Keeping Families Together Act

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Coleman, Pryor, Cantwell, Durbin, Mikulski, Bingaman, Lautenberg and Kerry, in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' This legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children with serious mental illness so that their parents are no longer forced to give up custody solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment.

Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it.

Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or daughter with serious mental health needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children and their families.

My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.

When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment.

Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn.

In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, ``Beat `em up, lock `em up, or give `em up,'' characterizes the choices that some families face in their efforts to get help for their children's mental illness.

In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. This likely is just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.

Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 1999 survey by the National Alliance on Mental Illness found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so.

Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, since it can leave children with mental illness and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families.

In 2003 and 2004, I chaired a series of hearings in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs.

The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate for help for her twin boys, searched for two years until she finally located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in Illinois''--that was able to help.

Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents to get services and treatment for their children.

We also need to question what happens to these children when they are turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I released a report in 2004 with Congressman Henry Waxman that found that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while they wait for scarce mental health services.

Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young people--roughly seven percent of all of the children in the centers surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held without any charges pending against them, and the young people incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they are waiting for mental health services.

The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing treatment.

The legislation authorizes $100 million over six years for competitive grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help states to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families.

In addition, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services, and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment.

The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Mental Health America, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association. I ask unanimous consent that letters from these organizations endorsing the bill be printed in the Record.

The Keeping Families Together Act will help to reduce the barriers to care for children with serious mental illness, and I urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for her hard work on document security issues. She currently serves as the Chair of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, Senator Kyl is Ranking Member, and I am looking forward to working with her on the document security that issues I am sure our subcommittee will address this Congress.

This year will mark the 3rd year Senator Feinstein and I have worked together on legislation aimed at making it easier to prosecute people trying to enter the U.S. with fraudulent documents.

One of the most dangerous document security issues we face is how to keep passports and visas out of the hands of the people we don't want to have them.

As a 2004 U.S. News and World Report article rightly stated, ``When it comes to terrorists' most valuable weapons, passports and visas probably rank higher than bullets and bombs.'' A 2004 study done by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General titled ``A Review of the Use of Stolen Passports From Visa Waiver Countries to Enter the United States,'' found that ``[there are] over 10 million lost or stolen passports that might be in circulation.'' As background for the report, the Forensics Documents Laboratory informed the Office of the Inspector General that ``criminals consider a passport'' from a Visa Waiver Country ``a very valuable commodity.''

To keep out terrorists and others we do not want to allow into the United States, we must be able to identify and effectively prosecute people who lie or give us fraudulent information to obtain a U.S. visa or a passport.

Additionally, we must be able to identify and effectively prosecute people trying to enter the U.S. with a passport or visa that belongs to someone else.

Perhaps most importantly, we must effectively prosecute those possessing multiple passports and visas they intend to distribute to others. We must be able to take these ``career'' document traffickers, those caught with more than 10 fraudulent passports or visas, off the streets.

Under current law, violators are not being prosecuted effectively because there is no statute that specifically makes trafficking in multiple (10 or more) documents its own crime. This bill will add that new crime--punishable by 20 years in jail--to the passport and visa fraud sections of the criminal code.

In addition to creating a new crime to penalize trafficking in 10 or more fraudulent immigration documents, 20 year maximum sentence, Title I of the bill simplifies the language of several of the current passport fraud provisions of the criminal code and changes the maximum penalties for these offenses from 10 years for the first offense and 15 years for subsequent offenses, to simply 15 years for each offense.

The bill also includes a new protection for immigrants. Anyone who engages in a scheme to defraud them in connection with matters under Federal immigration law, or who pretends to be an immigration lawyer, will be charged under a new crime that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years. Although this provision is not strictly related to passport fraud, it will protect immigrants from sham attorneys and legal ``experts'' who cheat them out of their money by pretending to offer them immigration benefits or legitimate documents.

Many of the bill's provisions simply clean up sections of the criminal code. For example--one section modifies the alternative sentencing penalties to make sure the penalties for severe passport fraud offenses (such as those used to facilitate a drug trafficking crime or an act of international terrorism) are consistent throughout the code.

