Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2007

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 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.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2007. Congressman Pascrell is introducing the companion measure in the House. Since 1975, the EITC has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program.

It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. It should not have taken Hurricane Katrina to show what Census data has proven--- some Americans are not benefiting from our economic recovery. The poverty rate for 2005 was 12.6 percent, basically the same as the rate for 2004. In 2005, there were 37 million men, women and children living in poverty. One-quarter of all jobs in the United States do not pay enough to support a family of four above the poverty level.

Hurricane Katrina affected many individuals who were already faced with difficult economic situations. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are the first, second, and eighth poorest States in the Nation respectively. The income of the typical household in these three States is well below the national average. In the hardest hit counties, 18.6 percent of the population is poor, compared with a national average of 12.5 percent.

Time after time, the Republican controlled Congress passed tax cuts which are skewed towards those with the most. In 2003, some of the 2001 cuts were phased-in at a faster rate and this did not include adjustments to the EITC. The Urban Institute, Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center, reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year, the richest three-tenths of the population, receive an average tax cut of $118,000. These individuals do not have to worry about how they will have to pay for a roof over their heads or enough food for their families. We should not be focused on extending tax cuts which help those who do not have to worry about living pay check to pay check.

We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last 6 years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The EITC is the perfect place to start.

The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2007 strengthens the EITC by making the following four changes: reducing the marriage penalty; increasing the credit for families with three or more children; expanding credit amount for individuals with no children; and permanently extending the provision which allows members of the armed forces to include combat pay as income for EITC computations. By making these changes, more individuals and families would benefit from the

Mr. President, it is my great hope that Congress will move this year to see that the successful, bipartisan State Children's Health Insurance Program is allowed the opportunity to fulfill its promise to the low-income children of this country. For 10 years it has provided, along with Medicaid, the type of meaningful and affordable health insurance coverage that should be ensured to each and every American. Yet there is much work to be done, and the reauthorization of S-CHIP gives us the opportunity to expand these successful programs to as many of the 9 million uninsured children in the country today, starting with the 6 million that are already eligible for public programs but not yet enrolled.

But we must keep in mind that while expanding coverage to the uninsured is our top priority, it is equally important to ensure that the types of benefits offered to our Nation's children are quality services that are there for them when they need them. When it comes to mental health coverage, that unfortunately is not the case today. Therefore, I am introducing today, along with Senators Smith, Kennedy, and Domenici, the Children's Mental Health Parity Act which provides for equal coverage of mental health care for all children enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, SCHIP.

Mental illness is a critical problem for the young people in this country today. The numbers are startling: Mental disorders affect about one in five American children and up to 9 percent of kids experience serious emotional disturbances that severely impact their functioning. And low-income children, those the S-CHIP program is designed to cover, have the highest rates of mental health problems.

Yet the sad reality is that an estimated two-thirds of all young people struggling with mental health disorders do not receive the care they need. We are failing our children when it comes to the treatment of mental health disorders and the consequences could not be more severe. Without early and effective intervention, affected children are less likely to do well in school and more likely to have compromised employment and earnings opportunities. Moreover, untreated mental illness may also increase a child's risk of coming into contact with the juvenile justice system, and children with mental disorders are at a much higher risk for suicide.

Unfortunately, many States' S-CHIP programs are not providing the type of mental health care coverage that our most vulnerable children deserve. Many States impose discriminatory limits on mental health care coverage that do not apply to medical and surgical care. These can include caps on coverage of inpatient days and outpatient visits, as well as cost and testing restrictions that impair the ability of our physicians to make the best judgments for our kids.

The Children's Mental Health Parity Act would prohibit discriminatory limits on mental health care in SCHIP plans by directing that any financial requirements or treatment limitations that apply to mental health or substance abuse services must be no more restrictive than the financial requirements or treatment limits that apply to other medical services. Your bill would also eliminate a harmful provision in current law that authorizes States to lower the amount of mental health coverage they provide to children in SCHIP down to 75 percent of the coverage provided in the benchmark plans listed in the statute as models for States to use in developing their SCHIP plans.

The mental health community is gathered in Washington today to mark National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day and many of the leading advocacy groups have endorsed the Children's Mental Health Parity Act, including Mental Health America, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, The National Association for Children's Behavioral Health, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and the National Council for Community Behavioral Health care.

America's kids who are covered through SCHIP should be guaranteed that the mental health benefits they receive are just as comprehensive as those for medical and surgical care. It is no less important to care for our kids' mental health, and this unfair and unwise disparity should no longer be acceptable. As we debate many important features of the S-CHIP program during reauthorization, I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to see that this important, bipartisan measure receives the support that it deserves.

I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 2007.

The purpose of this bill is to address many of the long-standing benefit and other policy issues that are a priority to the national veteran service organizations and millions of their members all across our country. The legislation tracks many of the recommendations made in the Independent Budget, IB, for fiscal year 2008. The IB, as it is known, is ``the collaborative effort of a united veteran and health advocacy community that presents policy and budget recommendations on programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labor.'' It is a guide for how this country should treat its veterans. It is written jointly by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars and supported by over 50 other prominent organizations. I am very happy to have consulted extensively with the Independent Budget authors to craft this legislation.

