SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2007

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Snowe in introducing ``The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2007.'' I am also pleased that this year we are joined by Senator Sherrod Brown, who championed this legislation so ably as a member of the House of Representatives.

Our goal in this important initiative is to take needed action to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating diseases. These drugs are truly modern medical miracles. During World War II, the newly developed ``wonder drug'' penicillin revolutionized care for our soldiers wounded in battle. Since then, such drugs have become indispensable in modern medicine, protecting all of us from deadly infections. They are even more valuable today, safeguarding the Nation from the threat of bioterrorism.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have done too little to prevent the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and other germs, and many of our most powerful drugs are no longer effective.

Partly, the resistance is the result of over-prescribing such drugs in routine medical care. Mounting evidence shows that indiscriminate use of such drugs in animal feed is also a major factor in the development of antibiotic resistant germs.

Obviously, if animals are sick, whether as pets or livestock, they should be treated with the best veterinary medications available. That is not the problem. The problem is the widespread use of antibiotics to promote growth and fatten healthy livestock. Such nontherapeutic use clearly undermines the effectiveness of these important drugs, because it leads to greater development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can make infections in humans difficult or impossible to treat.

In 1998--nine years ago--a report prepared at the request of the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration by the National Academy of Sciences, concluded: ``There is a link between the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development of bacterial resistance to these drugs, and human disease.'' The World Health Organization has specifically recommended that antibiotics used to treat humans should not be used to promote animal growth, although they could still be used to treat sick animals.

In 2001, a Federal interagency task force on antibiotic resistance concluded that ``drug-resistant pathogens are a growing menace to all people, regardless of age, gender, or socio-economic background. If we do not act to address the problem . . . [d]rug choices for the treatment of common infections will become increasingly limited and expensive--and, in some cases, nonexistent.''

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are used nontherapeutically in animal agriculture--8 times more than are used in all of human medicine. This indiscriminate use clearly reduces their potency.

Major medical associations have been increasingly concerned, and have taken strong stands against antibiotic use in animal agriculture. In June 2001, the American Medical Association adopted a resolution opposing nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals. Other professional medical organizations that have taken similar stands include the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Public Health Association, and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. The legislation we are offering has been strongly endorsed by the American Public Health Association and numerous other groups and independent experts in the field.

Ending the current detrimental practice is feasible and cost- effective. Last month an economic study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University examined data from the poultry producer Perdue. In this study of 7 million chickens, the slight benefit from the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics was more than offset by the cost of purchasing antibiotics.

In fact, most of the developed countries in the world, except for the United States and Canada, already restrict the use of antibiotics to promote growth in raising livestock. In 1999, the European Union banned such use, and funds saved on drugs have been invested in improving hygiene and animal husbandry practices. Researchers in Denmark found a dramatic decline in the number of drug-resistant organisms in animals-- and no significant increase in animal diseases or consumer prices.

These results have encouraged clinicians and researchers to call for a similar ban in the United States. The title of an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine 6 years ago said it all: ``Antimicrobial Use in Animal Feed--Time to Stop.''

In the last Congress, over 350 organizations representing scientific and medical associations, consumer and environmental groups as well as animal rights and religious groups endorsed this legislation and called for an end to the reckless and irresponsible use of these critically important medicines.

The Nation is clearly at risk of an epidemic outbreak of food poisoning caused by drug-resistant bacteria or other germs. In recent years, many nations, including the United States, have been plagued by outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. Imagine the consequences of an outbreak caused by a strain of bacteria immune to any drugs we have. It is time to put public safety first and stop this promiscuous use of drugs essential for protecting human health.

The bill we are introducing will phase out the non-therapeutic use in livestock of medically important antibiotics, unless manufacturers can demonstrate that such use is no danger to public health. The Act applies this same strict standard to applications for approval of new animal antibiotics. Such use is not restricted if the animals are sick, or if they are pets or are animals not used for food. In addition, FDA is also given authority to restrict the use of important drugs to treat such animals, if risk to humans is in question.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, eliminating the use of antibiotics as feed additives in agriculture will cost each American consumer not more than five to ten dollars a year. The legislation recognizes, however, that economic costs to farmers in making the transition to antibiotic-free practices may be substantial. In such cases, the Act provides for Federal payments to defray the cost of shifting to antibiotic-free practices, with special preference for family farms.

Antibiotics are one of the great miracles of modem medicine. Yet today, we are destroying them faster than the pharmaceutical industry can replace them with new discoveries. If doctors lose these vital medications, the most vulnerable Americans will suffer the most-- children, the elderly, persons with HIV/AIDS, and others who are most in danger of drug resistant infections. I urge my colleagues to support this clearly needed legislation to protect the health of all Americans from the reckless and unjustified use of antibiotics.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senators Enzi, Dodd, and Alexander in introducing the Head Start for School Readiness Act. Our goal is to reauthorize Head Start and continue our bipartisan support for this very successful program to prepare low-income children for school.

For over forty years, Head Start has given disadvantaged children the assistance they need to arrive at school ready to learn. It's comprehensive services guarantee balanced meals for children, and a well-defined curriculum to see that children develop early skills in reading, writing, and math, and positive social skills as well. It provides visits to doctors and dentists, and outreach to parents to encourage them to participate actively in their child's early development.

It is clear that Head Start works. A federal evaluation found that Head Start children make gains during the program itself, and the gains continue when the children enter kindergarten. Once Head Start children complete their kindergarten year, they are near the national average of 100 in key areas, with scores of 93 in vocabulary, 96 in early writing, and 92 in early math.

We've made tremendous, bipartisan progress this year in our effort to reauthorize Head Start and build upon a program that serves as a lifeline for the neediest families and children across the Nation.

In this legislation, we build on Head Start's proven track record and expand it to include thousands of low-income children who are not yet served by the program. We provide for better coordination of Head Start with state programs for low-income children. We strengthen Head Start's focus on school readiness and early literacy. We enhance the educational goals for Head Start teachers. And we provide greater accountability for the program, including new policies to ensure improved monitoring visits and new policies to address programs with serious deficiencies.

To strengthen Head Start, we have to begin by providing more resources for it. The need for Head Start is greater than ever. Child poverty is on the rise again. Today, less than 50 percent of children eligible for Head Start participate in the program. Hundreds of thousands of three- and four-year-olds are left out because of the inadequate funding level of the program. Early Head Start serves only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. It is shameful that 97 percent of the children eligible for Early Head Start have no access to it. It's long past time for Congress to expand access to Head Start to serve as many infants, toddlers, and preschool children as possible.

The bill that we introduce today will set a goal to expand Head Start over the next several years. We call for increases in funding, from $6.9 billion in the current fiscal year, to $7.3 billion in FY 2008, $7.5 billion in FY 2009, and $7.9 billion in 2010. These funding levels are critical to advance the essential reforms in this legislation, and to serve thousands of additional children in the Head Start program.

