Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation that will extend and increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

One of the very first bills I cosponsored as a new Member of the Senate back in 1997 was the legislation that first established the SCHIP program. I remember Senator Hatch coming to talk to me about this bill and enlisting my support for it. I am very happy I was one of the original cosponsors of the SCHIP bill.

This program provides much needed health care coverage for children of low-income parents who simply cannot afford the cost of health insurance and do not get health insurance through the workplace; yet they make a little bit too much money to qualify for the State's Medicaid Program.

Since 1997, the SCHIP program has contributed to more than a one- third decline in the number of uninsured low-income children. That is a tremendous success. It is hard for me to understand why anyone would vote against an extension, a modest expansion, of what has been such a highly successful and effective program. Today, an estimated 6.6 million children, including more than 14,500 in the State of Maine, receive health care coverage through this program.

Still, as this legislation recognizes, there is more we can do to further decrease the number of uninsured low-income children. While the State of Maine ranks among the top four States in reducing the number of uninsured children, we still have more than 20,000 children who don't have coverage. Nationally, about 9 million children remain uninsured.

Unfortunately, the authorization for the SCHIP program, which has done so much to help low-income children in working families obtain the health care they need, is about to expire. That is why I encourage and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

I commend the Senate conferees on this bill. They did a very good job of coming up with a very reasonable proposal--a proposal that costs less than the House version and yet will make a real difference to low- income uninsured children. I would point out that this is a bipartisan bill. On the cloture vote earlier today, it had overwhelming support, as 69 Senators voted to proceed with the vote on this bill.

The legislation that is before us will increase funding for the SCHIP program by $35 billion over the next 5 years--a level which is sufficient to maintain the coverage for the 6.6 million children currently enrolled, as well as to expand the coverage so that we can reach more children who are currently uninsured. In the State of Maine, the bill before us will allow us to cover an additional 11,000 low- income children who are currently eligible for SCHIP but not enrolled.

The bill also improves the program in a number of important ways. Like Senator Domenici, I am very pleased that the bill includes a requirement for States to offer mental health services through their SCHIP program. Treating behavioral and emotional problems and mental illness while children are young--early intervention--can make such a difference. I know from hearings I have held in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the current systems for providing mental health care to children are woefully inadequate. The result is oftentimes parents are faced with a horrible choice of giving up custody of their children in order to secure the treatment they need for serious mental illnesses. That is a choice no parent should ever have to make.

We also need to improve oral health care, dental health care for children, and this bill will do just that. Despite the demonstrated need, children's dental coverage offered by States isn't always what it should be. Low-income and rural children suffer disproportionately from oral health problems. In fact, 80 percent of all tooth decay is found in just 25 percent of children--80 percent of the problems in 25 percent of the kids. That is simply because they don't have access to oral hygiene, they don't have access to dentists and dental hygienists who could help ensure their health. I am very pleased, therefore, that the bill before us will strengthen the dental coverage offered through SCHIP to ensure that more low-income children have access to the dental services they need to prevent disease and promote good oral health.

Finally, the bill will eliminate the State shortfall problems that have plagued the SCHIP program as well as provide additional incentives to encourage States to increase outreach and enrollment, particularly of the lowest income children.

The bill before us today is the prescription for good health for millions of our Nation's low-income children in working families. That is why I am so disappointed that the President has threatened a veto of this legislation. I just do not understand his decision, and I think it could be a terrible mistake. This important program can simply not be allowed to expire. I urge all of our colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Let me make one final point. I have heard a lot of our colleagues on my side of the aisle argue that we need a far more extensive debate on health care policy in this country, and they are right. But we should not hold the SCHIP program hostage to that broader debate. We do need a broader debate. We need a broader debate on how to lessen the number of uninsured Americans, which now exceeds 45 million Americans. We need a broader debate on how to help our small businesses better afford the cost of health insurance for their employees.

We need a broader debate on how we can effectively use the Tax Code to help subsidize the cost of insurance for those who don't receive insurance through the workplace.

I hope Senate leaders will charge the relevant committees to undertake a couple of months of hearings to bring together the best minds possible and then dedicate a month of debate on the Senate floor to a wide variety of solutions to both promote broader access to health care, to help our uninsured better afford health coverage, and to improve the quality of health care in this country.

That is an important and overdue debate. In fact, the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, and I have, for several Congresses, introduced a broad health care bill with these goals in mind.

