Floor Statements

Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today, along with Senators Warner, Landrieu, Vitter, Coleman, Smith, and Nelson of Nebraska, would increase and expand the Teacher Tax deduction provided in current law. The Teacher Tax deduction is available to school teachers and other educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses in order to purchase classroom supplies for their students. The bill we are offering today would increase this above-the-line tax deduction to $400, allow the deduction to be taken for expenses related to professional development, and make the deduction permanent.

This bill builds upon a $250 tax deduction in current law authored by Senator Warner and myself, which became law as part of the tax relief package in 2001. This tax relief was later extended through the end of this year, but we need to act to extend it further.

I would suggest that there is no reason why we should not make the deduction permanent. Teachers who buy classroom supplies in order to improve the educational experience of their students deserve more than just our gratitude. They deserve this modest tax relief to thank them for their hard work.

So often teachers in my State, and throughout the country, spend their own money in order to improve the classroom experiences of their students. Many of us are familiar with a survey of the National Education Association that found that teachers spend, on average, $443 a year on classroom supplies. Other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. In fact, the National School Supply and Equipment Association found that educators spend an average of $826 to supplement classroom supplies, plus $926 for instructional materials on top of that--for a total of over $1,700 out of their own pockets.

In most States, including mine, teachers are very modestly paid for their jobs. I think it is so impressive that despite challenging jobs and modest salaries, teachers are willing to dig deep into their own pockets to enrich the classroom experience, because they care so deeply for their students.

Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in Maine who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit that is in current law. I have made a practice of visiting schools all over Maine, and so far, I have had the opportunity to visit more than 160 schools in my State. At virtually every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to benefit their students. Year after year, these teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, stamps, inkpads-- everything you can think of. Let me just give you a couple of examples. Anita Hopkins and Kathi Toothaker, who are elementary school teachers from Augusta, ME, purchase books for their students to have as a classroom library, as well as workbooks and sight cards. They have also purchased special prizes for positive reinforcement for their students. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends $800 to $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning fun and to create a stimulating classroom environment.

This bill would also expand the Teacher Tax deduction to make it available to teachers who incur expenses for professional development. Whenever the provisions of ``No Child Left Behind'' are being debated, we hear a lot of discussion about the need for highly-qualified teachers. One of the best ways for teachers to improve their qualifications is through professional development. Yet, in towns in my State, and I suspect throughout the country, school budgets are often very tight, and money for professional development is either very limited or non-existent. For that reason, I believe we should allow this tax deduction to also apply when a teacher takes a course or attends a workshop and has to pay for it out of his or her own pocket.

In my view, students are the ultimate beneficiaries when teachers receive professional development to sharpen their skills or to learn a new approach to presenting material to their students. Studies have consistently shown that, other than involved parents, the single greatest determinant of classroom success is the presence of a well- qualified teacher. Educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom.

The Teacher Tax relief that we have made available since 2001 is certainly a positive step, and I was proud to have authored that law, along with Senator Warner. This bill would increase that deduction from $250 to $400, reflecting more accurately what teachers really spend, and would make the deduction permanent. The National Education Association has endorsed this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the NEA's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

This bill is a small but appropriate means of recognizing the many sacrifices that our teachers make every day to benefit the children of America. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, first let me thank Senator Warner and Senator Nelson for their continuing hard work in refining the language of this very important resolution, a resolution that I hope will garner widespread bipartisan support when it is brought to the Senate floor and debated next week.

Since we first introduced our resolution last week, we have had the benefit of further consultations with experts. We have had the benefit of conversations with our colleagues. We have had the benefit of alternative resolutions that have been proposed by other Senators, and we have had the benefit, most of all, of additional hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, including a classified briefing today. All of this activity has confirmed my belief that our resolution as originally proposed was on precisely the right track, but the benefit of these hearings, briefings, conversations and consultations has led us to improve our resolution by making four modifications that the distinguished Senators have just explained.

Let me, for the benefit of our colleagues, run through them one more time.

First, the resolution now makes very clear that nothing in it is to be construed as advocating any lessening of financial support for our troops. Indeed, it goes firmly on record as being opposed to cutting off funds that would be needed by our troops in Iraq. The language is very clear on that.

Second, there has been a great deal of discussion about the need for the Iraqis to meet certain benchmarks--benchmarks that in the past they have not met. So we include language in this resolution that makes very clear that we expect the Iraqi Prime Minister to agree to certain benchmarks; for example, to agree to work for the passage and achieve the passage of legislation that would ensure an equitable distribution of oil revenues. That is a very important issue in Iraq.

It also includes a benchmark that the Iraqis are going to produce the troops they have promised, and that they are going to operate according to the military rules of engagement without regard to the sectarian information or the sect of the people involved in the fighting. In other words, it doesn't matter whether an insurgent is a Sunni or a Shiite; if he is violating the law, engaging in violence, the Iraqi troops and our troops would be able to arrest and detain or otherwise battle these individuals.

It clarifies the language regarding the troop increase that the President has proposed, and as the Senator from Virginia has explained to our colleagues, it calls for a clarification of the command and control structure so that we don't have a dual line of command. We want to have a very clear chain of command, and we call for that. That isn't the case now, and if you ask any military officer, he or she will tell you that having a clear chain of command, a unity of command, is absolutely essential. We have made these four changes in our legislation, in the resolution. We hope our colleagues will take a close look at it. I look forward to debating it more fully when we get on this issue next week.

Again, I commend the distinguished Senators with whom I have been very privileged to work on this: Senator Warner, the former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, my colleague, Senator Nelson, also a member of the Committee on Armed Services. All three of us serve on that committee. We have brought to bear our experience and what we have learned in the last week as we continue to study this very important issue, perhaps the most vital issue facing our country.

If the Senator will yield on that point.

The resolution we drafted very carefully distinguishes between the sectarian violence engulfing Baghdad, where the Senator and Senator Nelson believe it would be a huge mistake for additional American troops to be in the midst of that, versus a very different situation in Anbar Province.

In Anbar, the violence is not sectarian; the battle is with al-Qaida and with foreign fighters, the Sunni insurgencies, so we have Sunni versus Sunni. It is not sectarian. And what is more, local tribal leaders have recently joined with the coalition forces to fight al- Qaida. It is a completely different situation in Anbar. I do support the addition of more troops in Anbar. Indeed, the one American commander whom I met with in December who called for more troops in Anbar was General Kilmer.

Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

It was a very illuminating trip with other Senators. It has shaped my views on the issues before the Senate.

One American commander in Baghdad told me a jobs program would do more good than additional American troops in quelling the sectarian violence. He told me many Iraqi men were joining the militias or planting roadside bombs simply because they had been unemployed for so long they were desperate for money and would do anything to support their families. This was an American commander who told me this.

Prime Minister Maliki, in mid-December, made very clear he did not welcome the presence of additional American troops and, indeed, that he chafed at the restrictions on his control of the Iraqi troops. So I didn't hear it from Iraqi leaders, either.

The only place where I heard a request for more troops was in Anbar Province where the situation, as we have discussed, is totally different than the sectarian violence plaguing Baghdad.

If the Senator will yield on that point, since the Senator was the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, as well, I would also share with our colleagues that the Senator presided over a hearing in mid-November at which General Abizaid, the central command general, testified before our committee that more American troops were not needed. He reported he had consulted widely with generals on the ground in Iraq, including General Casey, in reaching that conclusion.

I say to our colleagues that I think the record is clear. If you look at the findings of your trip from October, the testimony before the Committee on Armed Services from General Abizaid in November, what I heard in mid-December, I have to say, respectfully, I do not believe the President's plan with regard to Baghdad--not Anbar but Baghdad--is consistent with what we were told.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improving Access to Higher Education Act. This legislation would provide an increase in the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, as well as additional benefits to help make higher education more accessible and affordable.

Our system of higher education is, in many ways, the envy of the world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, family income still largely determines whether students will pursue higher education. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families with incomes of less than $25,000.

To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has committed itself to a need-based system of student financial aid designed to help remove the economic barriers to higher education. Central to this effort over the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program.

The Pell Grant Program is the largest source of Federal grant aid and the cornerstone of our Federal need-based aid system. In 2006, the Pell program provided approximately $13 billion in grant aid to more than 5.3 million students. Students with the greatest need receive the maximum Pell award, which is currently set at $4,050. And Pell grants are truly targeted to the neediest of students--Pell recipients have a median family income of only $15,200.

Because of the central role of the Pell Grant Program, I am deeply concerned by the significant erosion in the purchasing power of the Pell grant that has occurred in recent years. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant represented approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers only 33 percent of these costs.

When lower levels of grant aid are available, students are forced to make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt to finance their education. Earlier this month, I met with two students from the University of Southern Maine who told me that students graduating from 4-year institutions in Maine leave with an average debt of $20,239. As startling as this figure may be, it underestimates the true indebtedness of students, since it does not take into account credit card debt or private loans that students use to help finance their education.

The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on loans have particularly negative consequences for low-income students. In fact, the staggering amount of debt required to finance higher education may force some low-income students to abandon their plans to attend college altogether.

As explained in a recent report by the Educational Policy Institute, ``Grants for Students: What they do, Why they work,'' people from lower-income backgrounds often place a higher value on having money to meet pressing current needs, and accordingly, are less likely to make investments where the financial return comes only in the long term. According to the report, ``[L]ong term poverty encourages short-term thinking and those who experience it tend to identify very strongly with the expression `one in the hand is worth two in the bush.' '' This is just one reason why the availability of loans does not solve the college access problem for low-income students, and why grant aid is so crucial.

That is why today I am introducing legislation that will raise the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, an increase of more tha $1,000 in a single year. While I recognize that this represents a significant increase in a single year, this increase is long overdue. The maximum grant award has been essentially level-funded since Fiscal Year 2002. If we do not act soon Fiscal Year 2007 will become the fifth year in a row that the Pell maximum award has been level-funded.

By raising the maximum award to $5,100, my home state of Maine will receive approximately $60 million in Pell grant funding, an increase of over $15 million from current levels. This level of funding would provide Pell grants to more than 20,000 Maine students.

I recently met with Andrew Bossie, a first-generation college student from my hometown of Caribou, about the importance of Pell grants. Andrew is currently a student at the University of Southern Maine and will graduate this spring, in large part, because of the help of Pell grants. As Andrew told me, ``Without Pell grants, there is no doubt that I would not have been able to attend college. Although the current Pell grant award is a huge help, I still feel the stress of sometimes having to decide between a badly-needed new pair of shoes and making my tuition payments.'' Andrew is thriving academically--he is on the Dean's list--and he is also the student body president and is active as a community volunteer.

Increasing the maximum Pell award by $1,050 is going to make a real difference for Andrew and other students in their ability to pursue their college dreams. While I recognize that an increase to $5,100 in a single year is an ambitious goal, it is a worthy one for a nation that understands the opportunities that a college education brings.

My legislation also amends the Higher Education Act to raise the minimum Pell award to $500, up from the current minimum of $400. The minimum award level has not been increased in over 10 years. I believe we should ensure that every student who qualifies for a Pell receives at least $500.

In addition to our efforts on behalf of Pell grants, there are other important steps we can take to put higher education in the reach of more families. Ten years ago, in my first year as a Senator, I introduced S. 930, the ``College Affordability and Access Act,'' which contained three provisions designed to expand access to higher education, and reduce its cost. These three provisions were enacted into law, in amended form, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The proposal I am submitting today builds upon each of those three provisions. First, in recognition of the increased cost of higher education, my proposal calls for an increase in the tax deduction available for interest paid on higher education loans. Second, my proposal calls for a similar increase in the contribution limit for tax-free Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Third, the bill would make permanent the current tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational assistance programs.

The value of the tax relief we provided 10 years ago has not kept pace with the rising cost of higher education. According to data from the College Board, 4-year private colleges now charge $30,000 per year for tuition, fees, room, and board. Even after taking inflation into account, this represents an increase of more than $6,000 since the 1996-1997 school year. Perhaps even more troubling, the College Board reports that the rate of increase has actually been sharper at public 4-year institutions than their private counterparts. Ten years ago, students attending any of America's excellent public universities would have paid, on average, just over $9,000 to cover tuition, fees, room, and board. Today, these

students can expect to pay nearly $12,800--an increase of 38 percent after taking inflation into account.

By contrast, the student loan interest deduction we provided as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 remains at $2,500. It is time that we raise this cap to $3,750, a 50-percent increase. Doing so is a step toward recognizing that investments in higher education are essential to the health of our economy in an increasingly global, competitive marketplace.

I also believe it is necessary to increase the contribution limits for Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Under current law, taxpayers may make contributions of up to $2,000 per year to these tax-free higher education accounts. In light of the inflation in college costs that I have already described, I believe this contribution limit ought to be increased to $3,000 per year.

