Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Feingold-Reid amendment on Iraq. This is a defining moment in our debate on this misguided war. We in Congress have a choice. We can continue the administration's failed policy and guarantee that even more American troops will die in Iraq's bloody civil war. Or we can finally exercise our ``power of the purse'' and begin to bring this disastrous war to an end by linking the requirement to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq by next March to a prohibition on spending. We all must face up to the fact that Congress must use the power of the purse to force an end to the war, and the sooner we do so, the better. It is wrong for the Congress to continue to defer to Presidential decisions that we know are fatally flawed. The American people know this war is wrong, and it is wrong to abdicate our responsibility by allowing this war to drag on longer while our casualties mount higher and higher. For more than 4 long years, the President's assertion of unprecedented power has gone unchecked. This amendment reclaims our responsibility under the Constitution as a co-equal branch of Government, with specific powers of our own on issues of war and peace. Congress can exercise its authority to redirect or terminate an ongoing conflict in two ways. It can enact specific limits on the scope of the conflict, and it can use the power of the purse to deny funding for all or parts of a conflict. Congress has followed that path in prior wars, and we must follow it today. During the Vietnam war, Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964, which many of us felt had been misused to justify the escalation of America's involvement in Vietnam. Congress also prohibited the reintroduction of troops into Cambodia after President Nixon's escalation of the war. We went on to cap the number of American troops in Vietnam, and we eventually cut off funding for the war when the President left us no alternative. Exasperated by the actions of successive Presidents Johnson and Nixon on the Vietnam war, Congress enacted the War Powers Act in 1973 over President Nixon's veto. The act requires Presidents to consult with Congress before placing troops in harm's way, seek authorization to keep them there, and continue consultation as the conflict goes on. This congressional assertion of power in matters of war and peace resonates loudly today. Opponents of our efforts to bring the Iraq war to an end have mischaracterized any use of this congressional power as an abandonment of our soldiers on the battlefield. Nothing could be further from the truth. No responsible legislator would take any action that endangers our troops. In fact, using congressional authority to force a change of course in Iraq and begin to bring our troops out of Iraq's civil war is the best way to protect our troops. Requiring a change of course by using the ``power of the purse'' or taking other action will not mean taking equipment and supplies away from our troops. We will avoid the mistake the President made in sending our troops into Iraq without adequate armor and without a plan to win the peace. There is no reason for Congress now to shy away from exercising the full range of its constitutional powers. President Bush should not be permitted to continue his disastrous policy of sending more and more American troops to die in the quagmire of Iraq's civil war. Because the President refuses to bring this war to an end, we in Congress must put on the brakes ourselves and stop the madness. We must require the administration to begin to bring our troops home to the hero's welcome they have earned. The failure of our policy is abundantly clear to anyone who honestly looks at the facts. Despite the addition of tens of thousands of American troops, and the ongoing presence of more than 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, political reconciliation remains as difficult as ever to achieve. Our troops continue to be vulnerable targets for the insurgents in what has been the longest period of high casualty rates since the war began. Sectarian violence in Baghdad continues. Attacks within the international zone in Baghdad are increasing. Violence is spreading out of Baghdad and increasing elsewhere in Iraq. Iraqis are demonstrating in the streets against America's occupation. Legislation pending in the Iraqi Parliament would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The Iraqi people want a timetable for the withdrawal of our military. The American people want a timetable. Only the President continues to stubbornly refuse to adopt one. It is time for President Bush to listen to the Iraq Study Group, the Iraqi people, Congress, and the American people, and work with us to bring our troops home.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Alexander this year in introducing the American History and Civics Achievement Act. The bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to teaching history and civics in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past and the importance of civic responsibility. It contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more frequent and effective analysis of how America's students are learning these important subjects. The NAEP U.S. History and Civics results released today, for example, show that 86 percent of America's high school seniors cannot explain why this country was involved in the Korean war. Nearly all eighth graders struggle to explain how the fall of the Berlin Wall affected our foreign policy. Nearly 75 percent of eighth graders cannot explain the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence. We can't allow this trend to continue. While some progress has been made in improving student achievement in these subjects, too many students are still unable to grasp their importance. Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the Nation's past and what it takes to engage in our democracy. An appreciation of the defining events in our Nation's history can be a catalyst for civic involvement. Instilling such appreciation, and teaching the values of justice, equality, and civic responsibility should be an important mission of our public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large numbers of history and civics teachers in classrooms throughout America, we are making progress. Research conducted in history classrooms shows that children are using primary sources and documents more often to explore history, and are being assigned historical and biographical readings by their teachers more frequently. But much more remains to be done to improve students' understanding of both of these subjects, and see to it that they are not left behind in their classrooms. Good standards matter. They are the foundation for teaching and learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and attention, it is possible to develop creative and effective history and civics standards in every State. Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core subjects such as history and civics. Integrating reading and math with other subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and number skills, even while studying history, geography, and government. That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools. Making it happen requires a focus on good standards and student achievement, which we're proposing today. But it also requires added investments in teacher preparation and teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans. Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the teaching of American history and civics, and raise the standing of these subjects in school curriculums. Through changes in the National Assessment for Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on this important issue. First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in American history under the NAEP--every 4 years. NAEP is the gold standard for measuring progress by students and reporting to the Nation on that progress. It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children on the NAEP more frequently than every 5 or 6 years, to obtain a more timely picture of student progress and better address gaps in learning. The bill also proposes to strengthen state standards in American history and civics, through a new State-level pilot assessment of these subjects under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an experimental basis in 10 States in grades 8 and 12. The National Assessment Governing Board will ensure that States with model standards, as well as those whose standards are still under development, will participate in this assessment. Moving NAEP to the State level does not carry any high stakes for schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to develop and improve their standards. It is our hope that States will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their history curricula and in their teaching of civics, and ensure that both subjects are a beneficiary and not a victim of school reform. America's past encompasses great leaders with great ideas that contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better citizens in the future if they learn more about that history and about the skills needed to participate in our democracy. The American History and Civics Achievement Act is an important effort to reach that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Alexander this year in introducing the American History and Civics Achievement Act. The bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to teaching history and civics in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past and the importance of civic responsibility. It contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more frequent and effective analysis of how America's students are learning these important subjects. The NAEP U.S. History and Civics results released today, for example, show that 86 percent of America's high school seniors cannot explain why this country was involved in the Korean war. Nearly all eighth graders struggle to explain how the fall of the Berlin Wall affected our foreign policy. Nearly 75 percent of eighth graders cannot explain the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence. We can't allow this trend to continue. While some progress has been made in improving student achievement in these subjects, too many students are still unable to grasp their importance. Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the Nation's past and what it takes to engage in our democracy. An appreciation of the defining events in our Nation's history can be a catalyst for civic involvement. Instilling such appreciation, and teaching the values of justice, equality, and civic responsibility should be an important mission of our public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large numbers of history and civics teachers in classrooms throughout America, we are making progress. Research conducted in history classrooms shows that children are using primary sources and documents more often to explore history, and are being assigned historical and biographical readings by their teachers more frequently. But much more remains to be done to improve students' understanding of both of these subjects, and see to it that they are not left behind in their classrooms. Good standards matter. They are the foundation for teaching and learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and attention, it is possible to develop creative and effective history and civics standards in every State. Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core subjects such as history and civics. Integrating reading and math with other subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and number skills, even while studying history, geography, and government. That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools. Making it happen requires a focus on good standards and student achievement, which we're proposing today. But it also requires added investments in teacher preparation and teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans. Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the teaching of American history and civics, and raise the standing of these subjects in school curriculums. Through changes in the National Assessment for Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on this important issue. First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in American history under the NAEP--every 4 years. NAEP is the gold standard for measuring progress by students and reporting to the Nation on that progress. It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children on the NAEP more frequently than every 5 or 6 years, to obtain a more timely picture of student progress and better address gaps in learning. The bill also proposes to strengthen state standards in American history and civics, through a new State-level pilot assessment of these subjects under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an experimental basis in 10 States in grades 8 and 12. The National Assessment Governing Board will ensure that States with model standards, as well as those whose standards are still under development, will participate in this assessment. Moving NAEP to the State level does not carry any high stakes for schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to develop and improve their standards. It is our hope that States will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their history curricula and in their teaching of civics, and ensure that both subjects are a beneficiary and not a victim of school reform. America's past encompasses great leaders with great ideas that contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better citizens in the future if they learn more about that history and about the skills needed to participate in our democracy. The American History and Civics Achievement Act is an important effort to reach that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision of In re Gault in 1967, in which the Court declared that children accused of delinquent acts have a constitutional right to counsel. Before that decision, children accused of delinquency had virtually no legal rights. They were at the mercy of a legal system that often led to unjust results. Gerald Gault's experience illustrates the injustices that often took place. When he was 15 years old, Gerald was accused of a delinquent act that involved making a nuisance phone call. He was swept up in a juvenile justice system that had almost no procedural safeguards. Basic rights available to adults were denied to him. He was sentenced by the juvenile court to 6 years in his State's Youth Industrial School, with no right to appeal the decision. Fortunately, his parents didn't give up. They filed a writ of habeas corpus for his release. Gerald's case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which held that proceedings against juveniles must meet the essential requirements of the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. These rights included the right to advance notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Eventually, the charges against Gerald were dropped, and his case changed the juvenile justice system forever. In fact, the development of the juvenile justice system was long in coming. Before the 20th century, children as young as 7 years of age could be tried as criminals, and if found guilty, could be sentenced to prison or even to death. The first juvenile court was established just over a century ago in Chicago as a result of the efforts of reformers who were appalled by the denial of rights to young offenders. By 1925, the majority of States had separate courts for juveniles in a system guided by the doctrine of parens patriae, which gave each State the authority to act as a parent for children in need of guidance and protection. Under the doctrine, States were able to provide treatment and rehabilitation or safe conditions of confinement for troubled youth, and the Gault decision guaranteed that juvenile offenders would have basic legal rights. In the years that followed, numerous improvements have been made to the juvenile justice system. In recent years, however, there has been an alarming escalation in the willingness of States to treat children as adults. Nearly 100,000 children today are incarcerated in juvenile facilities, and they may well be the most vulnerable and defenseless group in our criminal justice system. They are routinely sent to adult prisons where they face significant dangers. Juveniles in adult facilities are five times more likely than those in juvenile facilities to report being sexually assaulted. Even more disturbing, the suicide rate of children in adult prisons is over seven times higher than those in juvenile facilities. Their plight is shameful and unacceptable. Clearly, these children deserve better. Gerald Gault went on to have a long career in the United States Army, rising to the rank of sergeant. He has become a deeply devoted family man and will celebrate his 35th wedding anniversary 5 days after the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in his case. Who knows what would have happened to Gerald if he had not been given his due process rights and had been locked away instead in a detention center? The anniversary of the Gault decision is a time for all of us to remember that the juvenile justice system is there to protect the rights of the Nation's children, and this resolution enables us to renew our commitment to building on the legacy of that historic decision. With this resolution, the Senate acknowledges the need for the Nation to recommit to the goals and purposes of this landmark decision to finally achieve the goals set forth in the Gault decision. I am pleased that the resolution has the support of so many organizations and individuals across the country, including the National Juvenile Defender Center, Harvard Law School, the Child Welfare League, the ACLU, the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, the Center for Children's Law and Policy, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild in Boston, the Children's Law Center of Massachusetts and so many other distinguished individuals fighting for a better justice system for all children in the United States.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 6 minutes of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we will see later this morning the successful conclusion of this legislation. We have some important matters to consider, which we will do in a very short period of time. But as we are coming into the closing time for this amendment, I think it is appropriate that we review very quickly what this legislation does and what it does not do. I am a strong believer in this legislation, which has strong bipartisan support. I am enormously grateful to Senator Enzi and Members on our side of the aisle as well as those on the other side for all of their help and assistance in getting us to the point where we are ready to take final action on something that makes a major difference to families in America. We ensure the safety of our prescription drug system and also are making very important progress in the safety of our food supply. This is, in an important way, breakthrough legislation. I will review quickly what this does and then come back to the amendments that are before the Senate and how we think the Senate should dispose of them; why this legislation is urgent, why it is extremely important, and why the American people deserve the best. Very quickly, again, there is strong emphasis on safer food and safer medicines for families in this country. We spelled out at the earlier part of our presentations the effective systems we have supported to make sure we are going to have the safest prescription drug program in the world, using different kinds of modern technologies and also modern surveillance systems for monitoring postmarketing safety. This will ensure in the future we are going to have the safest prescription drug program in the world. We will have safer medicines. We will also have safer food for families and pets. I think all Americans have been alarmed, as they should have been, by what has been reported in the news in the last few weeks. Many families have lost their pets because the agency lacked the authorities provided in this bill. We will have earlier warnings on drug safety problems using extremely elaborate systems of postmarketing surveillance. These systems will use both public and private centers to collect information that the FDA will use to find early warnings of possible harm. In these cases, the agency will be able to take expeditious action. That has never been done before. We are going to have better medicines for children. We are enormously appreciative of the excellent work that has been done by Senator Dodd and Senator Clinton. This was done in a bipartisan way with Senator DeWine, who is not here. We all realize that children are not little people; children are children, and therefore their bodies react differently to various kinds of prescription drugs. This legislation provides mechanisms to get information on safe and effective use of medications in children as well as to promote studies of drugs in pediatric populations. In the past few years, we have made enormous progress and we believe this legislation will help to an even greater extent. We are going to have more transparency and stronger science at the FDA because of the wonderful work done by Senator Mikulski. She and others worked to assure that we have greater awareness by the public of what is happening at the agency. There is greater focus and attention on making sure the agency is going to have the best in terms of the new sciences. We are in the life science century at the present time. This has been impressed on the country with the extraordinary convention on biosciences that took place in Boston in the last few days. There I listened and read about the potential the life sciences have, not only in terms of energy and agriculture but also in terms of medicines. The United States is absolutely poised to continue to be the world leader in these fields, with all of its implications of healthier families here and around the world. We need to make sure we are going to have the best kind of science at the FDA. We do that in the way we have given greater authority over the development of the science function at FDA. We also provided a rather unique foundation that will be able to use public and private funding. This