Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished senior Senator from my State, Senator Grassley, to introduce the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act.

During my years in the Navy, I learned one of the most important lessons of my entire life: Never leave a buddy behind. That's true on the battlefield--and it's also true after our servicemembers return home. Taking care of our veterans is a continuing cost of national defense, and we need to make sure we don't abandon them once they return home.

Our service men and women endure tremendous stress during combat. Almost all of our soldiers reported being under fire while serving in Iraq and knowing someone seriously injured or killed. Returning home and rejoining their families and friends can be a time of hope and joy, but it can also be a time of enormous stress. In particular, the traumas and memories of combat service can cause profound problems. Army studies show that around 25 percent of soldiers who have served in Iraq display symptoms of serious mental-health problems, including depression, substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Tragically, suicide disproportionately affects veterans. In 2004, veterans accounted for more than 20 percent of deaths by suicide, yet they make up only 10 percent of the general population. We should be addressing this shocking rate of suicide among our veterans. But the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) currently does not have appropriate suicide prevention, early detection, and treatment programs available to meet the needs of our veterans. This is unacceptable! The aim of our bill is to improve early detection and intervention; provide access to services for veterans in crisis; and, thereby, prevent the unnecessary deaths of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our nation.

Joshua Omvig was one such veteran. Josh was a member of the United States 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 felt honored to serve his country in the Reserves and hoped to return to serve his community as a police officer. Unfortunately, when he returned from his 11-month deployment in Iraq, he brought the traumas of war with him. He committed suicide a few days before Christmas in 2005. He was just 22 years old.

This was a preventable death. If Josh and his family had had better access to mental health services; if they had been trained to recognize the symptoms of PTSD; and if they had known where to turn for help; then the tragedy of his death might well have been avoided.

In his honor, Senator Grassley and I offer this legislation to improve the services offered by the VA, and to bring down the appalling rate of suicide among veterans.

First, this bill focuses on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental health problems. Almost 80 percent of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who exhibited signs of mental health problems were not referred for mental health services. More than two-thirds of the servicemembers who screened positive for a mental health problem reported that they were concerned about the stigma associated with seeking treatment.

Given these statistics, our bill calls for the creation of a mental health campaign to increase awareness of mental illness and the risk factors for suicide. Veterans need to hear from members of the chain of command, leadership within the VA, and from their peers that seeking mental health services is important for their health, their families, and no different than seeking treatment for a physical health issue, such as chronic pain or a broken leg.

Second, this bill ensures that VA staff and medical personnel will receive suicide prevention and education training so that they can recognize when and where to refer veterans for assistance. Additionally, the legislation ensures 24-hour access to mental health care for those who are at risk for suicide, including those in rural or remote areas. Veterans who do not have easy access to VA hospitals and veterans centers must be assured of access to services during periods of crisis.

Finally, this bill recognizes the importance of family and peer support. It trains peer counselors to understand the risk factors for suicide, provide support during readjustment, and to assist veterans in seeking help. This bill also engages family members by helping them to understand the readjustment process; to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness; and let them know where to turn for assistance. By enlisting the aid and support of family members and peers, we will reduce the likelihood that our veterans suffer in isolation.

The stresses that our service men and women endure in combat are strong and can trigger severe mental

health issues. Although our men and women may come home safely, the war isn't over for them. Often, the physical wounds of combat are repaired, but the mental damage--the psychological scars of combat--can haunt a person for a lifetime. The Federal Government has a moral contract with those who have fought for our country and sacrificed so much. Together, we can work to make good on that contract. Our service men and women deserve to know that we will not forget about their service--and we will not leave them behind.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Erin Bergman of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Carolina for his timely speech. He knows what I mean by that. I didn't hear all of his remarks, but I did catch the tail end of them, and I think I get the import of his remarks, which is basically that we need to do something about health care in America. We need to debate it, discuss it, vote on it. But to the extent somehow some kind of blame is being laid at the step of those of us on this side of the aisle--after all, we just took over the Senate about 3 weeks ago--I remind my friend from North Carolina that his party has been in charge for the last several years, and they have had the White House. We haven't seen anything come from the White House, nor have we seen anything come out of the Congress to deal with this over the last several years.

Be that as it may, I say to my friend from North Carolina, the President put forward a proposal in his State of the Union Message. We will see what the budget looks like when it comes down next week. I join with him. I hope we will have a good debate and discussion. It is the most important issue we have confronting our society today. But it is not just, I say to my friend from North Carolina, the issue of how we pay the bills and how we pay for people who get sick. The issue is preventive medicine. How do we make prevention pay? How do we make prevention the incentive? How do we incentivize prevention?

