers who died in military service.

The act stays mortgage foreclosure proceedings against SCRA-covered persons for 1 year following their service; it also eliminates a current sunset provision that will reduce this protection to 90 days beginning January 1, 2013.

The Act doubles the civil penalty for SCRA mortgage violations to $110,000 for the first offense and $220,000 for subsequent violations.

The act protects servicemembers and their families against discrimination by banks and lenders on account of servicemembers' eligibility for SCRA protections. It also requires banks and lenders to take further steps to ensure SCRA compliance. These steps include: Designating an SCRA compliance officer. Requiring SCRA compliance officers to distribute information to servicemembers about their SCRA protections, and providing a toll-free telephone number and website to help servicemembers better understand their SCRA protections.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I know this bill is very important to the Senator who is offering it. I understand that, and I respect the Senator. He is a good Senator. But my objection is not based so much on what he said, it is based on the whole concept of public safety.

This is about public safety. We should not have to worry that potentially unqualified pilots are in the air. We have so many tens of thousands of airplanes in the air every hour of every day. This bill would create a process which would be new which could result in the Federal Government being unable to pursue enforcement action because of the limited resources. It is a fact of life these days. FAA has to cut way back. We are having to address other mandated priorities which are perhaps more important than this one. That could very well mean that the FAA and the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, which are ultimately responsible for making decisions about whether pilots have violated aviation regulations, could be barred from taking actions to prevent unsafe pilots from continuing to fly. That is heavy water. That could have serious safety consequences.

According to the FAA, in some cases which would typically warrant revocation of a pilot's license, some unqualified pilots would be able to avoid losing their certificates by avoiding FAA prosecution of the matter before the NTSB.

This bill, in closing, would stand the FAA's enforcement structure on its head. As a result, I do object.

I call up my amendment No. 2073, and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Madam President, as modified, this amendment would simply eliminate a very problematic provision in the underlying bill, provision section 105, but it has a very bad effect, and this would clear that up. It would shift onto Medicare and raise premiums for current postal workers and retirees in some cases by as much as 35 percent. There is more to it, but that is the bulk of it. So I would hope that it would be passed.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2074 and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. President, 1 year ago last month our Nation lost an esteemed public servant and an outstanding human being, Judge M. Blane Michael, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a number of years.

With his passing, we were therefore left with a great void not only on the Federal judiciary but also in the hearts of his family and his many friends. So it is with a profound sense of obligation to the people of West Virginia and America that I set out to find a nominee to fill his vacancy. My duty to provide advice and consent took on, to me, additional significance.

In West Virginia, we are fortunate to have many talented and worthy lawyers who are capable of serving--and willing to serve--on the Federal bench.

But the nominee before the Senate today, Stephanie Dawn Thacker, completely stood out to me--and (in turn) to President Obama--as someone who is uniquely qualified to carry on in her own way, Judge Michael's legacy of independence, humility, and intellectual honesty as a Federal judge.

There is no question that Stephanie Thacker has reached the heights of the legal profession, both as an award-winning public servant and as an esteemed lawyer in private practice.

Her rise is all the more impressive because of the challenges she overcame The circumstances of Stephanie Thacker's early life were not easy. Her home town, Hamlin, WV, is in one of the poorest counties in the nation--a place where nothing is taken for granted and where every success is hard-earned.

Stephanie credits a supportive family and community, and the influence of two strong women who assumed her ability to achieve against the odds.

While still in the crib, Stephanie's mother and grandmother told her every day that she would go to college, and then in college they told her she would succeed in law school. They instilled in her the value of education and a strong sense of public service and duty to her country, which we fulfill again today.

Ms. Thacker heeded their advice, graduating magna cum laude from Marshall University and second in her class from the West Virginia University College of Law, where she was an editor of the Law Review.

Over the next 21 years her passion and respect for the law, along with her drive to seek justice for her clients, resulted in an illustrious career. Ms. Thacker's reputation is as a compassionate yet tough attorney who makes thoughtful, very well-researched, and therefore confident arguments that are always based on the law and facts of her cases.

These skills and character are evident in her 12 years of service as a federal prosecutor, where she rose to be Principal Deputy Chief of the Department of Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. Among her accomplishments are prosecuting the first federal Violence Against Women Act case and helping to develop the nationwide Innocence Lost initiative to combat child sex trafficking, which to date has led to the rescue of more than 1,600 children and the conviction of more than 700 sex offenders.

