Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?

Mr. President, I request 5 minutes.

Mr. President, today we face an opportunity to change the course and the direction of our policy in Iraq. The other body, the House of Representatives, has sent a provision--a bridge appropriations supplemental--to us, which includes language that would change this policy. It would change our missions, it would establish a goal to complete the transition to this new mission by the end of next year, and it would invest resources, energy, and effort in diplomacy as well as military activity. I think it is critical to do that.

We have, for the last several months, seen an increase in American forces on the ground, and the sheer presence and effectiveness of American forces has created some tactical momentum in terms of the security situation. But the fundamental challenge remains to get the policy right in Iraq, and that is the responsibility of the Government of Iraq. In January of this year, 2007, the President announced his surge and he said:

I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other

leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the

Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises,

it will lose the support of the American people and it

will lose the support of the Iraqi people.

Well, those individuals in this body who oppose the House provision, the changed missions, are essentially declaring that there is an open- ended commitment; that we will not condition our resources and our effort in Iraq. I think that is wrong. And, in fact, it is wrong because what has been acknowledged over the last several days is the fact that the Iraqi political leaders have not seized on the situation in Iraq. They have not followed through.

The President proposed his surge because he thought the Government of Iraq would have the breathing space it needed to make progress in other critical areas. No such significant progress has been made. Yesterday, on the front page of The Washington Post, Tom Ricks wrote:

Senior military commanders here now portray the

intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the

key threat facing

the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaida terrorists,

Sunni insurgents, or Iranian-backed militias.

General Odierno, our tactical commander, the corps commander, indicated if that doesn't happen--i.e., the Government taking charge-- we are going to have to review our strategy. Well, that is not taking place. We have to review our strategy. Indeed, we have to change our strategy. We have to have a strategy with limited missions, counterterrorism, force protection, training Iraqi security forces. Those are the missions embedded in the supplemental bridge legislation passed by the House. Those are the missions we should pursue. Those are the missions that are essential to our security.

The Iraqi people, the Iraqi Government, must solve their own internal problems. We have given them space. They have not used it. Now we must seize on those mission which will protect the United States without an open-ended, unlimited commitment of our forces and our resources.

I urge that all of our colleagues join together in a bipartisan fashion and strongly support the supplemental bridge legislation proposed by the House, including conditions which are essential to our progress forward in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. This important bipartisan legislation, which I helped craft as a member of the Senate Education Committee and as a conferee, reauthorizes the Head Start Act for the first time since 1998 and strengthens our commitment to ensuring that the nation's neediest children receive high-quality early education supports and services.

Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to low-income preschool children and their families, and this reauthorization builds on our long-standing investment in this essential initiative.

There are two provisions that I am particularly pleased are included in this legislation, and which are important to my State of Rhode Island. First, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act builds on provisions I first authored in 2003 to provide Head Start programs with additional flexibility to serve children up to 130 percent of poverty. Current law limits program eligibility to 100 percent of poverty or below. This increase in income eligibility will enhance the opportunity for struggling, low-income families to participate in Head Start while ensuring that programs prioritize serving families under the poverty guideline and enhance outreach to ensure those most in need are served first. Raising the income eligibility limit finally puts Head Start on the same level as other means-tested programs, which essentially all serve above the poverty level to provide for greater participation and help the working poor.

Second, this legislation for the first time establishes the Parent Policy Council as a decisionmaking authority within the governing structure of Head Start programs. Strong parent involvement in their children's early education and development has been a key tenet of the Head Start program since its inception in 1965, and is one of the primary reasons for the program's continuing success.

This reauthorization also includes a provision I authored to enhance coordination between Head Start programs and school and public libraries to excite children about the world of books, assist in literacy training for Head Start teachers, and support parents and other caregivers in literacy efforts.

Additionally, I am pleased that this conference report does not permit employment discrimination based on religion despite the administration's continuing advocacy for such a change. Faith-based organizations are an integral part of Head Start. However, there is no need to change a program that has encouraged their participation by allowing such discrimination.

I want to thank Chairmen Kennedy, Dodd, and Miller and Ranking Members Enzi, Alexander, and McKeon and their staffs, for their extraordinary work on this conference report. The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act is significant legislation for the people of Rhode Island and the nation, and I am pleased to support it. This strong reauthorization in tandem with necessary funding increases will ensure that Head Start can continue its important and critical work to lessen the effects of poverty and ensure that children are successfully prepared for school and life.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, last week, this Senate deliberated and voted on the nomination of Judge Mukasey for the position of Attorney General of the United States. I opposed that nomination, and I believe it is appropriate to indicate formally and officially and publicly my concerns and my rationale for this vote.

This was not a decision that was made lightly. The Constitution gives the President the unfettered right to submit nominees to the Senate, but the Constitution also gives the Senate not only the right but the obligation to provide advice and consent on such nominations.

We do not name a President's Cabinet, but it does not mean we are merely rubberstamps for his proposals. Senatorial consent must rest on a careful review of a nominee's record and a thoughtful analysis of a nominees's ability to serve not just the President but the American people.

As I have said in the past, unlike other Cabinet positions, the Attorney General has a very special role--decisively poised at the juncture between the executive branch and the judicial branch. In addition to being a member of the President's Cabinet, the Attorney General is also an officer of the Federal courts and the chief enforcer of laws enacted by Congress.

He is, in effect, the people's lawyer, responsible for fully, fairly, and vigorously enforcing our Nation's laws and the Constitution for the good of all Americans.

Although I believe Judge Mukasey to be an intellectually gifted and legally skilled individual, I am very concerned about his ability to not just enforce the letter of the law but also to recognize and to carry out the true spirit of the law.

Frankly, I found Judge Mukasey's lawyerly responses to questions regarding the legality of various interrogation techniques, in particular waterboarding, evasive and, frankly, disturbing.

Waterboarding is not a new technique, and it is clearly illegal. As four former Judge Advocates General of the military services recently wrote to Senator Leahy, in their words:

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee's

consideration of President Bush's nominee for the post of

Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little

clarity, about the legality of ``waterboarding'' under United

States and international law. We write because this issue

above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is

torture, and it is illegal.

These gentlemen have devoted themselves to their country, as soldiers and sailors and aviators, and also as attorneys. At the crux of their service was the realization that what we espoused, what we stood for, would also be the standard we would claim for American soldiers and aviators and sailors and marines if they were in the hands of hostile forces. It is clear in their eyes--and should be clear in our eyes-- that waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, under U.S. laws, and the Army Field Manual. The U.S. Government has repeatedly condemned the use of water torture and has severely punished those who have applied it against our forces.

As Evan Wallach--a judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade and a former JAG who trained soldiers on their legal obligations--wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post, it was for such activities as waterboarding that members of Japan's military and Government elite were convicted of torture in the Tokyo war crimes trials.

The law is clear about this horrifying interrogation technique. Waterboarding is illegal torture and, to suggest otherwise, damages the very fabric of international principle and more importantly, of what we would claim and demand for our own soldiers and sailors and marines.

