[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 123 (Monday, July 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10315-S10318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 1895. A bill to aid and support pediatric involvement in reading 
and education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator 
Grassley, the Prescribe A Book Act.
  Our legislation amends the No Child Left Behind Act to create a 
federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-
standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would 
award grants to highly qualified nonprofit entities to train doctors 
and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud 
and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to 
five years of age, with a priority for children from low-income 
families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical 
providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy 
skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading.
  The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated 
effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's 
reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific 
journals has found that parents who have participated in the program 
are significantly more likely to read to their children and include 
more children's books in their home, and that children served by the 
program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen 
up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their 
families when visiting a number of the 40 Rhode Island Reach Out and 
Read sites.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Prescribe A Book Act and work 
for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left 
Behind Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1895

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Prescribe A Book Act''.

     SEC. 2. PEDIATRIC INVOLVEMENT IN READING AND EDUCATION.

       Part B of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6361 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

             ``Subpart 5--Pediatric Early Literacy Program

     ``SEC. 1261. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     nonprofit organization that has, as determined by the 
     Secretary, demonstrated effectiveness in the following areas:
       ``(A) Providing peer-to-peer training to healthcare 
     providers in research-based methods of literacy promotion as 
     part of routine pediatric health supervision visits.
       ``(B) Delivering a training curriculum through a variety of 
     medical education settings, including residency training, 
     continuing medical education, and national pediatric 
     conferences.
       ``(C) Providing technical assistance to local healthcare 
     facilities to effectively implement a high-quality Pediatric 
     Early Literacy Program.
       ``(D) Offering opportunities for local healthcare 
     facilities to obtain books at significant discounts, as 
     described in section 1266.
       ``(E) Integrating the latest developmental and educational 
     research into the training curriculum for healthcare 
     providers described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Pediatric early literacy program.--The term 
     `Pediatric Early Literacy Program' means a program that--
       ``(A) creates and implements a 3-part model through which--
       ``(i) healthcare providers, doctors, and nurses, trained in 
     research-based methods of early language and literacy 
     promotion, encourage parents to read aloud to their young 
     children, and offer developmentally appropriate 
     recommendations and strategies to parents for the purpose of 
     reading aloud to their children;
       ``(ii) healthcare providers, at health supervision visits, 
     provide each child between the ages of 6 months and 5 years a 
     new, developmentally appropriate children's book to take home 
     and keep; and
       ``(iii) volunteers in waiting areas of healthcare 
     facilities read aloud to children, modeling for parents the 
     techniques and pleasures of sharing books together;
       ``(B) demonstrates, through research published in peer-
     reviewed journals, effectiveness in positively altering 
     parent behavior regarding reading aloud to children, and 
     improving expressive and receptive language in young 
     children; and
       ``(C) receives the endorsement of nationally-recognized 
     medical associations and academies.

     ``SEC. 1262. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``The Secretary is authorized to award grants to eligible 
     entities under this subpart to enable the eligible entities 
     to implement Pediatric Early Literacy Programs.

     ``SEC. 1263. APPLICATION.

       ``An eligible entity that desires to receive a grant under 
     this subpart shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and including such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 1264. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

       ``An eligible entity receiving a grant under this subpart 
     shall provide either directly or through private 
     contributions, in cash or in-kind, non-Federal matching funds 
     equal to not less than 50 percent of the grant received by 
     the eligible entity under this subpart.

[[Page S10316]]

     ``SEC. 1265. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this subpart shall--
       ``(1) enter into contracts with private nonprofit 
     organizations, or with public agencies, selected based on the 
     criteria described in subsection (b), under which each 
     contractor will agree to establish and operate a Pediatric 
     Early Literacy Program;
       ``(2) provide such training and technical assistance to 
     each contractor of the eligible entity as may be necessary to 
     carry out this subpart; and
       ``(3) include such other terms and conditions in an 
     agreement with a contractor as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate to ensure the effectiveness of such programs.
       ``(b) Contractor Criteria.--Contractors shall be selected 
     under subsection (a)(1) on the basis of the extent to which 
     the contractors give priority to serving a substantial number 
     or percentage of at-risk children, including--
       ``(1) low-income children (defined in this section as 
     children from families with incomes below 200 percent of the 
     poverty line), particularly low-income children in high-
     poverty areas;
       ``(2) children without adequate medical insurance;
       ``(3) children enrolled in a State Medicaid program, 
     established under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) or in the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program established under title XXI of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.);
       ``(4) children living in rural areas;
       ``(5) migrant children; and
       ``(6) children with limited access to libraries.

