Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009, which will expand and improve vital civil legal services to our most vulnerable Americans.

This is an issue that is very personal with me. Before I was elected to Congress, I practiced law with Polk County legal aid. I know first- hand how crucial legal assistance is to struggling families who have no place else to turn

when they have lost a job and are facing a foreclosure. I know the invaluable assistance that legal aid provides to battered women trying to leave abusive marriages while fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. I know that, without access to an attorney, the poor are often powerless against the injustices they suffer. I can honestly say that the work I did with legal aid is some of the most rewarding work of my career.

The type of assistance I was able to provide needy clients in Iowa occurs throughout the country every day. Much of that assistance is the direct result of a commitment the federal government first made over forty years ago. In 1965, the Office of Economic Opportunity created 269 local legal services programs around the country. Ten years later, in 1974, Congress--with bipartisan support, including that of President Nixon--established the Legal Service Corporation, LSC, to be a major source of funding for civil legal aid in this country. LSC is a private, non-profit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes 95 percent of its annual Federal appropriations to 137 local legal aid programs, with more than 900 offices serving all 50 states and every congressional district.

These LSC funding programs make a crucial difference to millions of Americans. Recipients help clients secure basic human needs, such as access to wrongly denied benefits including social security, pensions and needed health care. Just in the past decade, families of 9-11 victims, flood victims, and hurricane evacuees have received crucial legal assistance in obtaining permanent housing, unemployment compensation and government benefits. Further, members of our Armed Forces and their families receive help with estate planning, consumer and landlord/tenant problems and family law.

It is LSC-funded attorneys who help parents obtain and keep custody of their children, help family members obtain guardianship for children without parents, assist parents in enforcing child support payments and help women who are victims of domestic violence. In fact, three out of four legal aid clients are women, and legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of their top priorities. Recent studies confirm, moreover, that the only public service that reduces domestic abuse in the long term is a woman's access to legal assistance.

Unfortunately, as the economy continues to wane, those needing legal assistance increase. Yet, the Federal commitment to legal services and LSC is not as effective as it needs to be. LSC has not been authorized since 1981, and since 1995 Congress has slashed funding for legal services for the poor, from $415 million to $350 million in fiscal year 2008, with only a recent increase to $390 million for fiscal year 2009. Further, severe restrictions on LSC funded attorneys impede the ability of legal aid attorneys to provide the most meaningful legal representation to low-income Americans. The result is that access to justice and quality representation has become far from a reality for too many of our citizens.

In many parts of the country, more than 80 percent of those who need legal representation are unable to obtain it. Nationally, 50 percent of eligible applicants who request legal assistance from LSC funded programs are turned away largely because such programs lack adequate funding. That translates into over one million eligible cases per year.

Bear in mind, to be eligible for Federal legal assistance, one must live at or below 125 percent Federal poverty level--an income of about $25,000 a year for a family of four. This means that we are turning away half of the families in America who need and seek civil legal help who make less than $25,000 a year. That is wrong and it makes a mockery of the principle of equal justice under the law.

Unfortunately, a combination of limited federal funding, state budget cuts and an increased demand for services due to the recession has exacerbated the problem. As the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court recently noted, legal aid programs have reached a ``crisis of epic proportions.'' This year, requests for services have risen by 30 percent or more across the country while cutbacks in staffing are expected to reach 20 percent or more over the coming months. Connecticut Legal Services expects to lose as many as 150 legal positions. Boston's legal aid expects to lay off one-fifth of its lawyers. Two whole offices in New Jersey recently had to shut their doors. When legal aid lawyers lose their jobs and when offices close, unfortunately it is our most vulnerable citizens who suffer as their legal needs go unmet.

The housing crisis highlights this problem. Today, millions of Americans are struggling to meet their housing needs, including making their mortgage payments, in many cases traceable to predatory lending practices. Foreclosures are at a historic high and continue to soar. As more and more people face the devastating prospect of losing their home--their most prized possession--legal assistance is necessary to help renegotiate terms of loans or enforce truth-in-lending protections in court. The result is that many legal aid offices have seen a drastic increase in those seeking help. Between 2007 and 2008, for example, Iowa Legal Aid saw a 300 percent increase in foreclosure related cases. The Legal Aid Society of San Diego saw a 250 percent increase. Yet, legal aid is too often unavailable. A recent study, for example, revealed that in New Jersey, 99 percent of defendants in housing eviction cases go to court without an attorney.

Given these needs, the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009, which I am proud to introduce today with Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Mikulski, Cardin, Kerry, Durbin, Lautenberg, McCaskill and Merkley, renews our commitment to equal justice for all Americans and will improve both the quantity and quality of legal assistance in this country.

The bill is supported by, among others, the American Bar Association, Brennan Center for Justice, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, National Organization of Legal Service Workers and United Auto Workers.

First, this bill authorizes funding for LSC at $750 million, which is approximately the amount appropriated in 1981, adjusted for inflation, the high water mark for LSC funding. That year, Congress allocated $321.3 million to LSC. At the time, that was seen as the level sufficient to provide a minimum level of access to legal aid in every county. Adjusted for inflation, this ``minimum access'' level of funding would need to be about $750 million in 2009 dollars.

Second, this bill lifts many of the restrictions Congress imposed in 1996 on federally funded attorneys. That year, Congress significantly limited whom federally funded attorneys could represent and the types of legal tools these attorneys could use in representing their clients. Proponents of these restrictions argued that LSC funded lawyers had overreached and were using federal funds to pursue what some considered an ideological political agenda through the courts, while neglecting basic legal work for poor Americans.

I vigorously disagreed with this characterization of legal aid attorneys and opposed the restrictions at the time; and I continue to do so. The restrictions have harmed our neediest Americans and in many instances prevent legal counsel from doing what attorneys are ethically bound to do--provide zealous representation for their clients. Further, the restrictions, by limiting the range of tools that legal aid attorneys can employ compared to other members of the bar, have created a system of second-class legal representation. That is why this legislation lifts limits on the legal tools that LSC-funded attorneys can use to represent their clients--for example, prohibitions on attorneys seeking court-ordered attorneys' fees, lobbying with nonfederal funds or representing clients in class action law suits.

With respect to attorney fees, Congress and state legislatures have recognized that such fees are an important remedy, and are critical in ensuring that civil rights and consumer protection suits are brought. As Congress stated in enacting the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards Act of 1976, ``fee awards have proved an essential remedy if private citizens are to have a

meaningful opportunity to vindicate the important Congressional policies which these laws contain.'' That is why Congress has enacted nearly 200 statutes, and states have enacted approximately 4,000 statutes, that provide for attorney fees. The current restriction preventing LSC-funded attorneys from receiving attorney fees has the effect of weakening the effectiveness of these statutes.

Lifting the restriction on attorney fees makes sense for additional reasons. First, because of the restriction, defendants who otherwise would pay attorney fees are unjustly enriched because they happen to face LSC-funded attorneys as opposed to a private counsel. Second, the potential for attorney fees is important leverage for attorneys as they negotiate settlements, leverage now not available to LSC-funded attorneys. Finally, by prohibiting collecting attorney fees, Congress has needlessly limited potential resources that can be used to provide legal aid to other clients.

The bill also lifts the restriction on LSC-funded attorneys' ability to lobby with non-federal funds for changes in the law that would benefit disadvantaged clients. Legal service attorneys are immersed in the day-to-day legal issues faced by low-income communities and, as a result, are often most knowledgeable about the true impact of state and Federal laws on low income Americans. Yet, LSC-funded attorneys may not participate legislative and administrative efforts unless they are responding to a written request from a legislator or other official.

When legal aid attorneys' input is requested, the results are telling. For example, Maryland Legal Aid Bureau was recently invited by the legislature to testify on an overhaul of state foreclosure and lending laws. Although the lending, mortgage and banking industries were well represented, the legal aid attorney was the only person there representing borrowers' views. While the attorney's voice was critical in ensuring appropriate consumer protections, it is significant that that voice was only heard because legislators chose to seek input from legal aid. Because of the current restrictions, absent an invitation, the experiences and knowledge of that attorney would be silenced, leaving a one-sided debate.

Let me be clear, I disagree with those who advocated for and enacted the 1996 restrictions. However, in the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, and with the intent to avoid a repeat of the contentious debates of the 1990s, this legislation does not lift all of the restrictions. Illustrative is the present restriction on LSC-funded attorneys pursuing class action suits. Such cases are often the most efficient and cost-effective lawsuits, not only for clients but for the judicial system. As Congress found in enacting the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005, ``class action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm.''

When the procedural requirements of State or Federal law are met, LSC-funded attorneys and their clients, like all others, should be able to utilize this essential litigation tool. That is why the bill lifts the restriction on the ability of legal aid programs to bring such suits. At the same time, again while I disagree, I acknowledge the concern that led to the restriction--that prior to the restriction some felt that LSC-funded attorneys were using class action suits to ``push the envelope'' and have courts establish ``new law.'' To allay this concern, the bill permits only class action suits that are grounded in ``established'' law. This will enable, for example, LSC-funded attorneys to represent as a class multiple families who are victims of predatory lending, but will not permit LSC-funded attorneys to attempt to achieve a novel interpretation of the law that lacks statutory support or judicial precedent.

Moreover, again in the spirit of compromise, the bill maintains many of the limits on who LSC-funded programs can represent, including the current exclusion of illegal immigrants, with limited exceptions, such as victims of domestic violence, prisoners challenging prison conditions, and people charged with illegal drug possession in public housing eviction proceedings. Also, consistent with current law, the legislation prohibits LSC-funded programs from participating in abortion-related cases.

Third, this legislation lifts all the restrictions, except those related to abortion litigation, on the use of state and local funds and private donations to Federal funded legal services programs that Congress also imposed in 1996. That year, Congress determined that for programs that receive federal funds, the same restrictions applicable to federal funds apply to non-federal funds a program receives.

The result is that millions of dollars in non-federal funds are encumbered by the same restrictions that drastically limit the tools available to legal aid attorneys, to the detriment of their clients. Through direct state and local funding, money from state Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts, IOLTA, and private sources, over $450 million in non-federal funds currently is provided for civil legal assistance. The restrictions place unnecessary and costly hurdles on the use of these non-federal funds. The only way a program and its donors can free themselves from federal restrictions is by diverting non-federal funds into a separate program--with separate staff members, offices and equipment. This is burdensome and wasteful.

Whatever one thinks of placing conditions on the receipt of federal funds, states, cities and private donors should have the ability to determine for themselves how best to spend their money to ensure access to justice for their citizens. It is one thing to attach conditions on the use of the federal funds, but to impose conditions on the use of non-federal funds is wrong.

Fourth, in addition to providing further tools and support for LSC grantees, better corporate governance--something that is critically needed--is a central feature of this legislation. Last year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, reported on troubling management practices and lack of oversight by LSC. The reports found that there had been questionable expenditures by LSC management and that LSC lacked a ``properly implemented governance and accountability structure'' needed to prevent problems. GAO included in its report a series of recommendations as to how LSC should address these shortcomings and prevent similar problems in the future.

No one was more upset about the GAO reports than I. That is why I personally made it clear to LSC management, in no uncertain terms, that they needed to act immediately to address the GAO recommendations, and why a central feature of this bill is provisions to ensure better corporate governance. LSC acted quickly to address the issues GAO raised, and both LSC management and its Board of Directors have publicly accepted all of GAO's recommendations and have worked diligently to implement them. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to lock the recommendations into statute.

Finally, the bill authorizes a grant program from the Department of Education to expand law school clinics. A recent study found that students in law school clinics serve approximately 90,000 civil clients every school year, excluding summer semesters, and provide over 1.8 million hours of legal service. These legal clinics are a significant resource for legal services. But they are much more. For many students, these programs are stepping stones towards careers in legal service and public interest law following graduation. Recent studies demonstrate that law students who participate in law school clinics are more likely to work in public service jobs and do more pro bono than their peers who do not.

We need to do all we can to encourage young lawyers to make legal aid a career. One important way of doing this is by exposing them to the challenges, and more importantly the rewards, of representing people who otherwise would not have the legal assistance they deserve.

Our promise of ``equal justice under law'' rings hollow if those who are most vulnerable are denied access to representation. As former Justice Lewis Powell said, ``[e]qual justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society . . . it is fundamental that justice should be the same,

in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.'' Legal aid attorneys across the country protect the safety, security, and health of low-income citizens. When a senior citizen is the victim of a financial scam, when a family faces the loss of their home, or, all too often, when a woman seeks protection from abuse, legal aid can help--but only if it has the funds and the tools needed to do so.

As our former colleague Senator Domenici once declared: ``I do not know what is wrong with the United States of America saying to the needy people of this country that the judicial system is not only for the rich. What is wrong with that? . . . That is what America is all about.''

That is the aim of this bill. After years of grossly underfunding this essential program, denying legal representation to millions of low-income citizens, and denying legal aid lawyers the full panoply of tools they need to represent their clients effectively, this bill will fulfill the promise of our Constitution. ``Equal Justice Under Law'' will be more than an ideal chiseled on a marble facade, it will be a concrete reality for millions of our citizens, who, today, are denied it. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

I am proud to join Senator Harkin, along with Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Senator Mikulski, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Merkley on this important legislation to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation, LSC. I thank Senator Harkin for his hard work and dedication to this issue. Along with reauthorizing the funding for the LSC, the bill also removes several restrictions that have encumbered the efforts of legal services providers around the country.

