Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Robert Casey and eight of my colleagues in introducing the Safe Schools Improvement Act. This important legislation will help to address a crisis going on in our schools--the bullying and harassment of our children. We know that no child can achieve the high academic standards set for them if they are living in fear of bullying or harassment. This legislation will help change the culture in our classrooms and provide schools with the tools they need to promote a safe learning environment.

Findings from the 2007 National School Climate Survey demonstrated that a significant number of students experienced harassment in our schools, often because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This study also revealed that 96 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in New York often heard words such as ``gay'' used in a negative connotation. Furthermore, 93 percent of students regularly heard homophobic remarks. The National School Climate Survey also found that 20 percent of students in New York were physically assaulted in their school because of their sexual orientation, while another 13 percent were assaulted because of their gender expression.

This environment of harassment and bullying in our schools lowers the academic performance of our students. In fact, 35 percent of LGBT students reported to have skipped classes at least once in the past month because they felt unsafe in their own school. I find this to be unacceptable.

The Safe Schools Improvement Act will require schools and districts receiving designated Federal funds to adopt codes of conduct specifically prohibiting bullying and harassment, including conduct based on a student's actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion. The act would ensure that schools and school districts focus on effective prevention programs in order to better prevent and respond to incidences of bullying and harassment, and would require that States report data on incidences of bullying and harassment to the Department of Education.

This bill has received support from a broad coalition of nearly 70 education, civil rights, disability, religious, and youth service organizations, such as the American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, National Association of School Psychologists, National Education Association, National Parent Teacher Association, American Association of University Women, Asian American Justice Center, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Human Rights Campaign and the National Council of La Raza. Additionally the National Safe Schools Partnership, strongly endorses the Safe Schools Improvement Act.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Safe Schools Improvement Act. I believe that we must support this legislation to ensure that all our children can learn in a safe and productive environment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her leadership, for her guidance, for her distinguished career, and for her service on the Judiciary Committee. It is so meaningful to all of us to have her ability to review these candidates in such depth.

I am so proud to stand in support of Solicitor General Kagan's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. With his decision, President Obama has chosen an individual of the highest caliber, a women with an enormous history of achievement, a history of service and, perhaps most importantly, a history of bridge building.

Elena Kagan is widely regarded as one of the Nation's leading legal scholars. She is a stalwart defender of the Constitution, and through her sharp intellect, steadfast integrity, sensible

judgment, and extraordinary work ethic, Elena Kagan has made it clear she is eminently qualified to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Dean of Harvard Law School, magna cum laude from Harvard Law, editor of the Harvard Law Review, and summa cum laude from Princeton, these are just some of the many accolades she obtained during her vast and distinguished career.

Throughout the course of this nomination process, it has been made abundantly clear that Solicitor General Elena Kagan has a profound and exceptional understanding of the Constitution and our system of law. Unfortunately, it appears that some of my colleagues are determined to criticize Elena Kagan regardless of these facts. They can no longer find partisan or ideological fodder by which to create a straw man of opposition, so they are now questioning her intellect, her clarity of mind, and her temperament. It is deeply concerning to me that my colleagues would dismiss the judgment of every Solicitor General of the past 25 years and dismiss the views of law professors from all across the United States and even sitting Supreme Court Justices who have suggested that Elena Kagan is eminently qualified to sit on the Court.

These distinguished legal experts from across the country and across the ideological spectrum say Elena Kagan is not only an intellectual giant, but she is as qualified to serve on the Nation's highest Court as any of her other predecessors. Every Solicitor General over the last quarter century--Democrats and Republicans--wrote a letter of support for her nomination as Solicitor General, noting her brilliant intellect, her candor, and the ``high regard in which she is held by persons of a wide variety of political and social views.''

The support of Miguel Estrada, Ken Starr, and Ted Olson, along with the support of some of my Republican colleagues such as Senator Lindsey Graham, all speak to her ability to build bridges and to find common ground. These are the traits we need in a Justice when so many decisions right now are narrowly being decided at the 5-to-4 margin.

An attorney with over two decades of experience working in all three branches of the Federal Government, Kagan's breadth of experience will bring diversity to a Court consisting entirely of former judges. Many of the Justices on both sides of the aisle are quite fond of Elena Kagan from her time as Solicitor General and have commented on how her distinct professional background is a welcome contribution to the Court.

Based on her record of achievement, it is clear Elena Kagan possesses the temperament that will distinguish her as a consensus builder on a deeply divided Court.

Narrow 5-to-4 decisions by a conservative majority have become the hallmark of the Roberts Court. These decisions have often been overreaching in scope and have repeatedly ignored settled law and congressional intent. For example, in the Citizens United case, the Court not only disregarded the extensive record compiled by Congress but abandoned established precedent. Solicitor General Kagan's unique ability to build coalitions will be very helpful in bridging this very serious divide.

