Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor at this Time to respond a little to the comments made prior to the recess for our Republican and Democratic caucuses today, made on the floor by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, regarding the bill called the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act. I want to lay out what the bill does, where we are on it, and respond to some of the objections that the Senator from Oklahoma raised.

Shortly before the Senate adjourned for the August recess, we sought unanimous consent to pass this bill, the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act, and send it to the President for his signature. Unfortunately, an objection was lodged on the other side of the aisle by--as we know from this morning--the Senator from Oklahoma. I am saddened by the objection to this legislation.

My staff and I have spent a great deal of Time trying to understand the reasons behind this objection and respond to the concerns that have been raised. I thought it would be helpful for my fellow Senators, and anyone who is watching, if I took some Time to review why I believe the Senate needs to act now to pass this important bill, and why I find it so puzzling that one Senator would object.

Let me give a little bit of history. I introduced this legislation, along with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, after learning about the case of a young Iowan--his name was Joshua Omvig--who tragically took his own life shortly after returning home from an 11- month deployment in Iraq. Joshua was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, 339th MP Company, based in Davenport, IA. Before leaving for Iraq, he was a member of the Grundy Center Volunteer Fire Department and the Grundy Center Police Reserves. He was honored to serve his country in the Reserves and hoped to return to his community to serve as a police officer. Please remember what I just said. He was honored to serve his country in the Reserves, and he hoped to return to his community to serve as a police officer. Keep that in mind. I will return to it later.

His family is convinced that if the Veterans' Administration had more services for veterans in place, Joshua would have received the help he needed and he would still be alive. But rather than withdrawing into their grief, Joshua's parents have dedicated themselves to ensuring no other family has to suffer this way. Ellen and Randy Omvig, Joshua's parents, have assisted countless veterans and their families in navigating the VA system. They have been outspoken advocates of improved mental health services for servicemembers and veterans. In April, the Omvigs testified before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on the importance of appropriate suicide prevention, early detection, and treatment programs for our veterans. The goal of the Joshua Omvig Act is simple: to improve suicide prevention and early detection and to improve assistance to veterans in crisis in order to prevent suicides among those who have so bravely served our country.

We know there is an urgent, overwhelming need for this bill. A study in last month's issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health found that those who have been in combat are twice as likely to commit suicide as those who have never served in a war.

The Veterans' Administration estimates that more than 5,000 veterans take their lives each year. These numbers are certain to increase dramatically, given the growing number of soldiers returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suicide rates are 35

percent higher for Iraq veterans than for the general population. Let me repeat that statement. Suicide rates are 35 percent higher for Iraq war veterans than for the general population. The Department of Defense recently reported that the Army is seeing the highest rate of suicide in 28 years.

So what does the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act do? It directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to create a comprehensive program to address the troubling rate of suicide among veterans returning from combat. The legislation takes a multifaceted approach toward the prevention of suicide. It emphasizes the importance of social support, family involvement, readjustment services, as well as further research to decrease the number of suicides among our veterans. It also boosts training for all Department of Veterans Affairs staff, contractors, and medical personnel who interact with veterans, teaching them to identify risk factors

Yes.

Yes.

That is true.

Mr. President, I thank my leader for joining with me on this issue. I respond to him, I just said--I don't know if the leader was on the floor at the time--that suicide rates for Iraq veterans-- Iraq veterans--is 35 percent higher than the general population. The Department of Defense has said their suicide rate in the Regular Army is at the highest rate in 28 years.

I say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, this bill I am talking about was introduced in the House earlier this year. There were 154 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. This bill, the Joshua Omvig suicide prevention bill, passed the House in March 423 to 0--423 to 0. We can't get much better than that.

It came to the Senate. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee had three hearings on it and the House had two hearings, for a total of five hearings. Every veterans group, every veterans support group, disabled veterans, everyone came to testify on the need for this legislation.

We went through the committee process, had the hearings, and had all the testimony. Joshua's parents testified. We brought it out on the floor for a unanimous consent agreement before we left on the August break. It passed the House 423 to 0. Then I found there was an objection raised.

I started to nose around to find out who raised the objection. It was Senator Coburn from Oklahoma. I talked with the Senator from Oklahoma. He said, first of all, he was upset that there were not any hearings. He told me that right out in the back of the lobby. I said: Senator, we had hearings. We had three in the Senate, two in the House. Well, he had to go check on it.

Then he raised other objections and came on the floor this morning to say why he has objections. Now I am going to respond to those objections in kind to let the Senator know his objections are unfathomable.

So here we are faced with a dire situation among our veterans, with the highest suicide rates ever, and we are trying to pass legislation to direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to do certain things to set up processes and procedures so that our veterans will have the kind of counseling and the kind of medical intervention so they do not commit suicide, and yet we have one objection raised.

I appreciate it.

Mr. President, I thank the leader. I ask the leader, if we can, if the objection is not withdrawn, I hope we can bring the bill up and move the bill legislatively on the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the sensitivity of the Senator from Nevada, our distinguished majority leader, on this issue.

Basically, what the bill does, again as I said, is to boost training for all Department of Veterans Affairs staff, contractors, and medical personnel, teaching them to identify risk factors for suicide and refer veterans to the appropriate mental health counseling and mental health centers.

As I said at the outset, this has been the most bipartisan piece of legislation I can imagine. Senator Grassley and I introduced it in the Senate, appropriately since Joshua Omvig was from Iowa. We have 30 different cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It was introduced in the other body by Congressman Leonard Boswell of Iowa, who is the Congressman from the district in which Joshua Omvig lived. In fact, it is that version of the bill we are trying to pass today.

I may have misspoke earlier. He secured 152 bipartisan cosponsors of the bill. It passed the House in March by a vote of 423 to 0. No Republican objected over there. No one; 423, not a single dissenting vote. That is why I was so surprised and, quite frankly, dismayed when an objection was raised on the other side of the aisle preventing passage of the bill before the August recess.

How many more veterans have committed suicide since that time who might have been, through counseling,

through outreach, through some way given the appropriate support services so they wouldn't have to commit suicide?

This morning, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, offered several reasons for his objection. That is what I would like to respond to now.