Now, Judge Mukasey was given several opportunities to clearly state that waterboarding is illegal. Instead, he went through a lengthy legal analysis regarding how he might determine if a certain interrogation technique was legal and then told us that if Congress actually wrote a law stating that a particular technique is illegal, he would follow the law. I found the last declaration almost nonsensical. This is the minimum requirement we would expect of any citizen of this country, that if we passed a law, they would follow the law.

I think we expect much more from the Attorney General. We expect him to be a moral compass as well as a wise legal advisor. We expect he would be able to conclude, as these other experts and as our history has shown, that this technique is indeed illegal. We need an Attorney General who has the ability to both lead the Department of Justice and to tell the President when he is crossing his boundaries. We do not need a legal enabler to the President. We need an Attorney General who will stand up for his obligation to the Constitution, and make this his foremost obligation, rather than his obligation to the President.

Not definitively stating that a technique such as waterboarding is illegal demonstrates to me that Judge Mukasey does not have those qualities we need in an Attorney General. As we learned from Attorney General Gonzales, we need someone who is willing to stand up to the President instead of helping the President negotiate around either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution.

This is not just an academic exercise. If the question of whether waterboarding is illegal torture was asked of the parents of American soldiers, their answer would be quite

clear: Of course, it is. If it was applied to the spouse or the loved one of a soldier--their answer would be: Of course, it is. I think those people are as expert as Judge Mukasey and certainly much more candid.

I also think we have risked a great deal in the administration's embrace of these techniques because today, as we look around the world, there are many nations that do not even need that kind of suggestion to embark on the torture of their own citizens. The Burmas of the world and other countries, they will use what we say and do as justification for what they might want to do. I think we have lost the moral high ground during this whole exercise going back several years.

Finally, I would like to mention my concerns about Judge Mukasey's responses to questions regarding executive power. His responses to these questions did nothing to reassure me. In fact, I now believe that Judge Mukasey believes that even a constitutional statute could become unconstitutional if its application constrains the so-called constitutional authority of the President.

As we all know, the genius of our Founding Fathers was not to allow power to be concentrated in the hands of the few. Indeed, they were particularly concerned about a concentration of power in the hands of the President.

Although they made the President the Chief Executive Officer of our Government and the Commander in Chief, the Founding Fathers constrained the President through the very structure of our Government, through both law and treaty. The Attorney General has a duty not just to serve the President but also to support, protect, and defend the Constitution.

I did not vote in support of Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be Attorney General because I was concerned about his ability to serve more than the President--a concern that has been borne out by the events over the last several months. It is largely because of his actions we are in the quandary we are in today with respect to torture and so many other issues.

Instead of protecting our Nation's Constitution and upholding our laws, he engaged in actions that damaged our Nation's core values and put our citizens' rights at risk both here and abroad.

Given the extreme politicization of the Department of Justice, and the demoralization that has followed in his wake, I believe our Nation needs an Attorney General who can help lead us like a beacon of light and help right our country's moral compass as an example again for the rest of the world.

I do not think Judge Mukasey met that standard.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Real Estate Transparency Act of 2007. This bill would amend the

Real Estate Settlement Practices Act of 1974 to improve the early loan disclosures given to those applying for a mortgage, ensure binding and transparent payment agreements between mortgage originators and borrowers, and require that a borrower be given a copy of their final settlement statement at least one business day before settlement so that it can be thoroughly examined before closing.

As we are all too aware, current Good Faith Estimates do not provide enough useful information to help borrowers truly make informed lending decisions. We have heard too many stories of borrowers not understanding the terms of their loan or not being told about unexpectedly high settlement fees until they are at the closing table. This lack of early and appropriate disclosures regarding the terms of a mortgage loan and the costs of closing on that loan hinders a family's ability to shop for the best loan product for the purchase of a home, and also has allowed families to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous brokers and lenders.

First and foremost, the Real Estate Transparency Act would replace the current Good Faith Estimate with an early written settlement statement of all of the costs to be charged to that person at or before settlement of the loan. It would require that this early settlement statement be in the same form as the final settlement statement, currently known as the HUD 1. The borrower would not be liable for any fees which are not disclosed on this early settlement statement, except for third party fees within 10 percent of the cost listed on the early settlement statement, or fees for bona fide and reasonable expenses not anticipated by the mortgage originator for an inspection, appraisal, survey, or flood certification. This early written settlement statement should allow consumers to compare the costs associated with different loan products from different mortgage originators and shop around for the best product for them early in the process.

Second, this legislation would require for the first time that the HUD 1 or final settlement statement be provided to the borrower at least one business day before settlement. If this final settlement statement is not provided to the borrower, then lenders will be subject to statutory damages.

Third, this bill would require mortgage originators to provide borrowers with a written agreement itemizing all of the fees they may charge the borrower, including any origination fees, underwriting fees, broker fees, or other fees to be charged at or before settlement of such loan to be paid to the lender, the broker, or affiliates of the lender or broker. In addition, this written agreement would have to set out and explain three possible methods of payment for such fees: payment in cash before or at settlement; adding such fees into the loan amount to be borrowed; and increasing the interest rate of the loan. The borrower also could choose to both pay in cash and incorporate some of the fees into the loan amount. This written agreement regarding mortgage origination fees would have to be provided to the borrower within three days of application and be signed before the borrower is obligated to pay any of these fees. Not only should this provide greater transparency regarding what fees are going to be charged by the mortgage originator, consumers also can decide not to sign on the dotted line if they do not like the costs associated with the loan.

Finally, the bill subjects mortgage originators to statutory damages for violations of these disclosure provisions equal to the sum of the borrower's actual damages plus $5,000 for each instance such instance of noncompliance.

Congress needs to take many steps to address the subprime mortgage crisis and to reinstate confidence among our nation's homeowners and those we hope will become homeowners. I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding their loan costs is a vital part of improving this complicated and often overwhelming process. Borrowers need to better understand the financial ramifications of choosing a certain loan product from a certain mortgage originator early in this process, and before they actually consummate the loan. I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this legislation that I believe will greatly improve mortgage loan disclosures.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Real Estate Transparency Act of 2007. This bill would amend the

Real Estate Settlement Practices Act of 1974 to improve the early loan disclosures given to those applying for a mortgage, ensure binding and transparent payment agreements between mortgage originators and borrowers, and require that a borrower be given a copy of their final settlement statement at least one business day before settlement so that it can be thoroughly examined before closing.

As we are all too aware, current Good Faith Estimates do not provide enough useful information to help borrowers truly make informed lending decisions. We have heard too many stories of borrowers not understanding the terms of their loan or not being told about unexpectedly high settlement fees until they are at the closing table. This lack of early and appropriate disclosures regarding the terms of a mortgage loan and the costs of closing on that loan hinders a family's ability to shop for the best loan product for the purchase of a home, and also has allowed families to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous brokers and lenders.

First and foremost, the Real Estate Transparency Act would replace the current Good Faith Estimate with an early written settlement statement of all of the costs to be charged to that person at or before settlement of the loan. It would require that this early settlement statement be in the same form as the final settlement statement, currently known as the HUD 1. The borrower would not be liable for any fees which are not disclosed on this early settlement statement, except for third party fees within 10 percent of the cost listed on the early settlement statement, or fees for bona fide and reasonable expenses not anticipated by the mortgage originator for an inspection, appraisal, survey, or flood certification. This early written settlement statement should allow consumers to compare the costs associated with different loan products from different mortgage originators and shop around for the best product for them early in the process.