foundation will seek out the best and the newest modalities to help speed the review of various prescription drugs. That is going to be enormously important because time means cost. If we are able to resolve these issues more quickly the costs will be more understandable and reasonable to consumers and we will get them faster. Briefly to comment on some of the amendments, we have taken a position in our proposal that both the safety and efficacy of particular prescription drugs is a function that ought to be considered in tandem. I know there are those who think we ought to separate those functions. We can imagine a circumstance, for example, where the side reaction of a particular drug is that individuals lose all of their hair and they become nauseated. Clearly I am describing the impact of methotrexate. That can happen to an individual on many anticancer drugs. You wouldn't prescribe that for athlete's foot because the side effects are so dramatic, but you would approve that for another kind of regime to try to treat cancer. We also have items on civil penalties for the first time. There is a question of what those civil penalties should be. I want them to be higher, but I am mindful as well that this is the first time we are going to have those civil penalties. We are going to be working on those matters with the House. I basically think they should be a little higher, but I listened to my colleague on this issue and we are going to try to make sure we get something that is going to be fair and can do the job. I am also mindful of the concern we have in terms of the potential of conflicts of interest. I will reserve my time to be able to deal with this issue. This is a very important issue. We want to make sure, on the one hand, as we have these breakthroughs in science, that we are going to have the best experts participating in these review groups. We also have to be sensitive to the issues of conflicts of interests. I know the Senator from Illinois has a proposal on this. I will reserve the rest of my time to be able to discuss that later. elements to assure safe use

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I would like to take some time to talk about some issues that I haven't spent a great deal of time describing to the Senate about S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. First, I thank Senator Roberts and Senator Harkin for working with Senator Enzi and me and with many members of the committee on the important issue of direct-to-consumer, or DTC, advertising. We have worked together to accomplish our common goal--a constitutionally sound, effective, workable way to see that DTC ads provide accurate information to patients about the drugs they are taking. Some have advocated a ban on such advertising altogether, but Senator Enzi and I rejected that approach since it failed to meet the constitutional test. Instead, we included a more measured provision in our legislation that allows FDA to impose a moratorium in extraordinary circumstances where needed to protect public health. During our committee's consideration of this issue, Senator Roberts brought up his concerns that even this limited provision fell afoul of recent Supreme Court decisions on free speech. Senator Harkin raised his strong interest in seeing that these DTC ads include strong, effective safety information that is clearly and prominently presented to consumers in a way that does not gloss over important information. Senator Enzi and I committed to work with Senator Roberts to see that any provision on DTC met the constitutional threshold, and we agreed to work with Senator Harkin to make certain that it provided strong safety information to consumers. The result of our discussions is an amendment that our two colleagues offered. It is a true bipartisan compromise, worked out by two Senators committed to making real progress on an important issue, and I am pleased to support the amendment. Instead of the moratorium included in our original bill, the Roberts- Harkin amendment puts in place strong safety disclosures for DTC ads, coupled with effective enforcement. Under current law, safety disclosures can be an afterthought--a rushed disclaimer read by an announcer at the conclusion of a TV ad while distracting images help gloss over the important information provided. Our proposal requires safety announcements to be presented in a manner that is clear and conspicuous without distracting imagery. We also give FDA the authority to require safety disclosures in DTC ads if the risk profile of the drug requires them. Senator Roberts had a concern that this authority not be used indiscriminately, so we have made clear that the required disclosure must pertain to a specific identified risk. We have made important improvements in FDA's ability to enforce the requirement to provide clear and accurate information to consumers. For advertisements, as in so many other areas, FDA's enforcement tools are now limited. Although FDA does have the capacity under current law to remove a drug from the market for misleading ads, that authority is not often used and rightly so, since it punishes patients for the transgressions of the manufacturers. Since removing a drug from the market is an empty threat, FDA is often left with little option but to make polite requests to companies to change their ads. Under the Roberts-Harkin amendment, FDA will have the ability to levy fines of up to $150,000 for false or misleading ads. It is unacceptable for patients to be put at risk by inaccurate ads. The Roberts-Harkin amendment makes certain that FDA will have the ability to see that this does not occur, in a way that is clearly consistent with the Constitution. The amendment is a victory for bipartisan common sense on a difficult issue. I would also like to address the affect of title II of this bill. Generally speaking, title II grants the FDA new authority to conduct postapproval safety surveillance activity in order to improve drug safety. In enacting title II, we do not intend to alter existing State law duties imposed on the holder of an approved drug application to obtain and disclose information regarding drug safety hazards either before or after the drug receives FDA approval or labeling. Nor are we expressing a belief that the regulatory scheme embodied in the bill is comprehensive enough to preempt the field or every aspect of State law. FDA's approved label has always been understood to be the minimum requirement necessary for approval. In providing the FDA with new tools and enhanced authority to determine drug safety, we do not intend to convert this minimum requirement into a maximum. As the Institute of Medicine and others have found, the FDA's past performance has been inadequate. While we fully expect substantial improvement as a result of the enactment of this bill, we cannot and do not expect the FDA or this new process to identify every drug-specific safety concern before a drug manufacturer becomes aware or should have become aware of such concerns. Nor are the bill's requirements that holders disclose certain safety information to the Government intended to substitute for the disclosure requirements that may be required under State law. I would also like to focus on another aspect of our legislation, the Reagan-Udall Foundation. During the discussions that led to consideration of this bill, we heard time and again that there was a major need for better research tools to aid FDA in evaluating the safety of drugs and help researchers move through the long process of developing drugs more effectively. Every day that a new medicine is needlessly delayed is another day that a patient does not receive a treatment that could well mean the difference between health and continued illness. If new research tools and better ways to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs could be developed, patients will benefit from quicker drug development. If current procedures can be made more effective, then the cost of developing new drugs will drop. One area where scientists can make real progress is developing new cell lines and new genetic techniques for testing drugs that reduce the need for costly forms of testing. The Reagan-Udall Foundation sets up a way to develop these new tools--not so they can help just one researcher or one company, but so they can help the entire research enterprise. New ways to test drugs for effectiveness and safety will bring new advances to patients quicker and more smoothly. Through the Reagan-Udall Foundation, they will be available to the FDA and to the entire research enterprise. This new foundation is not many pages in a long bill, but it is an important component to help get needed medicines to patients as quickly as safety will allow. I also wish to mention another critical aspect of our legislation-- its registry of clinical trials. This provision serves two essential purposes. First, it allows patients who want to enroll in those trials an accessible and central Internet site to find out which trials are being conducted and whether they might be eligible. This provision builds on an existing provision of law to create a clinical trials site, but report after report has shown that the requirement to list trials has not been complied with. Our legislation puts more force in the requirement to list trials so that patients will benefit. Listing trials is important for patient access--but reporting results is critical for safety. Our legislation requires that the results of trials be reported. No longer will companies be able to hide the outcome of a trial that did not turn out the way they hoped. Examples of this kind of abuse are shocking. The manufacturer of the antidepressant drug Paxil conducted five clinical trials of the drug in adolescents and children, yet published only one study whose mixed results it deemed positive. The company sat on two major studies for up to 4 years, although the results of one were divulged by a whistleblower and all of the studies were submitted to the FDA when the company sought approval for new uses of Paxil. At that time it became apparent that Paxil was no more effective than a placebo in treating adolescent depression. Under the bill, these kinds of abuses will not be permitted, since clinical trials will have to be reported--no matter what the result. Senator Enzi, Senator Dodd and many others in the committee worked hard to get this provision right. We require immediate listing of all publicly available data and require a negotiated rulemaking, backed by the full authority of statute to develop the precise requirements for other results information to be included. I would like to thank my colleagues for considering these comments as they relate to S. 1082, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I commend my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from New Mexico for their amendment on the conflicts of interest and for working with us to address these issues in appropriations bills during the past year. Their amendment includes many thoughtful proposals I support: including the right to call for the FDA to improve its outreach to experts who have no conflicts of interest and their right to call for greater transparency in the process of waivers. But where I disagree with my friend from Illinois and New Mexico is