Let us not jeopardize the existence of a successful, effective program for low-income children because we want to have that broader debate. Let's send this bill to the President. Let's urge him to sign it into law, and then let's turn our attention to this long, overdue, much needed debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chair of the committee for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of the conference report for the Water Resources Development Act. This legislation authorizes important studies and projects to protect and maintain water resources throughout our country.

I am especially pleased that the conference report includes $26.9 million for Camp Ellis, ME. More than 100 years ago, the Army Corps built a jetty extending out from the Saco River, adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach. This jetty altered the pattern of currents and sand and it is the primary cause of the devastating erosion at Camp Ellis. The extent of the erosion is truly shocking. Some 36 houses have been washed into the sea in the last 100 years. The 1998 shoreline is 400 feet from where the shoreline stood in 1908. The houses that are now in danger were once six or more houses back from the sea.

In April of this year, a devastating Patriot's Day storm hit Maine with heavy winds and a great deal of rain. This terrible storm, the worst natural disaster to strike Maine since the ice storm of 1998, caused massive storm surges, astronomically high tides, and inland and coastal flooding.

Let me show my colleagues some of the evidence of the devastation that was caused by this April storm. As you can see, this is the road that follows along the waterfront. It was utterly devastated. In another picture I will show my colleagues, this is what happened to some of the houses that were along the waterfront. As you can see, they were completely destroyed as the water took out the foundations and caused terrible destruction. That is a power pole that has been thrown down by the storm. In yet another example, a house has been absolutely ruined as a result of this storm.

Now, when the jetty was first constructed 100 years ago, we didn't have the knowledge we do now, and no one predicted the terrible impact. The incredible force of the ocean during the storm earlier this year literally washed out the foundations of the homes. The street that once ran along the ocean front was largely destroyed, leaving nothing between the remaining homes and the open ocean. Many homeowners in the area were still dealing with flooded basements for weeks following the storm. This was a vivid reminder of the terrible impact a powerful storm can have on those who live in this vulnerable community.

The sea has advanced such that another large storm could wash out the peninsula altogether and turn Camp Ellis into an island. That, obviously, would be devastating to the people who live there.

We know what must be done to prevent such a calamity. Studies undertaken at the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers indicate that an offshore breakwater and a spur coming off the jetty are likely to be needed to protect Camp Ellis from further erosion and the destruction of even more property. The Camp Ellis jetty was built by the Federal Government at a time when the erosional impacts of shoreline structures were largely unknown. The jetty has served its important navigational purpose well over the 100-plus years of its existence, but now it is time for the Federal Government to make good on its obligation to help those people who have been harmed by the structure the Federal Government built in the first place.

With the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, we will finally have authorized the funds necessary to act upon the best available science and to fully and finally protect the residents of Camp Ellis. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, and again I thank the committee for being responsive to the concerns of the people of Maine.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, earlier today, the President announced his intention to veto the extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program bill. I believe such a veto would be a terrible mistake.

One of the very first bills I cosponsored when I first came to the Senate was legislation to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP as it has become known. It provides health care coverage for children in families where the parents do not have sufficient income to purchase health insurance and are not getting health insurance in the workplace, and yet they make a bit too much money to qualify for coverage under the State's Medicaid program. So these low-income children in working families have been falling through the cracks. That is why this law has been so important.

I remember it well that Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Rockefeller all came up to me to enlist my support. I was very eager to sign on as one of the original cosponsors of this law because I knew it could make such a positive difference. Indeed, it has.

Since 1997, the SCHIP program has contributed to a one-third decline in the rate of uninsured low-income children. Today, an estimated 6.6 million children, including more than 14,500 children living in Maine, receive health care coverage through this program. Still, there is more we could do.

While Maine ranks among the top four States in reducing the number of uninsured children, we still have more than 20,000 children in our State who lack coverage. Nationally, about 9 million children remain uninsured. That is why I was so pleased to hear the conferees appeared to be very near to an agreement that is modeled on the legislation that passed the Senate in August with strong bipartisan support, in fact, by a vote of 68 to 31.

Our Senate bill increases funding for the SCHIP program by $35 million over the next 5 years, a level that is sufficient to maintain coverage for all 6.6 million children currently enrolled, and it would also allow the program to expand to cover an additional 3.3 million low-income children. In Maine, this legislation would allow us to cover an additional 11,000 low-income children who are currently eligible for the SCHIP program but not enrolled.