Second, this legislation would require for the first time that the HUD 1 or final settlement statement be provided to the borrower at least one business day before settlement. If this final settlement statement is not provided to the borrower, then lenders will be subject to statutory damages.

Third, this bill would require mortgage originators to provide borrowers with a written agreement itemizing all of the fees they may charge the borrower, including any origination fees, underwriting fees, broker fees, or other fees to be charged at or before settlement of such loan to be paid to the lender, the broker, or affiliates of the lender or broker. In addition, this written agreement would have to set out and explain three possible methods of payment for such fees: payment in cash before or at settlement; adding such fees into the loan amount to be borrowed; and increasing the interest rate of the loan. The borrower also could choose to both pay in cash and incorporate some of the fees into the loan amount. This written agreement regarding mortgage origination fees would have to be provided to the borrower within three days of application and be signed before the borrower is obligated to pay any of these fees. Not only should this provide greater transparency regarding what fees are going to be charged by the mortgage originator, consumers also can decide not to sign on the dotted line if they do not like the costs associated with the loan.

Finally, the bill subjects mortgage originators to statutory damages for violations of these disclosure provisions equal to the sum of the borrower's actual damages plus $5,000 for each instance such instance of noncompliance.

Congress needs to take many steps to address the subprime mortgage crisis and to reinstate confidence among our nation's homeowners and those we hope will become homeowners. I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding their loan costs is a vital part of improving this complicated and often overwhelming process. Borrowers need to better understand the financial ramifications of choosing a certain loan product from a certain mortgage originator early in this process, and before they actually consummate the loan. I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this legislation that I believe will greatly improve mortgage loan disclosures.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased this afternoon to recommend the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies division of this conference report to the Senate. This is an extremely important and time-sensitive funding measure, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it without delay as part of the Labor and Health and Human Services conference report and send it to the President to be signed into law.

I am particularly honored to be presenting this measure to the Senate on behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Tim Johnson. We have worked closely throughout the entire appropriations process, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs provisions before the Senate today are the product of a thoroughly collaborative and a cooperative effort, but the leadership was provided by Senator Johnson. I appreciate Senator Johnson's graciousness in allowing me to offer this conference report on his behalf.

I would also like to thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, for her excellent work and cooperation in developing this conference report and the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran, for their strong support and guidance in shepherding this legislation to the floor.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs conference report before the Senate today is fair, balanced, and a bipartisan piece of legislation that deserves the full support of the Senate.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs portion of this conference report is critically important to our Nation's military forces and to our veterans. It includes $64.7 billion in total discretionary funding--$3.7 billion over the President's budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This level of funding includes $37.2 billion for veterans health care, a high-water mark in the history of the Department--the largest sum of money ever appropriated for veterans health care. Indeed, it is consistent with the independent budget the veterans organizations have proposed year after year. This is the first time we could match their goal with our appropriation. We have provided $2.6 billion more than the President requested for veterans health care and $373 million more than the veterans service organizations sought in the independent budget. We have, in fact, gone beyond what the independent veterans organizations have suggested in their budget. This level of funding is a clear demonstration of the importance this Congress places on the health and welfare of our Nation's veterans.

The funding included in this conference report supports a myriad of programs crucial to America's veterans, including funding the veterans hospitals, clinics, and veterans centers, as well as cutting-edge research into critical areas of health care such as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. As a result of the asymmetric combat we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Nation is

producing a new generation of veterans, and they have markedly different service-related injuries than were experienced in previous wars. Thankfully, more service men and women are surviving their war wounds, but many are surviving with catastrophic physical and mental injuries.

The nature of veterans health care for new veterans is changing dramatically, while the demand for short-term and long-term health care for veterans of previous wars is rapidly increasing as the veteran population ages. We have two currents rushing together: veterans of World War II and Korea who are now in their seventies and eighties requiring more care simply because of their age, and a new generation of veterans coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, many of whom are sustaining neurological injuries such as traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. This other stream of veterans is flooding into our system, and we have to care for all of these veterans. That is why this legislation is particularly timely and particularly important.

All of the challenges to the Department of Veterans Affairs are enormous. The conference report before the Senate today addresses those challenges. With this funding, we are providing the resources for the Department to meet the needs of both aging veterans from yesterday's wars and emerging veterans from today's conflict.

The conference report also includes critically needed funding for military construction. It provides a total of $21.5 billion for military construction and an $8.4 billion increase over last year's funding level, with most of the increase directed toward implementing the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Program.

I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes $1.1 billion for the Nation's Guard and Reserve forces--a 34.5-percent increase over the President's budget request. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed an unprecedented demand on the Nation's Guard and Reserve Forces. Yet the President's budget slashed construction funding for several of the Guard and Reserve components. This conference report corrects that inequity. For example, it increases funding for the Army National Guard 25 percent over the President's budget request, and for the Air Guard, the conference report more than triples the President's budget request.

Military construction may not have the glamour of the Defense Department's sophisticated weapons and other programs, but it is, nevertheless, the bedrock of the Nation's military. Our troops must have sufficient funding to provide barracks, facilities for training and maintaining their equipment, and adequate housing for their families. Without the resources provided in this legislation, these crucial facilities could not be constructed. This legislation provides funding for an impressive array of military construction projects, the vast majority of which were requested by the President. All of the major construction projects added to the President's budget by the Senate have been fully vetted, are included in the authorization bill, and are encompassed within the service's Future Years Defense Plan.

Some have complained that the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs conference report should not be coupled with the Labor and Health and Human Services conference report. I will have more to say about that later, but I would like to make the point now that these two bills complement each other in many respects, and it makes perfectly good sense to link them together.

There are more than a few crossover items between the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill and the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations bill. These include, to name a few, the Labor Department's Veterans Employment and Training Program, which includes the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program; the Department of Education's Impact Aid Program, which assists school districts whose student population is swelled by military dependents; and the Traumatic Brain Injury Program directed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control. There are numerous programs that provide benefits to veterans and their families that are included in the Health and Human Services program. Veterans are not simply veterans. They are members of communities. They have children. They have spouses. They require the services that are included not only in the Veterans' Administration bill but particularly their families in other legislation and other appropriations included in the Health and Human Services bill.

Something else, too, I think is important to stress, and I will do that in greater detail, these veterans as young men and women committed themselves to this country, not because they anticipated collecting veterans' benefits but because they wanted to make a difference. They wanted to ensure that--mercifully and hopefully--the next generation of Americans wouldn't have to go into combat, but beyond that, that all Americans would have a chance. It was not about ensuring elaborate tax loopholes or sophisticated financial transactions; they were fighting-- and, sadly, being injured and too many dying--to give people a chance in this country, an opportunity to go to school, for children to get immunizations, and for bright, talented young people to go to college. That is why I think it is also essential that these two bills are being considered together, because if we provide for our veterans, they have earned it--and we should and we must and we will--but if we neglect the rest of the country, have we truly fulfilled and measured up to what they served and sacrificed for? I don't think so.

