Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to speak in favor of the Children's Health Insurance Program and its reauthorization, which is the legislation that is before us. We hear the numbers that 6 million children benefit from the program today--over 6 million--and this will provide for an additional 3 million children. I want my colleagues to know that each one of these people are people, they are families, and they are affected by what we do here today. I take this time to acquaint my colleagues to Deamonte Driver. He was a 12-year-old who didn't live far from here--6 miles from here-- in Prince Georges County, MD. He had a tooth problem. His mother tried to get him help. He had no insurance, and he fell through the cracks. He had a brother, Dashawn Driver, who had six decaying teeth. They tried to get help for him. The mother thought the older brother was in worse shape than Deamonte. He started having headaches and was rushed to the emergency room. They found out his problem--he could not get to a dentist--was an abscessed tooth. Before this, a social worker made 20 phone calls in an effort to try to get dental care for the Driver family, without success. They could not find a dentist willing to treat someone without insurance or in the Medicaid system. Deamonte ended up needing emergency surgery, which cost $250,000, and he ended up losing his life because the system did not provide care for a 12-year-old. Mr. President, we can certainly do better than that. Dr. Koop, a former Surgeon General of the United States, said, ``There is no health care without oral health.'' Medical research has shown the linkage between plaque and heart disease. We know now that gum disease can be a signal of diabetes or a liver ailment or a hormone imbalance. We have to do better than we are doing today. Dental disease is the most common childhood ailment in the United States to date. One out of five children between the ages of 2 to 4 will have some form of decaying teeth. By the time they reach 15, three out of five will have tooth decay. There is an imbalance as far as the racial effects. Racial minorities are much more likely to sustain untreated tooth decay. Forty percent of African-American children have untreated tooth decay. I thank my colleague, Senator Bingaman, for his leadership on these issues and for introducing legislation and moving forward to try to provide better oral health care for children. I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for including initiatives in the legislation that is before us that will help the States meet this challenge--the $200 million included in the bill. That will have a major impact to try to help American families. We have an important opportunity before us in the legislation that we are considering to help our children, not only to continue the benefits for 6.6 million children but so that we can add another 3 million out of the 9 million who currently have no health insurance. We have to do more, but this is our opportunity today, and we have to take advantage of it. Our health care system is in crisis. Earlier this week, I introduced the Universal Health Coverage Act, which would require everybody in this country to have health insurance. I think it is essential that we address the major problems in our country of so many people being without health insurance. We should start with the children, and we can do that with the legislation that is before us. Why is that important? Well, we know that children who are enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program or have insurance are much more likely to get primary health care. They won't use the emergency rooms as much. If you don't have insurance, you have no choice but to go to the emergency room. We have improved health care outcomes if the child has health insurance. We know they are much more likely to have immunization and primary health care. I want to comment that--again, talking about families and individuals--the Finance Committee held a hearing on the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Bedford family from my city of Baltimore came down here and testified. Mrs. Bedford said: We no longer have to decide whether a child is really sick enough to warrant a doctor's visit. The Bedford family enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program in Maryland. The program is working. Without this legislation, we will have to reimpose freezes on enrollments and people will lose coverage. It happened in my State. This is a bipartisan bill, and I compliment my colleagues for bringing forward a bill that we can get enacted into law. In Maryland, we started a program on July 1, 1998. About 38,000 children were enrolled at first, and we are up to 101,000 children enrolled today. Maryland will get an increase in this bill from $67 million to $189 million. We will be able to enroll 42,000 more children in the State of Maryland. It is an important program. I also compliment the committee for including outreach so that we can reach families who don't know how to enroll, or whether they are qualified to enroll, so we can get more families and children enrolled in the children's health care program. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take advantage of the opportunity that we currently have before us. This is an opportunity in which we can make major progress in dealing with those children in our community who will either lose their coverage because we take no action, and those who currently have no insurance whom we can get enrolled in this program. It is a valuable program. We have an opportunity to move forward. So I urge my colleagues to support the fine effort of the Senate Finance Committee in bringing forward this legislation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley who helped on this amendment. It has been cleared. It deals with the dental, or oral, health care in the underlying bill. The bill provides for $200 million to help States expand dental care within the Children's Health Insurance Program. This amendment adds additional provisions that would require the States to describe these benefits as they do other benefits and how they would improve the benefits to our children. It expands Web information so individuals will have a better understanding as to what providers are available for dental care in their community. It has certain studies as to the status of dental health care and oral health care for our children. Again, I thank the leadership of the committee for their help. I also offer this amendment on behalf of Senators Mikulski, Bingaman, and Collins. I thank them for their help in putting this amendment together.