Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing legislation to prohibit health insurers from denying benefits to plan participants if they are injured while engaging in legal recreational activities like skiing, snowmobiling, or horseback riding. Among the many rules that were issued at the end of the Clinton administration was one that was intended to ensure non-discrimination in health coverage in the group market. This rule was issued jointly on January 8, 2001, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Health Care Financing Administration--now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, of 1996. While I was pleased that the rule prohibits health plans and issuers from denying coverage to individuals who engage in certain types of recreational activities, such as skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling or motorcycling, I am concerned that it would allow insurers to deny health benefits for an otherwise covered injury that results from participation in these activities. The rule states that ``While a person cannot be excluded from a plan for engaging in certain recreational activities, benefits for a particular injury can, in some cases, be excluded based on the source of the injury.'' A plan could, for example, include a general exclusion for injuries sustained while doing a specified list of recreational activities, even though treatment for those injuries--a broken arm, for instance--would have been covered under the plan if the individual had tripped and fallen. Because of this loophole, an individual who was injured while skiing or running could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected. This clearly is contrary to Congressional intent. One of the purposes of HIPAA was to prohibit plans and issuers from establishing eligibility rules for health coverage based on certain health-related factors, including evidence of insurability. To underscore that point, the conference report language stated that ``the inclusion of evidence of insurability in the definition of health status is intended to ensure, among other things, that individuals are not excluded from health care coverage due to their participation in activities such as motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, skiing and other similar activities.'' The conference report also states that ``this provision is meant to prohibit insurers or employers from excluding employees in a group from coverage or charging them higher premiums based on their health status and other related factors that could lead to higher health costs.'' Mr. PRESIDENT, millions of Americans participate in these legal and common recreational activities which, if practiced with appropriate precautions, do not significantly increase the likelihood of serious injury. Moreover, in enacting HIPAA, Congress simply did not intend that people would be allowed to purchase health insurance only to find out, after the fact, that they have no coverage for an injury resulting from a common recreational activity. If this rule is allowed to stand, millions of Americans will be forced to forgo recreational activities that they currently enjoy lest they have an accident and find out that they are not covered for needed care resulting from that accident. The legislation that we are introducing today will clarify that individuals participating in activities routinely enjoyed by millions of Americans cannot be denied access to health care coverage or health benefits as a result of their activities. The bill should not be controversial. In fact, it passed the Senate by unanimous consent at the end of the 108th Congress. I am therefore hopeful that we will be able to move quickly on this legislation this year, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing legislation to prohibit health insurers from denying benefits to plan participants if they are injured while engaging in legal recreational activities like skiing, snowmobiling, or horseback riding. Among the many rules that were issued at the end of the Clinton administration was one that was intended to ensure non-discrimination in health coverage in the group market. This rule was issued jointly on January 8, 2001, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Health Care Financing Administration--now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, of 1996. While I was pleased that the rule prohibits health plans and issuers from denying coverage to individuals who engage in certain types of recreational activities, such as skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling or motorcycling, I am concerned that it would allow insurers to deny health benefits for an otherwise covered injury that results from participation in these activities. The rule states that ``While a person cannot be excluded from a plan for engaging in certain recreational activities, benefits for a particular injury can, in some cases, be excluded based on the source of the injury.'' A plan could, for example, include a general exclusion for injuries sustained while doing a specified list of recreational activities, even though treatment for those injuries--a broken arm, for instance--would have been covered under the plan if the individual had tripped and fallen. Because of this loophole, an individual who was injured while skiing or running could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected. This clearly is contrary to Congressional intent. One of the purposes of HIPAA was to prohibit plans and issuers from establishing eligibility rules for health coverage based on certain health-related factors, including evidence of insurability. To underscore that point, the conference report language stated that ``the inclusion of evidence of insurability in the definition of health status is intended to ensure, among other things, that individuals are not excluded from health care coverage due to their participation in activities such as motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, skiing and other similar activities.'' The conference report also states that ``this provision is meant to prohibit insurers or employers from excluding employees in a group from coverage or charging them higher premiums based on their health status and other related factors that could lead to higher health costs.'' Mr. PRESIDENT, millions of Americans participate in these legal and common recreational activities which, if practiced with appropriate precautions, do not significantly increase the likelihood of serious injury. Moreover, in enacting HIPAA, Congress simply did not intend that people would be allowed to purchase health insurance only to find out, after the fact, that they have no coverage for an injury resulting from a common recreational activity. If this rule is allowed to stand, millions of Americans will be forced to forgo recreational activities that they currently enjoy lest they have an accident and find out that they are not covered for needed care resulting from that accident. The legislation that we are introducing today will clarify that individuals participating in activities routinely enjoyed by millions of Americans cannot be denied access to health care coverage or health benefits as a result of their activities. The bill should not be controversial. In fact, it passed the Senate by unanimous consent at the end of the 108th Congress. I am therefore hopeful that we will be able to move quickly on this legislation this year, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the ``Growing Our Manufacturing Employment Act, or ``GoME,'' which is aimed at reinvigorating the manufacturing sector, boosting the level of domestic manufacturing, and preventing the further loss of manufacturing jobs. Few issues are as important to the American people than the availability of good jobs in their communities. Manufacturing jobs have long provided quality employment for generations of Americans. But in recent years, employment in the manufacturing sector has dropped, and over 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the year 2000. Few States have been hit harder by the loss of manufacturing jobs than my home State of Maine. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, Maine has lost 22,000 manufacturing jobs--nearly 28 percent of our total--since the beginning of this decade. These jobs once provided lifelong employment to Mainers in towns like Millinocket, Wilton, Waterville, Fort Kent, Dexter, Westbrook, and Sanford. Here is but one example of the tragic results of this ongoing trend, from my home State of Maine: For 60 years, Moosehead Manufacturing produced furniture of the highest quality--beautiful designs and quality materials combined with expert craftsmanship. Last week, Moosehead closed its doors. More than 120 skilled workers have lost their jobs. A traditional Maine business, built from the ground up by a Maine family, is gone. Why are American manufacturing jobs disappearing? Three years ago, the National Association of Manufacturers released a study showing that American manufacturers face ``structural costs'' that makes it 22 percent more expensive to manufacture goods here than overseas. Last fall, NAM updated this study, and found that these costs are escalating, with American manufacturers now facing a cost differential 31 percent higher than our nine leading trading partners. While it would surprise no one that U.S. manufacturers face a higher cost-of-doing business than manufacturers in countries like China and Mexico, it would be a mistake to assume that wage rates alone explain this difference. They do not. In fact, the productivity of American workers is unrivaled, allowing American workers to receive more value, in wages, for the goods they produce. As the original NAM study states, if wages were the only factor, then ``U.S. manufacturers would be much more dominant . . . in the global markets than the current trade situation suggests.'' It is other ``structural costs'' that make it more expensive to manufacture goods in the U.S. relative to the cost elsewhere. Indeed, the NAM study shows that most of the ``structural costs'' facing American manufacturers are higher than those facing manufacturers in industrialized nations like Japan, Germany, and France. This fact illustrates the critical impact these high ``structural costs'' have on our ability to compete. In essence, these costs have the same effect as imposing a 31 percent additional tax on making goods here rather than overseas. To stay in business, American manufacturers must somehow do more with less, move operations overseas, or get out of manufacturing altogether. The end result is fewer jobs, a weaker economy, and a manufacturing sector in crisis. I believe a healthy manufacturing base is essential to our Nation's future. Not only is manufacturing a key source of skilled, high-paying jobs, but also it is crucial to our economic and national security that we have the ability to manufacture the goods we need right here in this country. For all these reasons, I am proposing the ``Growing Our Manufacturing Employment Act.'' This bill would help to lessen the 31 percent cost differential that American manufacturers face by providing a variety of tax incentives. For example, a jobs tax credit would be provided to manufacturers that employ displaced workers who are receiving benefits under the Trade Adjustment Act, as well as those who are receiving benefits under the Alternative TAA program. That would help get those workers back to work. In Maine alone over 4,700 workers have been deemed eligible for benefits under TAA since November of 2002, and nationally, the number is nearly 600,000. The jobs credit I am proposing in this bill would only be available to manufacturers that increase their employment level. The availability of this credit would provide a powerful incentive to hire workers who are receiving benefits because they are displaced. This bill is designed to ensure that only companies that are helping to build America's manufacturing base obtain its benefits. It has both a carrot and a stick approach. Companies that move jobs offshore will see their benefits under this proposal reduced, and companies that chose to ``invert'' their corporate structure to avoid U.S. taxes will not be eligible for this credit at all. As important as it is to assist workers who are eligible for benefits under TAA and ATAA, however, this alone is not enough to address the crisis facing American manufacturers. That is why my bill also includes a 5-year extension of the research and development tax credit we passed last year. R&D is critical to our manufacturers, because it is the basis of the breakthroughs we need to keep our economy on the cutting edge. The credit also creates jobs--it can only be claimed on R&D performed in the United States, and 75 percent of each dollar claimed goes to cover salaries of employees engaged in R&D. But despite its importance, the R&D tax credit is scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. Extending this credit would be a powerful tool that will help manufacturers keep their operations in America, and help offset the cost disparity American manufacturers face. I am hopeful that, working together on this and other proposals, we can take the important steps needed to strengthen American manufacturers, preserve our manufacturing capacity, and most of all, help ensure that hard-working Americans have the jobs they need and deserve.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the growing concern among States regarding the Real ID Act of 2005, which requires States to meet minimum security standards before citizens can use drivers' licenses for Federal purposes. As the deadline for compliance with Real ID rapidly approaches, States are beginning to send a very clear message that they are deeply concerned that they will not be able to meet these standards. The bill I introduce today recognizes those concerns by giving everyone more time to devise a way to make drivers' licenses more secure without unduly burdening State governments and without threatening privacy and civil liberties. To begin, some background may be useful. The 9/11 Commission, finding that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers had acquired some form of U.S. identification, recommended that the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses. Taking up that recommendation I worked with a bipartisan group of Senators, especially Senator Lieberman, to craft a provision in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that would accomplish this goal. This provision called for the creation of a committee composed of experts from the Federal Government, from State governments, and from other interested parties such as privacy and civil liberties advocates and information technology groups. This committee was charged with developing a means of providing secure identification that protected privacy and civil liberties and respected the role of States in issuing these documents. The committee diligently began meeting, but before it could complete its work, the House of Representatives attached the Real ID Act of 2005 to an emergency war supplemental bill, thus halting this productive effort. Unlike our intelligence reform bill, the Real ID Act of 2005 did not include States and other interested parties in the rulemaking process and instead instructed the Department of Homeland Security to simply write its own regulations. Nearly 2 years later, we still have not seen these regulations in spite of a looming May 2008 deadline for States to be in compliance with the Real ID Act. As States begin work this year on their 2008 budgets, they still have no idea what the regulations will require of them. They do know, from a study released in 2006 by the National Governors Association, that the cost to States to implement Real ID could total more than $11 billion over the first 5 years. As a result, many States--my home State of Maine included--have passed resolutions that have sent the message to Washington that they cannot and will not implement Real ID by the May 2008 deadline. My bill has two primary objectives: 1. It gives us the time and flexibility we need to come up with an effective system to provide secure drivers' licenses; and 2. it gets the experts from the States and from the technology industry and from the privacy and civil liberties advocates back at the table and gives them a chance to make these regulations work. There are three main provisions in this bill: First, the bill provides that States will not have to be Real ID compliant until 2 years after the final regulations are promulgated. This means that no matter how long it takes the Department of Homeland Security to finish these regulations, States will have a full 2 years to implement them. Most likely that will mean an extension from 2008 to 2010. Second, the bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security more flexibility to waive certain requirements of Real ID if an aspect of the program proves technically difficult to implement. Under the current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to waive the requirements for Real ID on a State-by-State basis if the State cannot comply for justifiable reasons. Because it is possible that some of the technological advances necessary for Real ID may not be in place when compliance is required, the bill will provide the Secretary specific authority to waive compliance with specific requirements if these technological systems are not up and running-- relieving the States from the burden of seeking exemptions from Real ID for technological reasons not within their control. Third, it reconstitutes the committee that we created in 2004 and that was making good progress in its discussions. The committee would be required to look at the regulations published by the Department of Homeland Security and to make suggestions for modifications to meet the concerns of States, privacy advocates, and the other interested parties. The committee would report these suggestions to the Department of Homeland Security and to Congress. The Department of Homeland Security would either have to make these modifications or explain why it chose not to do so. In addition, the committee could recommend to Congress statutory changes that would mitigate concerns that could not be addressed by modifications to the regulations. This bill gives us the time and the information that Congress and the Department of Homeland Security need to better implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in order to make our drivers' licenses secure so that they cannot be used again as a part of a plot to attack our country. This bill does this in a way that does not rewind the clock three years but instead keeps us moving forward to a more secure America. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address Real ID and to put us back on track in protecting our privacy, protecting our liberty, and protecting our country.