He mentioned that the bill is duplicative of the VA's plans to prevent suicide and that veterans' receipt of benefits would be contingent on the screening. He also raised concerns about the validity of the peer counseling provisions of the bill. Finally, he expressed concern that if the VA asked veterans about their mental health, this information might be used to inhibit their ability to purchase handguns. All of these concerns are unfounded, and I want to explain.

In 2004, the VA developed a series of suicide prevention initiatives as part of a comprehensive mental health strategic plan. All well and good. Unfortunately, very few of the initiatives have been implemented. During the first 2 years following development of the plan, a Government Accountability Office report found that the VA did not even spend $100 million of the $300 million that was specifically allocated for this initiative. One-third of the money specifically allocated was not spent.

I think our veterans have paid a steep price, a tragic price for this foot dragging. When the VA has announced plans to undertake suicide prevention initiatives, usually it is in response to some highly publicized incident. They usually announce the plans and then they do not follow through.

For example, in February the VA finally announced it would put suicide prevention crisis counselors in VA facilities. That was only after the tragic, high-profile suicide of Jonathan Schulze, a marine who received two Purple Hearts for his service in Iraq. When Schulze informed his local VA facility that he was thinking about killing himself, he was told he was 26th on the local VA's waiting list for VA mental health services. He went home and killed himself that night. In response to that, the VA said: We are going to put VA suicide prevention crisis counselors in all VA facilities.

Although they announced it, 7 months later they have still not fully implemented this initiative. Yes, if there is a tragic case like that, the VA will come out and say they are going to do things. Seven months later they still have not implemented the initiative.

What would our bill do, the Omvig Act? The Omvig Act would require the Veterans' Administration to designate a suicide prevention counselor at each medical facility. No more foot dragging; it would require them to do that right now.

In late July, the VA announced the implementation of a 24-hour suicide prevention hotline. That is also in the Joshua Omvig bill. That VA plan has been around since 2004. Three years later they say they are finally going to put it into effect. I suppose that is some kind of progress. But by writing this very sensible provision into law, we will ensure that the VA does not backslide on this either. As part of its 2004 strategic plan, the VA set a plan to train all front-line staff on suicide prevention. In 2004, they said that. They still have failed to provide this training. Maybe that is what the Senator from Oklahoma is saying is duplicative. Yes, we say you have to have a 24-hour suicide hotline. The VA said they were going to do that in 2004. They said they were finally going to implement it in July. It still isn't manned, and the counselors they said they were going to have do that in February, 7 months later they haven't done that. We say you have to do it. Is that duplicative? No, it is putting into law and mandating that the VA has to do this.

The Omvig Act directs the Secretary to ensure that staff members have the training necessary to identify risk factors for suicide and to make appropriate referrals for assistance. Is that too much to ask? Is that too burdensome for veterans who put their lives on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places? It just says the staffs have to have the training necessary to identify risk factors for suicide to make appropriate referrals for assistance.

The VA said they were going to do that in 2004, but they never have. Because they have not done this, many Armed Forces personnel who have been discharged and have VA benefits are not receiving these services. The Omvig family and numerous veterans support groups testified during our hearings about the importance of outreach to reduce the stigma associated with mental health issues and to assist veterans and their families in transitioning to civilian life. This legislation, the Omvig bill, would establish a program to provide education and outreach to families to help them identify symptoms of mental health problems and to encourage families to seek assistance.

The VA inspector general issued a report this May, confirming that the VA is falling short of the necessary system-wide implementation of suicide prevention programs--their own inspector general. They found that many VA clinics lacked properly trained staff. Need I repeat myself? They did not provide 24-hour services and provided inadequate mental health screening. That is their own inspector general.

The inspector general also found that the VA had not established best practices research to ensure a standard of suicide prevention.

The Omvig bill addresses all these issues. The aim of the bill is to improve early detection and intervention, provide access to services for veterans in crisis and thereby prevent suicide among those who have put their lives on the line to defend our Nation.

The Senator from Oklahoma objected. He expressed concern that the receipt of benefits would be contingent on the screening, and that there is no opt-out provision. Let's look at this. The fact is, the Department of Defense already requires soldiers returning from deployment to complete a checklist of symptoms such as anxiety, difficulty sleeping, suicidal thoughts. There are no opt-outs for this mental health screening because these programs are critical to ensure that those with mental health concerns receive the assistance they need.

The DOD, the Department of Defense, says if you are going to be redeployed, you have to have mental health screening--no opt-out. We are saying the screening provision in the Omvig bill does not mandate a formal checklist of mental health symptoms. It just ensures that medical professionals incorporate questions about veterans' mental health into primary care visits. In other words, what we are trying to say is mental health care should be integrated into primary health care. That is all we are saying.

Just as a medical professional would ask questions about risk factors for heart disease, it is responsible medicine to ask about risk factors for suicide, especially among this group since the data show how high it is, how high the incidence is of suicide.

Doctors ask their patients all the time if they are getting enough exercise and eating healthy. They should also ask if a veteran is sleeping well and if they have been anxious. These questions are critical in order for doctors to get a full picture of the veteran's health and well-being.

I want to make it very clear, the bill does not make the receipt of benefits contingent on veterans undergoing a separate mental health screening. Rather, it merely seeks to incorporate into their screening process, into their primary health care process, this process, that the health professionals are incorporating appropriate questions about suicide risk into their practice. Not to do this is totally irresponsible.

The Senator from Oklahoma also mentioned his concern that the peer counseling provisions in the bill are not effective. Again, I am surprised by this as there is a large body of research that peer support programs are effective in alleviating post-traumatic stress symptoms, PTSD symptoms and depression, reducing the likelihood of hospitalization and increasing social support. President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recognizes peer support approaches as an emerging best practice in helping people to recover from traumatic events.

Who better to counsel with a soldier who has served in Iraq and had a lot of trauma, or from Afghanistan who had a lot of trauma, than a peer, one of their own peers to talk to them about it, or their families? Peer support approaches offer a low-cost and effective supplement to traditional services in which

transitioning veterans can talk to someone who had similar experiences and understands what they are going through. This is well-recognized, evidence-based service that allows veterans to talk to someone who had similar experiences and, as I said, understands what they are going through. How can there be an objection to that?

Finally, regarding the concern of the Senator about veterans' ability to access firearms, I am very puzzled. This bill ensures that the VA takes appropriate measures to follow up with veterans who are at risk for suicide. OK. There are strict privacy laws that govern the doctor- patient relationship. Privacy laws prevent the release of information about any patient. There is an exception if the patient is a serious threat to himself or others, but no medical professional can refer an individual to the background check system that would limit access to firearms.