Finally, my proposal would also extend current education benefits provided to employees through their employers. Under current law, a taxpayer may receive, tax free, up to $5,250 in education benefits through their employers each year. This provision helps both companies and their employees. Companies that provide this benefit get a workforce that is current with the latest methods and technologies in the field, while their employees get the training they need to advance through the ranks. Unfortunately, this provision expires on December 31, 2010. I propose that it be made permanent.

Now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $5,100, and to providing additional relief to families struggling to afford higher education. Investing in higher education is crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global economy, and my legislation represents a sound investment towards making the dream of a college education a reality for more Americans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improving Access to Higher Education Act. This legislation would provide an increase in the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, as well as additional benefits to help make higher education more accessible and affordable.

Our system of higher education is, in many ways, the envy of the world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, family income still largely determines whether students will pursue higher education. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families with incomes of less than $25,000.

To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has committed itself to a need-based system of student financial aid designed to help remove the economic barriers to higher education. Central to this effort over the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program.

The Pell Grant Program is the largest source of Federal grant aid and the cornerstone of our Federal need-based aid system. In 2006, the Pell program provided approximately $13 billion in grant aid to more than 5.3 million students. Students with the greatest need receive the maximum Pell award, which is currently set at $4,050. And Pell grants are truly targeted to the neediest of students--Pell recipients have a median family income of only $15,200.

Because of the central role of the Pell Grant Program, I am deeply concerned by the significant erosion in the purchasing power of the Pell grant that has occurred in recent years. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant represented approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers only 33 percent of these costs.

When lower levels of grant aid are available, students are forced to make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt to finance their education. Earlier this month, I met with two students from the University of Southern Maine who told me that students graduating from 4-year institutions in Maine leave with an average debt of $20,239. As startling as this figure may be, it underestimates the true indebtedness of students, since it does not take into account credit card debt or private loans that students use to help finance their education.

The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on loans have particularly negative consequences for low-income students. In fact, the staggering amount of debt required to finance higher education may force some low-income students to abandon their plans to attend college altogether.

As explained in a recent report by the Educational Policy Institute, ``Grants for Students: What they do, Why they work,'' people from lower-income backgrounds often place a higher value on having money to meet pressing current needs, and accordingly, are less likely to make investments where the financial return comes only in the long term. According to the report, ``[L]ong term poverty encourages short-term thinking and those who experience it tend to identify very strongly with the expression `one in the hand is worth two in the bush.' '' This is just one reason why the availability of loans does not solve the college access problem for low-income students, and why grant aid is so crucial.

That is why today I am introducing legislation that will raise the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, an increase of more tha $1,000 in a single year. While I recognize that this represents a significant increase in a single year, this increase is long overdue. The maximum grant award has been essentially level-funded since Fiscal Year 2002. If we do not act soon Fiscal Year 2007 will become the fifth year in a row that the Pell maximum award has been level-funded.

By raising the maximum award to $5,100, my home state of Maine will receive approximately $60 million in Pell grant funding, an increase of over $15 million from current levels. This level of funding would provide Pell grants to more than 20,000 Maine students.

I recently met with Andrew Bossie, a first-generation college student from my hometown of Caribou, about the importance of Pell grants. Andrew is currently a student at the University of Southern Maine and will graduate this spring, in large part, because of the help of Pell grants. As Andrew told me, ``Without Pell grants, there is no doubt that I would not have been able to attend college. Although the current Pell grant award is a huge help, I still feel the stress of sometimes having to decide between a badly-needed new pair of shoes and making my tuition payments.'' Andrew is thriving academically--he is on the Dean's list--and he is also the student body president and is active as a community volunteer.

Increasing the maximum Pell award by $1,050 is going to make a real difference for Andrew and other students in their ability to pursue their college dreams. While I recognize that an increase to $5,100 in a single year is an ambitious goal, it is a worthy one for a nation that understands the opportunities that a college education brings.

My legislation also amends the Higher Education Act to raise the minimum Pell award to $500, up from the current minimum of $400. The minimum award level has not been increased in over 10 years. I believe we should ensure that every student who qualifies for a Pell receives at least $500.

In addition to our efforts on behalf of Pell grants, there are other important steps we can take to put higher education in the reach of more families. Ten years ago, in my first year as a Senator, I introduced S. 930, the ``College Affordability and Access Act,'' which contained three provisions designed to expand access to higher education, and reduce its cost. These three provisions were enacted into law, in amended form, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The proposal I am submitting today builds upon each of those three provisions. First, in recognition of the increased cost of higher education, my proposal calls for an increase in the tax deduction available for interest paid on higher education loans. Second, my proposal calls for a similar increase in the contribution limit for tax-free Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Third, the bill would make permanent the current tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational assistance programs.

The value of the tax relief we provided 10 years ago has not kept pace with the rising cost of higher education. According to data from the College Board, 4-year private colleges now charge $30,000 per year for tuition, fees, room, and board. Even after taking inflation into account, this represents an increase of more than $6,000 since the 1996-1997 school year. Perhaps even more troubling, the College Board reports that the rate of increase has actually been sharper at public 4-year institutions than their private counterparts. Ten years ago, students attending any of America's excellent public universities would have paid, on average, just over $9,000 to cover tuition, fees, room, and board. Today, these

students can expect to pay nearly $12,800--an increase of 38 percent after taking inflation into account.

By contrast, the student loan interest deduction we provided as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 remains at $2,500. It is time that we raise this cap to $3,750, a 50-percent increase. Doing so is a step toward recognizing that investments in higher education are essential to the health of our economy in an increasingly global, competitive marketplace.

I also believe it is necessary to increase the contribution limits for Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Under current law, taxpayers may make contributions of up to $2,000 per year to these tax-free higher education accounts. In light of the inflation in college costs that I have already described, I believe this contribution limit ought to be increased to $3,000 per year.

Finally, my proposal would also extend current education benefits provided to employees through their employers. Under current law, a taxpayer may receive, tax free, up to $5,250 in education benefits through their employers each year. This provision helps both companies and their employees. Companies that provide this benefit get a workforce that is current with the latest methods and technologies in the field, while their employees get the training they need to advance through the ranks. Unfortunately, this provision expires on December 31, 2010. I propose that it be made permanent.

