Mental Health in Schools Act of 2007

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the Channel Islands National Park Management Act of 2007.

This legislation seeks to clarify the future use and management of the park, and specifically protects Santa Rosa Island for the use of the public.

The taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to acquire Santa Rosa Island in 1986 to restore its native ecology and provide public access.

Unfortunately, late last year during conference negotiations a provision was slipped into the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization bill seeking to overturn a court-approved settlement agreement which requires the phasing out of private hunting on Santa Rosa Island.

Under a binding court settlement in the late 1990s, non-native deer and elk must be removed from Santa Rosa Island over a phased, 4-year period beginning in 2008.

Today, from mid-August through mid-November, a large portion of the island is closed to the public so that the island's prior owners can run a trophy hunting operation targeting the deer and elk on the island.

Under the settlement, this hunting operation was to end in 2011 allowing the island to be completely open to the public year round.

Now, under last year's provision, the prior owners will seek to continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting trips.

Even though the Government purchased the island from them for $30 million in taxpayer money, the prior owners would seek to keep essentially everything they had before--and that's simply not in the public interest.

Some may be interested in learning a little history and background on this gem of an island: Santa Rosa Island is approximately 53,000 acres and lies about 50 miles west of Ventura Harbor. It is the second largest of the five islands making up the Channel Islands National Park. It is extremely rugged and pristine, with terrain ranging from grassy hills to steep, wind-carved canyons to white sandy beaches. Craggy, steep cliffs overlook rocky tide pools along its coast. Wildflowers cover many parts of the island during the spring and summer. It is ecologically sensitive and includes several endemic plants and species. For example, it is the only place in the world to see the island fox and spotted skunk in their natural habitat. A variety of shore birds--like the snowy plover--and sea mammals--such as seals and sea lions--breed on its beaches. It is seen by many scientists as one of the nation's most unique places. In addition to being the home of rare flora and fauna, it is an archaeological and paleontological treasure, with some sites dating back 11,000 years or to the Pleistocene-era. In fact, in 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth was excavated on the island. It offers incredible recreational opportunities for the public, including hiking, camping, kayaking, fishing, sea sports, and wildlife watching.

The limitation of public access to the island to accommodate privately run hunting trips would be a tragedy. This is the public's land. It's a national park, and the public should be able to visit it and enjoy its breath-taking beauty and remoteness.

I also want to address one issue the provision in last year's Defense Authorization bill purportedly seeks to address: enhancing hunting opportunities for disabled veterans.

While no one opposes providing hunting opportunities for our veterans, it is clear that it is neither a practical nor viable option to use Santa Rosa Island as a hunting reserve for injured and disabled veterans.

This view is now supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA, an organization which previously expressed support for the provision overturning the settlement.

Notably, in July 2006, the PVA reached the conclusion following an investigative visit to Santa Rosa that the ``numerous obstacles inherent to the island, including ingress and egress, logistics, personal safety and cost, far outweigh the possible, limited benefit it could provide.''

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in California today, there are already 9 military installations that permit hunting--five that can accommodate disabled servicemembers.

Two of these military installations, Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg Air Force Base, are relatively close to the Channel Islands National Park, and allow disabled veterans to hunt a variety of animals, including deer, waterfowl, quail, feral pigs, small game, and coyote.

Altogether there are over 100 U.S. military installations where hunting is permitted, over 70 of which are currently accessible to disabled servicemembers and veterans.

Naturally, the Park Service is firmly opposed to the provision seeking to overturn the settlement. But it is also important to note that neither the Department of Defense nor the Veterans Administration asked for the language.

Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general public. To allow any less would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and wrongly limit the public's access to this national treasure.

I strongly believe that we must do everything to protect the island for the public and oppose any measures that could continue to restrict access to the island.

This legislation we are introducing today would safeguard the island in just this manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Grassley, as well as Senators Kohl, Feingold and Durbin as original co- sponsors, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007. This bill would take an important grant program for drug-endangered children that Congress authorized in the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act, and extend it for two additional years.

In particular, the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act authorized $20 million in Federal grants for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to States to assist in the treatment of children who have been endangered by living at a home where methamphetamine has been manufactured or distributed. But unless we pass new legislation, that authorization will not continue beyond the current fiscal year.

A companion bill was introduced earlier this year by California Congressman Dennis A. Cordoza, with bipartisan support in the House.

The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP, has documented that innocent children are sometimes found in homes and other environments, hotels, automobiles, apartments, etc., where methamphetamine and other illegal substances are produced.