I urge the administration to take a second look at the Senate bill, the bill that is the basis for the conference agreement. This legislation has made a real difference in the lives of working families with low-income children across this country. It is helping to ensure these children grow up to be healthy adults. Surely, we can get this done on a bipartisan basis before the program is scheduled to expire on September 30.

I urge the President of the United States to reconsider his threat to veto this vital program, this highly successful program that has a proven track record of reducing the number of children who lack health insurance. If the President does proceed to veto the bill, I will vote to override his veto. Surely, this bill has a track record that has made a real difference to low-income children in working families. We simply cannot allow this program to expire. The extension and expansion we are proposing will enable us to more fully cover these children.

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

Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. It is a measure introduced by Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch and favorably reported by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

After carefully considering the constitutional issues, I have come to believe, on balance, that S. 1257 is a legitimate mechanism for providing voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for the 600,000 Americans who live in the District of Columbia-- citizens who serve in the Armed Forces, pay Federal taxes, participate in Federal programs, and support a local government overseen by Congress--yet who cannot choose a representative with voting rights for the House that meets in their midst.

S. 1257 would also correct an inequity affecting the State of Utah. That State fell just short of qualifying for an additional House seat in the last apportionment--a margin that likely would have disappeared had the census counted the thousands of Mormons who were out of State performing their religious duty as missionaries.

As the Senate considers this legislation, much hinges on our view of the powers assigned, and the rights protected, by our Constitution. Those

powers and rights were discussed at length in the May 15 hearing that our committee conducted on this bill.

We heard vigorous debate from legal experts on whether the enclave clause of the Constitution enables Congress to provide voting representation in the House for the District of Columbia--as a corollary of its exclusive power of legislation in Federal enclaves, including the District. We also heard an impassioned argument that the bill would pass constitutional muster purely on its merits as an equal- representation measure consistent with court rulings in civil rights cases.

I recognize that other lawmakers, and some constitutional scholars, have expressed sincere doubts about this measure. For those who have such concerns, the bill now offers a powerful safeguard. During our June markup, the committee adopted my amendment providing for expedited judicial review of this legislation in the event of a legal challenge. Thus, the new law's legitimacy could be determined promptly by our Federal courts.

My colleagues on the committee also adopted an amendment that I proposed concerning the scope and implications of the bill. The text now carries an explicit statement that the District of Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the Senate. This is an important distinction. Our Constitution links House representation to population, but it links Senate representation to statehood. The residents of the District of Columbia are Americans entitled to House representation, but they are not residents of an entity admitted to the Union as a State. The language added by the committee simply clarifies that the bill does not contemplate or provide support for a legislative grant of Senate representation.

The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 is a carefully crafted measure that provides for speedy review of any legal challenge. The bill's 21 sponsors and cosponsors span the liberal-to- conservative spectrum and includes two independent Senators, as well as Republicans and Democrats--eloquent testimony to the fact that this is not a partisan measure.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1257, a simple matter of fundamental fairness for American citizens.

Mr. President, I wish to make a final point and say again that there are legitimate arguments about the constitutionality of the measure that is before us, and that is why, when it was before the Homeland Security Committee, I offered an amendment which is incorporated into the bill to allow for expedited judicial review of its constitutionality. I suggest to my colleagues that we should proceed with this measure. If, in fact, it fails on constitutional grounds, that is up to the courts. But today we can stand for an important principle of providing a vote to the residents of the District of Columbia.

I hope my colleagues will allow this bill to go forward, and I urge their support of this measure.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce Senate Bill 2003, a measure that will enhance the Federal Government's ability to perform its duties capably and economically as it faces a wave of retirement of highly experienced Federal employees.

When we think about the coming demographic shock of millions of baby boomers reaching retirement age, we usually focus on the cash-flow implications for the Social Security and Medicare programs. But their aging will also have a profound effect on the Federal workforce.

On average, retirements from the Federal workforce have exceeded 50,000 a year for a decade. The numbers will certainly rise in the near future. The Office of Personnel Management calculates that 60 percent of the current Federal workforce, whose civilian component approaches 3 million people, will be eligible to retire during the coming 10 years.

Federal agencies, which already must hire more than 250,000 new employees each year, will need to work hard to replace those retirees, as the private sector and State and local governments will be facing the same problem and competing for qualified replacements.

The baby boom retirement wave will have another impact. It will cause a sudden acceleration in the loss of accumulated skills and mentoring capabilities that experienced workers uniquely possess.

Human-resources research has repeatedly shown that, in general, older workers equal or outperform younger workers in organizational knowledge, ability to work independently, commitment, productivity, flexibility, and mentoring ability.