Now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $5,100, and to providing additional relief to families struggling to afford higher education. Investing in higher education is crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global economy, and my legislation represents a sound investment towards making the dream of a college education a reality for more Americans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 113.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, Senator Smith, and myself, I call up a second-degree amendment, amendment No. 204, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the second-degree amendment that Senators Warner, Smith, and I are offering increases a deduction for schoolteachers and other educators that is in current law. Our amendment would increase this deduction to $400 and make it permanent. This tax deduction is available to schoolteachers and other educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses in order to purchase classroom supplies for their students. It would also allow this above-the-line tax deduction for expenses related to professional development.

This amendment builds on a $250 tax deduction in current law that Senator Warner and I authored in 2001. It became law that year as part of the tax relief package. The tax relief provided by that act to schoolteachers and other educators was later extended through the end of this year, but we need to act to extend it further, and I suggest there is no reason we shouldn't just go ahead and make it permanent. Teachers who buy classroom supplies in order to improve the educational experience for their students deserve more than just our gratitude. They deserve this modest tax incentive to thank them for their hard work.

So often, teachers in my State and throughout the country spend their own money to improve the classroom experience of their students. Many of us are familiar with the survey of the National Education Association that found that teachers spend on average $443 a year on classroom supplies. Other surveys show they are spending even more than that. In fact, the National School Supply and Equipment Association has found that educators spend an average of $826 to supplement classroom supplies, plus $926 for instructional materials on top of that--in other words, a total of $1,700 out of their own pockets.

In most States, including mine, teachers are very modestly paid for their jobs, and I think it is so impressive that despite challenging jobs and modest salaries, teachers are willing to dig deep into their own pockets to enrich the classroom experience because they care so deeply for their students.

Indeed, I have spoken with dozens of teachers in Maine who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit that is in current law. I have made a practice of visiting schools all over Maine. In fact, I have visited more than 160 schools in my State. At virtually every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to benefit their students. Year after year, these teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, construction paper, stamps, ink pads--everything one can think of. Let me just give a couple of examples. For example, Anita Hopkins and Kathi Toothaker, who are elementary school teachers in Augusta, ME, purchased books for their students to have a classroom library, as well as workbooks and sight cards. They also purchased special prizes for positive reinforcement for their students. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends between $800 and $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning more fun and to create a stimulating classroom environment.

I have proposed that we also expand the uses for this tax deduction. We should make it available for teachers who incur expenses for professional development. We hear a lot of discussion when the provisions of No Child Left Behind are debated about the need for highly qualified teachers. One of the best ways for teachers to improve their qualifications is through professional development. Yet in towns in my State--and I suspect throughout the country--school budgets are often very tight and money for professional development is either very small or nonexistent. So what I think we should do is to allow this tax deduction to also apply when a teacher takes a course or attends a workshop and has to pay for it out of his or her own pocket.

In my view, it is the students who are the ultimate beneficiaries when teachers receive professional development to sharpen their skills or to teach them a new approach to presenting material to their students. Studies consistently have shown that other than involved parents, the single greatest determinant of classroom success is the presence of a well-qualified teacher, and educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom.

The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is certainly a positive step, and I was very proud, along with Senator Warner, to have authored that law. This amendment would increase that deduction from $250 to $400, reflecting more accurately what teachers really do spend, and it would also make it permanent.

The National Education Association, the NEA, has endorsed this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the NEA's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Madam President, this amendment is a small but appropriate means of recognizing the many sacrifices our teachers make every day to benefit the children of America.

I thank the Senator from Oregon for working with me on this amendment. It is my understanding that it is acceptable to him. It builds on the many positive provisions he has in his amendment. He is a cosponsor of the amendment. He has been a real leader on educational issues.

Shortly, I am going to ask that the amendment be adopted.

Exhibit 1

National Education Association,

Washington, DC, January 24, 2007.

Senator Susan Collins,

Senator John Warner,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Collins and Warner: On behalf of the National

Education Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we would

like to express our strong support for your legislation that

would increase, expand, and make permanent the tax deduction

for educators' out-of-pocket classroom supply expenses. We

thank you for your continued leadership and advocacy on this

important issue.

As you know, the educator tax deduction helps recognize the

financial sacrifices made by teachers and paraprofessionals,

who often reach into their own pockets to purchase classroom

supplies such as books, pencils, paper, and art supplies.

Studies show that teachers are spending more of their own

funds each year to supply their classrooms, including

purchasing essential items such as pencils, glue, scissors,

and facial tissues. For example, NEA's 2003 report Status of

the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001 found that

teachers spent an average of $443 a year on classroom

supplies. More recently, the National School Supply and

Equipment Association found that in 2005-2006, educators

spent out of their own pockets an average of $826.00 for

supplies and an additional $926 for instructional materials,

for a total of $1,752.

By increasing the current deduction and making it

permanent, your legislation will make a real difference for

many educators, who often must sacrifice other personal needs

in order to pay for classroom supplies.

NEA also strongly supports your proposal to extend the tax

deduction to cover out-of-pocket professional development

expenses. Teacher quality is the single most critical factor

in maximizing student achievement. Ongoing professional

development is essential to ensure that educators stay up-to-

date on the skills and knowledge necessary to prepare

students for the challenges of the 21st century. Your bill

will make a critical difference in helping educators access

quality training.

We thank you again for your work on this important

legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you

to support our nation's educators.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust,

Director of Government Relations.

Randall Moody,

Manager of Federal Policy and Politics.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment, No. 204, be agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my two colleagues on the Senate floor this evening in submitting a very important resolution on what is perhaps the greatest challenge facing our country.

Let me first say it has been an honor and a privilege to work with the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson. We have worked very hard on this resolution, spending many hours wordsmithing the language of it, trying to get exactly the kind of serious policy statement we could bring before our colleagues in the Senate.

I am very pleased that on the Republican side, we are joined by two leaders on this issue, Senator Coleman and Senator Smith. They, too, have had input to the resolution. That brings the number of us who are joining tonight as original sponsors of our resolution to 10 Members of the Senate. I would also note that based on conversations I have had with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there are several more Senators who are very interested in our resolution and may well join in cosponsoring it at a later date or certainly in voting for it.