The funding authorization in this legislation will help ensure that in future years, the Legal Services Corporation, and all of the state legal aid organizations it assists, will continue the critical work they do to help lower-income American citizens who need legal assistance. Similar to the Sixth Amendment's requirement that an indigent criminal defendant be provided counsel, the voice that legal aid attorneys give to the less fortunate among us is an indispensable component of a fair justice system. What Justice Hugo Black called the ``noble ideal'' of a fair and impartial trial is extended through the work of those around the country who serve their fellow citizens in our courts. This reauthorization will continue the policy of the Federal Government to provide assistance to those who seek access to the courts in civil matters.

As part of this reauthorization, and in an effort to support the integrity of the LSC, the bill codifies recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, related to the LSC's corporate governance. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in May 2008 in part to shed light on these recommendations, and to give the LSC an opportunity to respond about plans to address the problems identified by the GAO. The LSC's leadership has been open and responsive to making improvements, and including these recommendations in the bill will assist the LSC in strengthening its governance practices for the future.

This legislation also takes the long-overdue step of removing several of the restrictions that have hindered legal aid organizations for too long. But I wish to make clear that the restrictions on both state and Federal funds prohibiting litigation involving reproductive rights remain in place. Several restrictions on Federal funds remain: the use of Federal funds for litigation concerning unlawful immigrants, prison conditions, and certain eviction cases involving the sale of illegal drugs in public housing, will remain prohibited. But many of the restrictions this bill finally lifts are the product of an ideology long since rejected by the American people. It is time for Congress to reconsider the usefulness of these restrictions in providing the services that so many Americans desperately need.

All Americans should understand the effects of these restrictions on the provision of legal services for lower-income citizens. Chief among them is the overarching requirement prohibiting the use of non-Federal funds for enumerated purposes when legal aid organizations accept Federal funding from the LSC. Currently, non-federal funds received by legal aid providers that also accept LSC funding are subject to the same restrictions that Federal funds are. This has resulted in a waste of resources that providers can ill afford. For example, a legal aid provider that wishes to use state, foundation, or other private funding as it sees fit must physically segregate its operations so that funds from the two sources are administered separately through duplicated processes. In this era of economic difficulty, the impact of every Federal and state dollar provided to help Americans must be maximized. This requirement has resulted in little more than wasted resources. Legal aid providers are capable of honoring Federal restrictions without the necessity of such an onerous approach.

The legislation also removes restrictions that currently prohibit legal aid attorneys from receiving attorney's fees, as authorized by law, in cases in which they prevail. Contrary to arguments that claim such a practice would cause legal aid attorneys to act unethically or out of an interest divergent from the legitimate needs of their clients, allowing these fees to be retained would help shift the cost of wrongdoing from the Federal Government to the wrongdoer. Moreover, allowing legal aid attorneys to retain these fees when merited would provide increased assistance to the organizations for which they work. In an effort to monitor the effect of removing this restriction, the legislation requires all fees received to be reported to the LSC.

The bill removes restrictions on class action suits by legal aid providers. Contrary to the popular rhetoric, in some cases class action suits can maximize the benefits provided by legal aid organizations by allowing similarly situated plaintiffs to pursue their rights in a single case. The legislation does restrict class action suits to actions based on established law, and thus is intended to discourage truly frivolous suits. Additionally, the legislation removes the restriction prohibiting legal aid providers from lobbying their elected officials. Allowing legal aid providers to advocate on behalf of those they serve will advance civil justice issues and raise the awareness of lawmakers in matters affecting many Americans. And I would remind those who would disparage this practice on the part of legal aid providers that many of the financial institutions that the American taxpayers have recently bailed out continue to lobby extensively in Washington. If banks that have been bailed out with taxpayer money can freely access their elected officials, so too should those who represent the least politically powerful among us.

I hope all Senators will give serious consideration to reauthorizing the Legal Services Corporation and ending many of the restrictions that have burdened the provision of legal services to so many American citizens. Lawyers across the U.S. have dedicated their lives to helping the least fortunate among us gain access to the courts that serve us all. These lawyers play a critical role in ensuring that justice is carried out in a manner consistent with the Constitution's promise, and when justice is served fairly, it benefits us all. I hope all Senators will join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009, which will expand and improve vital civil legal services to our most vulnerable Americans.

This is an issue that is very personal with me. Before I was elected to Congress, I practiced law with Polk County legal aid. I know first- hand how crucial legal assistance is to struggling families who have no place else to turn

when they have lost a job and are facing a foreclosure. I know the invaluable assistance that legal aid provides to battered women trying to leave abusive marriages while fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. I know that, without access to an attorney, the poor are often powerless against the injustices they suffer. I can honestly say that the work I did with legal aid is some of the most rewarding work of my career.

The type of assistance I was able to provide needy clients in Iowa occurs throughout the country every day. Much of that assistance is the direct result of a commitment the federal government first made over forty years ago. In 1965, the Office of Economic Opportunity created 269 local legal services programs around the country. Ten years later, in 1974, Congress--with bipartisan support, including that of President Nixon--established the Legal Service Corporation, LSC, to be a major source of funding for civil legal aid in this country. LSC is a private, non-profit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes 95 percent of its annual Federal appropriations to 137 local legal aid programs, with more than 900 offices serving all 50 states and every congressional district.

These LSC funding programs make a crucial difference to millions of Americans. Recipients help clients secure basic human needs, such as access to wrongly denied benefits including social security, pensions and needed health care. Just in the past decade, families of 9-11 victims, flood victims, and hurricane evacuees have received crucial legal assistance in obtaining permanent housing, unemployment compensation and government benefits. Further, members of our Armed Forces and their families receive help with estate planning, consumer and landlord/tenant problems and family law.

It is LSC-funded attorneys who help parents obtain and keep custody of their children, help family members obtain guardianship for children without parents, assist parents in enforcing child support payments and help women who are victims of domestic violence. In fact, three out of four legal aid clients are women, and legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of their top priorities. Recent studies confirm, moreover, that the only public service that reduces domestic abuse in the long term is a woman's access to legal assistance.

Unfortunately, as the economy continues to wane, those needing legal assistance increase. Yet, the Federal commitment to legal services and LSC is not as effective as it needs to be. LSC has not been authorized since 1981, and since 1995 Congress has slashed funding for legal services for the poor, from $415 million to $350 million in fiscal year 2008, with only a recent increase to $390 million for fiscal year 2009. Further, severe restrictions on LSC funded attorneys impede the ability of legal aid attorneys to provide the most meaningful legal representation to low-income Americans. The result is that access to justice and quality representation has become far from a reality for too many of our citizens.

In many parts of the country, more than 80 percent of those who need legal representation are unable to obtain it. Nationally, 50 percent of eligible applicants who request legal assistance from LSC funded programs are turned away largely because such programs lack adequate funding. That translates into over one million eligible cases per year.

Bear in mind, to be eligible for Federal legal assistance, one must live at or below 125 percent Federal poverty level--an income of about $25,000 a year for a family of four. This means that we are turning away half of the families in America who need and seek civil legal help who make less than $25,000 a year. That is wrong and it makes a mockery of the principle of equal justice under the law.

Unfortunately, a combination of limited federal funding, state budget cuts and an increased demand for services due to the recession has exacerbated the problem. As the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court recently noted, legal aid programs have reached a ``crisis of epic proportions.'' This year, requests for services have risen by 30 percent or more across the country while cutbacks in staffing are expected to reach 20 percent or more over the coming months. Connecticut Legal Services expects to lose as many as 150 legal positions. Boston's legal aid expects to lay off one-fifth of its lawyers. Two whole offices in New Jersey recently had to shut their doors. When legal aid lawyers lose their jobs and when offices close, unfortunately it is our most vulnerable citizens who suffer as their legal needs go unmet.

The housing crisis highlights this problem. Today, millions of Americans are struggling to meet their housing needs, including making their mortgage payments, in many cases traceable to predatory lending practices. Foreclosures are at a historic high and continue to soar. As more and more people face the devastating prospect of losing their home--their most prized possession--legal assistance is necessary to help renegotiate terms of loans or enforce truth-in-lending protections in court. The result is that many legal aid offices have seen a drastic increase in those seeking help. Between 2007 and 2008, for example, Iowa Legal Aid saw a 300 percent increase in foreclosure related cases. The Legal Aid Society of San Diego saw a 250 percent increase. Yet, legal aid is too often unavailable. A recent study, for example, revealed that in New Jersey, 99 percent of defendants in housing eviction cases go to court without an attorney.

Given these needs, the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009, which I am proud to introduce today with Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Mikulski, Cardin, Kerry, Durbin, Lautenberg, McCaskill and Merkley, renews our commitment to equal justice for all Americans and will improve both the quantity and quality of legal assistance in this country.

The bill is supported by, among others, the American Bar Association, Brennan Center for Justice, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, National Organization of Legal Service Workers and United Auto Workers.

First, this bill authorizes funding for LSC at $750 million, which is approximately the amount appropriated in 1981, adjusted for inflation, the high water mark for LSC funding. That year, Congress allocated $321.3 million to LSC. At the time, that was seen as the level sufficient to provide a minimum level of access to legal aid in every county. Adjusted for inflation, this ``minimum access'' level of funding would need to be about $750 million in 2009 dollars.

Second, this bill lifts many of the restrictions Congress imposed in 1996 on federally funded attorneys. That year, Congress significantly limited whom federally funded attorneys could represent and the types of legal tools these attorneys could use in representing their clients. Proponents of these restrictions argued that LSC funded lawyers had overreached and were using federal funds to pursue what some considered an ideological political agenda through the courts, while neglecting basic legal work for poor Americans.

I vigorously disagreed with this characterization of legal aid attorneys and opposed the restrictions at the time; and I continue to do so. The restrictions have harmed our neediest Americans and in many instances prevent legal counsel from doing what attorneys are ethically bound to do--provide zealous representation for their clients. Further, the restrictions, by limiting the range of tools that legal aid attorneys can employ compared to other members of the bar, have created a system of second-class legal representation. That is why this legislation lifts limits on the legal tools that LSC-funded attorneys can use to represent their clients--for example, prohibitions on attorneys seeking court-ordered attorneys' fees, lobbying with nonfederal funds or representing clients in class action law suits.

With respect to attorney fees, Congress and state legislatures have recognized that such fees are an important remedy, and are critical in ensuring that civil rights and consumer protection suits are brought. As Congress stated in enacting the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards Act of 1976, ``fee awards have proved an essential remedy if private citizens are to have a

meaningful opportunity to vindicate the important Congressional policies which these laws contain.'' That is why Congress has enacted nearly 200 statutes, and states have enacted approximately 4,000 statutes, that provide for attorney fees. The current restriction preventing LSC-funded attorneys from receiving attorney fees has the effect of weakening the effectiveness of these statutes.

Lifting the restriction on attorney fees makes sense for additional reasons. First, because of the restriction, defendants who otherwise would pay attorney fees are unjustly enriched because they happen to face LSC-funded attorneys as opposed to a private counsel. Second, the potential for attorney fees is important leverage for attorneys as they negotiate settlements, leverage now not available to LSC-funded attorneys. Finally, by prohibiting collecting attorney fees, Congress has needlessly limited potential resources that can be used to provide legal aid to other clients.

The bill also lifts the restriction on LSC-funded attorneys' ability to lobby with non-federal funds for changes in the law that would benefit disadvantaged clients. Legal service attorneys are immersed in the day-to-day legal issues faced by low-income communities and, as a result, are often most knowledgeable about the true impact of state and Federal laws on low income Americans. Yet, LSC-funded attorneys may not participate legislative and administrative efforts unless they are responding to a written request from a legislator or other official.

When legal aid attorneys' input is requested, the results are telling. For example, Maryland Legal Aid Bureau was recently invited by the legislature to testify on an overhaul of state foreclosure and lending laws. Although the lending, mortgage and banking industries were well represented, the legal aid attorney was the only person there representing borrowers' views. While the attorney's voice was critical in ensuring appropriate consumer protections, it is significant that that voice was only heard because legislators chose to seek input from legal aid. Because of the current restrictions, absent an invitation, the experiences and knowledge of that attorney would be silenced, leaving a one-sided debate.

Let me be clear, I disagree with those who advocated for and enacted the 1996 restrictions. However, in the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, and with the intent to avoid a repeat of the contentious debates of the 1990s, this legislation does not lift all of the restrictions. Illustrative is the present restriction on LSC-funded attorneys pursuing class action suits. Such cases are often the most efficient and cost-effective lawsuits, not only for clients but for the judicial system. As Congress found in enacting the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005, ``class action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm.''