Other provisions codify common law principles needed for effective prosecution of document fraud offenses. For example--one section makes needed clarifications on venue. Currently, false statements or documents are often included in the application which is mailed from one location but processed in another location. This section makes clear that the offense is perpetrated both at the location of the mailing and at the location of the adjudication. If the application containing false statements is prepared overseas, this section clarifies that the offense is still punishable in the United States.

In March of 2004, Mark Zuckerman, Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Hampshire, testified before the United States Sentencing Commission. New Hampshire's National Passport Center processed 2 million of the 7 million passports issued in 2003. The National Passport Center also receives nearly all of the applications for passport renewals filed with the State Department. New Hampshire conducted a passport fraud initiative in its U.S. Attorney's Office as part of its anti-terrorism effort. Zuckerman's testimony provides some insight into the problems that arose during the initiative.

Though the passport applications were processed in New Hampshire, cases of passport fraud resulting from those applications were not being handled in New Hampshire. Typically, they were sent back to the district from which they were mailed. Once returned, they were often declined for prosecution by their local U.S. Attorney's office.

One of the reasons frequently given by the regional U.S. Attorney's Offices for declining passport fraud cases was: ``The sentencing guidelines do not treat passport fraud as a serious offense for which a period of incarceration is likely.''

I would reiterate what Mr. Zuckerman so astutely pointed out in his testimony. Under the current Criminal Code, the most common forms of passport fraud--unless they constitute terrorism or drug trafficking-- are just class C felonies. When the defendant has no criminal history, the court is simply required to incarcerate the defendant for 0-6 months. This is the lowest and least consequential sentencing range that can be assigned to any felony under the U.S.

Code. (page 5 of Zuckerman's testimony)

The 9/11 Commission also recognized the lack of routine prosecutions for passport fraud offenses. Page 386 of their report noted:

Fraudulent travel documents, for instance, are usually

returned to travelers who are denied entry without further

examination for terrorist trademarks, investigation into

their source, or legal process.

Importantly, the bill we are introducing today directs the Sentencing Commission to reevaluate the current low sentencing guidelines for passport and visa fraud offenses to reflect the potential seriousness of these crimes and the changes made by our bill.

Additionally, we will require the Sentencing Commission to report back to the Congress on the rationale behind their decision to change (or not change) the sentencing guidelines as a result of this direction.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly stated that one of the items at the top of the Democratic agenda early this Congress is the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In addition to their comments on the lack of prosecutions, the 9/11 Commission had a lot more say about the use of fraudulent and altered passports and visas in the Commission of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

``[W]e endeavor to dispel the myth that their [the hijackers'] entry into the United States was `clean and legal'. It was not. . . . two [hijackers] carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications'' Preface, 9/11 Commission staff report.

``To avoid detection of their activities and objectives while engaging in travel that necessitates using a passport, terrorists devote extensive resources to acquiring and manipulating passports, entry and exits stamps, and visas. The al Qaeda terrorist organization was no exception. High-level members of Al Qaeda were expert document forgers . . .'' Page 1. 9/11 Commission staff report.

``Travel history, however, is still recorded in passports with entry- exit stamps called cachets, which al Qaeda has trained its operatives to forge and use to conceal their terrorist activities''. Page 403, 9/ 11 Commission report.

``[C]ertain al Qaeda members were charged with organizing passport collection schemes to keep the pipelines of fraudulent documents flowing.'' Page 186., ibid

``For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. They must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack . . . In their travels, terrorists use evasive measures, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas . . .'' Page 384. ibid.

I hope that Senator Reid plans to include the Feinstein/Sessions Passport and Visa Fraud Bill in his 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Package.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation to eliminate one of the great inconsistencies in the Internal Revenue Code. I would like to thank my colleague, the senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, for again working with me on this important piece of legislation.