Early Head Start is an especially important program for needy infants and toddlers. Research clearly shows its benefit to infants and toddlers and their families. Early Head Start children have larger vocabularies, lower levels of aggressive behavior, and higher levels of sustained attention than children not enrolled in the program. Parents are more likely to play with their children and read to them.

This bill will double the size of Early Head Start over the course of this authorization, and deliver services to over 56,000 additional children over the course of this authorization.

Our bill establishes a Head Start Collaboration Office in every state to maximize services to Head Start children, align Head Start with kindergarten classrooms, and strengthen its local partnerships with other agencies. These offices will work hand in hand with the Head Start network of training and technical assistance to support Head Start grantees in better meeting the goals of preparing children for school.

States will also have an active role in coordinating their system of early childhood programs, and increasing the quality of those programs. Our bill designates an Early Care and Education Council in each State to conduct an inventory of children's needs, develop plans for data collection and for supporting early childhood educators, review and upgrade early learning standards, and make recommendations on technical assistance and training. For those States ready to move forward and implement their statewide plan, our bill will offer a one-time incentive grant to implement these important efforts.

Over the past four decades, Head Start has built up quality and performance standards to guarantee a full range of services, so that children are educated in the basics about letters and numbers and books, and are also healthy, well-fed, and supported in stable and nurturing relationships. Head Start is a model program, and we can enhance its quality even more.

One way to do that is to strengthen Head Start's current literacy initiative. We know the key to later reading success is to get young children excited about letters and books and numbers. Our bill emphasizes language and literacy, by enhancing the literacy training required of Head Start teachers, by continuing to promote parent literacy, and by working to put more books into Head Start classrooms and into children's homes.

We also make a commitment in this bill to upgrade all of the educational components of Head Start, and ensure that services are aligned with expectations for children's kindergarten year and continue to be driven by the effective Head Start Child Outcomes Framework.

At the heart of Head Start's success are its teachers and staff. They are caring, committed persons who know the children they serve and are dedicated to improving their lives. They help children learn to identify letters of the alphabet and arrange the pieces of puzzles. They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their hands, make friends and follow rules. Yet their salary is still half the salary of kindergarten teachers, and turnover is high--11 percent a year.

Because a teacher's quality is directly related to a child's outcome, our bill establishes a goal to ensue that every Head Start teacher have their A.A. degree and 50 percent earn their B.A. degree over the course of this authorization. Head Start teachers and staff are the greatest resource to children and families in the program, and we must match these ambitious reforms and improvements with the funding needed to see that Head Start programs can meet these goals.

We have also granted additional flexibility in this bill for Head Start programs to serve families and children that need services at the local level. We've lifted the eligibility requirements so that families living below 130 percent of the federal poverty rate can qualify and participate in Head Start. Often, these are the neighbors of Head Start children with similar needs, but currently remain barred from participating in the program.

Under this bill, Head Start programs will be empowered with greater authority to determine the needs of families in their local communities and define services to meet those needs. If programs determine that there is a greater share infants and toddlers in need of services, our bill allows them to apply to the Secretary to convert and expand Head Start to serve those youngest children, consistent with Early Head Start standards. If programs identify a need to provide full-day or full-year care for children and families, they can take steps to do so.

Accountability is a cornerstone of excellence in education and should start early. Head Start should be accountable for its promise to provide safe and healthy learning environments, to support each child's individual pattern of development and learning, to cement community partnerships in services for children, and to involve parents in their child's growth.

Head Start reviews are already among the most extensive in the field. Every 3 years, a federal and local team spends a week thoroughly examining every aspect of every Head Start program. They check everything from batteries in flashlights to how parents feel about the program. Our bill takes a further step to improve the monitoring of Head Start programs, ensures that programs receive useful and timely feedback and information, and strengthens annual reviews and plans for improvement.

Our bill also takes an important step to suspend the Head Start National Reporting System. Four years ago, I insisted that instead of rushing forward with a national assessment for every four- and five- year-old in Head Start, this Administration should instead move more deliberately to develop and implement an assessment tool that would help guide and improve Head Start programs. Unfortunately, they rejected that call and proceeded with an assessment--absent sufficient authorization or oversight from Congress--that was later proven by a GAO study to be flawed and inconsistent with professional standards for testing and measurement.

Any assessment used in Head Start must be held to the highest standard. It must be valid and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, balanced in what it measures, and address the development of the whole child. Our bill calls on the National Academy of Sciences to continue their work in surveying assessments and outcomes appropriate for early childhood programs, and to make recommendations to the Secretary and to Congress on the use of assessments and outcomes in Head Start programs. I hope the National Academy's work will be helpful as we consider future improvements in the Head Start program.

Finally, this bill appropriately rejects earlier calls to block grant Head Start services, preserving the community-based structure of the program. It makes no sense to turn Head Start into a block grant to the states. To do so would have dismantled the program and undermined Head Start's guarantees that children can see doctors and dentists, eat nutritious meals, and learn early academic and social skills. The current Federal-to-local structure of Head Start enables it to tailor its services to meet local community needs. Performance standards guarantee a high level of quality across all programs. Yet each program is unique and specifically adapted to the local community. Head Start is successful in serving Inuit children in Alaska, migrant-workers' children in Tennessee, and inner-city children in Boston. It is essential to maintain the ability of local Head Start programs to tailor their services to meet the needs of local neighborhoods and their children.

The Head Start for School Readiness Act we are introducing today will keep Head Start on its successful path, and enable this vital program to continue to thrive and improve. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in advancing and strengthening this program, and give children the head start they need and deserve to prepare for school and for life.

Access to mental health services is one of the most important and most neglected civil rights issues facing the Nation. For too long, persons living with mental disorders have suffered discriminatory treatment at all levels of society. They have been forced to pay more for the services they need and to worry about their job security if their employer finds out about their condition. Sadly, in America today, patients with biochemical problems in their liver are treated with better care and greater compassion than patients with biochemical problems in their brain.

That kind of discrimination must end. No one questions the need for affordable treatment of physical illnesses. But those who suffer from mental illnesses face serious barriers in obtaining the care they need at a cost they can afford. Like those suffering from physical illnesses, persons with mental disorders deserve the opportunity for quality care. The failure to obtain treatment can mean years of shattered dreams and unfulfilled potential.

Eleven years ago, Congress passed the first Mental Health Parity Act. That legislation was an important first step in bringing attention to discriminatory practices against the mentally ill, but it did little to correct the injustices that so many Americans continue to face. The 1996 legislation required that annual and lifetime dollar limits for mental health coverage must be no less than the limits for medical and surgical coverage. But more steps are clearly needed to guarantee that Americans suffering from mental illness are not forced to pay more for the services they need, do not face harsher limitations on treatment, and are not denied access to care.