Since the announcement of her nomination, I know more than a few of my colleagues have struggled to find a viable reason to object to her nomination. The bottom line remains that there has yet to be a credible reason to oppose this outstanding confirmation.

I look forward to enthusiastically casting my vote in support of General Kagan's nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me and support her nomination as well.

Mr. President, I wish today to speak about my grave concern for the children of Haiti. Last month, Senator Landrieu and I traveled to Haiti, where we met with President Preval and First Lady Elisabeth Delatour Preval. We heard firsthand from the President and First Lady that if they are ever going to rebuild their nation, their children need better access to publicly funded quality education.

As everyone knows, Haiti faced incredible challenges even before the devastating earthquake. As a result, children who were already facing almost insurmountable odds are now all the more desperate.

I believe we have a duty to answer the call of Haiti's children today, deliver the relief they need, and help put them on a path toward the quality education they deserve.

Even before the earthquake, only half of Haiti's children attended school at all. The country has almost no public school system. In fact, nearly 90 percent of the schools in Haiti's education system were funded and run by nonpublic operators.

No other country in the world faces the kinds of challenges faced today by Haiti's education system:

An overwhelming majority of Haiti's school-age children live in the country's rural areas, but less than a quarter of children in rural Haiti are actually enrolled in school.

The poorest of Haiti's poor are the hardest hit. Just over a third of Haiti's poorest 20 percent were enrolled in primary schools, compared to 80 percent of the country's wealthiest.

Of those enrolled, many graduate late or never at all because they can't afford school fees, uniforms, or books or because of late enrollment or poor quality education.

Around 80 percent of children were still enrolled in primary school at the age of 13, beyond the age they should have started secondary school.

Of the schools that were standing, the earthquakes caused an astounding $\1/2\ billion worth of damage.

We know that good opportunities in education lead to a strong national economy. But these alarming statistics show just how bleak the state of education is in Haiti.

If Haiti is ever going to rebuild and if these children are ever going to have a chance at success, Haiti needs a strong public school system to help lead the way. A strong public school system can be the foundation of each community, providing a broad range of resources for children and families--from health clinics and immunizations, to literacy education, job training, and nutrition.

It has been truly humbling and inspiring to watch the outpouring of support from America and across the globe coming to Haiti's relief. I support President Obama's request for the emergency supplemental this year to fund relief and redevelopment in Haiti. I applaud Chairman Leahy and my dear friend Senator Landrieu's work to include funding for Haiti's education in this bill. These have all been lifesaving first steps. But we can't stop now. It is time now to direct our efforts to Haiti's education system.

The Inter-American Development Bank, together with the Government of Haiti, has estimated that it would take $2 billion over 5 years to set up Haiti's education sector.

I strongly encourage President Obama and Secretary Clinton to make a high-quality public school system a top priority in our relief efforts for Haiti--and begin building schools that can save lives, create real opportunities for the children of Haiti to succeed, and lay the foundation for a Haiti rebuilt.

Vetting Procedures

Mr. President, I ask does Senator Harkin agree that the Secretary of Education has the authority to contract for these types of services?

And, Mr. President, I ask if Senator Schumer would also agree that in our State and many other States these agencies provide valuable services to students and families?

Madam President, I am pleased to rise today in strong support of the nomination of fellow New Yorker, Judge Denny Chin, to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Chin has a distinguished legal career, having dedicated the majority of his life to public service and education. His experience in the court room spans more than a decade as a litigator, and over 15 years as a Federal judge.

When he was 2 years old, Judge Chin moved with his parents from Hong Kong to New York, where he later attended Stuyvesant High School. Through hard work, he was able to attend Princeton University, where he received the Athlete Award from the National Football Scholarship Foundation and graduated magna cum laude. After graduating from Princeton, Judge Chin attended Fordham School of Law, where he earned his juris doctorate and became managing editor of the Fordham Law Review.

As impressive as his educational background is, Judge Chin has enjoyed an equally notable legal career in public service and private practice, beginning with a job clerking for U.S. District Judge Henry Werker in the Southern District of New York for 2 years. He then spent another 2 years at Davis Polk & Wardwell before resuming his commitment to public service at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. As a Federal prosecutor, Judge Chin honed his litigation skills by arguing cases in the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following his time at the U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Chin went back into private practice, working as a litigator and a partner at several law firms in New York, and also as a solo practitioner, becoming a specialist in employment and commercial law.

In 1994, Judge Chin was the first Asian American appointed to Federal district court outside the Ninth Circuit, where he has served for 15 years. During his time on the bench, Judge Chin has presided over more than 4,700 civil and 650 criminal cases, issuing more than 1,500 opinions. He has served as designated judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on 84 appellate cases, of which nine decisions are his written opinions. Notably, Judge Chin presided over the high profile trial of Bernard Madoff, whom Judge Chin ultimately sentenced to 150 years in prison for defrauding billions of dollars from New Yorkers and individuals from across the United States.