I noticed a full-page ad in the Washington Post this week and also in the New York Times talking about prevention is the answer. If we really want to get a handle on cutting down the cost of health care in America, just jiggling how you pay the bills is not going to be the answer. We have to get in front of this issue and make an incentive for people to live a healthier lifestyle, for businesses to provide workplace settings that are healthy, helping to make sure people get their physicals, annual checkups, mammogram screenings, cutting down on smoking, making sure that our schools also teach kids at the earliest age what it means to stay healthy. We are building elementary schools in America now without playgrounds. What kind of nonsense is that?

So our whole thrust on this health care issue, I say to my friend from North Carolina, we always just keep focusing on how we are going to pay the bills. That is a problem, obviously, but if we want to get out ahead of it, we have to start focusing on preventive medicine. I look forward to that debate hopefully soon.

Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about the issue that has been in front of us all week--I assume it is going to be coming to a close early next week--and that is the debate and vote on whether we are going to increase the Federal minimum wage.

I regret that previous Congresses have blocked any increase in the minimum wage. The Senate has rejected 11 attempts to raise the minimum wage since 1998--11 times. Last year, we had 52 Senators vote in favor of it, but we didn't have the 60 Senators to invoke cloture and get to a final vote.

Scores of religious and antipoverty groups have called on Congress time and again to recognize the basic principle that Americans who work full time and play by the rules should not be consigned to poverty.

In 1966, Martin Luther King, Jr., said:

We know of no more crucial civil rights issue facing

Congress today than the need to increase the Federal minimum

wage and extend its coverage. . . . A living wage should be

the right of all working Americans.

I join with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and say it ought to be a right. According to the Congressional Research Service, the real value of the minimum wage today, if it had the same purchasing power as it did in 1968, the year Dr. King was so tragically assassinated, if the minimum wage had the same purchasing power today, the minimum wage would be $9.19 an hour. What are we talking about increasing it to? We are talking about increasing it to $7.25 an hour. But at least with the earned-income tax credit, which is new since that time, food stamps--we had food stamps then also, perhaps a little more generous now--that $7.25 an hour would at least get a family of four above the poverty line, and that would be a historic achievement for our Nation.

It is simply immoral to tell working Americans that they ought to try to provide for their family's needs on $5.15 an hour. My colleagues and I who offered this bill respect work, we value work, including the most humble type of work. That is why we fought for years to try to ensure the minimum wage kept pace with inflation and updated periodically. But for 10 years, the

leadership has blocked us from increasing it.

Again, I remind my colleagues that the Fair Labor Standards Act, which instituted the minimum wage in 1938, one of the primary aims as enuciated by Franklin Roosevelt was alleviating poverty. Yet now the minimum wage condemns workers to a life of poverty for themselves and their children no matter how hard they work.

Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn about $10,712. That is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. The current minimum wage would not even keep a single person and one child above the poverty line.

The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage has declined by 20 percent since the last increase in 1997. I point out that since that time, Congress has raised its pay eight times, $31,600.

Several of our colleagues have suggested all we have to do is increase the earned-income tax credit and that would address it. I am a supporter of the EITC, the earned-income tax credit. It makes a major difference for millions of Americans in poverty, but I don't see it as either/or. You make the earned-income tax credit and the minimum wage go hand in hand, and that really does alleviate poverty. There are a lot of people working in minimum wage jobs who don't understand the earned-income tax credit. Their employers may not inform them of it. They may or may not get a mailing. Maybe they can read it, maybe they can't. Possibly no one may inform them of it and they pass it by. That is why we have to raise their pay.

There is another aspect. It is saying to someone: We value your work. Your work is valuable, whether you are cleaning a hotel room, sweeping up, waiting tables. No matter what it is, your work is valuable.

When we erode people's pride in their work, we also erode their sense that they are a valuable, contributing member of our society.

Those who suggest we just expand the EITC seem to be the same ones who say how great the economy was last year. The economy was pretty good last year for those in the top brackets. It is said that a strong economy is a rising tide that lifts all boats. What if you don't own a boat? Shouldn't those at the very bottom also get a raise? Shouldn't a college kid working part time, who is technically not counted as living in poverty, get a raise to help pay for textbooks? Why is their hard work valued at less than one-third of the median wage?

We have heard the outrageous suggestion that a rise in the minimum wage is somehow a threat to the economy. That is nonsense. Just before signing the Fair Labor Standards Act, here is what President Franklin Roosevelt said. You can almost hear the echoes of his voice:

Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of

$1,000 a day tell you that a wage of $11 a week is going to

have a disastrous effect on all American industry.

Today, the average CEO makes a whopping 821 times more than a worker on minimum wage. That is what this chart shows. Back in 1965, 1968, it was about 51, 54--the average CEO made about 50 times more than a minimum wage worker. Today it is 821 times more. That means that the average CEO makes more on one day before lunch than a minimum wage worker makes all year.

