[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7417-7421]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 2939. A bill to expand and improve mental health care and 
reintegration programs for members of the National Guard and Reserve, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Today, I introduce the National Guard and Reserve Mental 
Health Access Act, which provides

[[Page 7418]]

greater access to mental health services for our members of the 
National Guard and Reserve.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking an excruciatingly high 
toll on veterans and their families and the Nation obviously needs to 
give greater priority to their mental health needs, including the 
National Guard and the Reserve.
  As of April 29, 2008, 31,848 servicemembers have been wounded in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Thirty percent of our soldiers struggle with brain 
injuries, mental illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder 
and depression, or a combination of these physical and mental wounds.
  Earlier this month, the RAND Corporation released a report 
documenting the alarmingly high numbers of veterans who struggle with 
mental health problems and brain injuries. One in 5 of these brave men 
and women report mental health problems.
  These mental health problems take various forms, including post-
traumatic stress disorder, depression, suicidal tendencies and 
substance abuse, and they can persist for months or even years after 
their service. Some will never be the same again.
  It is our duty to give our National Guard and Reserves the best 
possible treatment, whatever their injury. Mental conditions should be 
treated with the same care and concern as physical conditions.
  This bill calls for the implementation of the Yellow Ribbon 
Reintegration Program, which provides counseling, education and family 
services to returning members of the Guard and reservists. It 
establishes a Joint Psychological Health Program in the National Guard 
Bureau to oversee and coordinate support for Guard members with mental 
illness or brain injuries, and it creates a pilot project for providing 
new applications of technology in tele-mental health and anti-stigma 
treatment.
  The National Guard and Reserve Mental Health Access Act is a three-
part approach to targeting these mental health needs, which require 
specialized access to care and services.
  Our National Guard and Reserves make incredible sacrifices for our 
country and we owe them the very best access to care possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN:
  S. 2940. A bill to promote green energy production, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, energy independence is no longer an option 
for our Nation. It is an imperative. The clock is ticking. If we do not 
break the ties, our children and grandchildren will have to clean up 
our mess. It is not too late.
  Today I introduced legislation to help U.S. companies and U.S. 
workers chart a new course. This is an energy bill. It is a jobs bill. 
It is an environment bill. It will help companies turn green energy 
research into green energy products. It will help workers build careers 
around green energy development and production. It will help our Nation 
break free of foreign oil and grow our economy by growing green energy. 
It is an important step that, along with comprehensive climate change 
legislation, will put our country on a path to energy independence.
  While the first oil well in the United States was in the Presiding 
Officer's State of Pennsylvania, just a year later oil was being 
produced in Ohio. Before long, derricks dotted the landscape in every 
corner of our State. My bill begins to address what Ohio and 
Pennsylvania have known for years about energy.
  The history of my State is also rich in coal. Frontiersmen discovered 
large deposits of coal in Tuscarawas County in the mid-1700s, long 
before Ohio became a State. Today, coal power is more than 90 percent 
of Ohio's electricity production.
  Oil and coal powered this Nation through two World Wars. They helped 
the United States win the Cold War. And they made America the world's 
largest economy. But today our economic future depends on our ability 
to move toward alternative energy development. Green energy just will 
not restore our energy independence, it will secure our global 
leadership.
  In my 15 months in the Senate, I have held nearly 100 roundtables 
across Ohio learning about Ohio's capabilities and potential in leading 
the way in the alternative energy industry. From Ralph Dahl's farm in 
northwest Montgomery County and the technology he has employed, to 
high-tech companies in Cleveland looking for financing but fearing the 
so-called valley of death, to eager entrepreneurs in Athens who are 
installing solar panels and wind turbines all over their part of the 
State, to the work of Stark State on fuel cells. But we haven't gone 
nearly far enough. It is only the beginning.
  The Germans have long supported the development of solar power, and 
today they lead the world in that technology. Just last week, China 
announced plans to set up trade protection laws, not to increase wind 
energy in China but to corner the market on wind-energy-related 
products.
  While we are debating whether to punch more holes in the ground to 
drill for oil, the rest of the world is about to pass us by. But it is 
not too late. American ingenuity and innovation can and will give our 
Nation an edge over the competition. My bill creates an investment 
corporation for that purpose lead by the best and brightest from the 
business, labor, and environmental worlds. It will be charged with 
supporting the development and commercialization of new energy 
products.
  Great ideas are being left on the drawing board these days or, worse 
yet, getting produced overseas. Investments will be aimed with this 
legislation at communities with high levels of unemployment, with 
excess manufacturing capacity, and with brownfield industrial cleanup 
sites--communities with enormous potential and significant needs. My 
State, as is Pennsylvania, is dotted with dozens of those communities.
  Our green energy manufacturing future should build on our great 
manufacturing past, revitalizing flagging industries, and reenergizing 
manufacturing hubs.
  This bill creates the Green Redevelopment Opportunity and Workforce 
Program that provides grants to companies a little further from 
commercialization than those that receive loans in the Green Markets 
Program.
  These companies have green energy ideas that are a few years away 
from the market. Without these grants, they would never make it into 
production.
  We cannot pick, and we should not pick, winners in the fight for the 
future of green energy, so we must explore as many ideas and inventions 
that get to the market as possible.
  My bill would also establish grant money for pilot programs for green 
energy communities, colleges, and National Guard bases even. These 
pilot programs will serve as important resources for business 
interested in commercializing green technologies, as well as models for 
other communities that are trying to transition their economies to 
green energy.
  The corporation will run a green energy internship and apprenticeship 
program that will help innovate green energy companies, hire new 
talent, and help students earn valuable industry experience in this new 
industry as it begins to take off.
  My bill establishes a Green Energy Efficiency Grant Program that is a 
dollar-for-dollar match for energy producers, including municipal power 
companies and rural electric co-ops.
  This provision helps by ending the conflict that energy producers 
often face with protecting the environment and growing their 
businesses. These energy producers try to encourage people to conserve, 
but at the same time they are saying don't buy our product, which 
obviously is not a good business decision. This provision in this 
legislation will help answer that.
  By meeting these companies halfway, by matching their investment in 
energy efficiency, the Government cannot do it all, but it can help 
these responsible companies do right by the consumers and the 
environment.
  Today, most of Ohio's oil wells are dry, coal production is literally 
only half what it was in 1970, and Ohio's