According to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, there were 1,660 children affected by or injured or killed at methamphetamine labs during 2005.

These children who live at or visit drug-production sites or are present during drug production face a variety of health and safety risks, including: inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of toxic chemicals, drugs, or contaminated foods that may result in nausea, chest pain, eye and tissue irritation, chemical burns, and death; fires and explosions; abuse and neglect, and hazardous lifestyles, presence of booby traps, firearms, code violations, and poor ventilation.

Where children are involved, drug lab seizures must go beyond the normal response from law enforcement, fire and HAZMAT organizations. Additional agencies and officials often must be called in to assist, including emergency medical personnel, social services, and physicians.

Recognizing this need, the ONDCP several years ago announced a national Drug Endangered Children (DEC) initiative to assist with coordination between existing State programs and create a standardized training program to extend DEC to states where such a program does not yet exist.

As a result of this initiative, several states developed DEC programs, to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, medical services, and child welfare workers, to ensure that children found in these environments receive appropriate attention and care.

These DEC programs began to develop interagency protocols to support drug-endangered children, addressing issues such as: staff training, including safety and cross training; roles and responsibilities of agencies involved; appropriate reporting, cross-reporting, and information sharing; safety procedures for children, families, and responding personnel; interviewing procedures; evidence collection and preservation procedures, and medical care procedures.

Protocols were designed to identify and provide guidance on the variety of issues that responding agencies needed to address in these situations, such as taking children into protective custody and arranging for child protective services, immediately testing the children for methamphetamine exposure, conducting medical and mental health assessments, and ensuring short- and long-term care.

Unfortunately, the ONDCP's initiative, which had been funded in part through a DOJ award of $2.124 million under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine Initiative of 2003, was not continued thereafter.

The USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act that we passed in 2005, establishing a specific grant program for this purpose, recognized the need to continue this initiative. Unfortunately, this grant program that we authorized was never funded. In fiscal year 2006, the program that we authorized was appropriated no funds at all.

In fiscal year 2007, the House of Representatives voted to include $5 million for this important program as part of its CJS Appropriations bill. But unfortunately, the 109th Congress adjourned without passing most of its FY2007 appropriations bills, and the Continuing Resolution we passed to keep the government running did not fund this provision either.

So the bill that I introduce today would give the Congress another chance to revive this important initiative. And it can't come too soon for places like Merced, California, where three-quarters of all foster care cases are reported to be methamphetamine-related.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Grassley in introducing the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2007. This bill would increase the criminal penalties that apply when criminals market their illegal drugs to our children, using appalling techniques like the recently reported sales on our streets of candy-flavored methamphetamine.

In particular, the bill would: double the maximum penalties applicable to drug crimes if a criminal defendant manufactures, offers, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance that is flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make it more appealing to a person under the age of 21; if the violation is a repeat offense, the maximum sentence would be tripled; and a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least a year would apply in every case involving illegal drugs that targets its marketing at minors.

The growing problem of marketing illegal drugs to minors was highlighted in a recent USA Today article, entitled ``Flavored Meth Use on the Rise,'' which stated, ``Reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.''

Normally, methamphetamine--a highly addictive stimulant--is a brownish, bitter-tasting crystalline powder. But drug dealers, recognizing that this may not be appealing to children or teenagers, have reacted by reaching a new low: they are using candy and soda flavors to market their meth.

Soda flavors. Strawberry methamphetamine that they market as ``Strawberry Quick.'' Reddish methamphetamine marketed as an energy drink like ``Red Bull.'' Even ``chocolate quick.''

Scott Burns, Deputy Drug Czar at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, warns that this development may negatively affect the gains we have recently made in getting the word out to our young people about how horrible this drug is.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of people 12 and older who used methamphetamine for the first time in the previous year decreased from 318,000 people in 2004 to 192,000 people in 2005. That's the good news.

But Deputy Drug Czar Burns warns that with drug dealers having a tougher time selling their product, especially to young people, ``they have to come up with some sort of gimmick.'' And that gimmick, he warns, is the use of flavored methamphetamine.

In my own State of California, San Francisco police since late January have arrested teens with quantities of meth designed to taste like chocolate. The Haight-Asbury clinic also confirms chocolate- flavored methamphetamine being used on the streets.

Dr. Alex Stalcup, a nationally renowned drug counselor, reports seeing teenage patients at the New Leaf Treatment Center suffering the ill effects of flavored methamphetamine since the first of this year.