I remind my colleagues that corporate profits increased more than 21 percent in 2000 and reached a 40-year high. Yet the minimum wage is at a 50-year low. As a result, people who work for profitable companies making the minimum wage, what happens? They are forced to use public health care. They are forced to get food stamps, another taxpayer- funded assistance, to make ends meet. So are we subsidizing the huge profits that these companies are making, which then turn around and pay their CEOs 821 times more than the minimum wage worker because we are taking tax dollars from the middle class and helping to pay for their food stamps, health care, and other needs?

Some business groups argue that raising the minimum wage would mean that some jobs would be eliminated. In the absence of Federal leadership on the minimum wage, many States have taken it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage. Currently, 30 States, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and, I might add, my own State of Iowa have a minimum wage higher than the Federal minimum of $5.15 an hour. Do you know what. It didn't hurt any of those States.

The Fiscal Policy Institute has studied what happens to small businesses and job growth right after the minimum wage is increased. That is what this chart shows. It shows States that have higher minimum wages and those that don't. Then we see the growth rates. There is not much difference. Both are about the same. So it doesn't hurt growth, business growth, or anything else.

People say: How can that be if they pay a higher minimum wage? How can their growth be the same or sometimes greater than a State that pays less in minimum wage? It is very simple. People who make a decent wage work harder when they get a good night's sleep. If they are working two jobs or have a sick kid at home, they may not get a good night's sleep, and they can't be as attentive to their job. If they sleep in a well-heated apartment instead of a cold flat, when they are able to eat decently and have a good nutritious meal a couple of times a day, they can be more productive. When they can get health care for an abscessed tooth that is driving them nuts rather than going to work and not being attentive to their job, they can be more productive. So when workers earn more money, they contribute more to society, and everybody wins.

Our failure to raise the minimum wage is more than an economic failure. It is a failure of democracy. Again, we live in a society where we can afford to raise the minimum wage. We can afford to have a basic standard of living for anyone willing to work for it. Yet we fail to insist, as Martin Luther King, Jr., said, on this basic right.

Unfortunately, it is hard to get people who earn the minimum wage to come here and lobby for it. They can't afford the time off, much less the airfare or even the gas to get here. Think about this: A worker making minimum wage can buy 2 gallons of gasoline for an hour of labor--an hour of her labor. I say ``her'' because 59 percent of workers who earn the minimum wage are women.

But even people who won't directly benefit from this legislation overwhelmingly support it. A recent AP poll found that 80 percent of Americans of all income levels favor raising the minimum wage.

This country desperately needs this increase. With declining employer-sponsored health care, the demise of other benefits, including pension benefits, with dramatic costs and other costs of living-- housing, for example--workers have to pay for more with less.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition has calculated that the national housing wage--that is the hourly wage needed to pay fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment--was $15.78 an hour in 2005. In other words, the average for a two-bedroom apartment, $15.78 an hour, was the minimum one needed to actually pay for rent and to provide food and other needs for a family. That is about triple the current minimum wage.

Economists are all saying that we have to raise it, we should raise it. They know it will improve the lives of working Americans without increasing inflation or unemployment. But the average American doesn't need to hear from Nobel Prize-winning economists to understand the basic principle that people who work hard and play by the rules ought to be able to feed their kids, house them, and give them a good education. It is really basic fairness, and it is fundamental economic morality.

America should not be a nation that favors the powerful and well- connected at the expense of low-income workers and their families. It is time to do right by the least fortunate among us. It is time to value and honor the work of those at the bottom of the income scale. After 10 long years, it is time to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to restore critical funding to one of our Nation's most effective drug enforcement tools, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. My bill, the Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007, will bring a desperately needed infusion of cash into this critical local law enforcement assistance program.

The Byrne grant program provides funding for local drug task forces all over the country. These local drug task forces are critical to creating regional cooperation and to fighting the manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine.

A survey by the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy found that in fiscal year 2004 Byrne JAG dollars funded 4,316 police officers and prosecutors working on 764 drug enforcement task forces. The study also found that Byrne JAG funding led to 221,000 arrests in 45 states, the seizure of 5.5 million grams of methamphetamine, and the breakup of almost 9,000 methamphetamine labs.

Yet the program has suffered draconian cuts over the past 4 years. Between 2003 and 2006 the President and the Attorney General have refused to provide a single dollar for Byrne local law enforcement funding. As a result, funding for the Byrne program has been slashed by almost 60 percent from $1 billion dollars in 2003 to just $416 million in 2006.

I hear on a weekly basis from Sheriffs and other law enforcement officials in Iowa how hard these cuts are hitting them. Over the past year, Iowa has had to absorb a 42 percent cut in Byrne funding. That translates to less law enforcement officers and less regional cooperation in finding and stopping that meth that continues to flood the State of Iowa. I recently heard from Story County Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald that his agency alone will lose two drug task force agents this year, a statistic that is being repeated in almost every county across my State.