The bill we are introducing today is designed to restore some internal consistency to the tax code as it applies to art and artists. No one has ever said that the tax code is fair even though it has always been a theoretical objective of the code to treat similar taxpayers similarly.

Our bill would address two areas where similarly situated taxpayers are not treated the same. These two areas are internal inconsistencies contained within the tax code. Internal inconsistency number one deals with the long-term capital gains tax treatment of investments in art and collectibles. The second internal inconsistency involves how charitable contributions of art by the artist are treated under the law.

Long-term capital gains tax treatment of art is inherently unfair. If a person invests in stocks or bonds and sells at a gain, the tax treatment is long term capital gains. The top capital gains tax rate is 15 percent. However, if the same person invests in art or collectibles the top rate is hiked up to 28 percent. Art for art's sake should not incur a higher tax rate simply for revenue's sake. That is a big impact on the pocketbook of the investor.

Art and collectibles are alternatives to financial instruments as an investment choice. To create a tax disadvantage with respect to one investment compared to another creates an artificial market and may lead to poor investment allocations. It also adversely impacts those who make their livelihood in the cultural sectors of the economy.

Santa Fe, NM, is the third largest art market in the country. We have a diverse colony of artists, collectors and

gallery owners. We have fabulous Native American rug weavers, potters and carvers. Creative giants like Georgia O'Keeffe, Maria Martinez, E. L. Blumenshein, Allan Houser, R.C. Gorman, and Glenna Goodacre have all chosen New Mexico as their home and as their artistic subject. John Nieto, Wilson Hurley, Clark Hulings, Veryl Goodnight, Bill Acheff, Susan Rothenberg, Bruce Nauman, Agnes Martin, Doug Hyde, Margaret Nez, and Dan Ostermiller are additional examples of living artists creating art in New Mexico.

Art, antiques, and collectibles are a $12 to $20 billion annual industry nationwide. In New Mexico, it has been estimated that art and collectible sales range between $500 million and one billion a year.

Economists have always been interested in the economics of the arts. Adam Smith is a well-known economist. He was also a serious, but little-known essayist on painting, dancing, and poetry. Similarly, Keynes was both a famous economist and a passionate devotee of painting. However, even artistically inclined economists have found it difficult to define art within the context of economic theory.

When asked to define jazz, Louis Armstrong replied: ``If you gotta ask, you ain't never going to know.'' A similar conundrum has challenged Galbraith and other economists who have grappled with the definitional issues associated with bringing art within the economic calculus. Original art objects are, as a commodity group, characterized by a set of attributes: every unit of output is differentiated from every other unit of output; art works can be copied but not reproduced; and the cultural capital of the nation has significant elements of public good.

Because art works can be resold, and their prices may rise over time, they have the characteristics of financial assets, and as such may be sought as a hedge against inflation, as a store of wealth, or as a source of speculative capital gain. A study by Keishiro Matsumoto, Samuel Andoh and James P. Hoban, Jr. assessed the risk-adjusted rates of return on art sold at Sotheby's during the 14-year period ending September 30, 1989. They concluded that art was a good investment in terms of average real rates of return. Several studies found that rates of return from the price appreciation on paintings, comic books, collectibles and modern prints usually made them very attractive long- term investments. Also, when William Goetzmann was at the Columbia Business School, he constructed an art index and concluded that painting price movements and stock market fluctuations are correlated.

I conclude that with art, as well as stocks, past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but the gains should be taxed the same.

In 1990, the editor of Art and Auction asked the question: ``Is there an `efficient' art market?'' A well-known art dealer answered ``Definitely not. That's one of the things that makes the market so interesting.'' For everyone who has been watching world financial markets lately, the art market may be a welcome distraction.

Why do people invest in art and collectibles? Art and collectibles are something you can appreciate even if the investment doesn't appreciate. Art is less volatile. If buoyant and not so buoyant bond prices drive you berserk and spiraling stock prices scare you, art may be the appropriate investment for you. Because art and collectibles are investments, the long-term capital gains tax treatment should be the same as for stocks and bonds. This bill would accomplish that.

