Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act of 2007 to provide information to the public about the health consequences of secondhand smoke and support tobacco cessation education. I want to thank Senators Sanders and Murray for cosponsoring the Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act and recognize them as strong advocates for smoking cessation efforts. I believe that tobacco use constitutes one of the greatest threats to public health, a conclusion that was also expressed in the 2000 Supreme Court ruling, and I also believe that we have a duty to safeguard our Nation's health against tobacco products. Every year, an estimated 400,000 smokers die as a result of smoking- related diseases. But nonsmokers also suffer and die from exposure to tobacco smoke. Last year, the Surgeon General issued the report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, which found that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. The Surgeon General reported that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke, which contains more than 50 carcinogens. Living with a smoker increases a non-smoker's risk of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent and, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in the U.S. each year. Secondhand smoke also causes 46,000 cardiac deaths annually in our country. Studies have shown that exposure to secondhand smoke has both immediate and long-term adverse health consequences on the adult cardiovascular system. Exposure to secondhand smoke for 30 minutes can damage coronary arteries, while sustained exposure can increase the risk of coronary heart disease by 20 to 30 percent. Although more than 20 States have passed smoke-free laws, including laws that ban smoking in restaurants and bars, Americans of all age groups are involuntarily exposed to tobacco smoke through exposure in workplaces, homes, cars, apartments, and even outdoor public spaces. According to the National Cancer Institute, racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. have higher rates of occupational exposure to secondhand smoke, with Latinos and Native Americans having the highest rates. Therefore, it is critical that individuals, especially youth, should not be exposed to secondhand smoke. Further, parents should have access to information about the adverse health consequences so that they can better protect their children and themselves from secondhand smoke. Education about the dangers of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke is absolutely critical for combating the misleading messages that the tobacco industry propagates through savvy advertising campaigns. There is strong evidence that tobacco advertisements cynically target advertising to adult and adolescent women. According to an analysis published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1994 and a 2001 report by the Surgeon General, the tobacco industry has targeted women with some form of this dangerous promotional strategy for almost a century, beginning in the 1920s. The latest example of this is chronicled in a recent New York Times editorial, entitled ``Don't Fall for Hot Pink Camels'', which discusses R.J. Reynolds's $25 million to $50 million investment in an advertising campaign behind the new female-friendly Camel No. 9. In addition to targeting women, tobacco advertisements are also designed to appeal to our youth. In the August 2006 racketeering suit brought by the Justice Department against the tobacco industry, Judge Kessler's Final Opinion concluded that: ``. . . Defendants continue to engage in many practices which target youth, and deny that they do so. Despite the provisions of the MSA, Defendants continue to track youth behavior and preferences and market to youth using imagery which appeals to the needs and desires of adolescents.'' This is an unconscionable, but effective, practice. A study published this year in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine concluded that youth are more likely to start smoking if exposed to retail cigarette advertising and that cigarette promotions also increase the probability of youth becoming regular smokers. Finally, racial and ethnic minority communities are disproportionately targeted with advertising campaigns for tobacco products, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The tobacco industry has contributed to primary and secondary schools, funded universities and colleges, and supported scholarship programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities. Tobacco companies have also placed advertising in community publications and sponsored cultural events in racial and ethnic minority communities. Despite the public's growing understanding of the health dangers posed by tobacco, too many still succumb to the lure of these deadly products. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 20 percent of adults currently smoke cigarettes in the U.S. Among racial and ethnic communities, approximately 16 percent of Hispanic adults, 13 percent of Asian American adults, 22 percent of Caucasians adults, 22 percent of African American adults, and 32 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives currently smoke cigarettes. As for our Nation's youth, a 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that nearly 3 million Americans under the age of 18 currently smoke cigarettes. According to the CDC, unless current rates of youth smoking are reversed, more than 6.3 million children under the age of 18 will die from smoking-related diseases. That is why health care professionals should have the opportunity to receive training in the delivery of evidence-based tobacco dependence and prevention treatment in order to assist smokers in overcoming their addiction and educating all patients about the harm of secondhand smoke. That is why I, along with Senators Sanders and Murray, am introducing the Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act. I am grateful to have developed this proposal with the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. This bill, through education and outreach, will help reverse the public's underestimation of the harm that secondhand smoke can wreck on one's health and will promote smoking cessation efforts across our nation. This new legislation would establish grants and demonstration projects, awarded by the Secretary of HHS in consultation with the SAMHSA administrator, for educating the public about the health consequences of secondhand smoke in multi-unit dwellings and in public spaces, such as public parks, playgrounds, and national parks. Special consideration would be given to awarding grants to organizations whose participation includes secondary school or college-age individuals, and to organizations that reach racial or ethnic populations that experience a disproportionate share of the cancer burden. The Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act would also authorize and fund grants for regional or local tobacco cessation education and counseling for health care workers and providers. The training curricula would assist smokers in quitting through smoking cessation counseling, educate smokers and nonsmokers about the health consequences of secondhand smoke, and help promote self- sustaining networks for the delivery of affordable, accessible, and effective cessation services. The U.S. spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation and yet we struggle to provide adequate health care for all our citizens. We literally cannot afford the myriad of health problems that we know result from tobacco use: bladder, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, and throat cancers, chronic lung diseases, coronary heart and cardiovascular diseases, as well as reproductive effects and sudden infant death syndrome. The Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act is an important step in ensuring that our nation's communities have the knowledge they need to keep themselves and their environments healthy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation during the upcoming reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Baucus, and I thank both Senators Dodd and Senator Chambliss for their vigorous explanation and advocacy of the bill which we have introduced that we are proposing to have as an amendment to the current legislation pending before the Senate because we think the duty to honor our veterans, our servicemembers, and their families is urgent. This is a duty we take very seriously. Clearly, based on the recently released report by the Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, it is a matter of grave urgency for our Nation to do everything we can to improve support for our servicemembers and veterans. The Commission found that one of the most important ways to improve that care is to improve support for families. That is why Senator Dodd and I have offered an amendment to the CHIP legislation, the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act. We are proud to have the bipartisan support of Senators Dole, Graham, Mikulski, Chambliss, Brown, Salazar, Cardin, Menendez, Kennedy, Boxer, and Jack Reed because this is a matter that goes way beyond politics as usual. It is certainly way beyond partisanship. During the course of the Dole-Shalala Commission work, they showed what many families across the country already knew, that the Family and Medical Leave Act--which Senator Dodd worked so hard on for so many years, and which was the first piece of legislation signed by my husband--has been a godsend to 60 million Americans over the course of the last years--people taking care of newborn babies, a family member with an accident or illness, caring for an aging relative. It has made it possible for so many Americans to balance the difficult responsibilities of family and work. But what has been abundantly clear--with all of our wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan--is it has not been sufficient for family members to care for those young servicemembers who have sustained a combat-related injury. Currently, spouses, parents, and children can receive only 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. All too often, as we have now learned, that is insufficient, as injured servicemembers grapple with traumatic brain injuries, severe physical wounds, learning how to use a prosthetic, trying to understand what post-traumatic stress disorder means to them and to their futures. Indeed, family members have dropped everything. They have tried to be at the bedside, stayed in the area to help their loved one, given up jobs even. That seems to us to be more than the sacrifice their loved one has already made demands. Imagine if your husband or your wife or your son or your daughter had been injured. You would want to be with them. You would want to take care of them. But you would not want to lose your job in the process. It is not a choice that military families should have to make. Therefore, that is why we are asking our colleagues to join with us to pass the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, and to allow us to fulfill this duty we all feel to our military families. I appreciate very much Senator Dodd's leadership on this issue for many years, and on this particular piece of legislation. We invite even more cosponsors from both sides of the aisle to join us, and we hope we will have a vote on this legislation before we leave, before we finish the CHIP legislation, so we can go home and tell military families that help is on the way. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wish to recognize ADM Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr. for his 37 years of dedicated service to our Nation. Next month, Admiral Giambastiani, or ``Admiral G'' as he is known by those who have worked closely with him, will retire from his position as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A native New Yorker, Admiral Giambastiani hails from Canastota, a small town near Syracuse. Following his graduation from Canastota High School, he entered the U.S. Naval Academy in the summer of 1966. For the next 4 years, Admiral Giambastiani learned and practiced many of the values and skills that would guide him later in life and ultimately to the most senior levels of the Department of Defense. Admiral Giambastiani's early career brought him back to the State of New York where he served at the Naval Reserve Training Center in Whitestone and later at the Nuclear-Powered Training Unit in Schenectady. He served his first fleet assignments aboard the USS Puffer and USS Francis Scott Key. Later, Admiral Giambastiani commanded submarine NR-1, the Navy's only nuclear-powered, deep-diving ocean- engineering and research submarine, as well as the USS Richard B. Russell, whose crew was awarded three consecutive Battle Efficiency ``E'' awards, three Navy Unit Commendations, and two Fleet Commander Silver Anchors for excellence in enlisted retention. As his career progressed, so too did the assignments that the admiral was given. Admiral Giambastiani led the Submarine Development Squadron Twelve, an attack submarine squadron that serves as the Navy's Warfare Center of Excellence for submarine doctrine and attacks. He was also the first director of strategy and concepts at the Naval Doctrine Command and the commander of the Atlantic Fleet Submarine Force. He served as the commander of the Submarines Allied Command Atlantic; the Anti-Submarine and Reconnaissance Forces Atlantic in Norfolk, VA; and as NATO's first supreme allied commander for transformation. In each of these assignments, Admiral Giambastiani performed his duties with distinction. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Admiral Giambastiani was working in the Pentagon as the Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. On that day and those that followed, Admiral Giambastiani worked tirelessly to respond to the aftermath of that attack. Admiral Giambastiani served as commander of Joint Forces Command from October of 2002 to August of 2005. During this period, Joint Forces Command deployed headquarters personnel in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, established assessment teams for global contingency operations to ensure the application of joint doctrine and practices, and provided oversight of numerous training exercises for deploying task force headquarters staffs to Iraq. During this time, I worked closely with Admiral Giambastiani as a member of Joint Forces Command's Transformation Advisory Group, a body that the admiral formed to provide U.S. Joint Forces Command with independent advice and recommendations on strategic, scientific, technical, intelligence and policy-related issues. I have great personal and intellectual respect for Admiral Giambastiani and admire his openness to new ideas, his commitment to joint transformation, and his dedication to supporting our servicemembers. In 2005, Admiral Giambastiani was nominated to serve as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I had the honor of introducing Admiral Giambastiani at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. During his tenure as Vice Chairman, Admiral Giambastiani has worked diligently to improve and transform our Nation's defense capabilities. He has served as the chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, where he worked to make it more responsive to the requests of our military commanders and to synchronize the delivery of resources needed by our servicemembers. On behalf of my constituents in New York and of all Americans, I want to express my gratitude to Admiral Giambastiani for his many years of public service. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me today in recognizing and honoring Admiral Giambastiani for the service and commitment to the country that he represents.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for her usual very thorough and persuasive statement on the floor about the need for flexibility in this important program and the recognition that health care, similar to everything else, costs differently depending upon where you are in the country. I thank the Senator from Washington for reinforcing that important point. The larger point is that today, in this Congress, we are on the verge of providing the greatest expansion of health coverage for our children since the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program a decade ago. I believe--and I don't imagine anybody in this Chamber would argue with this belief--that every child deserves a healthy start in life. Certainly, we try to provide that healthy start for our own children, and we give a lot of lip service to the idea that we should provide it for all children. Yet far too many children in our Nation--more than 9 million--do not have health care. I was very proud to help create the State Children's Health Insurance Program during the Clinton administration, working on this legislation during my time as First Lady. After the bill passed, I worked to get the word out to try to help more children and their parents understand what this new program could mean for them and encourage them to sign up in the first few years. In the Senate, I have continued that effort, fighting to ensure that health care for children has the priority in our budget that it deserves. Today, thanks to the work of so many, CHIP provides health insurance for 6 million children. In New York alone, almost 400,000 children benefit from this program every month. With the legislation that Chairman Baucus and Senators Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch helped to craft, an additional 50,000 children in my State of New York will have access to health insurance coverage. This legislation will also help enroll many of the 300,000 children in New York who live in families who are already eligible because their families make less than $52,000 a year, 250 percent of the poverty level for a family of four. In total, across our country, 3.2 million children who are uninsured will gain coverage. That will reduce the number of uninsured children by one-third over the next 5 years. If we can afford tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and tax cuts for oil companies that are making record profits, I certainly think we can find it in our hearts and our budget to help cover millions of children who deserve a healthy start. I want to be clear. If the President vetoes this bill, he will be vetoing health care for more than 3 million children. And, once again, the President will have put ideology, not children, first. Earlier this year, I was proud to introduce legislation with Congressman John Dingell to reauthorize and expand CHIP, and I am very pleased that a number of the ideas in our bill are included in this legislation, such as cutting the redtape and bolstering incentives to get eligible children into the program. The legislation also improves access to private coverage and expands access to benefits, such as mental health and dental coverage. This is so important, and I applaud the Finance Committee, under Chairman Baucus's leadership. Mental health and dental coverage are too often left out when we talk about health care. Not far from where I am standing, in the State of Maryland last year, a young boy, Deamonte Driver, had a toothache. His mother sought help for him to get dental care. She called dentists, but they were not taking any more children on Medicaid or on CHIP. Then she got help from a legal aid group that helped poor families. They called around. I think they called 27 or 28 dentists who said: Look, our quota for poor kids is filled. Deamonte Driver's toothache turned into an abscess, and the abscess burst, infecting his bloodstream, and he ended up in the hospital where doctors valiantly tried to save his life from the brain infection that resulted from the abscessed tooth that had not been treated. This young man died. When one thinks about the loss of a child over something that started as a toothache, it is heartbreaking, but it is not by any means an isolated case. At the end of Deamonte's life, the State of Maryland and the U.S. Government ended up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for emergency care, for intensive care, for life support, to no avail, for want of $80 to $100 to find a dentist who would care for Deamonte. I commend the authors of this bipartisan bill for their work and for bringing forward a practical, fiscally responsible compromise that will allow us to reauthorize this important program and expand coverage. I am eager to see that it is signed into law. I am disappointed, however, that the bill we are considering this week fails to include the Legal Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, which I introduced with Senator Snowe. Senator Snowe and I have been working on this legislation for a number of years. This bipartisan bill would give States the flexibility to provide the same Medicaid and CHIP coverage to low-income legal immigrant children and pregnant women as is provided to U.S. citizens. I underscore that. We are talking about legal immigrant children and legal pregnant women. I believe we should provide this flexibility to States because the current restrictions prevent thousands of legal immigrant children and pregnant women from receiving preventive health services and treatment for minor illnesses before they become serious. Families who are unable to access care for their children have little choice but to turn to emergency rooms, and this hurts children and pregnant women, plain and simple. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to lift the ban on Medicaid and CHIP coverage for low-income legal immigrant children and pregnant women. I also am disappointed that some of my colleagues have expressed concern about States, such as New York, New Jersey, and others, that have chosen to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level. The legislation we are considering on the floor of the Senate would allow New York to continue doing this and receive the CHIP matching rate. We should not punish children and their families who live in high-cost areas and who need health care coverage. I encourage my colleagues to vote against any effort to undermine the extension of health care in high-cost States where it costs more, as we heard from Senator Cantwell in her statement on the floor, to provide the same coverage and treatment one would get elsewhere in our country. I am proud we are debating a bill to expand health care to 3.2 million children, but the fact is, there should be no debating the moral crisis of 9 million children without health care, no debating the moral urgency of strengthening our health care system for children and all Americans. Ultimately, the answer will be in a cost-effective, quality-driven, uniquely American program that provides health care to every single man, woman, and child in our country. But until we get to that point, it is imperative that the Congress pass this bill before we go out for recess and send it to the President, with the hope that he will sign it into law. I also wish to mention another issue we urgently need to address. Last week, the bipartisan Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, issued its final report on the need to reform the medical care that our troops and veterans receive. The Commission found in an excellent report--it is not one of these commission reports that just takes up a lot of space on the shelf. It is very pointed, with six specific recommendations, and it found that one of the most important ways to improve care for injured servicemembers is to improve support for their families. That is why I introduced a bipartisan bill, the Military Family and Medical Leave Act, with Senators Dole, Mikulski, Graham, Kennedy, and Brown, to implement a key recommendation of the Commission. We have offered this as an amendment to the CHIP legislation. The Family and Medical Leave Act was the first bill signed into law under the Clinton administration. It came about because of a lot of hard work, led by Senator Dodd in the Senate, and others, and it has proven to be enormously successful, helping more than 60 million men and women who try to balance the demands of work and family. I believe it is time to strengthen the act for military families who find themselves in a very difficult situation. They should be given up to 6 months of leave to care for a loved one who has sustained a combat-related injury. Currently, these spouses, parents, and children can receive only 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. All too often, this is just not enough time, as injured servicemembers grapple with traumatic brain injuries, physical wounds, and other problems upon returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In fact, 33 percent of active duty, 22 percent of reservists, and 37 percent of retired servicemembers reported to the Commission that a family member or close friend had to leave their home for extended periods of time to help them in the hospital. About 20 percent said family or friends gave up jobs to be with them to act as their caregiver. This is a step that we can take immediately that will make a real difference. Many of us have been to hospitals in our own country--Walter Reed, Brook Army Medical Center--and other places in the world, such as Landstuhl in Germany, where we have seen our wounded warriors. There is absolutely no doubt that having the support, assistance, and comfort of a family member during that process when a young man or woman who has served our country is brought from the battlefield to the hospital makes a big difference in recovery and rehabilitation. I think all of us agree that not only do our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices on our behalf, so do their families. As a nation, we have a duty to provide them with the support they deserve. Expanding access to health care for children and providing better support for our military families comes down to basic values that we as Americans hold dear. I think we all agree every child deserves a healthy start and every man or woman who wears the uniform of our country deserves more than words of support. The promise of America is rooted in these values, and I am very proud to support the bipartisan legislation expanding health care for children, and I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators from both sides of the aisle who are supporting our military families who are caring for those who have been injured in service to our country. Finally, we hope on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue there will be a change of heart; that the President will decide to sign this legislation and relieve the burdens of ill health and inadequate access to health care that haunt the lives of so many American families. Mr. President, please support this effort in every way possible by signing the legislation that will be sent to you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military and Family Medical Leave Act, bipartisan legislation that extends the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, for up to 6 months for children, spouses and parents of soldiers who have been injured in combat. This legislation implements a key recommendation made last week by the Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues Senators Dole, Mikulski, Graham, Kennedy and Brown whose partnership on this legislation reflects the fact that supporting our families and service-members is a bipartisan, common sense issue. The families of our servicemen and women face extraordinary demands as they struggle to care for loved ones injured in service to our Nation. Yet, currently, family members of these injured servicemembers receive no additional leave to accommodate the support they need. The Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors was established in March 2007 with the specific goals of conducting a comprehensive review of services the Government currently provides to our wounded warriors and delivering recommendations to the President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In its review, the commission found that 33 percent of active duty, 22 percent of reserve component, and 37 percent of retired/separated servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to be with them while they were in the hospital. In addition, 21 percent of active duty, 15 percent of reserve component, and 24 percent of retired/separated servicemembers say friends or family gave up a job to be with them or act as their caregiver. To address this situation and help support these caregivers, the commission recommended strengthening family support programs by extending the FMLA for up to 6 months for the family members of seriously injured soldiers. This is a step we can make immediately that will make a real difference. Our men and women in uniform have made tremendous sacrifices on our behalf and we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure they have the care and support they need. The Military Family and Medical Leave Act will enact this recommendation by amending the FMLA to allow up to 6 months leave for a family member of a servicemember who has a combat-related injury and meets the eligibility requirements in the law. It is my hope that my colleagues will join Senators Dole, Mikulski, Graham, Kennedy, Brown and me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military and Family Medical Leave Act, bipartisan legislation that extends the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, for up to 6 months for children, spouses and parents of soldiers who have been injured in combat. This legislation implements a key recommendation made last week by the Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues Senators Dole, Mikulski, Graham, Kennedy and Brown whose partnership on this legislation reflects the fact that supporting our families and service-members is a bipartisan, common sense issue. The families of our servicemen and women face extraordinary demands as they struggle to care for loved ones injured in service to our Nation. Yet, currently, family members of these injured servicemembers receive no additional leave to accommodate the support they need. The Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors was established in March 2007 with the specific goals of conducting a comprehensive review of services the Government currently provides to our wounded warriors and delivering recommendations to the President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In its review, the commission found that 33 percent of active duty, 22 percent of reserve component, and 37 percent of retired/separated servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to be with them while they were in the hospital. In addition, 21 percent of active duty, 15 percent of reserve component, and 24 percent of retired/separated servicemembers say friends or family gave up a job to be with them or act as their caregiver. To address this situation and help support these caregivers, the commission recommended strengthening family support programs by extending the FMLA for up to 6 months for the family members of seriously injured soldiers. This is a step we can make immediately that will make a real difference. Our men and women in uniform have made tremendous sacrifices on our behalf and we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure they have the care and support they need. The Military Family and Medical Leave Act will enact this recommendation by amending the FMLA to allow up to 6 months leave for a family member of a servicemember who has a combat-related injury and meets the eligibility requirements in the law. It is my hope that my colleagues will join Senators Dole, Mikulski, Graham, Kennedy, Brown and me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, my amendment is an amendment I wish I did not have to offer. It is necessary, unfortunately, because of the administration's continued plan to outsource or privatize critical components of our homeland security. I am proud to have Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Lautenberg, Akaka, Menendez, Kerry, Mikulski, Cardin and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee respectively, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, as cosponsors of this amendment. This amendment also has the endorsement of the American Federation of Government Employees. I will ask to have printed in the Record their letter of support. Mr. President, the most recent key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate were crystal clear: our homeland is under a ``heightened threat environment'' and that al-Qaida is undiminished in its goal in attacking us here at home. At the very same time, despite a lot of tough rhetoric, the Bush administration wants to cut the only Federal agency responsible for protecting nearly 9,000 nonmilitary Federal buildings nationwide. The Federal Protective Service, or FPS, protects more than 1.1 million Federal employees located in more than 2,100 communities across our country. While protecting Federal buildings, the FPS also monitors the qualifications and performance of 15,000 privately contracted security guards. In 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, the General Services Administration and Congress concluded that FPS required 1,480 field personnel to do its duty. After 9/11, as we face even greater threat, as we have rightfully heightened our security and vigilance here at home, the Bush administration has slashed FPS personnel to fewer than 1,200. If it has its way, the administration will cut that number to 950 in 2008. Just today, we learned that the FPS has recently issued an internal document, entitled ``Increased Risk of Terrorist Attack This Summer'' detailing high-risk threats to Federal buildings and employees. The inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, Richard L. Skinner, investigated the FPS. Among the disturbing findings: Only a dozen FPS employees are tasked with checking the credentials and performances of the 5,700 guards in the DC area--``an inadequate number'' according to the audit; 30 percent of contract security guards in the sample had at least one expired certification, security contractors failing to perform security services according to terms and conditions of their contracts. The report concluded that many of the deficiencies cited occurred because FPS personnel were not effectively monitoring the contract guard program. On May 1, 2007, Jim Taylor, the deputy inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security and stated that further reductions in the FPS ``could lead to uneven effects across the nation, perhaps place some facilities at risk.'' Last month, contract security guards did not show up for work at the Department of Education and two Food and Drug Administration offices. The contract guards' employer had not paid 400 employees in a month, citing financial difficulties. But FPS did pay the company for its services. It turns out that the company's president served 5 years in jail for bank fraud and money laundering. According to company's general manager, the president of the company used company money to pay for luxury condos here in the District of Columbia and in Myrtle Beach, SC. This latest episode only underscores the importance of not cutting the Federal Protective Services staff, but increasing it. It not only saves us from wasting Federal resources--it could save lives. My amendment would stop the Department of Homeland Security from continuing to downsize the Federal Protective Service. The amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to assure that the workforce of the Federal Protective Service includes no fewer than 1,200 commanders, police officers, and special agents engaged on a daily basis in protecting Federal buildings. This amendment does not require an offset or any additional spending. FPS operations are solely funded through security fees and reimbursements paid for by Federal agencies. The amendment would require the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Homeland Security to adjust Federal building security fees as necessary to ensure full funding of not fewer than 1,200 in-service commanders, police officers, inspectors, and special agents at the Federal Protective Service. Mr. President, security on the cheap is no security at all. Our Nation faces serious threats--this Congress should demand a response by the Bush administration commensurate with the danger--and the President's own rhetoric. I ask my colleagues to join me to ensure that the Federal Protective Services has the personnel needed to do its job and that we do not send the message that our Federal buildings are exposed. Mr. President, last week's key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate made clear that al-Qaida has ``protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability'' and is now as strong as it was in 2001. I commend the work of Senator Byrd and the members of the Appropriations Committee for putting together a Homeland Security appropriations bill that supports tough and smart measures to make our country more secure. This is a must-pass piece of legislation that we cannot afford to delay and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to obstruct this critical legislation so we can implement these measures to make our country more secure. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to which I referred.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, with the passage of the Higher Education Amendments of 2007, we have given the millions of students and families the key to unlock the door to a college education and the American dream. This bill represents an incredible victory for students and families, and we can be proud that in this new Congress we have renewed our commitment to students working hard to achieve the promise of America. The Higher Education Amendments of 2007 is the first reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in nearly a decade and is the result of 2 years of bipartisan compromise. This legislation will reform the student loan industry and serve the best interests of our students. I believe student loans should be an investment in the future. Sadly, for too many students, their student loans have become a barrier to following their dreams. That is why I am pleased this bill includes provisions from my Student Borrower Bill of Rights Act. My provisions will ensure all student borrowers have accurate and timely information on their loans and will provide much needed help to borrowers with disabilities. These provisions are a major step forward for students who have become disabled and are overwhelmed with student loan debt. I am proud this legislation also includes provisions from my Non- Traditional Student Success Act, as the number of nontraditional students continues to increase on college campuses across America. These are students with children, students working while studying, and so many others. By including a provision to make Pell grants available year around, the Higher Education Amendments of 2007 provides the critical support these students need to complete their college education and makes college more accessible and affordable for them. I also worked with my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to author two new initiatives to help more students arrive at college ready for success. The first provision will provide the training and support necessary to place 10,000 new teachers in disadvantaged communities over the next 3 years. The other provision will supply comprehensive data and offer targeted assistance to increase the college-going rates of high school students in disadvantaged communities. The Higher Education Amendments of 2007 will produce transparency in college cost for students. It will also promote strategies to recruit and prepare qualified teachers and will invest in financial literacy for students and parents. This legislation will simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid to improve the process of applying for student assistance and give families tools to plan for the cost of higher education. In addition, this bill will improve the TRIO/Upward Bound and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness of Undergraduate Programs, strengthening the pathway to higher education for millions of low-income and first-generation students. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. I thank my Senate colleagues for making this groundbreaking investment in the next generation of American leaders.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, supporting our children and early childhood education are critical to keeping America competitive. Today I am pleased to introduce the Ready to Learn Act, legislation that will help families in New York and across the country by preparing children for kindergarten. I am pleased my colleague Senator Bond, a long-time leader in early childhood development, has partnered with me in introducing this essential legislation. Since my time as a law student, I have worked to spread information about the importance of care and education for our children, especially our youngest children. It is critical that we provide them with every possible opportunity to learn, grow, and develop early on, not just once they start kindergarten, but before they arrive. This is a cause I have believed in and fought for over the past 35 years, as an advocate, a lawyer, First Lady, a Senator, and most important of all, as a mother. The Ready to Learn Act will help prepare children for kindergarten by providing funding for States to establish high-quality early learning programs to promote school readiness for four-year-olds in their State. States will apply for funding through a competitive process to establish and administer voluntary preschool programs; this legislation will allow governors to build on pre-existing early childhood systems. Schools, child care entities, Head Start programs, or other community providers of pre-kindergarten programs are all eligible for funding. To ensure high-quality programs that properly prepare children to be ready to learn, State plans will require qualified teachers, a developmentally, culturally and linguistically appropriate early learning curriculum and support for professional development. Research has shown the early years are critical in a child's development and that pre-kindergarten education offers benefits that extend through the first years of school and beyond. Children who attend high-quality pre-k programs are less likely to be held back a grade or to need special education, and they are more likely to graduate from high school. They also have higher earnings as adults and are less likely to become dependent on welfare or involved in crime. While some parents can afford high-quality pre-kindergarten opportunities for their children, so many hard working families simply can't. As a result, in today's current education system, it is not unusual for children to arrive at kindergarten already behind their peers. Nearly 50 percent of all kindergarten teachers report that at least half of their students come to school with problems that hinder their success. One in every six kindergartners needs specialized one- on-one tutoring or special instruction in a small group. Each year, more than 200,000 children repeat kindergarten. Back when I was First Lady, I hosted a White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning, where expert after expert emphasized the importance of these early years. A child who arrives at kindergarten ready to learn has a far greater chance of excelling, not only in his or her early years, but far into his academic career. Studies show that children who learn the names and sounds of letters before entering kindergarten are 20 times more likely to read simple words by the end of kindergarten than children who enter kindergarten not knowing the letters of the alphabet. Children who do not know their letters prior to kindergarten too often fail to catch up with their peers who do. Eighty-eight percent of children who are poor readers in first grade remain poor readers by the fourth grade. Children who are not at least modestly skilled readers by the end of third grade are unlikely to graduate from high school. Like many of my colleagues, I have seen what happens when we invest in our children. We already know that for every one dollar we spend on early childhood education, we reap seven dollars as a society. I have seen what happens when caring adults come together and make the commitment to ensuring that our children can fulfill their God-given potential. I saw it back in Arkansas when we brought HIPPY to America to teach parents how they could educate their children. We taught them about the importance of reading to their children, and using household objects to teach basic lessons. I have seen it in visiting Head Start programs where children were learning to read, learning to count and solve problems, learning to share and interact with others and thrive in a structured environment. We are seeing it around the country in States that have already started investing in early childhood programs. The Ready to Learn Act will support and build on that success. Supporting our children and early childhood education are critical to keeping America competitive. It is my