The anecdotal evidence from Iowa law enforcement is clearly reflected at the national level. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports recently found that violent crime in the United States increased 2.5 percent in 2005, and an additional 3.7 percent in the first half of 2006, the largest increase in 15 years! The increase was much more severe in the meth plagued Midwest with violent crime up 5.7 percent in 2005.

You don't need a side by side chart to understand the connection between drastic reductions in federal funding for local law enforcement and rising crime rates!

At the same time, a recent report by the Department of Justice Inspector General found that the Department of Justice has not been doing a particularly effective job of administering the grants within its jurisdiction. The Inspector General found that just over $170 million expired grant funding is sitting at DOJ. Some of this funding is for grants that expired as long as five years ago!

My bill simply takes this unused money and puts it into the Byrne grant program. Specifically, the legislation transfers all balances on COPS and Office of Justice Program grants that have been expired for more than 90 days and all Office of Violence Against Women grants that have been expired for more than 2 years, to the Byrne JAG program for fiscal year 2007. These expired grant funds are currently sitting in DOJ coffers and cannot legally be used by the grantee, and the funds would ultimately revert to the treasury. My bill instead puts the money to good use in offsetting some of the most drastic consequences of cuts to the Byrne program.

While reallocating these amounts to Byrne JAG will make only a dent in the massive budget cuts of recent years, the Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007 is an important first step and sends an immediate message to line officers

overwhelmed by the unstoppable flow of meth into our States that we are going to help.

I am hopeful that in this new Congress the President and the Congress will more adequately fund crucial law enforcement programs like Byrne JAG. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join me in demonstrating a commitment to local law enforcement and to our continuing fight against methamphetamine by coming together to quickly pass the Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to restore critical funding to one of our Nation's most effective drug enforcement tools, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. My bill, the Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007, will bring a desperately needed infusion of cash into this critical local law enforcement assistance program.

The Byrne grant program provides funding for local drug task forces all over the country. These local drug task forces are critical to creating regional cooperation and to fighting the manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine.

A survey by the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy found that in fiscal year 2004 Byrne JAG dollars funded 4,316 police officers and prosecutors working on 764 drug enforcement task forces. The study also found that Byrne JAG funding led to 221,000 arrests in 45 states, the seizure of 5.5 million grams of methamphetamine, and the breakup of almost 9,000 methamphetamine labs.

Yet the program has suffered draconian cuts over the past 4 years. Between 2003 and 2006 the President and the Attorney General have refused to provide a single dollar for Byrne local law enforcement funding. As a result, funding for the Byrne program has been slashed by almost 60 percent from $1 billion dollars in 2003 to just $416 million in 2006.

I hear on a weekly basis from Sheriffs and other law enforcement officials in Iowa how hard these cuts are hitting them. Over the past year, Iowa has had to absorb a 42 percent cut in Byrne funding. That translates to less law enforcement officers and less regional cooperation in finding and stopping that meth that continues to flood the State of Iowa. I recently heard from Story County Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald that his agency alone will lose two drug task force agents this year, a statistic that is being repeated in almost every county across my State.

The anecdotal evidence from Iowa law enforcement is clearly reflected at the national level. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports recently found that violent crime in the United States increased 2.5 percent in 2005, and an additional 3.7 percent in the first half of 2006, the largest increase in 15 years! The increase was much more severe in the meth plagued Midwest with violent crime up 5.7 percent in 2005.

You don't need a side by side chart to understand the connection between drastic reductions in federal funding for local law enforcement and rising crime rates!

At the same time, a recent report by the Department of Justice Inspector General found that the Department of Justice has not been doing a particularly effective job of administering the grants within its jurisdiction. The Inspector General found that just over $170 million expired grant funding is sitting at DOJ. Some of this funding is for grants that expired as long as five years ago!

My bill simply takes this unused money and puts it into the Byrne grant program. Specifically, the legislation transfers all balances on COPS and Office of Justice Program grants that have been expired for more than 90 days and all Office of Violence Against Women grants that have been expired for more than 2 years, to the Byrne JAG program for fiscal year 2007. These expired grant funds are currently sitting in DOJ coffers and cannot legally be used by the grantee, and the funds would ultimately revert to the treasury. My bill instead puts the money to good use in offsetting some of the most drastic consequences of cuts to the Byrne program.

While reallocating these amounts to Byrne JAG will make only a dent in the massive budget cuts of recent years, the Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007 is an important first step and sends an immediate message to line officers

overwhelmed by the unstoppable flow of meth into our States that we are going to help.