Let me repeat that: No medical professional can refer an individual to the background check system that would limit access to firearms. This can only be done through the judicial process. In other words, before an individual can be placed on the NICS list where they can't purchase a handgun--and this prevents an individual who is mentally ill from purchasing a firearm--a judge must make a determination that the individual belongs on that list.

As many of my colleagues are aware, there is legislation that has passed the House and was recently approved by the Judiciary Committee that would encourage States to do a better job reporting to the NICS system in the wake of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech. If Senators have concerns about how the NICS system operates, it seems to me that legislation is the appropriate venue for those concerns. But to hold up the Omvig suicide prevention bill that delivers critical suicide prevention services to veterans based on concerns related to an unrelated pending bill is very troubling.

There is an editorial that appeared in the New York Times on August 30. Let me read from that. Here is what the editorial in the New York Times said on August 30:

As the Army's suicide rate hits record levels in the Iraq

war, there's small wonder practically everyone in Congress

wants to deal with the parallel emerging crisis of depressed

veterans tempted to take their own lives. Everyone, that is,

except Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He stands

alone in blocking final passage of a suicide prevention bill

in fear that the government's record-keeping on troubled vets

might somehow crimp their ability to purchase handguns.

Even the craven gun lobby should manage some shame at this

example of Second Amendment idolatry. The House has

unanimously approved a measure mandating the screening of all

veterans for suicide risk, but Senator Coburn worries that

veterans' medical data might be appropriated by other

agencies to deny that all-encompassing right to wield arms on

the domestic front.

Again, the editorial goes on.

The Senator's office points to another bill near passage--

prompted by the Virginia Tech gun massacre--that would

encourage states to do a better job of listing mentally

troubled individuals on the Federal roll of risky gun

purchasers. But tying these two measures together is itself

evidence of defective reasoning, or at least scurrilous

politicking. The Virginia Tech measure has nothing to do with

veterans and affects only those Americans formally judged by

a court to be mentally disturbed.

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide

measures would require medical specialists to keep track of

veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that's to

care for them as human beings, under that other

constitutional right to life--liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. Respect for the grave sacrifices by veterans

requires the Senate to strike down the Coburn ploy and hurry

this vital measure to President Bush.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial be printed in the Record.

Lastly, Mr. Coburn spoke on the floor and mentioned his staff had made suggestions about the language. Again, I am very surprised to hear this. Staff from my office and Senator Grassley's office met with Senator Coburn's staff before the recess in an attempt to resolve any differences.

Their staff made no suggestion as to what it would take to lift Senator Coburn's hold. Over recess, I instructed my staff to make attempts to meet with his staff, but his staff was always unavailable. Over the last few days, we once again attempted to reach out to his staff in an effort to move the bill. But, again, we have not heard anything back.

We suggested we would be willing to work with Senator Coburn on the tracking language he was concerned about. But we have not heard anything from his office until the Senator spoke on the floor this morning.

This bill has received full consideration, as I said, in the House and the Senate. It passed without a single dissenting voice in the House. Is the Senator from Oklahoma saying there are 423 totally irresponsible people in the House? I mean, there are people in the House every bit as conservative as the Senator from Oklahoma. They did not raise any objections to this. We had three hearings in the Senate on the bill, two hearings in the House.

Josh Omvig's parents testified before the Senate VA Committee in April. I wish to recount something they said. At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned that Joshua Omvig, before he went into the military, had been a member of the Grundy Center Volunteer Fire Department and Police Reserve.

He had hoped to return to serve his community as a police officer. I said: Remember that, because I am going to return to it. I now return to it.

It was his dream to one day become a police officer. As he pursued that dream, he worked alongside many Grundy Center fire and policemen. Here is what Mr. Omvig said to the committee:

The day after Josh's suicide, the Grundy Center police

department and fire department had a time where a

professional counselor was brought in to help them cope and

deal with what happened that day. Do we as a nation take the

same measures for our troops who have served for us for

months in a combat area? Are we providing our military men

and women the appropriate services to help them assimilate to

civilian life? Are we providing them with what they need to

survive the peace? Ellen and I have to say ``No'' not at this

time. We can and must do more!

Now, I saw Joshua's parents at the time when they were here in Washington. And, you know, it is always awkward to talk to parents about the death of any of their children, especially a young person taking his own life. I said to both the parents: Was there any indication? I mean, do you have any idea why Joshua would take his own life?

Mr. Omvig said: Yeah, I know exactly why. I said: Why? He said: Well, Joshua always wanted to be a police officer, all his life growing up. That is why he volunteered on the police reserves, volunteer fire. He went into the service thinking that would help him to become a police officer. He was worried that if he sought mental health services, he would never be able to become a police officer. What a shame. What a shame that in this country we still treat mental health like that. That is why we have to do a better job.

That is why counseling, someone talking to Joshua, one of his peers who has been through the same thing who may have then gone on to become a police officer could say: You can get mental health help. You can get the necessary treatment, and you can still become a police officer.

Well, while we delay and fail to act, we are losing more and more veterans to suicide. As I said, the VA plan was written 3 years ago, and they are still not implementing it.

The PTSD program treatment at Walter Reed accepts only 65 patients each year. Yet more than 45,000 veterans sought medical help for post- traumatic stress disorder in the first 3 months of 2007; Walter Reed accepts 65 a year.

The VA must be better equipped to deal with veterans who are in crisis. With this bill, we can ensure that the VA will provide comprehensive and critical services, even when the issue is not in the headlines because of some tragedy. We need to hold the VA accountable.

As I said, even their own inspector general said they were not living up to it, our GAO said they were not. We need to make it clear that preventing suicide among our veterans is a congressional and national priority. For our veterans who have served their country, fought for our country, many times they are being left to fight their own private mental health life wars alone, private wars they too often lose.

I urge the objecting Senator to reexamine this important bill, reconsider his objection. Lives are at stake. We need to move forward with the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act as quickly as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jill Antonishak, a member of my staff, be given the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public School Repair and Renovation Act. I offer this legislation to meet the urgent need for support to repair crumbling schools in disadvantaged and rural school districts.

