Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Extension Study Act of 2007

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss the All Students Can Achieve Act that I am introducing today with Senators Lieberman and Coleman.

I was proud to have been a part of developing the No Child Left Behind legislation 5 years ago, which made strides in holding schools accountable and drawing attention to the students who had fallen between the cracks. Senators Lieberman, Coleman, and I have come together to build upon the successes of No Child Left Behind, to improve it, and to help our Nation's schools take the next step to help all of our students to achieve and to succeed. Louisiana has made great progress in its standards and accountability, now ranking number one in the Nation. However, of the more than 650,000 students in Louisiana, many are not meeting academic achievement goals. We need to help all of our students meet and exceed achievement expectations.

The All Students Can Achieve Act focuses on the achievements of all students. Recognizing that quality data systems are crucial to measuring the progress of student achievement, we have included a requirement to establish data systems and provided funding authorizations and incentives to support the development of such systems. In order to ensure that all students are achieving, states must create comprehensive data systems that track students' academic progress and other factors that affect their success.

One of the most important factors in school and student achievement is teachers. The quality of teachers should be determined by their effect on students' learning, not just their qualifications. All students should have effective teachers. Thus, these data systems must link student achievement data to teachers, allowing states to

measure teacher effectiveness. In addition, this bill requires the equitable distribution of effective teachers and non-federal funding.

States should be held accountable for student achievement. However, students do not progress at the same pace. Louisiana has recognized this and has incorporated growth labels in its accountability system. Louisiana looks at the level of growth achieved by a school and each school's success in meeting its growth targets. The All Students Can Achieve Act allows states to use growth models in calculating adequate yearly progress. It allows states the flexibility to measure student academic growth, rather than strictly looking at test scores.

We must have high expectations for all students. To ensure that all elementary though secondary school students, regardless of where they live, are prepared for success in college or the workplace, states must set high expectations for all students. Academic standards must be designed to prepare students to succeed and assessments must be effective tools to measure students' progress toward meeting these standards. In addition, we need to continue to properly measure the achievement of all students. Thus, this bill will close current loopholes in the law that allow states to avoid counting students or skew achievement data.

The All Students Can Achieve Act aims to close the achievement gap. States need to focus resources on closing the achievement gap. This includes directing their attention to comprehensive interventions where more than 50% of students are not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) or focused interventions where less than 50% of students are not making AYP. The All Students Can Achieve Act increases the amount of funding authorized for these interventions and focuses support where the need is greatest.

Another important measure of academic achievement is high school graduation rates, which should be tracked and reported for all groups of students. High school graduation rates are an important measure of academic achievement, but they must be calculated consistently and accurately. Like other assessments, these rates should be tracked and reported for all groups of students. Nearly 1.2 million students did not graduate from American high schools in 2006; the lost lifetime earnings in America for that class of dropouts alone totals more than $309 billion.

The All Students Can Achieve Act also increases focus on and support for high need students. For example, we have also included foster children and youth. There are over 800,000 foster children and youth. They face many of the same challenges as homeless children and youth. They go through numerous changes in where they live and go to school. They lack stability and permanency. Thus, we have added them to the McKinney-Vento Act, in order to ensure that they do not fall through the cracks. We hope that by giving them access to the services and protections of McKinney-Vento, their schools will become a safe and permanent place in their lives.

Public education is important to Senators Lieberman, Coleman, and me. We want our Nation's children to be prepared to compete and succeed once they graduate. We need to improve our schools and hold them accountable for the achievement of all students. Though there has been much discussion about No Child Left Behind Act, there has been little action toward the reauthorization of this law. We have heard from our constituents about the parts of NCLB that work and the parts that do not work for our students at home. Through a nationwide public process, the Aspen Institute has generated concrete, actionable recommendations that will improve schools for the Nation's children. We wanted to take this opportunity to help begin the process of improving this law. We have come together to take a bipartisan approach to improving the education of all students. We have pulled together the proposals that we think will best serve our students and improve public education in America. We want people to actively discuss our proposal. We hope that people will support what we have done or build upon it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Home Ownership Made Easier Act, or the HOME Act. This bill will revitalize our Nation's rural communities by making it easier to become a homeowner and to provide opportunities to refinance high interest and subprime loans.

Our country has provided many excellent opportunities over the years to individuals living in rural areas to become a homeowner. One of these programs is what is commonly referred to as the 502 program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This program administers guaranteed loans to low-income families that are backed by the U.S. Government. Families must be able to show that they are without adequate housing and not exceed certain income limits. Currently, these loans last 30 years and do not require a down payment, however the applicant must be able to afford mortgage payments, including taxes, and insurance.

