Floor Statements

Mr. President, on April 16, 2007, our Nation faced a terrible tragedy, the deadliest shooting in the history of our Nation. I want to express my sympathy to the victims of this senseless violence, one of whom was Daniel O'Neil, a 22-year-old Virginia Tech graduate student from Lincoln, RI.

The unfortunate truth is that this unspeakable event could have happened on any campus, anywhere. It highlighted how vulnerable our Nation's university and college campuses can be to this type of attack.

Today, I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private institutions of higher education and rail carriers, including line-of- duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, and eligibility for bulletproof vest partnership grants through the Department of Justice. This legislation would give sworn, licensed, or certified police officers serving private institutions of higher education and rail carriers the same Federal benefits that apply to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local government.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Act of 1976 was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and firefighters by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. Specifically, this law addresses concerns that the hazards inherent in law enforcement and fire suppression, and the low level of State and local death benefits, might discourage qualified individuals from seeking careers in these fields.

The same risks also apply to police officers protecting our private universities and railways. Unfortunately, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act omitted coverage to sworn officers who are privately employed, even though they enforce the law and have arrest powers within their jurisdiction. These brave officers, who protect our college and university campuses and railways every day and receive the same training as their government counterparts, are thus excluded from receiving the same line-of-duty Federal death benefits as law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 25 college or university officers have been killed in the line of duty since September 20, 1963. The names of these 25 officers, including Officer Joseph Francis Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, as well as 59 railway officers who have been killed in the line-of-duty are inscribed on the Memorial.

Since September 2004, three sworn campus police officers have been killed in the line-of-duty. Two of these officers were from public universities: the University of Florida and the University of Mississippi, whose sworn officers are covered by the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act. The third, however, was Butler University Police Department Officer James L. Davis, Jr., who was shot and killed in the line of duty on September 24, 2004, while responding to a campus disturbance. Because Butler University is a private university, Officer Davis was not eligible for the same Federal benefits as his counterparts at the University of Florida or the University of Mississippi.

I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Cornyn have joined me in introducing this legislation to help remedy this discrepancy in death benefit payments for law enforcement officers and ensure that these public safety officers have access to the protective equipment they need.

The bill would apply only to sworn peace officers who receive State certification or licensing, and is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, IACLEA. Indeed, the benefits of this legislation far outweigh the costs. A 2004 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that there would be no significant budget impact by its enactment.

I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn, in cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to ensure that the brave officers that serve and protect our private college and university campuses and railways receive the benefits that they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on April 16, 2007, our Nation faced a terrible tragedy, the deadliest shooting in the history of our Nation. I want to express my sympathy to the victims of this senseless violence, one of whom was Daniel O'Neil, a 22-year-old Virginia Tech graduate student from Lincoln, RI.

The unfortunate truth is that this unspeakable event could have happened on any campus, anywhere. It highlighted how vulnerable our Nation's university and college campuses can be to this type of attack.

Today, I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private institutions of higher education and rail carriers, including line-of- duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, and eligibility for bulletproof vest partnership grants through the Department of Justice. This legislation would give sworn, licensed, or certified police officers serving private institutions of higher education and rail carriers the same Federal benefits that apply to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local government.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Act of 1976 was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and firefighters by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. Specifically, this law addresses concerns that the hazards inherent in law enforcement and fire suppression, and the low level of State and local death benefits, might discourage qualified individuals from seeking careers in these fields.

The same risks also apply to police officers protecting our private universities and railways. Unfortunately, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act omitted coverage to sworn officers who are privately employed, even though they enforce the law and have arrest powers within their jurisdiction. These brave officers, who protect our college and university campuses and railways every day and receive the same training as their government counterparts, are thus excluded from receiving the same line-of-duty Federal death benefits as law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 25 college or university officers have been killed in the line of duty since September 20, 1963. The names of these 25 officers, including Officer Joseph Francis Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, as well as 59 railway officers who have been killed in the line-of-duty are inscribed on the Memorial.

Since September 2004, three sworn campus police officers have been killed in the line-of-duty. Two of these officers were from public universities: the University of Florida and the University of Mississippi, whose sworn officers are covered by the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act. The third, however, was Butler University Police Department Officer James L. Davis, Jr., who was shot and killed in the line of duty on September 24, 2004, while responding to a campus disturbance. Because Butler University is a private university, Officer Davis was not eligible for the same Federal benefits as his counterparts at the University of Florida or the University of Mississippi.