For too many years veterans' needs have been sent to the back of the line in Congress behind tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare for multinational corporations. This legislation is one step forward in correcting the shortcomings of the way our current system treats veterans. Instead of turning a blind eye to our veterans' needs as has happened often in recent years, this bill begins to say ``thank you'' with real action.

The Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvements Act makes more than 25 separate changes to veterans' programs ranging from disability payments, to insurance premiums, to grants for disabled veterans to adapt their cars to make them easier to use.

We also try to make progress on long standing injustices in the VA and DoD benefit and retirement systems that veterans and their families have fought to correct for years. Among them are:

Category 8 Veterans: In January of 2003 the VA announced that it would no longer allow Category 8 veterans to enroll into the VA health care system. The Administration justified this move on the grounds that these are ``higher income'' veterans. The truth, however, is that these veterans can make as little as $27,000 a year. VA estimates that more than 1.5 million category 8 veterans will have been denied enrollment in the VA health care system by fiscal year 2008. This legislation repeals that ban.

Concurrent Receipt: As the Military Officers Association of America explains, the Concurrent Receipt or Disabled Veterans' Tax issue exists because of a ``19th century law that required a dollar-for-dollar offset of military retired pay for disability compensation received from the VA . . . Retired pay is earned for a career of uniformed service and VA disability compensation is recompense for pain, suffering and lost future earning power due to service-connected disabilities.'' For that reason veterans should receive both payments and not have one offset the other. This legislation would allow veterans to receive both compensation/pension benefits and retired or retirement pay.

Dependency and Indemnity Compensation-Survivor Benefit Plan Offset: Under current law, the survivors of veterans who die as a result of service-connected causes are entitled to compensation known as dependency and indemnity compensation, DIC. In addition, military retirees can have money deducted from their pay to purchase a survivors annuity. This is called the Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP. However, if the military retirees dies from service-connected causes his or her survivors will receive a SBP payment offset dollar for dollar by the amount of the DIC payment they receive. Like the offset between military retiree pay and VA disability payments, this SBP/DIC offset unfairly denies beneficiaries the full amount of 2 programs that are meant to compensate for different loses. This legislation repeals the offset between dependency and indemnity compensation and the Survivor Benefit Plan.

Veterans' Claims: We also take a new approach to improving the system for rating claims by creating an agency dedicated to electronically sharing clinical information between the VA and the DoD.

For too long these issues have been ignored by the Congress. It is time for that attitude to change.

This legislation also amends other benefit programs important to veterans.

Over time, Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs have added many benefits and assistance programs for our Nation's veterans and their families. As with many programs, the benefits did not meet all the needs of our veterans and others also have not been updated in many years rendering many of their benefits much less useful. For example, the IB notes the low level of grants the VA gives severely disabled veterans for adapting their cars:

In 1946 the $1,600 allowance represented 85 percent of

average retail cost and a sufficient amount to pay the full

cost of automobiles in the `low-price field.' By contrast, in

1997 the allowance was $5,500, and the average retail cost of

new automobiles, according to the National Automobile Dealers

Association, was $21,750. Currently, the $11,000 automobile

allowance represents only about 39 percent of the average

cost of a new automobile, which is $28,105.

This legislation increases this car grant amount to $22,484 and adjusts this amount automatically each year using an average retail car cost index established by the Secretary.

This is not the only example of a veterans' benefit being chipped away by inflation. When we look at assistance family members get for burying a loved one we find that the current benefits have not kept up with inflation. As a result, the current benefit of $300 only pays for a small fraction of the costs of a burial. The legislation I am introducing today increases the plot allowance from $300 to $745 and expands the eligibility for the plot allowance for all veterans who would be eligible for burial in a national cemetery, not just those who served during wartime. This section also contains a provision to adjust these payments annually.

This legislation contains many other similar corrections and updates, bringing benefits into the 21st Century so that these programs are meaningful again.

These are not controversial proposals. These changes are the least we can do to show our appreciation for those who sacrifice for their country.

This legislation is attempting to strengthen the current VA system so that it can fully provide for those veterans already in the system and those thousands more returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and all over the world that will soon come to the VA for care.

This is just the beginning; one part of a larger effort to honor our veterans and their service. We here in Congress have so much more to do to care for our veterans such as improving mental health care for veterans, Traumatic Brain Injury treatment, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder treatment, transition assistance, polytrauma care, caring for homeless veterans, and eliminating the waiting lines and claims backlogs at the VA. As a parent of a fallen soldier told our Committee, these veterans have survived the war, now ``[w]e've got to help them survive the peace.''

We have much work to do in the Veterans Affairs Committee and I look forward to working under the leadership of Chairman Akaka and the other colleagues on our Committee and in the Senate to make sure that meaningful and substantial veterans' legislation is passed this year.

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