One of Dr. Stalcup's patients was unaware that the substance was meth at all, and said he was told that it was a solidified form of the energy drink Red Bull. Dr. Stalcup warns that this new form of the drug also may be more likely to lead to an overdose, by users who may not be aware of, or who may underestimate, a candy-flavored drug's impact.

Perhaps the first report of this problem emerged in late January, when a Carson City, Nevada police informant purchased 2 grams of a strawberry-flavored methamphetamine from an alleged member of the Lima Street gang. Officers later served a search warrant on his home and found more. Police bulletins warned this ``new type of meth will be more attractive to a younger crowd and may surface in schools.''

Additional reports also came in. On February 13, a police officer in Greene County, MO, seized a bag of ``strawberry meth'' from a female passenger in a car stopped in a rural area of Greene County, MO. And in Idaho, the Administrator of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy warned of how drug dealers were producing ``strawberry quick'' and ``chocolate quick'' forms of meth, to attract young buyers and spawn a new generation of drug buyers.

The Idaho Press-Tribune even reported that at Valentine's Day, drug dealers compressed the flavored form of the drug into heart-shapes, colored it bright pink, and wrapped it in shiny paper.

Based on intelligence gathered by Drug Enforcement Administration agents from informants, users, police and drug counselors, flavored crystals are now available in California, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri and Minnesota.

The bill I offer today would address this problem, by enacting penalties to discourage colored and flavored drugs and the marketing of drugs to minors.

Under current law, there is already an enhanced penalty if someone distributes illegal drugs to a minor. The maximum sentence is doubled, and tripled for a repeat offense, and there is a minimum of at least a year in prison. But the enhancement applies only if there is an actual distribution to a minor. Even possession with intent to distribute doesn't qualify. And current law doesn't address flavored drugs or marketing illegal drugs in ways appealing to kids.

The bill I introduce would fix that. If someone manufactures, creates, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute an illegal drug that is flavored, colored, packaged or altered in a way designed to make it more appealing to someone under age 21, they would face this same enhanced penalty.

This bill will send a strong and clear message to the drug dealers-- if you flavor up your drugs or alter them in a way that makes it more appealing to our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay.

Flavored meth is designed to get people to try it a few times. It's all about hooking young people. And that is truly tragic. Listen to what one former addict wrote after hearing about this new development:

They do need to worry about our children because I happen

to know quite a few 10 and 12 year olds on up that are

already using it and selling it out there. So whoever thinks

it's not a threat to our children--WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's

more and more dangerous out there when people cannot handle

it and they develop a chemical imbalance and lose their mind

to where they don't even know who they are anymore. I happen

to know a very, very young pretty girl I've met, and she will

never come back to who she was. She's gone. She is crazy and

is gonna end up hurt then dead one of these days. I pray for

this girl all the time . . .

Estimates now place the number of habitual meth users worldwide at 26 million worldwide--more than the combined total for heroin and cocaine. It is extraordinarily addictive. We must act to preserve the gains we have made, and keep kids from getting cruelly tricked into an addiction they may never break.

These new penalties will make dealers think twice before flavoring up their drugs, and punish them appropriately if they don't. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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. 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. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Chairman Leahy's bill, S. 1327, which will reestablish temporary judgeships where needed in the district courts and extend other temporary judgeships that are about to expire. The bill will reestablish a 10-year temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of California, where it is sorely needed.

The Eastern District has had a temporary judgeship before, but it expired in the fall of 2004. Even before the temporary judgeship expired, the caseload in the district was already the second highest in the Nation: 787 filings per judge, which was almost 50 percent more than the national average.

Since that time, the situation in the Eastern District has grown even more dire. Average caseloads across the Nation have declined, but in the Eastern District they have increased by 18 percent.

The Eastern District of California now has the highest caseload in the country: 927 filings per judge. That is twice as many cases as the national average.

It is no exaggeration to say that the judges of the Eastern District are in desperate need of relief. They have continued to serve with distinction in the face of the crushing caseloads. Mr. President, two of the court's senior judges still carry full caseloads after taking senior status. Two other senior judges are also continuing to hear cases in the district. There is another reason why it is imperative for the Senate to act now and adopt this bill. In just a few months, there will be a vacancy in the Eastern District when Chief Judge David Levi leaves the bench after 17 years of distinguished service.

It is my hope that Chief Judge Levi's seat can be filled as quickly as possible with a well qualified nominee. But, as a practical matter, it is unlikely that the confirmation process for a new judge will be complete when Chief Judge Levi leaves office.