I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Cornyn have joined me in introducing this legislation to help remedy this discrepancy in death benefit payments for law enforcement officers and ensure that these public safety officers have access to the protective equipment they need.

The bill would apply only to sworn peace officers who receive State certification or licensing, and is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, IACLEA. Indeed, the benefits of this legislation far outweigh the costs. A 2004 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that there would be no significant budget impact by its enactment.

I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn, in cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to ensure that the brave officers that serve and protect our private college and university campuses and railways receive the benefits that they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act of 2007, HOPE Act. This legislation would reauthorize and amend Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, so that we can improve on Federal efforts to support and sustain homeownership.

As we all know, during the past several years, housing prices in cities and States around the country have far outpaced any increase in wages. Families have been stretching themselves financially to get into homeownership, and many families have started using alternative or exotic mortgages loan products to purchase their homes.

According to First American Loan Performance, in 2006, in my own State of Rhode Island, nearly 16 percent of all home-purchase loans were ``interest only.'' However, as home prices have declined, many people who took out these exotic loans are now finding they owe more than the value of their property.

The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that nationally one in five subprime loans originated during the prior 2 years will end in foreclosure, costing homeowners $164 billion, mostly in lost equity.

`It appears that we are just at the beginning of what could be a perfect storm, as many credit-stressed borrowers still face resets of these exotic adjustable-rate and payment option loans. There were 1.2 million foreclosures reported nationwide last year, up 42 percent from 2005, according to RealtyTrac, a database of foreclosed properties. RealtyTrac also reports 430,000 foreclosure filings in the first quarter of 2007, a 35 percent jump over the same period in 2006.

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. That is why I am introducing the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act, or HOPE Act.

This bill seeks to help States establish and enhance outreach programs to proactively find homeowners at risk of losing their homes and help them avoid foreclosure. States will be rewarded for having set up effective programs to help curtail foreclosures with additional funding and resources. An incentive is provided for more States to follow suit and reach out to delinquent borrowers, offer them access to financial counseling, and, when appropriate, help them negotiate a plan to restructure their debt.

In particular, the HOPE Act provides $50 million for the creation and operation of State Homeownership Protection Centers. The centers can serve as a one-stop resource, offering consumers a broad range of services and assistance, such as financial assessments, counseling, or referrals to families in need. It authorizes $260 million in competitive grants to States who operate State Homeownership Protection Centers for revolving loan funds to offer one-time grants or subsidized loans to qualified families. It increases funding to $300 million for effective HUD-approved counseling agencies. Finally, it sets aside $5 million for the creation of a Federal database on defaults and foreclosures to improve oversight of public and private efforts to sustain homeownership.

In addition, to help prevent future borrowers from taking on unsustainable mortgages and falling into foreclosure, the HOPE Act would create an affirmative duty for lenders and servicers to engage in reasonable loss mitigation prior to foreclosure. It would also require notifications by lenders and servicers to borrowers regarding the full array of counseling services available in their State at every critical step, at application, at closing, and upon delinquency. Finally, if a State has a State Homeownership Protection Center, lenders and servicers would be required to refer borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent to the center so that it can proactively attempt to reach distressed borrowers.

I am introducing the HOPE Act because when homes get foreclosed on, it is not just the borrowers and lenders who pay the price, whole neighborhoods suffer. Housing industry experts estimate that for every foreclosure within an eighth of a mile of a house, two and a half city blocks in every direction, the property value of surrounding homes drops by about 1 percent. I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and ensure that millions of Americans, including neighbors who never took out a risky loan and have scrimped and saved to pay their bills on time, are not adversely affected by the subprime foreclosure crisis.

This legislation is targeted relief that will help more families keep their homes and save communities nationwide millions of dollars. We need to act swiftly before personal financial tragedies turn into a full blown national financial crisis.

The HOPE Act will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal, creating sustainable homeownership. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other foreclosure prevention efforts.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act of 2007, HOPE Act. This legislation would reauthorize and amend Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, so that we can improve on Federal efforts to support and sustain homeownership.

As we all know, during the past several years, housing prices in cities and States around the country have far outpaced any increase in wages. Families have been stretching themselves financially to get into homeownership, and many families have started using alternative or exotic mortgages loan products to purchase their homes.