When the procedural requirements of State or Federal law are met, LSC-funded attorneys and their clients, like all others, should be able to utilize this essential litigation tool. That is why the bill lifts the restriction on the ability of legal aid programs to bring such suits. At the same time, again while I disagree, I acknowledge the concern that led to the restriction--that prior to the restriction some felt that LSC-funded attorneys were using class action suits to ``push the envelope'' and have courts establish ``new law.'' To allay this concern, the bill permits only class action suits that are grounded in ``established'' law. This will enable, for example, LSC-funded attorneys to represent as a class multiple families who are victims of predatory lending, but will not permit LSC-funded attorneys to attempt to achieve a novel interpretation of the law that lacks statutory support or judicial precedent.

Moreover, again in the spirit of compromise, the bill maintains many of the limits on who LSC-funded programs can represent, including the current exclusion of illegal immigrants, with limited exceptions, such as victims of domestic violence, prisoners challenging prison conditions, and people charged with illegal drug possession in public housing eviction proceedings. Also, consistent with current law, the legislation prohibits LSC-funded programs from participating in abortion-related cases.

Third, this legislation lifts all the restrictions, except those related to abortion litigation, on the use of state and local funds and private donations to Federal funded legal services programs that Congress also imposed in 1996. That year, Congress determined that for programs that receive federal funds, the same restrictions applicable to federal funds apply to non-federal funds a program receives.

The result is that millions of dollars in non-federal funds are encumbered by the same restrictions that drastically limit the tools available to legal aid attorneys, to the detriment of their clients. Through direct state and local funding, money from state Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts, IOLTA, and private sources, over $450 million in non-federal funds currently is provided for civil legal assistance. The restrictions place unnecessary and costly hurdles on the use of these non-federal funds. The only way a program and its donors can free themselves from federal restrictions is by diverting non-federal funds into a separate program--with separate staff members, offices and equipment. This is burdensome and wasteful.

Whatever one thinks of placing conditions on the receipt of federal funds, states, cities and private donors should have the ability to determine for themselves how best to spend their money to ensure access to justice for their citizens. It is one thing to attach conditions on the use of the federal funds, but to impose conditions on the use of non-federal funds is wrong.

Fourth, in addition to providing further tools and support for LSC grantees, better corporate governance--something that is critically needed--is a central feature of this legislation. Last year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, reported on troubling management practices and lack of oversight by LSC. The reports found that there had been questionable expenditures by LSC management and that LSC lacked a ``properly implemented governance and accountability structure'' needed to prevent problems. GAO included in its report a series of recommendations as to how LSC should address these shortcomings and prevent similar problems in the future.

No one was more upset about the GAO reports than I. That is why I personally made it clear to LSC management, in no uncertain terms, that they needed to act immediately to address the GAO recommendations, and why a central feature of this bill is provisions to ensure better corporate governance. LSC acted quickly to address the issues GAO raised, and both LSC management and its Board of Directors have publicly accepted all of GAO's recommendations and have worked diligently to implement them. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to lock the recommendations into statute.

Finally, the bill authorizes a grant program from the Department of Education to expand law school clinics. A recent study found that students in law school clinics serve approximately 90,000 civil clients every school year, excluding summer semesters, and provide over 1.8 million hours of legal service. These legal clinics are a significant resource for legal services. But they are much more. For many students, these programs are stepping stones towards careers in legal service and public interest law following graduation. Recent studies demonstrate that law students who participate in law school clinics are more likely to work in public service jobs and do more pro bono than their peers who do not.

We need to do all we can to encourage young lawyers to make legal aid a career. One important way of doing this is by exposing them to the challenges, and more importantly the rewards, of representing people who otherwise would not have the legal assistance they deserve.

Our promise of ``equal justice under law'' rings hollow if those who are most vulnerable are denied access to representation. As former Justice Lewis Powell said, ``[e]qual justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society . . . it is fundamental that justice should be the same,

in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.'' Legal aid attorneys across the country protect the safety, security, and health of low-income citizens. When a senior citizen is the victim of a financial scam, when a family faces the loss of their home, or, all too often, when a woman seeks protection from abuse, legal aid can help--but only if it has the funds and the tools needed to do so.

As our former colleague Senator Domenici once declared: ``I do not know what is wrong with the United States of America saying to the needy people of this country that the judicial system is not only for the rich. What is wrong with that? . . . That is what America is all about.''

That is the aim of this bill. After years of grossly underfunding this essential program, denying legal representation to millions of low-income citizens, and denying legal aid lawyers the full panoply of tools they need to represent their clients effectively, this bill will fulfill the promise of our Constitution. ``Equal Justice Under Law'' will be more than an ideal chiseled on a marble facade, it will be a concrete reality for millions of our citizens, who, today, are denied it. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

I am proud to join Senator Harkin, along with Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Senator Mikulski, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Merkley on this important legislation to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation, LSC. I thank Senator Harkin for his hard work and dedication to this issue. Along with reauthorizing the funding for the LSC, the bill also removes several restrictions that have encumbered the efforts of legal services providers around the country.

The funding authorization in this legislation will help ensure that in future years, the Legal Services Corporation, and all of the state legal aid organizations it assists, will continue the critical work they do to help lower-income American citizens who need legal assistance. Similar to the Sixth Amendment's requirement that an indigent criminal defendant be provided counsel, the voice that legal aid attorneys give to the less fortunate among us is an indispensable component of a fair justice system. What Justice Hugo Black called the ``noble ideal'' of a fair and impartial trial is extended through the work of those around the country who serve their fellow citizens in our courts. This reauthorization will continue the policy of the Federal Government to provide assistance to those who seek access to the courts in civil matters.

As part of this reauthorization, and in an effort to support the integrity of the LSC, the bill codifies recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, related to the LSC's corporate governance. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in May 2008 in part to shed light on these recommendations, and to give the LSC an opportunity to respond about plans to address the problems identified by the GAO. The LSC's leadership has been open and responsive to making improvements, and including these recommendations in the bill will assist the LSC in strengthening its governance practices for the future.

This legislation also takes the long-overdue step of removing several of the restrictions that have hindered legal aid organizations for too long. But I wish to make clear that the restrictions on both state and Federal funds prohibiting litigation involving reproductive rights remain in place. Several restrictions on Federal funds remain: the use of Federal funds for litigation concerning unlawful immigrants, prison conditions, and certain eviction cases involving the sale of illegal drugs in public housing, will remain prohibited. But many of the restrictions this bill finally lifts are the product of an ideology long since rejected by the American people. It is time for Congress to reconsider the usefulness of these restrictions in providing the services that so many Americans desperately need.

All Americans should understand the effects of these restrictions on the provision of legal services for lower-income citizens. Chief among them is the overarching requirement prohibiting the use of non-Federal funds for enumerated purposes when legal aid organizations accept Federal funding from the LSC. Currently, non-federal funds received by legal aid providers that also accept LSC funding are subject to the same restrictions that Federal funds are. This has resulted in a waste of resources that providers can ill afford. For example, a legal aid provider that wishes to use state, foundation, or other private funding as it sees fit must physically segregate its operations so that funds from the two sources are administered separately through duplicated processes. In this era of economic difficulty, the impact of every Federal and state dollar provided to help Americans must be maximized. This requirement has resulted in little more than wasted resources. Legal aid providers are capable of honoring Federal restrictions without the necessity of such an onerous approach.

The legislation also removes restrictions that currently prohibit legal aid attorneys from receiving attorney's fees, as authorized by law, in cases in which they prevail. Contrary to arguments that claim such a practice would cause legal aid attorneys to act unethically or out of an interest divergent from the legitimate needs of their clients, allowing these fees to be retained would help shift the cost of wrongdoing from the Federal Government to the wrongdoer. Moreover, allowing legal aid attorneys to retain these fees when merited would provide increased assistance to the organizations for which they work. In an effort to monitor the effect of removing this restriction, the legislation requires all fees received to be reported to the LSC.

The bill removes restrictions on class action suits by legal aid providers. Contrary to the popular rhetoric, in some cases class action suits can maximize the benefits provided by legal aid organizations by allowing similarly situated plaintiffs to pursue their rights in a single case. The legislation does restrict class action suits to actions based on established law, and thus is intended to discourage truly frivolous suits. Additionally, the legislation removes the restriction prohibiting legal aid providers from lobbying their elected officials. Allowing legal aid providers to advocate on behalf of those they serve will advance civil justice issues and raise the awareness of lawmakers in matters affecting many Americans. And I would remind those who would disparage this practice on the part of legal aid providers that many of the financial institutions that the American taxpayers have recently bailed out continue to lobby extensively in Washington. If banks that have been bailed out with taxpayer money can freely access their elected officials, so too should those who represent the least politically powerful among us.

I hope all Senators will give serious consideration to reauthorizing the Legal Services Corporation and ending many of the restrictions that have burdened the provision of legal services to so many American citizens. Lawyers across the U.S. have dedicated their lives to helping the least fortunate among us gain access to the courts that serve us all. These lawyers play a critical role in ensuring that justice is carried out in a manner consistent with the Constitution's promise, and when justice is served fairly, it benefits us all. I hope all Senators will join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am here today to lay the foundation for what I hope will be a broad effort to reform our health care system. In these troubled economic times, it has never been more clear that our current system is broken. I have said many times that we do not have a ``health'' care system, we have a ``sick'' care system. If you are sick, you get care. We spend untold hundreds of billions on pills, surgery, hospitalization, and disability. But we spend peanuts about 3 percent of our health-care dollars for prevention. There are huge, untapped opportunities in the area of wellness and prevention.

Last fall, I was honored to be asked by Senator Kennedy to lead the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee's working group on Prevention and Public Health in our health reform efforts. I am a long- time believer that prevention and wellness are the keys to solving our health care crisis. Our working group has already started looking at prevention and public health-based solutions. We have held three hearings so far. First, we laid down the case for why prevention and public health strategies are so important to improving health care. We heard from a variety of experts, including health economists and successful health promotion programs in the corporate world and in small communities. It was clear that prevention works and that we can not afford not to do it. Next, we heard from a number of States about the innovative things they are doing to improve public health and encourage wellness. We heard about universal coverage in Massachusetts, improving quality and reducing cost in North Carolina's Medicaid program, and emphasizing prevention and chronic care management in Iowa. Some truly groundbreaking efforts are already underway in many states. Finally, we held a hearing about access to public health and wellness services for vulnerable populations. We heard about some creative solutions addressing public health disparities for children, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and folks in rural areas. In all of our hearings, we have learned a great deal about what we are doing right to make prevention happen. But we have also learned about how far we still have to go in making sure that everyone has the opportunity to become healthier.

What is abundantly clear to me is that we can and must do more. We have good science behind us, and we know that there are many proven techniques to make our population healthier. This is particularly true in preventive medicine, where health care providers have expertise both in medicine and in public health. These are the people we need to help tackle our growing obesity epidemic, the alarming trends in cardiovascular disease and drug-resistant bacterial infections. They can both treat patients and address public health concerns. They understand both the physiology of disease and the population effects of disease. They know how to provide the best care for the patient and the broader population.

When tens of millions of Americans suffer from preventable diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and some types of cancer we need experts in preventive medicine. And even

though the need is growing, our work force in preventive medicine is shrinking. We are not training enough preventive medicine specialists, and our capacity to do so is being limited. Though there were 90 preventive medicine residency programs in 1999, today there are only 71. Today, I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Isakson, Bingaman and Lieberman, to make sure that we train enough professionals in preventive medicine. The Preventive Medicine and Public Health Training Act will provide training grants to medical schools, teaching hospitals, schools of public health, and public health departments to fund existing programs and in some cases develop new residency training programs in Preventive Medicine. This bill is designed with one simple goal in mind: to improve and increase our prevention workforce. We have seen how an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure, but we know that we need someone to provide that ounce of prevention. And our bill will help train future generations of experts in Preventive Medicine.

This legislation is a small but vitally important part of our efforts at health reform. In the coming months, I will be working with HELP Committee Chairman Kennedy and other interested members to ensure that, as we craft legislation to provide health insurance to all, we do so in a way that guarantees that all Americans have access to and take advantage of exemplary preventive care. We must guarantee that our health care system will not just fix us when we are sick, but keep us well throughout our lifetimes. We must lay down a marker today to say that reforming our health care system means rejecting our current delivery of ``sick care'' and instead strengthening our ability to provide ``well care'' through preventive medicine. Today's legislation is just one part of that effort, and I look forward to working with other interested Senators to build on this legislation as health care reform moves forward.

Mr. President, I am here today to lay the foundation for what I hope will be a broad effort to reform our health care system. In these troubled economic times, it has never been more clear that our current system is broken. I have said many times that we do not have a ``health'' care system, we have a ``sick'' care system. If you are sick, you get care. We spend untold hundreds of billions on pills, surgery, hospitalization, and disability. But we spend peanuts about 3 percent of our health-care dollars for prevention. There are huge, untapped opportunities in the area of wellness and prevention.

Last fall, I was honored to be asked by Senator Kennedy to lead the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee's working group on Prevention and Public Health in our health reform efforts. I am a long- time believer that prevention and wellness are the keys to solving our health care crisis. Our working group has already started looking at prevention and public health-based solutions. We have held three hearings so far. First, we laid down the case for why prevention and public health strategies are so important to improving health care. We heard from a variety of experts, including health economists and successful health promotion programs in the corporate world and in small communities. It was clear that prevention works and that we can not afford not to do it. Next, we heard from a number of States about the innovative things they are doing to improve public health and encourage wellness. We heard about universal coverage in Massachusetts, improving quality and reducing cost in North Carolina's Medicaid program, and emphasizing prevention and chronic care management in Iowa. Some truly groundbreaking efforts are already underway in many states. Finally, we held a hearing about access to public health and wellness services for vulnerable populations. We heard about some creative solutions addressing public health disparities for children, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and folks in rural areas. In all of our hearings, we have learned a great deal about what we are doing right to make prevention happen. But we have also learned about how far we still have to go in making sure that everyone has the opportunity to become healthier.