     ``SEC. 1266. RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS.

       ``The Secretary shall make no payment to eligible entities 
     under this subpart unless the Secretary determines that the 
     eligible entity or a contractor of the eligible entity, as 
     the case may be, has made arrangements with book publishers 
     or distributors to obtain books at discounts that are at 
     least as favorable as discounts that are customarily given by 
     such publisher or distributor for book purchases made under 
     similar circumstances in the absence of Federal assistance.

     ``SEC. 1267. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       ``An eligible entity receiving a grant under this subpart 
     shall report annually to the Secretary on the effectiveness 
     of the program implemented by the eligible entity and the 
     programs instituted by each contractor of the eligible 
     entity, and shall include in the report a description of each 
     program.

     ``SEC. 1268. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subpart--
       ``(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(2) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(3) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
       ``(4) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
       ``(5) $19,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 1896. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as 
the ``Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office''; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to honor a fallen officer of the 
Epsom, NH, Police Department, Officer Jeremy Todd Charron, by 
introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service 
facility at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the 
Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office.
  Born on March 18, 1973, Officer Charron was the third of five 
children to Bob and Fran Charron. Originally from Pittsfield, NH, 
Jeremy and his family moved to Hillsborough in 1977. Throughout his 
early life, Jeremy grew intensely goal orientated, a trait that 
persisted throughout his shortened life, and by the time he had reached 
second grade he knew his calling was to one day serve as a U.S. Marine.
  Although he was an outstanding athlete in many sports, he excelled at 
playing defense on the soccer field. The same tenacity that Jeremy used 
on the soccer field, he carried with him off the field. One poignant 
example of Jeremy's developing leadership occurred as a friend lost his 
hair from cancer treatments and was teased by fellow classmates. While 
it may have been easier for most students to ignore the taunting of 
other classmates, Jeremy actively defended his friend. Throughout 
Jeremy's life, he stood up for what he thought was right and protected 
those who could not defend themselves.
  During Jeremy's high school years at Hillsborough-Deering High 
School, he grew into a leader, quickly becoming active in all aspects 
of the school community. His peers voted him ``most spirited'' and 
elected him class president. At the same time, he had convinced 8 
classmates to join the Marines with him following graduation. Together, 
they would dedicate their weekends to training for their future service 
in the Marine Corps.
  After graduating high school in 1992, Jeremy entered the Marine Corps 
and proudly served his country for 4 years. As his enlistment term drew 
to a close, he had a new aspiration, which was to become a New 
Hampshire State Trooper, and looked forward to starting a family.
  To achieve this objective, Jeremy enrolled at the New Hampshire 
Technical College in Concord to study Criminal Justice, and was hired 
by the Epsom, New Hampshire Police Department as a part-time and then 
full-time police officer.
  Sadly, Jeremy's dream was cut short. On August 24, 1997, the morning 
after he attended the funerals of New Hampshire State Troopers Leslie 
Lord and Scott Phillips, Officer Charron was responding to a report of 
a suspicious car, which contained two men. Tragically, while Officer 
Charron questioned one of the men, the individual pulled out a gun and 
opened fire. Although Jeremy was wearing a bullet-proof vest, one of 
the bullets struck him in an unprotected area. Despite his fatal 
wounds, Jeremy heroically returned fire until he collapsed, forcing his 
two killers to abandon their car and steal a near-by truck that could 
be identified by police, eventually leading to their capture.