According to First American Loan Performance, in 2006, in my own State of Rhode Island, nearly 16 percent of all home-purchase loans were ``interest only.'' However, as home prices have declined, many people who took out these exotic loans are now finding they owe more than the value of their property.

The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that nationally one in five subprime loans originated during the prior 2 years will end in foreclosure, costing homeowners $164 billion, mostly in lost equity.

`It appears that we are just at the beginning of what could be a perfect storm, as many credit-stressed borrowers still face resets of these exotic adjustable-rate and payment option loans. There were 1.2 million foreclosures reported nationwide last year, up 42 percent from 2005, according to RealtyTrac, a database of foreclosed properties. RealtyTrac also reports 430,000 foreclosure filings in the first quarter of 2007, a 35 percent jump over the same period in 2006.

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. That is why I am introducing the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act, or HOPE Act.

This bill seeks to help States establish and enhance outreach programs to proactively find homeowners at risk of losing their homes and help them avoid foreclosure. States will be rewarded for having set up effective programs to help curtail foreclosures with additional funding and resources. An incentive is provided for more States to follow suit and reach out to delinquent borrowers, offer them access to financial counseling, and, when appropriate, help them negotiate a plan to restructure their debt.

In particular, the HOPE Act provides $50 million for the creation and operation of State Homeownership Protection Centers. The centers can serve as a one-stop resource, offering consumers a broad range of services and assistance, such as financial assessments, counseling, or referrals to families in need. It authorizes $260 million in competitive grants to States who operate State Homeownership Protection Centers for revolving loan funds to offer one-time grants or subsidized loans to qualified families. It increases funding to $300 million for effective HUD-approved counseling agencies. Finally, it sets aside $5 million for the creation of a Federal database on defaults and foreclosures to improve oversight of public and private efforts to sustain homeownership.

In addition, to help prevent future borrowers from taking on unsustainable mortgages and falling into foreclosure, the HOPE Act would create an affirmative duty for lenders and servicers to engage in reasonable loss mitigation prior to foreclosure. It would also require notifications by lenders and servicers to borrowers regarding the full array of counseling services available in their State at every critical step, at application, at closing, and upon delinquency. Finally, if a State has a State Homeownership Protection Center, lenders and servicers would be required to refer borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent to the center so that it can proactively attempt to reach distressed borrowers.

I am introducing the HOPE Act because when homes get foreclosed on, it is not just the borrowers and lenders who pay the price, whole neighborhoods suffer. Housing industry experts estimate that for every foreclosure within an eighth of a mile of a house, two and a half city blocks in every direction, the property value of surrounding homes drops by about 1 percent. I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and ensure that millions of Americans, including neighbors who never took out a risky loan and have scrimped and saved to pay their bills on time, are not adversely affected by the subprime foreclosure crisis.

This legislation is targeted relief that will help more families keep their homes and save communities nationwide millions of dollars. We need to act swiftly before personal financial tragedies turn into a full blown national financial crisis.

The HOPE Act will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal, creating sustainable homeownership. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other foreclosure prevention efforts.

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

Mr. President, due to my flight from Rhode Island being delayed, I was unavoidably absent for vote No. 151, the Cochran second- degree amendment No. 1010 to the Dorgan amendment No. 990.

Had I been present, I would have opposed the Cochran amendment. While I have supported the Cochran amendment in the past, the amendment this time seeks to amend a different and vastly strengthened Dorgan reimportation proposal. Senators Dorgan and Snowe have acknowledged the safety concerns that have been raised in the past and have sought to address them. Specifically, their amendment establishes a framework for the registration and regulation of exporting pharmacies and wholesalers. It also directs the FDA to initiate a process to approve identical medications as FDA-approved products in the United States. The amendment also requires clear labeling and documentation of the drug from the point of origin to the point of sale. I believe these series of measures greatly improve the Dorgan amendment, reduce the risk of counterfeit products entering the domestic drug supply chain, and assure the safety of reimported drugs. The Dorgan-Snowe proposal also meets the second test set forth in the Cochran second degree amendment--cost savings. According to Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates, implementation of prescription drug importation provisions would lead to $50 million in direct savings. However, the CBO also found that imposing the Cochran amendment would reduce those potential savings to zero.