I am hopeful that in this new Congress the President and the Congress will more adequately fund crucial law enforcement programs like Byrne JAG. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join me in demonstrating a commitment to local law enforcement and to our continuing fight against methamphetamine by coming together to quickly pass the Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the Keeping Families Together Act. As a long-time advocate for people with disabilities, I believe that this legislation represents an important step forward in ensuring the health and wellbeing of our children, in particular those with mental illness.

One in five children has a diagnosable mental disorder, and one in ten children has a mental disorder serious enough to hinder their functioning at school, at the home, and in their communities. Regrettably, two-thirds of children in this latter group do not receive the treatment they need. Without treatment, mental illness negatively affects all areas of children's lives, and it can have dire consequences for their future, including their ability to become productive members of society. Children with mental health problems are at higher risk of chronic illness, academic difficulties and school discipline problems, delinquency, incarceration, and suicide.

The good news is that 90 percent of all mental health disorders are treatable by therapy and medication. Yet parents face a multitude of obstacles and challenges in finding appropriate services for a child with serious mental illness. Often, they find that their private insurance will not pay for necessary mental health services, or that they do not qualify for Medicaid. In their efforts to secure effective treatment, many parents exhaust their own financial resources and find that they have nowhere else to turn. Tragically, many dedicated, loving parents reach the point where they believe that they have no other option but to relinquish custody of their child to the State in order to access appropriate services. These out-of-home placements can be traumatic for children, and profoundly disruptive and heart-breaking for families that are already in crisis.

Making matters worse, state systems are often poorly equipped to serve the needs of these children. Many children end up being placed in expensive residential institutions, rather than less

costly home- and community-based services. Our juvenile justice system is overwhelmed by young people in need of mental health services. A congressional report authored by Senator Collins and Representative Henry Waxman of California suggests that, every night, nearly 2,000 youths are placed in juvenile detention facilities not because they are criminals but because they do not have access to necessary mental health services. This results in a $100 million bill to the taxpayers. Not only is this a serious misuse of public funds, it is a tragic injustice to the children and families involved. We simply cannot allow children to languish in detention facilities when they are really in need of mental health treatment.

The Keeping Families Together Act lays a foundation for securing better access to mental health services for children. Consistent with recommendations by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, this legislation encourages interagency coordination in the provision of mental health services for children. The bill gives States incentives to remedy the fragmentation that now exists among child welfare, education, juvenile justice, and mental health agencies responsible for helping children. It ensures that States will improve access to mental health services and eliminate the practice of parents' relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment. Our bill also promotes sustainable financing by requiring States to provide graduated matching funds.

In sum, by providing a sustainable, coordinated system of mental health care, children will be able to receive needed services within a stable, loving home environment. Families will be able to stay together.

In a decent, humane society, every family should have access to appropriate mental health services for their children. Parents should not have to surrender a child to the State as the price for obtaining access to mental health treatment. The Keeping Families Together Act offers a better way. It allows children with mental disorders to stay where they belong--in the custody and care of their loving family. I join with Senator Collins in urging our colleagues to support this urgent and important legislation.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the Keeping Families Together Act. As a long-time advocate for people with disabilities, I believe that this legislation represents an important step forward in ensuring the health and wellbeing of our children, in particular those with mental illness.

One in five children has a diagnosable mental disorder, and one in ten children has a mental disorder serious enough to hinder their functioning at school, at the home, and in their communities. Regrettably, two-thirds of children in this latter group do not receive the treatment they need. Without treatment, mental illness negatively affects all areas of children's lives, and it can have dire consequences for their future, including their ability to become productive members of society. Children with mental health problems are at higher risk of chronic illness, academic difficulties and school discipline problems, delinquency, incarceration, and suicide.

The good news is that 90 percent of all mental health disorders are treatable by therapy and medication. Yet parents face a multitude of obstacles and challenges in finding appropriate services for a child with serious mental illness. Often, they find that their private insurance will not pay for necessary mental health services, or that they do not qualify for Medicaid. In their efforts to secure effective treatment, many parents exhaust their own financial resources and find that they have nowhere else to turn. Tragically, many dedicated, loving parents reach the point where they believe that they have no other option but to relinquish custody of their child to the State in order to access appropriate services. These out-of-home placements can be traumatic for children, and profoundly disruptive and heart-breaking for families that are already in crisis.

Making matters worse, state systems are often poorly equipped to serve the needs of these children. Many children end up being placed in expensive residential institutions, rather than less

costly home- and community-based services. Our juvenile justice system is overwhelmed by young people in need of mental health services. A congressional report authored by Senator Collins and Representative Henry Waxman of California suggests that, every night, nearly 2,000 youths are placed in juvenile detention facilities not because they are criminals but because they do not have access to necessary mental health services. This results in a $100 million bill to the taxpayers. Not only is this a serious misuse of public funds, it is a tragic injustice to the children and families involved. We simply cannot allow children to languish in detention facilities when they are really in need of mental health treatment.