Artists will benefit. Gallery owners will benefit. Collectors will benefit. And museums benefit from collectors. About 90 percent of what winds up in museums like New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art comes from collectors.

Collecting isn't just for the hoyty toity. It seems that everyone collects something. Some collections are better investments than others. Some collections are just bizarre. The internet makes collecting big business, and flea market fanatics are avid collectors. In fact, people collect the darndest things. Books, duck decoys, chia pets, snowglobes, thimbles, handcuffs, spectacles, baseball cards, teddy bears, and guns are a few such ``collectibles''.

For most of these collections, capital gains isn't really an issue, but you never know. You may find that your collecting passion has created a tax predicament--to phrase it politely. Art and collectibles are tangible assets. When you sell them, capital gains tax is due on any appreciation over your purchase price.

The bill provides capital gains tax parity because it lowers the top capital gains rate from 28 percent to 15 percent.

As I stated earlier, the second internal inconsistency deals with the charitable deduction for artists donating their work to a museum or other charitable cause. When someone is asked to make a charitable contribution to a museum or to a fund raising auction, it shouldn't matter whether that person is an artist or not. Under current law, however, it makes a big difference. As the law stands now, an artist/ creator can only take a deduction equal to the cost of the art supplies. Our bill will allow a fair market deduction for the artist.

It's important to note that our bill includes certain safeguards to keep the artist from ``painting himself a tax deduction.'' This bill applies to literary, musical, artistic, and scholarly compositions if the work was created at least 18 months before the donation was made, has been appraised, and is related to the purpose or function of the charitable organization receiving the donation. As with other charitable contributions, it is limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). If it is also a capital gain, there is a 30 percent of AGI limit. Mr. President, I believe these safeguards bring fairness back into the code and protect the Treasury against any potential abuse.

I hope my colleagues will help us put this internal consistency into the Internal Revenue Code.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of proposals that, once enacted, will reduce not only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but also the administrative burdens which saddle small companies trying to comply with the tax laws. Small businesses are the engine that drives our Nation's economy and I believe these proposals strengthen their ability to lead the way. I am pleased to be joined by colleagues from both sides of the aisle as we work to move these important initiatives for small businesses from legislation to law.

A top priority I hear from small businesses across Maine is the need for tax relief. Despite the fact that small businesses are the real job-creators for Maine's and our Nation's economy, the current tax system is placing an entirely unreasonable burden on them when trying to satisfy their tax obligations. The current tax code imposes a large, and expensive, burden on all taxpayers in terms of satisfying their reporting and record-keeping obligations. The problem, though, is that small companies are disadvantaged most in terms of the money and time spent in satisfying their tax obligation.

For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend an astounding 8 billion hours each year complying with government reports. They also spend more than 80 percent of this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in tax compliance costs; an amount that is nearly 67 percent more than larger firms.

For that reason, I am introducing a package of proposals that will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners, but also simpler rules under the tax code. By simplifying the tax code, small business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a cheaper, more efficient manner, allowing them to be able to devote more time and resources to their business.

I am introducing legislation today in response to the repeated requests from small businesses in Maine and from across the nation to allow them to expense more of their investments, like the purchase of essential new equipment. My bill modifies the Internal Revenue Code by doubling the amount a small business can expense from $100,000 to $200,000, and make the provision permanent as President Bush proposed this change in his fiscal year 2007 tax proposals. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating 75 percent new jobs and contributing 51 percent of private-sector output, their size is the only `small' aspect about them.

By doubling and making permanent the current expensing limit and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases today, instead of waiting five, seven or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with complex and confusing depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which economic experts have repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy.

Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased to $800,000 in new assets purchases. At the same time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into the economy. This is a win- win for small business and the economy as a whole and I am please to have Senators Lott, Isakson, Chambliss, and Collins join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

Another proposal that I am introducing with Senator Lincoln, the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act of 2007, will permit start-up small business owners to use a taxable year other than the calendar year if they generally earn fewer than $5 million during the tax year.