The time has come for Congress to move forward with a thoughtful and responsible framework for drug reimportation. In a free market economy such as ours, it seems unfair that we have permitted a system that only allows the manufacturers to reimport drug products. It is essential that we find ways to reduce drug prices for Americans and one approach is by allowing drug reimportation. As such, we can and should, with the appropriate safeguards, allow a more open prescription drug reimportation regime to take hold in this country. The Dorgan-Snowe proposal offers a reasonable and responsible framework for such an endeavor to begin.

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Kerry, in introducing the Reinsure America's Businesses Act of 2007. This legislation represents a critical step forward in bringing affordable health care to the uninsured and lowering the ever increasing costs of health care for families and businesses.

The bill that we are introducing today proposes that the Federal Government assume responsibility for the most burdensome risk for employers, and in doing so helps to provide greater access to lower priced health care. Under our legislation, the Federal Government will reimburse employers for a significant portion of the costs of their most ill employees--75 percent of medical bills in excess of $50,000. In exchange, employers agree to offer all of their workers preventative care and quality coverage.

At the heart of this bill lies the fact that 1 percent of patients account for 25 percent of health care costs, and 20 percent of the population that is catastrophically ill accounts for 80 percent of the costs. Planning for the unfortunate chance that one falls into one of these categories is precisely why individuals have health insurance. Yet it is also the primary reason why many employers, particularly small businesses where one critically ill individual can have a tremendous influence on the

overall cost, do not offer their employees health insurance. Through reinsurance, the Federal Government has an opportunity to absorb a large portion of this risk and encourage more affordable and meaningful employer sponsored health coverage. This legislation also eases the burden on health insurance companies by making rate determinations more predictable.

Federal reinsurance is an efficient use of Federal dollars because it spreads the burden across employers, the Federal Government, and employees, thereby lowering costs and increasing access to quality health care. Reinsurance reduces health insurance premiums for everyone; some estimates suggest as much as 10 percent. Actions to decrease the cost of health care and improve access to care are crucial if we are to combat ever-rising health care costs in this country. In Rhode Island, from 2000 to 2006, premiums increased 75 percent while median earnings went up only 23 percent. Uninsured rates have also grown in Rhode Island with more than 13 percent of residents under age 65 with no health insurance, up from 8.1 percent in 1999. Rhode Island is not unique; the entire country bears the burden of high health care costs and increasingly declining access. This legislation lays the groundwork for achieving our goal of making health care more affordable and more accessible to every American.

I am pleased to join with my colleague in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it prompt consideration.

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Kerry, in introducing the Reinsure America's Businesses Act of 2007. This legislation represents a critical step forward in bringing affordable health care to the uninsured and lowering the ever increasing costs of health care for families and businesses.

The bill that we are introducing today proposes that the Federal Government assume responsibility for the most burdensome risk for employers, and in doing so helps to provide greater access to lower priced health care. Under our legislation, the Federal Government will reimburse employers for a significant portion of the costs of their most ill employees--75 percent of medical bills in excess of $50,000. In exchange, employers agree to offer all of their workers preventative care and quality coverage.

At the heart of this bill lies the fact that 1 percent of patients account for 25 percent of health care costs, and 20 percent of the population that is catastrophically ill accounts for 80 percent of the costs. Planning for the unfortunate chance that one falls into one of these categories is precisely why individuals have health insurance. Yet it is also the primary reason why many employers, particularly small businesses where one critically ill individual can have a tremendous influence on the

overall cost, do not offer their employees health insurance. Through reinsurance, the Federal Government has an opportunity to absorb a large portion of this risk and encourage more affordable and meaningful employer sponsored health coverage. This legislation also eases the burden on health insurance companies by making rate determinations more predictable.

Federal reinsurance is an efficient use of Federal dollars because it spreads the burden across employers, the Federal Government, and employees, thereby lowering costs and increasing access to quality health care. Reinsurance reduces health insurance premiums for everyone; some estimates suggest as much as 10 percent. Actions to decrease the cost of health care and improve access to care are crucial if we are to combat ever-rising health care costs in this country. In Rhode Island, from 2000 to 2006, premiums increased 75 percent while median earnings went up only 23 percent. Uninsured rates have also grown in Rhode Island with more than 13 percent of residents under age 65 with no health insurance, up from 8.1 percent in 1999. Rhode Island is not unique; the entire country bears the burden of high health care costs and increasingly declining access. This legislation lays the groundwork for achieving our goal of making health care more affordable and more accessible to every American.