I applaud the success of the 502 program. In Louisiana alone, the program has already administered 1,212 loans for 2007 and nationwide, the program has administered 27,643 loans. While the program does cost the taxpayer approximately $42 million a year, it administers over $3 billion in loans a year. Let me repeat that again, for $42 million a year, our Government is able to provide $3 billion in loans a year to low-income families to become homeowners. The risk extremely low. In 2006, the 502 program has a foreclosure rate of 1.36 percent. Again, I applaud the success of our Government to provide this much-needed help to rural Americans.

Some might ask why should the Federal Government help low-income families become homeowners? The answer is simple. Homeownership provides financial advantages to owners and to their communities. Individuals who own homes have an investment, of those that own homes, on average, one-half of the equity in their homes is one-half of their net worth. Homeowners enjoy tax benefits and they also enjoy financial stability if they are locked into a permanent interest rate. Communities also benefit, those that have a high percentage of homeownership see increased involvement with the community and with the local schools.

Also, maybe most importantly, homeownership by low-income households is linked to a child's educational advancement and future success.

My HOME Act will build upon the success of the 502 program and update the program to reflect current conditions. In some instances, this law hasn't been updated in nearly 30 years.

The HOME Act will do five things. First, it will increase the qualifying income limits for families and set out a three-tiered level of income standard instead of the current eight tiered standard. The first tier will be for families that have one to four individuals, the second tier is established for families of 5 to 8 persons and the third tier is for families larger than eight.

The second change will affect the qualifying population limit. Currently, the population limit is tied to communities of 10,000 or less in an areas contained within a standard metropolitan statistical area, MSA, and communities less than 20,000 if they are not contained within a MSA. My HOME Act will expand the qualifying population limit to encompass rural communities of 40,000 or less.

HOME Act legislation will maintain the guaranteed fee that an applicant is required to pay at 2 percent, instead of raising the fee to 3 percent. This is to keep costs low for the borrower. It will also reduce the redtape involved by allowing an applicant that qualifies for a 502 loan to receive that loan regardless of whether or not the applicant can qualify for another Federal Government housing loan.

Finally, my bill will provide opportunities for individuals inside and outside the 502 program to refinance their loans. These opportunities include refinancing to pay for a first or second purchase mortgage, for repairs to structural deficiencies, to pay for closing costs, and allow a borrower to consolidate debts up to the greater of $10,000 or 10 percent.

The 502 program is an excellent program that has helped many individuals and families afford to purchase a clean, affordable home that increases their quality of life. I want to expand this program and allow more opportunities for low-income rural Americans to become homeowners. This is a good bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make this bill a reality.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect.

In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country.

The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories.

Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.

A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''

The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations.

Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong.

It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill.

This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras.

Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who

put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free generation.

In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/ AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the world.

Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth.

Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.

Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS medications.

The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV infection in

women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub- Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV- positive births.

For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and families.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR should be children.

The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up and continuity of care.

Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for scale- up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, and is made public.

To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.

Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on those receiving services without specifying how much money any given country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.

The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV- infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.

As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act of 2007 to provide information to the public about the health consequences of secondhand smoke and support tobacco cessation education.

I want to thank Senators Sanders and Murray for cosponsoring the Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act and recognize them as strong advocates for smoking cessation efforts.

I believe that tobacco use constitutes one of the greatest threats to public health, a conclusion that was also expressed in the 2000 Supreme Court ruling, and I also believe that we have a duty to safeguard our Nation's health against tobacco products.

Every year, an estimated 400,000 smokers die as a result of smoking- related diseases. But nonsmokers also suffer and die from exposure to tobacco smoke.

Last year, the Surgeon General issued the report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, which found that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. The Surgeon General reported that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke, which contains more than 50 carcinogens.

Living with a smoker increases a non-smoker's risk of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent and, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in the U.S. each year. Secondhand smoke also causes 46,000 cardiac deaths annually in our country.

Studies have shown that exposure to secondhand smoke has both immediate and long-term adverse health consequences on the adult cardiovascular system. Exposure to secondhand smoke for 30 minutes can damage coronary arteries, while sustained exposure can increase the risk of coronary heart disease by 20 to 30 percent.

Although more than 20 States have passed smoke-free laws, including laws that ban smoking in restaurants and bars, Americans of all age groups are involuntarily exposed to tobacco smoke through exposure in workplaces, homes, cars, apartments, and even outdoor public spaces. According to the National Cancer Institute, racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. have higher rates of occupational exposure to secondhand smoke, with Latinos and Native Americans having the highest rates.