This will leave the Eastern District with still fewer judges to handle its highest-in-the-Nation caseload. The district will need even more help to ensure that cases continue to be handled with the care, attention, and promptness that are essential to the fair administration of justice.

I view this bill as an important first step toward getting California all of the judges it needs. According to the 2007 recommendations of the Judicial Conference, California needs a total of 12 new judges, more judges than are needed in any other State in the Nation. Four of those judges are needed in the Eastern District alone. By adding a temporary judgeship in the district, this bill will help fill the gap until the Senate acts to carry out the Judicial Conference's recommendations.

I thank Chairman Leahy for taking this important first step toward ensuring that the Federal courts in California have all the judges they need.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Kennedy, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Clinton, Durbin, Boxer and Lautenberg in introducing the Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007, which would regulate a single type of firearm, 50 BMG caliber sniper rifles.

Mr. President, 50 BMG caliber sniper rifles are among the most dangerous firearms in the world. These sniper rifles are capable of bringing down airplanes and helicopters that are taking off or landing, and they can pierce light armored personnel vehicles. They have extraordinary range, up to a mile with accuracy, with a maximum distance of up to 4 miles. Under President Clinton, the State Department suspended all export of these weapons for civilian use in foreign countries. The Bush administration initially changed this rule to allow such sales, but after 9/11 it decided to reinstate this ban.

Yet here in the United States, our laws continue to classify these weapons as ``long guns'', subject to the least government regulation of any firearms. Current Federal law makes no distinction between a .22 caliber target rifle, a .30-06 caliber hunting weapon, and this large- caliber .50 BMG combat weapon. In some States, youngsters who are 14 years old can get .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles, with no limitation on second-

hand sales. In fact, anyone who can own a rifle can buy a .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle. No permits. No licenses. No wait.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today, just as I have introduced similar legislation in the last 3 sessions of Congress. The bill would:

Add these uniquely powerful sniper rifles to the list of firearms classified as ``destructive devices'', which would mean they must be registered when purchased or sold;

require the same registration for any ``copycat'' sniper rifles that might be developed in the future with destructive power that is equivalent to the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle; and

allow people who already possess .50 BMG caliber sniper weapons up to 7 years to register their existing firearms, by implementing a registration process similar to what was used when ``street sweeper'' and other firearms were reclassified as ``destructive devices'' in 1994.

This bill would not ban any firearms, including .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles. Instead, it would change the law by treating .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles in the same way we now treat ``street sweeper'' shotguns, silencers, and any rifle with a dimension larger than .50 caliber. It would regulate these weapons, making it harder for terrorists and others to buy these combat weapons for illegitimate use.

This is not your classic hunting rifle. These weapons weigh up to 28 pounds, and have a price tag of between $2,200 and $6,750. And they fire the most powerful commonly available cartridges, the massive BMG, Browning Machine Gun, bullet, which has a diameter of \1/2\ inch and a length of 3-6 inches.

These rounds are almost as big as my hand. The Congressional Research Service says that a .50 BMG caliber cartridge weighs four and a half times more, and has five times more propellant, than the cartridges used in similar midsize rifles, like the .308 Winchester.

This is a weapon designed to kill people efficiently, and destroy machinery, at a great distance. And the distances are frankly astonishing. In fact, this weapon was able to kill a person from a greater distance than any other sniper rifle with a world-record confirmed distance of 2,430 meters, a mile and a half away.

These weapons are ``accurate'' up to 2,000 yards, a distance that means it will strike a standard target within this range more than a mile away. To illustrate what this means, a shooter standing on Alcatraz Island off of San Francisco could sight and kill a person at Pier 39.

And the gun has a maximum range of up to 7,500 yards, meaning that while accuracy cannot be guaranteed, the round can strike a target at this distance. Imagine 75 football fields lined up end to end, a distance of over 4 miles. This means a shooter at the Sausalito marina could send bullets crashing into the San Francisco marina.

In short, these are military combat-style weapons. The .50 BMG cartridge has been used by our forces in machine guns since World War I, and our military has utilized .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles in the gulf war, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They can shoot through almost anything, a bunker, bulletproof glass, a 3\1/2\ inch thick manhole cover, a 600-pound safe.

But as the GAO noted in 1999, many of these guns also wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, international and domestic drug traffickers, and violent criminals.

In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They were also charged with plotting to assassinate a Governor, and other high-ranking political and judicial officers. A .50-caliber sniper rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that included three illegal machine guns.

One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns.

At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming.