She co-authored the Federal Child Support Prosecution handbook, worked reviewing and amending West Virginia's domestic violence laws, prosecuting notorious child sex offender Dwight York, and training national and international law enforcement officials on the prosecution of child exploitation crimes.

This body of work has rightfully earned her bipartisan praise over the years from United States Senators, FBI Director Mueller and former Attorney Generals Gonzales and Ashcroft, who awarded her the Distinguished Service Award, which is among the Department's highest commendations.

These accomplishments are illustrative of the experience and qualifications that Stephanie Thacker offers in service to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

She has the courage to make tough decisions, and will not back down from a challenge.

She has the superior intellect necessary to analyze the complex legal issues that come before the Federal appeals courts. She will look at every case with a fair and open mind and will issue opinions that are guided by our Constitutional principles and always grounded in the law and she will never forget her solemn duty to uphold fairness and justice for everyone, regardless of social status or economic means.

In conclusion, it is with great optimism, pride, and a renewed spirit that I look to the future, knowing that this important appellate vacancy will be filled with such a qualified nominee as Stephanie Dawn Thacker.

I yield the Floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last week, an extraordinary West Virginian, James McCormick, received a national award, Citizen Service Before Self Honors, from the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation. This nonprofit is dedicated to education and awareness about the Congressional Medal of Honor. James McCormick was recognized by this distinguished group for his extraordinary commitment to his fellow veterans. Mr. McCormick returned from service and rather than thinking of just himself, he realized that his fellow veterans needed to work and they needed housing.

His deep understanding of the needs of returning veterans led to the creation of his nonprofit, Raising Cane Farms. The vision is simple but important. Raising Cane Farms is an organic, environmentally friendly farm located in Mason County, WV, that grows and market bamboo for multiple uses, including sales to manufacturers of bamboo products, produce sellers, restaurants, and landscapers. But beyond that, the farm will also serve as an educational facility and place to employ veterans and provide quality jobs in an outdoors, veteran-friendly environment using both the outdoors and fellowship with other veterans to help them recover from combat disabilities.

Raising Cane Farms has been helped by dedicated partners including the Farmer Veteran's Coalition, FVC, that provided support to clear the land, build roads, establish a watering system, and build a greenhouse. Other partners include Work Vessels for Veterans, which helped with funding for a trailer, marketing and Web development support, and important introductions to other veteran farmers including Veteran Farm's pioneer Adam Burke.

As the longest serving member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am deeply moved by the courage of our veterans and their ongoing service to our country and their colleagues. James McCormick is such an inspiration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to, or perhaps 1 or 2 minutes over, 20 minutes.

Mr. President, this week there is plenty of drama unfolding at the Supreme Court, the stately building across the street from where we now stand. The Justices are deliberating inside the building. There is a lot of shouting and clamoring outside. That is to be expected. But I am here today to encourage all of us to pause for a minute and to step back from the hype and think about what the broader health care reform means to so many Americans, not just the citizens the Presiding Officer and I represent but Americans across this country.

I do think, because I believe strongly that the rhetoric surrounding the issues has become so polarizing, many people routinely overlook the profound ways the law has already made life better to so many Americans. Let's remember why we started down this path of health reform at all.

Let me say for the record this is a path that has been well trodden over the years by both Democrats and Republicans--in fact, over the last century--but we had never managed to enact meaningful reform in our system. Yes, we added on some extraordinary things such as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, but reform of the system we had not done. So we rejoiced in what happened in the mid-1960s, but that doesn't help us in terms of the overall disposition of the system.

When we renewed this debate about how to fairly make sure everyone in the country could get the health care they needed, we actually, at the time as we started, had 46 million uninsured Americans. To be uninsured is not pleasant; it is a fearful condition. Employers had been dropping coverage for a decade due to skyrocketing health care costs. People were losing their jobs and with them their coverage. Even those who had coverage were being saddled with horrendous bills, and they were thrust into bankruptcy even though many of them thought they had coverage that was protecting them financially. They did not, but they thought they did.

Some of those with preexisting conditions could not get back into the system at any cost whatsoever. Preexisting conditions are something people have--tens and tens of millions of Americans have those.

Americans thought our system was broken and unfair, and they thought it was time to finally achieve our shared goal of access to care and a more affordable system. That was sensible.

Let's start by looking at part of the law that protects those with preexisting conditions. As I just mentioned, there are about 133 million Americans, individual Americans, who live every day with chronic illnesses--or they fail to live--because of chronic illnesses.