Yesterday the Senate Armed Services Committee held a very useful hearing on the nomination of an outstanding military officer, General Petraeus, whom the President has tapped to lead our forces in Iraq. Earlier today the Senate Armed Services Committee, I believe by unanimous vote, voted to report this vital nomination to the full Senate. General Petraeus is the ideal person to be taking over as commander of our troops in Iraq. If anyone can make what I believe to be a flawed strategy a success, it is he. But I had a very interesting exchange with General Petraeus. I talked to him about my concern that inserting more American troops into Iraq may well lessen the pressure on Iraqi leaders to take the long overdue steps that are needed to quell the sectarian violence.

I know the President believes the answer is more American troops, that that will provide the Prime Minister and other leaders with the space they need to take the reforms forward. I fear it is just the opposite. I believe it lessens the pressure on the Iraqi leaders.

I am happy to yield.

The distinguished Senator from Virginia is exactly correct. That is indeed the testimony that was brought before our committee a month ago. This was not ancient history. It was very reasoned testimony and it could not have been clearer testimony. Indeed, similar testimony was given by General Casey.

I asked General Petraeus if he felt we would be facing the widespread and deteriorating sectarian violence that threatens the entire country, but particularly the Baghdad region, if Iraqi leaders had amended their Constitution, had passed an oil revenue law that more equitably distributed oil proceeds among the groups in Iraq, if they had held provincial elections, if they had more fully integrated the Sunni minority into the Government power structures; would we be in the same place today? And he told me he did not believe we would be. I think that is significant, because I believe if Iraqi leaders had taken those steps, we would not be facing the widespread sectarian violence that has engulfed the Baghdad region.

I also talked to General Petraeus about a fascinating article he wrote a year ago in which he outlined 14 observations that he had, based on his previous tours in Iraq. The first and most important observation in this article in ``Military Review'' that General Petraeus had was to quote Lawrence of Arabia back in 1917, to say that it was a mistake for us to do too much, whoever the foreign force is, and that you had to let the Iraqis take the lead on these issues. Well, those words, true in 1917, are just as true today, as General Petraeus himself observed in this article.

The second observation in the same article, General Petraeus said an army like ours in a land like Iraq has a half life as liberators, that they are quickly seen as an army of occupiers. I believe that is what has happened in Iraq and that confirms what my own observations were during a trip a month ago to that land. Our delegation met with a British commander in Basra who described to us a declining consent line. He said at first when the British arrived in Basra, they were greeted as liberators. But as time has gone by, their presence is more and more resented and less and less tolerated.

The observations General Petraeus had in this article offer us good guidance and, indeed, reflect in many ways the concepts we have worked hard to include in this resolution.

There is one final point I want to make this evening. Some have said if we pass this resolution, we show that America is somehow divided and not supportive of our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is every Member of this body is united in support of our troops. Every Member of this body wishes General Petraeus all the best and hopes he will succeed in this very difficult mission. But the fact is, Americans are deeply divided over the strategy we should pursue in Iraq. It is part of the health of our American democracy that we debate these issues, and we do so because we care about the brave men and women in uniform who are representing us in Iraq, who are on the front lines, who are sacrificing so much. That is exactly the motivation for the resolution that the 10 of us are introducing tonight.

Let me close my remarks by again saying it has been a wonderful experience to work so closely with the senior Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson. Both of them have worked so hard. They care so much about this issue. It has been a great pleasure to join with them.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, last night the Senate voted not to invoke cloture on the ethics and lobbying reform legislation we have been considering for the past couple of weeks. I come to the floor this morning to explain why I voted to continue debate on this bill to which, as the Presiding Officer knows, I am very committed and have worked very hard on in the past Congress.

First, then, let me emphasize that I remain committed to passing a strong lobbying reform and ethics bill. I have said before and I will repeat that before we can conduct the business of the people of this country, it is important that we reform our practices.

We need to strengthen the lobbying rules and the ethics rules to increase disclosure and to ban practices that might call into question the integrity of the decisions we make.

We need to assure the American people that the decisions we make are in their interests, that they are not tainted by undue influence or influence by special interests.

The underlying bill, S. 1, is the same bill that last year was the bipartisan product of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which I was privileged to chair. It is a good bill and it remains a good bill.

Over the past week and a half, we have debated and voted on amendments that have further improved the legislation before us, and the Senate is making good progress. However, as much progress as we have made, this bill has not reached the point where we should invoke cloture and cut off debate.

Some observers of the Senate may not understand that invoking cloture means that all amendments to this bill that are not germane can no longer be considered. The term and test for germaneness severely limits the types of amendments that can be considered, and many of these amendments--although they are not technically germane to the bill--are nevertheless very relevant to the bill. And perhaps the most important of these amendments is the Collins-Lieberman amendment that would create an Office of Public Integrity.

I know the Presiding Officer has been a strong supporter of an Office of Public Integrity as well, as has the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. The four of us have worked very hard on that concept.

I strongly believe we will have failed our test of producing a truly strong and complete ethics bill if we leave out the enforcement angle, if we do not create an Office of Public Integrity to conduct impartial, independent investigations of allegations against Members of Congress.

The other provisions of this bill are very important and very good, but we cannot ignore the enforcement piece. We need an Office of Public Integrity.

I realize that leaders on both sides of the aisle disagree with me on this

issue. I realize I am not likely to prevail. But surely we deserve a vote. But if we invoke cloture before there is a vote on the amendment that Senator Lieberman, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Arizona and I have offered, our amendment will fall. It will not pass the strict germaneness test, even though it clearly is relevant to the underlying bill. I think that is wrong. I think we deserve a vote on the Office of Public Integrity. People feel strongly on both sides about this issue. It doesn't break down along party lines. As I said, the two leaders of the Senate are both opposed to the concept. But surely they ought to give us a vote. That is all I am asking. Let's have the Senate go on record on whether this independent office should be included in this bill.

I wish to make sure, since there was a lot of debate about this last year, that everyone understands the key role that the Ethics Committee would continue to play. All the Office of Public Integrity would do is to handle the investigative stage. It would still be up to the Ethics Committee to make critical decisions on whether to proceed with the case. The Ethics Committee would decide what is reported publicly. The Ethics Committee would decide whether action to penalize a Member should be taken. It would be the Ethics Committee that would still have tremendous authority in this whole process, but it would be combined with this independent Office of Public Integrity that would ensure an impartial investigation of allegations and, thus, would help restore public confidence in our ethics system. Isn't that what this debate is all about? It is about restoring public confidence that the decisions we are making are made in the best interests of the American people. I believe that an ethics bill without the Office of Public Integrity is an incomplete response to the concerns so clearly expressed by the American people in the elections last fall.