The Keeping Families Together Act lays a foundation for securing better access to mental health services for children. Consistent with recommendations by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, this legislation encourages interagency coordination in the provision of mental health services for children. The bill gives States incentives to remedy the fragmentation that now exists among child welfare, education, juvenile justice, and mental health agencies responsible for helping children. It ensures that States will improve access to mental health services and eliminate the practice of parents' relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment. Our bill also promotes sustainable financing by requiring States to provide graduated matching funds.

In sum, by providing a sustainable, coordinated system of mental health care, children will be able to receive needed services within a stable, loving home environment. Families will be able to stay together.

In a decent, humane society, every family should have access to appropriate mental health services for their children. Parents should not have to surrender a child to the State as the price for obtaining access to mental health treatment. The Keeping Families Together Act offers a better way. It allows children with mental disorders to stay where they belong--in the custody and care of their loving family. I join with Senator Collins in urging our colleagues to support this urgent and important legislation.

Mr. President, I am concerned about a possible misunderstanding of the intent of the language in the proposed Senate rule XLIV concerning earmarks. My specific concern goes to the definition in the proposal concerning ``limited tax benefits.'' The definition contains two parts. The first is a two-part test that provides that limited tax benefit is one that ``provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (B) contain eligibility criteria that are uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision''. The key here is the word ``and'' after 1986. The second part simply provides that if this test is not

met, that only a tax that benefits a single entity is a ``limited tax benefit.''

I am told that there are some who might define ``potential beneficiaries'' to only include a variation in the treatment of the class covered by the amendment. This would not be logical. My perception, prior to our voting, is that the intent of those two words ``potential beneficiaries'' means a category or class of taxpayers impacted by the tax provision. In other words, if the Senate was considering the modification of the alternative minimum tax to not include a specific tax provision in the code as counting as income under the AMT, that would not be considered a limited tax benefit, because it would impact all of the potential beneficiaries equally. On the other hand, if one was considering a provision that went into the code and said that we should not count that class of income as AMT income as applied to X or Y, that would not be treating everyone in the class the same. In the latter case, we would be triggering subsection ``B,'' because there was not uniform treatment of all potential beneficiaries of the break. And accordingly, if the number impacted in the second case was a ``limited group of beneficiaries,'' it would be considered a limited tax benefit.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11, as Amended

Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Washington for a very eloquent and very profound statement. The message the Senator from Washington put forward on the Senate floor is one that all Americans ought to hear. It is a message of hope and promise.

I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership in so many areas but especially in the area about which she spoke so eloquently-- the area of education. I had not known that about her family. It brings home once again that in the America we love, anything should be possible for any child. No child should be deprived of the hopes and dreams of having an education and succeeding in life simply because they were born poor or born on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak, or maybe the wrong color--whatever. Every child ought to have that opportunity.

I thank the Senator for so eloquently putting it forward on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I wish to pick up a little bit from Senator Murray's remarks and talk about S. 5, the stem cell bill, that was also introduced today by the majority leader, Senator Reid.

Stem cell research, when it is stripped of all of the phony arguments and rhetoric, is basically about hope. It is hope for people with Lou Gehrig's disease. It is hope for people with spinal cord injuries, hope for kids suffering from juvenile diabetes, hope for people with Parkinson's disease.

In this Congress, we are going to bring those hopes one giant step closer to reality. At long last, hopefully, we will lift the President's restrictions on stem cell research and finally give our Nation's best scientists the tools they need to produce treatments and cures.

The bill we have introduced today, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, is the exact same bill that passed both Houses last year with strong bipartisan support. The House passed the bill 238 to 194. The Senate passed it 63 to 37.

Regrettably, the President chose to exercise his first and only veto of his administration in vetoing this bill. And with his veto, the President ignored the will of the American people, he ignored scores of Nobel laureates, he ignored top scientists at the National Institutes of Health, and with one stroke of his pen, he dashed the hopes of millions of Americans suffering from diseases that could one day be cured or treated through stem cell research.

But now we are back, it is a new Congress, and the voices of hope are stronger than ever. In November, the American people elected many new Members of Congress who support stem cell research and replaced many former Members of Congress who opposed this research. As a result, we will pass this bill again this year, and the margins of victory will be even wider.

Let me spend a moment reviewing what S. 5 would accomplish. More than 5 years ago, the President announced in a speech that federally funded scientists could conduct research only on embryonic stem cell lines that were derived prior to 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001. The President gave his speech that evening, August 9, 2001. He said all of those stem cell lines derived before 9 p.m., that was OK, but if they were derived after 9 p.m., they could not be funded with Federal funds. I never understood that. Why was it 9 p.m.? Why wasn't it 9:15 p.m. or maybe 8:45, 9:13? Why was it 9 p.m.? At the beginning, one has to question the logic of why 9 p.m. was the time barrier.