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. CARDIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 1899 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain a bill I am filing today that will establish universal health coverage called Universal Health Coverage Act. Let me tell you why I am introducing this bill. Our health care system provides the highest quality health care in the world if you are fortunate to get access to it. People come from all over the world to come to our great academic centers to get their health care needs met and to train their health care professionals. In my home State of Maryland, I am very proud of the University of Maryland Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University. We have great institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health, that provide top-quality health care. The problem is too many people cannot get access to affordable quality health care in America. We have 46 million uninsured; 9 million are children. We spend more money than any other country by far on health care, and yet our health care results do not reflect that type of investment of our public funds. The No. 1 problem in health care in America today is the number of uninsured. We need to do something about it. The Universal Health Coverage Act does exactly that. It says every person in this country must have health insurance. We are paying for the people who do not have health insurance. Those of us who have health coverage are paying more for our doctors and hospitals. We pay more in taxes because people have no health insurance. The reason is they have delayed diagnosis and treatment that leads to more serious illness and treatment for those who have no health insurance. We all pay the price with higher premiums and cost. According to the Institute of Medicine, taxpayers shoulder 65 percent of the total cost of uncompensated care through subsidies to hospitals and clinics. The same study showed that poor health care status from being uninsured costs our Nation between $65 billion and $130 billion a year. It is in our interest as those who have health insurance and as taxpayers that we have universal health coverage in America. Why does it cost more for someone who has no health insurance? With two people with the same types of conditions, it can actually cost our system more for those who have no health insurance because they do not seek preventative health care. Fewer than one-half of uninsured women ages 50 to 64 have received a mammogram in the past 2 years compared to 75 percent of women with insurance. Only 18 percent of uninsured adults over the age of 50 have had colon cancer screenings in the last 5 years compared to 56 percent of adults with insurance. Only 35 percent of uninsured Americans had dental examinations in the last year. When uninsured receive care, it is often at a much later point and is more costly and less efficient. We can do something about it. Who are the uninsured? Another myth: Eighty-one percent of the uninsured actually come from working families. These are working families who are unable, for whatever reasons, to get affordable health care coverage. Low-income Americans with family incomes below 200 percent of poverty run the highest risk of being uninsured. More than one-third of the poor and 30 percent of the near poor with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty lack health insurance. My legislation is simple. The Universal Health Coverage Act requires personal responsibility, requires everyone to have health insurance, and it builds on the current employer-based system and protects government-sponsored health programs. We would require every American to have qualified health coverage. That qualified health coverage could be Medicare, it could be our veterans health care, it could be one of the governmental programs, or it could be an employer-sponsored health plan. We then empower the Secretary of Health to work with the State insurance commissioners to develop three low-cost plans in every State in the Nation so there will be an available product to those who cannot find an affordable health care plan. The plans would be available for those whose incomes are below 400 percent of poverty. The reason we picked that number, 400 percent of poverty, is those above generally have the opportunity to buy insurance at work. Those below are the most vulnerable in our community. Those who fail to enroll in any coverage would be required to pay a tax which would be equal to the premiums so that the Government can enroll them in one of the low-cost plans within their State. This plan makes sense. It is a framework on which we can build. It says we will not tolerate 46 million people without health insurance, 9 million children without health insurance. It allows the States to do innovative approaches to deal with those who otherwise would have problems affording their health care. We expect States to act. States are already acting. States are already showing leadership. This framework will give States the incentive to move further along. Employers who now know every employee needs health benefits are more likely to provide insurance for their workforce, and there would be an affordable product because everyone would be in the system. We would not have adverse risk collection or cherry-picking by insurance companies. It gives us the framework to move forward and will allow the Federal Government to move in those areas in which the Federal Government can do best to help those who are otherwise vulnerable. I hope we will not let this opportunity go without dealing with the No. 1 problem in our health care system, and that is dealing with people who do not have health insurance. I look forward to working with all my colleagues so we can work on a doable plan, so this country not only has the highest quality health care, but we have a system in which all Americans have access to that quality care.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain a bill I am filing today that will establish universal health coverage called Universal Health Coverage Act. Let me tell you why I am introducing this bill. Our health care system provides the highest quality health care in the world if you are fortunate to get access to it. People come from all over the world to come to our great academic centers to get their health care needs met and to train their health care professionals. In my home State of Maryland, I am very proud of the University of Maryland Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University. We have great institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health, that provide top-quality health care. The problem is too many people cannot get access to affordable quality health care in America. We have 46 million uninsured; 9 million are children. We spend more money than any other country by far on health care, and yet our health care results do not reflect that type of investment of our public funds. The No. 1 problem in health care in America today is the number of uninsured. We need to do something about it. The Universal Health Coverage Act does exactly that. It says every person in this country must have health insurance. We are paying for the people who do not have health insurance. Those of us who have health coverage are paying more for our doctors and hospitals. We pay more in taxes because people have no health insurance. The reason is they have delayed diagnosis and treatment that leads to more serious