What is abundantly clear to me is that we can and must do more. We have good science behind us, and we know that there are many proven techniques to make our population healthier. This is particularly true in preventive medicine, where health care providers have expertise both in medicine and in public health. These are the people we need to help tackle our growing obesity epidemic, the alarming trends in cardiovascular disease and drug-resistant bacterial infections. They can both treat patients and address public health concerns. They understand both the physiology of disease and the population effects of disease. They know how to provide the best care for the patient and the broader population.

When tens of millions of Americans suffer from preventable diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and some types of cancer we need experts in preventive medicine. And even

though the need is growing, our work force in preventive medicine is shrinking. We are not training enough preventive medicine specialists, and our capacity to do so is being limited. Though there were 90 preventive medicine residency programs in 1999, today there are only 71. Today, I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Isakson, Bingaman and Lieberman, to make sure that we train enough professionals in preventive medicine. The Preventive Medicine and Public Health Training Act will provide training grants to medical schools, teaching hospitals, schools of public health, and public health departments to fund existing programs and in some cases develop new residency training programs in Preventive Medicine. This bill is designed with one simple goal in mind: to improve and increase our prevention workforce. We have seen how an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure, but we know that we need someone to provide that ounce of prevention. And our bill will help train future generations of experts in Preventive Medicine.

This legislation is a small but vitally important part of our efforts at health reform. In the coming months, I will be working with HELP Committee Chairman Kennedy and other interested members to ensure that, as we craft legislation to provide health insurance to all, we do so in a way that guarantees that all Americans have access to and take advantage of exemplary preventive care. We must guarantee that our health care system will not just fix us when we are sick, but keep us well throughout our lifetimes. We must lay down a marker today to say that reforming our health care system means rejecting our current delivery of ``sick care'' and instead strengthening our ability to provide ``well care'' through preventive medicine. Today's legislation is just one part of that effort, and I look forward to working with other interested Senators to build on this legislation as health care reform moves forward.

Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Specter and others to introduce the Community Choice Act. This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and full involvement in community activities.

The individuals affected by the Community Choice Act are those persons who require an institutional level of care to manage their disabilities. The question is whether they will receive these services only in an institutional setting--typically, a nursing home--or whether they will also have the choice to receive these services in their communities, where they can be part of community life and close to family and friends.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 1999, individuals with disabilities have the right to choose to receive their long-term services and supports in the community, rather than in an institutional setting. This year marks the 10-year anniversary of the Olmstead decision.

Unfortunately, under current Medicaid policy, and despite much effort to ``rebalance'' the system, the deck is still stacked in favor of living in an institutional setting. The reason for this is simple. Despite the Olmstead decision, Federal law only requires that States cover nursing home care in their Medicaid programs. There is no similar requirement for providing individuals the choice of receiving their services and supports in a community-based setting.

Overall about 60 percent of Medicaid long-term care dollars are still spent on institutional services, with about 40 percent going to home and community-based services. In 2007, only 11 States spent 50 percent or more of their Medicaid long-term care funds on home and community- based care.

The statistics are even more disproportionate for adults with physical disabilities. In 2007, 69 percent of Medicaid long-term care spending for older people and adults with physical disabilities paid for institutional services. Only 6 States spent 50 percent or more of their Medicaid long-term care dollars on home and community-based services for older people and adults with physical disabilities, while half of the States spent less than 25 percent. This disparity continues even though, on average, it is estimated that Medicaid dollars can support nearly three older people and adults with physical disabilities in home and community-based services for every person in a nursing home.

Although 30 States have already recognized the benefits of community- based services, and are providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid program, these programs are unevenly distributed and only reach a small percentage of eligible individuals. Many of these programs serve only persons with certain disabilities. They have long waiting lists. They have financial caps. None of them allow the recipients to retain their benefits if they move to other States. Individuals with the most significant disabilities are usually afforded the least amount of choice, despite advances in medical and assistive technologies and related areas.

This current imbalance means that individuals with disabilities do not have equal access to community-based care throughout this country. An individual with a disability should not have to move to another State in order to avoid needless segregation. Nor should that individual have to move away from family and friends because the only choice is an institution.

The right to live in the community is too important a right to be left to State discretion. Instead, it should be left to the individual to decide, as the Supreme Court has recognized.

The majority of individuals who use Medicaid long-term services and supports prefer to live in the community, rather than in institutional settings.

I think of my nephew Kelly, who became a paraplegic after an accident while serving in the U.S. Navy. The Veterans Administration pays for his attendant services. This allows Kelly to get up in the morning, go to work, operate his own small business, pay taxes, and be a fully contributing member of our economy and society. This country is rich enough to provide these same opportunities to every American who needs attendant services.

We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead, to level the playing field, and to give eligible individuals equal access to the community-based services and supports they need.

The Community Choice Act is designed to do just that, and to make the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act a reality. It will help rebalance the current Medicaid long-term care system, which spends a disproportionate amount on institutional services.

Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act that Americans with disabilities should have equal opportunity, and the right to fully participate in their communities. No one should have to sacrifice their ability to participate because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.

The Community Choice Act can substantially reform long-term services in this country, consistent with the Olmstead decision, by allowing people with disabilities who need an institutional level of care the choice of receiving their services and supports in their

own communities, rather than in an institution. With appropriate community-based services and supports, we can transform the lives of people with disabilities. They can live with family and friends, not strangers. They can be the neighbor down the street, not the person warehoused down the hall. This is not asking too much. This is the bare minimum that we should demand for every human being.

Community-based services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead independent lives, have jobs, and participate in their communities. Some will become taxpayers, some will get an education, and some will participate in recreational and civic activities. But all will be given a chance to make their own choices and to govern their own lives.

The Community Choice Act will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our workplaces and economy. It will give them better access to the American Dream.

As has been true with all major disability-rights legislation going back to the ADA, this is a strictly bipartisan bill. I urge all my colleagues to come together on this important measure. I especially want to thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue and his commitment to improving access to home and community-based services for people with disabilities. I also thank Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry, Schumer, Stabenow, Dodd, Brown, Sanders, Casey, Tester, Bennet, and Gillibrand for joining me in this important initiative.

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

Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Specter and others to introduce the Community Choice Act. This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and full involvement in community activities.

The individuals affected by the Community Choice Act are those persons who require an institutional level of care to manage their disabilities. The question is whether they will receive these services only in an institutional setting--typically, a nursing home--or whether they will also have the choice to receive these services in their communities, where they can be part of community life and close to family and friends.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 1999, individuals with disabilities have the right to choose to receive their long-term services and supports in the community, rather than in an institutional setting. This year marks the 10-year anniversary of the Olmstead decision.

Unfortunately, under current Medicaid policy, and despite much effort to ``rebalance'' the system, the deck is still stacked in favor of living in an institutional setting. The reason for this is simple. Despite the Olmstead decision, Federal law only requires that States cover nursing home care in their Medicaid programs. There is no similar requirement for providing individuals the choice of receiving their services and supports in a community-based setting.

Overall about 60 percent of Medicaid long-term care dollars are still spent on institutional services, with about 40 percent going to home and community-based services. In 2007, only 11 States spent 50 percent or more of their Medicaid long-term care funds on home and community- based care.

The statistics are even more disproportionate for adults with physical disabilities. In 2007, 69 percent of Medicaid long-term care spending for older people and adults with physical disabilities paid for institutional services. Only 6 States spent 50 percent or more of their Medicaid long-term care dollars on home and community-based services for older people and adults with physical disabilities, while half of the States spent less than 25 percent. This disparity continues even though, on average, it is estimated that Medicaid dollars can support nearly three older people and adults with physical disabilities in home and community-based services for every person in a nursing home.

Although 30 States have already recognized the benefits of community- based services, and are providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid program, these programs are unevenly distributed and only reach a small percentage of eligible individuals. Many of these programs serve only persons with certain disabilities. They have long waiting lists. They have financial caps. None of them allow the recipients to retain their benefits if they move to other States. Individuals with the most significant disabilities are usually afforded the least amount of choice, despite advances in medical and assistive technologies and related areas.

This current imbalance means that individuals with disabilities do not have equal access to community-based care throughout this country. An individual with a disability should not have to move to another State in order to avoid needless segregation. Nor should that individual have to move away from family and friends because the only choice is an institution.

The right to live in the community is too important a right to be left to State discretion. Instead, it should be left to the individual to decide, as the Supreme Court has recognized.

The majority of individuals who use Medicaid long-term services and supports prefer to live in the community, rather than in institutional settings.

I think of my nephew Kelly, who became a paraplegic after an accident while serving in the U.S. Navy. The Veterans Administration pays for his attendant services. This allows Kelly to get up in the morning, go to work, operate his own small business, pay taxes, and be a fully contributing member of our economy and society. This country is rich enough to provide these same opportunities to every American who needs attendant services.

We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead, to level the playing field, and to give eligible individuals equal access to the community-based services and supports they need.

The Community Choice Act is designed to do just that, and to make the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act a reality. It will help rebalance the current Medicaid long-term care system, which spends a disproportionate amount on institutional services.

Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act that Americans with disabilities should have equal opportunity, and the right to fully participate in their communities. No one should have to sacrifice their ability to participate because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.

The Community Choice Act can substantially reform long-term services in this country, consistent with the Olmstead decision, by allowing people with disabilities who need an institutional level of care the choice of receiving their services and supports in their

own communities, rather than in an institution. With appropriate community-based services and supports, we can transform the lives of people with disabilities. They can live with family and friends, not strangers. They can be the neighbor down the street, not the person warehoused down the hall. This is not asking too much. This is the bare minimum that we should demand for every human being.

Community-based services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead independent lives, have jobs, and participate in their communities. Some will become taxpayers, some will get an education, and some will participate in recreational and civic activities. But all will be given a chance to make their own choices and to govern their own lives.

The Community Choice Act will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our workplaces and economy. It will give them better access to the American Dream.

As has been true with all major disability-rights legislation going back to the ADA, this is a strictly bipartisan bill. I urge all my colleagues to come together on this important measure. I especially want to thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue and his commitment to improving access to home and community-based services for people with disabilities. I also thank Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry, Schumer, Stabenow, Dodd, Brown, Sanders, Casey, Tester, Bennet, and Gillibrand for joining me in this important initiative.

Mr. President, 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.

Mr. President, I am sure my office is not the only one that has been flooded with calls, e-mails, and letters expressing anger--righteous anger--as to what happened at AIG. In fact, the person in charge of my mail told me our e-mails on this issue is running higher than anything that has happened in recent history.

Well, I am not just angry and disgusted at AIG, I am, frankly, kind of dumbfounded by how this has all happened. How in the world could AIG decide to pay retention bonuses worth millions of dollars to the very individuals whose reckless practices caused this meltdown on the global financial system? This truly sets a new gold standard for arrogance and being clueless.

Now, to add insult to injury, the CEO of AIG, Edward Liddy, told the House Financial Services Committee this morning that these bonuses were ``distasteful'' but ``necessary'' because of contractual obligations. Mr. Liddy said he asked the bonus recipients to return half of the money. But he rebuffed the demand of 44 Senators, including me, that he renegotiate those contacts and recoup all of the bonus payments.

Now, for the AIG unit specifically responsible for much of the financial difficulties we are in to receive $170 billion in taxpayers' money, and then to give these extraordinary bonuses to people who should have been fired a long time ago, is shameful and inexcusable-- inexcusable--since the Federal Reserve and the Treasury knew about these bonus payments before they went out but did not act aggressively to stop them.

There is a broader context to the public's anger at AIG's misconduct. Bear in mind we are in the longest, deepest, most destructive economic downturn since the Great Depression. We are now losing jobs at a rate of about 650,000 a month. Millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their retirement savings, their pensions, their health insurance, and, yes, their homes.

But Americans look at Wall Street and Washington, and they see business as usual. They see alumni of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup arranging tens of billions in bailouts for their former Wall Street colleagues. They see corporate executives flying to Washington in expensive corporate jets to ask for taxpayer bailout money.

At a time when their incomes are stagnant, they see a rapidly rising concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, with the average CEO now making 430 times as much as the average worker. They see these hedge fund hotshots making tens of millions of dollars manipulating markets, while they get paid the minimum wage for doing some of the most difficult, draining work imaginable.

They see corporate executives getting gold-plated pensions worth tens of millions of dollars, while, in some cases, the very same corporation is slashing pensions for their rank-and-file employees.

Hard-working, ordinary Americans see these harsh realities and--with good reason--they get the idea there is one set of rules for the little people and a very different set of rules for the privileged and the well-connected and the wealthy. Call it the Leona Helmsley rule.