that there should be an inflexible cap on the number of waivers for conflicts of interests an advisory committee can grant, no matter what the expertise of the scientists involved. The amendment would impose a one-size-fits all, one waiver per conflict, per committee, relegating any additional members with conflicts to a secondary guest status on the committee. The FDA has recently issued a policy not to grant a waiver for a financial interest that exceeds $50,000 and will allow those who receive a waiver for a lesser conflict to serve only as members who can participate in committee discussions but not vote. The hallmark of this proposal is the flexibility it gives to ensure the committees will have the adequate expertise. If one or more experts with financial conflicts in excess of $50,000 have expertise that is essential to a committee, the Commissioner can grant the needed waivers. This is expected to be rare, but it can happen if needed. Under the Durbin amendment, by contrast, the FDA can grant only one waiver per meeting. There is no flexibility on this point. The FDA is already experiencing difficulty in filling vacancies on advisory committees. The Durbin amendment, no matter how well- intentioned, would worsen the problems, making it harder to fill critical vacancies and slowing the process of reviewing new medicines. Let's look at the problem FDA is facing now. The Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee needs six experts with specialized knowledge in the fields of clinical pharmacology, internal medicine, infectious diseases, microbiology, virology, immunology, pediatrics, and other specialties. These experts are needed to review the safety and effectiveness of new medicines for pandemic flu, HIV/AIDS, and other serious infections. The Anesthesiology and Respiratory Therapy Devices Panel has nine vacancies. The Ophthalmology Panel is in need of nine experts. The Advisory Committee on Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs needs six members--on and on down the list, the story is the same, critical vacancies, missed opportunities, and missed expertise. I am not for conflicts of interest. I am against them. But they are a fact of life. We need policies that reflect the current reality of research in the life sciences. We have increased transparency in this legislation so there will be wide understanding of exactly how decisions are made. This is the most important. In the time of life sciences, we are talking about cross-fertilization of different ideas. Visit the Institute of Medicine. They are talking about the life sciences and work that is taking place. Flip a molecule and it could be relevant to alternative fuels. Flip it again and it can be relevant to agriculture. Flip it again and it can be relevant to the health sciences. We need all of these disciplines working together. To take one particular requirement and exclude the possibility of getting the best in terms of future scientists, we need integrity in the FDA, integrity in decisionmaking, integrity when they grant waivers. The public ought to have the right to know. We have a balance in here. Hopefully, we will retain it. I withhold the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 1039

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I support the comments Senator Enzi has made about the fines. We are going to have to look at this in conference, and it is clear the House is going to raise the fines, it seems to me, as Senator Enzi pointed out. So we will have a chance to look at it in conference. I think that is probably the best way to do it. Let me point out two other items--something I think most Americans have been concerned about in recent times. It was reported today that China has detained managers from two companies linked to contaminated foods. As a first step, we need to determine the extent of the contamination and see how far into the food supply this internal adulteration has gone. Yesterday's report from the FDA that contaminated wheat flour from China was fed to fish raised for human consumption is another example of the need for a comprehensive examination of our food safety system. We also found out yesterday that what we thought was contaminated highly processed wheat gluten was actually unprocessed wheat flour spiked with melamine to make it appear to be higher quality. A month ago, the FDA warned that certain types of pet food were suspected of being contaminated. Then, there were more kinds of pet food. Then it was hogs being fed the contaminated food, but those had been caught before human consumption. Then we found out that tens of millions of chickens eaten by people had been fed the tainted food. Yesterday, we were informed that fish raised for human consumption had been fed contaminated food. The incremental expansion of this crisis raises serious concerns about the FDA's ability to rapidly identify the source of food-related problems and bring to bear the effective tools. We know the issue of food safety is divided into different kinds of committees, but it has to be of concern to American families. We have included strong new protections to allow FDA to better ensure the safety of human and pet foods, but this is a first step. Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin have joined with me and others and we are committed to taking a comprehensive look at the safety of our food supply and we are committed to taking the actions, with our colleagues, needed to ensure that the foods our families and pets eat are as safe as possible. As part of the managers' package adopted last night, we included important new provisions to allow the FDA to oversee the safety of farm-raised fish. We owe this--this is a story in the paper today--to Senators Lincoln and Pryor and Sessions on this important proposal. This morning's newspaper talks about doctors reaping millions for the use of anemia drugs. People are going to wonder what we are doing in this bill, if anything, on this issue. Well, this is not what the FDA does exactly. It is safety and efficacy. But there are different agencies in what they call health research and quality. AHRQ has responsibility for this. We will be in touch with them to examine this issue and provide better guidance and recommendations to doctors and patients. The FDA does not practice medicine. But this kind of action has to be of concern because it reflects itself in increased costs to the American consumer, and it does raise health issues as well. So this is illustrative of the range of different areas of concerns the American families have. We believe we have made very important and substantial progress in trying to address those questions. Mr. President, at this time I will withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we are about--I see my friend from Iowa on his feet so I will withhold. I will make a very brief comment at the very end, so I withhold.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in a few minutes, we will be prepared to vote. I yield myself 3 or 4 minutes. I will include in the Record, at the conclusion of this debate, the names of the staff on our committee who have done superb work. It has been extraordinary and on both sides of the aisle. We are enormously appreciative and grateful. I am also personally appreciative of the work of my friend and colleague, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, who was here yesterday and filled in. I had the opportunity to travel to Ireland, where they signed and put in place, after 400 years of struggle, the democratic institutions over there, in a very moving ceremony, which President Bush had supported--a very special day. This legislation is a reflection of 2\1/2\ years of hearings under the leadership of Senator Enzi, when he was chair of the committee, and myself. It incorporates the Institute of Medicine's recommendations, by and large, after they had months and months of hearings. The American people ought to understand the legislation, which reflects bipartisan support in the Senate, is a reflection of the best judgments we could have as a result of months and years of working on this issue and of the membership on it. We are enormously grateful. This legislation is going to make the prescription drugs our families take safer and our food safer. That is very important. It is going to ensure that the Agency has resources to do follow-on reviews to continue its important function to be the world leader, the gold standard, for safety for our people and the example for the rest of the world. So this is very important legislation. We are reminded every day of the additional kinds of challenges we are facing in terms of safety for our families. We are very aware of it. Senator Enzi and I and the members of our committee are going to continue our study, our review, and continue our activity to ensure we are going to have the best in terms of a safe and secure food supply, pharmaceutical supply, and take advantage of this life science century so every American is going to have the best and, hopefully, at the most reasonable price, so they can have healthier and stronger families. Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Could we ask unanimous consent that we have the yeas and nays on the other two amendments? I ask unanimous consent that it be in order now for the yeas and nays on the other two amendments and then on final passage.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the FDA has a new policy, a new procedure out there. Basically, what the Durbin amendment says is, one size fits all. That concept has been rejected by the Europeans, rejected by the Canadians, and basically rejected by the Institute of Medicine. In this life science century, researchers who are looking at cancer drugs may be examining 15 different components. Are we going to say that if a conflict exists with one of those components that they meet the Durbin amendment standard. This would exclude some of the most knowledgeable people in this country from participating in the review of breakthrough drugs. The FDA says they have adopted transparency. Everyone in the Senate is going to know who sits on the advisory committees. There is a financial limitation of $50,000 at the FDA now. Everyone is going to know the existence of any conflicts. It is a new day out there. We have now have transparency, but virtually everyone who understands that we are in the life science century says we have to have the best scientific minds at the table, and so the Institute of Medicine said: Don't go with a one-size-fits-all, which the Durbin amendment does.