We all agree that school infrastructure requires constant maintenance. Unfortunately, far too many schools have been forced to neglect ongoing issues, most likely due to lack of funds, which can lead to health and safety problems for students, educators and staff. The most recent infrastructure report card issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a ``D'' grade. Now, I don't know many parents who would find ``D'' grades acceptable for their children. So why on earth would we stand by while the state of the buildings in which our children learn are assigned such a grade?

Despite the declining condition of many public schools, Federal grant funding is generally not available to leverage local spending. In fiscal year 2001, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee which I then chaired, I was able to secure $1.2 billion for school repair and renovation. I continue to hear nothing but positive feedback from educators across the country about that funding.

But that one-time investment amounted to nothing more than a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated national need. In 1995, the General Accounting Office reported that the nation's K-12 schools needed some $112 billion in repairs and upgrades. A more recent study by the National Education Association put the estimate as high as $322 billion.

I have been heartened by the recent boom in local and State spending on

school facilities. However, the distribution of these recent investments has been overwhelmingly slanted to the most affluent communities which are better able to fund new investments without outside assistance. A 2006 study released by the Building Educational Success Together, BEST, coalition found that the quality of your child's school is dependent upon his or her racial or ethnic background and whether they live in a rich or poor neighborhood.

Local spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost twice as high as in our most disadvantaged communities, as measured on a per-pupil basis. The report also found that school districts with predominantly caucasian enrollment benefited from about $2000 more per student in school repair and construction spending than their peers living in school districts with predominantly minority enrollment.

The Public School Repair and Renovation Act addresses that inequity by targeting school renovation grants to those communities that have struggled to fund needed repairs. The bill builds on the model States found successful in the fiscal year 2001 program. States would receive funding based on their most recent Title I allocation to initiate a competitive grant program targeted to poor and rural school districts. States have the discretion to require matching funds from the local district bringing the potential funding to much more than the $1.6 billion Federal investment.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and Mikulski for signing on to this bill. In addition, I am pleased to report this legislation has the support of a diverse group of national education organizations representing teachers, school boards, school administrators, and principals.

The Public School Repair and Renovation Act takes a much needed step forward in fixing the inequity in public school facilities. Something is seriously wrong when children go to modern, gleaming movie theaters, shopping malls, and sports arenas, but attend public schools with crumbling walls and leaking roofs. This sends exactly the wrong message to children about the importance of education.

I hope that my colleagues will support the Public School Repair and Renovation Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public School Repair and Renovation Act. I offer this legislation to meet the urgent need for support to repair crumbling schools in disadvantaged and rural school districts.

We all agree that school infrastructure requires constant maintenance. Unfortunately, far too many schools have been forced to neglect ongoing issues, most likely due to lack of funds, which can lead to health and safety problems for students, educators and staff. The most recent infrastructure report card issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a ``D'' grade. Now, I don't know many parents who would find ``D'' grades acceptable for their children. So why on earth would we stand by while the state of the buildings in which our children learn are assigned such a grade?

Despite the declining condition of many public schools, Federal grant funding is generally not available to leverage local spending. In fiscal year 2001, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee which I then chaired, I was able to secure $1.2 billion for school repair and renovation. I continue to hear nothing but positive feedback from educators across the country about that funding.

But that one-time investment amounted to nothing more than a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated national need. In 1995, the General Accounting Office reported that the nation's K-12 schools needed some $112 billion in repairs and upgrades. A more recent study by the National Education Association put the estimate as high as $322 billion.

I have been heartened by the recent boom in local and State spending on

school facilities. However, the distribution of these recent investments has been overwhelmingly slanted to the most affluent communities which are better able to fund new investments without outside assistance. A 2006 study released by the Building Educational Success Together, BEST, coalition found that the quality of your child's school is dependent upon his or her racial or ethnic background and whether they live in a rich or poor neighborhood.

Local spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost twice as high as in our most disadvantaged communities, as measured on a per-pupil basis. The report also found that school districts with predominantly caucasian enrollment benefited from about $2000 more per student in school repair and construction spending than their peers living in school districts with predominantly minority enrollment.

The Public School Repair and Renovation Act addresses that inequity by targeting school renovation grants to those communities that have struggled to fund needed repairs. The bill builds on the model States found successful in the fiscal year 2001 program. States would receive funding based on their most recent Title I allocation to initiate a competitive grant program targeted to poor and rural school districts. States have the discretion to require matching funds from the local district bringing the potential funding to much more than the $1.6 billion Federal investment.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and Mikulski for signing on to this bill. In addition, I am pleased to report this legislation has the support of a diverse group of national education organizations representing teachers, school boards, school administrators, and principals.

The Public School Repair and Renovation Act takes a much needed step forward in fixing the inequity in public school facilities. Something is seriously wrong when children go to modern, gleaming movie theaters, shopping malls, and sports arenas, but attend public schools with crumbling walls and leaking roofs. This sends exactly the wrong message to children about the importance of education.

I hope that my colleagues will support the Public School Repair and Renovation Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and committee ranking member, Senator Chambliss, to offer the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act.

This legislation will reauthorize and amend the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act we enacted in 2003 to control the collection and disbursement of fees collected in the pesticide registration process. This legislation extends the authority for the Environmental Protection Agency to collect maintenance fees for the reregistration of pesticides.

This legislation is agreed upon by a broad array of stakeholders, including the manufacturers, environmental groups and agricultural producers. This legislation ensures that these chemicals are reevaluated in a timely manner, while covering the costs of the EPA workers who carry out this important work. This bill has no budgetary impact and should not be controversial. I ask my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. President, in the decade since it was first authorized, the Children's Health Insurance Program has been an extraordinary success story. It has reduced the number of uninsured low-income children by a third, providing basic health insurance to 6.6 million children whose parents cannot afford private insurance but who do not qualify for Medicaid.

In my State of Iowa, the Children's Health Insurance Program has brought health insurance to nearly 50,000 children. Think about that: 50,000 kids who otherwise have had no health insurance have had access to regular checkups and prompt treatment of illnesses and injuries. By any measurement, this is a stunning success.

Let me introduce to my colleagues one of those 50,000 success stories. Her name is Jenci Ruff. She lives in Knoxville, IA. When she was in the third grade, she began having trouble seeing the blackboard. The school nurse recommended that she have her eyes tested, but her parents couldn't take her to a doctor; they were living paycheck to paycheck; they had no health insurance. By fourth grade, Jenci still couldn't see the blackboard and she began having headaches.