Making good use of their talents is, therefore, not charity. It is common sense and sound management.

Federal agencies recognize the value of older workers, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 4,500 retirees have been allowed to return to full-time work on a waiver basis.

Agencies could make use of even more Federal annuitants for short- term projects or part-time work, but for a disincentive embedded in current law.

Title 5 of the United States Code currently mandates that annuitants who return to work for the Federal Government must have their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity during the period of reemployment. The bill I introduce today with the welcome cosponsorship of Senators Warner and Voinovich would provide a limited but vital measure of relief to agencies who could benefit from the skills and knowledge of Federal retirees. It provides a limited opportunity for Federal agencies to reemploy retirees without requiring them to take pay cuts based on their annuity payment.

This simple but powerful reform is a priority item for the Federal Office of Personnel Management. As OPM Director Linda Springer has said, ``Modifying the rules to bring talented retirees back to the Government on a part-time basis without penalizing their annuity would allow Federal agencies to rehire recently retired employees to assist with short-term projects, fill critical skill gaps and train the next generation of Federal employees.''

Organizations endorsing the reform contemplated in my bill include the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Federal Managers Association, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Council for Excellence in Government.

I would note two important points about the bill.

First, it will not materially affect the necessary flow of younger workers into Federal agencies. The bill contemplates reemployment for part-time or project work of not more than 520 hours in the first 6 months following the start of annuity payments, not more than 1,040 hours in any 12-month period, and not more than 6,240 hours total for the annuitant's lifetime. In terms of 8-hour days, those figures are equivalent to 65, 130, and 780 days, respectively.

These limits will give agencies flexibility in assigning retirees to limited-time or limited-scope projects, including mentoring and collaboration, without evading or undermining the waiver requirement for substantial or full-time employment. of annuitants.

I would also note that this bill gives no cause for concern about financial impact. Reemployed annuitants would be performing work that the agencies needed to do in any case, but would not require any additional contributions to pension or savings plans. Meanwhile, their retiree health and life insurance benefits would be costs unaffected by their part-time work. Even without making any allowance for the positive

effects of their organizational knowledge, commitment, productivity, and mentoring potential, their reemployment is likely to produce net savings.

This measure offers benefits for Federal agencies, for Federal retirees who would welcome the opportunity to perform part-time work, and for taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce Senate Bill 2003, a measure that will enhance the Federal Government's ability to perform its duties capably and economically as it faces a wave of retirement of highly experienced Federal employees.

When we think about the coming demographic shock of millions of baby boomers reaching retirement age, we usually focus on the cash-flow implications for the Social Security and Medicare programs. But their aging will also have a profound effect on the Federal workforce.

On average, retirements from the Federal workforce have exceeded 50,000 a year for a decade. The numbers will certainly rise in the near future. The Office of Personnel Management calculates that 60 percent of the current Federal workforce, whose civilian component approaches 3 million people, will be eligible to retire during the coming 10 years.

Federal agencies, which already must hire more than 250,000 new employees each year, will need to work hard to replace those retirees, as the private sector and State and local governments will be facing the same problem and competing for qualified replacements.

The baby boom retirement wave will have another impact. It will cause a sudden acceleration in the loss of accumulated skills and mentoring capabilities that experienced workers uniquely possess.

Human-resources research has repeatedly shown that, in general, older workers equal or outperform younger workers in organizational knowledge, ability to work independently, commitment, productivity, flexibility, and mentoring ability.

Making good use of their talents is, therefore, not charity. It is common sense and sound management.

Federal agencies recognize the value of older workers, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 4,500 retirees have been allowed to return to full-time work on a waiver basis.

Agencies could make use of even more Federal annuitants for short- term projects or part-time work, but for a disincentive embedded in current law.

Title 5 of the United States Code currently mandates that annuitants who return to work for the Federal Government must have their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity during the period of reemployment. The bill I introduce today with the welcome cosponsorship of Senators Warner and Voinovich would provide a limited but vital measure of relief to agencies who could benefit from the skills and knowledge of Federal retirees. It provides a limited opportunity for Federal agencies to reemploy retirees without requiring them to take pay cuts based on their annuity payment.

This simple but powerful reform is a priority item for the Federal Office of Personnel Management. As OPM Director Linda Springer has said, ``Modifying the rules to bring talented retirees back to the Government on a part-time basis without penalizing their annuity would allow Federal agencies to rehire recently retired employees to assist with short-term projects, fill critical skill gaps and train the next generation of Federal employees.''