When the President announced his policy, he said that 78 stem cell lines were eligible for research. We now know that is not so. Only 21 are eligible, not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity of this Nation.

What is more, every one of those lines, all 21 of those lines are contaminated with mouse cells. They were grown on mouse cells, so they are all contaminated. So none of them will ever be used for any kind of human treatment.

Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary deadline. Many of these lines are uncontaminated, they are healthy, but they are totally off limits to federally funded scientists.

That is really a shame because if we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines possible. We need a stem cell policy that offers true and meaningful hope. That is what S. 5 would provide.

Under this bill, federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date it was derived, as long as certain strong ethical guidelines are met. I point out, again, as I have in the past and I will continue to point out, that the ethical guidelines in S. 5 are stronger than the ethical guidelines under the existing policy.

What are those guidelines?

One, no money can be exchanged. No one can ever be paid for donating embryos.

Second, these embryos can only be used for stem cell research and for nothing else.

And third, the donors have to give informed consent for them to be used.

The final point is most important. The only way a stem cell line could be eligible for this federally funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded. Let me, again, say what that means.

There are more than 400,000 embryos frozen in in vitro fertilization clinics all over the country--over 400,000. Right now, the only thing that can happen to those is that they be discarded. They are thrown away every day. Every day embryos are discarded in in vitro fertilization clinics all over America. The donors have no other choice.

Take friends of mine, a young couple. They couldn't have children. They finally went to an IVF clinic. That

didn't work. They went to another one. Now she is pregnant, and they are going to have twins. They may have one or two more children--I don't know--but there are going to be some of those embryos left over. Right now my friend's only choice is to have them discarded. That is her only choice. But as she said to me: I would love, after I have my children and my family, if there are embryos left over, I would love to be able to donate them for stem cell research to help cure disease and to help people who are sick.

Right now she cannot do that. Neither she nor her husband can do that. Our bill would allow them to have that option. No one is forced to do anything, but it would allow them to have that option.

I also, wish to point out again one of the misconceptions. These are embryos. They are blastocysts. They have about 100 cells. I always do this: I put a dot on a piece of paper, hold it up and say: Can anybody see that? That is what we are talking about. It is about the size of a period at the end of a sentence. There is a lot of misinformation about what we are talking about.

As I said before, Congress is going to pass this bill, that is certain. Sadly, some are already predicting the President will veto it for a second time. I hope they are wrong. I hope the President will respect the will of the people and sign the stem cell research bill. But if he does veto it, we will persist. We will use every legislative means at our disposal to make sure S. 5 is enacted into law, and it will happen during this Congress.

My nephew Kelly is one of the millions of Americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. Kelly was in the Navy. He had a terrible accident on an aircraft carrier, and he has been basically a paraplegic now for 28 years. But he has kept his hopes alive that our scientists will be able to find a cure. Stem cell research offers the best hope for people suffering from spinal cord injuries.

Now is the time to give them the hope, to lift the ban on stem cell research. As I said, we will do that in this Congress. It will be one of the first bills we pass. I hope the President will sign it and we can move on. But if not, for Kelly and for so many millions of Americans, we hope the long wait is almost over. I predict that hope will prevail in this Congress.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the past several years, our national energy security has deteriorated rapidly. Petroleum and natural gas prices have gone up and appear to be staying up. Almost daily, we hear projections of increases in electricity prices around the country. The environmental impacts of energy use, especially from autos and power plants, are still a major health concern. The evidence of climate change is absolutely clear and very ominous, especially in the disappearance of glaciers, the break up of polar ice sheets and the increasing intensity of storms. We know that combustion of fossil fuels is the primary contributor of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions that drive this global warming. Despite these negative consequences, our dependence on petroleum is rising steadily, and we are importing over 60 percent of that petroleum from foreign sources, many of whom are politically unstable or unfriendly to the United States. In short, we need to initiate a major transition of our energy sector, to one that is far more efficient, is much less reliant on fossil fuels and imported oil, and is utilizing vastly more domestically produced renewable energy.

We have seen waxing and waning concerns about our national energy economy now for over 30 years. Many of us have believed all along that we should be doing more to promote energy efficiency and to accelerate the development and use of clean, domestic renewable energy, but during most of that time, cheap energy supplies have lulled us into relatively minimal actions. Over the past three years, however, there has been an increasingly acute awareness of the dire nature of our overall energy situation. It is now clear that our energy situation is a serious threat not only to our economy but to our national security. We can no longer postpone action.