What happens to them when insurance companies refuse to cover their illnesses even while the insurance companies are collecting premiums from them? That is called rescission. It is a dirty trick the insurance companies have been doing to us in America for years. This law stops that.

Before health reform, millions of Americans, including children, could be denied the health care they needed due to a preexisting condition. They might have had asthma. I had asthma until I was 12 years old. I wasn't worried about insurance, I gather, or maybe I didn't get sick, but anyway I couldn't have gotten insurance in those days because I had a preexisting condition.

If a woman has a C-section, she has a preexisting condition. If someone has acne, that person can have a preexisting condition. If people have almost anything, they can have a preexisting condition if the insurance company says they do, so they just cut them off. It is called rescission. They cut them off even though they are paying premiums. That is unfair.

I want to talk about what this has meant to real people every day. It means people have lived in fear of losing their employer-sponsored coverage or even leaving a job to start their own business for fear that they could not get coverage. It meant if somebody did get coverage, the insurance company could just carve out their condition. In other words, they could just get rid of them, dump them.

What is the practical implication of this insurance company abuse? Consider this: People could get coverage if they had cancer, but the cancer would not be covered. Not good. And the preexisting condition doesn't have to be as complex as cancer. Insurance companies could deny coverage for something as simple as allergies.

Before health reform, insurance companies could even deny coverage to a woman if she was a victim of domestic violence and had to be treated. That is unimaginably cruel, but it was a fact.

That is no more. Under the health reform law preexisting conditions will no longer be a barrier to quality affordable health care. That is over. They cannot do it. It is against the law--the law which so many are trying to repeal.

Is there anyone here who would like to go back to the old days, those good old days when individuals, including millions of children, were punished for things they couldn't possibly control? They were subject to devastating medical costs without the benefit of insurance--or their families were. I don't think people would want to go back there, but, of course, that is what will happen if we abandon all of this.

Let's talk now about another piece of this great effort that also is often overlooked, and it is the coverage of young adults under the age of 26. I know that is a particular matter the Presiding Officer likes about this bill.

In the past, many young adults in my State and everywhere have gone without health insurance as they made their way into the world after graduation. That is a ticklish time. Most of these young adults are not slackers, as they have sometimes been called. Many simply start out in low-wage or part-time jobs that typically do not offer health coverage. Because they were over the age of 18, and therefore technically adults, they were not able to maintain coverage under their parents' health insurance plan.

This meant many young adults would forfeit basic things such as checkups or put off seeing a doctor when they had health problems in the hope it would go away. But that is no way to live, particularly not when 15 percent of young Americans suffer from a chronic health condition such as depression or diabetes--yes, that young--and not when a staggering 76 percent of uninsured adults report not getting needed care because of cost.

Before health reform young adults represented one-third of our Nation's uninsured population. People always think of young people as healthy. Not so. They take risks. They end up in the emergency room often. Think about how many young adults and their families are so much in a better position. Why is that? That is because the law now allows young adults, with no coverage of their own, to pay premiums and to stay on their parents' health insurance policy up to their 26th birthday. This applies even if they no longer live at home, if they are no longer a student or they are no longer dependents on their parents' tax returns. In other words, they have coverage up to the age of 26.

As a result, over 2.5 million young adults gained coverage they did not have before--that is a fact today--including more than 16,000 young adults in West Virginia. Those families have the peace of mind that their families will be financially protected should an injury or an illness occur.

It is important to know that young people suffer a lot of mental health conditions, maybe a little bit more than the rest of the population. We don't think about that because they are young and therefore always ebullient. No, they are young and often troubled, trying to figure out what life holds for them. These conditions cause them problems, they need insurance, and they can get it.

So right off the bat, parents such as Sam Hickman from West Virginia are able to get young adult coverage. Isn't our country a better place--it would seem to me--when people have the security of knowing they are covered in case of illness or injury. To me, it just makes sense; maybe more important, to the people it brings peace of mind.

It is not all. The law provides access to free preventive health services and easier primary care, as well as increased financial assistance for students through new scholarships and loan repayment programs to build a stronger health care workforce. That is a major part of this bill.

In West Virginia, as the Presiding Officer knows, and all across the country, particularly in rural areas, we have a shortage of various kinds of necessary physicians and health care providers. In fact, one of my favorite parts of this law is the significant new financial incentives it creates to encourage young adults to go into primary care--dentistry, pediatrics, nursing, and mental health--to precisely address those shortages. It is in the bill.

Doesn't it make sense, given the shortage of skilled health care professionals in this country, to make it easier for young people to get into those well-paying stable jobs?