For instance, look at the double standard for key people at AIG. The Federal Government required union workers at GM and Chrysler--some making as little as $14 an hour--to renegotiate their contracts and accept lower compensation as a condition for their employers getting taxpayer bailout money. But the compensation contracts at AIG are held up as somehow sacrosanct and untouchable. Well, this is complete nonsense. Why shouldn't multimillionaire employees at AIG be treated the same as line workers at GM or Chrysler? Why shouldn't they have been required in the first instance to renegotiate their compensation contracts, as well, before we gave AIG all that money? To me, it is a matter of basic fairness and equity.

So the anger of the American people at AIG must be seen in this broader context. Hard-working Americans are sick and tired of playing by the rules and falling further and further behind, while the privileged and the well connected break the rules and get richer and richer.

That is why the misconduct at AIG--these lavish bonus payouts to people who deserve to be fired--must not be tolerated. It is time for a measure of fairness and common sense.

Mr. President, 73 AIG employees were paid bonuses of $1 million or more, and 7 in excess of $4 million. Now we find that a number of these people who got these bonuses already left the company. We were told before the reason for the bonuses was to retain people. Well, we see a lot of these people have already left. So now the reason is because of a contractual--a contractual--obligation.

Well, even if an AIG executive had a contractual claim to a multi million bonus, one would think that contract has been abrogated. It has been a few years since I have been in law school, but I do remember a few things from contracts. Contracts can be abrogated.

For example, Mr. President, if you and I have a contract, and one party does not perform, the contract is abrogated. Contracts also can be abrogated by bankruptcy. We know that. If we have a contract, and one party goes bankrupt, the contract can be abrogated.

Well, let's look at it from those two standpoints.

Nonperformance: Well, it is funny. We have been told about these contracts, but has anyone ever seen one? I am talking about the contracts AIG had with the people who were getting the bonuses. They say they had a contractual obligation. I would like to see one of those contracts. What did it say?

Well, to listen to Mr. Liddy, evidently all the contract said is, if you are alive at a certain date you get a bonus. Now, I say to the Presiding Officer, you know as well as I do, bonus contracts are not made that way. Bonus agreements are made on the basis of performance. Surely, AIG did not make a contract with one of their employees that said: No matter what you do, no matter how much money you lose for this company, no matter the circumstances, we are going to give you a bonus. No one believes that.

So, herewith, I call upon Mr. Liddy to show us the contracts. Let us see them. Let us see the contract that AIG had with all those people who got bonuses. I would like to see what it says. I would like to see if it just says: If you are alive on a certain date, you get the bonus no matter what you do.

I do not think it said that. I think those contracts said: If you do certain things, you get a bonus; or if you are here, we will give you a bonus to retain you; or you have to do certain performances. I would like to see those contracts.

Then I hear people in our own Government, in this administration, talking about the sanctity of contracts. Well, maybe they ought to go to law school--a couple of them--and find out that contracts can be abrogated. They can also be abrogated if they are unconscionable.

Public policy: This goes way back into British common law. But, again, that is a sort of maybe yes, maybe no.

But courts have held contracts to be abrogated if it is in the public good or if it is unconscionable, for example, that these contracts were made. I would say in this case it would be unconscionable for someone who has been in charge of bringing this company down and lost more money than any corporate enterprise in history to receive a bonus payment, especially since it comes from the taxpayers.

Now, it might not be unconscionable if it came from stockholders, shareholders, other equity partners. But when it comes from the taxpayer, I would suggest it is unconscionable in this circumstance. So I do not know who these people are, talking about the sanctity of these contracts, but, obviously, on any one of those three items, surely those contracts cannot be held to be valid.

Now, the only reason these contracts are worth anything at all is because we stepped in and gave them all this money. If we allowed AIG to go bankrupt, these executives would probably not have gotten one cent of bonus. They would not have gotten one cent. So it really is unconscionable they would then take taxpayer money and give these bonuses out.

But, again, I repeat, we need to see these contracts so we can make a judgment as to whether Mr. Liddy is telling the truth. I have gone beyond accepting his word. I want to see the contracts.

Now, again, since AIG seems to have the responsiveness of a mule, it is time to hit them in the head with a 2 by 4. Congress has to step in. And I know the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, has worked on a bill that I support that would reach out and get this money back to our taxpayers. I want to compliment my good friend from New York, the Presiding Officer, right now for doing that because basically that is the way we have to get the money back.

Ideally, I would tax at close to all income above $400,000 not only at AIG but at all other companies that have taken TARP money, bonus or otherwise. State, local and foreign income taxes plus payroll taxes and the federal tax should add up to 100 percent on whatever is over $400,000.

Now, I know Mr. Liddy asked for them to give back half of the money. To me, that is not acceptable. If somebody got $4 million, and they are going to give $2 million back, I am sorry, that is not acceptable. Go tell that to the line workers at GM and Chrysler who was asked to gave up some of their $14 per hour or gave up some of their pension rights and things like that to get the bailout money.

Well, at any rate, I think there are 44 Senators on a letter, if I am not mistaken, now, I say to my friend from New York that says take those bonuses back or we stand ready to recoup those bonus payments, perhaps with an income tax of 91 percent.

I also say there was an amendment that was added to the stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that limited executive pay at bailed out companies to $400,000 annually and voided any contracts providing compensation above that level. The Senator from Missouri was the lead sponsor on that. I was a cosponsor on that amendment. It was accepted on the stimulus bill here in the Senate, and then it went to conference. Then it got dropped. Why did it get dropped? When did it get dropped? Who advocated dropping that in conference? I would like to know the answer to that question.

Now, again, you might say $400,000 annually? Well, that was put in there because that is the salary of the President of the United States. We said nobody working for are TARP receiving company should make over that. You could get $400,000, but nobody over that. But that was put in the stimulus bill, and then it got dropped mysteriously in conference. I ask, why?

Well, again, I say to the Presiding Officer, I think your work on this issue and I hope we act on the concepts we are urging soon; I do not know when, but the sooner the better--that the tax be as close to 100 percent as we can get. But, obviously, we have to minus the State and other income and payroll taxes that might be owed on that sum. That has to be taken out. I understand that. And, ideally, if some lower paid person, a secretary or someone like that, got--you do not want to bother them either. But you want to get at these people who were meddling and moving these credit default swaps and other financial instruments around and ratcheting them up and giving phony valuations to them. These are the people who should not be getting any of the bonus money whatsoever.

I would also like to see the Treasury become a much more aggressive watchdog and defender of the taxpayers' interests. When Wall Street lawyers say that outrageous compensation contracts must be honored-- even under dramatically changed circumstances and even when we know the contracts can be abrogated by certain circumstances such as nonperformance and things such as that--we need Treasury lawyers who will say no, who will push back hard, be creative and tough-minded, doing everything possible to protect the taxpayers' interests.

Likewise, when the lawyers say AIG--which we must say now is the Federal Government because we own 80 percent of it. So when you are talking about AIG, you are talking about the Federal Government and taxpayers. So when Wall Street lawyers and the Treasury lawyers say taxpayers must pay 100 percent of payouts to counterparties on derivatives contracts, we need a Treasury that will do all that they can to say no and who will see to it that those counterparts, including Deutsche Bank and other big banks in Europe, have to take a haircut too. They have to share some of the pain. Again, after all, if we had let AIG go bankrupt, Deutsche Bank would have gotten nothing or very little. Yet to permit them to be made completely whole by the taxpayers of this country is not right.

We need to make it clear to AIG--and, again, we are focused on AIG, but we have to say this to all recipients of taxpayer bailout money that business as usual will not be tolerated. Incompetence, recklessness will not be rewarded. It is an insult and an affront to the American people that will not be allowed to stand. Not just at AIG but everyone else who is getting this so-called TARP money. It is time to be fair, and it is time to let the taxpayers of this country know we are going to stick up for them. We are not going to let this business as usual continue.

Again, I thank the Presiding Officer, for the time but also for his leadership on this issue, in making sure we go after these people and get this money back. I just hope we do it soon. The sooner we do it, the better off we are all going to be.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this past fall our Nation's high school graduation class of 2012 took their first steps into their local high school as freshmen. The best research, based on data from all 50 States, tells us that one third of that class of freshmen will not walk across a stage and receive their diploma with their peers in four years.

The numbers are clear: we face a national high school dropout crisis. Every year, an estimated 1.23 million students drop out of high school. To put that number in perspective, it is equivalent to the entire population of the ninth largest city in the country, Dallas.

The President laid out the crisis we face in his February 24 address to Congress:

``In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a prerequisite.''

``Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation.''

By any measure, my home state of Iowa is a national leader in terms of graduating students in four years. According to Education Week's Diplomas Count, Iowa has the second highest graduation rate in the country, at almost 83 percent for the class of 2005. Iowa should be applauded for continually graduating such a high percentage of its students in spite of the challenges present in many rural and low- income school districts.

Yet such a lofty number masks a pervasive inability to graduate African-American and Latino students on a level equal to their peers. The graduation rate for African-American children in Iowa is 25 points below the overall 4-year rate. The discrepancy between the rate of Latino children graduating in four years and their peers' rate is even higher at 30 percent.

Just as the data on racial and ethnic minorities paints a grim picture, a look into the Nation's graduation rates for students with disabilities shows many students continue to be failed by the system. The most recent data indicates that slightly more than half of all students with disabilities graduated from high school with a regular diploma. Those rates go down when examining different categories of students with disabilities. For instance, only 43 percent of students with emotional disturbances graduate from high school with a regular diploma. Bear in mind that many of these students do not have a learning disability, and with the proper supports and interventions they can achieve at the same levels expected of their peers.

To reiterate, States like Iowa should be lauded for their success in graduating so many of their young people from high school in four years, but we must also hold those states accountable for their success or failure with vulnerable populations, or we are doomed to pay the price, both morally and economically. That is why I was proud to introduce the Every Student Counts Act last September, and why I am here to reintroduce this legislation in the Senate today.

Since I introduced the first Every Student Counts Act, the Department of Education has taken laudable action to implement a 4-year high school graduation rate through regulations issued last October.

However, the Department's action was not enough to address this crisis. The regulation leaves the specifics of the graduation rate goals and growth targets, and how to calculate Adequate Yearly Progress up to the States. In doing so, the Department indicated that it was more appropriate for Congress to define graduation rate goals, growth targets, and adequate yearly progress through statute. The Every Student Counts Act is designed to do just that.

Because if we do not set clear, consistent, and high graduation rate goals, with aggressive and attainable graduation rate growth targets, we risk falling into the same trap of mediocrity and flat graduation rates that have led us to this crisis.

Schools, school districts and States that are not already graduating a high number of students must be required to make annual progress to high graduation rates.

This act sets a graduation rate goal of 90 percent for all students and disadvantaged populations. Schools, districts and States with graduation rates below 90 percent, in the aggregate or for any subgroup, will be required to increase their graduation rates an average of 3 percentage points per year in order to make adequate yearly progress required under the No Child Left Behind Law.

In addition to setting high standards for graduation rates, the Every Student Counts Act will also make graduation rate calculations uniform and accurate. The bill requires that all states calculate their graduation rates in the same manner, allowing for more consistency and transparency. This bill will bring all 50 States together by requiring each State to report both a 4-year graduation rate and a cumulative graduation rate. A cumulative graduation rate will give parents a clear picture of how many students are graduating, while acknowledging that not all children will graduate in four years.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to recognize the work of my colleague in the House, Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, who first sought to address this issue last year and today joins with me in reintroducing the Every Student Counts Act.

I would also like to thank the growing list of organizations representing the interests of children across the country who have signed on to support the Every Student Counts Act. Specifically, I recognize the Alliance for Excellent Education and their President, former Governor of West Virginia Bob Wise, who have been champions in the movement to improve our high schools and turn back the dropout crisis.

We have no more urgent educational challenge than bringing down the dropout rate, especially for minorities and children with disabilities. For reasons we all understand--poverty, poor nutrition, broken homes, disadvantage

childhoods--not all of our students come to school everyday ready to learn. In some cases, it is as though they have been set up to fail. They grow frustrated. They drop out. And, as a result, they face a lifetime of fewer opportunities and lower earnings. Economically, our nation cannot afford to lose one million students each year. Morally, we cannot allow children to continue to fall through the cracks. I believe the Every Student Counts Act puts us on the right track towards turning back the tide of high school dropouts and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this past fall our Nation's high school graduation class of 2012 took their first steps into their local high school as freshmen. The best research, based on data from all 50 States, tells us that one third of that class of freshmen will not walk across a stage and receive their diploma with their peers in four years.

The numbers are clear: we face a national high school dropout crisis. Every year, an estimated 1.23 million students drop out of high school. To put that number in perspective, it is equivalent to the entire population of the ninth largest city in the country, Dallas.

The President laid out the crisis we face in his February 24 address to Congress:

``In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a prerequisite.''

``Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation.''

By any measure, my home state of Iowa is a national leader in terms of graduating students in four years. According to Education Week's Diplomas Count, Iowa has the second highest graduation rate in the country, at almost 83 percent for the class of 2005. Iowa should be applauded for continually graduating such a high percentage of its students in spite of the challenges present in many rural and low- income school districts.