The Senate has before it a comprehensive and vitally important conference report for funding both Departments, both areas--the Department of Labor and Health and Human Services, the Education Department, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. We have the opportunity--I would argue, the obligation--to send a signal to the President of this country and to the Nation that we are not willing to play favorites among appropriations bills. Funding for health care for our veterans is clearly a priority, but it does not trump our commitment to fund health care services for all Americans or education programs or job training for those who need it, including veterans who participate in many of the Department of Labor programs.

I urge my colleagues to support this conference report in its entirety and send it to the President today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of whatever time I may have.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 minutes from the majority leader's time.

Mr. President, we are here today at this juncture to talk about the point of order raised against combining the MILCON bill and the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. There is a large point I will try to make, which is that these bills are complementary in many real ways. Veterans, for example, do not live alone with other veterans. They have families who require education, Pell grants, Head Start funds, and all of that is within the purview of the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Also, they are individuals, our veterans, who have earned their rights. But I don't believe they engaged in battles for this country and wore the uniform of this country to get a pension or to get a health benefit; they did it for a broader, much larger, much more noble purpose, and that was to build a decent and just America. Part of that is making sure children have immunizations, making sure children can go to good schools and disadvantaged children can enjoy health through the title I program; making sure talented young people can go to college with a Pell grant or a Stafford loan; the CDC can protect all of us from disease, and the NIH can use their resources to research breakthroughs in medicine and health care to benefit all of us. It is that vision of a decent, humane, and just America that ultimately compelled millions of Americans to wear the uniform of this country and defend it.

So the notion that we can arbitrarily or not arbitrarily separate these bills, I don't think it accords with one of the major functions of all of us as citizens, as soldiers, as Senators--to serve the greater good--and we are doing that, I think, with these two appropriations bills.

There is another point I think which is interesting to me. These bills have passed the Senate overwhelmingly. They would, I think, if they were separated, pass overwhelmingly. But it seems to me we are now in a situation where we can't combine them because the President has said: Don't put them together because I will sign one and veto the other, which presents my colleagues in the Senate a very interesting situation: After voting for the underlying bills overwhelmingly, do they support the President's veto? I hope we can avoid that.

I think we should send these bills together to the President today. We can do that. We can expedite the funding of the VA at record levels. We can fulfill our obligations to citizens across this country in many different ways by supporting this procedural approach of combining the bills, voting for the bills, and sending them to the President.

But the premise I think is we will separate them if this point of order is sustained, and then we will see the VA bill probably signed but then have to come back and negotiate a way for a bill we all support--the Health and Human Services bill. I don't think that is the right approach. The fastest way to get this legislation, with respect to veterans, to the President is to vote against this point of order, send it to the President, he can sign it, and next week we can celebrate Veterans Day with the largest veterans appropriations bill that we have ever passed. I think that is the route we should pursue. I don't think we should allow the President to dictate the terms.

One of the interesting things about the President's approach-- particularly as we have talked time and time again about Iraq--is that: Well, the Congress can't tell me how to run policy; all they can do is fund or not fund the war. Well, here we are making a very bold, very assertive statement about funding the Veterans' administration, Military Construction, and Health and Human Services. But he says: Well, you can't do that. You can't tell me that either because I will veto one and I would not accept a package, even though it is a package of funding. Again, I think we have to--and we should--assert our will, particularly when it comes to the underlying legislation that passed this body with extraordinary--extraordinary margins. This would be, I think, a different debate if we had taken a bill that was popular and combined it with a bill that could not pass this body, or barely pass this body. Both of these bills have commanded I think strong support, and they should go forward and be signed by the President.

But there is another issue here, too, and it goes back to the initial point I made about there is a complementarity between these two bills, and it is a very direct and, I believe, powerful one. We have, for example, within the Health and Human Services bill, $228 million for the Veterans Employment and Training Program. It is in the Department of Labor. But if you are a veteran and you are looking for the training you need and employment opportunities because you have served your country honorably and well--and if we don't pass that Health and Human Services bill, that money will not be there. We have in the Department of Labor $23.6 million for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. In fact, I dare say, there is too little attention being paid to homeless veterans. There was a report today that one in four homeless individuals are veterans of the military. That is a shocking and shameful statistic for this country. We have in this bill one of several programs--very small, but they help veterans. That is in the labor portion of the bill; that is not in the veterans' portion of the bill. Funding for the Department of Education, $1.26 billion to impact aid payments. Those payments are targeted to school systems that serve military installations, large populations not only of veterans, but of Active-Duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. So we are saying: Great, we are going to give the veterans what they deserve, but for those veterans and Active-Duty personnel, we can't vote in this bill for $1.26 billion in impact aid. We can't provide their children the kind of school systems in adjoining neighborhoods to military posts that we think is adequate--not only adequate but we hope excellent.

So these bills are not distinguished in some respects. They serve the veteran population and the military population, and to suggest they are totally opposed and diametric is, I think, wrong.

In the area of health care funding, we went a long way in the Veterans' Administration bill to put significant resources into the veterans health care program.

In fact, for the first time, it exceeds the independent budget which veterans organizations present to us each year, when it comes to veterans health care, the largest increase in veterans health care, the largest appropriation we have ever given.

One of the areas we asked them to look at is traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress. We understand now because of the nature of combat and conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, there

are thousands of young men and women coming back with traumatic brain injuries. They did surveys of returning brigades of some of our Army units and estimated that perhaps 20 percent of the troops might have some indication of traumatic brain injury--slight to moderate. Over time, this is an increasingly more difficult problem for the VA system. Of course, we have asked them to treat these individuals. But in the Health Resources and Service Administration--in the other appropriations bill, we have $9.5 million for the traumatic brain injury program.

We have billions of dollars for the National Institutes of Health, for their research, which will be extremely important if we want to understand the phenomenon of traumatic brain injury. Of course, if we don't move that bill today, this bill, along with the Veterans' Administration bill, at least temporarily we lose these funds.

So I think there is a synergy between the two bills. I think it goes back to not just the complementary programs; it goes back to what our veterans and our soldiers today are serving for--not self- aggrandizement, not a pension, or to get the benefits they have earned alone but for something bigger. Those men and women are not out there putting time in so when they get to be 40 or have 20-plus years of military service they get the pension. They are risking their lives so this country lives up to its highest ideals. If we cannot provide and pass a robust appropriations bill and get it signed by the President on Health and Human Services, we are not living up to our obligations and our ideals.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I voted with great enthusiasm for the SCHIP reauthorization bill. I think the present version is commendable and a version we should support. I particularly thank Leader Reid, Chairman Baucus, and Senator Rockefeller for their efforts, and I commend them.

The bill provides an additional $35 billion to preserve coverage for all 6.6 million children currently enrolled, and it expands coverage to an additional 4 million children.

The President and House Republicans have already denied these children access to health care once, by first vetoing the legislation and then sustaining the veto in the House of Representatives. I hope this version can pass without a veto. If it is vetoed, I hope the veto can be overridden.

The President's proposal, rather than expanding coverage, would in fact dramatically restrict coverage, dropping 1.4 million children and pregnant women. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office. So there is a very stark choice between an administration that wants to restrict coverage for children and this legislation, which would maintain, and indeed expand, that coverage to cover 10 million children in the United States.