Specifically, the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act of 2007 will permit more taxpayers to use the taxable year most suitable to their business cycle. Until 1986, businesses could elect the taxable year-end that made the most economic sense for the business. In 1986, Congress passed legislation requiring partnerships and S corporations, many of which are small businesses, to adopt a December 31 year-end. The tax code does provide alternatives to the calendar year for small businesses, but the compliance costs and administrative burdens associated with these alternatives prove to be too high for most small businesses to utilize.

Meanwhile, C corporations, as large corporations often are, receive much more flexibility in their choice of taxable year. A C corporation can adopt either a calendar year or any fiscal year for tax purposes, as along as it keeps its books on that basis. This creates the unfair result of allowing larger businesses with greater resources greater flexibility in choosing a taxable year than smaller firms with fewer resources. This simply does not make sense to me. My bill changes these existing rules so that more small businesses will be able to use the taxable year that best suits their business.

To provide relief and equity to our nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees, I am introducing a bill with Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Kerry that reduces from 39 to 15 years the depreciable life of improvements that are made to retail stores that are owned by the retailer. Under current law, only retailers that lease their property are allowed this accelerated depreciation, which means it excludes retailers that also own the property in which they operate. My bill simply seeks to provide equal treatment to all retailers.

Specifically, this bill will simply conform the tax codes to the realities that retailers on Main Street face. Studies conducted by the Treasury Department, Congressional Research Service and private economists have all found that the 39-year depreciation life for buildings is too long and that the 39-year depreciation life for building improvements is even worse. Retailers generally remodel their stores every five to seven years to reflect changes in customer base and compete with newer stores. Moreover, many improvements such as interior partitions, ceiling tiles, restroom accessories, and paint, may only last a few years before requiring replacement.

This package of proposals are a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these proposals.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an issue that is near and dear to my heart, because it involves children and youth in our foster care system. Inconsistencies in our Federal wage laws, coupled with increases in the minimum wage, are financially crippling the private, non-profit organizations and institutions that make up a necessary part of our communities' support systems for the most vulnerable in our society, the children.

More than 500,000 children are in America's foster care system at any given time, because their own families are in crisis or unable to provide for their essential well-being--most because they have been subject to abuse and neglect. Thankfully, most of these children are able to be placed with individual caring families. But for those children without a suitable or available foster family, they are placed in one of the many group homes associated with our foster care system.

Many of these group homes are specially tailored to the specific needs of foster care children by offering unique programs and on-site education to help heal the emotional scarring they have experienced.

These homes--often run by private, non-profit organizations--are dedicated to providing residential care and treatment for the ``orphans of the living,'' and they have long been a vital part of the social service networks in America's communities.

An essential component of the foster care network is the presence of caring parents in a family-like situation. And as in traditional parenting, the houseparents of group foster homes seek to provide the same love, care, and supervision of a traditional family for the five to eight children that reside with them.

Houseparents volunteer to permanently reside at the group home in order to create a family- like environment for those without a true sense of home--one that offers a structured atmosphere where these most vulnerable youth can heal, grow, and become productive members of society.

Foster care alumni studies show us that it is the consistent and life-long connection of caring foster parents that plays the biggest role in helping foster children transition into society.

However, our current laws are working against this cause, forcing group homes to move away from what they know is best for the children and preventing them from providing the most appropriate and consistent care. These youth so desperately need the stability that a family- like situation can provide. And this is what my amendment seeks to address.

Traditionally, in addition to a modest, fixed salary, houseparents have received food, lodging, insurance, and transportation free of charge.

In 1974, Congress recognized and confirmed the unique role houseparents serve when it passed the Hershey Exemption. This amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to preserve the appropriate method of compensation for houseparents--and allowed the lodging and food provided them to be considered when determining an appropriate salary for married houseparents serving with their spouse at nonprofit educational institutions.

Through this exemption, Congress supplied a way for these vital social services to continue to be provided by non-profit organizations in a way that is cost-effective, and at the same time appropriate and meaningful to both the children and the houseparents.