Judge Chin has demonstrated a strong commitment to education and the next generation of the legal profession as a professor of law for more than 23 years at his alma mater, Fordham University's School of Law. He has contributed to legal scholarship by publishing seven law review articles and is frequent speaker at bar associations, law schools, law firms, corporations, and non-profit organizations. In 2009, he received the Professor of the Year Award from the Fordham Law School Public Interest Resource Center, and previously was awarded the Fordham Law School Alumni Association's Medal of Achievement in 2006. He currently cochairs the Fordham Law School Minority Mentor Program.

Judge Chin's dedication to public service extends to community leadership, and he is actively involved in local community and in legal associations. He is a member of the Second Circuit's bar association, the Federal Bar Council, formerly serving as the President, and currently serving on the Public Service Committee. Prior to assuming the bench, he also served on numerous community boards, including the Brooklyn Center for Urban Environment, Care for the Homeless, Hartley House, and St. Margaret's House. Upon assuming the bench, Judge Chin remained involved in his local community by becoming a member of numerous cultural organizations in New York. The outstanding dedication he demonstrated throughout his career and years of community involvement has led to numerous awards and honors--such as the J. Edward Lumbard Award for Public Service from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the New York State Division of Human Rights.

The American Bar Association gave Judge Chin its highest rating, as he is an exceptional and highly competent judge. He has always followed a thoughtful, reasoned approach to each case, strictly adhering to the application of facts and legal precedent.

There are currently 129 judicial nominees waiting to be confirmed by this Senate. It is unfortunate that when there are such highly qualified nominees as Judge Chin, they cannot be quickly voted on so that they may begin to handle the many critically important cases that are currently pending in our Federal courts.

In conclusion, Judge Denny Chin possesses the judicial temperament, breadth of legal knowledge, and commitment to justice, civil rights, and the rule of law necessary for this appointment. He is well qualified, and I am confident that he would make an outstanding judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support his confirmation.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the military service of Thomas Edward Pinelli, a veteran of World War II who is being honored in Washington, DC, this week.

Mr. Pinelli served as a forward observer and technical sergeant in the Third Infantry Division, which fought the Germans through the Vosges Mountains in France, through the Colmar Pocket, and finally until VE day in Germany. As part of this division, he helped liberate the Dachau concentration camp and free thousands of civilians who were under Hitler's rule. His division received a unit citation from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Sergeant Pinelli was awarded medals for sharp shooting and good conduct.

After World War II, Thomas returned to his hometown of Bronx, NY, where he began a career with the U.S. Postal Service. After 30 years, he retired in Westchester County, where he now resides.

As grateful as Thomas Pinelli is for the opportunity to serve his country, he is even more grateful for the opportunity to have lived a full life in service to his community as a committed citizen, husband, and father. Mr. Pinelli's two sons are also giving back to their communities as they emulate their father's commitment to service: his elder son Thomas Jr. is a health care provider, and his younger son John teaches high school in New York City.

On April 14 and 15, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum honored Thomas Pinelli and many others for their role in liberating the Dachau Concentration Camp in April 1945. Thomas traveled to Washington for this ceremony, thrilled at the chance to visit the Nation's Capital, to see old friends, and to relive this momentous time in American history. I wish to congratulate him on this honor and thank him for his service to our Nation.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about this critical legislation we have before us--The Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act.

I wish to thank Chairman Rockefeller, Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Members Hutchison and DeMint for their hard work on this critical legislation.

I share the concerns raised by Chairman Dorgan, as he spoke on the floor about the need to advance this legislation, and implement a number of vital improvements to the safety and security of our aviation system

On the night of February 12, 2009, Continental flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air, departed Newark Airport bound for Buffalo, NY.

The 45 passengers and 5 crewmembers were just miles from the airport when a series of events resulted in the death of all aboard as well as a father on the ground whose home was the unfortunate final resting place of flight 3407.

Over this last year, I have gotten to know many of the families of the victims very well. They are a constant presence here in Washington, DC, working to improve safety conditions so that others are spared from the horror and loss that they have experienced.

Sitting in my office last spring, as the NTSB began to release information on the crash, I discussed with the families the tremendous value of their advocacy. For decades the system has been slow to change and in the mean time innocent lives have been lost.

We discussed the possibility of seizing on this very legislation as a vehicle of change--to bring accountability and transparency to the system--to strengthen the training requirements and push forward to achieving not just ``one level of safety'' but a ``higher level of safety''.

That conversation began a year-long campaign by the families who, on their own dime, have been here at every aviation-safety hearing both in the Senate and House and have frequented Senator's offices with the steadfast determination to turn this tragedy into a clarion call for change.