Today I am joined by my esteemed colleagues, Senator Lugar of Indiana, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator

Obama of Illinois, in introducing the Biofuels Security Act of 2007. This bill directly addresses one of the most critical pieces of a sound national energy transition policy. It charts a clear path forward for significantly increasing our national use of renewable fuels over the next 24 years, reaching a total of 30 billion gallons per year by 2020, and 60 billion gallons per year by 2030. That latter figure represents about one-third of our nation's current annual fuel use for highway transportation. The production of the two most common forms of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, is expanding rapidly. We have reason to believe that this provision will provide strong impetus to increasing biofuels' production and use because it is an extension of the renewable fuels standard that I promoted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That standard mandates using a total of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012, and already we are on a path to exceed that requirement by 2008. Thus, we can be very optimistic about the success of setting these longer term and more aggressive targets.

This bill also will ensure that the vehicles to use these renewable fuels are readily available by requiring auto manufacturers over time to produce and sell increasing numbers of dual-fuel vehicles--that is, vehicles that can be fueled by gasoline or gasoline/ethanol blends. Because the turnover of vehicles on the highway takes many years, our bill requires the fraction of dual-fuel vehicles to increase from 10 percent in 2008 up to 100 percent in 2017 and beyond. In order to assure availability of alternative fuels, our bill requires installation of increasing numbers of E-85 pumps by major oil companies at fueling stations that they own or license under their brand. These pumps will dispense E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, which is a very popular renewable fuel because of its high ethanol content. The bill will require 50 percent of such owned and licensed stations to have pumps dispensing E-85 fuel by 2017. In addition, the bill includes a clause to ensure geographic distribution of such E-85 marketing stations.

Today I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I request support for this bill and its rapid enactment.

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

Mr. President, over the past several years, our national energy security has deteriorated rapidly. Petroleum and natural gas prices have gone up and appear to be staying up. Almost daily, we hear projections of increases in electricity prices around the country. The environmental impacts of energy use, especially from autos and power plants, are still a major health concern. The evidence of climate change is absolutely clear and very ominous, especially in the disappearance of glaciers, the break up of polar ice sheets and the increasing intensity of storms. We know that combustion of fossil fuels is the primary contributor of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions that drive this global warming. Despite these negative consequences, our dependence on petroleum is rising steadily, and we are importing over 60 percent of that petroleum from foreign sources, many of whom are politically unstable or unfriendly to the United States. In short, we need to initiate a major transition of our energy sector, to one that is far more efficient, is much less reliant on fossil fuels and imported oil, and is utilizing vastly more domestically produced renewable energy.

We have seen waxing and waning concerns about our national energy economy now for over 30 years. Many of us have believed all along that we should be doing more to promote energy efficiency and to accelerate the development and use of clean, domestic renewable energy, but during most of that time, cheap energy supplies have lulled us into relatively minimal actions. Over the past three years, however, there has been an increasingly acute awareness of the dire nature of our overall energy situation. It is now clear that our energy situation is a serious threat not only to our economy but to our national security. We can no longer postpone action.

Today I am joined by my esteemed colleagues, Senator Lugar of Indiana, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator

Obama of Illinois, in introducing the Biofuels Security Act of 2007. This bill directly addresses one of the most critical pieces of a sound national energy transition policy. It charts a clear path forward for significantly increasing our national use of renewable fuels over the next 24 years, reaching a total of 30 billion gallons per year by 2020, and 60 billion gallons per year by 2030. That latter figure represents about one-third of our nation's current annual fuel use for highway transportation. The production of the two most common forms of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, is expanding rapidly. We have reason to believe that this provision will provide strong impetus to increasing biofuels' production and use because it is an extension of the renewable fuels standard that I promoted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That standard mandates using a total of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012, and already we are on a path to exceed that requirement by 2008. Thus, we can be very optimistic about the success of setting these longer term and more aggressive targets.

This bill also will ensure that the vehicles to use these renewable fuels are readily available by requiring auto manufacturers over time to produce and sell increasing numbers of dual-fuel vehicles--that is, vehicles that can be fueled by gasoline or gasoline/ethanol blends. Because the turnover of vehicles on the highway takes many years, our bill requires the fraction of dual-fuel vehicles to increase from 10 percent in 2008 up to 100 percent in 2017 and beyond. In order to assure availability of alternative fuels, our bill requires installation of increasing numbers of E-85 pumps by major oil companies at fueling stations that they own or license under their brand. These pumps will dispense E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, which is a very popular renewable fuel because of its high ethanol content. The bill will require 50 percent of such owned and licensed stations to have pumps dispensing E-85 fuel by 2017. In addition, the bill includes a clause to ensure geographic distribution of such E-85 marketing stations.

Today I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I request support for this bill and its rapid enactment.

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

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