This bill is a chance to take the actions needed to end the longstanding discrimination against persons with mental illness. The late Senator Paul Wellstone and Senator Pete Domenici deserve great credit for their bipartisan leadership on mental health parity. If it were not for them, we would not be here today.

The bill prohibits group health plans from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of mental health conditions that do not also apply to physical conditions. That means no limits on days or treatment visits, and no exorbitant co-payments or deductibles. The bill was negotiated by and has the support of the mental health community, the business community, and the insurance industry.

The need is clear. One in five Americans will suffer some form of mental illness this year--but only a third of them will receive treatment. Millions of our fellow citizens are unnecessarily enduring the pain and sadness of seeing a family member, friend, or loved one suffer illnesses that seize the mind and break the spirit.

Battling mental illness is itself a painful process, but discrimination against persons with such illnesses is especially cruel, since the success rates for treatment often equal or surpass those for physical conditions. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, clinical depression treatment can be 70 percent successful, and treatment for schizophrenia can be 60 percent successful.

Over the years we've heard compelling testimony from experts, activists, and patients about the need to equalize coverage of physical and mental illnesses. The Office of Personnel Management talks us that providing full parity to 8.5 million federal employees has led to minimal premium increases. We heard dramatic testimony about the economic and social advantages of parity, including a healthier, more productive workforce.

Some of the most compelling testimony came several years ago from Lisa Cohen, a hardworking American from New Jersey, who suffers from both physical and mental illnesses, and is forced to pay exorbitant costs for treating her mental disorder, while paying little for her physical disorder. She is typical of millions of Americans who not only face the cruel burden of mental illness, but also the cruel burden of discriminatory treatment. No Americans should be denied equal treatment of an illness because it starts in the brain instead of the heart, lungs, or other parts of their body. No patients should be denied access to the treatment that can cure their illness because of where they live or work.

A number of States have already enacted mental health parity laws, but 86 million workers under ERISA have no protection under state mental health statutes.

Mental health parity is a good investment for the Nation. The costs from lost worker productivity and extra physical care outweigh the costs of implementing parity for mental health treatment.

Over the years study after study has shown that parity makes good financial sense. An analysis of more than 46,000 workers at major companies showed that employees who report being depressed or under stress are likely to have substantially higher health costs than co- workers without such conditions. Employees who reported being depressed had health bills 70 percent higher than those who did not suffer from depression. Those reporting high stress had 46 percent higher health costs. McDonnell Douglas found a 4 to 1 return on investment after accounting for lower medical claims, reduced absenteeism, and smaller turnover.

Mental illness also imposes a huge financial burden on the Nation. It costs us $300 billion each year in treatment expenses, lost worker productivity, and crime. This country can afford mental health parity. What we can't afford is to continue denying persons with mental disorders the care they need.

Today is a turning point. We are finally moving toward ending this shameful form of discrimination in our society--discrimination against mental illness. This bill has been seven years in the making, and brings first class medicine to millions of Americans who have been second class patients for too long.

Today, we begin to right that wrong, by guaranteeing equal treatment to the 11 million people receiving mental health services, and promising equal treatment to the remaining 100 million insured workers and their families who never know the day they may need their mental health benefit.

The 1996 Act, was an important step towards ending health insurance discrimination against mental illness. This bill will take another large step forward by closing the loopholes that remain.

It guarantees co-payments, deductibles, coinsurance, out of pocket expenses and annual and lifetime limits that apply to mental health benefits are no different than those applied to medical and surgical benefits.

It guarantees that the frequency of treatment, number of visits, days of coverage and other limits on scope and duration of treatment for mental health services are no different than those applied to medical and surgical benefits.

This equal treatment and financial equity is also applied to substance abuse.

Features of State law that require coverage of mental disorders are protected, to assure those currently protected by state parity laws that their needs will be met.

The medical management strategies needed to prevent denial of medically needed services for patients remain intact.

Finally, the bill is modeled on the parity that is already guaranteed to the 8.5 million persons, including Members of Congress, under the Federal Employee Benefits Program,

Equal treatment of those affected by mental illness is not just an insurance issue. It's a civil rights issue. At its heart, mental health parity is a question of simple justice.

It is long past time to end insurance discrimination and guarantee all people with mental illness the coverage they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support this important principle, and end the unacceptable double standards that have unfairly plagued our health care systems for so long.

Mr. President, today we face concerns about infectious disease which few could have anticipated. Over a half century ago, following the development of modem antibiotics, Nobel Laureate Sir McFarland Burnet

summed up what many experts believed when he stated, ``One can think of the middle of the twentieth century as the end of one of the most important social revolutions in history, the virtual elimination of infectious diseases as a significant factor in social life.''

How things have changed! Today we face grave concern about pandemic influenza, and in fact every day many of the most serious health threats come from infectious diseases. When we consider the greatest killers--HIV, tuberculosis, malaria--it is clear that infectious diseases have not abated. At the same time we have seen an alarming trend as existing antibiotics are becoming less effective in treating infections. We know that resistance to drugs can be developed, and that the more we expose bacteria to antibiotics, the more resistance we will see. So it is critical to address preserving lifesaving antibiotic drugs for use in treating disease.

Today over nine out of ten Americans understand that resistance to antibiotics is a problem. Most Americans have learned that that colds and flu are caused by viruses, and recognize that treating a cold with an antibiotic is inappropriate. Our health care providers are more careful to discriminate when to use antibiotics, because they know that when a patient who has been inappropriately prescribed an antibiotic actually develops a bacterial infection, it is more likely to be resistant to treatment.

When we overuse antibiotics, we risk eliminating the very cures which scientists fought so hard to develop. The threat of bioterrorism amplifies the danger. I have supported increased NIH research funding, as well as Bioshield legislation, in order to promote development of essential drugs, both to address natural and man-made threats. It is so counterproductive to develop antimicrobial drugs and see their misuse render them ineffective.

Yet every day in America antibiotics continue to be used in huge quantities for no treatment purpose whatsoever. I am speaking of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture. Simply put, the practice of feeding antibiotics to healthy animals jeopardizes the effectiveness of these medicines in treating ill people and animals.

Recognizing the public health threat caused by antibiotic resistance, Congress in 2000 amended the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act to curb antibiotic overuse in human medicine. Yet today, it is estimated that 70 percent of the antimicrobials used in the United States are fed to farm animals for non-therapeutic purposes including growth promotion, poor management practices and crowded, unsanitary conditions.

In March 2003, the National Academies of Sciences stated that a decrease in antimicrobial use in human medicine alone will not solve the problem of drug resistance.

Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse of antibiotics in animals and agriculture.

Two years ago five major medical and environmental groups--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Environmental Defense, the Food Animal Concerns Trust and the Union of Concerned Scientists--jointly filed a formal regulatory petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to withdraw approvals for seven classes of antibiotics which are used as agricultural feed additives. They pointed out what we have known for years--that antibiotics which are crucial to treating human disease should never be used except for their intended purpose--to treat disease.