We must remember the people we lost in the Buffalo crash.

An expecting mother, a community health advocate, a young couple in love, an international human rights leader, a second-year law student. These were mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, taken suddenly, their passions and dreams left for those closest to them to honor and pursue.

Beverly Eckert died in that crash. She was a national leader, who took her personal tragedy of losing her husband on September 11, and became a leading advocate for the 9/11 families. She was on her way to Buffalo that night to celebrate her late husband's birthday with family, and to honor a student at Canisius High School with a scholarship named for her husband.

Gerry Niewood, was a noted jazz musician, Rochester native and graduate of the Eastman School of Music and University at Buffalo. Gerry was on his way to Buffalo to join his long-time friend and Grammy winner Chuck Mangione in a concert with the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra.

The details surrounding the tragedy of flight 3407 have been well- documented.

We know that for the 2 days prior to that night, the captain, who had a history of training failures, had not slept in a bed, commuting from his home in Florida.

The copilot, who had complained of illness during the trip, had also not slept in a bed the night before, commuting from her home in Seattle, with a stop in Memphis, to her duty station at LaGuardia.

I don't know of many jobs, especially those where people's lives are in your hands, that can be done under these circumstances.

Although not specifically addressed in this underlying bill, this issue of commuting and duty time, is but one of many factors that came together to result in this tragedy.

Working with my colleague, Senator Schumer, we advanced legislation that would raise the minimum standards for new commercial pilots. A version of this proposal, which was endorsed by the Families of Flight 3407, has been secured in this underlying legislation.

The new standards would increase the minimum flight hours for commercial hires from the current 250 hours to 800 for copilots. Apart from just more flight time experience, the new regulations would increase the quality of that training, not just the quantity.

The proposal requires the Administrator of the FAA to engage in rulemaking that requires that beyond the 800 hours minimum pilots must demonstrate effective operation of aircraft in: multipilot conditions; adverse weather conditions, including icing conditions, as was the case with flight

3407; high altitude operations; and basic standards of cockpit professionalism and operations in part of the airline industry.

A major concern that I share with the families, is that often times, when left to their own, the FAA has a poor track record in acting on updating regulations.

This legislation will give the FAA until end of next year to enact these new regulations or a more stringent set of regulations will become the across-the-board standard.

Also, included in this bill is the crux of the Flight 3407 Memorial Act, my legislation that would require the FAA to report back to Congress on all new safety recommendations issues by the National Transportation Safety Board investigative reports.

Time and time again the FAA has failed to enhance training requirements and other safety measures. The version of the reporting requirements that I secured in the underlying bill will not only require the FAA to respond to NTSB recommendations, but let the American people know what actions they are taking, and the timeline by which they will act on recommendations.

This will ensure that the voices of the families are not only heard, but responded to.

Instituting this level of oversight is critical as we look to assure the Families of Flight 3407, and all Americans who travel by air, that those responsible for acting on the recommendations of safety experts, are not simply filing those recommendations away in a filing cabinet, never to see the light of day. They are listening and implementing safer standards and procedures.

I am grateful for the hard work of the Commerce Committee and leadership in bringing this important bill forward.

The steps taken in this legislation begin to address the culture of inaction that helped contribute to the crash outside Buffalo.

It is time to learn the lessons of the past, change the culture of inaction, and make air travel safer for all of us.

We owe it to those lost to never forget, and to continue our work to address the serious concerns raised over the last year.

I look forward to seeing these improvements contained in this critical legislation enacted.

Mr. President, I am pleased to lead a bipartisan group of Senators today to introduce the Engineering Education for Innovation Act, also called the E\2\ for Innovation Act. Joining me in leading this are Senator Kaufman, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Klobuchar. The intent of this legislation is to competitively award planning and implementation grants for State educational agencies to integrate engineering education into K-12 curriculum and instruction to spark student interest in engineering through comprehensive K-12 engineering education including hands-on design and engineering components.

The bill increases the availability of K-12 engineering education curriculum and teacher professional development programs, encourages broader participation of girls and underrepresented minorities in K-12 engineering education, invests in afterschool engineering education programs, and the legislation also funds the research and evaluation of such efforts.

Our Nation today faces pressing technological challenges in renewable energy, biotechnology, health care technology, material science, and information technology. According to the National Science Board's 2010 Science and Engineering Indicators, only 5 percent of college graduates in the United States major in engineering, compared with 12 percent of European students, 20 percent of those in Asia and one-third in China. In addition, while women earn 58 percent of all bachelor's degrees, they constitute only 18.5 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in engineering. African Americans hold only 4.6 percent and Hispanics hold only 7.2 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in engineering.