Organizations endorsing the reform contemplated in my bill include the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Federal Managers Association, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Council for Excellence in Government.

I would note two important points about the bill.

First, it will not materially affect the necessary flow of younger workers into Federal agencies. The bill contemplates reemployment for part-time or project work of not more than 520 hours in the first 6 months following the start of annuity payments, not more than 1,040 hours in any 12-month period, and not more than 6,240 hours total for the annuitant's lifetime. In terms of 8-hour days, those figures are equivalent to 65, 130, and 780 days, respectively.

These limits will give agencies flexibility in assigning retirees to limited-time or limited-scope projects, including mentoring and collaboration, without evading or undermining the waiver requirement for substantial or full-time employment. of annuitants.

I would also note that this bill gives no cause for concern about financial impact. Reemployed annuitants would be performing work that the agencies needed to do in any case, but would not require any additional contributions to pension or savings plans. Meanwhile, their retiree health and life insurance benefits would be costs unaffected by their part-time work. Even without making any allowance for the positive

effects of their organizational knowledge, commitment, productivity, and mentoring potential, their reemployment is likely to produce net savings.

This measure offers benefits for Federal agencies, for Federal retirees who would welcome the opportunity to perform part-time work, and for taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This bill has taken on many names and many forms over the last year. While I am pleased to see this Congress at last addressing ethics issues, I am disappointed that the bill is being brought to the floor in this manner and in this form.

Last year, when I was chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee produced a bipartisan bill that the Senate passed in March 2006 by a vote of 90 to 8. That bill never became law, and as a result those issues were never addressed. But when Congress failed to take action, the American people stood up and sent a powerful message. The last election took place in the shadow of far too many revelations of questionable--or downright illegal--conduct by Members of Congress. When we returned to Washington in January, the first priority of this Senate was to take steps to restore the confidence of the American people in their Government.

It is unfortunate that we now find ourselves nearly 7 months later-- taking up yet another version of this bill with several provisions that are far weaker than they should be. In particular, I am disappointed that in spite of a 98-0 Senate vote in favor of strong earmark disclosure rules, the provision now before us is weak and riddled with loopholes. I cannot understand why the majority leadership has chosen to ignore the clearly expressed will of the Senate in this way.

I draw my colleagues' attention to the first page of this new bill, in which its purpose is stated as, ``To provide greater transparency in the legislative process.'' This declaration--made without a trace of irony--belies the fact that this version of the bill was developed in closed-door discussions between the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. Ethics is not an issue of the right or the left, so why has the process of drafting ethics legislation suddenly become so partisan?

In spite of these reservations, I will support this bill because I believe that it does contain positive provisions that are long overdue. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is said to have once noted, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant,'' and this bill does bring sunlight into some of the dark corners of the legislative process.

The bill requires more frequent filings under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and more detailed disclosure of lobbyist activities in those reports. In addition, it makes that information readily available to the public via the Internet.

The bill also contains a change to the Senate rules to eliminate, at long last, the undemocratic practice of anonymous holds in the Senate. The hallmark of this body should be free and open debate, and a process that allows a secret hold to kill a bill without a word of debate on the floor is antithetical to that principle.

The bill contains important provisions to slow the so-called revolving door problem where Members of Congress and their senior staffs leave Government jobs and then turn around to lobby the institution they once served.

These provisions--which I note, are substantially the same as those that the Senate passed earlier this year--are a step forward in restoring the American people's confidence in the integrity of their leadership.

In November 2006, the American people sent Congress a message that they had lost faith in the integrity this institution. I will support this bill because it takes a step forward in restoring the people's faith in the work we do here, but unfortunately I am left to conclude that had there been a better process, there would have been a better bill.

Mr. President, one of the first bills that I sponsored when I came to the Senate 10 years ago was the legislation that established the State Child Health Insurance Program--or SCHIP--which provides health care coverage for children of low-income working parents who cannot afford health insurance yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

Since 1997, SCHIP has contributed to a one-third decline in the uninsured rate of low-income children. Today, over 6 million children-- including 14,500 in Maine--receive health care coverage from this remarkably effective health care program.

According to a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University, ``While the coverage news for the nation is generally bleak, the story for

children's health coverage stands apart. Of all the health reform efforts, covering children has been resoundingly successful. Since its creation, SCHIP has partnered with Medicaid to help ensure that children have the health care that they need.''