  Had Jeremy's dreams not been cut short at the age of 24, he would 
have achieved his goals of becoming a State Trooper and having a family 
of his own. Jeremy's murderers stripped our Nation, the State of New 
Hampshire and the community of a true patriot, citizen, and role model, 
as well as a loving friend and family member.
  Ten years have gone by since Jeremy's passing and a new generation of 
7 nieces and nephews know Jeremy's stories. People of Hillsborough, NH, 
still have stories to share and lessons to learn from their very own 
American hero. As the years move forward, the citizens and future 
generations of Hillsborough will always remember Jeremy and share 
anecdotes about his life when they visit the Officer Jeremy Todd 
Charron Post Office Building.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton (for herself, Mrs. Dole, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Brown)):
  S. 1898. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
expand family and medical for spouses, sons, daughters, and parents of 
servicemembers with combat-related injuries; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military 
and Family Medical Leave Act, bipartisan legislation that extends the 
Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, for up to 6 months for children, 
spouses and parents of soldiers who have been injured in combat. This 
legislation implements a key recommendation made last week by the 
Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. I would 
also like to acknowledge my colleagues Senators Dole, Mikulski, Graham, 
Kennedy and Brown whose partnership on this legislation reflects the 
fact that supporting our families and service-members is a bipartisan, 
common sense issue.
  The families of our servicemen and women face extraordinary demands 
as they struggle to care for loved ones injured in service to our 
Nation. Yet, currently, family members of these injured servicemembers 
receive no additional leave to accommodate the support they need.
  The Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors was 
established in March 2007 with the specific goals of conducting a 
comprehensive review of services the Government currently provides to 
our wounded warriors and delivering recommendations to the President, 
Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
  In its review, the commission found that 33 percent of active duty, 
22 percent of reserve component, and 37 percent of retired/separated 
servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated 
for extended periods of time to be with them while

[[Page S10317]]