As a woman, I am a strong proponent of programs that support girls and underrepresented minorities. Many K-12 students, especially girls and students from underrepresented groups or who are economically disadvantaged, and their teachers have little knowledge about the engineering design process or the many career possibilities in engineering. Today, we continue to have an untapped pool of potential technical workers, and we must leverage the diversity of these individuals to fuel the innovation necessary for our future global competitiveness.

I am committed to initiatives that enhance student participation in STEM, diversify the STEM pipeline and promote competence and confidence to teach engineering for preparing the next generation of our Nation's high tech workforce for a sustainable and competitive economy. Long term investments in STEM education will pay rich dividends to our future economy by building capacity to innovate.

The introduction of engineering education has the potential to improve student learning and achievement in science and mathematics, increase awareness about what engineers do and of engineering as a potential career, and boost students' technological literacy. I want to thank all my colleagues for joining together to address the critical needs of our Nation in a bipartisan manner. I look forward to working together to move this legislation through this Congress.

Mr. President, I am pleased to lead a bipartisan group of Senators today to introduce the Engineering Education for Innovation Act, also called the E\2\ for Innovation Act. Joining me in leading this are Senator Kaufman, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Klobuchar. The intent of this legislation is to competitively award planning and implementation grants for State educational agencies to integrate engineering education into K-12 curriculum and instruction to spark student interest in engineering through comprehensive K-12 engineering education including hands-on design and engineering components.

The bill increases the availability of K-12 engineering education curriculum and teacher professional development programs, encourages broader participation of girls and underrepresented minorities in K-12 engineering education, invests in afterschool engineering education programs, and the legislation also funds the research and evaluation of such efforts.

Our Nation today faces pressing technological challenges in renewable energy, biotechnology, health care technology, material science, and information technology. According to the National Science Board's 2010 Science and Engineering Indicators, only 5 percent of college graduates in the United States major in engineering, compared with 12 percent of European students, 20 percent of those in Asia and one-third in China. In addition, while women earn 58 percent of all bachelor's degrees, they constitute only 18.5 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in engineering. African Americans hold only 4.6 percent and Hispanics hold only 7.2 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in engineering.

As a woman, I am a strong proponent of programs that support girls and underrepresented minorities. Many K-12 students, especially girls and students from underrepresented groups or who are economically disadvantaged, and their teachers have little knowledge about the engineering design process or the many career possibilities in engineering. Today, we continue to have an untapped pool of potential technical workers, and we must leverage the diversity of these individuals to fuel the innovation necessary for our future global competitiveness.

I am committed to initiatives that enhance student participation in STEM, diversify the STEM pipeline and promote competence and confidence to teach engineering for preparing the next generation of our Nation's high tech workforce for a sustainable and competitive economy. Long term investments in STEM education will pay rich dividends to our future economy by building capacity to innovate.

The introduction of engineering education has the potential to improve student learning and achievement in science and mathematics, increase awareness about what engineers do and of engineering as a potential career, and boost students' technological literacy. I want to thank all my colleagues for joining together to address the critical needs of our Nation in a bipartisan manner. I look forward to working together to move this legislation through this Congress.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Patricia Smith for Solicitor of the Department of Labor. Commissioner Smith is a dynamic and effective leader with over 30 years of experience in labor law, and I am very proud to support her nomination.

She has exhibited exceptional leadership during her 10 years as New York's Labor Commissioner. In this capacity, she managed 3,700 employees in 80 offices and oversaw an annual budget of $11 billion.

In response to the current economic climate, Ms. Smith executed critical programs to reduce the impact of layoffs. She also implemented career training to assist individuals in entering high demand fields. Additionally, she has enhanced labor law enforcement in order to safeguard workers and reward responsible employers.

Commissioner Smith fully embodies the integrity and the diligence this position demands and has a wealth of experience, making her well qualified to enforce critical issues such as workplace safety and health, fair wages, equal employment opportunity, veterans protection, and retirement and health benefits.

Prior to her term as labor commissioner, she served as Chief of the Labor Bureau in the New York Attorney General's Office for 8 years. In that capacity, she established a method of labor law enforcement that other attorneys general and enforcement agencies have used as a model. She was an innovative leader here, increasing efficiency and effectiveness of the bureau by developing ethics standards, targeting enforcement efforts on an industrywide basis, and strategically focusing on workers.

Commissioner Smith's nomination, which has been pending since April, was reported with the unanimous support of all committee Democrats. Additionally, she has the enthusiastic support of labor groups, women's groups, and worker advocates. A number of prominent business organizations have also endorsed Commissioner Smith, including the Business Council of New York State, the Manufacturing Association of Central New York, the Partnership for New York, the Long Island Forum for Technology, and the Plattsburgh North Country Chamber of Commerce.

Commissioner Smith has endured a rigorous vetting process and has made herself available to answer over 50 questions from our friends from the other side of the aisle and met with all interested Senators.