However, since the addition of this exemption, the demographics of America and of America's foster children have changed. Research now shows that due to the negative experiences some youth have faced, they may find a better environment for growth and healing in having a single houseparent of the same sex.

Our labor standards for these group homes have not kept pace with the ever-changing needs of these children.

Because the Hershey Exemption was only extended to married couples, group homes are now forced to choose between what is cheaper and what is best for the children. Unfortunately, the financial realities of the situation

place these facilities in a compromising situation.

You see, when a group home employs a single houseparent for a home, they are required to pay them as an hourly employee, whereas married houseparents serving together are allowed to be paid as salaried employees.

As a result, it costs a facility in Florida more than $74,000 annually at the current minimum wage rate to provide a full-time, single houseparent using the traditional live-in model.

In response, most facilities have resorted to teams of houseparents that work in 8 or 12 hour shifts--just to avoid the additional costs of overtime pay. Yet even this team model is pricey and means tough coordination and inconsistencies in care for these children. It also destroys the family-like arrangement of the home.

If the minimum wage bill--to which I am offering this bill as an amendment--passes, it will cost facilities across the U.S. in excess of $84,000 annually to house and employ a single, full-time houseparent in a foster care or educational group home. However, if it were a married couple serving in the same environment it would only require minimum wage guidelines being met.

Can you see how this inconsistency in our labor laws is, and will continue to be, crippling for the private, non-profit facilities?

In order to enable group homes to provide the most appropriate and consistent care for foster and emotionally scarred youth, my amendment will extend the Hershey Exemption to single houseparents, allowing them to be treated as salaried employees when free lodging and board are provided.

Voting in favor of my amendment will enable private, non-profit group homes to continue providing these vital services for our communities, with a stronger atmosphere of love and growth for the children.

Voting against this amendment will--that is, allowing it not to pass--will mean that the already heavy financial burden for these facilities will continue to grow. Homes will be forced to close or have to scale back on the number of children they can help.

To vote against this amendment is to turn children out on the street at a time when they need us most.

As a loving parent and grandparent, I want what is best for my children and for my grandchildren--I want to make sure they have whatever they need to overcome the obstacles of life and succeed. This is also what we should seek for foster children and the hurting youth in our communities--to provide the loving homes and facilities for them that provide what they need most and in the most appropriate and consistent way possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007.

Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible applicants in some of the newly-authorized grant programs. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senators Smith, Reid, Baucus, Feinstein, Boxer, Feingold, Cantwell, and Murray, would simply ensure that tribes are able to apply for these funds and give Native American communities the resources they need to fight scourge of methamphetamine use.

The recently-enacted Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 authorized new funding for three grant programs. The Act authorized $99 million in new funding for the COPS Hot Spots program, which helps local law enforcement agencies obtain the tools they need to reduce the production, distribution, and use of meth. Funding may also be used to clean up meth labs, support health and environmental agencies, and to purchase equipment and support systems.

The Act also authorized $20 million for a Drug-Endangered Children grant program to provide comprehensive services to assist children who live in a home in which meth has been used, manufactured, or sold. Under this program, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, child protective services, social services, and health care services, work together to ensure that these children get the help they need.

In addition, the Combat Meth Act authorized grants to be made to address the use of meth among pregnant and parenting women offenders. The Pregnant and Parenting Offenders program is aimed at facilitating collaboration between the criminal justice, child welfare, and State substance abuse systems in order to reduce the use of drugs by pregnant women and those with dependent children.

Although Tribes are eligible applicants under the Pregnant and Parenting Offenders program, they were not included as eligible applicants under either the Hot Spots program or the Drug-Endangered Children program. I see no reason why tribes should not be able to access all of these funds.

Meth use has had a devastating impact in communities throughout the country, and Indian Country is no exception. According to NCAI, Native Americans have the highest meth abuse rate among any ethnic group and 70 percent of law enforcement rate meth as their greatest challenge-- indeed, a FBI survey found that an estimated 40 percent of violent crime in Indian Country was related to meth use. And last year there was an article in the Gallup Independent newspaper about a Navajo grandmother, her daughter, and granddaughter, who were all arrested for selling meth. There was also a one-year-old child in the home when police executed the arrest warrant. It is absolutely disheartening to hear about cases such as this, with three generations of a family destroyed by meth.