hope that my colleagues will join Senator Bond and I in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, supporting our children and early childhood education are critical to keeping America competitive. Today I am pleased to introduce the Ready to Learn Act, legislation that will help families in New York and across the country by preparing children for kindergarten. I am pleased my colleague Senator Bond, a long-time leader in early childhood development, has partnered with me in introducing this essential legislation. Since my time as a law student, I have worked to spread information about the importance of care and education for our children, especially our youngest children. It is critical that we provide them with every possible opportunity to learn, grow, and develop early on, not just once they start kindergarten, but before they arrive. This is a cause I have believed in and fought for over the past 35 years, as an advocate, a lawyer, First Lady, a Senator, and most important of all, as a mother. The Ready to Learn Act will help prepare children for kindergarten by providing funding for States to establish high-quality early learning programs to promote school readiness for four-year-olds in their State. States will apply for funding through a competitive process to establish and administer voluntary preschool programs; this legislation will allow governors to build on pre-existing early childhood systems. Schools, child care entities, Head Start programs, or other community providers of pre-kindergarten programs are all eligible for funding. To ensure high-quality programs that properly prepare children to be ready to learn, State plans will require qualified teachers, a developmentally, culturally and linguistically appropriate early learning curriculum and support for professional development. Research has shown the early years are critical in a child's development and that pre-kindergarten education offers benefits that extend through the first years of school and beyond. Children who attend high-quality pre-k programs are less likely to be held back a grade or to need special education, and they are more likely to graduate from high school. They also have higher earnings as adults and are less likely to become dependent on welfare or involved in crime. While some parents can afford high-quality pre-kindergarten opportunities for their children, so many hard working families simply can't. As a result, in today's current education system, it is not unusual for children to arrive at kindergarten already behind their peers. Nearly 50 percent of all kindergarten teachers report that at least half of their students come to school with problems that hinder their success. One in every six kindergartners needs specialized one- on-one tutoring or special instruction in a small group. Each year, more than 200,000 children repeat kindergarten. Back when I was First Lady, I hosted a White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning, where expert after expert emphasized the importance of these early years. A child who arrives at kindergarten ready to learn has a far greater chance of excelling, not only in his or her early years, but far into his academic career. Studies show that children who learn the names and sounds of letters before entering kindergarten are 20 times more likely to read simple words by the end of kindergarten than children who enter kindergarten not knowing the letters of the alphabet. Children who do not know their letters prior to kindergarten too often fail to catch up with their peers who do. Eighty-eight percent of children who are poor readers in first grade remain poor readers by the fourth grade. Children who are not at least modestly skilled readers by the end of third grade are unlikely to graduate from high school. Like many of my colleagues, I have seen what happens when we invest in our children. We already know that for every one dollar we spend on early childhood education, we reap seven dollars as a society. I have seen what happens when caring adults come together and make the commitment to ensuring that our children can fulfill their God-given potential. I saw it back in Arkansas when we brought HIPPY to America to teach parents how they could educate their children. We taught them about the importance of reading to their children, and using household objects to teach basic lessons. I have seen it in visiting Head Start programs where children were learning to read, learning to count and solve problems, learning to share and interact with others and thrive in a structured environment. We are seeing it around the country in States that have already started investing in early childhood programs. The Ready to Learn Act will support and build on that success. Supporting our children and early childhood education are critical to keeping America competitive. It is my hope that my colleagues will join Senator Bond and I in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, we must develop a visa system that is not only fair but also good for America. That is why tonight, I voted against an amendment that would have raised the cap on H-1B visas without providing many of the safeguards that are necessary to the H-1B visa system. While we must maintain our competitive edge in the world by bringing in the world's most talented and keen minds, we also must take steps to ensure that the program is not abused and does not displace U.S. workers. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to achieve comprehensive H-1B reform that will improve the program in a balanced and fair manner. I also want to express my profound disappointment that this and other unrelated issues were permitted to slow down and distract from the important work of helping more students achieve the dream of a college education. The Higher Education Access Reconciliation Act was not the place to legislate these issues and only jeopardized our ability to help millions of students who await the passage of this bill and the $17.3 billion increase in student aid that it provides.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, the description of the problems that are currently existing in Iraq and in the region by my friend and colleague is not only accurate but, unfortunately, an indictment of the policies of this administration. What has been described in terms of the instability in Iraq and the consequences for further conflict are ones I take very seriously. The issue before us now is what is the best approach we as a nation can take which will fulfill our obligations to our men and women in uniform, which will make clear to the Iraqi Government and people that their lives and futures are at stake, and which will strengthen the hand of the United States diplomatically to deal with the consequences of the misguided policies that have brought us to this point. There are no good answers. Anyone who stands here and believes that he or she has the truth, the facts, understands both what is going on and what is likely to flow from whatever decision we take, is most probably to be proven wrong by reality as it unfolds. Many of us have been searching for the best approach to take with respect to our involvement in Iraq for a number of years, but we don't do it with any sense that we know everything that will happen, no matter what decisions are taken. But what we do have is a history of miscalculation and mistakes we are now attempting to deal with. The Levin-Reed amendment attempts to put into law a new direction for Iraq, one that I and others believe is long overdue. The reason I have come to support this amendment is because if one looks at the actions of our military in Iraq, based on the authority under which they are operating, they have achieved the missions they were given. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice, and they did so. They were asked to provide the Iraqi people with the opportunity for free and fair elections, and they did that as well. They were asked to give the Iraqi Government the space and time to make the difficult political decisions that are required in order to have any hope of stabilizing Iraq over the longer term, and they did that as well. Our military has performed not only heroically but successfully, with courage and determination, against odds and enemies from all sides. What we know is that when the people of Iraq turn against violence, there is a chance for success. That is the basis of the counterinsurgency strategy. It cannot succeed unless the people on the ground are part of the winning strategy. What has happened in Al Anbar Province is an example of that. The tribal sheiks and the people turned against the violence and extremism of the al-Qaida factions, many of whom were led by foreign fighters who violated not just the human rights but the cultural norms that existed in the area. So there became the opportunity for an alliance--an alliance between our military and local people against al-Qaida. That is why the Levin-Reed amendment includes the continuing efforts against al-Qaida as a remaining mission and a vital national security interest of the United States. If one looks, though, at the map that was just on the easel, that does not describe the situation in the rest of Iraq. In the south, I think it is clear that Iran is the political occupier, that Iranian agents are largely calling the shots, and that there is an internecine struggle for power among a variety of Shiite militias. The lawlessness inside Basra and in the surrounding region cannot be quelled by any external force. The British have not only drawn down their troops, but they have withdrawn to their bases. They know they can't go out and calm the waters because the various factions are vying for power. They are going to continue to do so until someone emerges, and Iran is largely influential in determining who that might be. In Baghdad, we have gone from neighborhood to neighborhood, and yes, where we are, we secure the area, the violence recedes, only to pop up somewhere else, either in Baghdad or maybe in Diyala or Bakuba or somewhere else. Madam President, the problem is that Iraq is not al-Anbar Province. Al-Qaida is not the major source of the instability in Iraq. It conducts the most violent and spectacular mission. It provides the suicidal killers, who blow themselves up and blow up the cars and trucks in which they live at the moment. But they are not the primary cause of the violence and instability in Iraq. Therefore, the counterinsurgency cannot succeed unless there is a dramatic change in the attitude of both the Government and the people of Iraq. I do not see that happening. The Iraqi Government has not been willing to make the hard decisions. The debate as to whether they are incapable or unwilling is beside the point. They have not done it. We keep hearing every year, every month, every week that things will be different. How many times have we heard that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down? How many times have we heard that in 6 months, 8 months, or 12 months our troops may start coming home? Meanwhile, there are more American troops in Iraq today than ever before. The Iraqi Government is more fractured and less effective. The right strategy before the surge and the right strategy now, postescalation, is the same: Start bringing our troops out of this multisided sectarian civil war. I believe since our troops have accomplished the mission that was originally set forth, withdrawing them from urban combat, from patrol duty, from the kind of hand-to-hand engagement they are currently confronted with, is the right military and political strategy. It is clear that as we look at where we are today in Iraq, we are asking our young men and women to police a civil war. There is no argument about the very basic premise that there is no military solution. Yet the political front has been neglected. If there had been a political surge and a diplomatic surge, we might be looking at a different situation. We also know that the training and performance of the Iraqi Army and police forces has not been sufficient to relieve our troops of the primary responsibility for the fight. In fact, because of setbacks and other problems, the numbers of Iraqi troops that are actually available to fight alongside or to take responsibility for the fight has diminished. As our troops serve alongside Iraqi Army officers and soldiers, they find that, yes, some do have loyalty to Iraq. Others, however, are loyal to sectarian militias. Others have looked the other way when the insurgents have planted bombs. Some have even taken up arms against Americans while wearing the uniforms that we help provide. The catalog of miscalculations, misjudgments, and mistakes in Iraq shocks the conscience, from the unilateral decision to rush to a preemptive war without allowing the inspectors to finish their work, or waiting for diplomacy to run its course, to the failure to send enough troops or provide proper equipment for them, to the denial of a rising insurgency, and the failure to adjust the military strategy, to continue support for a government unwilling to make the necessary political compromises, to the adherence to a broken policy more than 4 years after the invasion began. Many of us believe it is time for us to move our troops out of harm's way in the middle of the Iraqi civil war. We believe that is an appropriate military decision that will be made sooner or later. The recent report, which was an interim report, did not have very much good news in it. In September, we will get another report, which I predict will be also mixed, which will put the best face on whatever the facts are. But the bottom line will remain the same: Our troops and their families are paying the price for this administration's policies. Since the Bush administration announced this escalation, 14 brave New Yorkers have been killed in Iraq, and hundreds more wounded. Two soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division, based in Fort Drum, are listed as captured or missing. Since the war began, 3,619 young Americans have been killed, 26,000 have been wounded, many with very visible wounds, such as loss of limbs and loss of eyes, others with those wounds that are invisible but no less injurious, such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury. We have spent more than $450 billion so far, $10 billion each month. We are straining our budget. The President's two major initiatives since he was sworn into office in January 2001 have been tax cuts for the rich and the war in Iraq, neither of which is paid for. They have been put on the American credit card. They have been funded by borrowing money from foreign countries, further undermining our standing and our leverage in the world. Our involvement in Iraq continues to erode our position. It has damaged our alliances and it has limited our ability to respond to real threats. The unclassified key judgments of the recent National Intelligence Estimate, called ``The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,'' says the threat of al- Qaida is persistent and evolving. The report states