I urge my colleagues to move quickly to confirm Patricia Smith for Solicitor for the Department of Labor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the proposed amendment from the Senator from Alaska.

This resolution of disapproval goes against good public health policy and poses a serious threat to my constituents in New York--and all Americans--undermining our ability to advance efforts to clean our air and water and leave our world a better, healthier place.

This assault on the Clean Air Act would handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency, stripping it of its authority to regulate dangerous greenhouse gases. This amendment would let large scale polluters off the hook by scrapping requirements for electric generation facilities to use modern technology to reduce emissions and produce cleaner energy.

If passed, this amendment would send a message that the United States will remain reliant on outdated and inefficient energy technologies and delay investment in new, clean technologies that would spur innovation and create good-paying, American jobs, all across this great Nation.

For my constituents in New York, this amendment stands for more air pollution in our communities, more acid rain devastating natural treasures like the Adirondacks, ever-increasing asthma rates for our children, and a failure to take action when action is long overdue.

Regulatory uncertainty is undermining our national interests and giving countries like China and India, the ability to eclipse our Nation in developing the next generation of energy technologies--that we, the United States, should be leading the way on.

Supporters of this amendment are essentially saying that they do not believe the worldwide scientific consensus regarding climate change, and that they don't believe greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health--despite decades of world-class science that predate it, and the clarion call from public health advocates across the country.

A vote for this amendment would be a vote for more pollution and increase protection of those polluters.

It would encourage a regression in the environmental progress that has been made over the last 40 years, and represents a denial of the need to create jobs and revitalize our economy with clean, renewable, American power.

We need to pass comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation that will create jobs by spurring investment and innovation, enhance our national security by moving our Nation forward on a path to energy independence, protect our air and water by reducing pollution, and decrease energy costs for American families.

The science is clear and we cannot afford to wait.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this attempt to undermine action to tackle climate change and urge this body to move forward with comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order during today's session.

I yield the floor now to Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to an amendment that has been offered by my distinguished colleague from Nebraska.

There has been a lot of misinformation about what the health care bill we are debating would mean for women and for reproductive rights. So let me please set the record straight.

The underlying legislation before us maintains a historic compromise we have had in this country by barring the use of Federal funds for the full range of reproductive services, except in cases of rape, incest, and to save a woman's life. That is the current law of the land, and the Senate bill goes to great lengths to maintain current Federal law.

The legislation would segregate private funds from public funds, so only a person's private money will contribute to their reproductive coverage. This is not an accounting gimmick, as some critics have falsely charged. In fact, this kind of arrangement is often used when public funds are given to parochial schools or other religious institutions to maintain a separation of church and state.

The Senate version would also require that at least one plan within the health insurance exchange offer a plan that covers reproductive services and one that does not. It would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to audit any and all plans to make absolutely certain abortion is not being paid for with Federal dollars. This arrangement is squarely in line with the historic compromise we have had in this country for 30 years that keeps Federal funds from being used to pay for abortions.

As we debate the solution to the deepening health care crisis that has affected every citizen, business, and community in the country, this is not the time nor the place to instigate a new battle over reproductive rights and reproductive freedoms. Families and businesses that are getting buried under the weight of the current cost of health care deserve much better.

Proponents of the Stupak-Pitts amendment claim this is a continuation of current Federal law, but that is simply false. This proposal goes far beyond Federal law and will, in fact, bring about significant change and dramatic new limitations on reproductive access in this country. It establishes

for the very first time restrictions on people who pay for their own private health insurance. This is not partisan spin; this is fact. A new study by George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services concluded:

The treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts

amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating

coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all

women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a

health insurance exchange.

This is government invading the personal lives of Americans, and it puts the health of women and young girls at grave risk.

In fact, this amendment would represent the only place in the entire health care bill where opponents are actually correct. This would truly limit access to medical care by giving the government the power to make medical decisions, not the patient or the doctor.

We all agree it is important to reduce abortions in this country, and I will continue to work in many ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and to promote adoption. However, the Stupak amendment prohibits the public plan as well as the private plans offered through the exchange, if they accept any subsidized customers, from covering any abortion services. This effectively bans full reproductive coverage in all health insurance plans in the new system, whether they are public or private.

Creating a system in which women are forced to purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory, it is ridiculous. It would require women to essentially plan for an event that occurs in the most unplanned of circumstances and often in critical emergency situations.

There are currently five States that require a separate rider for abortion coverage. In these five States, it is nearly impossible to find such a private insurance policy that covers full reproductive care. In one State, one insurance company holds 91 percent of the State's health insurance market and refuses to even offer such a rider.

There is no doubt that a lack of access to full reproductive health care puts the lives of women and girls at grave risk. The Stupak measure poses greater restriction on low-income women and those who are more likely to receive some kind of subsidy and less likely to be able to afford a supplemental insurance policy.