I am pleased to join with my colleague in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it prompt consideration.

Mr. President, I believe the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act before us today raises and addresses issues that are critically important to the public's health and well-being. Congress has a historic opportunity to strengthen and increase knowledge about drug safety and effectiveness, bring more transparency to the process of drug approval and surveillance, as well as reassess the goals of the prescription drug and medical device user fee programs, and fortify and expand essential safety programs for children. The FDA Revitalization Act strikes a careful balance between these many important priorities and objectives.

Recent serious adverse drug events related to several widely used drugs on the market underscore the urgency with which we should address and improve drug safety in this country. Moreover, as the population ages and science inevitably advances, more and more drugs will come to market, presenting potentially groundbreaking health benefits to the public, but simultaneously increasing the need for sophisticated mechanisms for monitoring and assuring drug safety.

The FDA Revitalization Act is an opportunity to improve our current system of drug approval and drug monitoring, but it also adeptly anticipates changes in the future of prescription drugs and consumer safety brought about by advances in science and an ever expanding market for prescription drugs.

The primary mechanism this bill uses to strengthen drug safety is to strengthen and rearticulate the FDA's authority. The bill clarifies, and in some cases fortifies, the FDA's authority with regard to drug safety. Currently, if the FDA detects a problem, or a potential problem with a drug post approval, they have few options beyond what is often referred to as the ``nuclear option.'' That is, pulling a drug from the market. While the FDA's authority to pull a drug from the marketplace is a powerful tool, it is a blunt instrument. In order to prevent problems from spiraling into major public health crises, the FDA needs intermediary authority. The FDA's reluctance to pull a drug, potentially a drug upon which millions of Americans depend to manage an illness, unless it is overwhelmingly certain that the action is necessary, is understandable. However, prescription drug users suffer as a result since the ``nuclear option'' offers a forceful, but ultimately limited response. Pulling a drug from the market potentially delays action and places individuals at major health risks in the interim. On the flip side, pulling a drug prematurely may needlessly deny patients important, and in some cases, singular, treatments for their health needs. This bill offers what I believe is a good solution to this paradox; one that considers input from patients rights organizations, industry representatives, and the FDA, but ultimately places patients at the top of the list.

The risk evaluation and mitigation, REMS, system, the primary tool in the drug safety title of this bill, bolsters the FDA's intermediary authority to require drug manufacturers to monitor and provide important information regarding their products. By so doing, the FDA can actively require drug companies to provide information about the medications millions of Americans are taking and not just passively request drug companies to comply.

Most importantly, the REMS system focuses the FDA's efforts and resources on postmarket surveillance. Increased drug user fees would be used to review REMS as well as for general drug safety surveillance. User fee revenue will increase by $50 million to fund drug safety activities, of which $30 million is authorized for the routine drug surveillance once they are marketed. Many of us would like to eliminate the need for industry paid user fees, but this arrangement, agreed on by industry and the FDA, offers the best workable solution in this strained budget environment.

Another important objective of the FDA Revitalization Act is to improve the integrity of the agency and to enhance transparency on its actions. I am pleased that this bill improves the public's access to information about clinical trials and, more importantly, the results of those trials. The bill enhances patient enrollment in trials by requiring late phase II, as well as phase III and phase IV clinical trials on drugs are registered in a publicly available database. This will improve the public's knowledge of important and potentially life saving clinical studies. The bill also creates a publicly available database of the results of those trials. This means, for instance, that a parent who wishes to understand why a much-talked about treatment for juvenile diabetes failed to advance past a clinical trial stage can track the progress of a treatment using this database. It is important that we empower patients and consumers to gather information from primary sources so

that they can engage in treatment decisions and make informed choices regarding their family's health care needs.