With respect to Rhode Island, this bill adds an additional $75 million in Federal funds on the table. It has to be matched, but this would allow the State of Rhode Island to maintain its program of health care for children. The bill would prevent shortfalls that have periodically cropped up, where the State found itself expending all of its funds and hoping there would be a redistribution of funds from other States that have not used their funds.

Last year, and again early this year, I fought for $56 million in Federal funds to cover Rhode Island's shortfall. But these 11th-hour stopgap measures are not sustainable. The legislation we passed yesterday would prevent my State from being in a constant situation of shortfalls, hoping that other States have excess funds, and depending upon individuals in our delegation to get those funds for Rhode Island.

If President Bush and the House Republicans fail to enact this bill-- if he vetoes it, and they sustain that veto--21 States will be at risk of shortfalls, totaling $1.6 billion. Rhode Island will have a shortfall of $44.1 million, beginning next March. We can predict that today. I don't know where my State would get that $44 million. It is in a severe budget crisis. State leaders are talking about trying to find $100 million to $200 million in cuts, which in our budget is a significant amount of money. So the idea that they would have to come up with $44 million on top of that is something that would be a very difficult challenge for Rhode Island.

If Republicans do not enact this bill, we must fully fund an extension that covers these shortfalls. We will be back next spring scrambling to find money to keep these programs functioning. I hope we can prevail at this juncture to create a program and funding that will be sustainable, predictable, and supportive of efforts in my State, and many States across the country, to reach out and insure children for their health care needs.

The President's opposition is not based on fact or common sense or, indeed, even common decency; it seems to be based on ideology. He says families would switch from private insurance to government-run health care. But the number of uninsured is rising because private insurance is too expensive. In Rhode Island, the average family premium for a year is $11,924. If you look at a typical working family in Rhode Island, it is struggling now to pay its mortgage. We have seen what is happening in the mortgage market, where many of these families, in order to get into a home, signed up for what are termed an ``exotic'' mortgage. In my State, foreclosures are at record-high levels. People cannot keep up with their mortgage payments. Then, added to that dilemma, wages have essentially been flat over the last 5 to 6 years, mortgage payments are going up, the price of gasoline is now reaching significant heights, and it is estimated that this winter heating oil in New England will be 20 percent more expensive than last winter. Are you then going to tell them: Oh, just go out and buy private health insurance for $11,000 a year?

That makes no sense for working families in Rhode Island. They are struggling to keep their homes and, literally, to keep the lights on and keep it a little warm during the wintertime. For many of these people, private health insurance, at $11,000 a year, is way beyond their reach. So to sit there and seriously insist that this is a real choice for these families--a choice of getting into a public program or buying private insurance--verges on the ridiculous.

Without the SCHIP program, thousands of families in my State--and millions of children across the country--will not have health care. There is no choice.

There is also the President's argument that this is socialized medicine. I believe that is a gross misrepresentation. In Rhode Island, children are enrolled in private plans, and enrollees can choose their doctor. In fact, there is another program like this, called Medicare. I don't see the President rallying against Medicare, saying how it is socialized medicine. In fact, I can recall he proposed--and this Congress supported--one of the largest expansions of Medicare by adopting a drug benefit. That costs the Federal Government billions of dollars, and there is no discussion about that.

These arguments are baseless. The President says this bill costs too much. In fact, this bill is fully paid for; it is one of the few things in the last 6 to 7 years that has been fully paid for. It is paid for by a cigarette tax, and it is in sharp contrast to the President's repeated request for money for Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not paid for. He is spending about $12 billion a month. Of that money, over the last several

years in Iraq, we have invested in items such as building Iraqi health care clinics and providing health care for Iraqis. In trying to reestablish stability in that country, the President recognizes that to have a decent, well-ordered society, you have to have access to health care for citizens. The problem is, he doesn't seem to recognize it here as much. So I believe we have to support this legislation.

The President also says the bill doesn't target low-income children. In fact, 80 percent of newly insured children would be from families below 200 percent of poverty. That is a pretty good target.

He talks about the bill expanding coverage to families making $80,000 a year. That was always a misrepresentation. But we make it clear in this bill that eligibility is capped at 300 percent of poverty; that is, families making $60,000 a year. That sounds like a lot, but if you are in a major urban area, with rents costing $1,000 to $1,500 to $1,800 a month for just a fairly--and I emphasize ``fairly''--decent two-bedroom apartment for your family, when you do the math, these people are not in a situation of excess wealth by any means.

In Rhode Island, 10,000 children remain uninsured. We can do much better. The Rhode Island program provides family-based health insurance. Rhode Island does enroll parents in this health care program. They found that it helps when the whole family is part of the delivery system. It has enhanced their ability to recruit children into the system. It has enhanced, in their view, health outcomes because now we have a family engaged rather than an individual child.

I think it is appropriate in Rhode Island that we have such a forward-thinking and progressive approach because the basic SCHIP program was, in many respects, the work of Senator John H. Chafee, my colleague, a former Republican Senator who was succeeded by his son Lincoln Chafee in this Chamber. Senator Chafee, who was a pragmatic, hardnosed Republican whose values were to provide opportunity to all citizens in the nation, understood that if we could deliver effective health care to children in this country, we would go a long way to give them the physical tools to be successful in school, to succeed in the workplace, and ultimately to be citizens of this great country. He fought hard for this program. He didn't do it on an ideological basis; he did it on a very pragmatic, practical basis. His success has been demonstrated over the last 10 years because we have given more children access to health care.

There are countless stories that will be forever unknown to us, but they will be decisive in the lives of children because this program has made a difference in their lives. Where they would have suffered with an undiagnosed disease that would have impaired their ability to thrive in school and work, because they had simple, preventive health care early on, they have been successful in school, and they will be successful in life. Families have been relieved of one of the most grievous fears they carry, and that is: Oh, my gosh, what happens if my child gets sick; I have no health care coverage--the gnawing fear at night that something could happen the next day and you have no way to protect your child because you cannot afford to get them health care. That fear has been relieved.

There is a very popular commercial from one of the credit card companies: Such and such an item, $10; such and such an item, $9; having the ability to do this, priceless. For families, having the confidence that they have health care is priceless, and this bill has helped them.

I hope the President will sign this bill, and if he doesn't--if he continues to roam through his ideological warehouse and pick out different odds and ends to justify this veto--then I hope the House Republicans have the courage to stand up and say: No, we are going to do what is right for the children of America, not just what is politically convenient for the President.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 5 years ago today, Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, and three of his staff perished in a plane crash.

This was a tragic loss to the Wellstone family, including his two surviving sons, David and Mark, his State, our Nation, and this body.

His passion, energy, and commitment on behalf of the ``little guys''--all those without a voice, including children, the poor, the homeless, victims of domestic violence, the mentally ill--serves as an example to us all.

He was a champion for all those who needed one, and for doing what is right. This was well-illustrated in his unwavering devotion to the fight for mental health parity, robust education funding, and affordable housing.

Senator Wellstone worked tirelessly to achieve fairness in the treatment of mental illness. On September 18, the Senate unanimously passed mental health parity. In the other body, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act recently moved through committee.