Again, the underlying bill is a good bill. It is essentially the bill that was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year. We have made it even better with some of the amendments we have adopted. Let's complete the task. Let's go the rest of the way down the road. Let's create an Office of Public Integrity. But if it is the will of this body not to create an Office of Public Integrity, the American people deserve to know that also.

So I want a vote. I am not going to vote to cut off debate on this bill until we get a vote on the Office of Public Integrity. The American people deserve to know where every Member of this body stands on this important issue. There are different views. There are legitimate views both for and against the office, but we deserve a vote on this issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Bennett. This is a very rare instance where I disagree with my colleague and good friend from Connecticut. I simply don't want to discourage any effort to increase citizen participation in Government. Too many citizens are convinced that their voices don't count. They become apathetic about their Government. They become convinced they cannot influence our positions. I think activity that encourages citizens to contact us, to participate in the process, should be encouraged, not discouraged, and I believe the language in the bill could well discourage citizen contact with Members of Congress. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 99

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to create an Office of Public Integrity.

This underlying bill is a very good one. It will help to restore public confidence in the integrity of our decisions. But we leave the job undone if we do not create an Office of Public Integrity. I thank the leaders on both sides of the aisle for allowing the Senate to have a vote on this important issue.

The problem is that the current system is inherently conflicted. We are our own advisers, we are our own investigators, we are our own prosecutors, we are our own judges, and we are our own jurors. This amendment would take only the investigative part of the process and invest it in an independent, impartial Office of Public Integrity that would help restore the public's confidence in the integrity of our ethics system.

I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Connecticut.

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

Mr. President, last week, I was very pleased to join with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, in offering an amendment to this bill to create an Office of Public Integrity. The American people view the way we enforce ethics requirements as an inherently conflicted process. We are our own advisers, our own investigators, our own prosecutors, our own judges, our own juries, and even though some of our finest Members serve on our Ethics Committee, they cannot escape that perception, they cannot escape the process, nor can they convince the public that the process works to ensure an independent, impartial investigation of allegations brought against Members of Congress.

Last March, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and myself offered an amendment designed to restore the public's confidence in our ethics process by creating a new Senate Office of Public Integrity. Although that amendment failed, I hope our colleagues will take another look at the rationale for this office. I hope our colleagues have looked at the election results in which the public clearly stated its concern over allegations of corruption. The adoption of our amendment is the single most important step we could take to help restore the public's confidence in the integrity of the decisions we make.

I am not saying the amendment the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona and I have proposed is perfect. We are very open to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have suggestions for how to improve our amendment. We incorporated a lot of those suggestions into the proposal we brought before the full Senate last March.

I wanted to point out some basic information about this office. First, it would be headed by a Director jointly appointed by the majority and the minority leaders of the Senate. So those who fear that somehow this Director and this office would be partisan should look at that provision that requires a joint appointment by the Democratic and the Republican leaders. We preserve a very important and strong role for the Ethics Committee, and I believe that, combined, these two entities can help restore public confidence in the independence and impartiality of ethics oversight and enforcement.

I want to take a moment to underline this point about the role of the Ethics Committee. It would be the Ethics Committee that decides if a complaint were frivolous, the Ethics Committee that would decide whether to enforce a subpoena, the Ethics Committee that would determine when and whether investigatory materials are made public. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding that somehow this office would operate completely divorced from the Ethics Committee and on automatic pilot. It would be the Ethics Committee that would continue to provide advice, both informally and through advisory opinions. It would be the Ethics Committee, not the Director of the Senate Office of Public Integrity, who would have sole discretion on what is reported publicly if the committee overrules a decision of the office.

At bottom, our amendment creates an independent, transparent process for initiating and conducting investigations of possible ethical and other violations. I think this is important. We haven't had the problems on this side of the Congress that have troubled our colleagues on the House side, but I think we still need to act to put into place a process that would guarantee to the public an impartial and independent investigation of allegations--not of the final judgment, not of the remedies or punishment that is found by the Ethics Committee to be appropriate but the investigative stage. I suggest that not only would this help restore public confidence in the process, but it would also be helpful to Members because if an independent office concludes there is no merit to allegations lodged against Members of Congress, the public is much more likely to accept that conclusion than if it is made by other Members of the same body who serve with us each day.

I know some of our colleagues are not comfortable generally with the concept of an independent office with any investigatory powers. But I don't believe we are creating some sort of monster, some sort of out- of-control special prosecutor because we impose on the process the discipline and the authority, the ultimate authority of the Ethics Committee. But I do believe we would be creating a process that would help restore the badly tarnished view the public has of our ability to investigate ourselves.

I respect and I honor the constitutional role that says we sit in judgment of our peers, our colleagues, in both bodies. I am not talking about disturbing that role in any way. Instead, what I am saying is it would help restore public confidence, when serious allegations are lodged against a Member of Congress, if we were to create this independent investigative office. There are many safeguards and checks and balances we have carefully built into the amendment that the Senator from Connecticut and I have brought before this body. I urge our colleagues to actually read the amendment and to take a look at it closely. If there are particular concerns, I ask that they work with us to improve our amendment. But what is not acceptable to me is for this amendment not to receive a vote by this body. The Members are familiar with it. I believe it is time for us to go on the record.

I don't think that shoveling off this amendment in the hope that it will come up at some future date is the way to proceed. I think our amendment is well crafted and well balanced. I believe it would make a major difference in the process and help to restore the public's confidence in the whole ethics system. I believe it is carefully crafted so that it does not diminish the very important role of our Ethics Committee, a role I respect and honor, but this amendment would help accomplish the goal of building the public's trust.

Why is this so important? Because if the public does not trust our ethics system, it will not trust the decisions we are making on vital issues--the issues that shape the future of this country. The American people deserve to know that our decisions are not tainted by outside undue influence. They deserve to know we are putting the interests of the American people and our constituents above any other interests.

I have often said, and I will repeat it, that I respect the important role lobbyists play in the process. They provide us with useful information, whether they are representing a children's advocacy group, the business community, a labor organization, or a public interest association. That input is important to us as long as it aids but does not dictate our decisions. It is important that the process be transparent.

There is much in this bill, which we worked very hard on in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year, that improves the transparency of the process, but we need to add the enforcement piece. We need to make sure not only that we ban inappropriate practices, not only that we have full and more accessible disclosure, but we need the enforcement piece as well. That is what my distinguished colleague from Connecticut as well as the Senators from Arizona and Illinois have proposed, and I believe it is the missing piece that will make already good legislation an excellent bill.