Still, there is more that we can do. While Maine ranks among the top 4 States in the Nation in reducing the number of uninsured children, we still have more than 20,000 children who don't have coverage. Nationally, about 9 million children remain uninsured.

Unfortunately, the authorization for SCHIP, which has done so much to help low-income American families to obtain the health care that they need, is about to expire. As the cochair with Senator Rockefeller of the nonpartisan Alliance for Health Reform, I have long been concerned about the need to extend the SCHIP program in order to renew our commitment to meeting the health care needs of children in our Nation's low-income working families.

That is why I am pleased to support this legislation to extend and strengthen this important program. This bipartisan bill increases funding for SCHIP by $35 billion over the next 5 years, a level which is sufficient to maintain coverage for all 6.6 million children currently enrolled, and also allows the program to expand to cover an additional 3.3 million low-income children.

The legislation the Senate is currently debating also improves SCHIP in a number of important ways. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes a requirement for States that offer mental health services through their SCHIP program to provide coverage that is equivalent in scope to benefits for other physician and health services. Treating behavioral and emotional problems and mental illness while children are young is critical to preventing more serious problems later on.

Despite the demonstrated need, children's dental coverage offered by States isn't always all that it should be. Low-income and rural children suffer disproportionately from oral health problems. In fact, 80 percent of all tooth decay is found in just 25 percent of children. I am, therefore, cosponsoring amendments with Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Cardin, and Mikulski to strengthen the dental coverage offered through SCHIP to ensure that more low-income children have access to the dental services that they need to prevent disease and promote oral health. I am hopeful that these amendments will be included in the final package.

In recognition of the fact that good health begins before birth, the Senate bill also gives States the option of covering low-income pregnant women under SCHIP. Current regulations do permit States to cover unborn children, making reimbursements available for prenatal, labor, and delivery services. Medically necessary postpartum care, however, is not covered. The Senate bill will change that.

The Senate bill will also eliminate the State shortfall problems that have plagued the SCHIP program, and it also provides additional incentives to encourage States to increase outreach and enrollment, particularly of the lowest income children.

In short, Mr. President, the bill before the Senate is a prescription for good health for millions of our Nation's working families, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Foreign-based terrorism has weighed heavily in the news and in our thoughts for more than a decade. Since the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, we have seen foreign-based terrorists attack our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, a Navy destroyer in Yemen, the World Trade Center again, and the Pentagon. Timely arrests prevented foreign- based terrorists from carrying out a bombing plot directed at the Los Angeles airport and, more recently, attacks targeting U.S.-bound flights originating in England.

This long-standing and still-deadly threat requires continued surveillance and aggressive action, and will for years to come. But we cannot confine our counter-terrorism efforts to attacks organized in and launched from other countries. As demonstrated by the bloody bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal office building in 1995 and by this year's arrests of suspects in plots directed at JFK International Airport and Fort Dix, NJ, domestic radicalization and violent extremism are also threats to American lives and American society.

The most effective border security will not prevent ``home-grown'' terrorists from attacking our citizens. We need to better understand the triggers for radicalization and violence in order to counter the threat of terrorists on American soil.

For nearly a year now, Senator Lieberman and I have conducted an investigation and held a series of hearings in the Senate Homeland Security Committee probing different aspects of this domestic danger by examining radicalization in prisons, radicalization trends, the Internet and violent extremism, lessons from the European experience, and the adequacy of government counter-measures.

The harvest of information and insights from these hearings has helped alert us to dangers, guide our oversight activities, and formulate ideas for legislative action. The testimony and evidence we have seen persuade me that we need to undertake an even more in-depth examination of the threats of domestic radicalization and violent extremism.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act would provide such an examination. It is a companion measure to the bill introduced by Representatives Jane Harman of California and Dave Reichert of Washington in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Harman has been extraordinarily perceptive in understanding the threat of violent radicalization, and her bill's unanimous approval by the House Homeland Security Committee is a tribute to her leadership.

My bill, like the House measure, includes two key initiatives.

First, it would create a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

Second, it would establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the U.S.

The Commission would devote itself to a survey of what we know, and what we need to learn, about the social and psychological breeding grounds of extremism, the process of radicalization, the factors that cause people to turn to violence, the processes of recruitment and coordination, and the phenomenon of self-radicalization and ``lone wolf'' terrorism.

To ensure a broad range of input for the commission, members would be selected for their qualifications by the President, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committees of the House and Senate.