illness and treatment for those who have no health insurance. We all pay the price with higher premiums and cost. According to the Institute of Medicine, taxpayers shoulder 65 percent of the total cost of uncompensated care through subsidies to hospitals and clinics. The same study showed that poor health care status from being uninsured costs our Nation between $65 billion and $130 billion a year. It is in our interest as those who have health insurance and as taxpayers that we have universal health coverage in America. Why does it cost more for someone who has no health insurance? With two people with the same types of conditions, it can actually cost our system more for those who have no health insurance because they do not seek preventative health care. Fewer than one-half of uninsured women ages 50 to 64 have received a mammogram in the past 2 years compared to 75 percent of women with insurance. Only 18 percent of uninsured adults over the age of 50 have had colon cancer screenings in the last 5 years compared to 56 percent of adults with insurance. Only 35 percent of uninsured Americans had dental examinations in the last year. When uninsured receive care, it is often at a much later point and is more costly and less efficient. We can do something about it. Who are the uninsured? Another myth: Eighty-one percent of the uninsured actually come from working families. These are working families who are unable, for whatever reasons, to get affordable health care coverage. Low-income Americans with family incomes below 200 percent of poverty run the highest risk of being uninsured. More than one-third of the poor and 30 percent of the near poor with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty lack health insurance. My legislation is simple. The Universal Health Coverage Act requires personal responsibility, requires everyone to have health insurance, and it builds on the current employer-based system and protects government-sponsored health programs. We would require every American to have qualified health coverage. That qualified health coverage could be Medicare, it could be our veterans health care, it could be one of the governmental programs, or it could be an employer-sponsored health plan. We then empower the Secretary of Health to work with the State insurance commissioners to develop three low-cost plans in every State in the Nation so there will be an available product to those who cannot find an affordable health care plan. The plans would be available for those whose incomes are below 400 percent of poverty. The reason we picked that number, 400 percent of poverty, is those above generally have the opportunity to buy insurance at work. Those below are the most vulnerable in our community. Those who fail to enroll in any coverage would be required to pay a tax which would be equal to the premiums so that the Government can enroll them in one of the low-cost plans within their State. This plan makes sense. It is a framework on which we can build. It says we will not tolerate 46 million people without health insurance, 9 million children without health insurance. It allows the States to do innovative approaches to deal with those who otherwise would have problems affording their health care. We expect States to act. States are already acting. States are already showing leadership. This framework will give States the incentive to move further along. Employers who now know every employee needs health benefits are more likely to provide insurance for their workforce, and there would be an affordable product because everyone would be in the system. We would not have adverse risk collection or cherry-picking by insurance companies. It gives us the framework to move forward and will allow the Federal Government to move in those areas in which the Federal Government can do best to help those who are otherwise vulnerable. I hope we will not let this opportunity go without dealing with the No. 1 problem in our health care system, and that is dealing with people who do not have health insurance. I look forward to working with all my colleagues so we can work on a doable plan, so this country not only has the highest quality health care, but we have a system in which all Americans have access to that quality care.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am very happy to rise today in support of a conference report that implements the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations. Finally, three years after the Commission released its bi-partisan report, we are sending President Bush legislation that implements the last of those recommendations--recommendations that will improve Maryland's as well as our nation's security. This bill increases citizens' safety when they travel by air, road, or rail; improves first responders' communications capabilities; facilitates intelligence sharing at all levels of law enforcement; and protects citizens' privacy and liberty. This conference report is the first legislation to formally authorize the State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, which provide funds to states and high-risk urban areas--like the D.C. Metropolitan area--to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism. This legislation authorizes more money than previous years, but most importantly--and I want to stress this most importantly, this legislation ensures the vast majority of that funding is distributed based on risk. In the past, too great a percentage of our first responder grants were distributed without regard to risk and vulnerability. As the 9-11 Commission final report stated: [f]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. By increasing the percentage of grant money distributed based on risk, this legislation moves us toward the full implementation of the Commission's prescription. This legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to consider certain factors when allocating funds based on risk including history of threats, risk associated with critical infrastructure, coastline, and the need to respond to neighboring areas; considerations critical to adequate risk assessment for many of Maryland's communities. All of us were both outraged and deeply concerned when DHS ranked the Washington D.C. and New York City metropolitan areas in a low-risk category for terrorist attack or catastrophe, a decision that would have cost those regions millions in anti-terror funds and had devastating impacts on their ability to respond to attack had the rankings been allowed to stand. By setting criteria for risk assessment, this bill guards against future gross miscalculations. The legislation includes several important provisions improving transportation security, but I am particularly glad to see the bill requires DHS to develop its capacity to screen all--100 percent--of maritime cargo in foreign ports before it is loaded on ships bound for the United States within 5 years. Further, the conference substitute requires that DHS be able to screen all cargo carried on passenger airplanes within the next three years. And, the legislation