Yet such a lofty number masks a pervasive inability to graduate African-American and Latino students on a level equal to their peers. The graduation rate for African-American children in Iowa is 25 points below the overall 4-year rate. The discrepancy between the rate of Latino children graduating in four years and their peers' rate is even higher at 30 percent.

Just as the data on racial and ethnic minorities paints a grim picture, a look into the Nation's graduation rates for students with disabilities shows many students continue to be failed by the system. The most recent data indicates that slightly more than half of all students with disabilities graduated from high school with a regular diploma. Those rates go down when examining different categories of students with disabilities. For instance, only 43 percent of students with emotional disturbances graduate from high school with a regular diploma. Bear in mind that many of these students do not have a learning disability, and with the proper supports and interventions they can achieve at the same levels expected of their peers.

To reiterate, States like Iowa should be lauded for their success in graduating so many of their young people from high school in four years, but we must also hold those states accountable for their success or failure with vulnerable populations, or we are doomed to pay the price, both morally and economically. That is why I was proud to introduce the Every Student Counts Act last September, and why I am here to reintroduce this legislation in the Senate today.

Since I introduced the first Every Student Counts Act, the Department of Education has taken laudable action to implement a 4-year high school graduation rate through regulations issued last October.

However, the Department's action was not enough to address this crisis. The regulation leaves the specifics of the graduation rate goals and growth targets, and how to calculate Adequate Yearly Progress up to the States. In doing so, the Department indicated that it was more appropriate for Congress to define graduation rate goals, growth targets, and adequate yearly progress through statute. The Every Student Counts Act is designed to do just that.

Because if we do not set clear, consistent, and high graduation rate goals, with aggressive and attainable graduation rate growth targets, we risk falling into the same trap of mediocrity and flat graduation rates that have led us to this crisis.

Schools, school districts and States that are not already graduating a high number of students must be required to make annual progress to high graduation rates.

This act sets a graduation rate goal of 90 percent for all students and disadvantaged populations. Schools, districts and States with graduation rates below 90 percent, in the aggregate or for any subgroup, will be required to increase their graduation rates an average of 3 percentage points per year in order to make adequate yearly progress required under the No Child Left Behind Law.

In addition to setting high standards for graduation rates, the Every Student Counts Act will also make graduation rate calculations uniform and accurate. The bill requires that all states calculate their graduation rates in the same manner, allowing for more consistency and transparency. This bill will bring all 50 States together by requiring each State to report both a 4-year graduation rate and a cumulative graduation rate. A cumulative graduation rate will give parents a clear picture of how many students are graduating, while acknowledging that not all children will graduate in four years.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to recognize the work of my colleague in the House, Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, who first sought to address this issue last year and today joins with me in reintroducing the Every Student Counts Act.

I would also like to thank the growing list of organizations representing the interests of children across the country who have signed on to support the Every Student Counts Act. Specifically, I recognize the Alliance for Excellent Education and their President, former Governor of West Virginia Bob Wise, who have been champions in the movement to improve our high schools and turn back the dropout crisis.

We have no more urgent educational challenge than bringing down the dropout rate, especially for minorities and children with disabilities. For reasons we all understand--poverty, poor nutrition, broken homes, disadvantage

childhoods--not all of our students come to school everyday ready to learn. In some cases, it is as though they have been set up to fail. They grow frustrated. They drop out. And, as a result, they face a lifetime of fewer opportunities and lower earnings. Economically, our nation cannot afford to lose one million students each year. Morally, we cannot allow children to continue to fall through the cracks. I believe the Every Student Counts Act puts us on the right track towards turning back the tide of high school dropouts and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, when the reauthorization of the Ryan White legislation came through, the best scientists who testified before us said there were about 40,000 new cases of HIV in the United States. In 2007, just after the reauthorization passed, the number was more like 56,000.

Between 2004 and 2007, we saw a 15-percent increase in HIV diagnoses. So we put this formula in without knowing this information. Some of the cities, such as San Francisco and New York--I know Senator Dodd told me about a couple cities in Connecticut that will get up to a 25-percent cut in Ryan White.

What we did was we put in this bill a $35 million increase for Ryan White. Mr. President, $25 million goes for the Enzi formula. About $10.8 million goes to help hold harmless those largest cities that will be facing a 25-percent cut. We cannot afford to have these cities take that 25-percent cut.

If we want to go after the HIV/AIDS, we have to go where the people are diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. That is what this bill does.

I urge the defeat of the Enzi amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Medical Device Safety Act. This legislation reverses the Supreme Court's erroneous decision in Riegel v. Medtronic. There, the Court misread a statute designed to protect consumers by giving the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the authority to approve medical devices as preempting State tort claims when a medical device causes harm. Riegel prevents consumers from receiving fair compensation for injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred and lost wages, and it must be reversed.

Congressional action should be unnecessary. When Congress passed the Medical Device Amendments, or MDA, in 1976, it did so ``[t]o provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use.'' In other words, Congress passed the MDA precisely to protect consumers from dangerous medical devices. Towards that end, Congress gave the FDA the authority to approve, prior to a product entering the market, certain medical devices. For over 30 years the MDA has been in effect, and over that period FDA regulation and tort liability have complimented each other in protecting consumers.

Given the MDA's purpose, and the fact it has operated successfully for 30 years, I was disheartened to find the Court twist the meaning of the statute to strip from consumers all remedies when a medical device fails. In contorted logic, the Court found that the FDA's requirements in approving a medical device preempted State laws designed to ensure that manufacturers marketed safe devices. In other words, the Court believes that a company's responsibility to its patients ends when it receives FDA approval. I strenuously disagree.

In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that Congress intended that under the MDA consumers would lose their only avenue for receiving compensation for injuries caused by negligent or inadequately labeled devices. Not a single Member or committee report articulated the view that the statute would preempt State tort law.

Nevertheless, because of the Court's decision, it is imperative that Congress act to ensure that those harmed by flawed medical devices can seek compensation. The bill introduced today addresses the Court's action by explicitly stating that actions for damages under State law are preserved. Specifically, it amends section 521 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to state that the section shall not be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action for damages or the liability of any person under the law of any State. And the bill applies retroactively to the date of the enactment of the MDA, consistent with Congress's intent when it passed that act over 30 years ago. Practically, that means that it applies to cases pending on the date of enactment of this legislation or claims for injuries sustained prior to enactment.

The harm from Riegel, unless Congress acts, cannot be more real. In the year since Riegel was decided alone, courts across the country have dismissed product liability claims. Take Charles Riegel. During an angioplasty, a catheter burst and caused him serious injuries and disabilities, and a State jury found Medtronic negligent. Because of the Supreme Court's decision, however, Mr. Riegel's wife will receive no compensation for the defective design and inadequate warning. Take Gary Despain. A defective hearing aid caused severe damage to his right ear, and he became disabled and unemployed. Because of the Supreme Court's decision, Mr. Despain has no ability to see remedies for his injuries.

Recently, a court dismissed the claims of almost 1,500 patients who brought suit arising from Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis defibrillator-- specific models of thin wires that connect an implantable cardiac- defibrillator directly to the heart. In October 2007, the product was recalled after lead fractured in several cases and was thought to contribute to deaths and serious injuries. Again, because of the Court's ruling, injured plaintiffs have no recourse against the company that caused the harm.

While FDA approval of medical devices, moreover, is important, it cannot be the sole protection for consumers. FDA approval is simply inadequate to replace the longstanding safety incentives and consumer protections State tort law provides.

As a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, which has oversight over FDA, I have worked hard to ensure that the FDA performs its job. No matter how effective the FDA is, however, the FDA simply cannot guarantee that no defective, dangerous, and deadly medical device will reach consumers. As the former Director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health acknowledged, the FDA's ``system of approving devices isn't perfect, and that unexpected problems [with approved devices] do arise.'' In 1993, a House report identified a ``number of cases in which the FDA [had] approved devices that proved unsafe in use.''

The fact is, the FDA conducts the approval process with minimal resources and simply does not have adequate funds to genuinely ensure that devices are safe or to properly and effectively reevaluate approvals as new information is available.

Further, the FDA approval process is based on partial information. A principal shortcoming is that the device's manufacturer compiles the studies and data supporting an application, and the data is often unreliable. And the FDA does not conduct independent investigations into a device's safety. A manufacturer, moreover, is not required to submit information about development of the device, including alternative designs, manufacturing methods, and labeling possibilities that the manufacturer considered but rejected.

In 1993, an FDA committee found flaws in the design, conduct, and analysis of the clinical studies used to support applications that were ``sufficiently serious to impede the agency's ability to make the necessary judgments about [device] safety and effectiveness.'' It added, ``[o]ne of the main reasons [problems arise after approval] is that the data upon which we base our safety and effectiveness decisions isn't perfect.'' Likewise, in 1996, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services reported ``serious deficiencies . . . in the clinical data submitted as part of pre-market applications.''

Moreover, there is very little FDA oversight once a device reaches doctors

and patients. In fact, even the best designed and most reliable clinical studies by their very nature cannot duplicate all aspects and hazards of everyday use. Moreover, while manufacturers are supposed to report defects and injuries, the FDA has admitted that there is ``severe underreporting'' of defects and injuries.

Given the FDA's limitations, it is crucial that an individual have a right to seek redress. When defective medical devices reach the market, whether or not approved by the FDA, patients are often injured. Those injured are often left temporarily unable to work or to enjoy normal lives, and in many cases never fully recover. State tort law provides the only relief for patients injured by defective medical devices and should not be foreclosed.

Not only does access to State court mean that a person injured can receive fair compensation, but there are other advantages. Such suits aid in exposing dangers and serve as a catalyst to address their consequences. Through discovery, litigation can help uncover previously unavailable information on adverse effects of products that might not have been caught during the regulatory system. Litigants can demand documents and information on product risks that might not have been shared with the FDA. In this way, the public as a whole is alerted to dangers in medical products.

Finally, providing the ability to sue when injured provides an important incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care. Additionally, threat of product liability suits creates continuing incentives for product manufacturers to improve the safety of their device, even after FDA approval.

As the Supreme Court recognized this week, in Wyeth v. Levine, in holding that failure to warn claims involving FDA approved drugs are not preempted, ``[s]tate tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly. They also serve a distinct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward with information.'' The Court continued, ``the FDA has long maintained that state law offers an additional, and important, layer of consumer protection that complements FDA regulation.''

The same consumer protection that State courts provide which the Court recognized as important in the context of faulty drug warnings is equally important for those consumers harmed by faulty medical devices.

In conclusion, sadly the Court fundamentally misread Congress's intent in passing the Medical Device Amendments in 1976, and Reigel appears to represent yet another victory by big business over consumers. That is not, however, the final say on the matter. To quote Chief Justice Roberts, ``every area involving an interpretation of a statute, the final say is not with the Supreme Court, the final say is with Congress. And if they don't like the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, they can change it.''

Make no mistake, moreover, it can be done. Last year, Congress passed and the President signed the ADA Amendments Act, reversing decisions in which the Court consistently misconstrued the will of Congress and held that the ADA does not protect many people with serious disabilities from discrimination. This year, we were successful in reversing the Court's draconian Lilly Ledbetter decision, making clear that those discriminated against do have a recourse in law.

Those injured by faulty medical devices deserve to have their day in court and are entitled to compensation when they are injured by faulty medical devices, have medical expenses to pay and lost wages, regardless of whether the FDA approved a device. We must reverse this erroneous decision and ensure that those who have suffered serious injury at the hands of others receive justice.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Medical Device Safety Act. This legislation reverses the Supreme Court's erroneous decision in Riegel v. Medtronic. There, the Court misread a statute designed to protect consumers by giving the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the authority to approve medical devices as preempting State tort claims when a medical device causes harm. Riegel prevents consumers from receiving fair compensation for injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred and lost wages, and it must be reversed.

Congressional action should be unnecessary. When Congress passed the Medical Device Amendments, or MDA, in 1976, it did so ``[t]o provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use.'' In other words, Congress passed the MDA precisely to protect consumers from dangerous medical devices. Towards that end, Congress gave the FDA the authority to approve, prior to a product entering the market, certain medical devices. For over 30 years the MDA has been in effect, and over that period FDA regulation and tort liability have complimented each other in protecting consumers.

Given the MDA's purpose, and the fact it has operated successfully for 30 years, I was disheartened to find the Court twist the meaning of the statute to strip from consumers all remedies when a medical device fails. In contorted logic, the Court found that the FDA's requirements in approving a medical device preempted State laws designed to ensure that manufacturers marketed safe devices. In other words, the Court believes that a company's responsibility to its patients ends when it receives FDA approval. I strenuously disagree.

In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that Congress intended that under the MDA consumers would lose their only avenue for receiving compensation for injuries caused by negligent or inadequately labeled devices. Not a single Member or committee report articulated the view that the statute would preempt State tort law.

Nevertheless, because of the Court's decision, it is imperative that Congress act to ensure that those harmed by flawed medical devices can seek compensation. The bill introduced today addresses the Court's action by explicitly stating that actions for damages under State law are preserved. Specifically, it amends section 521 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to state that the section shall not be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action for damages or the liability of any person under the law of any State. And the bill applies retroactively to the date of the enactment of the MDA, consistent with Congress's intent when it passed that act over 30 years ago. Practically, that means that it applies to cases pending on the date of enactment of this legislation or claims for injuries sustained prior to enactment.