Health care job growth continues to be a major stabilizing factor in our economy. Creating additional jobs in our local communities is something many in this body have fought for in all kinds of ways--tax credits and plans and all kinds of things--but in the meantime, health reform tackles that problem too, just inexorably. Health care jobs continue to grow year after year, most of them private, obviously.

Just look at the numbers from the month of February of this year. The health care sector once again led the Nation's job growth last month, adding about 49,000 jobs, which was about the same as the month before. Health care is the economic engine--in fact, it kind of undergirds our economy. It is silent, it is relentless, and it will not stop because health care is something people cannot walk away from--the receiving of or the providing for.

Another important group helped by health care reform is our Nation's seniors, starting with lowering the cost of their Medicare prescription drug coverage. That is very important in West Virginia, as the Presiding Officer knows. Thanks to the new health care law almost 40,000 people with Medicare in West Virginia received a $250 rebate-- they have already got it--to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit that famous doughnut hole in 2010. I will not bother to explain that.

In 2011, more than 36,000 West Virginians with Medicare received a 50-percent discount on their covered brand-name prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole. That is called very good news. Then we go on to close the doughnut hole entirely.

This discount I am talking of resulted in an average savings of $653 per person and a total savings of over $23.5 million in our State of West Virginia. By 2020, the law will close the doughnut hole completely, and I think that is rather sensational news for seniors.

Closing the doughnut hole is not all this law does for seniors. Under the new law, seniors can receive recommended preventive services. We talk about that all the time, and we always think it is not in a bill. Preventive services such as flu shots, diabetes screening, as well as new annual wellness visits--all things seniors should do but often decline to do because of lack of access or thinking they have to pay for it and they don't have the money. So now they can get all of these screenings for diabetes and flu shots and all kinds of other things for free. So far, more than 32.5 million seniors nationwide have already received one or more free preventive services, including the new, as I indicated, annual wellness visit, which is a very good idea for any person.

In 2011 more than 230,000 people with Medicare in West Virginia received free preventive services such as mammograms, colonoscopies, or a free annual wellness visit with a doctor, and 54 million Americans with private health insurance gained preventive service coverage with no cost sharing, including 300,000 people in the State of West Virginia.

The new law also provides new grants and incentives to improve health care coordination and quality, as well as a new office, the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office. We have to have that. I kind of wish we didn't have to, but we do because it is a new science. This is trying to get away from the health care system as usual, so we do have that one little addition, sort of managing care for seniors and managing care for individuals with disabilities and, importantly, eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Those, obviously, are known as our dual- eligibles: those who are poor enough to be on Medicaid and old enough to be on Medicare, so they can't afford life, so to speak. They need help and they need health care, and under this bill they get that. There are about 8, 9, 10, 11 million of them in this country.

Many doctors, many hospitals, and many other providers are taking advantage of the new options to help them work better as teams to provide the highest quality care possible. That is called coordinated care. It is new, it is important, and it is going to be really helpful. That is good news because many chronic illnesses can be prevented or managed better through this coordinated care. It means doctors actually talk to each other.

The way it is now, when a patient gets an x ray taken by a dentist or by somebody else, the patient has to carry the x ray with them--if they can manage to get their hands on it--to go see another doctor, as opposed to a system, such as telemedicine, which has the technology to shoot the information over the Internet so the next doctor already has it, so he or some of his people are thinking about what they are going to do next. It is so important to talk to each other, but we don't. Doctors and hospitals often operate as if in a vacuum, sort of taking it on a case-by-case basis. That is bad for patients.

The health care law also helps stop fraud with tougher screening procedures and stronger penalties and new technology. New technology can catch all kinds of things. Thanks in part to these efforts, we recovered $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in 2011. That was last year. The second year's recovery hit this recordbreaking level also. West Virginia tax dollars should not go to pay for criminals who are defrauding the system, and the administration is cracking down on this. Believe it or not, it is.

And I am not done. In just over 18 months, a new competitive health insurance marketplace called an exchange--which has everybody nervous for no reason at all; it is great news--will be up and running in West Virginia and all across the country where individuals and small businesses can shop for coverage in the private health insurance market. This is not government; it is all private. An estimated 180,000 West Virginians will be eligible for $687 million in premium tax credits to help cover the cost of private health insurance in the year 2014 when the exchanges start.