authorizes substantial funds--more than $4 billion over four years--for rail, transit, and bus security grants. Not only does the legislation provide funding for improving communications systems, it also provides guidance. Maryland's first responders and administrators have explained to me that a truly interoperable communications system and a functioning incident command system require more than equipment. Practically, cooperation between and among local, state, national, and even international governments requires governance structures, protocols, agreements, and training. By providing money for staff, exercises, simulations, training, and any other activities necessary to achieve, maintain, or enhance emergency communications, this legislation addresses critical governance concerns. But to keep us safe, different government agencies need more than the ability to communicate. They need to actually be communicating critical information and intelligence to the officials and officers who need it. The conference substitute encourages the free transfer of intelligence across agencies by authorizing government-wide standards for information sharing, and creating standards for state, local, and regional intelligence fusion centers and ensures they receive federal support and personnel. The 9-11 attacks and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated how inadequate information sharing and inadequate communications systems can compound disasters. Let us hope that with these changes we will never again have to witness firefighters rushing into buildings when they should have been running out or distraught citizens trapped by flood waters while national officials remain unaware of the disaster. But this legislation does more than protect our physical safety; it contains provisions to safeguard our most cherished liberties. Recent revelations regarding FBI abuse of its PATRIOT Act authority to gather phone, bank, and credit information on thousands of citizens underscore the importance of this legislation's enhanced privacy and civil liberties protections. The bill strengthens the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board independence and expands its oversight authority. The bill requires agencies with access to citizens' private information to designate at least one senior official to serve as a source of advice and oversight on privacy and civil liberties matters. Finally, under this legislation, federal agencies must report annually on their development and use of data mining technologies so this body can ensure proper usage of any technologies that raise privacy or civil liberties concerns. This Conference Substitute also encourages this country to look beyond its own borders to promote others' safety and liberty through diplomacy. The legislation requires the Secretary of State expand strategies for democracy promotion in non-democratic and democratic transition countries, and to expand the effectiveness of the State Department's annual human rights reports. It further supports democracy promotion through international institutions, such as the UN Democracy Fund, the Community of Democracies, and the International Center for Democratic Transition, specifically through encouraging the establishment of an office of multilateral democracy promotion. To allow ``maximum effort'' on non-proliferation by the U.S. Government, as the 9-11 Commission called for, the bill establishes a Presidential Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. We know now how closely our own safety is linked to other nations' internal security. These efforts are critical to creating a more stable Middle East and a safer world. The 9-11 families, several of whom are my constituents, asked us to pass this legislation, and I am proud that we have fulfilled this obligation to them and to the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Dennis R. Schrader to be Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on S. 1487, the Ballot Integrity Act of 2007.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight: Gulf Coast Disaster Loans and the Future of the Disaster Assistance Program,'' on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, in order to conduct a hearing on VA health care funding. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, at 11:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 3 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Road Ahead II: Views from the Postal Workforce on Implementing Postal Reform,''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 2 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of EPA's Environmental Justice Programs.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to explore the U.S.-China trading relationship, with analysis of the current status of trade between the two nations and the impact of U.S.-China trade on U.S. manufacturers, consumers, and workers.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A Local Look at the National Foreclosure Crisis: Cleveland Families, Neighborhoods, Economy Under Siege from the Subprime Mortgage Fallout'', in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, Wednesday, July 25, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to hear testimony regarding the nominations of Dr. Tevi David Troy to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, Department of Health and Human Services; The Honorable David H. McCormick to be Under Secretary for International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Mr. Kerry N. Weems to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Mr. Peter B. McCarthy to be Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of the Treasury; and Mr. Charles E.F. Millard to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on the Peace Corps.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Pakistan.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 10 a.m. in SD-106 and on Thursday, July 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. in SR-325. We will be considering the following: 1. S. 625, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 2. S. 1183, Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act 3. S. 579, Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007 4. S. 898, Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2007 5. S. __, Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 6. The Following Nominations: Diane Auer Jones, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Department of Education; David C. Geary, of Missouri, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the National Board for Education Sciences; and Miguel Campaneria, of Puerto Rico, to be a Member of the National Council on the Arts. Any nominations cleared for action.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I yield to the chairman of the committee, the Senator from West Virginia, who I understand would like some time to respond to the amendment offered.