Since the GAO report, it was also revealed in a federal trial in Manhattan that al-Qaida received .50-caliber sniper rifles, rifles manufactured right here in the United States. Essam al Ridi, an al- Qaida associate, testified that he acquired 25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to al-Qaida members in Afghanistan.

What sort of damage could these weapons do in the wrong hands? The U.S. Air Force conducted a study, and determined that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase would be as vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' against a sniper with a .50-caliber weapon, because the weapons can shoot from beyond most airbase perimeters.

The RAND Corporation confirmed this, releasing a report which identified 11 potential terrorist scenarios at Los Angeles International Airport. In one scenario, ``a sniper, using a .50 caliber rifle, fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.'' The report concludes: ``we were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions'' for such an attack.

One need not even search for reports, the weapon's manufacturers admit it. One Barrett .50 caliber brochure says:

[A] round of ammunition purchased for less than ten U.S.

dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet

aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the

transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the

weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar

aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.

And it is not just aircraft. A terrorist using this rifle could punch holes in pressurized chemical tanks, igniting combustible materials or leaking hazardous gases. Or penetrate armored vehicles used by law enforcement, or protective limousines, like those used here in Washington.

No wonder a broad coalition of law enforcement officers and groups, detailing the threat that these weapons pose to our first responders, said:

The fact that these weapons have a range of more than four

miles and can take down commercial airliners is reason enough

to keep these weapons off our streets. It is of special

concern to the law enforcement community that these weapons

of war are capable of penetrating our special operations

vehicles, tactical equipment and helicopters.

This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover Government Accountability Office investigators:

You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time

before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so

far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will

definitely ban .50-calibers. This gun is just too powerful.

In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns.

Special ammunition for these guns is also readily available in stores and on the Internet. This is perfectly legal. Moreover, ``armor- piercing incendiary'' ammunition, which explodes on impact, can be purchased online, as demonstrated in a ``60 Minutes'' news report. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor-piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator, even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to shoot down a helicopter.

The bottom line is that the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle is a national security threat requiring action by Congress. It makes no sense for us to spend billions of dollars on homeland security while we allow terrorists and criminals to get weapons that can serve as tools for terrorism.

The legislation that I am introducing has been carefully tailored, and refines my earlier bills. In fact, it is narrower than my earlier bills, in that it regulates only .50 ``BMG'' caliber sniper rifles, not all .50 caliber rifles.

There is no doubt that the .50 BMG caliber is the most powerful commonly available cartridge not considered a destructive device under the National Firearms Act. It is in a class by itself. And that's why this bill puts .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles into the class of firearms called destructive devices. Because that is where they belong.

Congress would not be alone in treating the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle as the unique weapon of destruction that it is. My home State of California has regulated .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles since 2004, in a law signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill I introduce would adopt a similar registration system nationwide.

In fact, Congress itself has previously recognized the unique destructive properties of this weapon. Ever since 2000, our DOD Appropriations bills have contained a special restriction on the Department of Defense's ability to sell surplus armor-piercing ammunition for .50 caliber weapons to civilians through its demilitarization program.

This is a weapon that should not be openly available to terrorists and criminals, but should be responsibly controlled through carefully crafted regulation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled Giving Reductions to Energy Efficient New Buildings, the GREEN Buildings Act. This bill will extend the energy efficient building tax deduction from December 31, 2008 until December 31, 2013. This bill will also increase the tax deduction from $1.80 to $2.25 per square foot.

Our Nation is diligently searching to find the long-term solutions to global warming and, how to reduce our carbon foot print. As Congress continues to search for these solutions, we must continue to provide incentives to those who have the knowledge and resources to make an impact now. Congress understands the impact `green buildings' have on reducing our Nation's energy consumption and carbon emissions. That is why in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 we created a tax deduction for energy efficient buildings. Unfortunately, that deduction will expire on December 31, 2008. Congress must not allow this deduction to expire. Building energy efficient buildings is one of the key things being done right now to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well as reduce our Nation's energy consumption.

Commercial buildings are a substantial part of our Nation's energy consumption and can be a key to reducing demand for electricity. These buildings are responsible for 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, they use 70 percent of the nation's electricity and they are accountable for 40 percent of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. They are a major piece to enabling our Nation's energy independence and to solving the global warming puzzle and Congress must not overlook them or leave them out.

The average life-span of a commercial building is 75 years. We must use our resources, to build energy-efficient buildings today and make these buildings truly ready for the future. One way to do so is to provide incentives to those who are willing to step up to the plate and accept the challenge.