I am also pleased to see efforts to increase research on pediatric drug safety, pediatric clinical trials, and pediatric medical devices in title IV of the FDA Revitalization Act. The bill includes reauthorizations of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, championed by my colleague, Senator Dodd, which I have cosponsored, and the Pediatric Research Improvement Act, PRIA, championed by my colleague, Senator Clinton, which have been particularly successful at increasing the availability of pediatric specific data on drug products, as well as greatly expanding the number of treatments that have been tested and labeled for use in pediatric populations. The bill also includes a new proposal to expand the collection and availability of pediatric data on medical devices, an area of the medical device market that remains seriously underdeveloped, and as a result places infants and children at risk for inferior or inadequate care at best, and tragic and needless loss of life at worst. Moreover, BPCA also includes a new provision on patent exclusivity for blockbuster drugs that strikes a sound compromise between creating an appropriate financial incentive for drug companies to conduct much needed research, while also providing the FDA with important information about pediatric drugs.

Mr. President, the FDA is responsible for overseeing the safety of a wide range of products consumed by millions of Americans each and every day. We can and must ensure that this critical agency has the tools and resources it needs to perform the myriad of tasks under its purview. We need to get this right for the millions of Americans who rely on the FDA to approve the drugs that they take to treat serious illnesses. The FDA Revitalization Act creates an opportunity to improve science at the FDA, strengthen drug safety by devoting resources to postmarket surveillance, and ``revitalize'' the FDA's authority.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Gerrity, a fellow in my office, be accorded the privilege of the floor.

Mr. President, we must change the mission of our military forces in Iraq. We have to concentrate on training Iraqi forces so they can assume the burden of this hostility. We have to continue our efforts in counterterrorism to strike those international terrorists wherever they may be. And we have to protect our forces at all times. But we cannot continue an open-ended commitment and involvement in a civil war. That is essentially what the President is urging us to do.

This appropriations bill provides more resources for our military than was requested. It also funds extremely important domestic concerns, including the Veterans' Administration, so we can keep faith with those veterans who have served and will continue to serve; and also, as my colleague from Louisiana pointed out, we have to begin to reconstruct our gulf coast. It is ironic that we are pouring billions into Baghdad, helping them build all sorts of utilities, and still Americans languish along the gulf coast.

It also includes the Murtha standards of readiness on our forces as they deploy, to ensure that no American unit goes into the war zone without proper equipment, proper training, and appropriate personnel. The President has the ability to waive this under certain circumstances, so we are not unduly constricting his ability as Commander in Chief.

Then, of course, this legislation has benchmarks so that the Iraqi Government can stand up to their task. I think the one common theme that I have heard in this body is, ultimately, this is a political struggle and, ultimately, the Iraqi Government will make the decisions that are so important to the success of their efforts, which will allow us to begin a phased redeployment. But their record is very discouraging when it comes to their government.

Leon Panetta published an editorial a few days ago in the New York Times. He points out the Iraqis promised to achieve by the end of last year and the beginning of this year the approval of a provincial election law but, so far, no progress; approval of a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues, and a draft is circulating, but it has not been approved by the parliament; approval of a debaathification law to reintegrate officials of the former regime and have a reconciliation, but there has been no progress; approval of a law to rein in sectarian militias, but no progress there either.

By March, the Government promised to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments. No progress.

By May, the Prime Minister committed to putting in place the law controlling militias, with no progress; the approval of the amnesty agreement, with no progress; and the completion of all reconciliation efforts. No progress.

If the Iraqi Government is unwilling to stand up to the demands they must face, then I think we can legitimately--and, indeed, we must--tell them very strongly that we will not support an open-ended commitment to that Government, that we will change our mission and refocus our resources.

It is interesting to me that our Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, those who travel to Baghdad, stand up and say this: Tell them what we are doing here is important, critical, and will happen, unless the Iraqis change. But in Washington, we are criticized for doing this.

I think the reality in Baghdad has to be the same as here. We have to move forward with this legislation to change the course, protect our soldiers in the field, and to allow a chance for success in Iraq.

I think we are all committed, we hope, to a policy that will lead us and the people of Iraq to a much better day. I believe supporting this initiative will do that.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals (PRREP) Act to improve education and student achievement through high-quality preparation, induction, and professional development for teachers, early childhood education providers, principals, and administrators.

Improving teacher quality is the single most effective measure we can take to increase student achievement. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must ensure that educators receive the training and support necessary to thrive in our nation's early childhood programs, elementary schools, and secondary schools. We have an opportunity to support the development of educators so they not only have the credentials to be considered a ``highly qualified teacher'' under the No Child Left Behind Act, but also the skills and training to be truly effective in the classroom. By strengthening the teacher preparation grants in Title II of the Higher Education Act, my legislation will accomplish both of these important goals.