I strongly believe that we need to do everything we can to assist communities as they struggle to deal with the consequences of meth, and ensuring that Native American communities are able to access these funds is an important first step. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important measure.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to reintroduce today with Senator Domenici a bill we introduced last Congress. The Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Establishment Act would protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the Robledo Mountains in my State. The bill would create a national monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific investigation of this remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old fossils. The Energy Committee held a hearing last year where the Bureau of Land Management testified in support; in addition the bill has the support of the local community. I appreciate Senator Domenici's support on this measure and hope that with the progress we made last Congress we can look forward to moving the bill quickly through the Senate this year.

The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60 million years before the dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but, until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and their interactions with each other could be studied.

Las Cruces resident Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of useful information buried in the rock there. These trackways help complete the puzzle of how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand from only studying their fossilized bones.

Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in creating legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its scientific value. In 1994, scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, the University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution completed their study and documented the significant scientific value of the find. Particularly owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals that had left their imprint there the study found that the site was of immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of tracksites. Because of this, the Robledo tracks allow a wide range of scientific problems regarding late Paleozoic tracks to be solved that could not be solved before.'' This bill would take the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these remarkable resources.

In addition to permanently protecting the fossils for the scientific community the bill would make it a priority that local residents get the opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our understanding of life on the ancient earth.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the

help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of origin refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, interment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to an important issue that the Congress has not adequately addressed since the painful events of September 11, 2001.

That issue is the inability of our first responders to speak to each other, a problem especially troubling during an emergency, when the ability to quickly and effectively communicate saves lives.

This is why I, with the cosponsorship of my colleagues, Senators Stevens, Kerry, Smith and Snowe, are introducing the Interoperable Emergency Communications Act.

After September 11, 2001, we heard heartbreaking stories of firefighters and police officers who went into harm's way because they lacked adequate information. These brave men and women were unable to reach victims because their systems could not communicate with one another.

At that time, the Congress began devoting greater attention to why many of our first responders lacked this ability to communicate with each other in the field. We asked what it would take to ensure communications equipment and facilities could withstand a natural disaster. We asked which equipment would be worthy of our investment.

Then Hurricane Katrina struck in August, 2006, and we found that our first responders faced the same communications failures. This is an unnecessary frustration that prevents our first responders from effectively doing their jobs.

Our bill provides needed direction to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding its administration of the $1 billion grant program for interoperable communications systems for first responders, which was created by the Senate Commerce Committee early last year. It will be funded by money from the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund and administered by the NTIA.

The bill designates grants for regional or statewide communications systems that will allow first responders to talk to one another during an emergency. It also sets aside funding for a technology reserve for immediate deployment of communications equipment in the event of an emergency or disaster.

To ensure a fair distribution of funds, the money will be distributed in accordance with guidelines outlined in the Patriot Act to ensure a fair distribution of funds, and grant allocations will be prioritized based on an ``all hazards'' approach that will take into account threat and risk factors associated with natural disasters--such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and tornadoes--as well as risks associated with terrorist attacks.

Every day we hear about potential threats against our Nation and it will not be long until we are again in the midst of hurricane season. I hope that history will not repeat itself and that the Congress can act quickly in directing the NTIA to give our first responders the tools they need to effectively do their jobs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today there are 91,555 members of the National Guard and our Reserve armed forces serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other part of the world our country calls them to serve. The President is sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq in one final push to bring stability to that country. Regardless of what we think about this plan, Americans stand by our troops. They have the best equipment and training for their mission and we would never deny them the support they need. But back at home, there is still a great deal that we can do to support our guard and reserves families.

When guardsmen and reservists are deployed they leave their families, their jobs, and their communities behind, causing tremendous stress on the home front and in the workplace. Families often lose the main bread winner when a citizen soldier gets deployed. They may have trouble paying bills, the rent, the mortgage, or buying medicine for their children.