they were in the hospital. In addition, 21 percent of active duty, 15 
percent of reserve component, and 24 percent of retired/separated 
servicemembers say friends or family gave up a job to be with them or 
act as their caregiver.
  To address this situation and help support these caregivers, the 
commission recommended strengthening family support programs by 
extending the FMLA for up to 6 months for the family members of 
seriously injured soldiers. This is a step we can make immediately that 
will make a real difference. Our men and women in uniform have made 
tremendous sacrifices on our behalf and we have a responsibility to do 
everything we can to make sure they have the care and support they 
need.
  The Military Family and Medical Leave Act will enact this 
recommendation by amending the FMLA to allow up to 6 months leave for a 
family member of a servicemember who has a combat-related injury and 
meets the eligibility requirements in the law.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will join Senators Dole, Mikulski, 
Graham, Kennedy, Brown and me in supporting this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 1899. A bill to require every American to have health insurance 
coverage; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain a bill I am 
filing today that will establish universal health coverage called 
Universal Health Coverage Act. Let me tell you why I am introducing 
this bill.
  Our health care system provides the highest quality health care in 
the world if you are fortunate to get access to it. People come from 
all over the world to come to our great academic centers to get their 
health care needs met and to train their health care professionals.
  In my home State of Maryland, I am very proud of the University of 
Maryland Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University. We have great 
institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health, that provide 
top-quality health care.
  The problem is too many people cannot get access to affordable 
quality health care in America. We have 46 million uninsured; 9 million 
are children. We spend more money than any other country by far on 
health care, and yet our health care results do not reflect that type 
of investment of our public funds.
  The No. 1 problem in health care in America today is the number of 
uninsured. We need to do something about it. The Universal Health 
Coverage Act does exactly that. It says every person in this country 
must have health insurance.
  We are paying for the people who do not have health insurance. Those 
of us who have health coverage are paying more for our doctors and 
hospitals. We pay more in taxes because people have no health 
insurance. The reason is they have delayed diagnosis and treatment that 
leads to more serious illness and treatment for those who have no 
health insurance.
  We all pay the price with higher premiums and cost. According to the 
Institute of Medicine, taxpayers shoulder 65 percent of the total cost 
of uncompensated care through subsidies to hospitals and clinics. The 
same study showed that poor health care status from being uninsured 
costs our Nation between $65 billion and $130 billion a year. It is in 
our interest as those who have health insurance and as taxpayers that 
we have universal health coverage in America.
  Why does it cost more for someone who has no health insurance? With 
two people with the same types of conditions, it can actually cost our 
system more for those who have no health insurance because they do not 
seek preventative health care. Fewer than one-half of uninsured women 
ages 50 to 64 have received a mammogram in the past 2 years compared to 
75 percent of women with insurance. Only 18 percent of uninsured adults 
over the age of 50 have had colon cancer screenings in the last 5 years 
compared to 56 percent of adults with insurance. Only 35 percent of 
uninsured Americans had dental examinations in the last year. When 
uninsured receive care, it is often at a much later point and is more 
costly and less efficient. We can do something about it.
  Who are the uninsured? Another myth: Eighty-one percent of the 
uninsured actually come from working families. These are working 
families who are unable, for whatever reasons, to get affordable health 
care coverage. Low-income Americans with family incomes below 200 
percent of poverty run the highest risk of being uninsured. More than 
one-third of the poor and 30 percent of the near poor with incomes 
between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty lack health insurance.
  My legislation is simple. The Universal Health Coverage Act requires 
personal responsibility, requires everyone to have health insurance, 
and it builds on the current employer-based system and protects 
government-sponsored health programs.
  We would require every American to have qualified health coverage. 
That qualified health coverage could be Medicare, it could be our 
veterans health care, it could be one of the governmental programs, or 
it could be an employer-sponsored health plan.
  We then empower the Secretary of Health to work with the State 
insurance commissioners to develop three low-cost plans in every State 
in the Nation so there will be an available product to those who cannot 
find an affordable health care plan.
  The plans would be available for those whose incomes are below 400 
percent of poverty. The reason we picked that number, 400 percent of 
poverty, is those above generally have the opportunity to buy insurance 
at work. Those below are the most vulnerable in our community.
  Those who fail to enroll in any coverage would be required to pay a 
tax which would be equal to the premiums so that the Government can 
enroll them in one of the low-cost plans within their State.
  This plan makes sense. It is a framework on which we can build. It 
says we will not tolerate 46 million people without health insurance, 9 
million children without health insurance. It allows the States to do 
innovative approaches to deal with those who otherwise would have 
problems affording their health care. We expect States to act. States 
are already acting. States are already showing leadership. This 
framework will give States the incentive to move further along. 
Employers who now know every employee needs health benefits are more 
likely to provide insurance for their workforce, and there would be an 
affordable product because everyone would be in the system. We would 
not have adverse risk collection or cherry-picking by insurance 
companies. It gives us the framework to move forward and will allow the 
Federal Government to move in those areas in which the Federal 
Government can do best to help those who are otherwise vulnerable.
  I hope we will not let this opportunity go without dealing with the 
No. 1 problem in our health care system, and that is dealing with 
people who do not have health insurance. I look forward to working with 
all my colleagues so we can work on a doable plan, so this country not 
only has the highest quality health care, but we have a system in which 
all Americans have access to that quality care.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCain:
  S. 1900. A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States 
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental 
Conflict Resolution. Congressman Grijalva has introduced a similar bill 
in the House of Representatives.
  In 1998, the Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. 
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution with the purpose of 
offering an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over 
environmental conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often 
result in lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to 
resolve. In cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for 
court proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is 
still a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need 
for alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to 
address the rising number of environmental conflicts

[[Page S10318]]

that have clogged Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.
  The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in 
recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and 
his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to 
build a consensus among fractious and even hostile interests. The 
Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden 
within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many 
agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.
  The success of the institute is far greater than we could have 
imagined. The institute began operations in 1999. Agencies from the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Interior and 
Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal 
Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and 
others have all called upon the Institute for assistance.
  Among its many accomplishments, the Institution has also assisted in 
facilitating interagency teamwork for the Everglades Task Force which 
oversees the South Everglades Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest 
Service requested assistance to bring ranchers and environmental 
advocates in the southwest to work on grazing and environmental 
compliance issues. Even Members of Congress have sought the institute's 
assistance to review implementation of the Nation's fundamental 
environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to assess how 
it can be improved using collaborative processes.
  The demand on the institute's assistance had been much greater than 
anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not 
anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal 
Government. The institute has served as a mediator between agencies and 
as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving 
overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long-
term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and 
designing international systems for preventing or resolving disputes.
  This legislation simply extends the authorization for the Institute 
for an additional 5 years. Support for the institute's service is an 
investment that will ultimately benefit the taxpayers by preventing 
costly litigation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                  ____