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran and the members of the Appropriations Committee for the fine work they have done on this 2008 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. As has been pointed out, this will provide $2.2 billion more than the President's request for homeland security. I note that it received the unanimous support of all members of the committee, and for good reason: It is an important investment in the security of our Nation. It provides the needed resources so we can deal with the security concerns in our own country, whether they be at our airports, seaports, rail stations, or in our home communities. That is what we should be doing. It should be our highest priority. I congratulate the committee for the manner in which it considered this legislation and has brought it forward. I urge us to move it forward as rapidly as possible. Two weeks ago, Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said he had a gut feeling our Nation is at an increased risk of a terrorist attack this summer. While I hope his warnings would be based on more than a feeling, the National Intelligence Estimate released last week supports Secretary Chertoff's instincts. Based upon the facts before it, the National Intelligence Council judged that ``the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat.'' Al-Qaida has ``protected and regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability'' and is now as strong as it was in 2001. The NIE states that ``the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.'' Based upon that, it is disheartening that while the intelligence community is discovering evidence of an increased threat to this country, President Bush has recommended cutting funding to grant programs that secure our ports, airports, and bolster local law enforcement and fire departments around Maryland and our Nation. The increased funding in this bill for our port and aviation security and first responders will have a profound impact on my State of Maryland. Let me start with the Port of Baltimore. It is one of our country's most important ports and a significant economic engine for our entire region, providing more than 33,000 jobs in Maryland and generating $1.5 billion in revenue every year. It is the Nation's eighth largest port, handling about 2,000 ships and 3l million tons of cargo each year. With the size of the Port of Baltimore, proximity to Washington, workload, and productivity come increased risks. That is why I was a strong proponent of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, the SAFE Port Act of 2006. This bill authorized more funding for programs that are critically important to the security of our ports, including risk-based port and cargo security grant programs, the development of a long-range ship-tracking system, the development of a biometric transportation security card for port workers, and development of a system to identify high-risk containers. These were all programs that, after hearings in the Congress, we felt were critically important to secure our seaports. You can imagine my dismay and the distress of the public safety officials and emergency planners in Maryland when President Bush, who signed the SAFE Port Act, did not propose to fund many of the new activities that legislation authorized. I am grateful to the Appropriations Committee for recognizing the risk to the Port of Baltimore and other ports around the country. It provided the funds so we can move forward with those initiatives. The bill will provide $15 million above President Bush's request to hire additional port security inspectors, conduct vulnerability assessments at 10 high-risk ports, and develop a long-range vessel- tracking system so we can monitor ships as they travel around the world. Most importantly, this bill provides $400 million in port security grants, $190 million above the President's request as authorized--as authorized--by the SAFE Port Act of 2006, which the President signed. These grants will provide Maryland with critical support to improve perimeter fencing, underwater detection capability, and enhanced video surveillance systems. I am pleased the committee recognizes the importance of the Coast Guard's presence at Curtis Bay, MD, and notes it is a ``critical component of the Coast Guard's core logistics capability'' and ``directly supports fleet readiness.'' The committee further recognizes the vital role the yard has played in ``the Coast Guard's readiness and infrastructure for more than 100 years'' and recommends ``that sufficient industrial work should be assigned to the Yard to maintain this capability.'' I agree, and I intend to do my best to make sure the committee's recommendations are, in fact, followed. The bill provides $15 million above President Bush's request to address a shortage of Coast Guard boats and qualified personnel to allow the Coast Guard to enforce security zones and protect critical infrastructure. The bill provides $60 million above the President's request for the establishment of Coast Guard interagency maritime operational centers authorized, again, by the SAFE Port Act of 2006, which will improve collection and coordination of intelligence, increase information sharing, and unify efforts among Federal, State, and local agencies. The bill gives equal attention to transportation security, providing $3.7 billion for transportation security improvements, $764 million more than the President's request. This funding includes $400 million for rail and mass transit security grants, $529 million for explosive detection systems, and $41 million for surface transportation security. The bill provides the needed funds for passenger and luggage screening. These grants will provide much-needed funding to protect airports in Maryland and across the Nation. In the past, I have worked with the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to bring the latest high- tech devices to Baltimore, including state-of-the-art equipment to scan baggage and passengers for explosives. I am proud the BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport was the first airport in the Nation to have a fully federalized screening workforce after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Despite continued threats to aviation security, President Bush sought to cut funds to purchase and install explosive detection equipment at airports by 17 percent. Once again, I thank the committee for not following the President's recommendation in that area. This bill provides $66 million for TSA air cargo security, $10 million above the President's request. When combined with the $80 million included in the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, these funds will put TSA on a path to screen all cargo placed on passenger aircraft, and that is what we should be doing. The bill provides nearly $530 million, almost $90 million above the President's request, to purchase and install explosive detection equipment at airports around the country. We need to do that. We need to have the latest equipment for explosives at our airports. I am disappointed the committee was forced to shift $45 million from container security to secure pathways, such as airfreight. We should not be in