In a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 17 percent of drug-resistant staph infections had no apparent links to health-care settings. Nearly one in five of these resistant infections arose in the community--not in the health care setting. We must do more to address inappropriate antibiotic use in medicine, the use of these drugs in our environment cannot be ignored.

This is why I have joined with Senator Kennedy in again introducing the ``Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act''. This bill phases out the nontherapeutic uses of critical medically important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to public health.

Our legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw the approval for nontherapeutic agricultural use of antibiotics in food-producing animals if the antibiotic is used for treating human disease, unless the application is proven harmless within two years. The same tough standard of safety will apply to new applications for approval of animal antibiotics.

This legislation places no unreasonable burden on producers. It does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals, or for that matter to treat pets and other animals not used for food. The Act authorizes Federal payments to small family farms to defray their costs, and it also establishes research and demonstration programs that reduce the use of antibiotics in raising food-producing animals. The Act also requires data collection from manufacturers so that the types and amounts of antibiotics used in animals can be monitored.

As we are constantly reminded, the discovery and development of a new drug can require great time and expense. It is simply common sense that we preserve the use of the drugs which we already have, and use them appropriately. I call on my colleagues to support us in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2007,'' which will increase the access to quality, affordable health care for millions of small business owners and their employees. I am pleased that my good friend Senator Bond from Missouri, as well as my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, have agreed to co-sponsor this critical piece of legislation.

Regrettably, our Nation's healthcare system is in the midst of a crisis. Each year, more and more Americans are unable to purchase health insurance, and there are no signs that things are improving. As evidence, the United States Census Bureau estimates that nearly 47 million people did not have health insurance coverage in 2005. Sadly, this number rose from 41.2 million uninsured persons in 2001--a 13 percent increase.

The lack of health insurance is even more troubling when we look specifically at the small business sector of our economy. In 2005, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a non-partisan health policy group, nearly 63 percent of all uninsured workers were either self-employed or working for private-sector firms with fewer than 100 employees. In comparison, only 13.4 percent of workers in firms with more than 1,000 employees do not have health insurance. These numbers

demonstrate that the majority of uninsured Americans work for small enterprises.

So why are our Nation's small businesses, which are our country's job creators and the true engine of our economic growth, so disadvantaged when it comes to purchasing health insurance?

The main reason that small business owners do not offer their employees health insurance is because many of them cannot afford to provide any health insurance, or other benefits to their employees. Many other small companies can only afford to pay a portion of their employees' health insurance premiums. As a result, many small business employees must acquire health insurance from the private sector rather than through their work place. This more expensive alternative is not practical or possible for the majority of the uninsured.

Clearly, we have a problem on our hands. While we can debate among ourselves why this crisis exists, and how we ended up here, what is not open for debate is that we need to start identifying ways to fix the system. It is simply unconscionable to do nothing while more and more Americans find themselves without health insurance and health care.

Currently, many large companies, and even the Federal Government, allow their employees to purchase health insurance, and other qualified benefits, with tax-free dollars. Larger companies are able to offer these accounts because they meet the specific qualifications outlined in the tax code.

Cafeteria plans is one means for employers to offer health benefits with pretax dollars. As the name suggests, cafeteria plans are programs where employees can purchase a range of qualified benefits. Specifically, cafeteria plans offer employees great flexibility in selecting their desired benefits while allowing them to disregard those benefits that do not fit their particular needs. Moreover, the employees are usually purchasing benefits at a lower cost because their employers are often able to obtain a reduced group rate price for their benefits.

Typically, in cafeteria plans, a combination of employer contributions and employee contributions are used to fund the accounts that employees used to buy specific benefits. Under current law, qualified benefits include health insurance, dependent-care reimbursement, life and disability insurance. Unfortunately, long term care insurance is NOT currently a qualified benefit available for purchase in cafeteria plans. I will come back to long term care insurance in a moment.

Clearly, cafeteria plans play a critical role in our Nation's health care system. The problem though, is that in order for companies to qualify for cafeteria plans they must satisfy the tax code's strict non-discrimination rules. These rules exist to ensure that companies offer the same benefits to their non-highly compensated employees that they offer to their highly compensated employees. These rules strive to ensure that non-highly compensated employees in fact receive a substantial portion of the employee benefits companies provide.

Now, I want to be clear. I believe that these non-discrimination rules serve a legitimate purpose and are necessary employee protections. Indeed, we need to ensure that employers are not able to game the tax system so that the cafeteria plans that qualify for preferential tax treatment are used by a majority of a companies' employees. At the same time these benefits must be made available to small companies and not just large companies.

Unfortunately, we often hear that small businesses lose skilled employees to larger companies simply because the bigger firm is able to offer a more generous employee benefit package. Many small firms have relatively few employees and a high proportion of owners or highly compensated individuals. Right now, if these small companies opened cafeteria plans they will likely violate the nondiscrimination rules, and subject their workers and organizations to taxable penalties.

Consequently, many small companies simply forgo opening cafeteria plans and offering more comprehensive employee benefits because they fear they will violate the non-discrimination rules. According to the Employers' Council on Flexible Compensation, though roughly 38 million U.S. workers had access to cafeteria plans, only 19 percent of those workers were employees of small businesses.

Allowing small business to offer cafeteria plans would provide them with much needed employee recruiting and retention tools. If more small business owners are able to offer their employees the chance to enjoy a variety of employee benefits these firms will be more likely to attract, recruit, and retain talented workers. This will ultimately increase their business output.

In order to help small companies increase their employees access to health insurance and other benefits, and help them compete for talented professionals, I am introducing the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act. This bill will enable small business employees to purchase health insurance with tax-free dollars in the same way that many employees of large companies already do in their cafeteria plans. My bill accomplishes this by creating a SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan, which is modeled after the Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees, SIMPLE, pension plan.

As with the SIMPLE pension plan, a small business employer that is willing to make a minimum contribution for all employees, or who is willing to match contributions, will be permitted to waive the non- discrimination rules that currently prevent them from otherwise offering these benefits. This structure has worked extraordinarily well in the pension area with little risk of abuse. I am confident that it will be just as successful when it comes to broad-based benefits offered through cafeteria plans.

In addition my bill will expand the types of qualified benefits that can be offered in SIMPLE cafeteria plans and existing cafeteria plans. These modifications will increase the benefits provided for all employees and the likelihood that employees will utilize their cafeteria plans to purchase these benefits.

This legislation modifies rules that pertain to employer-provided dependent-care assistance plans. First, it would increase the current $5,000 annual contribution limitation of these plans to $10,000 for employees that claim two or more dependents on their tax return. This increase is significant because it will allow taxpayers to use their cafeteria accounts to pay for the care of their children and their elderly dependent family members. As the current baby-boomer generation continues to age, this scenario will become increasingly more common.