Another benefit from building energy efficient or green buildings is that they also improve our health. Americans spend about 90 percent of their time indoors. The concentration of indoor pollutants is sometimes 10 to 100 times more than outdoor pollutants increasing the frequency of illnesses and ailments.

Researchers have proven that employees who are exposed to more sunlight are more productive workers. They have proven that by changing the carpets on the floor and paint on the walls workers have less respiratory ailments. These are simple things that can be done to increase employees' health and their productivity and our nation's overall success.

Our Nation is doing a good job of researching and developing new technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign energy and to combat global warming, and Congress has helped move these technologies along by providing incentives in the way of tax deductions. Unfortunately, many of these incentives have an expiration date that expires too soon to provide the help it is intended to provide. Congress needs to keep these incentives intact and provide stability so companies and investors can be assured of their investment. In turn, maintaining these incentives will advance our Nation's energy independence and reduce our carbon dioxide emissions--two very important goals. I urge my fellow Senators to support this sensible and much needed tax incentive. We don't have another 75 years to wait.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the First Response Broadcasters Act, legislation I am introducing today along with Senators Stevens, Carper and Pryor.

As my State suffered the devastating impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the levee breaks that followed, we learned that one of the most vital relief supplies is information. In providing it, all of our local media--newspapers, broadcasters and web sites included--did amazing work to keep the people of my State informed, even when displaced thousands of miles away. But with phone lines down and streets too flooded to move around, the sound of a local radio or television station was for many of my constituents the only voice in those first few dark nights after the hurricanes. Our local broadcasters provided life-saving information and comfort when both were needed the most. Many of them worked through unimaginable technical and emotional obstacles, staying on the air as their facilities and staff homes were destroyed, and loved ones remained missing.

With the entire industry dependent on public airwaves, broadcasters have a duty to serve the public in times of crisis. As local radio and television stations stand up, as so many did, to put commercial interests aside to serve the public interest, the federal government

should be ready to stand with them. This is not a new partnership.

Under laws going back to 1951, radio and television stations are today required to participate in the national Emergency Alert System (EAS), and many stations have protected, government-funded circuits connecting them to emergency command centers. This legislation would directly connect more stations nationwide to this network by authorizing $6.5 million to FEMA to set up Primary Entry Point radio stations in another twenty five states and U.S. territories. Currently there are thirty-two stations and two under development in Alabama and Mississippi.

A Primary Entry Point (PEP) station is a radio broadcast station designated to provide public information following national and local emergencies where there is no commercial power. For example, WWL Radio in New Orleans was the only PEP station in the Gulf Coast after Katrina and it provided radio broadcasts for two weeks after the storm until commercial power was restored. FEMA commissioned recommendations from the Primary Entry Point Advisory Committee, a non-profit group they set up to oversee the stations, and just needs the additional funds to build the additional facilities. Included in the findings of the legislation is a comprehensive list of the states that are currently without PEP stations and which would benefit from this provision. There are also States which have PEP stations, but because of geographic limitations, require an additional station to fully cover the State. This bill would provide those two additional stations in Kansas and Florida.

But what good is this successful emergency information chain if the last link fails? By technical necessity, this last link is right in the disaster's path. Simply put, the transmitter needs to be in the same area as the people in need of warning. Despite our Federal investments in the emergency system and entry point stations, there were several Gulf Coast broadcasters after the hurricanes that could not stay on the air simply because the government took their fuel away. They were told they weren't on the list.''

This legislation puts these broadcasters on the list, where they belong. To protect vital broadcast infrastructure and encourage more broadcasters to deploy disaster-resistant telecommunications equipment, this bill would also create a 3-year pilot program managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide annual matching grants to qualified First Response Broadcasters for the protection and reinforcement of critical-to-air facilities and infrastructure. The program would receive $10 million per year to fund matching program grants, and grants could also be used for projects to enhance essential disaster-related public information services.

As the program encourages both disaster preparedness and community coordination, increased scoring would be granted to applications from broadcasters who form cooperative proposals with other broadcasters in the area or those who submit plans in conjunction with local or State governments. Priority scoring would also be given to applicants in disaster-prone areas and also based on the public service merits of the broadcasters disaster programming plan.

No disaster warning, evacuation plan or emergency instruction matters if it can't get to the people who need it. This is why the Federal Communications Commission and a presidential advisory panel have each recommended we take steps to keep these lifesaving broadcasts on the air.

