[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.
____________________