The bill also works to address our aging populations' need for long- term care insurance. Here in the United States, nearly half of all seniors age 65 or older will need long-term care at some point in their life. Unfortunately, most seniors have not adequately prepared for this possibility, just as many working age individuals have not given much thought to their eventual long-term care needs. With the cost of a private room in a nursing home averaging more than $72,000 annually, many Americans risk losing their life savings--and jeopardizing their children's inheritance--by failing to properly plan for the long-term care services they will need as they grow older.

To address this problem, this bill would allow employees to purchase long-term care insurance coverage through their cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements. Allowing employers to offer long-term care benefits through these accounts would make long-term care insurance more affordable and help Americans prepare for their future long-term care needs.

Additionally, by including long-term care insurance as a qualified benefit available for purchase in cafeteria plans employers will be able to include information about long-term care options in their employee benefit packages. This will help increase employee understanding of the need to plan for their care while also increasing their access to long-term care insurance.

Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, pay more than 45 percent of the private- sector's payroll, and generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade. It is critical that small businesses are able to offer their employees cafeteria plans so that they may purchase the health care and other benefits that will provide security for their families.

The ``SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2007'' achieves these objectives, in a manner that employers and employees can afford. Although the use of pre-tax dollars to acquire these benefits reduces current Federal revenues, the opportunity to provide small business employees these same benefits currently enjoyed by the employees of the Federal Government, and larger companies, more than justifies this minimal investment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with you to enact this bill into law.

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

Mr. President, this Nation was founded on the principle that the future matters more than the past. It was the first Nation in the world so conceived. The Founders took great pains to ensure that each generation would get a fresh start, free of the encumbrances of the past. They abolished primogeniture, entail, and hereditary titles. Jefferson for one believed that every twenty years or so, the books of the Federal Government should be wiped clean, so that prior generations would not be able to fob their debts off upon later ones who would have no say in the matter.

Over the last half dozen years, we have done exactly what the Founders of this Nation did not intend. We have heaped debt upon debt on the backs of our children and theirs--the very people the Founders thought should be free of such debts. In just about every corner of government and policy, the story has been the same--let's have a party today, and let our kids and grandkids clean up the mess. We've done it with energy, the environment, and, perhaps most of all, we have done it with the Federal budget.

Just six years ago, we had our fiscal house in order. The government had $5.6 trillion in projected surpluses between 2002 and 2011. We were paying down the debt. But now it's changed. We racked up the second largest deficit in our history in 2003, our largest deficit ever in 2004, the third highest deficit in 2005 and the seventh largest deficit last year.

The administration can claim to be making progress only by leaving out of its budget plans the full cost of the ongoing war against terrorism, long term relief from the alternative minimum tax, using Social Security surplus revenues for unrelated spending and by generally setting expectations so low that even failure looks good by comparison. But the reality, of course, is unless the Nation's fiscal policies are dramatically changed, we are going to see large deficits for many years in the future. At the current rate the accumulated debt of this government will grow from $8.6 trillion today to over $12 trillion by 2012.

That projected debt is bigger than the economies of Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Canada combined. It's almost $39,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Meanwhile, the Administration has provided big tax cuts for people who use them to buy third homes, pricey wines and three-hundred-dollar dungarees. This is Me-Generation economics. It is economics that says, ``Let others make the sacrifices while we have a bash.'' It is the total opposite of the economics envisioned by the founders of this country, who said that we should meet our own obligations, clean up our own messes and pay our own way, so that those who come after us can have a future that is clear and bright.

To this end, I rise today to introduce legislation called the Act For Our Kids that I hope will help spark a serious discussion in the U.S. Congress, and across our country, about putting the Federal Government's balance sheet back in order. This legislation provides for a package of Federal spending cuts and more revenue that would raise nearly $76 billion the first full year and some $205 billion over five years and every penny would be used to reduce the Federal deficit! It is a real first step in acting like we are serious about fixing our fiscal policies and paying our bills.

Last year on the Senate floor I spoke about an agenda that Congress could be pursuing that would benefit all Americans. Among other things, I said that two of our top priorities ought to be paying our bills and taking care of our kids. Regrettably, however, the administration and the majority in Congress at that time adopted a card credit mentality to fiscal policy that would make even the most aggressive credit card companies blush. If a part of the American dream is ensuring that one's kids and grandkids get at least the same opportunities that we had to climb the economic ladder to success, then the Federal Government's recent approach to fiscal policy has been a full-blown nightmare.

Unless we change the direction of our fiscal policy, the Federal Government will ``borrow'' trillions of dollars of Social Security surplus revenues over the next decade to pay for tax cuts and other spending. Social Security faces significant financial challenges as the baby boomers retire in the years ahead. Loading up the country with more debt and diverting needed revenues away from the Social Security program will only make the program's fiscal problems worse, not better.

The real question is how are we going to dig ourselves out of this fiscal quagmire? The solution offered by the White House and the Republicans in Congress was simple: They said let's run up our Federal credit card balances even more, while at the same time giving more large tax cuts to the richest Americans.

And if President Bush is successful in permanently extending the bulk of his previous tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans, as he proposed in his Fiscal Year 2008 budget submission just this week, another $2 trillion in revenues will be lost over the next decade.

Frankly, I am not aware of any instance in the history of this great country where those in charge of the Federal purse decided to cut revenues on such a large scale while in the midst of war. Today we ask our young men and women in uniform to sacrifice so much, yet the wealthiest among us are not asked to contribute even a portion of their tax cuts to what we are told every day is a noble cause.

In one of his famous fireside chats, President Franklin D. Roosevelt described our obligation as citizens to support our troops during times of war. He said:

Not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our enemies

in distant parts of the world. Not all of us can have the

privilege of working in a munitions factory or a ship yard,

or on the farms or in oil fields or mines, producing the

weapons or the raw materials that are needed by our armed

forces. But there is one front and one battle where everyone

in the United States--every man, woman and child--is in

action. . . . That front is right here at home, in our daily

lives, in our daily tasks. Here at home everyone will have

the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary,

not only to supply our fighting men, but to keep the economic

structure of our country fortified and secure during the war

and after the war.

The sentiments of President Roosevelt's remarks are truly lost on an Administration that has borrowed every dollar it has used to pay for the war in Iraq and the global fight against terrorism.

I think the American public understands that one of our obligations as U.S. citizens is helping to defend this country in whatever way is best. But what we have been missing is leadership and at least some measure of fiscal discipline in paying our war debt and getting other parts of our fiscal house in order.

It is unfair to pile up this massive debt and heave it onto the shoulders of working families and their children. The Federal Government is expected to pay $3.3 trillion in interest payments on the debt alone during the 10-year period ending in 2017.

The legislation I am introducing today includes a number of proposals that, taken together, would reduce the Federal deficit by my estimate $205 billion over the next five years.

First and foremost, this bill requires Federal agencies to tighten their belts by cutting their administrative overhead expenses. Before we ask others to make sacrifices needed to reduce the Nation's debt load, Federal agencies must do their part.