a position where we have to make those kinds of choices. We must do more to ensure the safety of the Nation's chemical facilities. Enhanced security requires strong regulatory standards and policies attuned to the risks faced by the communities surrounding such facilities. In December 2006, the Bush administration proposed regulations to preempt State and local governments from adopting stronger chemical security protections than those proposed by the Federal Government. While the Federal Government must ensure chemical facilities meet minimal safety standards, States must retain the ability to set stricter standards to address the unique needs of their local communities. This bill ensures the essential ability of States to pass and enforce tougher chemical site standards than existing Federal standards, and it provides an additional $15 million to help States meet those standards. Again, I applaud the committee for providing that help. It is very important to the area I represent in Maryland, where we have so many chemical plants. Despite tragically ample proof in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that State and local governments were unprepared for a major natural disaster or terrorist attack, the President's budget proposes a $1.2 billion cut in vital homeland security grant programs that provide critical support to local law enforcement and firefighting departments. I know we all talk about how important these agencies are, our local firefighters, our local first responders. The President's budget cuts those funds. I am pleased the Appropriations Committee did not follow the recommendation of President Bush but instead increased funding by $1.8 billion over the President's request for our States and cities to improve their ability to respond to attacks and natural disasters. These allocations include $560 million for firefighter equipment grants, $525 million for State homeland security grants, $275,000 more than President Bush's request, and $375 million for law enforcement and terrorist prevention grants. The committee also provided FEMA with $100 million to rebuild its core competencies and improve management. I hope the Agency will make wise use of these additional funds. Emergency preparedness officials in Maryland are especially happy to see increased allocations in FEMA's budget for predisaster mitigation. Increased preparedness funding will lead to long-term savings by decreasing subsequent damage claims. Most importantly, increased preparedness ensures we are ready to keep our people out of harm's way. I am pleased the bill contains critical resources to develop and implement improved detection and communications technology, improve communications, and improve and streamline intelligence-gathering agencies. Better technology and intelligence are a critical part of us being prepared against threats. We need to do better on intelligence gathering, and this bill provides help in doing that. Congress can provide resources, but we cannot legislate appropriate action by DHS officials. All of us remember with outrage how DHS officials placed the Washington, DC, and the New York City metropolitan areas in a low-risk category for terrorist attacks or catastrophe. That decision was ridiculous. That decision, if it had been allowed to stand, would have cost those regions millions of dollars of antiterrorist funds and would have had a devastating impact on their ability to respond to attacks. Last year, many of DHS's grants were not released until December 29, 2006, the day before the end of the fiscal year. When the money Congress appropriates sits around in Washington for more than 11 months, Americans certainly are not any safer. The delay in releasing funds undermines the budget and plans of emergency response agencies in all our communities. The appropriations bill will penalize DHS for releasing grants late--a reduction of $1,000 per day when mandated timelines are not met. Local officials are hamstrung waiting for guidance and grant moneys from DHS. Once again, I thank the Appropriations Committee for putting that provision in the bill. This bill takes other unusual measures, such as requiring the Department to submit expenditure plans for key programs to the committee for review before funds will be released. We saw the devastating results of incompetent management in the disastrous days before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005. At the beginning of this month, the Washington Post reported the Bush administration had failed to fill roughly one-quarter of the top leadership posts at DHS, ``creating a `gaping hole' in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat.'' These are serious problems the administration needs to address immediately. Earlier this year, the Senate passed S. 2, a bill implementing many of the remaining 9/11 recommendations. Ever since I served on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have strongly supported the 9/ 11 recommendations that we distribute homeland security money based on risk and ``be mindful of threats'' increased security measures will pose ``to vital personal and civil liberties.'' In other words, put our money where it is needed based on risk assessment, but be mindful of civil liberties. S. 2 increases the amount of grant money distributed based on risk, and it strengthens protections for all our most cherished liberties. I hope the Senate will get a chance to pass the conference report to this bill before the August recess. I look forward to sending it to President Bush for his signature. It nicely complements the appropriations bill we are poised to pass in the next day or two. Nearly 6 years ago, on a sunny September morning, Americans received a terrible wakeup call, telling us we can be attacked here and we need to do more to protect ourselves. Congress took that responsibility to heart, passing legislation empowering the President to protect our Nation. I am proud to offer my support for this critical bill. Given the current state of our national security and the most recent NIE report, it is imperative we pass this bill immediately. There is no time for delay. Once again, I thank the leadership of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this bill forward. It deserves our support. I hope we will have a chance to vote on it within the next day or two so this bill can become enacted in a timely way to meet the needs of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the higher education amendments before the Senate. This bill works toward one of the most important responsibilities elected representatives shoulder: opening the doors of educational opportunity for each American child and every American family. Last week, the Senate took a critical step toward making college more affordable by passing the Higher Education Access Act, legislation that increases Pell grants, caps student loan repayments, and provides loan forgiveness for those who enter and stick with careers in public service. But we must actually control college costs if we hope to make permanent progress on college