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the growing concern among States regarding the Real ID Act of 2005, which requires States to meet minimum security standards before citizens can use drivers' licenses for Federal purposes. As the deadline for compliance with Real ID rapidly approaches, States are beginning to send a very clear message that they are deeply concerned that they will not be able to meet these standards. The bill I introduce today recognizes those concerns by giving everyone more time to devise a way to make drivers' licenses more secure without unduly burdening State governments and without threatening privacy and civil liberties. To begin, some background may be useful. The 9/11 Commission, finding that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers had acquired some form of U.S. identification, recommended that the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses. Taking up that recommendation I worked with a bipartisan group of Senators, especially Senator Lieberman, to craft a provision in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that would accomplish this goal. This provision called for the creation of a committee composed of experts from the Federal Government, from State governments, and from other interested parties such as privacy and civil liberties advocates and information technology groups. This committee was charged with developing a means of providing secure identification that protected privacy and civil liberties and respected the role of States in issuing these documents. The committee diligently began meeting, but before it could complete its work, the House of Representatives attached the Real ID Act of 2005 to an emergency war supplemental bill, thus halting this productive effort. Unlike our intelligence reform bill, the Real ID Act of 2005 did not include States and other interested parties in the rulemaking process and instead instructed the Department of Homeland Security to simply write its own regulations. Nearly 2 years later, we still have not seen these regulations in spite of a looming May 2008 deadline for States to be in compliance with the Real ID Act. As States begin work this year on their 2008 budgets, they still have no idea what the regulations will require of them. They do know, from a study released in 2006 by the National Governors Association, that the cost to States to implement Real ID could total more than $11 billion over the first 5 years. As a result, many States--my home State of Maine included--have passed resolutions that have sent the message to Washington that they cannot and will not implement Real ID by the May 2008 deadline. My bill has two primary objectives: 1. It gives us the time and flexibility we need to come up with an effective system to provide secure drivers' licenses; and 2. it gets the experts from the States and from the technology industry and from the privacy and civil liberties advocates back at the table and gives them a chance to make these regulations work. There are three main provisions in this bill: First, the bill provides that States will not have to be Real ID compliant until 2 years after the final regulations are promulgated. This means that no matter how long it takes the Department of Homeland Security to finish these regulations, States will have a full 2 years to implement them. Most likely that will mean an extension from 2008 to 2010. Second, the bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security more flexibility to waive certain requirements of Real ID if an aspect of the program proves technically difficult to implement. Under the current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to waive the requirements for Real ID on a State-by-State basis if the State cannot comply for justifiable reasons. Because it is possible that some of the technological advances necessary for Real ID may not be in place when compliance is required, the bill will provide the Secretary specific authority to waive compliance with specific requirements if these technological systems are not up and running-- relieving the States from the burden of seeking exemptions from Real ID for technological reasons not within their control. Third, it reconstitutes the committee that we created in 2004 and that was making good progress in its discussions. The committee would be required to look at the regulations published by the Department of Homeland Security and to make suggestions for modifications to meet the concerns of States, privacy advocates, and the other interested parties. The committee would report these suggestions to the Department of Homeland Security and to Congress. The Department of Homeland Security would either have to make these modifications or explain why it chose not to do so. In addition, the committee could recommend to Congress statutory changes that would mitigate concerns that could not be addressed by modifications to the regulations. This bill gives us the time and the information that Congress and the Department of Homeland Security need to better implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in order to make our drivers' licenses secure so that they cannot be used again as a part of a plot to attack our country. This bill does this in a way that does not rewind the clock three years but instead keeps us moving forward to a more secure America. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address Real ID and to put us back on track in protecting our privacy, protecting our liberty, and protecting our country.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other States in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in keeping with the worthy goals of NCLB. Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in the State and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education experts, assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the Act. These recommendations form the basis of the legislation that we are introducing today. First, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements. Second, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to States in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting State education standards. Specifically, it would permit States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Third, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time. Fourth, our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup size--only 20 students. I was very concerned to hear reports that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is not working out in practice. This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special student will bring an important improvement to the Act. Fifth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting this goal every 3 years, and would allow her to modify the timeline as necessary. Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and commonsense modifications to address the key NCLB challenges facing Maine, and other States. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other States in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in keeping with the worthy goals of NCLB. Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in the State and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education experts, assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the Act. These recommendations form the basis of the legislation that we are introducing today. First, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements. Second, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to States in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting State education standards. Specifically, it would permit States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Third, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time. Fourth, our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup size--only 20 students. I was very concerned to hear reports that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is not working out in practice. This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special student will bring an important improvement to the Act. Fifth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting this goal every 3 years, and would allow her to modify the timeline as necessary. Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and commonsense modifications to address the key NCLB challenges facing Maine, and other States. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator from Virginia, I remember very well General Abizaid's testimony before the Armed Services Committee in mid-November. And as the Senator has pointed out--and he presided over that hearing--it could not have been clearer General Abizaid said that he consulted with all the American commanders and that the effect of bringing in more American troops would be to relieve the pressure on the Iraqis to step up and take control of the security themselves. Indeed, and ironically, General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, had written an article for the Military Review in January of 2006 in which he said that one of the lessons from his tours of duty in Iraq was that you should not do too much, that you should call upon the Iraqis to take responsibility for themselves. Indeed, my experience was just as the Senator's was. About a month after General Abizaid's testimony, I was in Iraq. I talked with the commanders on the ground, and I would like to share with the senior Senator what one American commander told me. He said that a jobs program for Iraqis would do more good to quell the sectarian violence than the addition of more American troops. He told me that some Iraqi men are so desperate for money because they have been unemployed for so long that they are joining the Shiite militias. They are planting roadside bombs simply for the money because they are desperate. I thought that was such a telling comment, I say to my distinguished colleague, because this was from a very experienced commander who had been in Iraq for a long time. At that moment he was not calling for more troops. None of the American commanders with whom I talked in Baghdad called for more troops. The only place where we heard a request for more troops was in Anbar Province, and as I have explained, the situation in Anbar is totally different. It is not sectarian violence. The violence is with al-Qaida, the foreign jihadists, mainly Sunni versus Sunni, and it requires a different strategy. So my experience, when added to the distinguished Senator's, shows a consistent pattern. Whether it was the distinguished Senator's trip in October or the testimony of General Abizaid in November or my journey in December, we heard exactly the same themes, exactly the same answers to the questions of whether we needed more troops. Finally, let me say I went to Iraq with a completely open mind on this issue, and I came back convinced that sending more troops to Baghdad would be a colossal error.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia--a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an individual who has devoted his life to the support of our military--in offering, along with a number of our colleagues, this very important resolution as an amendment to the continuing resolution. There are many differing views in this body on the road ahead in Iraq, and those views are legitimate but they deserve to be debated. There is no more pressing issue facing this country than Iraq. The public is disappointed to see the Senate avoid the debate on the most important issue of our day. The current stalemate is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American people. Regardless of our views on the appropriate strategy for Iraq, we have an obligation, we have a duty as Senators to fully debate this issue and to go on record on what we believe to be the appropriate strategy, the road ahead in Iraq. I am very disappointed that the procedural wrangling on both sides of the aisle prevented that kind of full and fair debate last week. I believed strongly that we should go ahead with that debate, and I am sorry that did not occur. I hope our leaders on both sides of the aisle will work together to come up with a fair approach to debate this most important issue. Just this last weekend, the State of Maine lost another soldier in combat in Iraq. The American people deserve to know where each and every one of us stands on the President's strategy, on whether to cut off funding, on the important issues related to this very pressing issue. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. There are those who agree with my position that a surge of 21,500 troops would be a mistake. There are those who believe that the surge is the right course to follow. I respect the views of Senators on both sides of the aisle and, indeed, this is not a partisan issue. But surely--surely this is an issue that deserves our full debate in the best traditions of this historic body. Surely--surely our constituents deserve to know where we stand. I think this is so important that nothing should prevent us from going to this debate prior to our recessing. I think we should make this so important that if it is not done, perhaps we should reconsider our plans for next week. I think we should proceed with this most important debate without further delay. There are a number of worthwhile resolutions that have been brought forward. Let the debate begin. Finally, I want to add just a couple of comments to those made by the distinguished Senator from Virginia and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, and that is about the importance of these resolutions. They are by no means unprecedented, as both of my colleagues have so articulately pointed out. They offer guidance to the administration. It remains my hope that if the Senate passes the resolution that I have helped to coauthor that the President will accept our invitation to take a second look at his plan. We urge him to explore all alternatives and to work with us on a bipartisan strategy to chart a new road ahead in Iraq. As a result of my trip to Iraq in December, I concluded that we face a number of different challenges in Iraq and the strategy depends on where you are in Iraq. In Baghdad, the capital is engulfed in sectarian violence. Yes, Baghdad is in the midst of a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. To insert more American soldiers in the midst of this sectarian struggle would, in my judgment, be a major mistake. Only the Iraqis can devise a solution to the sectarian strife that is gripping Baghdad, and I think if the Iraqis had taken the long overdue political steps, if they more fully integrated the Sunni minority into the power structures, if they had passed an oil revenue bill that more equitably distributed oil revenues, if they had held the long overdue provincial elections, we would not be in the crisis in which we are today. Indeed, that is not just my opinion, that was the opinion of General Petraeus when I asked him that question during his nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee. By contrast to the sectarian strife that is plaguing Baghdad, the battle is very different in Anbar Province to the west. There the fight is with al-Qaida and with foreign jihadists, and there and only there did I hear an American commander ask for more troops--only in Anbar Province--and he did so in order to capitalize on a recent positive development in which some of the local Sunni tribal leaders are now backing the coalition forces against al-Qaida. My conclusion is that we do need more troops in Anbar, but we should reallocate from troops already in the country. I personally would choose to take troops out of Baghdad and send them west, to Anbar Province, and put the Iraqis in charge, fully in charge of security in Baghdad. I fear that by inserting thousands of additional troops into the midst of the sectarian strife in Baghdad, ironically we will ease the pressure on the Iraqi leaders to take the long-overdue steps to quell the sectarian violence, for I am convinced that the sectarian violence in Baghdad requires a political, not a military, solution. In Basra, the third stop on our trip, I heard a British commander, a British colonel, give an excellent presentation to us. He said that initially the British and American troops were welcomed in Iraq, but as time has gone on, what he called the consent line has declined and their presence has been less and less tolerated and more and more resented. I think perhaps the only issue on which all Members of this body can agree is that our troops have served nobly and well in Iraq, and that we need a new strategy. We disagree on the road ahead, but that is what democracy and the traditions of the Senate are all about. We should not be afraid of this debate. We should debate this issue fully and openly and let our constituents and the administration know exactly where the Senate stands.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today, along with Senators Warner, Landrieu, Vitter, Coleman, Smith, and Nelson of Nebraska, would increase and expand the Teacher Tax deduction provided in current law. The Teacher Tax deduction is available to school teachers and other educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses in order to purchase classroom supplies for their students. The bill we are offering today would increase this above-the-line tax deduction to $400, allow the deduction to be taken for expenses related to professional development, and make the deduction permanent. This bill builds upon a $250 tax deduction in current law authored by Senator Warner and myself, which became law as part of the tax relief package in 2001. This tax relief was later extended through the end of this year, but we need to act to extend it further. I would suggest that there is no reason why we should not make the deduction permanent. Teachers who buy classroom supplies in order to improve the educational experience of their students deserve more than just our gratitude. They deserve this modest tax relief to thank them for their hard work. So often teachers in my State, and throughout the country, spend their own money in order to improve the classroom experiences of their students. Many of us are familiar with a survey of the National Education Association that found that teachers spend, on average, $443 a year on classroom supplies. Other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. In fact, the National School Supply and Equipment Association found that educators spend an average of $826 to supplement classroom supplies, plus $926 for instructional materials on top of that--for a total of over $1,700 out of their own pockets. In most States, including mine, teachers are very modestly paid for their jobs. I think it is so impressive that despite challenging jobs and modest salaries, teachers are willing to dig deep into their own pockets to enrich the classroom experience, because they care so deeply for their students. Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in Maine who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit that is in current law. I have made a practice of visiting schools all over Maine, and so far, I have had the opportunity to visit more than 160 schools in my State. At virtually every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to benefit their students. Year after year, these teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, stamps, inkpads-- everything you can think of. Let me just give you a couple of examples. Anita Hopkins and Kathi Toothaker, who are elementary school teachers from Augusta, ME, purchase books for their students to have as a classroom library, as well as workbooks and sight cards. They have also purchased special prizes for positive reinforcement for their students. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends $800 to $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning fun and to create a stimulating classroom environment. This bill would also expand the Teacher Tax deduction to make it available to teachers who incur expenses for professional development. Whenever the provisions of ``No Child Left Behind'' are being debated, we hear a lot of discussion about the need for highly-qualified teachers. One of the best ways for teachers to improve their qualifications is through professional development. Yet, in towns in my State, and I suspect throughout the country, school budgets are often very tight, and money for professional development is either very limited or non-existent. For that reason, I believe we should allow this tax deduction to also apply when a teacher takes a course or attends a workshop and has to pay for it out of his or her own pocket. In my view, students are the ultimate beneficiaries when teachers receive professional development to sharpen their skills or to learn a new approach to presenting material to their students. Studies have consistently shown that, other than involved parents, the single greatest determinant of classroom success is the presence of a well- qualified teacher. Educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom. The Teacher Tax relief that we have made available since 2001 is certainly a positive step, and I was proud to have authored that law, along with Senator Warner. This bill would increase that deduction from $250 to $400, reflecting more accurately what teachers really spend, and would make the deduction permanent. The National Education Association has endorsed this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the NEA's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. This bill is a small but appropriate means of recognizing the many sacrifices that our teachers make every day to benefit the children of America. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improving Access to Higher Education Act. This legislation would provide an increase in the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, as well as additional benefits to help make higher education more accessible and affordable. Our system of higher education is, in many ways, the envy of the world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, family income still largely determines whether students will pursue higher education. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families with incomes of less than $25,000. To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has committed itself to a need-based system of student financial aid designed to help remove the economic barriers to higher education. Central to this effort over the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program. The Pell Grant Program is the largest source of Federal grant aid and the cornerstone of our Federal need-based aid system. In 2006, the Pell program provided approximately $13 billion in grant aid to more than 5.3 million students. Students with the greatest need receive the maximum Pell award, which is currently set at $4,050. And Pell grants are truly targeted to the neediest of students--Pell recipients have a median family income of only $15,200. Because of the central role of the Pell Grant Program, I am deeply concerned by the significant erosion in the purchasing power of the Pell grant that has occurred in recent years. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant represented approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers only 33 percent of these costs. When lower levels of grant aid are available, students are forced to make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt to finance their education. Earlier this month, I met with two students from the University of Southern Maine who told me that students graduating from 4-year institutions in Maine leave with an average debt of $20,239. As startling as this figure may be, it underestimates the true indebtedness of students, since it does not take into account credit card debt or private loans that students use to help finance their education. The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on loans have particularly negative consequences for low-income students. In fact, the staggering amount of debt required to finance higher education may force some low-income students to abandon their plans to attend college altogether. As explained in a recent report by the Educational Policy Institute, ``Grants for Students: What they do, Why they work,'' people from lower-income backgrounds often place a higher value on having money to meet pressing current needs, and accordingly, are less likely to make investments where the financial return comes only in the long term. According to the report, ``[L]ong term poverty encourages short-term thinking and those who experience it tend to identify very strongly with the expression `one in the hand is worth two in the bush.' '' This is just one reason why the availability of loans does not solve the college access problem for low-income students, and why grant aid is so crucial. That is why today I am introducing legislation that will raise the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, an increase of more tha $1,000 in a single year. While I recognize that this represents a significant increase in a single year, this increase is long overdue. The maximum grant award has been essentially level-funded since Fiscal Year 2002. If we do not act soon Fiscal Year 2007 will become the fifth year in a row that the Pell maximum award has been level-funded. By raising the maximum award to $5,100, my home state of Maine will receive approximately $60 million in Pell grant funding, an increase of over $15 million from current levels. This level of funding would provide Pell grants to more than 20,000 Maine students. I recently met with Andrew Bossie, a first-generation college student from my hometown of Caribou, about the importance of Pell grants. Andrew is currently a student at the University of Southern Maine and will graduate this spring, in large part, because of the help of Pell grants. As Andrew told me, ``Without Pell grants, there is no doubt that I would not have been able to attend college. Although the current Pell grant award is a huge help, I still feel the stress of sometimes having to decide between a badly-needed new pair of shoes and making my tuition payments.'' Andrew is thriving academically--he is on the Dean's list--and he is also the student body president and is active as a community volunteer. Increasing the maximum Pell award by $1,050 is going to make a real difference for Andrew and other students in their ability to pursue their college dreams. While I recognize that an increase to $5,100 in a single year is an ambitious goal, it is a worthy one for a nation that understands the opportunities that a college education brings. My legislation also amends the Higher Education Act to raise the minimum Pell award to $500, up from the current minimum of $400. The minimum award level has not been increased in over 10 years. I believe we should ensure that every student who qualifies for a Pell receives at least $500. In addition to our efforts on behalf of Pell grants, there are other important steps we can take to put higher education in the reach of more families. Ten years ago, in my first year as a Senator, I introduced S. 930, the ``College Affordability and Access Act,'' which contained three provisions designed to expand access to higher education, and reduce its cost. These three provisions were enacted into law, in amended form, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The proposal I am submitting today builds upon each of those three provisions. First, in recognition of the increased cost of higher education, my proposal calls for an increase in the tax deduction available for interest paid on higher education loans. Second, my proposal calls for a similar increase in the contribution limit for tax-free Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Third, the bill would make permanent the current tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational assistance programs. The value of the tax relief we provided 10 years ago has not kept pace with the rising cost of higher education. According to data from the College Board, 4-year private colleges now charge $30,000 per year for tuition, fees, room, and board. Even after taking inflation into account, this represents an increase of more than $6,000 since the 1996-1997 school year. Perhaps even more troubling, the College Board reports that the