My legislation includes other targeted cuts in Federal spending and will make changes to the tax code to ensure that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable multinational companies that do business in this country pay their fair share of taxes--revenues that are needed to defend this Nation and keep our economy strong and growing.

Among other things, the Act For Our Kids would do the following: Cut Federal agency administrative overhead by 5 percent for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and save taxpayers an estimated $30 billion. This proposal would reduce ``nuts and bolts'' expenditures, including those relating to agency travel and transportation, advertising, office supplies, conferences and equipment. These savings must come from the bureaucracy, not programs. It is generally understood that administrative expenses do not include personnel compensation and benefits.

Eliminate $3.5 billion that remains in a giveaway fund in the Medicare drug plan. The 2003 Medicare drug bill included a $10 billion ``slush'' fund that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services could tap to entice regional preferred provider organizations (PPOs) to participate in Medicare. This fund has been roundly criticized by policy experts as an inappropriate use of Federal resources. The Senate has previously supported eliminating this fund altogether and legislation enacted by Congress late last year used $6.5 billion of the $10 billion in the fund for the physician payment fix.

Make drug importation legal and safe. This will not only help consumers by reducing the cost they pay for prescription drugs, but will save the Federal Government and therefore taxpayers an estimated $1.6 billion in Federal health program costs in the five years after its enactment.

Stop providing Federal funding for TV Marti broadcasts into Cuba that are jammed and therefore are not watched by their intended recipients. This provision would save U.S. taxpayers an estimated $100 million in the next half decade.

Restore honesty and accountability in Federal contracting by, among other things, reinstating a Federal rule that would deny Federal contracts to companies with a pattern of overcharging the government or violating other Federal laws, including tax, labor and consumer protections. Other provisions in the bill would crack down on corporate cheaters and require full disclosure of contracting abuses. It requires real contract competition, bans corporate cronyism and takes other significant steps to ensure that Federal contractors. large or small, are not gouging American taxpayers. Based on information derived from similar experiences in the past, and more recently, one could easily expect these reforms would save the Federal Government some $6 billion over a five-year period.

Abolish the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The docket of the Court of Federal Claims includes a hodgepodge of cases, including patent cases, claims involving Indian property, vaccine injury cases, claims arising from the interment of Japanese Americans, and cases arising under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. The light caseload of this court could be handled more efficiently by Federal district courts. This elimination of the Claims Court would result in additional taxpayer savings of tens of millions of dollars over five years.

Impose a temporary 2 percent emergency tariff on all imports for two years to help correct our country's $800-billion-plus trade deficit. Article XII of the GATT, which has been incorporated into the World Trade Organization, specifically allows member countries to impose tariffs to correct a balance of payment crisis. Temporary emergency tariffs over two years would help address this crisis, while raising an estimated $66 billion for deficit reduction.

Prevent tax avoidance for U.S. multinational companies that move profits to offshore tax havens by generally treating their controlled ``paper or shell'' subsidiaries set up in foreign tax-haven countries as domestic companies for U.S. tax purposes. This proposal would save taxpayers another $5.8 billion over five years.

Repeal the perverse Federal tax subsidy called tax deferral for U.S. companies that shut down manufacturing plants in the U.S. and move jobs abroad, only to ship their now foreign-made products back into our country. Killing this ill-advised tax break for runaway manufacturing plants would help level the financial playing field for domestic manufacturers while saving taxpayers some $4.2 billion over a five-year period.

Clarify and enhance the application of the economic substance doctrine that courts apply to deny tax benefits from business tax shelter transactions that do not result in a meaningful change to the taxpayer's economic position other than a reduction in their Federal income tax. This proposal would save taxpayers an estimated $5.8 billion over the next five years.

Rescind on a prospective basis a portion of the major tax cuts passed by Congress since 2001 for individuals who are earning more than $1 million annually. Providing some $90 billion in additional large tax cuts over the next five years for millionaires when the Nation is still accruing massive debt and paying ongoing war costs is irresponsible in my judgment.

Disallow the tax deduction for punitive damages that are paid or incurred by taxpayers as a result of a judgment or in settlement of a claim. Allowing a tax deduction for punitive damages undermines the use of punitive damages to discourage and penalize the activities or actions for which punitive damages are imposed. Making this change would save taxpayers about $130 million over a 5-year period.

Lift the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens. Repealing this obsolete and ineffective restriction on travel to Cuba would raise an estimated $1 billion in U.S. tax revenues over five years from increased U.S. business activity.

Extend permanently the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) authority to auction licenses to those using the radio spectrum. This FCC authority was recently extended by Congress through 2011. A permanent extension of this authority would raise $1 billion between 2012 to 2016, about $200 million annually starting in 2012.

The provisions I have highlighted above and others in the bill would help reduce the Federal debt by what I roughly calculate is $205 billion over the next half decade. I understand that this package does not fully cover our outstanding debt obligations. But I think it is a reasonable and balanced package of spending cuts and revenue enhancements that offer a first installment that will help us begin a thoughtful process of curbing our addiction to deficit spending and hopefully head us once again toward truly a balanced budget not counting Social Security surplus revenue that should be set aside for future beneficiaries, and not used for unrelated spending.

Garrison Keillor once said, ``Nothing you do for children is ever wasted. They seem not to notice us, hovering, averting our eyes, and they seldom offer thanks, but what we do for them is never wasted.'' I believe that one of the greatest gifts we can give for our kids is a future without a mountain of debt from under which they may never dig out. To make this happen, however, we need to set aside our differences and come together, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike, and begin to confront our recent obsession with debt financing. When we decide to do so, our Nation will be better for it, and so will the future of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2264) to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, gas prices have now reached an all-time record high, topping even the 1981 spike in price that had stood as the record high for 26 years. According to the Energy Information Administration, the nationwide price of unleaded regular gas hit $3.22 a gallon, 11.5 cents higher than last week's price. In Michigan, it is even higher than that.

Today's record-breaking price, one in an unending series of continuous price hikes over the past month, is hurting Americans in their pocketbooks, and we have got to do something about it. Retailers across the Nation are saying that soaring gas prices are prompting consumers to cut back on their shopping trips and their purchases.

We are told this won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either. The AAA forecasts that more record prices are probably on the way, especially as the summer begins, which is usually the busiest driving season of the year.

In Michigan, gas prices have reached their highest levels ever at $3.27 a gallon. Michigan is now the third most expensive State for gasoline in the country, behind California and the State of Illinois.

Last week, in an effort to help address this crisis, the House Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Task Force examined the OPEC cartel and its impact on the price of gas. OPEC accounts for two-thirds of the world's oil reserves and more than 40 percent of the world's oil production, but, even more significantly, OPEC oil exports represent 70 percent of all the oil traded internationally.