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the great joys of serving in the Senate has been working with my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, on different legislation. He does it the old-fashioned way. He believes that what we ought to do is have the hearings on the problem and then listen to various alternatives and then try to work out a solution and carry the process forward. That is the old-fashioned way. Today people look at different issues, file bills, and try and ward off interventions. He has a deep-seated conservative philosophical commitment. He and I differ on some matters, but we always try to find common ground. We have been able to find it certainly on this legislation and many other pieces of legislation. I look forward to continuing this tradition. I am personally grateful to him for all his help in guiding us. You can see the closeness of these votes. This is enormously important legislation to bring the Food and Drug Administration into the 21st century. But there are strong feelings, strong opinions, strong arguments on different ways to do so. We have legislation. It is solid legislation. We are proud of it. I think the overwhelming, virtually unanimous vote of the Senate on both sides is a vindication of the efforts our committee has made. It starts with Senator Enzi. I am grateful to him. I see Sherrod Brown, the Senator from Ohio, was kind enough yesterday to stand in for me when I had the great honor to witness the coming together in Northern Ireland after 400 years of conflict and the establishment of democratic institutions in a very momentous historical moment. When I left Monday night, there was a certain element of chaos surrounding this bill, and coming back early this morning, under the great work of Senator Enzi and Senator Brown, we had an orderly path to proceed. He is knowledgeable about health issues and had a very distinguished record on health policy before he came to the Senate. He has not missed a beat in working through the issues. He has been invaluable to me personally and to our committee. I thank Senator Brown for all of his good work. Quickly: I would like to thank my friend, Senator Dodd for his work on all of the issues that affect kids' drugs and devices; Senator Clinton for her work on drugs and devices; Senator Mikulski for her work on the issues of transparency, enormously important provisions on which this legislation depends; Senator Hatch for his work on antibiotics; Senator Gregg for his work on the databases and Web portal; Senators Roberts and Harkin for their work on the direct to consumer advertising issue, which involves a lot of different policy issues and a lot of emotion and feeling. They worked very hard with the staff, we had very solid recommendations on this; Senator Stabenow for her work on the citizens' petitions in order to help get product onto the markets in a quicker way. I would also like to thank Senator Brown and Senator Brownback, for their enormously creative innovative idea with regard to neglected diseases. This is something the United States should be doing more of, and they have been very creative in coming up with an idea; Senator Coburn on the doctor-patient relationship, a subject matter he feels intensely about and has been helpful to us on the legislation; Senator Durbin on food safety provisions, very important and helpful; Senator Alexander on the children's drugs; Senator Allard on food safety issues; Senator Lincoln on food safety including the raised-fish issue. These are some of the items. Again, we thank staff members: From my staff, Dave Bowen, David Dorsey, David Noll, and Caya Lewis, all who have spent a great deal of time and effort over these past weeks, Michael Myers and Carmel Martin and Missy Rohrbach, Tom Kraus, I thank them enormously. I express appreciation to Senator Enzi's staff. If people try to find solutions, rather than perpetuate differences, it makes an enormous difference. That was certainly true of all the staffs on our committee. I thank Amy Muhlberg and David Schmickel and Keith Flanagan and Katherine McGuire, Shana Christrup; Senator Brown's staff: Ellie Dehoney; Senator Dodd: Tamar Magarik; Senator Mikulski: Ellen-Marie Whelan; Senator Hatch's staff: Patty DeLoatche, and Trisha Knight; Mike Woody from Senator Harkin; Senator Gregg: Liz Wroe; Senator Roberts: Jennifer Swenson, Mike Seyfert, and Kate Anderson; Senator Clinton's staff: Ann Gavaghan and Andrea Palm. I am sure I might have missed someone, but we will make sure they are included in the Record. We thank all our colleagues and friends. We look forward to meeting with the House and reflecting the Senate's best judgment on the legislation. Mr. President, over the past 10 days we have had a good debate about important issues affecting the safety of our Nation's citizens, about the drugs they use when they are ill, and about the food they eat every day. S. 1082 will reauthorize two important user fee programs at the FDA. First among these is the prescription drug user fee program. In 2008, the program is projected to supply the FDA with nearly $400 million to help support new drug reviews and monitor the safety of drugs once they are approved and on the market. Additionally, the bill will reauthorize the medical device user fee program, which subsidizes the medical device review process. Both these programs speed new medical products to patients by enhancing the resources the FDA can devote to medical product review, without changing the standards that must be met for FDA approval or clearance. These resources to enhance speedy access to drugs and biologics are balanced with several significant provisions that will improve postapproval drug safety. A public-private partnership involving the FDA will build a network of health care databases to gather far better information about the safety risks of prescription drugs. Expanded drug user fees would also be used to develop this active surveillance system for all FDA approved drugs. The bill will create an additional risk-based method for approving and monitoring new drugs and biologics, called risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS. A REMS consists of a flexible collection of tools that the agency can apply to address the unique risks associated with a new drug. From labeling changes to postapproval safety studies to measures to assure safe use of a drug, the bill gives FDA important new authorities to address safety issues that arise after a drug is approved. For the first time, civil money penalties will deter noncompliance. The bill increases drug user fees to implement the REMS and enhance the postapproval drug safety system. Furthermore, this legislation would improve transparency, strengthen the agency's science-based culture, and inspire the trust of the American public. For example, it would require the FDA to identify and disclose conflicts of interest among advisory committee members who provide the agency expert scientific recommendations. It would also improve access to information for patients and health care providers by launching a pubic database with the results of clinical trials. A clinical trials registry would enhance patient enrollment and provide a mechanism to track the progress of clinical trials. Finally, the legislation would establish the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA to head collaborative research projects, among the FDA, academic institutions, and industry intended to improve medical product development and evaluation. I appreciate Senator Dodd and Senator Clinton's leadership to promote the safety of drugs and devices used to treat children. I thank Senator Roberts and Senator Harkin for working with Senator Enzi and me to design constitutionally sound, effective, and feasible controls on DTC advertising. The amendment we produced will ensure the information that ads provide is accurate, clear, and conspicuous without imposing a moratorium. I commend Senators Stabenow, Brown, Lott, Thune, Coburn, and Hatch for coming to a solution on the issue of citizens' petitions. They were able to craft an amendment that ensures that only citizens' petitions with meritorious claims could delay approval of a generic drug and that frivolous petitions will not lead to unwarranted delays in the approval of new generic drugs. I applaud Senator Brownback and Senator Brown for their novel proposal to encourage investment in new medicines for neglected tropical diseases. Their proposal entitles companies that develop new therapies or vaccines to a voucher allowing them a priority review at the FDA for a product of their choosing. It would provide pharmaceutical manufacturers a significant incentive without raising costs to consumers or relaxing the safety standards applied to the drug given priority review. I would also like to draw attention to the essential amendment introduced by Senator Hatch, with important contributions from Senators Brown, Burr, Stabenow, and others. The amendment would close a loophole that did away with the incentive to bring old but never approved antibiotics to market. It would also establish a public process to identify drug-resistant infections that are orphan diseases and that could be treated with orphan drugs. Additionally, the amendment would make certain molecules that are a part of old active ingredients eligible for recognition as new active ingredients, provided they will be used for a new indication. This provision includes limits that would prevent pharmaceutical manufacturers from abusing the process to extend the life of old active ingredient drugs. Finally, I am grateful to my friend, Senator Enzi, for his leadership and commitment to addressing prescription drug safety. We have worked together for over 2\1/2\ years to develop this legislation, and I am proud of where we are today. I have already thanked a number of people, and I would also like to thank, on Senator Enzi's staff, Ilyse Schuman, and on my own staff, Stacy Sachs, Molly Nicholson, Jeff Teitz, and Charlotte Burrows, and two of my interns, Ashley Bennett and Lara Mounir. I would also like to thank the many other staff members, both on and off the committee, who did such great work on this bill: Carmen Green, Nancy Hardt, Paula Burg, Lisa German, Jessica Gerrity, Dora Hughes, Ed Ramos, Ben Klein, Jim Esquea, David Lazarus, Lisa Layman, Jenny Ware, Mary-Sumpter Johnson, Stephanie Carlton, and Jennifer Claypool. I would also like to thank the legislative counsels Bill Baird, Amy Gaynor, and Stacey Kern-Scheerer for all of their hard work on this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, education has long been the key to opportunity, progress, and prosperity in America. Our schools and teachers prepare young Americans to compete and succeed in an ever- changing economy. Good schools shape the character of our citizens. They train Americans to participate in our democracy, and to serve our country and our communities. And a strong education system helps protect our national security. Above all, it's a force to move America forward. It is the engine of the American dream. When we enacted the No Child Left Behind Act 5 years ago, we sought to modernize and reform our public schools, and reaffirm the original commitment made in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. The No Child Left Behind Act sets lofty goals for all schools to meet, and requires States to establish strong standards, a rigorous curriculum, and reliable assessments. Congress should not abandon those fundamental goals as it works to reauthorize the law this year. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that too many of America's students still don't receive all that is needed to engage and succeed in school, learn to high standards, and graduate on time. Each year, approximately 1 million students do not finish high school in time to graduate with their peers. The Nation's dropout rate is more than a problem--it is a national crisis--and one that a Nation so deeply committed to the fundamental value of equal justice and opportunities for all cannot afford to ignore. In 1963, President Kennedy decried the fact that four out of 10 fifth graders did not finish high school. At that time, he called it ``a waste we cannot afford.'' Forty-four years later, the statistics on high school graduation rates are still staggering. About 1,000 high schools across the country only graduate half their students. Among African Americans and Latinos, only 55 percent graduate on time. Every day, 7,000 young Americans drop out of school. Reaching these dropouts--and giving them a chance to get back on track--is a national imperative. We have a moral commitment and an obligation to children, to parents, and to our communities to provide each and every one of our students with the chance to attend an excellent public school and graduate with a diploma. Delivering on that basic commitment is a measure of our strength as a democracy, and it's an expression of our values and our belief as a nation that our children are our future. Reducing the dropout rate in our schools is not just the right thing to do. This epidemic has very real consequences for our country, and addressing it is an economic necessity. High school dropouts earn, on average, $260,000 less than high school graduates over the course of their lifetime, and nearly $1 million less than individuals with a college degree. If each student who dropped out of the class of 2006 had graduated, America's economy would have been $309 billion stronger in future years. If the approximately 1.2 million young people who are estimated to drop out of school in the United States this year could earn high school diplomas instead, States could save more than $17 billion in costs under Medicaid and expenditures for uninsured care over the course of these young people's lifetimes. Curbing the dropout rate requires a comprehensive solution. Our high schools clearly need greater assistance in supporting and retaining their students. We must recognize, however, that this problem does not begin in high school. Intervention should start in the elementary and middle school years, when standards and expectations are set. Children who do not learn to read or do basic math in these grades will fall farther and farther behind, and find it increasingly difficult to catch up in the faster-paced high school grades. Research shows that we can identify students who are most at-risk for not completing high school as early as sixth grade. With early intervention, quality teachers, small classes, and data-driven instruction, we can ensure that these students make progress, stay in school and succeed. Once students reach high school, we must do more to engage them in the learning process. States and cities across the country are already taking steps to address this challenge, such as offering extra help during the school day, extending learning time, and adopting other school-based interventions. In Massachusetts, Boston public schools are working with private partners to create smaller learning communities, improve instruction, and strengthen professional development for teachers. Our high schools are undergoing a transformation to focus on business, technology, health professions, arts, public service, engineering, sciences, international studies, and social justice. In many of them, students can prepare for future opportunities after they graduate, by enrolling in courses for college credit or pursuing hands-on experience in a career that interests them. We must all work in Congress to help more districts like Boston mount significant efforts to address these issues and make progress in reducing the dropout rate. I have joined my colleagues on the HELP Committee--Senator Bingaman and Senator Burr--in introducing the Graduation Promise Act, which would fund state efforts that target resources and reforms to turn around high schools with low graduation rates. 15 percent of America's high schools produce half of our dropouts. In these schools--some of which have as many as 400 students in a freshman class--8 out of 10 of the students start high school already having repeated a grade, or are special education students, or are two years or more below grade level. It's very clear that these schools need more assistance in supporting and retaining these students, and that's what we hope to provide. We must also do more to better connect schools with the communities around them, and provide the safety-net of services that at-risk students need to help them stay in school. The Keeping PACE Act would provide federal funds for these efforts. Supporting the social, emotional, intellectual, and physical development of our youth is a key strategy for breaking down the barriers to learning. Finally, in order to target reforms, we must accurately measure and track graduation rates throughout the country. Today, in some districts, students who leave school are counted as dropouts only if they have registered as dropouts. In other districts, a promise to earn a GED is all it takes to be counted as a ``graduate.'' That's unacceptable. Obtaining reliable data is the only way to identify and target the level of reform and resources necessary to assist schools struggling with high dropout rates. We have an obligation to encourage these and other creative reforms in our schools, and provide the support structure and safe harbor needed to present students at-risk from dropping out. But we must also back up these essential reforms with real investments. Today, the federal investment in education at all levels--especially in the middle and high school grades--is not sufficient. Only 8 percent of students who benefit from the federal investment in Title I are in high school. Ninety-percent of high schools with very low graduation rates have high concentrations of low-income students--but only a quarter of them receive federal assistance. We need to dedicate more resources and support for secondary schools to improve academic achievement and ensure that every student has a fair opportunity to graduate. We need to target our efforts, resources, and ideas for effective reform to the schools that need them most. As we consider ways to strengthen and advance our national commitment to leave no child behind, we have an opportunity to give teachers, schools, districts and states the support they need to ensure a high- quality education for every student. We can no longer turn a blind eye to the millions of young people who fall through the cracks. Let us demand more of ourselves. Let us recommit ourselves to the spirit and the principles of excellence and equal opportunity that have shaped our historic commitment to improving public education. Above all, let us commit ourselves to the great goal of making this silent but severe epidemic--America's dropout crisis--a thing of the past.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his interest and work on this important issue. Ensuring that people have access to safe and effective medications when purchasing prescription drugs online is an important part of our efforts in the area of drug safety. The Dorgan legislation in this bill includes some provisions on the issue of Internet pharmacies, but I am willing to work with my colleague and our colleagues in the Senate to enhance these provisions to address the important issues he has raised over the course of this debate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici and Senator Ensign in introducing the Mental Health in Schools Act of 2007 to assist the Nation's public schools in providing better access to mental health services for their students. The need for these services has never been greater. The tragic events at Columbine, Nickel Mines, and Virginia Tech underscore the fact that when left untreated, childhood mental disorders can lead to academic failure, family conflicts, substance abuse, violence, and suicide. Comprehensive school mental health program should be designed for all students. They should obviously include both identification and referral of specific individuals for treatment, but they should also include programs and services that promote positive mental health and prevent mental health problems for a broader population of students. Strong mental health, similar to strong physical health, makes it possible for children to develop socially, emotionally, and intellectually. We know that mental illnesses often appear for the first time during childhood and adolescence. One in five children has a diagnosable mental disorder, yet three-quarters of children and youth who need mental health services do not receive them. With proper care and treatment, approximately 80 percent of people with mental illness experience a significant reduction of symptoms and a better quality of life. Our schools are important settings for recognizing and addressing children's mental disorders. In fact schools often function as the de facto mental health system for children and adolescents. Especially in rural areas, schools are likely to provide the only mental health services available, for children. Effective school mental health programs reflect the cooperation and commitment of families, students, educators, and other community partners. However, of the 95,000 public schools in the United States, only half report having formal partnerships with community mental health providers to deliver mental health services. The services and support provided through these partnerships should be family-centered and community-centered, and should also be culturally and linguistically appropriate. The goal of the Mental Health in Schools Act is to assist local communities in developing comprehensive school mental health programs that provide a continuum of services for students. I urge the Senate to join us in supporting schools and communities in expanding their mental health programs to make them more comprehensive, so that our school children across the nation can receive the proper support and services they need in order to thrive in our society and become productive citizens. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, of all the challenges we face today, one of the most important is creating greater opportunities for the Nation's children to learn and succeed in life. If America is to remain competitive in the global economy, if all Americans are to have access to the American dream, we must ensure that all our children receive a good education. A good education begins with a good teacher. One of the most significant steps we can take to improve the Nation's schools is to do more to support the recruitment, training, and retention of high quality teachers. We owe a great debt to America's teachers. Day in and day out, in thousands of schools across the country, they struggle to give our children the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. Our teachers are at the forefront of the constant effort to improve public education. It is their vision, energy, hard work, and dedication that will make all the difference in successfully meeting this challenge. As Shirley Hufstedler, the Nation's first Secretary of Education, said: ``The role of the teacher remains the highest calling of a free people. To the teacher, America entrusts her most precious resource, her children; and asks that they be prepared, in all their glorious diversity, to face the rigors of individual participation in a democratic society.'' All children need and deserve teachers who can help them succeed. We in Congress must do all in our power to help them do so. We took a major step toward this goal when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which recognized that all students deserve first-rate teachers to help them reach their potential in school. The law established a goal to guarantee a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the end of 2006. Few states have reached that ambitious target, and much more remains to be done to achieve success. Extensive research shows that teacher quality is the most important educational factor affecting student achievement. One recent study showed that having a highly qualified teacher can improve student academic growth by as much as one full year. Another showed that students taught by highly qualified teachers for 3 consecutive years significantly outperformed their peers on academic assessments. A comparison of low-performing and high-performing elementary schools with similar student populations found that differences in teacher qualifications accounted for 90 percent of the difference in performance in reading and math. There's strong evidence that a good teacher can make all the difference in closing achievement gaps for the neediest students in our public schools. Investing in teacher quality is cost effective and fiscally responsible. A recent study involving 1,000 school districts found that additional dollars invested in more highly qualified teachers resulted in greater improvements in student achievement than any other use of school resources. Unfortunately, research also shows that high quality teachers are the most inequitably distributed educational resource in the Nation. The most at-risk students are too often taught by the least prepared, least experienced, and least qualified teachers. Students in high poverty schools are twice as likely to be taught by teachers with less than 3 years of experience. Such teachers are less likely to receive the resources and support they need to succeed. Often they leave the profession and further destabilize already struggling schools. By contrast, children of the affluent and the privileged are much more likely to be taught by highly prepared and qualified, expert teachers with broad knowledge and experience in the subjects they teach. To enable more teachers to receive the assistance they need to improve their instruction, ensure that every child receives a high quality education, and level the playing field for America's students, Congress must act on a comprehensive plan to build and sustain a strong teacher workforce. That is why today I am introducing the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act of 2007, the TEACH Act. Its purpose is to assist the States and districts in better recruiting, training, retaining and supporting our teachers. Our distinguished colleague in the House, Congressman George Miller, is introducing companion legislation, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue. The TEACH Act addresses four specific challenges head on: It increases the supply of outstanding teachers and provides incentives to attract them to high-need schools; It ensures all children have teachers with expertise in the subjects they teach; It improves teaching by identifying and rewarding the best teaching practices and by expanding professional development opportunities; and It helps schools retain teachers and principals by providing the support they need to succeed. Enrollment in public schools has reached an all-time high of 53 million students, and is expected to keep increasing over the next decade. To educate this expanding population, additional high quality teachers are urgently needed. Many schools today face a crisis in recruiting and retaining highly- skilled teachers, particularly in the Nation's poorest communities. We now have approximately 3 million public school teachers across the country. Mr. President, 2 million new teachers will be needed in the next 10 years to serve the growing student population. Yet we are not even retaining the teachers we have today. A third of all teachers leave during their first 3 years. Almost half leave during the first 5 years. Over 200,000 teachers leave the profession each year--6 percent of the teaching workforce. The shortage of highly qualified teachers is especially acute in the fields most essential to America's future competitiveness, and particularly affects low-income students. A third of all math classes in high-poverty high schools are taught by teachers who don't have a degree in math, compared to just 18 percent of such classes in low- poverty schools. Over half of all science classes in such schools are taught by teachers without a degree in their field, compared to just 22 percent of such classes in low-poverty schools. Meanwhile, students in other nations are surpassing American students in math and science achievement. Too often, teachers also lack the training and support needed to do well in the classroom. They are paid on average almost $8,000 a year less than graduates in other fields, and the gap widens to more than $23,000 after 15 years of teaching. Mr. President, 37 percent of teachers cite low salaries as a main factor for leaving the classroom before retirement. The TEACH Act will do more to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, particularly in schools and subjects where they are needed most. The bill provides financial incentives to encourage talented individuals to pursue and remain in this essential profession, and it offers higher salaries, tax breaks, and greater loan forgiveness. To attract motivated and talented individuals to teaching, the bill provides up-front tuition assistance, $4,000 a year, to high-performing undergraduate students who agree to commit to teach for 4 years in high-need areas and in subjects such as math, science, and special education. It also creates a competitive grant program for colleges and universities to recruit teachers among students majoring in math, science, or foreign language. The TEACH Act will also help deliver access to the best teachers for the neediest students to help them succeed, and will help keep these teachers where they are most needed. In high-poverty schools, teacher turnover is 33 percent higher than in other schools. Clearly, we must do a better job of attracting better teachers to the neediest classrooms and do more to reward their efforts, so that they stay in the classroom. To encourage expert teachers to teach where they are needed, the bill provides funding to school districts to reward teachers who transfer to schools with the greatest challenges, and provides incentives for teachers working in math, science, and special education. The bill establishes a framework to develop and use the systems needed at the State and local levels to improve teaching and to recognize exceptional teaching in the classroom. It encourages the development of data systems to provide teachers with additional data to inform and improve classroom instruction. It also encourages the development of model teacher advancement programs that recognize and reward different roles, responsibilities, knowledge, and positive results with competitive compensation initiatives. Too often, teachers lack the training they need before reaching the classroom. On the job, they have few sources of support to meet the challenges they face in the classroom, and few opportunities for ongoing professional development to expand their skills. The bill responds to the needs of teachers in their early years in the classroom by creating new and innovative models that use proven strategies to support beginning teachers. New teachers will have access to mentoring, opportunities for cooperative planning with their peers, and a special transition year to ease into the pressures of entering the classroom. Veteran teachers will have an opportunity to improve their skills through peer mentoring and review. Other support includes professional development delivered through teaching centers to improve training and working conditions for teachers. Since good leadership is also essential for schools, the bill provides important incentives and support for principals by improving recruitment and training for them as well. This legislation was developed with input from a broad and diverse group of educational professionals and experts, including the Alliance for Excellent Education, the American Federation of Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Children's Defense Fund, the Education Trust, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, the National Council on Teacher Quality, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, New Leaders for New Schools, the New Teacher Center, Operation Public Education, the Teacher Advancement Program Foundation, Teach for America and the Teaching Commission. I thank them all for their help and their work on behalf of our nation's children. The TEACH Act is good for America's children; it's good for America's economy; and it's good for America's future. It is an essential part of our ongoing effort to ensure that ``No Child Left Behind'' becomes a reality and not just a slogan. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici and Senator Ensign in introducing the Mental Health in Schools Act of 2007 to assist the Nation's public schools in providing better access to mental health services for their students. The need for these services has never been greater. The tragic events at Columbine, Nickel Mines, and Virginia Tech underscore the fact that when left untreated, childhood mental disorders can lead to academic failure, family conflicts, substance abuse, violence, and suicide. Comprehensive school mental health program should be designed for all students. They should obviously include both identification and referral of specific individuals for treatment, but they should also include programs and services that promote positive mental health and prevent mental health problems for a broader population of students. Strong mental health, similar to strong physical health, makes it possible for children to develop socially, emotionally, and intellectually. We know that mental illnesses often appear for the first time during childhood and adolescence. One in five children has a diagnosable mental disorder, yet three-quarters of children and youth who need mental health services do not receive them. With proper care and treatment, approximately 80 percent of people with mental illness experience a significant reduction of symptoms and a better quality of life. Our schools are important settings for recognizing and addressing children's mental disorders. In fact schools often function as the de facto mental health system for children and adolescents. Especially in rural areas, schools are likely to provide the only mental health services available, for children. Effective school mental health programs reflect the cooperation and commitment of families, students, educators, and other community partners. However, of the 95,000 public schools in the United States, only half report having formal partnerships with community mental health providers to deliver mental health services. The services and support provided through these partnerships should be family-centered and community-centered, and should also be culturally and linguistically appropriate. The goal of the Mental Health in Schools Act is to assist local communities in developing comprehensive school mental health programs that provide a continuum of services for students. I urge the Senate to join us in supporting schools and communities in expanding their mental health programs to make them more comprehensive, so that our school children across the nation can receive the proper support and services they need in order to thrive in our society and become productive citizens. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, of all the challenges we face today, one of the most important is creating greater opportunities for the Nation's children to learn and succeed in life. If America is to remain competitive in the global economy, if all Americans are to have access to the American dream, we must ensure that all our children receive a good education. A good education begins with a good teacher. One of the most significant steps we can take to improve the Nation's schools is to do more to support the recruitment, training, and retention of high quality teachers. We owe a great debt to America's teachers. Day in and day out, in thousands of schools across the country, they struggle to give our children the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. Our teachers are at the forefront of the constant effort to improve public education. It is their vision, energy, hard work, and dedication that will make all the difference in successfully meeting this challenge. As Shirley Hufstedler, the Nation's first Secretary of Education, said: ``The role of the teacher remains the highest calling of a free people. To the teacher, America entrusts her most precious resource, her children; and asks that they be prepared, in all their glorious diversity, to face the rigors of individual participation in a democratic society.'' All children need and deserve teachers who can help them succeed. We in Congress must do all in our power to help them do so. We took a major step toward this goal when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which recognized that all students deserve first-rate teachers to help them reach their potential in school. The law established a goal to guarantee a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the end of 2006. Few states have reached that ambitious target, and much more remains to be done to achieve success. Extensive research shows that teacher quality is the most important educational factor affecting student achievement. One recent study showed that having a highly qualified teacher can improve student academic growth by as much as one full year. Another showed that students taught by highly qualified teachers for 3 consecutive years significantly outperformed their peers on academic assessments. A comparison of low-performing and high-performing elementary schools with similar student populations found that differences in teacher qualifications accounted for 90 percent of the difference in performance in reading and math. There's strong evidence that a good teacher can make all the difference in closing achievement gaps for the neediest students in our public schools. Investing in teacher quality is cost effective and fiscally responsible. A recent study involving 1,000 school districts found that additional dollars invested in more highly qualified teachers resulted in greater improvements in student achievement than any other use of school resources. Unfortunately, research also shows that high quality teachers are the most inequitably distributed educational resource in the Nation. The most at-risk students are too often taught by the least prepared, least experienced, and least qualified teachers. Students in high poverty schools are twice as likely to be taught by teachers with less than 3 years of experience. Such teachers are less likely to receive the resources and support they need to succeed. Often they leave the profession and further destabilize already struggling schools. By contrast, children of the affluent and the privileged are much more likely to be taught by highly prepared and qualified, expert teachers with broad knowledge and experience in the subjects they teach. To enable more teachers to receive the assistance they need to improve their instruction, ensure that every child receives a high quality education, and level the playing field for America's students, Congress must act on a comprehensive plan to build and sustain a strong teacher workforce. That is why today I am introducing the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act of 2007, the TEACH Act. Its purpose is to assist the States and districts in better recruiting, training, retaining and supporting our teachers. Our distinguished colleague in the House, Congressman George Miller, is introducing companion legislation, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue. The TEACH Act addresses four specific challenges head on: It increases the supply of outstanding teachers and provides incentives to attract them to high-need schools; It ensures all children have teachers with expertise in the subjects they teach; It improves teaching by identifying and rewarding the best teaching practices and by expanding professional development opportunities; and It helps schools retain teachers and principals by providing the support they need to succeed. Enrollment in public schools has reached an all-time high of 53 million students, and is expected to keep increasing over the next decade. To educate this expanding population, additional high quality teachers are urgently needed. Many schools today face a crisis in recruiting and retaining highly- skilled teachers, particularly in the Nation's poorest communities. We now have approximately 3 million public school teachers across the country. Mr. President, 2 million new teachers will be needed in the next 10 years to serve the growing student population. Yet we are not even retaining the teachers we have today. A third of all teachers leave during their first 3 years. Almost half leave during the first 5 years. Over 200,000 teachers leave the profession each year--6 percent of the teaching workforce. The shortage of highly qualified teachers is especially acute in the fields most essential to America's future competitiveness, and particularly affects low-income students. A third of all math classes in high-poverty high schools are taught by teachers who don't have a degree in math, compared to just 18 percent of such classes in low- poverty schools. Over half of all science classes in such schools are taught by teachers without a degree in their field, compared to just 22 percent of such classes in low-poverty schools. Meanwhile, students in other nations are surpassing American students in math and science achievement. Too often, teachers also lack the training and support needed to do well in the classroom. They are paid on average almost $8,000 a year less than graduates in other fields, and the gap widens to more than $23,000 after 15 years of teaching. Mr. President, 37 percent of teachers cite low salaries as a main factor for leaving the classroom before retirement. The TEACH Act will do more to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, particularly in schools and subjects where they are needed most. The bill provides financial incentives to encourage talented individuals to pursue and remain in this essential profession, and it offers higher salaries, tax breaks, and greater loan forgiveness. To attract motivated and talented individuals to teaching, the bill provides up-front tuition assistance, $4,000 a year, to high-performing undergraduate students who agree to commit to teach for 4 years in high-need areas and in subjects such as math, science, and special education. It also creates a competitive grant program for colleges and universities to recruit teachers among students majoring in math, science, or foreign language. The TEACH Act will also help deliver access to the best teachers for the neediest students to help them succeed, and will help keep these teachers where they are most needed. In high-poverty schools, teacher turnover is 33 percent higher than in other schools. Clearly, we must do a better job of attracting better teachers to the neediest classrooms and do more to reward their efforts, so that they stay in the classroom. To encourage expert teachers to teach where they are needed, the bill provides funding to school districts to reward teachers who transfer to schools with the greatest challenges, and provides incentives for teachers working in math, science, and special education. The bill establishes a framework to develop and use the systems needed at the State and local levels to improve teaching and to recognize exceptional teaching in the classroom. It encourages the development of data systems to provide teachers with additional data to inform and improve classroom instruction. It also encourages the development of model teacher advancement programs that recognize and reward different roles, responsibilities, knowledge, and positive results with competitive compensation initiatives. Too often, teachers lack the training they need before reaching the classroom. On the job, they have few sources of support to meet the challenges they face in the classroom, and few opportunities for ongoing professional development to expand their skills. The bill responds to the needs of teachers in their early years in the classroom by creating new and innovative models that use proven strategies to support beginning teachers. New teachers will have access to mentoring, opportunities for cooperative planning with their peers, and a special transition year to ease into the pressures of entering the classroom. Veteran teachers will have an opportunity to improve their skills through peer mentoring and review. Other support includes professional development delivered through teaching centers to improve training and working conditions for teachers. Since good leadership is also essential for schools, the bill provides important incentives and support for principals by improving recruitment and training for them as well. This legislation was developed with input from a broad and diverse group of educational professionals and experts, including the Alliance for Excellent Education, the American Federation of Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Children's Defense Fund, the Education Trust, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, the National Council on Teacher Quality, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, New Leaders for New Schools, the New Teacher Center, Operation Public Education, the Teacher Advancement Program Foundation, Teach for America and the Teaching Commission. I thank them all for their help and their work on behalf of our nation's children. The TEACH Act is good for America's children; it's good for America's economy; and it's good for America's future. It is an essential part of our ongoing effort to ensure that ``No Child Left Behind'' becomes a reality and not just a slogan. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.