rate of increase has actually been sharper at public 4-year institutions than their private counterparts. Ten years ago, students attending any of America's excellent public universities would have paid, on average, just over $9,000 to cover tuition, fees, room, and board. Today, these students can expect to pay nearly $12,800--an increase of 38 percent after taking inflation into account. By contrast, the student loan interest deduction we provided as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 remains at $2,500. It is time that we raise this cap to $3,750, a 50-percent increase. Doing so is a step toward recognizing that investments in higher education are essential to the health of our economy in an increasingly global, competitive marketplace. I also believe it is necessary to increase the contribution limits for Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Under current law, taxpayers may make contributions of up to $2,000 per year to these tax-free higher education accounts. In light of the inflation in college costs that I have already described, I believe this contribution limit ought to be increased to $3,000 per year. Finally, my proposal would also extend current education benefits provided to employees through their employers. Under current law, a taxpayer may receive, tax free, up to $5,250 in education benefits through their employers each year. This provision helps both companies and their employees. Companies that provide this benefit get a workforce that is current with the latest methods and technologies in the field, while their employees get the training they need to advance through the ranks. Unfortunately, this provision expires on December 31, 2010. I propose that it be made permanent. Now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $5,100, and to providing additional relief to families struggling to afford higher education. Investing in higher education is crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global economy, and my legislation represents a sound investment towards making the dream of a college education a reality for more Americans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. If the Senator will yield on that point.

Ms. COLLINS. The resolution we drafted very carefully distinguishes between the sectarian violence engulfing Baghdad, where the Senator and Senator Nelson believe it would be a huge mistake for additional American troops to be in the midst of that, versus a very different situation in Anbar Province. In Anbar, the violence is not sectarian; the battle is with al-Qaida and with foreign fighters, the Sunni insurgencies, so we have Sunni versus Sunni. It is not sectarian. And what is more, local tribal leaders have recently joined with the coalition forces to fight al- Qaida. It is a completely different situation in Anbar. I do support the addition of more troops in Anbar. Indeed, the one American commander whom I met with in December who called for more troops in Anbar was General Kilmer.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first let me thank Senator Warner and Senator Nelson for their continuing hard work in refining the language of this very important resolution, a resolution that I hope will garner widespread bipartisan support when it is brought to the Senate floor and debated next week. Since we first introduced our resolution last week, we have had the benefit of further consultations with experts. We have had the benefit of conversations with our colleagues. We have had the benefit of alternative resolutions that have been proposed by other Senators, and we have had the benefit, most of all, of additional hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, including a classified briefing today. All of this activity has confirmed my belief that our resolution as originally proposed was on precisely the right track, but the benefit of these hearings, briefings, conversations and consultations has led us to improve our resolution by making four modifications that the distinguished Senators have just explained. Let me, for the benefit of our colleagues, run through them one more time. First, the resolution now makes very clear that nothing in it is to be construed as advocating any lessening of financial support for our troops. Indeed, it goes firmly on record as being opposed to cutting off funds that would be needed by our troops in Iraq. The language is very clear on that. Second, there has been a great deal of discussion about the need for the Iraqis to meet certain benchmarks--benchmarks that in the past they have not met. So we include language in this resolution that makes very clear that we expect the Iraqi Prime Minister to agree to certain benchmarks; for example, to agree to work for the passage and achieve the passage of legislation that would ensure an equitable distribution of oil revenues. That is a very important issue in Iraq. It also includes a benchmark that the Iraqis are going to produce the troops they have promised, and that they are going to operate according to the military rules of engagement without regard to the sectarian information or the sect of the people involved in the fighting. In other words, it doesn't matter whether an insurgent is a Sunni or a Shiite; if he is violating the law, engaging in violence, the Iraqi troops and our troops would be able to arrest and detain or otherwise battle these individuals. It clarifies the language regarding the troop increase that the President has proposed, and as the Senator from Virginia has explained to our colleagues, it calls for a clarification of the command and control structure so that we don't have a dual line of command. We want to have a very clear chain of command, and we call for that. That isn't the case now, and if you ask any military officer, he or she will tell you that having a clear chain of command, a unity of command, is absolutely essential. We have made these four changes in our legislation, in the resolution. We hope our colleagues will take a close look at it. I look forward to debating it more fully when we get on this issue next week. Again, I commend the distinguished Senators with whom I have been very privileged to work on this: Senator Warner, the former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, my colleague, Senator Nelson, also a member of the Committee on Armed Services. All three of us serve on that committee. We have brought to bear our experience and what we have learned in the last week as we continue to study this very important issue, perhaps the most vital issue facing our country.

Ms. COLLINS. If the Senator will yield on that point, since the Senator was the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, as well, I would also share with our colleagues that the Senator presided over a hearing in mid-November at which General Abizaid, the central command general, testified before our committee that more American troops were not needed. He reported he had consulted widely with generals on the ground in Iraq, including General Casey, in reaching that conclusion. I say to our colleagues that I think the record is clear. If you look at the findings of your trip from October, the testimony before the Committee on Armed Services from General Abizaid in November, what I heard in mid-December, I have to say, respectfully, I do not believe the President's plan with regard to Baghdad--not Anbar but Baghdad--is consistent with what we were told.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Ms. COLLINS. It was a very illuminating trip with other Senators. It has shaped my views on the issues before the Senate. One American commander in Baghdad told me a jobs program would do more good than additional American troops in quelling the sectarian violence. He told me many Iraqi men were joining the militias or planting roadside bombs simply because they had been unemployed for so long they were desperate for money and would do anything to support their families. This was an American commander who told me this. Prime Minister Maliki, in mid-December, made very clear he did not welcome the presence of additional American troops and, indeed, that he chafed at the restrictions on his control of the Iraqi troops. So I didn't hear it from Iraqi leaders, either. The only place where I heard a request for more troops was in Anbar Province where the situation, as we have discussed, is totally different than the sectarian violence plaguing Baghdad.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improving Access to Higher Education Act. This legislation would provide an increase in the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, as well as additional benefits to help make higher education more accessible and affordable. Our system of higher education is, in many ways, the envy of the world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, family income still largely determines whether students will pursue higher education. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families with incomes of less than $25,000. To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has committed itself to a need-based system of student financial aid designed to help remove the economic barriers to higher education. Central to this effort over the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program. The Pell Grant Program is the largest source of Federal grant aid and the cornerstone of our Federal need-based aid system. In 2006, the Pell program provided approximately $13 billion in grant aid to more than 5.3 million students. Students with the greatest need receive the maximum Pell award, which is currently set at $4,050. And Pell grants are truly targeted to the neediest of students--Pell recipients have a median family income of only $15,200. Because of the central role of the Pell Grant Program, I am deeply concerned by the significant erosion in the purchasing power of the Pell grant that has occurred in recent years. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant represented approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers only 33 percent of these costs. When lower levels of grant aid are available, students are forced to make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt to finance their education. Earlier this month, I met with two students from the University of Southern Maine who told me that students graduating from 4-year institutions in Maine leave with an average debt of $20,239. As startling as this figure may be, it underestimates the true indebtedness of students, since it does not take into account credit card debt or private loans that students use to help finance their education. The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on loans have particularly negative consequences for low-income students. In fact, the staggering amount of debt required to finance higher education may force some low-income students to abandon their plans to attend college altogether. As explained in a recent report by the Educational Policy Institute, ``Grants for Students: What they do, Why they work,'' people from lower-income backgrounds often place a higher value on having money to meet pressing current needs, and accordingly, are less likely to make investments where the financial return comes only in the long term. According to the report, ``[L]ong term poverty encourages short-term thinking and those who experience it tend to identify very strongly with the expression `one in the hand is worth two in the bush.' '' This is just one reason why the availability of loans does not solve the college access problem for low-income students, and why grant aid is so crucial. That is why today I am introducing legislation that will raise the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, an increase of more tha $1,000 in a single year. While I recognize that this represents a significant increase in a single year, this increase is long overdue. The maximum grant award has been essentially level-funded since Fiscal Year 2002. If we do not act soon Fiscal Year 2007 will become the fifth year in a row that the Pell maximum award has been level-funded. By raising the maximum award to $5,100, my home state of Maine will receive approximately $60 million in Pell grant funding, an increase of over $15 million from current levels. This level of funding would provide Pell grants to more than 20,000 Maine students. I recently met with Andrew Bossie, a first-generation college student from my hometown of Caribou, about the importance of Pell grants. Andrew is currently a student at the University of Southern Maine and will graduate this spring, in large part, because of the help of Pell grants. As Andrew told me, ``Without Pell grants, there is no doubt that I would not have been able to attend college. Although the current Pell grant award is a huge help, I still feel the stress of sometimes having to decide between a badly-needed new pair of shoes and making my tuition payments.'' Andrew is thriving academically--he is on the Dean's list--and he is also the student body president and is active as a community volunteer. Increasing the maximum Pell award by $1,050 is going to make a real difference for Andrew and other students in their ability to pursue their college dreams. While I recognize that an increase to $5,100 in a single year is an ambitious goal, it is a worthy one for a nation that understands the opportunities that a college education brings. My legislation also amends the Higher Education Act to raise the minimum Pell award to $500, up from the current minimum of $400. The minimum award level has not been increased in over 10 years. I believe we should ensure that every student who qualifies for a Pell receives at least $500. In addition to our efforts on behalf of Pell grants, there are other important steps we can take to put higher education in the reach of more families. Ten years ago, in my first year as a Senator, I introduced S. 930, the ``College Affordability and Access Act,'' which contained three provisions designed to expand access to higher education, and reduce its cost. These three provisions were enacted into law, in amended form, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The proposal I am submitting today builds upon each of those three provisions. First, in recognition of the increased cost of higher education, my proposal calls for an increase in the tax deduction available for interest paid on higher education loans. Second, my proposal calls for a similar increase in the contribution limit for tax-free Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Third, the bill would make permanent the current tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational assistance programs. The value of the tax relief we provided 10 years ago has not kept pace with the rising cost of higher education. According to data from the College Board, 4-year private colleges now charge $30,000 per year for tuition, fees, room, and board. Even after taking inflation into account, this represents an increase of more than $6,000 since the 1996-1997 school year. Perhaps even more troubling, the College Board reports that the rate of increase has actually been sharper at public 4-year institutions than their private counterparts. Ten years ago, students attending any of America's excellent public universities would have paid, on average, just over $9,000 to cover tuition, fees, room, and board. Today, these students can expect to pay nearly $12,800--an increase of 38 percent after taking inflation into account. By contrast, the student loan interest deduction we provided as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 remains at $2,500. It is time that we raise this cap to $3,750, a 50-percent increase. Doing so is a step toward recognizing that investments in higher education are essential to the health of our economy in an increasingly global, competitive marketplace. I also believe it is necessary to increase the contribution limits for Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Under current law, taxpayers may make contributions of up to $2,000 per year to these tax-free higher education accounts. In light of the inflation in college costs that I have already described, I believe this contribution limit ought to be increased to $3,000 per year. Finally, my proposal would also extend current education benefits provided to employees through their employers. Under current law, a taxpayer may receive, tax free, up to $5,250 in education benefits through their employers each year. This provision helps both companies and their employees. Companies that provide this benefit get a workforce that is current with the latest methods and technologies in the field, while their employees get the training they need to advance through the ranks. Unfortunately, this provision expires on December 31, 2010. I propose that it be made permanent. Now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $5,100, and to providing additional relief to families struggling to afford higher education. Investing in higher education is crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global economy, and my legislation represents a sound investment towards making the dream of a college education a reality for more Americans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this amendment is a small but appropriate means of recognizing the many sacrifices our teachers make every day to benefit the children of America. I thank the Senator from Oregon for working with me on this amendment. It is my understanding that it is acceptable to him. It builds on the many positive provisions he has in his amendment. He is a cosponsor of the amendment. He has been a real leader on educational issues. Shortly, I am going to ask that the amendment be adopted. Exhibit 1 National Education Association, Washington, DC, January 24, 2007. Senator Susan Collins, Senator John Warner, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Collins and Warner: On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we would like to express our strong support for your legislation that would increase, expand, and make permanent the tax deduction for educators' out-of-pocket classroom supply expenses. We thank you for your continued leadership and advocacy on this important issue. As you know, the educator tax deduction helps recognize the financial sacrifices made by teachers and paraprofessionals, who often reach into their own pockets to purchase classroom supplies such as books, pencils, paper, and art supplies. Studies show that teachers are spending more of their own funds each year to supply their classrooms, including purchasing essential items such as pencils, glue, scissors, and facial tissues. For example, NEA's 2003 report Status of the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001 found that teachers spent an average of $443 a year on classroom supplies. More recently, the National School Supply and Equipment Association found that in 2005-2006, educators spent out of their own pockets an average of $826.00 for supplies and an additional $926 for instructional materials, for a total of $1,752. By increasing the current deduction and making it permanent, your legislation will make a real difference for many educators, who often must sacrifice other personal needs in order to pay for classroom supplies. NEA also strongly supports your proposal to extend the tax deduction to cover out-of-pocket professional development expenses. Teacher quality is the single most critical factor in maximizing student achievement. Ongoing professional development is essential to ensure that educators stay up-to- date on the skills and knowledge necessary to prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century. Your bill will make a critical difference in helping educators access quality training. We thank you again for your work on this important legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you to support our nation's educators. Sincerely, Diane Shust, Director of Government Relations. Randall Moody, Manager of Federal Policy and Politics.