The reason these families cannot make ends meet is because for Guardsmen and Reservists military pay is often less than civilian pay. We call that the ``pay gap.'' According to the most recent Status Forces Survey of Reserve Components, 51 percent of our citizen soldiers take a pay cut when they get deployed and 11 percent of them lose more than $2,500 per month.

To help provide relief from the pay gap for our Guard and Reserve, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Durbin, Graham and Kerry, the Helping Our Patriotic Employers at Helping our Military Employees Act of 2007. I call the bill by its nickname: HOPE at HOME. Our guard and reserve families have enough to worry about when a loved one gets called away, the least we can do is relieve some of their financial worry by encouraging employers to make up the pay gap. Let me describe for my colleagues how this legislation works.

HOPE at HOME will give a 50 percent tax credit to the thousands of employers around the country who have taken the patriotic step of continuing to pay the salary of their guard and reservists employees who have been called to active duty. There are literally thousands of employers out there who already take this noble step--they do it voluntarily, selflessly and at great sacrifice. The HOPE at HOME Act honors that sacrifice.

HOPE at HOME will also give companies that cannot afford to make up the pay-gap an incentive to do so. One survey found that only 173 of the Fortune 500 companies make up the pay gap. If the wealthiest companies cannot afford to help their active duty employees, imagine how difficult this is for smaller companies. HOPE at HOME will allow companies large and small to do the patriotic thing and reward those employees who are serving to keep us all free.

HOPE at HOME will also give small patriotic employers additional tax relief if they need to hire a worker to temporarily replace the active duty Guardsmen or Reservist. In addition, the bill clarifies the tax treatment of any pay-gap payments to make income tax filing easier for our Guard and Reservists.

I mentioned that thousands of employers make up the pay-gap for their employees. There is one employer, however, and it happens to be the Nation's largest, that does not make up the pay gap: Uncle Sam. The Federal Government, which should set the bar for patriotism in our country, does not do its part to help our citizen soldiers. We cannot ask the private sector to do more than they are doing if the Federal government is not willing to step up and do its part for our military men and women.

Today our Nation relies on the Guard and Reserve to meet our armed forces needs more than at any other time in our history. At times in the war on terror, 40 percent of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were citizen soldiers, if not more. Many of them performed multiple tours of duty or found their duties extended.

All of the experts tell us that our need for our Guard and Reserve troops will only get greater. During the Cold War, end strength of the U.S. military force never dropped below 2.0 million personnel and peaked at over 3.5 million during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. From 1989 to 1999, end strength dropped steadily from 2.1 million to 1.4 million, where it has remained. Our ground forces are stretched thin and the number of deployments has increased by over 300 percent. The Guard and Reserve have made it possible to meet these challenges. We still find ourselves stretched thin, but without the Guard and Reserve we would never be able to meet our obligation as guardians of freedom in the World.

But this over-reliance on the Guard and Reserve is starting to have a toll on our ability to recruit and retain these men and women. The top reasons for leaving the Guard and Reserve, according to the Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components, are family stress, the number and lengths of deployments, income loss, and conflict with civilian employment.

HOPE at HOME recognizes that a soldier who is worrying about how his or her family is paying the bills is not focusing on the mission at hand. A soldier who is worrying about whether the family is paying the rent, is not going to reenlist. And every time one of our soldiers leaves, our nation loses the experience and service of a highly trained, capable professional. We need to make every effort to keep our citizen soldiers in service to their country. HOPE at HOME is a first step to addressing our military's larger recruitment and retention issues.

During the Cold War we built our strength on having the biggest, best equipped standing army in the World. Now our military gathers its strength from a large reserve of qualified men and women in the Guard and Reserve who are ready to fight at a moment's call. We will lose that strength if we do not give our guardsmen and Reservists and their families HOPE at HOME.

I hope my colleagues will join me in giving our Guard and Reserve HOPE at HOME Act.