You know what that means. This affords OPEC, obviously, considerable control over the global market. Its net oil export revenues should reach nearly $395 billion in this year alone, and its influence on the oil market is dominant, especially when it decides to increase or reduce the levels of production.

For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy, and that is what I call it, a conspiracy, has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, the administration has done little or nothing to stop this.

So now the time has come. It is time for us to do something to point them in the right direction. We have got to get ahold of this economic crisis. The cries are rising up in every congressional district in the Nation, so your Committee on the Judiciary has produced H.R. 2264, with the help of Mr. Chabot and Mr. Keller and other Members, to make clear that the oil cartel nations that are colluding to limit crude oil production as a means of fixing its price is illegal under United States law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct.

It clarifies and reaffirms the law in several critical respects:

First, it exempts OPEC and other nations from the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to the extent those governments are engaged in price fixing and other anticompetitive activities.

Second, H.R. 2264 makes clear that the so-called ``act of state'' doctrine does not in any way prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments, and that foreign governments are ``persons'' subject to suit under the antitrust laws.

Third, it explicitly authorizes the Department of Justice to bring lawsuits in Federal court against oil cartel members.

Ladies and gentlemen, we, on behalf of the American people, have had enough. These price rises are not something that we have to merely humbly drive into the gas station and look at the new, increased cost. We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of our gas without any recourse whatsoever. We can do something about it to combat this blatantly anticompetitive, anticonsumer behavior, and we are.

I urge Members to carefully consider the legislation that is now being debated on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) whose State has been most affected by the subject matter we are here on the floor considering.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished Judiciary member from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, may I close with this observation. It was in 1978 that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers sued OPEC under the Sherman Antitrust Act, but the case was rejected because the Court said that OPEC could not be prosecuted under the Sherman Act due to the foreign sovereign immunity protection clause it claimed for its member states.

I'm here to announce on the floor, as modestly as I can, that that decision was in error. Government-owned companies that engage in purely business activities do not warrant sovereign immunity protection according to prevailing legal doctrines, and so what we do in this measure is that we don't start a lawsuit against OPEC. We merely authorize for the first time by law the Department of Justice to, when in their good judgment they choose to be able to do that.

These high prices facilitated by OPEC serve to transfer wealth from Western consumers to petroleum producers, and I have this on the very conservative words of the Heritage Foundation itself. I will insert this in the Record at this point.

[From The Heritage Foundation, May 21, 2007]

Time for Congress To Lift OPEC's Immunity

(By Ariel Cohen)

This week, the House is likely to pass the No Oil Producing

and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007 (NOPEC, H.R. 2264). This

bill, sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and

Steve Chabot (R-OH), would allow the federal government to

sue the Organization for Petroleum Exporting States (OPEC)

for antitrust violations. Similar legislation (S. 879) is

pending in the Senate, sponsored by Senators Herb Kohl (D-WI)

and Arlen Spector (R-PA). At a time when oil prices are

climbing to ever-higher levels, fighting OPEC's

anticompetitive practices would be a welcome first step

towards reestablishing the free market in this strategically

important sector. This is long overdue and points the way

toward a second step: allowing private antitrust suits

against OPEC.

The Intolerable Status Quo. Since its inception in 1960,

OPEC, which is dominated by Persian Gulf producers, has

successfully restricted its member states' petroleum

production, artificially distorting the world's oil supply to

line its members' pockets. Member states' production quotas

are determined at semi-annual meetings of members' petroleum

ministers and are at times changed through telephone

consultations. Several times, this supply-fixing strategy has

brought devastation to the U.S. and global economies:

In 1973, OPEC's actions in response to U.S. support for

Israel, which was attacked in the Yom Kippur War, resulted in

a worldwide economic recession that lasted from 1974 to 1980.

In 1980, OPEC's failure to increase production in the face

of the Iranian revolution resulted in historically high oil

prices of $81 per barrel (in 2005 dollars).

In 1990, OPEC refused to increase production sufficiently

to keep prices stable as Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait.

Lately, OPEC's resistance to add productive capacity has

sent oil prices to $70 a barrel, once again endangering

economic growth worldwide.

The cartel's operations ensure that its members' oil and

gas economies remain insulated from foreign investment flows.

Members of OPEC have not worked to enhance the rule of law

and property rights and have imposed severe restrictions to

prevent foreign investors from owning upstream production

assets (oil fields and pipelines). This is a testament to the

cartel's de facto monopoly over the petroleum market. Indeed,

the only serious challenge to the organization came in 1978

when a U.S. non-profit labor association, the International

Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), sued

OPEC under the Sherman Antitrust Act, in IAM v. OPEC. But the

case was rejected in 1981 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit. OPEC, the court affirmed, could not be

prosecuted under the Sherman Act due to the foreign sovereign

immunity protection it claimed for its member states.

That decision was wrong. Government-owned companies that

engage in purely business activities do not warrant sovereign

immunity protection according to prevailing legal doctrines.

High oil prices, which OPEC facilitates, serve to transfer

wealth from Western consumers to petroleum producers. This

wealth transfer funds terrorism through individual oil wealth

and government-controlled ``non-profit'' foundations. It also

permits hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on

radical Islamist education in madrassahs (Islamic religious

academies).

Furthermore, the oil-cash glut in the Gulf states and

elsewhere empowers resistance to much-needed economic reform

in oil-producing countries. State subsidies for everything

from health care to industry to bloated bureaucracy continue

unabated, funded by Western consumers.

Congress Gets Into Action. Growing concerns over energy

prices have prompted Congress to examine the legal hurdles

that prevent the United States from defending its economic

and national security interests.

In the early part of 2005, a group of senators led by

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) introduced the ``No Oil Producing

and Exporting Cartels Act'' (S. 555), known as NOPEC, to

amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting

cartels illegal.

The bill has now returned the Senate calendar. The House

and Senate now have a unique opportunity to:

Join forces in defending American businesses and consumers.

NOPEC would send a strong and long-overdue signal to OPEC oil

barons that they must stop limiting production and investment

access.

Allow private suits against OPEC. If OPEC is to be reined

in, individuals and companies that it has damaged must also

be allowed to bring suits against the cartel. As the

International Association of Machinists (IAM) v. OPEC made

clear, Congress must amend the Sherman Act to allow these

suits. Reform should not begin and with the DeWine-Kohl

legislation.

Conclusion. The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act

of 2007 would place much needed pressure on OPEC. It is time

for the cartel to cease its monopolistic practices. Otherwise

the American People can expect more of the same from OPEC--

insufficient production and higher energy bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in introducing the Head Start for School Readiness Act.

Head Start programs are critical to ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, enter school ready to learn and succeed. I want to thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for his ongoing commitment to our bipartisan approach, which has resulted in a bill that meets the needs of children and families who participate in the Head Start program throughout our Nation. I would also like to thank our colleagues Senators Alexander and Dodd and their staff for their fine work as well.