In particular, this bill would require that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other Federal response agencies, in coordination with State and local authorities and the National Guard, honor press access guidelines and credentials set by the local governing authority in the declared disaster area. For example, if the City of New Orleans issued press credentials before the disaster and the city decided to continue honoring them post-disaster, FEMA officials operating in the area would be required to honor those credentials as well. The local entity, at its own discretion, would be able to request that this credentialing authority be passed instead to federal or state officials.

Along these same lines, the bill would also direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate with local and State agencies to allow access, where practicable and not impeding recovery or endangering public safety, into the disaster area for personnel and equipment essential to restoring or maintaining critical-to-air broadcast infrastructure. The priority policies and procedures for this coordination would be similar to those practiced for restoring public utilities, and would include access for refueling generators and re- supplying critical facilities.

For all journalists working to tell the story-newspapers and web sites included-the First Response Broadcasters Act makes sure that the local officials, who know local reporters best, decide where the journalists can go, not some Washington bureaucrat who just stepped off the plane.

In closing, I would like to submit for the record the stories of a few incredible broadcasters who through recent disasters have demonstrated exactly the type of response this bill is intended to encourage. I would also like to submit for the record a list of organizations which have already endorsed this legislation-including the state broadcasting associations from every one of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Broadcasters have a duty to the American people to spread the word in times of crisis. No one else can do it. They are already a key part of our national emergency response plan, and have been for more than 50 years. This bill merely reinforces this fact and secures the logical extension of commitments already made by Federal government. We have a responsibility to make sure the tools are protected to make the system work.

Broadcasters are first responders--and with this bill today, we will strengthen our essential partnership with them for the benefit of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the broadcaster stories, and a list of the organizations already supporting this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to the monumental and consequential matter regarding the future course of the United States and our courageous men and women in uniform in Iraq.

Today, we are at a profoundly challenging moment in time, and at a critical crossroads with respect to our direction in this war. That sense of urgency was compounded by my recent trip to Iraq this past weekend where I had the privilege of meeting with some of America's bravest and finest serving in Baghdad, including Mainers. I came away believing more firmly than ever that the Iraq Government must understand that our commitment is not infinite, and that Americans are losing patience with the failure of the leadership to end the sectarian violence and move toward national reconciliation.

My visit further underscored the fact that there is not a military solution to the problem, and in the final analysis, the situation requires demonstrable action by the Iraq Government on true political reform and reconciliation. My firsthand experience reinforced that political will and diplomatic initiatives must form the core of our success, and that our goal must be to bring about reconciliation as soon as possible so that all of America's soldiers including those from Maine can return home to their families and loved ones.

None of us arrive at this question lightly. In my 28-year tenure in Congress, I have witnessed and participated in debates on such vital matters as Lebanon, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And indisputably, myriad, deeply-held beliefs and arguments were expressed on those pivotal matters, some in concert, some complementary, some in conflict. Yet, without question, all were rooted in mutual concern for, and love of, our great Nation. And there was, and should not be today, no question about our support for our brave and extraordinary troops.

It is therefore with the utmost respect for our troops that Senator Evan Bayh and I today introduce a bill which allows them the ability to complete the mission they have selflessly undertaken, while assuring them that their valor shall not be unconditionally expended upon an Iraqi Government which fails to respond in kind.

Before proceeding any further, let me pause to express my deep appreciation and immense gratitude to Senator Bayh for his tremendous leadership and indispensable contribution in forging this welcomed, bipartisan measure. If there ever were a time for us to fashion a way forward, together, it is surely now, and because of Senator Bayh and his tireless efforts we have a measure that represents a significant step in the right direction. I thank him and his staff for bringing this fresh approach to fruition today.

The Snowe-Bayh Iraq bill requires that government to actually achieve previously agreed political and security benchmarks while the Baghdad Security Plan, commonly referred to as the ``surge,'' is in effect, or face the redeployment of those U.S. troops dedicated to that plan.

Specifically, this legislation would require that, 120 days after enactment, a point in time at which our military commanders have stated that they should know whether the surge will succeed, the commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq would report to Congress as to whether the Iraqi Government has met each of six political and security-related benchmarks which it has already agreed to meet by that time. These six benchmarks are: Iraqi assumption of control of its military; enactment and implementation of a militia law to disarm and demobilize militias and to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq; completion of the constitutional review and a referendum held on special amendments to the Iraqi Constitution that ensure equitable participation in the Government of Iraq without regard to religious sect or ethnicity; completion of a provincial election law and commencement and specific preparation for the conduct of provincial elections that ensures equitable constitution of provincial representative bodies without regard to religious sect or ethnicity; enactment and implementation of legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; and enactment and implementation of legislation that equitably reforms the de-Ba'athification process in Iraq.