Therefore, it is critical that individuals, especially youth, should not be exposed to secondhand smoke. Further, parents should have access to information about the adverse health consequences so that they can better protect their children and themselves from secondhand smoke.

Education about the dangers of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke is absolutely critical for combating the misleading messages that the tobacco industry propagates through savvy advertising campaigns.

There is strong evidence that tobacco advertisements cynically target advertising to adult and adolescent women. According to an analysis published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1994 and a 2001 report by the Surgeon General, the tobacco industry has targeted women with some form of this dangerous promotional strategy for almost a century, beginning in the 1920s. The latest example of this is chronicled in a recent New York Times editorial, entitled ``Don't Fall for Hot Pink Camels'', which discusses R.J. Reynolds's $25 million to $50 million investment in an advertising campaign behind the new female-friendly Camel No. 9.

In addition to targeting women, tobacco advertisements are also designed to appeal to our youth. In the August 2006 racketeering suit brought by the Justice Department against the tobacco industry, Judge Kessler's Final Opinion concluded that: ``. . . Defendants continue to engage in many practices which target youth, and deny that they do so. Despite the provisions of the MSA, Defendants continue to track youth behavior and preferences and market to youth using imagery which appeals to the needs and desires of adolescents.'' This is an unconscionable, but effective, practice. A study published this year in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine concluded that youth are more likely to start smoking if exposed to retail cigarette advertising and that cigarette promotions also increase the probability of youth becoming regular smokers.

Finally, racial and ethnic minority communities are disproportionately targeted with advertising campaigns for tobacco products, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The tobacco industry has contributed to primary and secondary schools, funded universities and colleges, and supported scholarship programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities. Tobacco companies have also placed advertising in community publications and sponsored cultural events in racial and ethnic minority communities.

Despite the public's growing understanding of the health dangers posed by tobacco, too many still succumb to the lure of these deadly products. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 20 percent of adults currently smoke cigarettes in the U.S. Among racial and ethnic communities, approximately 16 percent of Hispanic adults, 13 percent of Asian American adults, 22 percent of Caucasians adults, 22 percent of African American adults, and 32 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives currently smoke cigarettes.

As for our Nation's youth, a 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that nearly 3 million Americans under the age of 18 currently smoke cigarettes. According to the CDC, unless current rates of youth smoking are reversed, more than 6.3 million children under the age of 18 will die from smoking-related diseases.

That is why health care professionals should have the opportunity to receive training in the delivery of evidence-based tobacco dependence and prevention treatment in order to assist smokers in overcoming their addiction and educating all patients about the harm of secondhand smoke.

That is why I, along with Senators Sanders and Murray, am introducing the Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act. I am grateful to have developed this proposal with the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

This bill, through education and outreach, will help reverse the public's underestimation of the harm that secondhand smoke can wreck on one's health and will promote smoking cessation efforts across our nation.

This new legislation would establish grants and demonstration projects, awarded by the Secretary of HHS in consultation with the SAMHSA administrator, for educating the public about the health consequences of secondhand smoke in multi-unit dwellings and in public spaces, such as public parks, playgrounds, and national parks. Special consideration would be given to awarding grants to organizations whose participation includes secondary school or college-age individuals, and to organizations that reach racial or ethnic populations that experience a disproportionate share of the cancer burden.

The Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act would also authorize and fund grants for regional or local tobacco cessation education and counseling for health care workers and providers. The training curricula would assist smokers in quitting through smoking cessation counseling, educate smokers and nonsmokers about the

health consequences of secondhand smoke, and help promote self- sustaining networks for the delivery of affordable, accessible, and effective cessation services.

The U.S. spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation and yet we struggle to provide adequate health care for all our citizens. We literally cannot afford the myriad of health problems that we know result from tobacco use: bladder, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, and throat cancers, chronic lung diseases, coronary heart and cardiovascular diseases, as well as reproductive effects and sudden infant death syndrome.

The Secondhand Smoke Education and Outreach Act is an important step in ensuring that our nation's communities have the knowledge they need to keep themselves and their environments healthy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation during the upcoming reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services.

I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement security of millions of Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose between.

The number of people participating in defined contribution plans grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that they know what their fee levels were.

This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.

So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than $12,000 less.

AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have $132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year period.

If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act is designed to fix.

My bill would provide participants with easily understandable information about the fees that they are paying. This information will be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.

In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about business arrangements between service providers to steer participants into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict of interest.

To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose all fees and relationships between service providers to the people selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns and fair fees.

One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.

The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).

Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their

options are good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.

This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.