Denying low-income women reproductive coverage in this way is not only discriminatory, it is dangerous. Without proper coverage, women will be forced to postpone care while attempting to find the money to pay for it. Such a delay can lead to increased costs and graver health risks, particularly for these younger girls or these women will be forced to return to dangerous back-alley providers. Women and girls in America deserve better.

I am optimistic we can defeat this radical change to Federal law, pass a health care bill in the Senate that respects current law, and strip the dangerous Stupak measure during the conference process. As I said before, I think there has been a lot of misinformation about what the Stupak measure does and the level of danger this kind of sweeping change could pose to women and girls.

This health care package must move us forward toward quality, affordable health care for every single American.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the Nelson amendment and any similar measure. I ask that we work together to preserve current law and respect the private choices made between a woman and her doctor.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Mikulski's amendment, which improves the health care measures that are already in this act.

Women must shoulder the worst of the health care crisis, including outrageous discriminatory practices in care and coverage. Not only do we pay more for the coverage we seek for the same age and the same coverage as men do, but in general women of childbearing age spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men.

Some of the most essential services required by women are currently not covered by many insurance plans, such as childbearing, Pap smears, and mammograms. A standard in-hospital delivery can cost between $5,000 and $10,000 and much more if there are complications. You cannot imagine what it is like for a pregnant woman to recognize she may not have coverage for the essential services she needs for herself and her child. The health care bill before us ensures that this will no longer happen.

However, there is much room for improvement. In America today, too many women are delaying or skipping preventive care because of the costs of copays and limited access. In fact, more than half of women delay or avoid preventive care because of its cost.

This fundamental inequity in the current system is dangerous and discriminatory and we must act.

The prevention section of the bill before us must be amended so coverage of preventive services takes into account the unique health care needs of women throughout their lifespan.

With Senator Mikulski's amendment, even more preventive screening will be covered, including for post-partum depression, domestic violence, and family planning.

Covering more preventive screening at no cost to women will encourage that more women go to the doctor, improving their health, saving lives and, as Senator Mikulski brought out, saving money.

The whole point of this health care bill is to lower costs across the board. When you shift America's health care system to preventive services over the current emergency room services, you are going to do exactly that.

This amendment will ensure that the coverage of women's preventive services is based on a set of guidelines developed by women's health experts.

This amendment will also preserve the doctor-patient relationship, to allow the patient to consult with their doctor on what services are best for them.

This amendment will cost $490 million over 10 years and it is fully paid for.

The health care crisis in America must be addressed, and I am very supportive of Senator Mikulski's amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next hour be under the control of the majority controlled as follows and in the order listed: Senator Gillibrand, 5 minutes; Senator Whitehouse, 20 minutes; Senator Landrieu, 17 minutes; and Senator Cantwell, 18 minutes.

Madam President, as I rise today to speak in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I wish to say that this is truly historic legislation which I am very proud to support which will ensure all Americans will have access to quality, affordable health care. It will at long last make the necessary changes to contain costs that have truly spiraled out of control, and it will make enormous progress to address the many disparities in our health care system that are discriminatory toward women.

The Congressional Budget Office has determined this bill will provide coverage for more than 94 percent of Americans--98 percent when accounting for the elderly population--while reducing the spiraling costs of health care and trimming the deficit over the next 10 years and beyond.

Sixty years after Harry Truman first talked about the need to guarantee affordable, quality health care for all Americans, we are on the brink of a historic vote to move one step closer to achieving this goal.

In 1994, the last time we seriously considered health care reform, opponents argued that if we reformed our health care system, health care spending would skyrocket and health care quality and access would decrease. The opponents succeeded in 1994, and health reform was defeated. But in the absence of reform, look at what has actually occurred. Since 1994, family premiums have risen by over 150 percent. In 1993, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family coverage was $5,000. This year, the cost for coverage is over $13,000 per year. By 2016, family health insurance is expected to reach over $24,000. In my State of New York, that is simply unaffordable.

Today, we spend more than 16 percent of our gross domestic product on health care, nearly twice the average of other developed nations--an astounding $2.2 trillion every year. What do we get in return? More than 47 million Americans are uninsured. In 2007 and 2008, 86.7 million Americans--1 out of every 3 Americans under 65--went without health insurance for a period of time. Every day, 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance.

Many of the same opponents who defeated reform in 1994 are trying to do it again. I ask them to please consider what has actually occurred over the last 15 years. Think about the damage that has been caused to our economy, our families, our workers, and consider taking a stand that is on the right side of history this time.

The bill before us lays a foundation for truly reforming our health care system. I commend Majority Leader Reid for his work in merging the two Senate committee bills.