The commission's final report, to be delivered within 18 months of its initial meeting, would provide a solid base of information and a guide for further research and action against the dangers that we face.

A ``final report,'' however useful, cannot be the last word in the fight against a threat that has been growing for years and may persist for decades. That is why the bill takes the important second step of establishing a university-based Center of Excellence focused on homegrown terrorism, violent radicalization, and ideologically based violence.

The Department of Homeland Security currently has 8 Centers for Excellence focusing on various aspects of homeland security, such as risk-analysis, food protection, and catastrophic-event preparedness and response.

My bill would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate a new center or to expand the mission of an existing center. In either case, such a center will provide an institution dedicated to researching and understanding violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and to developing findings that can assist Federal, State, local, and tribal governments in dealing with these threats.

It is vital, that our homeland-security efforts extend to a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the radicalization process that turns people living in our midst to ideologically based violence and terrorism. It is also vital that we create an academically based center to sustain high-quality research efforts on this threat to augment federal initiatives and to expand and supplement Government thinking.

This bill, which closely parallels legislation now moving through the House of Representatives, meets those vital needs. I urge my colleagues to support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Foreign-based terrorism has weighed heavily in the news and in our thoughts for more than a decade. Since the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, we have seen foreign-based terrorists attack our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, a Navy destroyer in Yemen, the World Trade Center again, and the Pentagon. Timely arrests prevented foreign- based terrorists from carrying out a bombing plot directed at the Los Angeles airport and, more recently, attacks targeting U.S.-bound flights originating in England.

This long-standing and still-deadly threat requires continued surveillance and aggressive action, and will for years to come. But we cannot confine our counter-terrorism efforts to attacks organized in and launched from other countries. As demonstrated by the bloody bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal office building in 1995 and by this year's arrests of suspects in plots directed at JFK International Airport and Fort Dix, NJ, domestic radicalization and violent extremism are also threats to American lives and American society.

The most effective border security will not prevent ``home-grown'' terrorists from attacking our citizens. We need to better understand the triggers for radicalization and violence in order to counter the threat of terrorists on American soil.

For nearly a year now, Senator Lieberman and I have conducted an investigation and held a series of hearings in the Senate Homeland Security Committee probing different aspects of this domestic danger by examining radicalization in prisons, radicalization trends, the Internet and violent extremism, lessons from the European experience, and the adequacy of government counter-measures.

The harvest of information and insights from these hearings has helped alert us to dangers, guide our oversight activities, and formulate ideas for legislative action. The testimony and evidence we have seen persuade me that we need to undertake an even more in-depth examination of the threats of domestic radicalization and violent extremism.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act would provide such an examination. It is a companion measure to the bill introduced by Representatives Jane Harman of California and Dave Reichert of Washington in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Harman has been extraordinarily perceptive in understanding the threat of violent radicalization, and her bill's unanimous approval by the House Homeland Security Committee is a tribute to her leadership.

My bill, like the House measure, includes two key initiatives.

First, it would create a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

Second, it would establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the U.S.

The Commission would devote itself to a survey of what we know, and what we need to learn, about the social and psychological breeding grounds of extremism, the process of radicalization, the factors that cause people to turn to violence, the processes of recruitment and coordination, and the phenomenon of self-radicalization and ``lone wolf'' terrorism.

To ensure a broad range of input for the commission, members would be selected for their qualifications by the President, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committees of the House and Senate.

The commission's final report, to be delivered within 18 months of its initial meeting, would provide a solid base of information and a guide for further research and action against the dangers that we face.

A ``final report,'' however useful, cannot be the last word in the fight against a threat that has been growing for years and may persist for decades. That is why the bill takes the important second step of establishing a university-based Center of Excellence focused on homegrown terrorism, violent radicalization, and ideologically based violence.

The Department of Homeland Security currently has 8 Centers for Excellence focusing on various aspects of homeland security, such as risk-analysis, food protection, and catastrophic-event preparedness and response.

My bill would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate a new center or to expand the mission of an existing center. In either case, such a center will provide an institution dedicated to researching and understanding violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and to developing findings that can assist Federal, State, local, and tribal governments in dealing with these threats.

It is vital, that our homeland-security efforts extend to a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the radicalization process that turns people living in our midst to ideologically based violence and terrorism. It is also vital that we create an academically based center to sustain high-quality research efforts on this threat to augment federal initiatives and to expand and supplement Government thinking.