Most of all, it is important that we go on record, that we have an opportunity for a vote because, after all, that is part of the process, too: ensuring that Members express their views and that it is done in a forthright manner. I hope very much we will have an opportunity to have a rollcall vote on this important amendment.

It has been a great pleasure to work with the new chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on this issue, as on every issue on which I have worked with the Senator from Connecticut.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for not to exceed 5 minutes in order to submit a resolution.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. COLLINS pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 22 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah.

I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana that would restrict the ability of a campaign to hire the spouse or child of a candidate. I just don't see why we would want to get into the issue of whom a candidate can put on his or her payroll. As long as it is a fully disclosed expense, which it would be through campaign finance reports and campaign disclosures, then the voters can judge whether it is appropriate. In some cases, it may be appropriate; in some cases, it may not. Why should we bar the ability of a family member to work for a candidate? I don't see the point of that.

This isn't a case where taxpayer dollars are being used and you might want to make sure that you are following some antinepotism rules. This is a campaign.

As it happens, I have never had a relative on my campaign payroll. I should perhaps make that clear. But many times when people are starting out, running for public office the first time, it is family members who are willing to

work on the campaign at very minimal pay in order to help their relative win the race.

I don't see this creating a problem. I think it is a mistake for us to legislate in this area. I urge opposition to Senator Vitter's amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate resolution that will reaffirm the fundamental constitutional and statutory protections accorded sealed domestic mail. I am very pleased to have the distinguished chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, as a cosponsor, Senator Carper, who was the author of the postal reform bill with me in the last Congress, Senator Coleman, and Senator Akaka, all of whom have been very active on postal issues.

On December 20, President Bush signed into law the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act that Senator Carper and I originally introduced in 2004. This new law represents the most sweeping reforms to the U.S. Postal Service in more than 30 years.

The Presiding Officer and new chairman of the committee knows well that of all the legislation our committee produced last year, in many ways this was the most difficult to bring to completion.

The act, which will help the 225-year-old Postal Service, meets the challenges of the 21st century, establishes a new rate-setting system, helps ensure a stronger financial future for the Postal Service, provides more stability and predictability in rates, and protects the basic feature of universal service. One of the act's many provisions provides continued authority for the Postal Service to establish a class of mail sealed against inspection.

The day President Bush signed the Postal Reform Act into law, he also issued a signing statement construing that particular provision to permit ``searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety.'' While I understand that the President's spokesman has explained that the signing statement did not intend to change the scope of this new law, it has resulted in considerable confusion and widespread concern about the President's commitment to abide by the basic privacy protections afforded sealed domestic mail. For some, it raised the specter of the Government unlawfully monitoring our mail in the name of national security.

Given this unfortunate perception, I wish to be very clear as the author of this legislation. Nothing in the Postal Reform Act, nor in the President's signing statement, alters in any way

the privacy and civil liberty protections provided to a person who sends or receives sealed mail. In fact, the President's signing statement appears to do nothing more than restate current law, but by the mere act of issuing the signing statement, unfortunately, the administration raised questions about what, in fact, is their intent.

Under current law, mail sealed against inspection is entitled to the strongest possible protections against physical searches, the protections afforded by our Constitution which guard against unreasonable searches. With only limited exceptions, the Government needs a warrant issued by a court before it can search sealed mail. This is true whether the search is conducted under our Criminal Code to obtain evidence of a crime or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, of 1978 to collect foreign intelligence information concerning a national security threat. Only when there is an immediate danger to life or limb or an immediate and substantial danger to property can the Government search a domestic sealed letter or package without a warrant. Let me give a couple of examples. That could occur when there are wires protruding from a package, for example, or odors escaping from an envelope or stains on the outside of a package indicating that the contents may constitute an immediate danger or threat.

Americans depend on the U.S. Postal Service to transact business and to communicate with friends and family, and if there is any doubt in the public's mind that the Government is not protecting the constitutional privacy accorded their mail, if there is suspicion that the Government is unlawfully opening mail, then our Nation's confidence in the sanctity of our mail system and, indeed, in our Government will be eroded. That is precisely why I am joining with my colleagues in submitting this resolution today. It makes clear to all law-abiding Americans that the Federal Government will not invade their privacy by reading their sealed mail absent a court order or emergency circumstances. Any contrary interpretation of the Postal Reform Act is just plain wrong.

I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution which reaffirms the constitutional and statutory protections accorded to domestic sealed mail. I say to the Presiding Officer, the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over this matter, that I hope we can act very quickly and get this resolution approved by the full Senate. I believe it is important that we go on record without any delay to assure the American people that those protections which they value so much are still in place and have not been altered, given the doubt that the President's signing statement created.

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

Madam President, I know the order provides for Senator Lieberman to go first, followed by myself. Since Senator Lieberman has not yet arrived on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to begin. When Senator Lieberman arrives on the floor, I will yield to him and then reclaim my time.

Madam President, today the Senate once again considers significant legislation to reform ethical practices and lobbying practices. Any sense of deja vu among my colleagues is understandable, for the bill before us, S. 1, is identical to the bill passed by the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 in March of last year. That bill was the bipartisan product of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Because it never became law and because the issues that it addressed have only grown more troubling, the bill stands before us reincarnated but still very much needed.

The recent elections took place in the shadow of far too many revelations of questionable or even downright illegal conduct by Members of Congress. In reaction to those scandals, the American people sent a clear message to Congress that they had lost confidence in their Government. You may ask, Why does it matter? Why does it matter if the American people have confidence in their Government officials? It matters because without the trust of the American people, we cannot tackle the major issues facing this country. As long as our constituents are convinced that the decisions we are making are tainted by special influences or undue influence, then we simply cannot accomplish the work of this Nation.

I think it is appropriate that the first bill that is brought before this Chamber to be debated and considered is one that would reform the lobbying and ethics rules to increase disclosure and to ban practices that might be called into question or create an appearance of wrongdoing. We need to assure the American people that the decisions we make are decisions of integrity, in which their interests are put first.

It is important to remember that the conduct of most Members of Congress and their staffs is beyond reproach. I believe the vast majority of people serving in the House and the Senate are here for the right reason. They are here because they care deeply about their country and they want to contribute to the formulation of public policy they believe will improve the lives of the American people.