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment, No. 204, be agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 113.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, Senator Smith, and myself, I call up a second-degree amendment, amendment No. 204, which is at the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment that Senators Warner, Smith, and I are offering increases a deduction for schoolteachers and other educators that is in current law. Our amendment would increase this deduction to $400 and make it permanent. This tax deduction is available to schoolteachers and other educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses in order to purchase classroom supplies for their students. It would also allow this above-the-line tax deduction for expenses related to professional development. This amendment builds on a $250 tax deduction in current law that Senator Warner and I authored in 2001. It became law that year as part of the tax relief package. The tax relief provided by that act to schoolteachers and other educators was later extended through the end of this year, but we need to act to extend it further, and I suggest there is no reason we shouldn't just go ahead and make it permanent. Teachers who buy classroom supplies in order to improve the educational experience for their students deserve more than just our gratitude. They deserve this modest tax incentive to thank them for their hard work. So often, teachers in my State and throughout the country spend their own money to improve the classroom experience of their students. Many of us are familiar with the survey of the National Education Association that found that teachers spend on average $443 a year on classroom supplies. Other surveys show they are spending even more than that. In fact, the National School Supply and Equipment Association has found that educators spend an average of $826 to supplement classroom supplies, plus $926 for instructional materials on top of that--in other words, a total of $1,700 out of their own pockets. In most States, including mine, teachers are very modestly paid for their jobs, and I think it is so impressive that despite challenging jobs and modest salaries, teachers are willing to dig deep into their own pockets to enrich the classroom experience because they care so deeply for their students. Indeed, I have spoken with dozens of teachers in Maine who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit that is in current law. I have made a practice of visiting schools all over Maine. In fact, I have visited more than 160 schools in my State. At virtually every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to benefit their students. Year after year, these teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, construction paper, stamps, ink pads--everything one can think of. Let me just give a couple of examples. For example, Anita Hopkins and Kathi Toothaker, who are elementary school teachers in Augusta, ME, purchased books for their students to have a classroom library, as well as workbooks and sight cards. They also purchased special prizes for positive reinforcement for their students. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends between $800 and $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning more fun and to create a stimulating classroom environment. I have proposed that we also expand the uses for this tax deduction. We should make it available for teachers who incur expenses for professional development. We hear a lot of discussion when the provisions of No Child Left Behind are debated about the need for highly qualified teachers. One of the best ways for teachers to improve their qualifications is through professional development. Yet in towns in my State--and I suspect throughout the country--school budgets are often very tight and money for professional development is either very small or nonexistent. So what I think we should do is to allow this tax deduction to also apply when a teacher takes a course or attends a workshop and has to pay for it out of his or her own pocket. In my view, it is the students who are the ultimate beneficiaries when teachers receive professional development to sharpen their skills or to teach them a new approach to presenting material to their students. Studies consistently have shown that other than involved parents, the single greatest determinant of classroom success is the presence of a well-qualified teacher, and educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom. The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is certainly a positive step, and I was very proud, along with Senator Warner, to have authored that law. This amendment would increase that deduction from $250 to $400, reflecting more accurately what teachers really do spend, and it would also make it permanent. The National Education Association, the NEA, has endorsed this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the NEA's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Coleman, Pryor, Cantwell, Durbin, Mikulski, Bingaman, Lautenberg and Kerry, in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' This legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children with serious mental illness so that their parents are no longer forced to give up custody solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment. Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it. Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or daughter with serious mental health needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children and their families. My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system. When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment. Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn. In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, ``Beat `em up, lock `em up, or give `em up,'' characterizes the choices that some families face in their efforts to get help for their children's mental illness. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. This likely is just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data. Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 1999 survey by the National Alliance on Mental Illness found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so. Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, since it can leave children with mental illness and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families. In 2003 and 2004, I chaired a series of hearings in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs. The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate for help for her twin boys, searched for two years until she finally located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in Illinois''--that was able to help. Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents to get services and treatment for their children. We also need to question what happens to these children when they are turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I released a report in 2004 with Congressman Henry Waxman that found that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while they wait for scarce mental health services. Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young people--roughly seven percent of all of the children in the centers surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held without any charges pending against them, and the young people incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they are waiting for mental health services. The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing treatment. The legislation authorizes $100 million over six years for competitive grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help states to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families. In addition, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services, and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment. The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Mental Health America, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association. I ask unanimous consent that letters from these organizations endorsing the bill be printed in the Record. The Keeping Families Together Act will help to reduce the barriers to care for children with serious mental illness, and I urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.