This legislation would reauthorize the Head Start program and help ensure that children in this important program will be better prepared to enter school with the skills to succeed. Success in life depends a great deal on the preparation for that success, which comes early in life. It is well documented in early childhood education research that students who are not reading well by the third grade will struggle with reading most of their lives. Head Start provides early education for over 900,000 children each year, most of whom would not have the opportunity to attend preschool programs elsewhere. It is because of these 900,000 children we have all worked so hard to improve and strengthen this Act.

I am particularly pleased with the accountability provisions we put forth in this legislation. The legislation we introduce today limits the timeframe for Head Start grantees to appeal decisions made by the Secretary to terminate grants. In some instances, Head Start grantees have been found to be operating programs that are unsafe or misusing Federal funds--and are often continuing those bad practices for months, as long as 600 days in some cases--during the termination process. This equates to children not receiving quality services, and instead of being prepared for success, they fall further behind.

Additional steps have been taken in this legislation to increase the quality of the Head Start program including providing the Secretary the authority to terminate a grantee that has multiple and recurring deficiencies that has not made significant and substantial progress toward correcting those deficiencies.

We recognize that a vast majority of the Head Start agencies provide high quality, comprehensive services for

children in the Head Start programs. However, the provisions in this bill will create an important incentive for programs to operate at their best, and in the best interest of the children they serve.

Senator Dodd has provided valuable leadership as we worked to develop a clear policy on the roles and responsibilities of the governing body and policy councils. We have worked together to clarify and strengthen the roles of the governing body and policy councils. After careful review, the Committee found that many of the important fiscal and legal responsibilities of Head Start grantees were not explicitly assigned. The bill clarifies those responsibilities leading to more consistent, high quality fiscal and legal management, which will ensure these programs are serving children in the best possible way.

I want to particularly note emphasis we have placed on the role of parents in Head Start programs. It is vital to remember that this program provides services to children and their families. Parents provide valuable insight and experience as to what a Head Start program should do for children.

Senators Alexander, Kennedy, and Dodd have worked tirelessly on this legislation and championed increasing coordination, collaboration, and excellence in early childhood education and care programs. I wish to thank my colleagues on the Committee, particularly Senators Kennedy, Alexander, and Dodd, for their work in drafting this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Head Start Act. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will improve the quality and effectiveness of the Head Start program for generations of children to come. It is my hope that our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce results as we move the bill through the Senate and into Conference.

Mr. President, first and foremost I want to thank my respective colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Domenici for their dedication and leadership on the issues of mental health parity. Your commitment and willingness to compromise has gotten us to the point where we are today--introducing a mental health parity bill that has the potential to be signed into law this year.

For many this is monumental. Parity for mental health benefits was first championed by the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Domenici in memory of our late colleague took over as the lead advocate for this legislation after the passing of Senator Wellstone.

Today is a reflection of your hard work, Senator Domenici, as well as the groundwork that was laid by the late Senator Paul Wellstone.

The advocacy of my good colleagues Senator Wellstone and Domenici helped to get the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 signed into law. This legislation acted as a catalyst for many states to take action in passing their own mental health parity laws. To date 38 States have passed some sort of mental health parity or benefit law. Many of these laws go much farther than the 1996 Act. However, there is a concern that while the 1996 Act requires parity for annual and lifetime dollar limits on coverage, group plans may impose more restrictive treatment and cost sharing requirements. This is a legit concern. There is a also a valid concern that requiring parity or mental health benefits will drive up the cost of insurance, and result in group plans offering less coverage or even worse dropping coverage for both mental and physical health. The bill introduced today recognizes both of these concerns and addresses them. This in turn breaks the log jam that has halted efforts in the past three Congress's to pass a Mental Health Parity Act that is more widely known as the Paul Wellston Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act.

The Mental Health Parity Act we are introducing today is a compromise between the proponents and those who opposed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. It is a result of two years of discussion and compromise between the business and insurer industry and the mental health community. I want to thank both of you for coming together in good faith to find a middle ground on an issue has polarized stakeholders. Your support and input has been critical to making this process work. Your willingness to work together to accommodate each others concerns, makes it possible for a mental health parity law to be enacted this Congress.

A vital component of the Mental Health Parity Act introduced today recognizes the importance and need for treating mental health equal to physical health, without unfairly mandating group health plans offer mental health coverage. The legislation applies only to those group health plans that already offer physical and surgical benefits as well as mental health benefits. It does not mandate what types of mental health benefits must receive parity, but leaves that to be defined under the terms of the plan or coverage or as defined under State law. What this legislation does do, is require a plan to provide financial requirements and treatment limitations applied to mental health benefits equal to the financial requirements and treatment limitations applied to medical and surgical benefits that the plan covers. For example, deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, out of pocket expenses, frequency of treatment, number of visits and days of coverage will now be treated equally for mental health and physical health. To allow for health plans to adequately manage the new parity requirement mechanisms are authorized to allow for medical management tools to be used by health plans. Provisions of this law will preempt provisions of State law that differ. But again, this bill would not preempt State laws mandating that mental health benefits be covered. Furthermore, States that elect to adopt the Federal standards would not be subject to preemption.

In addition, the legislation recognizes the stress many small business employers are under to provide health care to their employees, thus, this bill does exempts small employers. Any employer with 50 or less employees will not be affected by the Federal law, but must still comply with its State law or regulation.

Another critical component of this compromised legislation is a cost exemption. Under the provision, an employer may elect to continue to offer mental health parity if a group plan results in an increase of 2 percent in the case of the first plan year and 1 percent in the case of each subsequent plan year.

The compromises made in this legislation are of great importance to making sure this legislation will not burden employers struggling with health care costs, while not compromising the significance or effect this legislation will have in ensuring individuals have better access to critical mental health services. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans ages 18 and older, have a mental disorder that can be diagnosed in a given year according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration. However, their ability to receive treatment may be hindered due to cost issues or the stigma attached to mental illness. This legislation will help to address both by sending the message that mental health is just as important as physical health, and needs to be treated with the same amount of importance. This bill signals to an individual diagnosed with schizophrenia that his or her illness is as real as an individual diagnosed with diabetes and that they should not have to pay more for the mental illness than the physical. This legislation will help an employee covered by an affected plan who has a child with bipolar disorder better access to the treatment that child needs. In the past 20 years new technologies and treatments have advanced our understanding and ability to treat a mental illness. We now know with the right diagnoses, support, treatment and case management a person with mental illness can be a contributing member of society. It is time to update our laws to reflect this.

While introduction today is a huge step forward for a Mental Health Parity law, much more needs to be done to secure its passage. The legislation, as it is currently crafted, still must pass through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as early as Wednesday, the full Senate and then the House. At this point, a process has been created that allows for open and honest discussion. I encourage my colleagues and the stakeholders to continue this process and to remain together throughout each step of the way. By working together, instead of against each other, we can achieve passage of this legislation.