This bill includes a robust public plan for which I have strongly advocated. I believe this will increase competition and lower costs across the system. Through a public plan and the establishment of health insurance exchanges, the bill makes quality health care truly affordable and accessible to everyone--all Americans. The health insurance exchanges will streamline the system and offer insurance at affordable premium rates, capped by income, for low- and middle-income Americans. No longer will health care be out of the reach of millions because of cost.

This bill also ends discrimination against women, which we have faced in our health care system for far too long. Women shoulder the worst of the health care crisis, including outrageous discriminatory practices in care and coverage. The National Women's Law Center reports that a 25-year-old woman pays up to 45 percent more for the same health insurance coverage than a man her age. Some of the most essential services required by women are simply not covered by insurance plans, such as childbearing, Pap smears, and mammograms. A standard in- hospital delivery costs between $5,000 and $10,000, and much more if there are complications. This bill ends the practice of denying health care to those with preexisting conditions. In the current system, pregnant women are often turned down for health care coverage because insurance companies would rather evade this cost. Pregnancy should never be the basis for losing coverage. In America, this sort of institutionalized discrimination is wrong. This reform bill ends the practice of charging women more than men and requires that these basic health care services are included.

The bill also lays the groundwork to reward health care providers for the quality of care they provide, not necessarily the quantity. Hospitals and clinics across the country will model the success at places such as Bassett Healthcare in Cooperstown in upstate New York. It also uses new methods to reduce medical errors and prevent costly illnesses.

Some would prefer that we continue on the current path, leaving millions without insurance and paying for it through a hidden tax that all insured Americans pay to cover the cost of emergency care. But the majority of Americans think the time has now come to address this problem and fix our broken system.

The vote today is an important step on the road to reform. In the next few weeks, we will all have the opportunity to debate this bill and make important modifications. I am encouraged to see improvements from previous bills in the merged bill before us, including

better protections for middle-class families' benefits and increased funding to States for Medicaid, both of which I look forward to continuing to improve.

May I have an additional 30 seconds?

I thank the Chair.

I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues on this historic legislation. For the next few weeks, I will work to strengthen the provisions for States such as New York that have strong Medicaid Programs, and I will also work to ensure that funding for our safety net hospitals remains intact.

Now is the time to act. The bill before us provides quality affordable health insurance for every American, reins in the high costs, makes our system more efficient, and addresses some of the grave disparities in the system that discriminate against women. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on the motion to proceed on this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of health care reform and on behalf of greater access to health care for all Americans. This weekend, the House took a historic step, passing a health care reform bill that ensures affordable, quality care for all, including a public plan that will bring real competition to the market and drive down costs. Passing this bill in the House represents a monumental step toward the goal of achieving meaningful reform this year and is the furthest we have come in the decades-long fight for health care reform in this country.

However, there is one aspect of the House bill about which I wish to voice my strong disagreement--the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

While proponents of the measure say this is a continuation of current Federal law, this amendment will, in fact, bring about significant change and dramatically limit reproductive health care in this country. This is government invading the personal lives of many Americans, establishing, for the first time, restrictions on people who pay for their own private health insurance. We all agree it is important to reduce abortions in this country and I have and will continue to work on many ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and to promote adoption. However, the Stupak amendment prohibits the public plan as well as private plans offered through the exchange, if they accept any subsidized customers, from covering abortion services, effectively banning abortion coverage in all health insurance plans in the new system, whether they be public or private. This ban puts the health of women and young girls at grave risk.

Proposing that women instead purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory but ridiculous. It would require women to essentially plan for an event that occurs in the most unplanned and sometimes emergency situations.

There are currently five States that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, and in these five States it is nearly impossible to find such a private insurance policy. In one State, North Dakota, one insurance company holds 91 percent of the State's health insurance market and refuses to even offer such a rider. A lack of access to full reproductive health care puts the lives of women and girls at grave risk.

This anti-choice measure poses greater restriction on low-income women and those who are more likely to receive some kind of subsidy and less likely to be able to afford a supplemental insurance policy. Denying low-income women reproductive coverage in this way is discriminatory and dangerous.

Without proper coverage, women will be forced to postpone care while attempting to find the money they need to pay for it--a delay that can lead to increased costs and graver health risks, particularly for younger girls, or these women will be forced to turn to dangerous, back-alley providers. Women and girls deserve better.

In fact, this amendment represents the only place in the entire health care bill where the opponents are actually correct: It limits access to medical care by giving the government, not the

patient and the doctor, the power to make medical decisions.

The Senate bill already ensures that no Federal tax dollars may be used to pay for reproductive services in any public or private insurance plan beyond cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. The House language goes much further and should be removed from the final bill.

This health care package must move us forward, toward quality, affordable health care for all Americans. I ask my colleagues to oppose any similar amendment in the Senate and work to end disparities among race and gender in our health care system.

Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.