The same can be said for the conduct of most lobbyists. In fact, lobbying--whether done on behalf of the business community, an environmental organization, a children's advocacy group, or any other cause--can often provide Members of Congress with useful information and analysis. That information and analysis aids but does not dictate the decisionmaking process.

Unfortunately, today the word ``lobbying'' too often conjures up images of expensive paid vacations masquerading as fact-finding trips, special access the average citizen can never have, and undue influence that leads to tainted decisions. We cannot underestimate the corrosive effect this perception has on the public's confidence in the legislative process.

One of the most important functions of the bill before us is to increase transparency, make it evident what is going on, how our decisions are made. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' That, indeed, is the premise of this bill. It calls for greatly increased disclosure. It provides, for example, for a searchable, accessible public database where information on lobbying contacts and filings will be maintained and disclosed. It requires far more detailed disclosure of lobbyist activities in more frequent filings under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and it ensures that this information is made readily available to the public via the Internet. The knowledge that the public will be able to scrutinize in detail the activities of a lobbying firm and contacts between Members and lobbyists will help to provide much needed transparency in this whole area. In addition, the enhanced disclosures will allow citizens to decide for themselves what is acceptable and what is not.

This bill also contains some needed reforms of earmarks. Too many times an earmark--the designation of taxpayer dollars for a specific purpose--has been included in the final version of an appropriations bill, or another bill, despite the fact that it was never discussed or debated in either the Senate or the House. By requiring that any earmarks in legislation disclose the name of the Member of Congress who proposed the earmark and also requiring an explanation of the essential governmental purpose of the earmark, and by making this information available on the Internet, this legislation will shed sunlight on the source of and the reason for earmarks and allow them to be fairly evaluated.

I go through a very rigorous process when I decide to press for earmarks. I make sure there is community support, I review them in depth, and I am going to be very comfortable having my name attached to earmarks that I propose. In fact, I hope then that will help my constituents know I am working very hard for a project with which I agree.

It is not the process of earmarks per se that is a problem. The problem is when earmarks are sneaked into the final version of legislation without public debate, without a vote, without any consideration, and no one is sure where the earmark came from, who sponsored it or, in some cases, even who the beneficiary is going to be. That is the problem. That is what this bill would cure.

The enhanced disclosure in this legislation not only applies to the activities of lobbyists but to our own activities as well. I am pleased this legislation takes steps to eliminate the practice of anonymous holds on Senate legislation. This occurs when a Member notifies the cloakroom that he or she wishes to block a piece of legislation from coming to the floor and yet does so anonymously. I can tell you as someone who has had to deal with anonymous holds time and again, it is very frustrating when you can't find out who is holding up your legislation, why they are holding it up, and you cannot begin to resolve whatever the problems are. The hallmark of this body should be free and open debate. A process that allows a secret hold to kill a bill without a word of debate on the Senate floor is contrary to that principle.

The bill also includes some important provisions to slow the so- called revolving door problem, where Members of Congress and high- ranking staff leave their jobs in the Senate or the House one day and then turn around and lobby the institution they once served. Once again, the limitations in this bill get to the heart of the image problem here and help to ensure the integrity of our decisions.

Many of our former colleagues have become lobbyists. There is nothing wrong with that. But there should be a cooling-off period before they come back.

I notice my colleague from Connecticut has now arrived on the floor. Through the Chair, I ask my colleague if he wants me to finish my statement or if he wants to do his now, since he was first in the queue?

I thank my colleague from Connecticut.

I am also very pleased to join Senators Reid, McConnell, Feinstein, Lieberman, and Bennett in cosponsoring a bipartisan substitute amendment that will be laid down this afternoon. This substitute amendment will further strengthen the legislation we have before us. I thank all of my colleagues for working together to achieve this goal.

Nevertheless, I make clear, while I strongly support the legislation before the Senate as well as the substitute, the legislation could be further strengthened in a very important way.

Last year, Senators Lieberman, McCain and I proposed an Office of Public Integrity. That concept is also included in another bill that was sponsored this year by Senators McCain, Lieberman, Feingold, and myself. I anticipate Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, and I will be offering this proposal during the course of this debate.

I will debate that issue later at the appropriate time, but right now let me say any true comprehensive reform of our lobbying and ethics rules should include an independent investigatory body. The American people view the way we investigate ethics violations as an inherently conflicted process. Think about it--and I know the Presiding Officer has a law enforcement background--we are our own advisers, our own investigators, our own prosecutors, our own judges, our own juries. We play every role.

As good a job as a Member of the Ethics Committee in the Senate has done in overseeing the conduct of Members and their staff, it remains difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee the system works in a way that gives the public confidence that there is an impartial, thorough review of allegations against Members of Congress when we are fulfilling every role in the process.

Now, I respect and understand the constitutional requirement that Members of Congress sit in judgment of one another and our proposal does not change. The Office of Public Integrity would bring the results of its investigation to the Ethics Committee, which would then decide whether to proceed further, whether there is an actual violation, and what kind of remedy, if any, is necessary. That is an important provision. I look forward to working with the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Wisconsin, and the Senator from Arizona in that area.

We need also to make sure we stop having trips that are paid vacations. However, we don't want to interfere with true fact-finding trips. Those are generally useful to our work. We are close to working out the right balance in that area.

I look forward to passing effective legislation that will help to restore the public's confidence in the Senate. By scheduling this bill first on our agenda we have recognized the importance of these issues to the American people. We need to act without delay to help restore their faith in how we do business.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset (GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many public employees when they retire.

Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire.

These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees as well. Given their important responsibilities, it is unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable to collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwis'e would be entitled.

While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP.

Almost one million retired government workers across the country have already been adversely affected by these provisions. Many more stand to be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families.

The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who receive a government pension from work not covered under Social Security, such as pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 percent of their first $656 average monthly career earnings, government pensioners checks are based on 40 percent--a harsh penalty of more than $300 per month.

The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her public pension. It is estimated that 9 out of 10 public employees affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.

What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security in retirement.

I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO would double her current retirement income.

These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher from Otisfield, ME, wrote:

``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly

in response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the

current pool of educators near retirement in the next few

years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard

hours are not great selling points to young students when

selecting a career.

I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found

out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former

life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in

Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each

year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that

because of my many years of maximum Social Security

contributions, I would still have a livable retirement

`wage.' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an

educator in your State.''

In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME--who was then 73. Mrs. Worcester told the Committee about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just $171 a month in Social Security benefits, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years. After paying for her health insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in total pension income.

After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute teaching just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.