Families all over the country will finally have more power when it comes to buying health insurance that works for them--having more power is a big deal if you are trying to shop for health insurance--thanks to a clear, transparent summary of benefits. Yes, you actually get to see the choices from which you can pick. You have a list of all the services they are going to provide. It is required by law. They can't cheat. They can't just say: Oh, we will take care of you. Sign up with us. We are a big insurance company.

So they get the transparent summary of benefits and coverage that will let them compare benefits on an apples-to-apples basis, which will come standard with every single private insurance plan, which will be what makes up the exchanges. They will go through that, and they will pick out what best suits them.

In fact, it is quite telling that this little-known provision I have just talked about is the single most popular one in the entire law. I didn't know that. Eighty-four percent of Americans think that is really good. They like the idea of being able to choose what they are going to get in health care coverage. The insurance companies, of course, hate it and have been fighting with everything they have, but we have been beating it back, Mr. President, as you would expect me to do.

What that tells me is that people are frustrated and fed up with the confusing information they have been getting from their health insurance companies, and they are tired of guessing games about what is actually covered. They have a right to know, and now they can. So I look forward to September of this year when every insurance company finally has to come clean about what benefits are actually covered and the products they are selling. It will be there in black and white. They can read it, and families will obviously have much more purchasing power in their hands.

What is wrong with that?

While opponents have gotten used to talking about how the law costs too much, in fact, it has great provisions that will not only improve the quality of care but also save hundreds of billions of dollars--yes, that is true--for example, the average $2,500 discount thousands of West Virginia small businesses received last December as a result of the medical loss ratio rule. That was what followed the public option. Everybody so loved the public option. They thought it was wonderful. The only problem is that it could not get votes from the Finance Committee, so it could not come down here and we could not do anything about it, so we invented the medical loss ratio. It is totally understandable, right? The question is, How does it work? Does it help people? And it does because it says that health insurance companies are required to spend at least 80 percent of small businesses' and 85 percent of large businesses' health insurance premium dollars on actual medical care--not on administration, not on marble pillars, not on CEO salaries and all of that. They have 20 percent or 15 percent to do all of that. But if they fail to do that, they have to rebate to the consumer, to the patient who has been paying the premiums, the fact that they have not been abiding by this 80 percent or 85 percent law, and that is probably going to be several billions of dollars--at the very least, hundreds and hundreds of millions, and that is kind of like billions--and it starts this year. I am delighted.

Now, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is another example. IPAB is not well understood and therefore not well received. What is not understood is generally not well received. That doesn't mean it is not good. IPAB will be made up of smart doctors, nurses, and other health care experts who will figure out ways to improve the quality of Medicare services and make sure the Medicare trust fund stays strong. And IPAB is legally forbidden in this law--which the folks across the street are now considering--from recommending cuts to Medicare benefits or in any way increasing cost sharing on the part of Medicare recipients. That is in the law--cannot cut benefits, no cost sharing.

Yet the House just last week rallied behind an effort to repeal IPAB. They didn't know what it was or they had really bad dreams about what it was, so they repealed it and felt better. The House vote is a good example of what happens when special interest wins and seniors lose.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board was created to protect Medicare for seniors by improving the quality of

Medicare services and by extending the life of Medicare for years to come. Instead of making Medicare better, House Republicans want to decimate the program and force seniors to pay much more and give private health insurance companies and other special interests the authority to raid the Medicare trust fund, which they will do in order to pad their bottom line, which they would love to do. This would take us exactly in the wrong direction. Every single senior in America should be outraged.

You can even get simple things like better information about private health insurance by just going to the Web site healthcare.gov. The information is out there to help people shop for better coverage today.

There is so much more that has already happened and more to come, such as the nearly $70 million in grants West Virginia has already received for things like community health centers. We put aside $10 billion in the bill for maybe up to 1,000 new rural health care clinics across America. As the Presiding Officer knows, in places such as Lincoln County in West Virginia, people don't want to go to hospitals, but they will go to clinics happily because they are on the first floor, tend to be in buildings that used to be stores or whatever, and they get good medical care right there.

In closing, why would we want to throw this law out the window knowing just these facts? Think about it. The reforms here are the most significant reforms in health care in several generations. It is an effort that 50 years from now history will record the same way we do Social Security or Medicare Programs--as an essential part of the implicit promise to care for its citizens, to allow people to age with dignity, and to find ways to make our society a better place.

So as we mark the 2-year anniversary of the health care reform law becoming the law of the land--and the folks across the street will decide if that stands up or not, but I think they will--I, for one, am proud of my role in its passage and grateful that Congress came together on such a historic issue.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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