The Iraqi Government must know that any opportunity gained from our increased troop levels in Baghdad is a window that we will soon close if it fails to take urgent action and show tangible results in tandem. If, at the end of 120 days, the commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq reports the Iraqi Government has not met the benchmarks, then the commander should plan for the phased redeployment of the troops we provided for the Baghdad Security Plan, period.

That is why, under the Snowe-Bayh measure, after 120 days, should the commander report that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet any of the benchmarks listed, he will then be required to present a plan for the phased redeployment of those combat troops sent to Iraq in support of the Baghdad Security Plan and to provide plans detailing the transition of the mission of the U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to one of logistical support, training, force protection, and targeted counterterrorism operations, for examples, those functions set forth in the

Iraq Study Group Report, with the objective of successfully accomplishing this change in mission within 6 months of the date of his testimony before Congress. The commander must further indicate the number of troops needed to successfully complete the changed mission and the estimated duration of that mission. As General Petraeus stated in March.

I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform

out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell

them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a

change.

My colleagues may recall that I opposed the surge because I did not, and still do not, believe that additional troops are a substitute for political will and capacity. General Petraeus said last month that a political resolution is crucial because that is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. I could not agree more. The fact is, America and the world require more than Iraq's commitment to accomplishing the benchmarks that will lead to a true national reconciliation, we must see actual results. The Iraqi Government must find the will to ensure that it represents and protects the rights of every Iraqi.

After our 4-year commitment, Iraq's Government should not doubt that we must observe more than incremental steps toward political reconciliation, we require demonstrable changes. While limited progress has been mad on necessary legislative initiatives such as the Hydrocarbon Law, it is in fact a sheaf of laws and not just a single measure that must pass to ensure that all Iraqis have a share and stake in their government. Chief among these are constitutional amendments which will permit Iraqis of all ethnicities and confessions to be represented at the local level of government. Yet, so far, the review committee has yet to even finish drafts of these critical amendments.

I believe we were all encouraged by the recent ambassadorial meetings in Baghdad and last week's ministerial conference called at the Iraqi Government's request. These diplomatic talks are vital to securing Iraq's border, reversing the flow of refugees, and stemming the foreign interference which exacerbates sectarian divisions. But we also look for the Iraqi Government's leadership in dismantling the militias and strengthening the National Army so that it is truly a national institution that can provide the security so desperately desired by all Iraqis in every province.

We are now 3\1/2\ months into the surge, and our troops have made gains in reducing the still horrific levels of violence on Baghdad through their heroic efforts. Yet it is deeply concerning to me that, mirroring the slowness with which the Iraqi Government has moved on political reforms, their sacrifice remains by and largely unmatched by their Iraqi counterparts.

Last month, Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, wrote the following in a New York Times Op-ED, ``. . . every military commander we talked to felt that the absence of national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq. As one American general told us, `if the Iraqi Government does not make political progress on reforms, all the troops in the world will not provide security.' He went on to enumerate the progress or, more to the point, the lack of progress toward the agreed upon benchmarks and concluded that `unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.' ''

In fact, over the past few months, many have come to the realization that political action by the Iraqi Government is a paramount precursor to national reconciliation and stability and, without it, the Baghdad Security Plan is only a temporary, tactical fix for one specific location. And while we are hearing about incremental successes, I agree with Thomas Friedman who said recently in an interview, ``there's only one metric for the surge working, and that is whether we're seeing a negotiation among Iraqis to share power, to stabilize the political situation in Iraq, which only they can do . . . telling me that the violence is down 10 percent or 8 percent here or 12 percent there, I don't really think that's the metric at all.''

To this day, the public looks to the United States Senate to temper the passions of politics and to bridge divides. And if ever there were a moment when Americans are imploring us to live up to the moniker of ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' that moment is upon us.

If I had a son or daughter or other family member serving in Iraq, I would want at least the assurance that someone was speaking up to tell the Iraqi Government, and frankly our government as well, that at my family's sacrifice must be matched by action and sacrifice on the part of the Iraqi Government. I would want to know that the most profound of all issues was fully debated by those who are elected to provide leadership. For those of us who seek success in Iraq, and believe that a strategy predicated on political and diplomatic solutions, not merely increased troop levels, presents the strongest opportunity to reach that goal, let us coalesce around this bill, which will allow us to speak as one voice, strong, together, and united in service to a purpose we believe to be right.