Fortunately, Mrs. Ruff learned about the Children's Health Insurance Program. She enrolled Jenci and her little brother. Jenci was referred to an eye specialist and received treatment. A year and a half later, her vision has greatly improved and her headaches have gone away. Mrs. Ruff believes that the treatment made possible by the Children's Health Insurance Program saved her daughter from going blind. In addition, Jenci's brother, prior to starting school, was able to get the necessary shots and physicals he needed.

As Mrs. Ruff told the Des Moines Register:

Before, Jenci was having such a hard time to get through

her reading. Her grades have improved. Her attitude about

school has improved. But if she hadn't had this program--

The Children's Health Insurance Program--

we never would have made it to a specialist.

I am very happy for Jenci Ruff and her brother and her family. But I have to ask, Don't we owe it to all of America's kids? Surely, in a humane, decent society, no child should go uninsured. No child should go without regular checkups and prompt treatment of illnesses and injuries.

That is why it is incomprehensible--incomprehensible--to me that President Bush is pledging to veto this bill because it would extend coverage of the CHIP program to too many kids. How could we extend it to too many kids? Instead, the President proposed $4.8 billion in additional funding over the next 5 years. That is less than what is needed just to maintain current enrollments. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's proposed funding would cut 1.4 million children and pregnant women from the Children's Health Insurance Program. How could anyone say that Jenci Ruff should have been cut from the children's health program? It saved her. It saved her from going blind. Yet we are told we don't have the money for this? Nonsense. Just think what it would have cost society if Jenci had gone blind, God forbid. What would the cost to society have been for her lifetime of special education, special schools, seeing-eye dogs, and all of the other things? How much more productive is she going to be now? Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.

The President just doesn't get it. Sometimes, when people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths and they have had all the accoutrements, they have had all the wonderful hospitals and doctors all their lives, they somehow--and I don't say this of everyone, but some people just can't imagine that everyone is not like them. Well, there are a lot of people who do not have the kind of wherewithal you may have had growing up.

So it is not just a public policy choice. I think the choice we have is a very moral choice: Do we go forward and extend health insurance to more kids from low-income families or do we cut these children from the rolls, condemn them to a childhood without checkups, without decent health care, without necessary medical treatment--that is, until they show up in the emergency room.

We all know too well what it means when a child does not have health insurance, when they don't even have access to basic medical care. Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported on 8-year-old Deamonte Driver of Prince George's County, MD. Deamonte was suffering from an abscessed tooth, but his mother could not afford to take him to a dentist. Eventually, the abscess spread to Deamonte's brain. He was taken to an emergency room, but tragically, after two operations and more than 6 weeks of hospital care costing upwards of $250,000, Deamonte--this young guy right here, Deamonte Driver--died. He died from an abscessed tooth. In the 21st century in the United States of America, this child died because he had an abscessed tooth because he is so low-income, he didn't have health care and mom didn't have any money. Not until he got so sick that they rushed him to the emergency room, and he died.

Why in the world would President Bush want to cut more than a million children from the rolls of the Children's Health Insurance Program and put them in jeopardy--the kind of jeopardy that took Deamonte's life? What is the real cost of denying children access to basic health care? Well, in the case of Deamonte Driver, if you want to know just in money terms, a quarter of a million dollars in emergency hospital bills, and, most importantly, it deprived Deamonte of his life and a very happy future.

So you compare the positive fate of Jenci Ruff, who is covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program, to the tragic fate of Deamonte Driver, who was not. This is not just a tale of two kids and two very different outcomes; it is the tale of two choices, the two choices we have to make. So we must make the right choice. Surely some things are beyond partisan disputes and ideological obsessions. Surely we can come together here to support extending health insurance to more kids in low-income families.

Some have argued that the President's pledge to veto this Children's Health Insurance Program is the death knell of compassionate conservatism. We have all heard about compassionate conservatism. Well, I would just point out that the President's threat of a veto is disappointing. But I would like to note on the positive side that this bill enjoys the strong support of a large number of conservatives, moderates, and liberals here in the Senate and in

the other body, and it has no more outspoken champion than my distinguished senior colleague from the State of Iowa, Senator Grassley, who I see just arrived on the floor. So, as I said, this cuts across ideological lines. This is no conservative, liberal, moderate, up, down, sideways kind of issue; it is a basic moral issue that we have to confront.

I would say on behalf of my colleague from Iowa and so many Republicans who are supporting the Children's Health Insurance Program that compassion and common sense is alive and well with these Republicans. I applaud them for it. With their support, we intend to move forward with a bill that is not only strongly bipartisan but that, according to a recent Georgetown University poll, is supported by 9 in 10 Americans, including, I might add, the poll said 83 percent of self- identified Republicans. So again, this is not a partisan issue. Now, it may be an issue with this President and his ill-conceived notions, but it is not a partisan issue.

Lastly, this program has been a Godsend to my State of Iowa. As I said earlier, 50,000 kids in Iowa are covered who obviously would not have been. We call it the HAWK-I Program in Iowa, the Healthy and Well Kids in Iowa--the HAWK-I Program. The top income limit for Iowa families is 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, which comes to about $34,000 for a family of three, and, along with Medicaid, provides primary and preventive services to 3 out of every 10 Iowa kids. Yet, even with these programs I am talking about--Medicaid and HAWK-I--even with those two, an estimated 30,000 to 55,000 Iowa children remain uninsured. With the new funding provided in this bill, Iowa could cover nearly 15,000 more children over the next 5 years.

Expanding this program to cover more low-income kids is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart and cost-effective thing to do. We know when children get access to preventive and primary care services, good things happen. Kids get better health outcomes. They stay out of the emergency room. They get better grades. They do better in school. One dollar spent on the CHIP program can save many more dollars in health care expenses.

When an asthmatic child is enrolled in the program, the frequency of attacks declines by 60 percent and the likelihood that they will be hospitalized for that condition declines by more than 70 percent. If anybody has been paying attention, you know that kids' asthma has been on a huge increase in this country, especially among poor kids. Well, this is one way of keeping them out of the hospital. It is providing them with this kind of preventive coverage.