The harm from Riegel, unless Congress acts, cannot be more real. In the year since Riegel was decided alone, courts across the country have dismissed product liability claims. Take Charles Riegel. During an angioplasty, a catheter burst and caused him serious injuries and disabilities, and a State jury found Medtronic negligent. Because of the Supreme Court's decision, however, Mr. Riegel's wife will receive no compensation for the defective design and inadequate warning. Take Gary Despain. A defective hearing aid caused severe damage to his right ear, and he became disabled and unemployed. Because of the Supreme Court's decision, Mr. Despain has no ability to see remedies for his injuries.

Recently, a court dismissed the claims of almost 1,500 patients who brought suit arising from Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis defibrillator-- specific models of thin wires that connect an implantable cardiac- defibrillator directly to the heart. In October 2007, the product was recalled after lead fractured in several cases and was thought to contribute to deaths and serious injuries. Again, because of the Court's ruling, injured plaintiffs have no recourse against the company that caused the harm.

While FDA approval of medical devices, moreover, is important, it cannot be the sole protection for consumers. FDA approval is simply inadequate to replace the longstanding safety incentives and consumer protections State tort law provides.

As a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, which has oversight over FDA, I have worked hard to ensure that the FDA performs its job. No matter how effective the FDA is, however, the FDA simply cannot guarantee that no defective, dangerous, and deadly medical device will reach consumers. As the former Director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health acknowledged, the FDA's ``system of approving devices isn't perfect, and that unexpected problems [with approved devices] do arise.'' In 1993, a House report identified a ``number of cases in which the FDA [had] approved devices that proved unsafe in use.''

The fact is, the FDA conducts the approval process with minimal resources and simply does not have adequate funds to genuinely ensure that devices are safe or to properly and effectively reevaluate approvals as new information is available.

Further, the FDA approval process is based on partial information. A principal shortcoming is that the device's manufacturer compiles the studies and data supporting an application, and the data is often unreliable. And the FDA does not conduct independent investigations into a device's safety. A manufacturer, moreover, is not required to submit information about development of the device, including alternative designs, manufacturing methods, and labeling possibilities that the manufacturer considered but rejected.

In 1993, an FDA committee found flaws in the design, conduct, and analysis of the clinical studies used to support applications that were ``sufficiently serious to impede the agency's ability to make the necessary judgments about [device] safety and effectiveness.'' It added, ``[o]ne of the main reasons [problems arise after approval] is that the data upon which we base our safety and effectiveness decisions isn't perfect.'' Likewise, in 1996, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services reported ``serious deficiencies . . . in the clinical data submitted as part of pre-market applications.''

Moreover, there is very little FDA oversight once a device reaches doctors

and patients. In fact, even the best designed and most reliable clinical studies by their very nature cannot duplicate all aspects and hazards of everyday use. Moreover, while manufacturers are supposed to report defects and injuries, the FDA has admitted that there is ``severe underreporting'' of defects and injuries.

Given the FDA's limitations, it is crucial that an individual have a right to seek redress. When defective medical devices reach the market, whether or not approved by the FDA, patients are often injured. Those injured are often left temporarily unable to work or to enjoy normal lives, and in many cases never fully recover. State tort law provides the only relief for patients injured by defective medical devices and should not be foreclosed.

Not only does access to State court mean that a person injured can receive fair compensation, but there are other advantages. Such suits aid in exposing dangers and serve as a catalyst to address their consequences. Through discovery, litigation can help uncover previously unavailable information on adverse effects of products that might not have been caught during the regulatory system. Litigants can demand documents and information on product risks that might not have been shared with the FDA. In this way, the public as a whole is alerted to dangers in medical products.

Finally, providing the ability to sue when injured provides an important incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care. Additionally, threat of product liability suits creates continuing incentives for product manufacturers to improve the safety of their device, even after FDA approval.

As the Supreme Court recognized this week, in Wyeth v. Levine, in holding that failure to warn claims involving FDA approved drugs are not preempted, ``[s]tate tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly. They also serve a distinct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward with information.'' The Court continued, ``the FDA has long maintained that state law offers an additional, and important, layer of consumer protection that complements FDA regulation.''

The same consumer protection that State courts provide which the Court recognized as important in the context of faulty drug warnings is equally important for those consumers harmed by faulty medical devices.

In conclusion, sadly the Court fundamentally misread Congress's intent in passing the Medical Device Amendments in 1976, and Reigel appears to represent yet another victory by big business over consumers. That is not, however, the final say on the matter. To quote Chief Justice Roberts, ``every area involving an interpretation of a statute, the final say is not with the Supreme Court, the final say is with Congress. And if they don't like the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, they can change it.''

Make no mistake, moreover, it can be done. Last year, Congress passed and the President signed the ADA Amendments Act, reversing decisions in which the Court consistently misconstrued the will of Congress and held that the ADA does not protect many people with serious disabilities from discrimination. This year, we were successful in reversing the Court's draconian Lilly Ledbetter decision, making clear that those discriminated against do have a recourse in law.

Those injured by faulty medical devices deserve to have their day in court and are entitled to compensation when they are injured by faulty medical devices, have medical expenses to pay and lost wages, regardless of whether the FDA approved a device. We must reverse this erroneous decision and ensure that those who have suffered serious injury at the hands of others receive justice.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to an amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, who singles out two instances of congressionally directed funding that were included in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill under my name. The Senator has claimed that these earmarks are inappropriate or wasteful and should be removed from the bill. One provides $5.7 million for competitive school modernization grants in my State of Iowa. The other provides $1.8 million for national research into swine odor and manure management at the Soil Tilth Laboratory in Ames, Iowa.

At the outset, as a constitutional matter, I first take issue with the premise underlying the amendment of the Senator, the idea that Congress has no business directing the expenditure of Federal moneys through congressionally directed funding; that somehow there is something inherently wrong or evil in this practice and that only the executive branch should determine the details of where moneys are to be spent. This stands the Constitution on its head. Article I, section 9, expressly gives Congress the power of the purse, both to collect moneys--levy taxes--and to direct where that money is to go. I would say that the Executive, the President of the United States, does not have the constitutional authority to spend one single dime of our taxpayers' money. That authority has been given to the President, the executive branch, over the last 200 years by the Congress, but there is no constitutional basis for the President spending any money. So, therefore, that is inherently a constitutional function of the Congress. At any moment, at any time, if we want to, we can pass legislation taking all that money back here and saying the President cannot spend a dime unless we say so. We do not want to do that, obviously. But we could. We would be in our constitutional right to do so. So there is not something inherently wrong with Congress directing funding. In fact, I would say it is more appropriate for Congress to do that than for the President.

It is an odd practice--if the President requests it in the budget, it is not an earmark, but if we put it in, it is an earmark.

Someone please tell me the logic of that. So, again, I basically disagree with sort of the underlying premise that somehow executive branch employees, all those bureaucrats, have a much better understanding of where and how Federal funds should be spent most effectively in our States and in our districts.

Now, again, over the years we have permitted that to happen, but we, through our oversight functions, can look at how that money is being spent, and through our congressionally directed funding can decide how some of that is spent. So it is not a constitutional issue. It is not a constitutional issue, at least as far as Congress goes, as far as directing where spending should be made.

But I want to talk about these two earmarks mentioned, both of which address significant needs both nationally and in my State of Iowa. I will talk about the second earmark, funding research into swine odor and manure management later in my remarks.

I want to say at the outset, I am proud of both of those earmarks or congressionally directed spending, and I stand behind them. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma's attempt to strike them from the bill is extremely shortsighted and misguided, quite frankly.

So let me spend a few minutes discussing why I included these items in the bill. Let me start first with the $5.7 million for competitive school modernization grants. For years I have argued that the genius of our education system in America is its diversity; local school districts deciding what is taught, what books to buy, what teachers to hire, how to run their schools. We do not have, as some other countries have, a top-down structure where the central government decides exactly what is to be taught, how it is to be taught, and everybody gets the same thing. I have been to those countries. A lot of them tout their educational system. But, quite frankly, it does not have the kind of creativity and diversity and spontaneity that our diversified education has in this country. So that is the genius of the American system of education.

The failure of the American education system is how we pay for it. I wish someone would show me somewhere in the Constitution where it says that elementary and secondary education in America is to be paid for by property taxes. You will look and you will not find it anywhere in the Constitution. So why do we do it that way?

Well, I delved into the history of this, and it kind of goes like this: In the early days of the founding of our country, before we were a nation, in the Colonies, people wanted to have a free public education. Well, it was free for white males at that time, but, nonetheless, free. But since we had no taxing system other than tariffs and property taxes, that was the only way they could pay for it. So tariffs and property taxes became the support mechanism for local schools in the Colonies, and that kind of continued on. It continued on. The tariffs went by the wayside, so then it became a property tax- based function for paying for elementary and secondary schools in America. The first time the Federal Government ever got involved in education in any way whatsoever was in 1864 with Morrill, the bill that Lincoln signed for setting up land grant colleges and universities. That was the first time, and that was only higher education. That was higher education.

The next time the Federal Government got involved in education was almost 100 years later. It was after World War II when we set up the GI bill to pay for our young veterans to go to college, and then that was higher education.

Then we had the Eisenhower program, the National Defense Student Loan Program in the 1950s. Again, higher education. The first time the Federal Government ever got involved in elementary and secondary education was title I, providing some Federal help to low-income schools to try to help right this imbalance out there.

Then we had the Education of the Handicapped Children's Act, which later became IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. So the Federal Government has not been involved--well, unless you want to take the School Lunch Program. The School Lunch Program and breakfast came along later, but the School Lunch Program, which came in after World War II as a feeding program, not as an educational program. I forgot to mention that.

So the Federal Government's involvement in elementary and secondary education has been as of late and very small, only title I, and basically IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Jonathan Kozol wrote a book in the eighties called ``Savage Inequality,'' and this was the savage inequality: What he talked about is how he traveled around America and how he found there were some great schools and great facilities in one place, and very bad schools with bad facilities in another place. He asked the question why. Why is this? Well, it was because if you happened to be born and raised in Fairfax County, for example, where there is a high income level and very high property taxes, you get great schools. If you are born and raised in Bedford-Stuyvesant, or in inner city south Los Angeles, or in some rural areas of Iowa or Missouri or Oklahoma, Kansas, chances are you got very low property taxes and you got poor schools.

So he asked the question, and then I asked the question: Why should where you are born, the circumstances of your birth and where you are raised, why should that be determinative of the quality of the physical school you have? Why should that determine it? That is the savage inequality of our educational system.

Well, I began thinking about this some years ago on how we would kind of right this system, how we would tend to solve this imbalance, on the one hand by not interfering with the genius of the American school system, which is, who is hired and who is fired, who teaches, what they teach, the textbooks, all that, how do we not interfere with that, but at the same time try to balance these savage inequalities.

Then one day it occurred to me. I was walking out of my office one day. This is many years ago, back in the late eighties. And I have on my wall, right by the door that goes out of my office, a framed piece of paper. It is a little orange card. It has always been there. I have always kept it there to remind me of something. It is my father's WPA card, when he worked on the WPA in the 1930s.

It occurred to me that when I was a teenager, my father took me to visit Lake Ahquabi, which is a lake south of Des Moines, which is now still being used as a recreational lake. They built that; still being used today.

He took me to visit a high school, Cornerstone, WPA, 1940, that he had worked on; still being used today. I dare say there are schools all over America that are still being used, built by the WPA. Finally it occurred to me that perhaps one role the Federal Government could take in helping to balance these savage inequalities of rich areas versus poor areas in terms of the quality of the school facilities is to be involved in modernizing and building new schools and getting the technology into these schools. That way you do not interfere with who is hired, who is fired, what is taught, what textbooks to buy. You are only helping to build new schools. We did that in the 1930s and we have been using a lot of these schools ever since.

So I might add, as an aside, that when I sought the nomination of my party for President in 1991 and 1992, this was one of my platforms. I talked about the need to invest in the infrastructure. I called it the blueprint for America. On my document I had a picture of a blueprint. Part of it was building and remodernizing schools through the Federal taxing system, rather than relying on property taxes.

Well, I didn't win the Presidency, obviously, but I continued in that endeavor. I could not quite get it through, although we did have 1 year finally we got it through. In 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, we got $1 billion for a national program of modernizing and helping to modernize schools. That was reduced down to about $800 million. It went out 1 year. The next year President Bush came in and the program got ended. So we did have 1 year of it and, quite frankly, that 1 year, that money went out quite well and did a lot of innovative, good things with schools all over America.

Since I could not get the Federal Government to do this in the broader basis, I decided to see what would happen in my State of Iowa if we started doing this, what would happen, how would this work. So since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure funding for my State's schools in this regard.

The actual allocations are funds are not made by me, they are made by the Iowa Department of Education, which undertakes a grant competition to select the most worthy and needy school districts that receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts. There are kinds of pots. One pot is for fire and safety, which requires no match. The other is for building and renovation which does require a local match.