We must continue the fight toward final passage of mental health parity. I look forward to that day, which will be a historic achievement, and an enduring memorial to the life of this great man.

I was honored to serve with Senator Wellstone for over 4 years on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. He was a consistent and powerful advocate for increased education funding and ensuring our children possess the necessary skills and tools to compete in an ever- expanding global economy.

During the debates on the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, he would say, ``We cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin cup budget.'' Unfortunately, today we are still struggling to provide more than that ``tin cup'' budget as the President has cumulatively underfunded title I of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Federal Government's most significant commitment to K-12 education, by over $43 billion since its enactment. As such, his words seem more appropriate than ever.

Senator Wellstone worked on a multitude of issues, but I want to touch on just one other today, and that is affordable housing. At Senator Wellstone's suggestion, on April 15, 2002, I flew out to Minnesota to hold a Banking Committee Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation field hearing on ``Affordable Housing and Working Families.''

At the time, Minnesota had one of the Nation's highest rates of homeownership, yet one of the worst affordable rental housing shortages in the country. It was our hope that we could learn more about the affordable housing crisis impacting working families, and how government could best work with the private sector to address the problem.

Paul's passion for this issue and his special connection to his constituents was apparent throughout this hearing. He was intent on figuring out what obstacles stood in the way of creating more affordable housing, and what the Federal Government could do to help. Paul believed in democracy with a small ``d,'' and he allowed anyone in the audience who had something to say to come up to the microphone and tell the U.S. Senate what it might do to help.

Paul's untimely death was a huge blow to many of us. He inspired us every day to focus on those who were less fortunate, and that legacy must continue to live on.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, in a colloquy on the Fiscal Year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

I want to thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their work on this bill. The bill restores cuts proposed in the President's budget while balancing many important national priorities. The President's proposed budget request of $141 billion for the programs funded by this bill is clearly inadequate and I am glad the Committee on Appropriations allocated additional funding to this bill. However, even with this additional funding, I recognize the difficult budget constraints facing the subcommittee as it tries to reverse previous funding cuts to important education, labor, and health and human service programs.

One program particularly important to working Americans families and seniors is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. I know the chairman and ranking member are strong supporters of this program. Studies have shown that energy insecurity affects the health, nutrition, and learning of children. LIHEAP provides vital assistance to families, disabled individuals, and seniors so they don't have to choose between eating and paying an energy bill. With utility shutoffs and arrears on the rise, we cannot afford to support the President's cut of $379 million to the program. In my home State, utility shutoffs for nonpayment are at their highest level in 10 years. The State's data shows that through August, there were 20,326 shutoffs for the year. If this is not bad enough, the Energy Information Administration's Winter Outlooks estimates that the average household will spend $891 to heat with natural gas this winter and a family heating with oil can expect to spend $1,785 this winter. We need to increase LIHEAP funding, not cut it as proposed in the President's budget. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for restoring funding to the Fiscal Year 2007 level, but it is my hope that in conference we will be able to raise LIHEAP funding to $2.662 billion, the level provided in the House.

I would also like to bring another issue to your attention. The House bill contains report language that would direct the national center for public health informatics to continue to fund the establishment of a nationwide database of contact information for practicing physicians. In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or a pandemic, Federal agencies and State and local health departments could use this database to contact physicians to request their help. In my State of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Medical Board participated in the pilot project of this program. Based on the success of that pilot project, I support its expansion nationwide. I hope that in conference, we can keep this House report language.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is there a pending amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that amendment and then call up an amendment that has already been filed.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

No more than 10 minutes, and I will try to be less than that.

Mr. President, we are currently debating the Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. Let me commend Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter for their great work on this legislation.

As Chairman Harkin said, this bill truly defines America. It defines our Nation's commitment to our children's future through education, it defines our Nation's compassion to seniors and working families, and it defines our hopes in many different areas, particularly in the area of helping to cure disease and improve the public health. This is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. Both Senator Harkin and Senator Specter have done a remarkable job bringing it to the floor.

Let me highlight a few of the important points that I believe should be emphasized.

First of all, the bill increases Head Start funding, whereas the President's budget would decrease it. The legislation before us will provide sufficient resources to continue Head Start, which is an important aspect of giving children a chance to succeed earlier in their lives. It also provides resources for higher education: Pell grants, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program--LEAP Program--TRIO, and GEAR UP. All of those are vital to ensuring that our citizens can seize the opportunity of America, and the greatest opportunity is education.

This legislation also provides an important safety net for many of our low-income families and our seniors; that is, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We could see a very severe winter in the Northeast, in the Northwest, and in the Central Plains of America. We are also seeing incredibly expensive prices for oil. Without this LIHEAP money, we will not be able to deal with the issue, and countless families will make difficult choices between literally eating or heating their homes. This legislation, in contradistinction to the White House's proposal, would maintain, not decrease, LIHEAP funding.

The legislation provides additional resources--about a billion dollars more--for the National Institutes of Health. This is vital to our ability to do research and to provide new diagnoses and new cures for disease. But it is something else that is important: It provides the infrastructure for research in this country. It gives those young Ph.D.s and M.D.s who are doing research incentives to stay in the field. Without it, we will not only miss out on the cures, but we will also miss out on the physicians and researchers who can give us, over the next 20, 30, 40 years, insight into the problems with disease in human beings.

We also are supporting in this bill the vaccination program. The 317 vaccination program, immunization program, has been essential to improving the public health, particularly the public health of children. This bill supports those commitments.

It also provides for training and employment resources. In a world of globalization, where jobs are going overseas, we just cannot tell people: Tough luck. We have to give them an opportunity to change their training, change their workplace, to go ahead and seize new opportunities. The President's budget diminishes these programs; this legislation increases the programs. I think that is the right direction.

The Job Corps Program--very successful since the 1960s. We have in Rhode Island what I think is the best Job Corps center in the country. I just had the director in a few days ago talking about how they are being evaluated higher and higher in each evaluation across the country in terms of other Job Corps centers, providing not only training but jobs. All of their students are walking out into good jobs. These are young men and women who, frankly, we haven't been able to reach before this stage. Either they have dropped out of high school or they have had a long process to get their GED and to get into this program. Some are just getting their GEDs in this program. This program deserves our support.

But there is one area in which we have not committed resources; that is, the Trauma Care Systems Planning

and Development Act of 2007. Trauma--injuries, accidents, falls, automobile wrecks, recreational mishaps--is actually the leading killer of young Americans up to the age of 44. It claims more than 140,000 lives and permanently disables about 80,000 each year. But only one in four Americans lives in an area served by coordinated systems that will transfer patients to designated trauma centers from less-equipped hospitals. This is particularly a problem in rural areas. It affects urban and rural communities but particularly the rural areas. At the highest risk are those people in rural areas. Sixty percent of the trauma deaths occur, even though there is only 20 percent of our population, in rural areas--60 percent of the trauma deaths, 20 percent of the population. This is a program which is desperately needed in rural parts of America.

The Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act is an important building block to an improved national network of care across the country. This program would allow for planning, infrastructure development, and standards development to determine the procedures that are most appropriate to do this. It would also require coordination with Federal agencies. It is a sensible investment in a systemic approach to trauma care. I believe it is very important.

Amendment No. 3360 to Amendment No. 3325

As a result, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3360.