I might also add that the Children's Health Insurance Program is vitally important to rural Americans--rural States such as Iowa. The simple fact is that rural kids are more likely to be poor. In the most recent survey, 47 percent of rural children--47 percent--live in low- income families. So they are not only more likely to be poor, their parents are less likely to have any access to an employer-based health insurance program. So in the absence of the CHIP program and Medicaid, millions of low-income rural families have no other health insurance option, period. They live in small towns. They work for small employers,--mom-and-pop places that employ two or three or four or five people. They don't have the wherewithal to provide employer-based health insurance. They don't pay a lot of money. But these people are hard-working. They go to work every day and they work hard; they just don't make a lot of money. They live in a rural area, so they don't qualify for Medicaid, but they don't have enough money to buy health insurance. That is why this program is so important to rural America.

Experience shows that rural children are also difficult to enroll in the Children's Health Insurance Program, even when they are eligible. Again, low-income parents are often required to travel long distances to enroll their kids. In addition to high travel costs, there are language and sometimes cultural barriers. For these reasons, I am pleased that this bill would establish a new grant program to finance outreach and enrollment efforts targeted to rural areas.

So not only has the Children's Health Insurance Program been a great success, it is more important today than ever. In the decade since the program was created, we know the cost of insurance has skyrocketed and the number of Americans covered has fallen dramatically. But this has been a safety net for millions of low-income American families.

The bill before us would maintain coverage for the 6.6 million children currently covered and would extend coverage to more than 3 million more low-income, uninsured children over the next 5 years. That is a good and noble goal.

Obviously, if I had my druthers, I would say we ought to cover all kids--every child in America whose family does not qualify, does not have employer-based insurance, and whose income is such that they cannot afford private insurance. They ought to be covered by this program. They said this would cost $50 billion over the next several years. Well, then they made an agreement to make it $35 billion instead of $50 billion. OK, fine. I understand compromise around here. But that doesn't remove the fact that, even with this bill, millions of low- income kids will still be left without health insurance coverage. That is our task--to fill that gap. We may not get it done this year, but at least we can get this done this year and, hopefully, we can finish the job next year and cover every kid in America with health insurance.

It is time to put partisanship, ideology, and politics aside and pass this bill. Hopefully, the President will see more clearly his obligation to sign it and not veto it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Kimberly of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following chart be printed in the Record. It is a chart related to the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act, a bill that Senator Chambliss and I plan to introduce shortly.

Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to honor Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, Administrator of the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, and to congratulate him on his retirement from public service. Dr. DeHaven has served the agency for 28 years during which he has contributed greatly to the agency's mission of promoting and protecting U.S. agriculture.

Dr. DeHaven began his APHIS career working in a field office for the veterinary services program in 1979. He later joined the agency's animal care program, rising to the top position in 1996. From 2001 to 2002 he served as the APHIS acting associate administrator, and in 2002, became head of the agency's veterinary services program.

As the Nation's chief veterinarian, he played a leading role as the agency faced the first U.S. detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, in 2003. His handling of this situation--as well as other animal health emergencies--showcased his trademark straightforward leadership style and calm demeanor. These challenges prepared him well for the role of APHIS Administrator, which he assumed in 2004.

As Administrator, he has skillfully guided his agency and communicated with the public, Congress, and USDA's many stakeholders. He worked conscientiously to position APHIS to prevent and respond to such threats as highly pathogenic avian influenza, exotic Newcastle disease, sudden oak death, Asian longhorned beetle and citrus diseases.

Dr. DeHaven's dedication, work ethic, and personal commitment to excellence have served U.S. agriculture well and ensured a healthy and abundant food supply for U.S consumers.

Mr. President, last Thursday, July 26, 2007, was the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On that day in 1990, thousands of people gathered on the south lawn of the White House. It was the largest gathering at least to that date--it may still be--for the signing of legislation. It was a beautiful sunny day. President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. That bill had taken a long time to develop, years to develop. A lot of hard work and effort went into it.

As the chief Senate sponsor of that bill, getting that bill passed was the proudest day in my life, having been raised with a brother who was disabled. Seeing how he was discriminated against all his life compelled me when

I first came to the House and then to the Senate to work on these issues, the issues of the discrimination against Americans with disabilities and how people with disabilities had been kept out of the mainstream of American life, how they had been shunted aside, warehoused, categorized in ways that demean their personhood in ways that prevented them from contributing all they could to our American society.

So the Americans with Disabilities Act was a major civil rights act-- a major civil rights act--to ban discrimination, just as we did against people of color, against women, national origin, sex, for example. We now include people with disabilities under a broad civil rights umbrella.

We have made great advances since that time. It is all over. One can see it wherever one goes--curb cuts, accessible buses, accessible trains, widened doors. Every building now built in the United States of America is fully accessible. Architecture has changed. I have a nephew who is an architect, and he said when that bill became law in the 1990s, architecture school started teaching different subjects, architecture firms started designing buildings differently for universal accessibility. We have come to accept that situation.

There is a problem, and the problem has come about through some Supreme Court decisions of late. That is why last Thursday on the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I joined with Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, with House majority leader Steny Hoyer, and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, in introducing a bipartisan measure called the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

As I will explain in more detail shortly, this bill offers a modest, reasonable legislative fix in response to court decisions that have misconstrued the original legislative intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which I will refer to now on as the ADA.

Again, what is remarkable about this legislation is that it was done in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship, with Members of both parties coming together to do the right thing for millions of Americans with disabilities. But that is the way we developed the first ADA in 1990. It was a truly overwhelming bipartisan effort. As I said, as I was the chief sponsor in the Senate, I worked very closely with then-Senator Bob Dole who had been the majority leader and then was the ranking minority member in the Senate. We had invaluable support, of course, from the White House. President George Bush, Bush 41, George Herbert Walker Bush, was very helpful; Key members of the administration--I especially want to note for the record Boyden Gray, White House counsel, without whose support and intervention the law probably would never have been passed; Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, again a key player in getting the ADA passed in 1990; Sam Skinner, then Transportation Secretary, also was very much involved.

The introduction of the ADA Restoration Act last Thursday and the reaction to it has been a breath of fresh air amidst all the going back and forth politically in Washington, very much in the same spirit we had in 1990 when members of both parties embraced the legislation as something that can and should be done and should be beyond partisanship. There was a sense that on this one measure, we could put partisanship aside and come together as a unified body and make a real difference in the lives of our fellow citizens who have disabilities.