affordability. The legislation now before the Senate would not only allow the Secretary of Education to highlight those colleges and universities whose tuition increases are out of line with their peers, it would allow the Secretary to study what factors are driving soaring higher education costs in this country and identify what measures could be utilized to bring them under control. Even with this effort and the important measures passed last week, most students and their families in Maryland and around the Nation will still have to borrow money to make their college dream a reality. Today, that means completing lengthy and confusing Federal and school-based student aid applications. Once those applications are submitted, families must decipher various colleges' price estimates and various banks' descriptions of loan terms and conditions. Financial award letters often contain inconsistent definitions and formats to describe the cost of attendance, the financial aid offered, and the costs associated with various types of loans. Too many banks provide inadequate information about their rates and terms. As a result, families are unable to shop around for the financial aid package or best loan rates and are ill-prepared for post-graduation monthly payments. Jim Guest, president of the Consumers Union, has said that ``[f]inancing a house or car can be confusing, but it's nothing compared with trying to pay for a college education.'' In the face of such confusion, many students and their families turn to financial aid officers to guide their choices. But throughout this year, thanks to the New York Attorney General and my distinguished colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we have learned that some financial aid officers, including, unfortunately, some from Maryland, were not giving families honest advice. Some financial aid offices were receiving expensive gifts, travel and other kickbacks from lenders and in return recommended those lenders to students, even if the product was not in the students' best interest. This important legislation takes critical steps to reform the entire student loan system so that students and their families will receive timely, accessible, and reliable information and can make wise college financing decisions. First and foremost, the legislation would simplify the financial aid process for all students and their families. The bill reforms the Federal financial aid application. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, is currently 10 long pages full of complex questions. Its length and complexity create an unnecessary obstacle for low- and middle-income students seeking the aid they need to attend college. The higher education amendments simplify the FAFSA by creating a new two-page EZ-FAFSA for low-income students, and phasing out the current seven-page FAFSA for all applicants within 5 years. Further, the bill creates a pilot program that allows students to receive an aid determination or estimate in their junior year of high school. Rather than making complicated decisions in a frenzy of paper and options, the bill facilitates student planning, giving families time to investigate their financing options. This critical bill makes sure that those options are easier to understand. The bill requires the Secretary of Education work with colleges and universities to develop several model price calculators that would give students an institution's actual net price. With these bottom-line prices in hand--in clear and consistent terms--families will be better equipped to make the right college and financing choices. Plus, the bill requires lenders clearly disclose the terms of their loans and again asks the Secretary of Education to develop a consumer- friendly format so that families receive information in a consistent and accessible way. But critically important, the bill protects students by ensuring colleges recommend lenders based on students--not banks' or financial aid officers'--best interest. The bill requires that colleges adopt and enforce a code of conduct that prohibits the college or any of its employees from accepting any significant gifts, trips, services, or other benefits from lenders, period. If a college chooses to select a ``preferred lender,'' it must provide the Secretary of Education and the public a clear report explaining why the preferred products are in the best interest of students or their parents. These provisions take critical steps towards cleaning up the student loan industry by removing the conflicts of interest that compromised the advice and integrity of too many financial aid offices and officers. Beyond the student loans, the higher education amendments make more grant aid available to students in Maryland and around the nation. This bill expands eligibility criteria for Academic Competitiveness Grants, ACG, and National Science Mathematics Access to Retain Talent, SMART, grants; expands critical opportunities and services provided for low- income, first generation, and homeless college students under Federal TRIO Programs; increases grants to States to provide its young scientists and mathematicians with scholarships; and increases colleges' ability to reach out and prepare younger students for college through partnership programs. The bill makes it easier for colleges to use grant money to provide financial counseling and for students to engage in public service opportunities as part of their work-study obligations. Grant programs encourage colleges to build partnerships with the business community to address the Nation's workforce needs and to build programs that teach all students, and especially minority students, foreign languages and encourage them to enter international service fields. The bill creates a new grant program for predominantly Black institutions to enhance their capacity to service more low- and middle- income Black American students; and a new grant for colleges to develop and improve their campus safety and emergency response systems in the wake of the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech. What do these changes mean for Maryland students? Well, instead of filling out a seven-page monstrosity, students will have access to a simpler two-page form, and eventually an on-line smart form that tailors later questions as a student answers earlier ones and may even be able to populate information from forms submitted to the IRS and other Government agencies. Students will know their financial needs by their junior year of high school, enabling their family to examine straight-forward and honest documents outlining financing options. Families will be able to rely on financial aid officers for honest advice and will have greater access to financial aid counseling. Expanded grant eligibility requirements will give Maryland students increased access to grants and a better ability to pursue their dreams. St. John's students in Annapolis, for instance, will now be able to apply for SMART grants whereas this unique institution's absence of formal majors was a barrier to student eligibility in the past. Students