Teacher attrition undermines teacher quality and creates teacher shortages. According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, one-third of beginning teachers leave the profession within three years, and nearly one-half leave within five years. In high poverty schools turnover rates are even worse--approximately one- third higher than the rate for all teachers. The PRREP Act would create a year-long clinical learning experience for prospective teachers, and establish a comprehensive induction program, including high quality mentoring, for new teachers in at least their first two years of teaching. Research consistently shows that induction programs reduce the number of teachers who leave their schools or the profession. Comprehensive induction programs can cut that number by half or more.

Additionally, my legislation strengthens teacher preparation programs so that teachers will reach their maximum potential to positively affect student achievement. A focus on scientific knowledge of effective teaching skills and methods of student learning will equip teachers to understand and respond to diverse student populations, including students with disabilities, limited-English proficient students, and students with different learning styles or special learning needs. The legislation also seeks to ensure that teachers have the ability to integrate technology into the classroom, use assessments to improve instructional practices and curriculum, and communicate with and involve parents in their children's education.

My legislation further focuses on teaching skills and learning strategies by including in the partnership grants academic departments such as psychology, human development, or one with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development. The PRREP Act also would include early childhood educators for the first time in teacher preparation programs.

Teacher preparation grants under Title II of the Higher Education Act are currently funded at only $60 million a year--far too small of an investment for this critical enterprise. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of meeting the highly qualified requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, but also for real students in real classrooms. My bill significantly boosts this funding, authorizing $500 million for these vital programs.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals (PRREP) Act to improve education and student achievement through high-quality preparation, induction, and professional development for teachers, early childhood education providers, principals, and administrators.

Improving teacher quality is the single most effective measure we can take to increase student achievement. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must ensure that educators receive the training and support necessary to thrive in our nation's early childhood programs, elementary schools, and secondary schools. We have an opportunity to support the development of educators so they not only have the credentials to be considered a ``highly qualified teacher'' under the No Child Left Behind Act, but also the skills and training to be truly effective in the classroom. By strengthening the teacher preparation grants in Title II of the Higher Education Act, my legislation will accomplish both of these important goals.

Teacher attrition undermines teacher quality and creates teacher shortages. According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, one-third of beginning teachers leave the profession within three years, and nearly one-half leave within five years. In high poverty schools turnover rates are even worse--approximately one- third higher than the rate for all teachers. The PRREP Act would create a year-long clinical learning experience for prospective teachers, and establish a comprehensive induction program, including high quality mentoring, for new teachers in at least their first two years of teaching. Research consistently shows that induction programs reduce the number of teachers who leave their schools or the profession. Comprehensive induction programs can cut that number by half or more.

Additionally, my legislation strengthens teacher preparation programs so that teachers will reach their maximum potential to positively affect student achievement. A focus on scientific knowledge of effective teaching skills and methods of student learning will equip teachers to understand and respond to diverse student populations, including students with disabilities, limited-English proficient students, and students with different learning styles or special learning needs. The legislation also seeks to ensure that teachers have the ability to integrate technology into the classroom, use assessments to improve instructional practices and curriculum, and communicate with and involve parents in their children's education.

My legislation further focuses on teaching skills and learning strategies by including in the partnership grants academic departments such as psychology, human development, or one with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development. The PRREP Act also would include early childhood educators for the first time in teacher preparation programs.

Teacher preparation grants under Title II of the Higher Education Act are currently funded at only $60 million a year--far too small of an investment for this critical enterprise. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of meeting the highly qualified requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, but also for real students in real classrooms. My bill significantly boosts this funding, authorizing $500 million for these vital programs.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

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

Mr. President, today, on behalf of the Armenian population of Rhode Island, and Armenians around the world, I wish to recognize the 92nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

On April 24, 1915, nationalists in the Ottoman Empire rounded up, deported, and executed 200 Armenian community leaders, writers, thinkers, and professionals in Constantinople, present day Istanbul. Also on that day in Constantinople, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were massacred in the streets and in their homes. These events sparked an 8- year campaign of tyranny that impacted the lives of every Armenian in Asia Minor. By 1923, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, and another 500,000 were exiled.

The U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morganthau, Sr., unsuccessfully pleaded President Wilson for intervention. Unfortunately, the United States and the world tragically failed to intervene on behalf of the Armenian people. Ambassador Morganthau would later write in his memoir, ``The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.''