The fact is, we all take pride in the progress we have made in the last 17 years. Nobody wants to go backward. The ADA, as I said, is one of the great landmark civil rights legislation of the 20th century, a long overdue emancipation proclamation for millions of Americans with disabilities.

Again, we removed most physical barriers. We have required employers to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities can get jobs and have equal opportunity in the workplace.

There were four goals of the ADA, four pillars, so to speak: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

The reach of the ADA revolution struck me some time ago in Washington. I attended a downtown convention of several hundred disability rights advocates, many with very severe impairments. They arrived in Washington on trains and planes and buses built to accommodate people in wheelchairs. They came to the hotel on the Metro and in regular buses all seamlessly accessible by wheelchair. They navigated city streets equipped with curb cuts and ramps. The hotel where the convention took place was equipped in countless ways to accommodate people with disabilities. There were sign language interpreters on the dias so people with hearing disabilities could be full participants.

For those of us able-bodied, these many changes are all but invisible, but for a person in a wheelchair, for a person without sight, for a person with deafness, they are transforming and liberating.

So our provisions in ADA outlawed discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the workplace and required employers to provide reasonable accommodations. But, as I said, a problem has arisen.

In recent years, the courts have ignored Congress's clear intent as to who is to be covered by the ADA. The courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an individual with a disability. As a consequence, millions of people whom we intended to be covered by the ADA, including people with epilepsy, diabetes, yes, even cancer, are not protected anymore. In a ruling this spring, the Eleventh Circuit Court even concluded that a person with mental retardation was not disabled under the ADA.

Looking back to the legislative history, it is abundantly clear that we in Congress intended that the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to all persons without regard to mitigating circumstances, such as taking medicine or using an assistive device.

Nonetheless, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court has all but ignored congressional intent. Together, these Supreme Court cases have created an absurd and unintended catch 22-type situation. People with serious health conditions, such as epilepsy or diabetes or seeing problems, who are fortunate to find treatments that make them more capable and independent and, thus, more able to work may find they are no longer protected by the ADA. If these individuals are no longer covered by the ADA, then their request for reasonable accommodations in the workplace can be ignored, denied, or they can be fired. On the other hand, if they stop taking their medication or stop using an assistive device, they will be considered a person with a disability under the ADA but they won't be qualified for the job.

Think about what kind of a position this puts a person in. Let's say you have epilepsy and you take medication to control it. That makes you able to work. But under the Court decisions, if you take a job and the employer finds out you have epilepsy, they can fire you. And guess what. You are not covered by the ADA. On the other hand, if I have epilepsy, I don't take my medication, and I have seizures, I will never get the job. This is absurd. It is absurd, and it is wrong. It flies in the face of clear, unambiguous congressional intent.

I often tell people that when we write laws here, we don't write every little thing into the law. That is why we have hearings, that is why we have committee prints, and that is why we have report language that goes with the laws we pass. It is very clear and it was common agreement at that time, on both sides of the aisle and with the White House, that the law was designed to protect any individual who is treated less favorably because of current, past, or a perceived disability--a perceived disability.

Listen to the report language. Here is the report language we had in the Senate report accompanying the bill:

Whether a person has a disability should be assessed

without regard to the availability of mitigating measures,

such as reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids.

The House report says the same thing and goes on to say:

For example, a person who is hard of hearing is

substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing,

even though the loss may be corrected through the use of a

hearing aid. Likewise, persons with impairments, such as

epilepsy or diabetes, which substantially limit a major life

activity, are covered

under the definition of disability, even if the effects of

the impairment are controlled by medication.

This is important because if an individual, I repeat, is not considered to be disabled under the ADA, then they do not have the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For example, as I said, they are not entitled to reasonable accommodation on the job and they can be fired for any reason--let's say not being able to do the job without an accommodation. So if you are a person with a disability and you have an assistive device, you get the job and you need a reasonable accommodation so you can do the job, but the employer says: I am not going to do it, well, guess what. They do not have to because the individual is no longer considered disabled. But if they didn't have the assistive device, they wouldn't get the job in the first place.

This is what has happened, and it has created consternation among people with disabilities who want to use assistive devices and take medication and do things--they want to work. But if they do that, they are no longer protected by the ADA.

So that is why we have introduced the ADA restoration bill, to again overcome the hurdles the Supreme Court has pronounced in three or four cases--I won't get into those now--and so that we get to the original intent of the ADA, which is to say you are covered if you have a past disability, a present disability, or you are perceived to have a disability.

Again, I repeat, we have a supreme absurdity confronting people with disabilities now. People with serious health conditions, such as epilepsy or diabetes, who are fortunate to find treatments that make them more capable and independent, more able to work, may now find they are no longer covered by the ADA.

One last thing. In another Supreme Court case, the Court held there must be ``a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' This, too, has resulted in a much more restrictive requirement than Congress intended and has had the effect of excluding countless individuals with disabilities from the protections of the law.

So the situation cries out for a modest, reasonable legislative fix, and that is exactly what Senator Specter and Congressmen Hoyer and Sensenbrenner and I and many other cosponsors propose to do with the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. Our bill amends the definition of disability so that people Congress originally intended to be protected are covered under the ADA.

Mr. President, 17 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, today, we are building a strong bicameral, bipartisan majority to support ADA restoration. As I said, the companion bill was introduced in the House last week. Now, as with the ADA in 1990, it will take some time. We have to have hearings. It has been referred to four committees in the House and referred to the HELP Committee here in the Senate. But I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit with which we are approaching this legislation.

We have said all along, going clear back to the 1980s, that the Americans with Disabilities Act is supremely nonpartisan. There is nothing Republican, Democratic, liberal, conservative, or anything else about this. It is simply doing the right thing. As we look back over the last 17 years, we can take pride in what we have done, particularly when you see the curb cuts all over America or you go into movie theaters now and you see places where people with wheelchairs can come in or you go into restaurants now and see families taking out somebody who maybe has a seeing-eye dog or a companion dog. We have even made the Capitol of the United States fully accessible to people with disabilities. As I said, every place all over America, even sports stadiums, has been transformed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Again, we have come to the point where we have to go back and put into law what it is we originally intended and to cover people now who are caught in this absurd catch-22 situation. We have an opportunity again to come together as Republicans and Democrats. We have a chance to come together for millions of Americans with disabilities.