who choose to go to school year round will be eligible for a second Pell grant. The books and supplies allowance for Federal work-study students will go from $450 to $600. Perhaps most important, this bill takes steps toward addressing one of the most critical education problems we have in this country: a growing teacher shortage. As you know, Mr. President, teachers are our most valuable resource when it comes to educating our Nation's children. According to research, teacher quality is the schooling factor with the greatest effect on student achievement. Good teachers can make up to a full year's difference in learning growth for students and dwarf the impact of any other educational investment, even smaller class sizes. But between the retirement of hundreds of thousands of baby boomers, efforts to reduce class sizes, and the No Child Left Behind law's raised standards for new teachers, school systems across the Nation can't find enough qualified recruits to fill their class rooms. Maryland is no different. In 2006, the Maryland Higher Education Commission found that the State ``is not producing or attracting enough teachers to fulfill the staffing requirements of the State's school systems, especially in high need certification fields.'' High turnover only makes the problem worse. It is widely accepted that it takes 5 years to master the complex art of teaching. But one-third of new teachers leave the profession within 3 years, half within 5 years, and attrition is greater in schools in low-income, urban districts. Of the estimated 6 million people in the U.S. with teaching backgrounds or credentials, only 3 million are actually teaching. Not only does the turnover leave our classrooms without teachers, but recruiting and training new teachers costs the country $7 billion a year. Because research shows even modest monetary incentives lower teacher attrition, especially in high-risk school districts, I introduced the Master Teacher Act of 2007 to reward ``master teachers'' with a 25- percent Federal tax exemption on their salary for 4 years if they agree to teach in a school that is not meeting No Child Left Behind's annual achievement goals. That legislation is now before the Senate Finance Committee. But more must be done to attract our best and brightest to teaching and then keep them there. Most professions, require new entrants go through extensive formal or informal apprenticeships before taking on the profession's full responsibilities. Not many graduate law school and the next day walk into a courtroom and try a death penalty case or graduate medical school and immediately walk into an operating room to perform open-heart surgery. Those professions require decades of training post-graduation. Teaching is an equally complex profession, melding academic theory and practice, and carries enormous responsibility for children's personal and our Nation's collective economic future. But too many teachers are thrown into a classroom with their own students, many with complex social, emotional, and learning needs, without sufficient training or support. And too many leave the profession feeling frustrated, defeated, and disheartened. Studies have shown a connection between support in the first year and teachers' moving between schools and leaving the profession. A helpful mentor, as reported by teachers, significantly reduces the chances of quitting in the first year. Common planning time and collaboration with other teachers are strong predictors of teachers' decisions to stay in a school and the profession. The higher education amendments will improve teacher quality, training, and retention by promoting high-quality and effective teacher preparation programs for new and prospective teachers, and help high- need schools by focusing on recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in high-need schools. The bill creates competitive grants for innovative teacher preparation programs that address the need for stronger teaching methods and better teacher support. The bill provides a competitive grant for college level preparation programs that include evidence- based teaching methods, mentoring programs for the teacher's first 2 years in service--called induction programs--and new accountability measures to allow programs to improve the training offered. The bill also provides grants to teaching residency programs, programs that provide participants a 1-year stipend to engage in a guided teaching apprenticeship with a master teacher that integrates theory and practice and includes master's degree coursework. These residency programs must place participants in high-needs schools and work with local school districts to develop an induction program to provide continued support to residents once the program ends. These programs must also contain accountability measures methods that allow for program evaluation and improvement. I want to express my gratitude to Senators Kennedy and Enzi and the rest of my colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for all their hard work and leadership in bringing such a comprehensive and innovative bill to the floor. Mr. President, I first ran for elected office in my home State of Maryland at the age of 22. I sought elected office because I believed that government can make a difference in people's lives. This bill, reauthorizing the Higher Education Act of 1965, does just that, and I am proud to offer my support.

Mr. CARDIN. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to speak in favor of the Durbin amendment. I thank my colleague from Illinois for introducing this important amendment. It gives us an opportunity to provide for equal access to justice in this country. There is a problem today in our legal system, and it is the cost of legal education. The average attorney who graduates from law school will have $70,000 of debt in addition to the $16,000 of average debt in attending an undergraduate school. When you have that type of debt, it affects your career choice. Today, we want to make sure we get the best qualified attorneys going into public interest law, whether it is as a prosecutor or whether it is as a public defender. I think Senator Harkin will be here, either later tonight or tomorrow, to talk about the civil legal services, and the average starting salary for a legal aid attorney is $36,000 a year. For a public defender or for a prosecutor, it is not much higher than that. How can you possibly take a career in those fields and still be able to pay off your loans? The Durbin amendment does something about it. It came through the committee on which I have the honor of serving, the Judiciary Committee. I think it is a well-balanced approach. I know we will probably have a chance to vote on this tomorrow--I don't believe we will vote on it tonight--but there will not be debate time available tomorrow, and I wanted to come to the floor and urge my colleagues to support the amendment. If Senator Harkin offers his second-degree amendment that deals with civil legal services, I hope this body will also support that amendment. I yield the floor.