This amendment would provide $6 million for the program. It is fully offset. It is a small amount of funding to improve and expand the availability of trauma care across the country, particularly in rural areas, to ensure all areas are equipped with appropriate emergency and medical services, thus improving the survival rate and recovery rate for injured patients.

Trauma care is not only critical to providing timely access to lifesaving interventions, it is central to our national security and disaster preparedness. It is an essential component of our overall health care system and something I believe we have to do.

I hope that at the appropriate time my colleagues will be able to support this very worthy measure. Let me thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter and particularly their staffs for a bill that I think does speak to the best of America, and does, in fact, define, in a very positive way, our most important priorities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act. For decades, we have known that people suffering from mental illness die sooner, on average 25 years sooner, and have higher rates of disability than the general population. People with mental illness are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. With this legislation, we are taking steps to address these disturbing trends.

We know that mental health and physical health are inter-related: each contributes to the other. Yet historically mental health and physical health have been treated separately. The vision of this legislation is that the two should be integrated in a single medical home.

In a recent survey, 91 percent of community mental health centers said that improving the quality of health care is a priority. However, only one-third have the capacity to provide health care on site, and only one-fifth provide medical referrals off site. The centers identified a lack of financial resources as the biggest barrier to integrating treatment.

Accordingly, this legislation provides grants to integrate treatment for mental health, substance abuse, and primary and specialty care. Grantees can use the funds for screenings, basic health care services on site, referrals, or information technology.

This legislation is also a comprehensive response to the workforce crisis identified by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. It provides grants for a wide range of innovative recruitment and retention efforts, from loan forgiveness and repayment programs, to placement and support for new mental health professionals, to expanding mental health education and training programs.

Finally, this legislation provides grants for tele-mental health in medically-underserved areas, and invests in health IT for mental health providers. These proposals address the twin goals of improving the quality of mental health treatment while expanding access to that treatment in rural and underserved areas.

This bipartisan legislation, which I am introducing with my colleague Senator Smith, has the overwhelming support of the mental health community. It has been endorsed by the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Mental Health America, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform, and the American Psychological Association. I am especially grateful for the support of the Rhode Island Council of Community Mental Health Organizations, whose members treat close to 15,000 Rhode Islanders of all ages.

Today Senator Smith and I are also introducing the Community Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. It should be obvious that this legislation is a necessary complement to the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act: without community mental health centers, there can be no services to improve. Accordingly, this legislation provides grants to states for the construction and modernization of facilities that provide mental health services.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will work to include

these important initiatives in legislation that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, programs. It is my hope that with its passage, we can begin to address the challenge of improving and expanding access to mental health services in a comprehensive way.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act. For decades, we have known that people suffering from mental illness die sooner, on average 25 years sooner, and have higher rates of disability than the general population. People with mental illness are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. With this legislation, we are taking steps to address these disturbing trends.

We know that mental health and physical health are inter-related: each contributes to the other. Yet historically mental health and physical health have been treated separately. The vision of this legislation is that the two should be integrated in a single medical home.

In a recent survey, 91 percent of community mental health centers said that improving the quality of health care is a priority. However, only one-third have the capacity to provide health care on site, and only one-fifth provide medical referrals off site. The centers identified a lack of financial resources as the biggest barrier to integrating treatment.

Accordingly, this legislation provides grants to integrate treatment for mental health, substance abuse, and primary and specialty care. Grantees can use the funds for screenings, basic health care services on site, referrals, or information technology.

This legislation is also a comprehensive response to the workforce crisis identified by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. It provides grants for a wide range of innovative recruitment and retention efforts, from loan forgiveness and repayment programs, to placement and support for new mental health professionals, to expanding mental health education and training programs.

Finally, this legislation provides grants for tele-mental health in medically-underserved areas, and invests in health IT for mental health providers. These proposals address the twin goals of improving the quality of mental health treatment while expanding access to that treatment in rural and underserved areas.

This bipartisan legislation, which I am introducing with my colleague Senator Smith, has the overwhelming support of the mental health community. It has been endorsed by the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Mental Health America, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform, and the American Psychological Association. I am especially grateful for the support of the Rhode Island Council of Community Mental Health Organizations, whose members treat close to 15,000 Rhode Islanders of all ages.

Today Senator Smith and I are also introducing the Community Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. It should be obvious that this legislation is a necessary complement to the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act: without community mental health centers, there can be no services to improve. Accordingly, this legislation provides grants to states for the construction and modernization of facilities that provide mental health services.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will work to include

these important initiatives in legislation that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, programs. It is my hope that with its passage, we can begin to address the challenge of improving and expanding access to mental health services in a comprehensive way.

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

Mr. President, I am here today to speak on the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, and I begin by thanking the chairman of the committee, Senator Mikulski, and the ranking member, Senator Shelby, for an extraordinarily well-crafted appropriations bill which responds to the needs of the country and responds particularly to those areas which were neglected in the initial submission by the President.

This bill will protect our citizens and support law enforcement, which is a critical aspect of our engagement to provide security and safety for all of our citizens. It will strengthen America's competitiveness in the global economy. And it will also go a long way to begin to properly husband and conserve our oceans and coastal communities.

Once again, let me commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for a job well done. I hope as we go forward the President will work with the Senate and the House to enact this legislation, to sign it, to fund it appropriately, and to continue to strengthen our country in so many different ways.

This bill will restore $1.5 billion in funding cuts to State and local law enforcement programs. We have seen, shockingly in my mind, an increase in the statistics of violent crime in this country. That tears at the fabric of every community in America. We need these funds. I am pleased to see the chairman and ranking member respond to that need by providing additional resources.

Since 2001, budgets for these law enforcement programs have been decimated, and many in law enforcement believe these cuts have contributed to this very rise in violent crime. To reverse this troubling trend, the bill provides $2.66 billion in funding for the Office of Justice programs, which includes Justice assistance, State and local law enforcement assistance, community-oriented policing services, and juvenile justice programs.

The $550 million for the COPS Program will help local law enforcement agencies combat crime and respond to terrorist threats. There is another dimension. When we enacted the COPS Program years ago, we were thinking of law enforcement at the local level simply being an agent to stop those perpetrators of crime. Now we have to deal, and they have to deal, with terrorists, and they have to be prepared to do that.

In Rhode Island, the COPS Program has provided nearly $30 million in Federal funding and helped over 395 police officers--it has helped that many--since its inception. We would have literally hundreds of police officers absent from their place on the streets of Rhode Island if this program had not been adopted, and if this bill does not continue to support it. I have been pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Biden's amendment, which I think was one of the foundations of the proposal we see today in the appropriations bill.

This bill also provides $7.35 billion for the Department of Commerce. This is a diverse agency. It has a significant impact in Rhode Island. It supports, in Rhode Island, ocean exploration. We have the University of Rhode Island School of Oceanography, which is one of the best in the country, and it depends significantly on support from NOAA and the Department of Commerce. Coastal protection: We are the ``Ocean State.'' We have, per area, the longest coastline of any State in the country. We have a fisheries program. We are an active fishing state, and we need that help and support.