Now, I might say that since 1998 this Federal funding has leveraged public and private funding so the dollars that have gone out there have multiplied tremendously. I think my colleague called the funding unfair and wrong. He believes it is unfair that Iowa's schools receive funding while children elsewhere in the United States are forced to learn in antiquated, crumbling school buildings.

Well, I agree with my friend from Oklahoma. He is correct in one respect. There is indeed a persistent and unfair disparity in the quality of schools across the country, the savage inequalities, I just mentioned. Jonathan Kozol wrote the book about it in the 1980s.

In fact, for the last several years, local spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost twice as high as in our poorest communities.

So I ask the question again, why should the circumstances of your birth, where you are born and where you are raised, determine the quality of the school you go to? Why should it? So we tried to alleviate this imbalance. Sure, you want every State in the Nation to have this. As I said to my friend from Oklahoma, he may not have heard this, in this year 2000, we did get it through for every State. But that was only 1 year, and then in 2001 the Bush administration came in and stopped it. But in that 1 year, it did go out.

Now, again, and most recently in the stimulus bill, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we did in the Senate put in $16 billion for school construction and renovation to go out all over America. I was happy about that. I thought this was something that would put people to work, stimulate the economy and build schools for our kids, get new technology into our schools.

Well, because of opposition on that side, that was stricken from the bill. In the conference it was stricken. So, again, I do not mean to have this only for Iowa, I would love to do this for the entire United States.

So again, if I could not do it there, at least I wanted to see what would happen in the State of Iowa. And I can tell you that over the years, each Federal dollar that has gone into my State for this has leveraged an additional $5-plus additional from public and private sources.

How does that happen? Well, a lot of times school districts would try to pass a bond issue. They could not pass it to renovate or something, because they are poor people, you know, and this means raising property taxes. We have a lot of elderly in Iowa. Raising property taxes is hard when they are on a fixed income.

So they don't vote for the bond issues. All of a sudden they applied for one of these competitive grants to the

Department of Education in the State of Iowa. The State of Iowa gave them a grant, but they had to match. Guess what happened. They passed the bond issue and built new schools. It has leveraged private involvement, people with businesses, endowments, and even individuals who have come forward to put money into local schools because they had this grant.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record some letters I received. One is from Paula Vincent, superintendent of the Clear Creek Amana School District. She points out that receipt of a school construction grant was instrumental in her district passing a $2.5 million bond referendum to build two new schools. Prior to receiving the grant, her district did not have a history of passing bond referendums for school improvement. Not only did this bond referendum pass on the first vote, but it broke records for voter turnout and has led to additional support for school infrastructure from surrounding communities. She estimates that an initial $100,000 grant led to an additional $28 million in local funding to improve school buildings. That is way over 5 to 1. That may be an anomaly, but that is what she says happened in their area.

I have other letters from individuals on these grants and what it has done.

Rather than trying to deprive the schoolchildren in Iowa of this funding, I encourage the Senator from Oklahoma to extend this program to his own State and to all other States and the District of Columbia. In the coming weeks, I will reintroduce the Public School Repair and Renovation Act, which I have been introducing for some time, which would create a competitive grant program for schools across America to receive funds to repair and renovate school facilities based upon the successful program we have had in Iowa. Were some mistakes made in the beginning? Yes. But the Department of Education, over the last 10 years, has figured out how to do this, how to separate the two pots--one for fire and safety with no match requirements, one for buildings and innovation requiring a match--and then taking in the proposals on a competitive basis and deciding where the money should go. I encourage the Senator from Oklahoma to support this bill. I ask him to be an original cosponsor to get this out to schools all over the country.

Now let me also talk about the $1.8 million I secured in this bill for research into swine odor and manure management. That always brings a smile to everyone's face. David Letterman will be talking about it and Jay Leno will be talking about it, $1.8 million to study why pigs smell. I suppose that is the way they will couch it. We all know how the game is played. Critics will take something such as this with a funny sounding name or purpose, hold it up for ridicule. For some reason, especially outside rural America, the very word ``manure'' seems to be cause for laughter and levity and jokes. In farm country, manure and odor management are profoundly serious challenges that can be mitigated through scientific research. I urge the Senator to visit farms in his own State. Ask his own farmers and neighbors about whether it is worthwhile to conduct research into animal odor and manure management.

If I am not mistaken--and I may be--I believe the attorney general of Oklahoma, a few years ago, brought an action against the neighboring State of Arkansas in terms of some of the effluent coming into Oklahoma and this raised questions of manure management and how it is put on the land and such. That is what this research is about. Some people living in rural America are concerned about livestock agriculture and its environmental impacts. So it makes good sense to fund research that addresses how rural communities and livestock agriculture can coexist.

I wish to point out this item did not originate as a congressionally directed earmark. This research unit of the Agriculture Research Service originated administratively within the U.S. Department of Agriculture to conduct scientific research to address significant challenges facing livestock agriculture. This item is only included as an earmark now because the last Bush budget proposed to terminate a number of ongoing agricultural research projects in order to come in at a lower funding level, knowing full well this needed research would likely be restored by Congress, which is what we are doing. But it didn't originate here in Congress. It originated administratively.

Let me also point out to the Senator from Oklahoma, this is not a project for the State of Iowa. It provides funding for the Agricultural Research Service which is the main in-house research arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The mission of ARS is ``to find solutions to agricultural problems that affect Americans every day from field to table.''

One might say the money is going out to ARS in Iowa. That is because that is where they do the research. If ARS was doing research on peanuts, they would probably be doing it at an ARS research facility in Georgia. If they were doing it on cotton, they would be doing it in Mississippi or someplace not in Iowa. So why are they doing it in Iowa? Because one-fourth of all the hogs in America are produced in my State. We are the No. 1 producer of pork, and we are very proud of it. The pork industry is critical to our State's economy. But as the demand has grown for pork and as we produce more pork, one can understand that the management problems of what to do with the waste has become very serious, not only for the odor problems but for the waste itself.

At any given day, we have 20 million hogs living in Iowa. Think about it, 20 million. A lot of farmers use the the manure from hogs as fertilizer. The Department of Agriculture, soil scientists, and others have encouraged that. But there can be odor problems and other environmental impacts. So that is what this research seeks to resolve. It looks at improving nutrient or feed efficiency in swine. This research would help the livestock industry make better use of co- products from the production of biofuels, which is a growing industry in our State and the Nation. Quite frankly, we can't feed the byproducts to swine like we can cows. They are not a ruminant animal. But this research is looking at how to improve those byproducts for swine--everything from the feed to the byproducts and odor--to improve the quality of life for those who live in rural areas. We have had swine odor and manure management challenges in my State. And not only in Iowa; as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I have visited North Carolina and have witnessed the same issues there too. So how do we alleviate this? How do we make it possible for a very good industry, the swine industry, to meet the demand and at the same time be good neighbors and do it in an environmentally sound way? That is what this money is for. The research doesn't only help Iowa it helps all across the country because it is research conducted by the Agricultural Research Service. They are doing it in Iowa because that is where most of the hogs are. Congress didn't originate it here. It originated with the administration.

A lot of States share the same problem we do with odor and waste problems. I suppose we will hear a lot of jokes on David Letterman and Jay Leno. A lot of other people will be making jokes about this money for manure. Keep in mind, this is not wasteful or unnecessary or frivolous. This is very important to the daily lives of the people of my State and every other place where we raise swine.

I appreciate this opportunity to share with my colleagues my reasons for including these two items in the Omnibus appropriations bill. I stand here and say, unequivocally, I am proud of both of them. I believe the effort to remove them from the bill is misguided. I urge colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I appreciate the engagement by my friend from Oklahoma on this issue. But I will point out, first of all, one little mistake I think the Senator might have made. The research for the ARS for the swine research is well within the authorization the Agriculture Committee provided in the farm bill. It is well within their purview. So it is not outside their purview whatsoever. Again, I say the reason we put it in there: It has been administratively asked for before, but the Bush administration in the last year did not include it because they wanted to cut down their request, knowing full well we would probably fund it, which we have done here. But I just wanted to point that out.

Interestingly, the Senator mentioned article I, section 8, of the Constitution. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, I would point out, is very clear:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,

Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for

the Defense and general Welfare of the United

States. . .;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;. . . .

Et cetera, et cetera.

Well, Congress--Congress, it says--has the power and authority to provide for the general welfare and to borrow money. I do not like to borrow money more than anyone else. But the Senator from Oklahoma said something about: Well, the money we are using to build these schools is borrowing from our grandchildren. I cannot think of a better thing to borrow from our grandchildren than to build better schools. As I pointed out, my father worked on WPA. I have his WPA card hanging on the wall of my office. They built schools all over America, schools which we are still using today. In fact, one of the Iowa Department of Education grants went to a middle school--it used to be a high school-- it is a middle school that was built by WPA and had been in such disrepair, but the building itself was sound. They just had an old heating plant. Kids were getting sick. It was cold and drafty in the wintertime. They got a grant. They came in. They put in a new geothermal heating system. They put in double-paned windows. Here is a school built by WPA in 1939 and, with just a little bit more money, today is going to be used for another 50 more years for kids. So I say, if we are going to borrow from our grandchildren, let's build them better schools so the kids today will be better educated and will make more money and so our grandchildren will be better off.

Lastly, my friend from Oklahoma says that better buildings do not lead to better schools. He said: You could learn in Quonset huts, you could have a better education in a Quonset hut, I guess, than in some of our better schools. Well, I do not know how to respond to that. If you have a Quonset hut, are you going to have the up-to-date, latest technology in terms of the Internet? Probably not. Are you going to have up-to-date technology in terms of a science lab? Probably not. Physics lab? Probably not. Biology lab? Probably not. So what kind of education are you going to get in that Quonset hut? If we are sending our kids to school in Quonset huts, what are we telling them about how we value education? I daresay the nicest things that our kids should see in their daily lives ought to be where they go to school. They ought to be the brightest, the best lit, the best built, with the latest technology, with the best teachers and the best material. Then we are saying to our kids: Here is what we value.

So I could not disagree more with my friend from Oklahoma that kids will learn as well in a Quonset hut as they can in a nice building. All you have to do is look at the test scores of kids from schools that are in areas where they have high property taxes, a lot of wealth. Just look at those test scores and look at the scores of the kids who come from your poverty areas and rural areas. I do not mean just inner city but rural poverty areas. Look at their test scores. That will tell you something right there. Why? They cannot afford to hire the best teachers. They cannot afford to pay more for their teachers. They cannot afford to have the best laboratory and equipment and Internet technology for our kids.

So I could not disagree more with my friend from Oklahoma. I believe one of the most important things we can do in the Federal Government is to provide funds for the building and rebuilding and modernization of our schools all over America. As I said, I am sorry we are not doing it nationwide. We tried, and we will try again. But it is the one way we can help our local property taxpayers, help our kids--not interfere with what they are taught or how they are taught or what teachers they hire or what books they use. Let's take a page from what we did in the 1930s. Let's do it again. Let's build more schools all over America and make them modern and up to date for our kids so our grandkids will have a better life.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sara Crouse and Lauren Gannon from my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I have spoken many times in this Chamber about the promise of stem cell research. For more than a decade, ever since scientists first succeeded in deriving human embryonic stem cells, I have done my utmost to promote this exciting field, which offers so much hope for so many people.

President Obama has promised to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research that were put in place by President Bush, and I hope and expect that he will do so soon. But we have to make sure that the freedom to pursue this research is also protected by Federal law, not merely by an executive order that can be reversed during a future administration.

That is why Senator Specter and I, along with Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Feinstein, are introducing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009. This is the exact same bipartisan bill that both houses of Congress approved in 2007, but was vetoed by President Bush. I urge Congress to pass this law again, and for President Obama to sign it, so our scientists can move forward with this research posthaste, without fear of further political interference.

Let me spend just a moment reviewing what this bill will accomplish. More than 7 years ago, the President announced that federally funded scientists could conduct research on embryonic stem cells only if the cells had been derived before August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m.

I never understood that. Why 9 p.m.? Why not 9:30? If stem cell research is morally acceptable at 8:59 p.m., why isn't it OK at 9:01? It's totally arbitrary.

When the President announced his policy, he said that 78 stem cell lines were eligible for federally funded research. But, today, only 21 of those 78 lines are eligible--not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity of this Nation. Many of those 21 lines are showing their age, and all were grown with mouse feeder cells, an outdated method that raises concerns about contamination.

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

That is a shame. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research--about helping people with Parkinson's, cancer, juvenile diabetes, and so many other diseases--our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available. We need a stem cell policy that offers credible, meaningful hope. And that's what this bill would provide.

Under this bill, Federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date that it was derived, as long as strict ethical guidelines are met.

Most importantly, the only way a stem cell line could be eligible for federally funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded.

There are more than 400,000 embryos in the United States that are left over from fertility treatments and are currently sitting frozen in storage. Most of those embryos will eventually be thrown away. All we are saying is, instead of discarding all 400,000 of those leftover embryos, let's allow couples to donate a few of them, if they wish, to create stem cell lines that could cure diseases and save lives.

Mr. President, it is time to lift the restrictions that have handcuffed stem cell research for more than 7 years. I urge the Senate to pass this bill as soon as possible and send it to the President for his signature.

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