I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to restore Congress's original intent, to ensure that Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination. So on behalf of Senator Specter and myself, the Senate bill is S. 1881, and we encourage Senators to take a look at it. We hope we can get good bipartisan support, have our hearings on it this fall, and get this enacted as soon as possible, probably early next year sometime.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Evan Eschmeyer and Stacie Milbern of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I am joining, today, with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, in introducing the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

Today, July 26, marks the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century, and a long-overdue emancipation proclamation for the 50 million Americans with disabilities.

As chief sponsor of the ADA in the Senate, I take pride in the progress we have made as a Nation since 1990. We have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for the 50 million Americans with disabilities. We have required employers to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities can have equal opportunity in the workplace. We have advanced the 4 goals of the ADA, equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

So today is a day, first and foremost, to celebrate all that has been accomplished over the last 17 years.

But despite that progress, there is a problem. In recent years, the courts have ignored Congress's clear intent as to who should be protected under the ADA. And the courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an ``individual with a disability.'' As a consequence, millions of people we intended to be protected under the ADA, including people with epilepsy, diabetes, and cancer, are not protected any more. In a ruling just this spring, the 11th Circuit court even concluded that a person with mental retardation was not ``disabled'' under the

Mr. President, I am joining, today, with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, in introducing the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

Today, July 26, marks the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century, and a long-overdue emancipation proclamation for the 50 million Americans with disabilities.

As chief sponsor of the ADA in the Senate, I take pride in the progress we have made as a Nation since 1990. We have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for the 50 million Americans with disabilities. We have required employers to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities can have equal opportunity in the workplace. We have advanced the 4 goals of the ADA, equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

So today is a day, first and foremost, to celebrate all that has been accomplished over the last 17 years.

But despite that progress, there is a problem. In recent years, the courts have ignored Congress's clear intent as to who should be protected under the ADA. And the courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an ``individual with a disability.'' As a consequence, millions of people we intended to be protected under the ADA, including people with epilepsy, diabetes, and cancer, are not protected any more. In a ruling just this spring, the 11th Circuit court even concluded that a person with mental retardation was not ``disabled'' under the

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

Mr. President, I call for the regular order to bring up the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, No. 2377.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to Durbin amendment No. 2377.

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

I will take a minute. I understand we are getting ready to vote very soon. But I cleared this, of course, with Senator Durbin. He was fine with the second-degree amendment.

This amendment that I offered would be to provide for loan forgiveness for young attorneys who go into civil legal practice, legal services. Now, the Durbin amendment provides for loan guarantees for those going into prosecution, or I should say criminal work, prosecuting attorneys, district attorney's offices, that type of thing, which is fine.

But we also need them for civil legal attorneys, those who are going into legal services. They make the bottom of the ladder. I mean, even the district attorney's offices pay them more than legal services. So I think it is needed in both areas.

Right now, with the costs of law school and with the need we have for legal services attorneys, this amendment is drastically needed. Right now, about 50 percent of the people eligible for legal services, which means they had household income for a family of four of $25,800 or less--$25,000 a year or less--only 50 percent of them were able to get help from a legal aid program. That is 50 percent of the people who actually went and sought help. You can imagine how many more there are out there who, for one reason or another, did not seek the help.

Estimates are that closer to 80 percent of low-income Americans have unmet civil legal needs. Right now there is 1 legal aid attorney for 6,800 low-income Americans. One legal services attorney for every 6,800 low-income Americans. Compare that to 1 attorney for every 525 middle- income Americans.

Well, again, the key reason for this is the inability of the legal aid programs to recruit and retain attorneys. Given the financial realities, many law graduates who are able to take positions with legal aid leave after 1 or 2 years. One Midwestern program cited a turnover rate of 60 percent over a 2-year period of time, with an average tenure for new attorneys of 17 months.

So what my amendment does is it builds on the existing loan repayment and retention programs for Federal prosecutors and 29 other Government agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Congress. All we are saying is, if we are going to do it for people who come to work here or the Department of Justice, why not for civil legal aid attorneys?

This would provide for up to $6,000 a year in loan repayments. You would have to sign it, you would have to be at least 3 years as a legal services attorney to get that, with a maximum lifetime benefit of $40,000. The amendment authorizes up to $10 million to do this. We know how many there are. We are only talking about 1,200 nationwide. So we know it does not cost a lot of money, but it is sorely needed. Time and again, people who have unmet civil legal needs, whether it is child custody, divorce proceedings, it could be landlord-tenant problems, these people do not have access to the civil legal system. Then they take the law into their own hands, they do something else.

By providing good legal services to low-income people, we basically keep people from doing things they otherwise would not do if they had some legal help available to them. People get desperate. I can tell you this, that the strongest bulwark against domestic violence is legal aid attorneys.

What happens is, when someone is in an abusive relationship and they need legal help and they cannot afford it, that is when you get problems. Now, I can speak about this from experience. I started out my life as a legal services attorney. That is what I did when I got out of law school.

I thought it was a great opening. I thought it was a great thing to do. You get the cases no one else takes. You get people who are at the end of their rope. Maybe they have tried to get legal help and they cannot get it anywhere else. You are sort of the last hope they have for settling something civilly.

I can tell you from my time as a legal services attorney, we had a lot of people who got in a lot of trouble simply because they did not either know we were there or they could not access the civil legal system. You have domestic violence. Some people go to jail. Or you have child custody battles that go on.

I have had landlord-tenant cases where people are at the end of their rope, maybe they have a dispute with the landlord, they cannot get it resolved, so they sort of take the law into their own hands and do something rash.

To me, while it is important to encourage young lawyers to get into criminal prosecution, I think it is equally as important for us to provide some help for young lawyers who want to be legal services attorneys.

I see the Senator from Vermont who has been a strong supporter of our legal services program. I know of his commitment to this. I yield to the Senator.

I thank the Senator from Vermont. Check with the American Bar Association, with the State bar associations; they all support legal services. They know this is one way in which we can provide, as the Senator from Vermont said, access to equal justice under the law. I can remember when I was a legal services attorney in the 1970s, the case files we received. I mean, there were so many. We were there late at night. We were actually working weekends on some of these cases. You feel that maybe you are not serving their interest well because you have so many cases and so many case files.

I appreciate the remarks of the Senator. I hope we can get good support on the vote for this amendment.