I am excited about the opportunities, particularly for increased research with respect to our oceans. Oceans, through fishing, through transport, through recreation, contribute an estimated $120 billion a year to our economy, and they support over 2 million jobs. Yet we do very little to research the ocean. We do little to stimulate aquaculture, commercial fishing, tourism--all of these things which are huge economic drivers to our economy in Rhode Island and in many parts of the country. This bill will begin to pick up the pace when it comes to supporting these important endeavors.

There is a Joint Oceans Commission that has been charged with looking at oceans policy, and they have given our country a grade. In 2006, it was a C-minus. It was a little bit better than 2005--that was a D- plus--but we want to get A's when it comes to ocean policy. That means supporting this legislation and putting the money in to help NOAA particularly. This bill provides $4.2 billion for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, including $795 million to fund the Joint Ocean Commission's recommendations for ocean research, education, observation, and exploration.

Let me commend again Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for making this a part of this important legislation. The world is basically covered by ocean. We spend a very small fraction on ocean research relative to major research programs for the atmosphere, for space. We have to start looking within the oceans, not only for scientific answers but for commercial opportunity.

The bill also strengthens U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Following the recommendations of the National Academy of Science's report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' the bill invests in research and technology that will pay dividends for our future. Specifically, the bill provides over $5.1 billion for basic research through the National Science Foundation, including $117.5 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research--the EPSCoR Program. This EPSCoR Program has been very critical in my home State of Rhode Island. It has provided a partnership between the Federal Government, academic agencies, schools, universities, and State government to stimulate research. It is a valuable catalyst for research going forward.

Now, with more than 50 percent of NSF's funding going to seven States, this EPSCoR Program makes sure that the other States--the other 43 States--get a little attention and a little cooperation and a little support. It is incredibly important to Rhode Island, and I particularly thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support.

Let me mention something else about NSF funding, something else about research funding. It is not just the foregone experiment, the foregone program research; without robust funding for the National Science Foundation and other areas of academic endeavor, we are losing a whole generation of researchers, of academics.

I went to the laboratory at Brown University, the neuroscience lab-- terribly sophisticated, doing remarkably good work. I talked to a young researcher, a Ph.D., a woman in her early thirties. She said not only did she need additional support, but she looked back at her class of Yale graduates, Ph.D. scientists, and she is the only one of about seven of those Ph.D.s from Yale who has the money to do the research. She pointed out that if you don't get that money at 30 years old to do this fundamental research and establish yourself, you will not get tenured at 39, and as a result, you quickly decide you are leaving the field. You can go to a pharmaceutical company; you can go to an investment bank and use your skills in terms of analyzing portfolios and investments. You won't be doing basic research, expanding the knowledge, teaching other scientists and other young students. That is what is so critical about this, in addition to simply making sure we continue to do the research, and I thank my colleagues for their support.

Let me also mention another program, and that is the manufacturing extension program. All of my colleagues, without exception--and I include myself--come to the floor and talk about the decline of American manufacturing, the fact that we used to have, particularly up my way in the Northeast, communities that revolved around manufacturing plants at every corner. Growing up in Rhode Island, when you drove through communities such as Pawtucket in the 1950s on a Saturday, all you could hear was click, click, click. Those machines were working overtime. There was no air-conditioning; the windows were open until 11 o'clock at night. It is silent there now. We are losing manufacturing.

This manufacturing extension program is the only real money we put in to directly aid manufacturing. It gives them new techniques, new technology. It gives them suggestions about how they can be competitive on a global basis. It helps the small manufacturer. It is critical. It is the last support for many of these individual companies, the last support they get to face a very competitive world. I again appreciate so much how this money has been included in this appropriation.

This bill also provided $283 million to the Economic Development Administration. EDA is one of those critical agencies of the Federal Government that will allow local communities to fulfill their plans for local economic development. We have used this program repeatedly to jump-start progress at the local level. They have gone in and they have funded, and they have a rather wide mandate that they can justify as economic development, but they have funded programs that have allowed investments by States and cities and private entities to really give us a leg up in terms of providing employment, providing new economic oppor- tunities for my communities in Rhode Island. Again, it is a very valuable agency.

Of this funding, $15 million is for trade adjustment assistance for firms, and this is targeted to medium-sized manufacturers and agricultural companies that experienced loss from foreign imports.

Again, related to the struggle of our manufacturing companies, we are seeing so much that used to be produced in America is now imported, and what is lost in the balance is many jobs, and this money will help, at least a bit, to ease that transition. It allows people really to retool themselves for a new economy. It gets them off the unemployment rolls more quickly than otherwise and gives them something more important than just a check; it gives them new hope. For many of my constituents, it is particularly distressing when you reach midlife, you have worked very hard, you got out of high school in the 1960s and thought you could have a whole career based on a high school diploma, and guess what. Now the company is gone. You have to have new skills. Where are you going to turn? This helps these individuals, not just with the monetary compensation, not just with a little bit of assistance, but with a new hope that they can get on with their lives. It is very important.

So much of this bill is commendable, and it is the work of not only the hands but the hearts of both Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby that have made this such a worthwhile piece of legislation. I am proud to support it. I hope we can move it forward quickly, and I hope the President will sign it. I believe it will be a victory for all Americans.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will improve the loan disclosures given to homebuyers not only when they apply for a mortgage, but also when they refinance their home.

As we are all too aware, the percentage of loans entering foreclosure is at its highest level in 55 years. According to RealtyTrac, there were 1.2 million foreclosures reported nationwide last year, up 42 percent from 2005. Many of these Americans going into foreclosure took out exotic adjustable rate and payment option loans which are now resetting to new, much higher monthly payments. Many of these consumers never understood how these loan products worked or how high their payments would be once these loans reset.

The Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2007 would for the first time require that the maximum payment that a consumer has to make on a mortgage be disclosed, not only at application, but also seven days before closing. If these disclosures are not made or are made inaccurately, then lenders will be subject to statutory damages. In addition to requiring lenders to disclose the maximum payment under the loan, they will now have to provide consumers who apply for adjustable rate or variable payment loans with a warning that the payments will change, depending on the interest rate.

In addition, this bill would require lenders to give firm disclosure regarding the terms of the mortgage not only within three days of application for the loan, but also at least seven days before closing. Lenders also will now need to include a statement that the consumer is not obligated on the mortgage loan just because they have received the disclosures. This will give consumers the opportunity to truly shop around for the best mortgage terms for the first time ever. They will be able to compare the payments and costs associated with a certain loan product, and decide not to sign on the dotted line if they do not like the basic terms of the loan.

Finally, the bill clarifies that lenders are subject to statutory damages for violations of Truth in Lending disclosure provisions, increases the damages for mortgage violations from $2,000 to $5,000 per violation, and requires that mortgage disclosures be made within the stated time frames.

The increasing rate of foreclosures across the country is troubling. Not only are individual families losing their homes and their financial nest eggs, but there is a negative ripple effect across communities and the economy. Although improved TILA disclosures are only a small part of what Congress needs to do in the upcoming year, I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding the maximum payments they might have to pay under the terms of a loan is an important and vital part of improving the process. Borrowers need to better understand the full financial impact of entering into a particular loan early in the loan decision process, and also before they actually consummate the loan. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other efforts to help improve the mortgage financing process.

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