Today, as a proud supporter of S. Res 106, legislation officially recognizing the Armenian genocide, I urge the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the U.S. record relating to the Armenian genocide. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated over 50 years after the Armenian genocide that: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere . . . Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.'' The time has come to officially recognize the Armenian genocide.

The United States is proud to have Armenia as an ally in the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq. For the past 4 years, Armenian soldiers have supported American and multinational force efforts in Iraq. As part of the Polish-led multinational division in south-central Iraq, Armenians have worked as truckdrivers, bomb detonators, and doctors. Armenia has proclaimed their fight by not allowing others to be left helpless as they were nearly a century ago.

We must study and remember the events of our past in order to be better citizens of tomorrow. In instances such as the Armenian genocide, I call on all nations, not just the United States, to educate their youth to stand against hatred and prejudice of others in order to deter future atrocities against humanity. We should be prepared to take a vigilant stand against similar atrocities, such as the current situation in Darfur, to not let history repeat itself.

We must honor the victims of the Armenian genocide by vowing to never allow the world to stand idle to atrocities against humanity again.

Menk panav chenk mornar. We will never forget.

Mr. President, I am joined by Mr. Cochran in introducing important legislation, the Librarian Incentive to Boost Recruitment and Retention in Areas of Need (LIBRARIAN) Act, to support our Nation's librarians. This legislation is also being introduced in the other body by Representative Becerra, along with Representatives Grijalva, Ehlers, and Shimkus.

Public libraries and schools across the Nation are experiencing a shortage of librarians. Approximately 25 percent of America's school libraries do not have a State certified library media specialist on staff and with more than three in five librarians becoming eligible for retirement in the next decade this shortage is anticipated to only worsen.

The LIBRARIAN Act amends the Higher Education Act to provide for Perkins loan forgiveness to individuals with master's degrees in library science who become librarians in low-income schools and public libraries. Librarians working full-time in low-income areas would qualify for up to 100 percent Perkins loan forgiveness depending on the number of years they serve.

Libraries and librarians play an essential role in our schools and communities; this legislation aims to provide the same support to librarians as other public service workers receive, including teachers working in low-income schools, Head Start staff, law enforcement officials, and nurses or medical technicians.

Today we celebrate National Library Workers Day, a day to recognize the valuable contributions made by librarians and others who work in libraries. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to encourage more individuals to pursue the field of library science and retain those skilled librarians who are already serving in our low-income schools and communities.

I was pleased that the text of this bill was included in the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee last Congress. I will again press for its inclusion in the reauthorization bill the Committee is currently working to develop. I urge my colleagues to join us in this endeavor by cosponsoring the LIBRARIAN Act.

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

Mr. President, I am joined by Mr. Cochran in introducing important legislation, the Librarian Incentive to Boost Recruitment and Retention in Areas of Need (LIBRARIAN) Act, to support our Nation's librarians. This legislation is also being introduced in the other body by Representative Becerra, along with Representatives Grijalva, Ehlers, and Shimkus.

Public libraries and schools across the Nation are experiencing a shortage of librarians. Approximately 25 percent of America's school libraries do not have a State certified library media specialist on staff and with more than three in five librarians becoming eligible for retirement in the next decade this shortage is anticipated to only worsen.

The LIBRARIAN Act amends the Higher Education Act to provide for Perkins loan forgiveness to individuals with master's degrees in library science who become librarians in low-income schools and public libraries. Librarians working full-time in low-income areas would qualify for up to 100 percent Perkins loan forgiveness depending on the number of years they serve.

Libraries and librarians play an essential role in our schools and communities; this legislation aims to provide the same support to librarians as other public service workers receive, including teachers working in low-income schools, Head Start staff, law enforcement officials, and nurses or medical technicians.

Today we celebrate National Library Workers Day, a day to recognize the valuable contributions made by librarians and others who work in libraries. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to encourage more individuals to pursue the field of library science and retain those skilled librarians who are already serving in our low-income schools and communities.

I was pleased that the text of this bill was included in the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee last Congress. I will again press for its inclusion in the reauthorization bill the Committee is currently working to develop. I urge my colleagues to join us in this endeavor by cosponsoring the LIBRARIAN Act.

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