  By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1902. A bill to limit cost growth associated with major defense 
base closures and realignments implemented as part of the 2005 round of 
defense base closure and realignment; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, one of the primary goals of the 
Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process is to reduce 
costs. Unfortunately, we have seen the cost of implementing BRAC 
balloon out of control. Back in 2005, Congress agreed to implement the 
recommendations of the BRAC Commission based on the understanding that 
it would cost the American taxpayers $21 billion, a substantial 
investment. But now, only two years later, we are looking at a price 
tag of $30 billion, which is a 43 percent increase.
  If costs continue to rise at this rate, we will be looking at even 
more of a burden on the American taxpayer by the time the base closures 
and realignments are completed in 2011. In my home State of New Jersey, 
we are keenly aware of some of the wildly inaccurate cost estimates 
used in the BRAC process. The closing of New Jersey's army base at Fort 
Monmouth was originally expected to cost $780 million, now we are 
looking at a $1.5 billion price tag. Part of this inflated cost is due 
to the egregious miscalculations on how much it would cost to move the 
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, currently located in New 
Jersey, to West Point, NY. Although the BRAC Commission's original, 
one-time implementation cost estimate was $29 million, current 
estimates put the move at nearly $200 million. Many communities and 
families will be greatly impacted by the closing of Fort Monmouth and 
the relocation of the military prep school. Knowing that these 
decisions were based on miscalculations and misinformation does not sit 
well with our State, and it should not sit well with taxpayers across 
the country either. If American families are being forced to foot a 
bill they weren't expecting, there should be an escape hatch.
  That is why I am introducing the BRAC Cost Overruns Protection Act of 
2007 or the BRAC COP Act. This legislation will work to control the 
excessive cost overruns in BRAC and ensure that BRAC is maximizing our 
taxpayers' money. This bill, which I am introducing with Senator 
Lautenberg, is based on principles found in existing law concerning 
cost overruns in weapons programs, known as the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. 
Let me take a few moments to discuss exactly how this legislation will 
work.
  The BRAC COP Act will create a trigger mechanism to require a re-
evaluation of any major base closure or realignment should the actual 
cost exceed BRAC's estimated cost by more than 25 percent. In order to 
monitor BRAC costs, this bill will require the Secretary of Defense to 
write biannual reports on the costs of implementing the pending base 
closure or realignment recommendations mandated by BRAC law. If the 
secretary determines that the actual cost of implementing a major base 
closure or realignment recommendation has exceeded the 25 percent 
threshold, the Defense Secretary will then notify the Chairman and 
Ranking Member the Congressional Defense Committees and devise a 
business plan to reduce the cost, without readjusting the baseline 
estimated cost, so that it does not exceed the 25 percent limit.
  The Secretary will then make a recommendation to the President on 
whether to continue the base closure or realignment. The BRAC COP Act 
also supports transparency in this process, so if the Defense Secretary 
recommends that the President continue or modify the base closure or 
realignment, despite the excessive cost overruns, the Secretary must 
include an explanation of why it is necessary to continue with these 
expenditures. After reviewing the Secretary's recommendation, the 
President will make his own recommendation and submit it to Congress. 
Just like the congressional procedure for voting on BRAC law, Congress 
will then have the option to vote to disapprove the President's 
recommendation.
  Let me be clear: this legislation will not overturn BRAC, nor is it 
intended to re-open the BRAC process. This bill simply asks that the 
Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Congress take a second 
look when we face exhorbant cost overruns. The BRAC COP Act will only 
affect the largest base closures and realignments that are over budget, 
so we will not be analyzing every single one of the BRAC 
recommendations.
  It is time that the Defense Department is held more accountable for 
its expenditures. This Congress and the American people do not want to 
continue providing blank checks so that the Pentagon can rework its 
accounting tables, regardless of the costs. Congress supported the 
recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission based on the fact that 
these closures and realignments, although inconvenient, would end up 
saving money in the long run and addressing the changing requirements 
of our military. It now appears that cost-benefit analysis has changed. 
The BRAC COP Act will work to ensure that the 2005 BRAC law, and any 
future BRAC laws, do not go grossly over budget.
  This bill is good for our military and our communities, and I ask my 
colleagues to support this fiscally responsible legislation.

                          ____________________