that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate, and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland. This reality is a sobering one and I believe one that demands a new direction. I continue to press for a basic three-step approach. First, start bringing our troops out of harm's way now. Second, demand--and back up those demands--that the Iraqis take responsibility for their country or lose the aid we are providing them. Everyone knows the Iraqi Government is as much a client of Iran as it is an ally of the United States. Our presence in this multisided sectarian civil war, without a diplomatic or political strategy, makes it unlikely that the Iraqi Government will seek the resolution of the disputes that lie at the heart of this ongoing civil war. Thirdly, we should begin long overdue intensive regional and international diplomacy on a sustained basis. Diplomacy in and of itself does not promise any great solution, but we have neglected it at our peril. Others have rushed to fill the vacuum. In fact, the problems that were pointed out on the map of the region have also been impacted by the administration's failure to pursue smart diplomacy. As we look at the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, the pressures on the Israeli Government because of the rise of Hamas and the strength of Hezbollah, we can see the consequences of both our failed diplomatic strategy and our problems in Iraq today. I have called for the strategic redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq for several years. I have introduced legislation to end the war but to remain committed to vital national security interests that can be enumerated and more carefully defined. I voted against funding the war without any plan for ending it, or without any companion effort to engage in realistic political and diplomatic initiatives. That is why I have joined a bipartisan majority in supporting the Levin-Reed amendment. It has been very difficult to get the President's attention. I hear that from both sides of the aisle. The Congress has both a duty and an opportunity to try to do that. We have one Commander in Chief at a time and we have seen repeatedly this administration's failure to deal with the realities we confront in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. When they do change course, as long as it takes them to make that decision, as we have seen in North Korea, the results can be very positive. I can only hope that in the remaining 18 months of this administration, similar actions are undertaken to deal with the problems we confront in the larger region, including Iraq and the Middle East. I believe, too, it is imperative that the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs inform the Congress of the plans they have for redeployment and withdrawal. Withdrawing troops is dangerous and difficult. We must not redeploy out of Iraq with the same failure of planning with which our troops were deployed into Iraq. Yet I wrote several weeks ago to Secretary Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace, asking whether there is planning--very specific planning, not the usual response that, yes, we plan for everything, for every contingency--and what is the planning that will protect our troops when they do withdraw, which will happen, whether it happens in 120 days, or next year, or whether it happens the year after; what have we done to make sure that we do it in as careful and orderly a way as possible. I believe our troops, as well as the American people, deserve a vote, yes or no, on this bill. If you believe in giving the President the continued power to pursue a failed strategy, without checks or balances by this Congress, make your case and cast your vote. If not, then put partisanship aside and stand with the bipartisan majority working to end this war. Our message to the President is clear: It is time to start thinking of our troops and our broader position in Iraq and beyond--not next year, not next month, but today. I hope we will be able to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. I fear we will not, in the face of concerns and objections on the other side. But we are postponing the inevitable. Come September, we will have another inconclusive report. We will have more casualties. We will have more who are injured. We will still have the same Iraqi Government waiting us out. We will continue to empower Iran and to destabilize Jordan and to give a free hand to Syria and Hezbollah. We will face an even more dangerous set of choices then. There is no reason to wait. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coleman now be recognized for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by Senator Casey for 15 minutes, Senator Barrasso for 5 minutes, and following the remarks of Senator Barrasso, Senator Reid be recognized.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to come to the floor and talk about this extremely important legislation. I thank our leader, a great advocate on behalf of education, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Kennedy. This bill represents a tremendous victory for students, for their families, for higher education, for the future of the American economy, for millions of families who still struggle to pay for college and for millions of young people who will not only carry from their education a degree, but, on average, more student debt than any graduates who came before them. Most of all, this bill is a victory for that young boy or girl who is thriving in school, who might one day wish to attend college and fulfill his or her God-given potential but worries that such a wish is beyond his or her reach; that it is too expensive to realize. I commend the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle for the great work that has been done bringing this bill to the floor. I was thrilled with many of the provisions, some of which I have worked on ever since I came to the Senate, particularly focusing on nontraditional students who more and more are becoming the norm--older students, married students, single-parent students--who often have found there were barriers to their accessing whatever help was available from the Federal Government programs to continue their education. I am also personally thrilled at what we have done for homeless and foster youth. This has been a passion of mine, going back to my years as a law student, when I first started representing abused and neglected children, children who ended up in the foster care system, all the way through my time in the White House, where we were instrumental in working with the Congress in passing landmark legislation to make adoption easier, to try to make the foster care system more responsive to the needs of the child and to accelerate decisions being made as to whether a child would ever realistically be able to return to his or her biological family; to my years in the Senate, where we have continued to try to help students who are in the foster care system as they age out. As Senator Murray pointed out, when you turn 18 or graduate from high school, whichever comes first, still in many States in our country, you are no longer eligible for the foster care system. What that has meant is that a social worker usually shows up at the foster home with a big black garbage bag and tells the young man or woman to put his or her belongings into that bag because they are no longer able to live in a foster home with State support. Many young people whom I have been privileged to know, some of whom have interned for me, worked for me in my office here or in my office in the White House, they were the lucky ones. They had the right combination of personal resilience and ability combined with mentoring and some breaks along the way that enabled them to complete high school and often go to college at great cost. Many of them had nowhere to go during summer vacations or Thanksgiving or Christmas or any other break in the academic schedule. Some of them hid themselves in the dorm. Some of them stayed in bus stations or airports. Some of them prevailed upon a friendly professor or fellow student to take them in. By recognizing the special needs of these special students, we do a very important piece of legislative business that has a big heart in it. I thank my colleagues who worked with me and others to make this happen. When we think about the importance of college, it is hard to grasp the fact that most young people in our country will not go to college and graduate. The college-going rate has been pretty stagnant now for about 20 or 30 years. As the cost of higher education has gone up, it has become even more difficult for young people to work their way through, to afford the increases in tuition and room and board. But the investment in college still remains a very good one. Each additional year of education after high school increases an individual's income by 5 percent to 15 percent. A college degree will enable an individual to earn close to $1 million more in the course of a life's work than those who have only a high school diploma. It is no coincidence that the rise of the American middle class coincided with the explosion of college attendance. It unlocks economic potential, and it gives students access to the American dream--to a career and a life that they, then, can build. But as I say, unfortunately in the past 25 years, the cost of college has risen faster than inflation. College costs have tripled over the past 20 years and, as the costs spiral upward, so has the size of the loans and the loan payments that are necessary. Students who borrow, take out loans averaging $15,500 while attending public colleges and universities and almost $20,000 while attending private schools, twice what they would have borrowed 10 years ago. At New York University in Manhattan, 60 percent of students graduate owing an average of $27,639. At Idaho State University, 69 percent of students graduate owing an average of $29,467. At the University of Miami in Florida, whose president served with such distinction in this town as the Secretary of Health and Human Services for 8 years, 58 percent of the students graduate owing an average of $31,723. This debt limits students' options and damages their financial futures. It is a chain around their ankles as they end their education and go out into the world of work. With this reconciliation bill, we are cutting that chain. This bill will provide $17.3 billion in student aid, the largest increase in student aid in more than a decade. It will provide this aid without raising Federal taxes one dime. First, the higher education reconciliation bill increases the purchasing power of the Pell grants which help the lowest income students offset the cost of college. It is no secret to anyone in this Chamber that the purchasing power of the Pell grants has declined dramatically, from nearly 60 percent of the cost of a public school 20 years ago, to only 36 percent today. This legislation provides the largest Pell grant increases in more than a decade, increasing maximum Pell grants to $5,100 immediately, and to $5,400 by 2011. Now, take my State, for example. This initial boost will provide over $200 million in increased grant aid to New York students for the 2007- 2008 school year alone, and $1.7 billion by 2013. The legislation also raises the income cutoff for Pell grants from $20,000 to $30,000, making many more students from many more families eligible to receive Pell grants. Second, I am very pleased that the Higher Education Reconciliation Act tackles an issue addressed in legislation I sponsored in the last Congress called the Student Borrowers Bill of Rights. It provides protection for student borrowers while they repay their loans. It does so by capping monthly loan payments at 15 percent of the borrower's discretionary income and provides several important protections to members of the Armed Forces and public service employees during repayment. This is critical to helping students manage their debt, essentially in the first few years after they graduate. Third, I am pleased the reconciliation bill also creates a new loan forgiveness plan through the direct loan program for public service employees. I hear from many students in New York and around the country who would love to be teachers or police officers or firefighters or nurses or social workers or public defenders, but sadly they are so saddled with debt, that such careers in the public arena seem like an impossibility for them. That is the wrong policy. We want to encourage more young people to go into public service. Our policies should respect that choice, not denigrate it. Under the loan forgiveness program, the remaining loan balance on a loan is forgiven for a borrower who has been employed in a public sector job and making payments on the loan for 10 years. These jobs are essential to the communities they serve. I believe this program will encourage public service and provide an incentive for borrowers to pursue low-paying, perhaps, but vital professions to our country. When I was getting ready to go to college many years ago, my father, who was a small businessman, a very small business, said he had saved enough money for me to go to college, and he said, I will pay tuition, room and board, but if I wanted to buy a book, I had to earn the money. That was fine because I worked ever since I was 13 in the summer and during vacations. So I worked my way through college with my family's help. And when I graduated I decided I wanted to go to law school. I told my father that. He said: That is not part of the bargain. If you want to go to law school, you have to pay for it yourself. So I got a little scholarship, and I continued to work year-round, and I borrowed money directly from the Federal Government, the National Defense Education Act, something which many of us in this Chamber took advantage of when we were pursuing our education. The interest rate was very low. The repayment schedule was something I could handle. I did not have to worry about anyone raising the rate on me or changing the terms. I worked first for the Children's Defense Fund as a young lawyer, and then in public service here in Washington, working for the Congress, and then teaching law at the University of Arkansas and running a legal aid clinic. During all of those years when I was doing public service and academic work, I could handle what my repayment obligations were. I want that available for young people today. I think it is so important, especially as we look at what is happening in Government service and other public service professions, to see how there is an aging going on that is going to eventually result in the loss of a lot of very experienced people. You know, I spent Monday at Binghamton University in New York where we have the only Ph.D. program in rural nursing. I met at the nursing faculty with some of the nursing students. It is a wonderful program. But, you know, the average age of a nurse in America is over 45. The average age of a nursing faculty member is 54. We have many people who want to go to nursing school, and we do not have places for them, even though they are qualified. We have a lot of others who worry about how they can pay for their education. You could replicate that across every single profession that really falls into the service profession, the caring professions, where we are seeing shortages of people because there is a disconnect between the salary they are paid and the debt they have to incur in order to get the credentials to be able to perform the public service. So I believe in the long run this increase in student aid will pay for itself. Not only do college graduates earn more and are therefore able to pay back the society, but they are less likely to draw on public resources, and they are much more likely to make a contribution. This bill has had great bipartisan support. I am very proud to have worked on it and to see the positive changes that it includes. Clearly, this is something that I hope we will be able to pass by acclimation. I hope that after the difficulties and the debate and the disagreement of the last week over the very difficult issue of Iraq, I hope we will come together around a fundamental American value; namely, education. We have the best higher education system in the world. It is a system filled with second chances for people who decide at the age of 18 or 80 they want to pursue an education in a community college or a technical college or a 4-year college or a university. This is one of the really important aspects of American society, and it is instrumental to the further development of our economy and the hopes of a return to shared prosperity for our people. I urge all of our colleagues to come together to support this higher education reconciliation bill, to make higher education more affordable. It is good social policy. It is good economic policy. It is certainly good budgetary policy. It makes a big difference to millions and millions of hard-working young people and their families. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, lead poisoning is a serious, persistent, and entirely preventable threat to a child's health. Childhood lead poisoning has been linked to impaired growth and function of vital organs and problems with intellectual and behavioral development. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, comas, and even death; robbing a child of his or her future. Lead poisoning is the number one environmental health threat to children of color and low-income children in the U.S. African-American and Mexican-American children are 5 and 2 times more likely, respectively, to have toxic blood lead levels than white children, while low-income children are 8 times more likely to develop lead poisoning than more affluent children. Compounding the problem is the fact that 77 percent of children eligible for lead screening under Medicaid are not screened for exposure to lead. An estimated 500,000 American children under the age of 6 have enough lead in their blood to adversely affect their development. The most common source of lead exposure for children today is lead paint in older housing, particularly when it contaminates dust and soil in and around residences. Furthermore, despite a ban on lead paint in 1978, there are still over 24 million housing units in the U.S. that have lead paint hazards, with about 1.2 million units in New York State alone. The good news is childhood lead poisoning can be dramatically reduced by the abatement or reduction of lead-based hazards found in homes. Today, I am please to reintroduce legislation to provide a tax credit for safely removing lead-based paint hazards from homes and rental units. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2007 offers much needed incentives for property owners to ensure homes are free of environmental dangers that can harm our children and will put America closer to its goal of eliminating lead poisoning in children by the year 2010. This bill provides home owners and landlords with a 50 percent tax credit for lead abatement cost for up to $3,000 and up to $1,000 interim control measures. These interim control measures, including replacement of windows, specialized maintenance, and safe repainting, are a cost-effective means of protecting the largest number of children from harmful lead exposure in the near term. This legislation targets a tax credit to homes with children younger than 6 years of age, women of childbearing age, low-income residents, and buildings constructed before 1960, as these include more than 96 percent of all units where lead-based paint is prevalent. Targeting these tax credits has proven to be a successful way of eliminating childhood lead poisoning. For example, a similar tax credit offered by the State of Massachusetts helped reduce the number of new cases of childhood lead poisoning within the State by almost two-thirds in a decade. I am glad the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers eliminating lead poisoning to be a priority, and has established a national goal of ending childhood lead poisoning by 2010: However, current Federal lead abatement programs only have resources sufficient to make approximately 8,800 homes lead-safe each year. At this pace, we will not be able to end childhood lead poisoning by 3010, let alone 2010. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2007 would help homeowners make over 80,000 homes safe from lead each year, nearly 10 times the capacity of current Federal programs. Every child deserves to grow up in a clean, healthy home environment. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to safeguard homes against environmental hazards that detrimentally affect the health and safety of our children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, lead poisoning is a serious, persistent, and entirely preventable threat to a child's health. Childhood lead poisoning has been linked to impaired growth and function of vital organs and problems with intellectual and behavioral development. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, comas, and even death; robbing a child of his or her future. Lead poisoning is the number one environmental health threat to children of color and low-income children in the U.S. African-American and Mexican-American children are 5 and 2 times more likely, respectively, to have toxic blood lead levels than white children, while low-income children are 8 times more likely to develop lead poisoning than more affluent children. Compounding the problem is the fact that 77 percent of children eligible for lead screening under Medicaid are not screened for exposure to lead. An estimated 500,000 American children under the age of 6 have enough lead in their blood to adversely affect their development. The most common source of lead exposure for children today is lead paint in older housing, particularly when it contaminates dust and soil in and around residences. Furthermore, despite a ban on lead paint in 1978, there are still over 24 million housing units in the U.S. that have lead paint hazards, with about 1.2 million units in New York State alone. The good news is childhood lead poisoning can be dramatically reduced by the abatement or reduction of lead-based hazards found in homes. Today, I am please to reintroduce legislation to provide a tax credit for safely removing lead-based paint hazards from homes and rental units. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2007 offers much needed incentives for property owners to ensure homes are free of environmental dangers that can harm our children and will put America closer to its goal of eliminating lead poisoning in children by the year 2010. This bill provides home owners and landlords with a 50 percent tax credit for lead abatement cost for up to $3,000 and up to $1,000 interim control measures. These interim control measures, including replacement of windows, specialized maintenance, and safe repainting, are a cost-effective means of protecting the largest number of children from harmful lead exposure in the near term. This legislation targets a tax credit to homes with children younger than 6 years of age, women of childbearing age, low-income residents, and buildings constructed before 1960, as these include more than 96 percent of all units where lead-based paint is prevalent. Targeting these tax credits has proven to be a successful way of eliminating childhood lead poisoning. For example, a similar tax credit offered by the State of Massachusetts helped reduce the number of new cases of childhood lead poisoning within the State by almost two-thirds in a decade. I am glad the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers eliminating lead poisoning to be a priority, and has established a national goal of ending childhood lead poisoning by 2010: However, current Federal lead abatement programs only have resources sufficient to make approximately 8,800 homes lead-safe each year. At this pace, we will not be able to end childhood lead poisoning by 3010, let alone 2010. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2007 would help homeowners make over 80,000 homes safe from lead each year, nearly 10 times the capacity of current Federal programs. Every child deserves to grow up in a clean, healthy home environment. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to safeguard homes against environmental hazards that detrimentally affect the health and safety of our children.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last year, the FDA made emergency contraception, EC, available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended that Plan B be made available over the counter. Senator Murray and I spent a great deal of time and effort tracking the FDA's ``non-decision'' of whether emergency contraception should be made available over the counter. We have come a long way in the fight for access to EC. Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95 percent of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency contraception offers hope for healing. Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including EC on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all military health care facilities. Introduced as a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Mike Michaud and Chris Shays, the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act was written to implement exactly what the DOD's own committee charged with determining which drugs should be added to the basic core formulary recommended in 2002. Unfortunately, about a month later, DOD political appointees overruled their own experts' advice without any justification and removed EC from the BCF. This bill restores what the DOD wanted to do before it was blocked by politics. There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon, the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased approximately 24 percent in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from women and health providers in the military who have sought EC on an emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough. Ensuring that EC is more broadly available at military health care facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to agree on. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation and I would like to express my thanks to my colleagues who have already signed on.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last year, the FDA made emergency contraception, EC, available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended that Plan B be made available over the counter. Senator Murray and I spent a great deal of time and effort tracking the FDA's ``non-decision'' of whether emergency contraception should be made available over the counter. We have come a long way in the fight for access to EC. Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95 percent of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency contraception offers hope for healing. Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including EC on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all military health care facilities. Introduced as a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Mike Michaud and Chris Shays, the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act was written to implement exactly what the DOD's own committee charged with determining which drugs should be added to the basic core formulary recommended in 2002. Unfortunately, about a month later, DOD political appointees overruled their own experts' advice without any justification and removed EC from the BCF. This bill restores what the DOD wanted to do before it was blocked by politics. There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon, the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased approximately 24 percent in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from women and health providers in the military who have sought EC on an emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough. Ensuring that EC is more broadly available at military health care facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to agree on. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation and I would like to express my thanks to my colleagues who have already signed on.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, research indicates a caring adult can make a difference in a child's future. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will expand the mentoring programs found in the No Child Left Behind Act. If adopted, the Mentoring America's Children Act of 2007 would help close America's ``mentoring gap'' and match more at- risk students with high-quality mentors. I thank my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Akaka, and Bayh, for joining me on this important legislation. Mentoring programs are a cost-effective way to expand a young person's ability for success. Studies have shown young people with mentors perform better in school and are more likely to graduate and go on to higher education. Mentors also play a role in improving the social and emotional well-being and reducing the negative behaviors of the children they mentor. Despite the positive effects of having a mentor, nearly 15 million young adults are still in need of mentoring. These young people encompass America's ``mentoring gap.'' That is why I have joined with my colleagues to introduce the Mentoring America's Children Act of 2007. This legislation broadens the reach of mentoring to include specific populations of young people who could particularly benefit from a mentor's involvement, including children in foster care and kids in communities with a high rate of youth suicides. It also provides much needed training and technical assistance to grantees, tracks youth outcomes, strengthens research on the effects of mentoring, and improves the sustainability of grant recipients. Finally, this bill allows students to gain professional skills while working with mentors by establishing internship programs during the school year. Mentoring plays a key role in improving the learning environment for a young person, as mentored youth have better attendance and are more connected to their school, schoolwork, and teachers. Mentors serve as role models, advisors, and advocates for the children they mentor. We must work together to match even more high-quality mentors with our neediest children. This legislation is supported by MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and the National Collaboration for Youth. I ask my colleagues to join me in approving this legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, research indicates a caring adult can make a difference in a child's future. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will expand the mentoring programs found in the No Child Left Behind Act. If adopted, the Mentoring America's Children Act of 2007 would help close America's ``mentoring gap'' and match more at- risk students with high-quality mentors. I thank my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Akaka, and Bayh, for joining me on this important legislation. Mentoring programs are a cost-effective way to expand a young person's ability for success. Studies have shown young people with mentors perform better in school and are more likely to graduate and go on to higher education. Mentors also play a role in improving the social and emotional well-being and reducing the negative behaviors of the children they mentor. Despite the positive effects of having a mentor, nearly 15 million young adults are still in need of mentoring. These young people encompass America's ``mentoring gap.'' That is why I have joined with my colleagues to introduce the Mentoring America's Children Act of 2007. This legislation broadens the reach of mentoring to include specific populations of young people who could particularly benefit from a mentor's involvement, including children in foster care and kids in communities with a high rate of youth suicides. It also provides much needed training and technical assistance to grantees, tracks youth outcomes, strengthens research on the effects of mentoring, and improves the sustainability of grant recipients. Finally, this bill allows students to gain professional skills while working with mentors by establishing internship programs during the school year. Mentoring plays a key role in improving the learning environment for a young person, as mentored youth have better attendance and are more connected to their school, schoolwork, and teachers. Mentors serve as role models, advisors, and advocates for the children they mentor. We must work together to match even more high-quality mentors with our neediest children. This legislation is supported by MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and the National Collaboration for Youth. I ask my colleagues to join me in approving this legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, all students, regardless of where they live, need appropriate tools to compete in today's global economy. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will ensure students in rural areas are equipped with the resources they need. If approved, the Rural Students College, Career, and Community Readiness Act of 2007 would improve the educational and career outcomes and build the leadership skills of students in rural communities. I am pleased to be working my colleague, Senator Specter, on this important and timely legislation. Roughly one in four public schools is located in rural America, accounting for 14.5 percent of total public school enrollment. Unfortunately, studies have shown students attending these rural schools generally have lower educational aspirations than their urban and suburban peers. In addition, roughly half of rural high school students live and attend schools in counties that do not have colleges. These facts are daunting and present a major hurdle in improving education for students in rural communities. However, if our country is to successfully compete for jobs in the marketplace of the 21st century, we must ensure all students have access to an excellent education. These are some of the many reasons why Senator Specter and I have joined together to introduce the Rural Students College, Career, and Community Readiness Act of 2007. This legislation will establish partnerships between nonprofit entities and rural school districts to improve the academic motivation and educational performance of rural, low-income students. Under these partnerships, students in grades 7-12 will receive 25 hours of program workshops during the school year to develop career awareness and build their leadership skills. Furthermore, these programs will provide information for students about the opportunities for and the importance of higher education while increasing understanding of the future labor needs in their State. This legislation also calls for a rigorous evaluation of the program's impact. The results of this evaluation will not only tell us the rates of participation in dual enrollment courses, advanced placement courses, or other related programs of our rural students, but also provide models of best practices for partnerships so others can replicate their success. The Rural Students College, Career, and Community Readiness Act emphasizes the improvement of human capital through education as an important engine for economic development for rural communities. This legislation is needed to increase the number of rural students engaged in rigorous, college-preparatory coursework, improve their high school graduation rates, and prepare the next generation of leaders in rural communities. I am hopeful my Senate colleagues will join us to move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, all students, regardless of where they live, need appropriate tools to compete in today's global economy. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will ensure students in rural areas are equipped with the resources they need. If approved, the Rural Students College, Career, and Community Readiness Act of 2007 would improve the educational and career outcomes and build the leadership skills of students in rural communities. I am pleased to be working my colleague, Senator Specter, on this important and timely legislation. Roughly one in four public schools is located in rural America, accounting for 14.5 percent of total public school enrollment. Unfortunately, studies have shown students attending these rural schools generally have lower educational aspirations than their urban and suburban peers. In addition, roughly half of rural high school students live and attend schools in counties that do not have colleges. These facts are daunting and present a major hurdle in improving education for students in rural communities. However, if our country is to successfully compete for jobs in the marketplace of the 21st century, we must ensure all students have access to an excellent education. These are some of the many reasons why Senator Specter and I have joined together to introduce the Rural Students College, Career, and Community Readiness Act of 2007. This legislation will establish partnerships between nonprofit entities and rural school districts to improve the academic motivation and educational performance of rural, low-income students. Under these partnerships, students in grades 7-12 will receive 25 hours of program workshops during the school year to develop career awareness and build their leadership skills. Furthermore, these programs will provide information for students about the opportunities for and the importance of higher education while increasing understanding of the future labor needs in their State. This legislation also calls for a rigorous evaluation of the program's impact. The results of this evaluation will not only tell us the rates of participation in dual enrollment courses, advanced placement courses, or other related programs of our rural students, but also provide models of best practices for partnerships so others can replicate their success. The Rural Students College, Career, and Community Readiness Act emphasizes the improvement of human capital through education as an important engine for economic development for rural communities. This legislation is needed to increase the number of rural students engaged in rigorous, college-preparatory coursework, improve their high school graduation rates, and prepare the next generation of leaders in rural communities. I am hopeful my Senate colleagues will join us to move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Screening for Health of Infants and Newborns Act, also known as the SHINE Act. This legislation is critical for the health of newborns and children because we know that public education and early detection are two of the greatest weapons we have in the battle against early childhood disorders. Each year in our Nation, at least 4 million newborns are screened for severe disorders, with 5,000 newborns diagnosed as a result. Although these numbers may seem small, these disorders are often life threatening and can cause serious mental and physical disabilities if left untreated. Early detection by newborn screening can lessen these illnesses, or completely prevent progression of many of these disorders if medical intervention can be started early enough. I am proud to say that New York has been a leader in newborn screening since 1960 when Dr. Robert Guthrie developed the first newborn screening test. Since then, more than 10 million babies have been tested. In 2004, New York expanded their newborn screening program from 11 conditions to encompass 44 conditions. These improvements were the result of a concerted effort by State officials and parent advocacy groups like the Save Babies through Screening Foundation and Hunter's Hope Foundation. They share a common goal, that every child born with a treatable disease should receive early diagnosis and lifesaving treatment so that they can grow up as healthy as possible. Today, we want to ensure that the great strides made by New York can be a model for all States and that New York can continue to make advancements that will benefit the children of New York and around the Nation. Newborn screening experts suggest States should test for minimum of 29 treatable core conditions. However, as of today, some States only screen for seven conditions. Every child should have access to tests that may prevent them from a life threatening disease. This bill establishes grant programs so that States can increase their capacity to screen for all the core conditions. Grant funds are also available for States like New York to expand newborn screening panels above and beyond the core conditions by developing additional newborn screening tests. We should expect equity within newborn screening so that it does not matter where your baby is born. This legislation will establish recommended guidelines for States for newborn screening tests, reporting, and data standards. By tracking the prevalence of diseases identified by newborn screening within States, we will be able to meet these goals and improve the long-term health of our children. I hear from many parents how frightening it is to have a sick child and to not have a diagnosis. Many parents spend years trying to find out what is wrong with their child and feel helpless. This legislation will insure that current information on newborn screening is available and accessible to health providers and parents. The SHINE Act will provide interactive formats through the Maternal Child Health Bureau of the Health Services and Resources Administration so that parents and providers can ask questions and receive answers about newborn screening test, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. Early treatment can prevent negative and irreversible health outcomes for affected newborns. We should be doing all we can to give every child born in our country the opportunity for a happy and healthy life. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Screening for Health of Infants and Newborns Act, also known as the SHINE Act. This legislation is critical for the health of newborns and children because we know that public education and early detection are two of the greatest weapons we have in the battle against early childhood disorders. Each year in our Nation, at least 4 million newborns are screened for severe disorders, with 5,000 newborns diagnosed as a result. Although these numbers may seem small, these disorders are often life threatening and can cause serious mental and physical disabilities if left untreated. Early detection by newborn screening can lessen these illnesses, or completely prevent progression of many of these disorders if medical intervention can be started early enough. I am proud to say that New York has been a leader in newborn screening since 1960 when Dr. Robert Guthrie developed the first newborn screening test. Since then, more than 10 million babies have been tested. In 2004, New York expanded their newborn screening program from 11 conditions to encompass 44 conditions. These improvements were the result of a concerted effort by State officials and parent advocacy groups like the Save Babies through Screening Foundation and Hunter's Hope Foundation. They share a common goal, that every child born with a treatable disease should receive early diagnosis and lifesaving treatment so that they can grow up as healthy as possible. Today, we want to ensure that the great strides made by New York can be a model for all States and that New York can continue to make advancements that will benefit the children of New York and around the Nation. Newborn screening experts suggest States should test for minimum of 29 treatable core conditions. However, as of today, some States only screen for seven conditions. Every child should have access to tests that may prevent them from a life threatening disease. This bill establishes grant programs so that States can increase their capacity to screen for all the core conditions. Grant funds are also available for States like New York to expand newborn screening panels above and beyond the core conditions by developing additional newborn screening tests. We should expect equity within newborn screening so that it does not matter where your baby is born. This legislation will establish recommended guidelines for States for newborn screening tests, reporting, and data standards. By tracking the prevalence of diseases identified by newborn screening within States, we will be able to meet these goals and improve the long-term health of our children. I hear from many parents how frightening it is to have a sick child and to not have a diagnosis. Many parents spend years trying to find out what is wrong with their child and feel helpless. This legislation will insure that current information on newborn screening is available and accessible to health providers and parents. The SHINE Act will provide interactive formats through the Maternal Child Health Bureau of the Health Services and Resources Administration so that parents and providers can ask questions and receive answers about newborn screening test, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. Early treatment can prevent negative and irreversible health outcomes for affected newborns. We should be doing all we can to give every child born in our country the opportunity for a happy and healthy life. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, for several years now I have been promoting the adoption of health information technology as a means to improve our health care system. Modernizing our system will improve quality of care and reduce costs. A RAND study found that, as a nation, we could save more than $77 billion annually through the widespread use of electronic medical records, and these savings could double with the addition of prevention and chronic disease management components. I introduced comprehensive health quality and IT legislation in 2003 to set us on the path to creating a health IT infrastructure. Subsequently, the Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation that I worked on with Senators Frist, Kennedy, and Enzi. We were unable to reach final agreement on that bill before the adjournment of the 109th Congress and today are reintroducing the Wired for Healthcare Quality Act to bring our health care system into the 21st century. I am pleased to be working again on this critical effort with Senators Kennedy and Enzi and want to welcome Senator Hatch and thank him for his work and contributions to the bill we are introducing today. While there are a number of things I believe we need to do to improve our health care system, one of the most fundamental avenues for change is modernizing our system of care by developing a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure that protects patient privacy. It is past time that our health care delivery system allow providers to easily manage their information needs and securely and privately manage the needs of their patients. We have the most advanced medical system in the world, yet patient safety and quality is compromised because health care providers are treating patients without all the information they need. It happens in the emergency room or when you are seeing multiple doctors who are unaware of treatments you are receiving from others. Harnessing the potential of information technology will eliminate these problems and help reduce errors and improve quality in our health care system. Interoperable health IT will also help eliminate inefficiency and duplication in the system. Every time patients see a doctor, they fill out forms, have to remember their medical history, their medications, immunizations, and previous test results. No wonder a study in California found that one out of every five lab tests and x rays were conducted solely because previous lab results were unavailable. There is no reason why people's health files--their medical history, test results, lab records, x rays--can't be accessed securely and confidentially from a doctor's office or hospital. In fact, if all hospitals used a computerized physician order entry system, an estimated 200,000 fewer adverse drug events would occur, saving roughly $1 billion per year. We should also eliminate administrative inefficiencies that drive up health care costs. Today, processing paper claims costs an average of $1.60 to $2.20 per claim. It costs 85 cents for an electronic claim. We can also use information technology to disseminate clinical research. A government study recently showed it takes 17 years from the time of a new medical discovery to the time clinicians actually incorporate that discovery into their practice at the bedside. Health IT will dramatically reduce this time and help drive improvements in care. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act is designed to address these issues through Federal leadership to develop and adopt the technology standards necessary to ensure that electronic medical records are fully portable and confidential for patients and accessible to their health care providers. The legislation encourages the development of a private and secure nationwide interoperable health IT infrastructure through: Codifying the role of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology in coordinating the policies of federal agencies regarding health IT. Establishing a public-private partnership known as the Partnership for Health Care Improvement to provide recommendations to the Secretary with regard to technical aspects of interoperability, standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the exchange of health information. Requiring all Federal IT purchases to conform to the standards recommended by the Partnership and adopted by the President. Establishing the American Health Information Community as a body providing recommendations to the Secretary regarding policies to promote the development of a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure. These include recommendations regarding patient privacy, information security, and appropriate uses of health information. A wide variety of stakeholders including patients, providers, insurers, employers, and experts in information technology, privacy, security, and quality--will have representation on the AHIC. Establishing three competitive grant programs for the adoption and increased utilization of qualified health information technology systems. The first grant program would award funding to eligible entities, including nonprofit hospitals, community health centers, and small physician practices to purchase, train, and use qualified health information technology systems and improve the management of chronic diseases. The second grant program would award funding to States to establish loan funds for the purchase of qualified systems, and the final competitive grant program would assist with the establishment of regional or local health information technology exchanges. Ensuring privacy and security by delineating the rights of individuals to inspect and correct their records and take action to address fraud, as well as requiring breach notification and audit trails so patients can know who has accessed their information. Establishing a Health Information Technology Resource Center to provide technical assistance and highlight best practices associated with the adoption, implementation and effective use of health information technology systems. I am especially pleased by the focus that this legislation places on ensuring that information technology will improve the quality of care delivered in our Nation. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act will prioritize quality through the following provisions: Developing quality and efficiency reports at the national, regional, and, when requested, institutional or individual provider level, that will help to improve quality and efficiency and enhance the ability of consumers to evaluate the quality and delivery of healthcare services; Establishing a process through which to develop evidence-based, consensus health care quality measures, through which to determine the quality and efficiency of care received by patients; and adopting the quality measures established by such process and providing for the integration of these measures into the nationwide health IT infrastructure, thus fostering uniformity in quality measures across our healthcare system. Information technology has radically changed business and other aspects of American life. It is time we use the power of the information age to improve health care. If we do, we can dramatically improve the quality of care we all receive. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act is critical to this effort. Again I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Enzi and Hatch for their partnership on this legislation, and I look forward to working with them and all of my colleagues to enact this important bill.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, for several years now I have been promoting the adoption of health information technology as a means to improve our health care system. Modernizing our system will improve quality of care and reduce costs. A RAND study found that, as a nation, we could save more than $77 billion annually through the widespread use of electronic medical records, and these savings could double with the addition of prevention and chronic disease management components. I introduced comprehensive health quality and IT legislation in 2003 to set us on the path to creating a health IT infrastructure. Subsequently, the Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation that I worked on with Senators Frist, Kennedy, and Enzi. We were unable to reach final agreement on that bill before the adjournment of the 109th Congress and today are reintroducing the Wired for Healthcare Quality Act to bring our health care system into the 21st century. I am pleased to be working again on this critical effort with Senators Kennedy and Enzi and want to welcome Senator Hatch and thank him for his work and contributions to the bill we are introducing today. While there are a number of things I believe we need to do to improve our health care system, one of the most fundamental avenues for change is modernizing our system of care by developing a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure that protects patient privacy. It is past time that our health care delivery system allow providers to easily manage their information needs and securely and privately manage the needs of their patients. We have the most advanced medical system in the world, yet patient safety and quality is compromised because health care providers are treating patients without all the information they need. It happens in the emergency room or when you are seeing multiple doctors who are unaware of treatments you are receiving from others. Harnessing the potential of information technology will eliminate these problems and help reduce errors and improve quality in our health care system. Interoperable health IT will also help eliminate inefficiency and duplication in the system. Every time patients see a doctor, they fill out forms, have to remember their medical history, their medications, immunizations, and previous test results. No wonder a study in California found that one out of every five lab tests and x rays were conducted solely because previous lab results were unavailable. There is no reason why people's health files--their medical history, test results, lab records, x rays--can't be accessed securely and confidentially from a doctor's office or hospital. In fact, if all hospitals used a computerized physician order entry system, an estimated 200,000 fewer adverse drug events would occur, saving roughly $1 billion per year. We should also eliminate administrative inefficiencies that drive up health care costs. Today, processing paper claims costs an average of $1.60 to $2.20 per claim. It costs 85 cents for an electronic claim. We can also use information technology to disseminate clinical research. A government study recently showed it takes 17 years from the time of a new medical discovery to the time clinicians actually incorporate that discovery into their practice at the bedside. Health IT will dramatically reduce this time and help drive improvements in care. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act is designed to address these issues through Federal leadership to develop and adopt the technology standards necessary to ensure that electronic medical records are fully portable and confidential for patients and accessible to their health care providers. The legislation encourages the development of a private and secure nationwide interoperable health IT infrastructure through: Codifying the role of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology in coordinating the policies of federal agencies regarding health IT. Establishing a public-private partnership known as the Partnership for Health Care Improvement to provide recommendations to the Secretary with regard to technical aspects of interoperability, standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the exchange of health information. Requiring all Federal IT purchases to conform to the standards recommended by the Partnership and adopted by the President. Establishing the American Health Information Community as a body providing recommendations to the Secretary regarding policies to promote the development of a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure. These include recommendations regarding patient privacy, information security, and appropriate uses of health information. A wide variety of stakeholders including patients, providers, insurers, employers, and experts in information technology, privacy, security, and quality--will have representation on the AHIC. Establishing three competitive grant programs for the adoption and increased utilization of qualified health information technology systems. The first grant program would award funding to eligible entities, including nonprofit hospitals, community health centers, and small physician practices to purchase, train, and use qualified health information technology systems and improve the management of chronic diseases. The second grant program would award funding to States to establish loan funds for the purchase of qualified systems, and the final competitive grant program would assist with the establishment of regional or local health information technology exchanges. Ensuring privacy and security by delineating the rights of individuals to inspect and correct their records and take action to address fraud, as well as requiring breach notification and audit trails so patients can know who has accessed their information. Establishing a Health Information Technology Resource Center to provide technical assistance and highlight best practices associated with the adoption, implementation and effective use of health information technology systems. I am especially pleased by the focus that this legislation places on ensuring that information technology will improve the quality of care delivered in our Nation. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act will prioritize quality through the following provisions: Developing quality and efficiency reports at the national, regional, and, when requested, institutional or individual provider level, that will help to improve quality and efficiency and enhance the ability of consumers to evaluate the quality and delivery of healthcare services; Establishing a process through which to develop evidence-based, consensus health care quality measures, through which to determine the quality and efficiency of care received by patients; and adopting the quality measures established by such process and providing for the integration of these measures into the nationwide health IT infrastructure, thus fostering uniformity in quality measures across our healthcare system. Information technology has radically changed business and other aspects of American life. It is time we use the power of the information age to improve health care. If we do, we can dramatically improve the quality of care we all receive. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act is critical to this effort. Again I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Enzi and Hatch for their partnership on this legislation, and I look forward to working with them and all of my colleagues to enact this important bill.