This bill, which closely parallels legislation now moving through the House of Representatives, meets those vital needs. I urge my colleagues to support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Mr. President, shortly the Senate will vote on an amendment Senator Lieberman and I have offered to provide $100 million in badly needed funding for a new emergency communications grant program. This program is about to be authorized in the Homeland Security bill we have recently completed the conference negotiations on, and which I anticipate will be cleared either tonight or tomorrow morning.

When we look at the needs of our first responders, interoperability of communications equipment is at the top of their list. We saw on 9/11 that firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel lost their lives because of an inability to communicate due to incompatible equipment. We saw it again in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where police could not communicate with firefighters, who could not communicate with emergency medical personnel.

Unfortunately, achieving interoperability is an expensive, lengthy, and difficult process, and it is one our State and local governments need assistance in meeting. The proposal Senator Lieberman and I have put forth is a pretty modest proposal. The Homeland Security conference report authorizes a $400 million program. The budget resolution did as well for this year. What we are asking for is a modest downpayment of $100 million. It is offset by a modest reduction in other accounts.

Let me say that this amendment does have the strong support of our first responder community. It has been endorsed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that endorsement letters from those organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, again, I hope our colleagues will take a hard look at this amendment and will decide it warrants their support to address one of the major problems that has hampered emergency response, decreased the effectiveness of those who are putting their lives on the line, and truly can be a matter of life and death.

Let me end my comments by applauding, nevertheless, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for their hard work. Senator Byrd, Senator Murray, and Senator Cochran have done a terrific job on a very difficult issue, but this is an attempt to make their good work even better.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, after the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress moved to strengthen America. Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, and Senator Lieberman and I led a bipartisan effort to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission--reforming our intelligence community, creating a Director of National Intelligence, and establishing the National Counterterrorism Center. We have also passed legislation to strengthen security at America's seaports and chemical facilities and to reform

Mr. President, I yield back the time on this side as well.

Madam President, first, let me thank the committee chairman, Senator Lieberman, for his graciousness in yielding to me.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Lieberman's amendment to add $100 million for an interoperability communications grant program. Last year, the Homeland Security Committee spent 8 months investigating the flawed response to Hurricane Katrina.

It was very disappointing for the committee to learn that the same kinds of problems in the ability of emergency first responders to communicate with one another that were evident in the response on 9/11 still existed that many years later and hampered the response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

When the 9/11 Commission reviewed all that went up to the attacks on our country on 9/11 and evaluated the response, it identified the tragic truth that many firefighters, police officers, and other emergency responders lost their lives on 9/11 because their communications equipment was incompatible. The police could not talk to the firefighters, who could not, in turn, talk to the emergency medical personnel.

We found exactly that same problem existing years later in the response to Hurricane Katrina. In fact, we found that within the same parish of New Orleans, police and firefighters often had incompatible communications equipment. It should be evident if our first responders cannot talk to one another in the midst of an emergency, the response is going to be greatly hampered, and in some cases that means additional loss of life. That is just unacceptable.

State and local governments recognize their problems with emergency communications, which is why the Department of Homeland Security receives more requests for funding to upgrade and purchase compatible emergency communications equipment under the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative than for any other allowable use.

The experts tell us the only way we are ever going to get a handle on this problem is if we dedicate funding for this purpose. The Homeland Security bill that is about to emerge from conference would establish a multiyear program to achieve that goal. But we need to make a downpayment on that program through this appropriations bill.

I know the leaders of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security have worked very hard, and there are many demands on the money that is available. But I would urge them to take a look at our proposal.

Creating an interoperability emergency communications network is a complicated, expensive, and lengthy process. It is the type of multiyear project that requires States to know how much money they will be getting each year for several years in order to come up with the kind of regional plan that is needed to address this problem.

Even the most effective preincident planning will prove ineffective if first responders are unable to communicate with each other effectively in real time, on demand, during an actual incident, and in the immediate aftermath.

I would point out that Senator Lieberman and I also sponsored an amendment when the budget was on the Senate floor, which was adopted just 4 short months ago, that provided $400 million for this critical purpose. Yet, unfortunately, the appropriations bill before us contains no funding for interoperability communications grants.

Now, we recognize the competing demands, and that is why the Senator from Connecticut and I are proposing a modest program of only $100 million rather than the $400 million that was adopted during consideration of the budget resolution.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Lieberman and me in supporting funding for interoperability emergency communications. This is a high priority for our first responder community, for those who are on the front lines when disaster strikes.

I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.