[[Page 7419]]

manufacturing centers from Steubenville to Lima, from Ravenna to 
Springfield, from Xenia to Findlay, are struggling to remain 
competitive. Our Nation's green future is more than using green energy 
or living in green houses or putting in green light bulbs. All those 
things are good, but we must build the green energy and its components 
in the United States. We know green energy is inevitable, but importing 
green energy from China and Germany, like we do today with oil from 
Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, need not be inevitable, and it is not in 
our Nation's best interests. We need to end our foreign energy 
dependence, whether it is today, too much with Saudi Arabia, or in the 
future, too much with Germany.
  The next green energy company that can change the world is out there 
waiting to happen. It could be the National Composite Center in Dayton, 
could be the cutting-edge fuel cell research ongoing in Mount Vernon, 
OH.
  We can do this. If we do this right, if we wean ourselves from 
foreign oil, we can create good-paying jobs right here at home in the 
United States of America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2943. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, my home State of Washington, and the 
Pacific Northwest in general, is home to some of the most pristine 
nature and breathtaking scenery this country has to offer. I rise today 
to recognize a well known local treasure that puts the priceless gems 
of our region within reach. The Pacific Northwest Trail, running from 
the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, is 1,200 miles long and 
ranks among the most scenic trails in the world. This carefully chosen 
path runs through the Rocky Mountains, Selkirk Mountains, Pasayten 
Wilderness, North Cascades, Olympic Mountains, and Wilderness Coast. 
From beginning to end it passes through three States, crosses three 
National Parks, and winds through seven National Forests. This trail is 
a national prize and should be recognized as such. That is why, today, 
I am introducing the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Act of 
2008 with my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray.
  The National Trails System was created in 1968 by the National Trails 
System Act. This act authorized a national system of trails to provide 
additional outdoor recreation opportunities and to promote the 
preservation of access to the outdoor areas and historic resources of 
the nation. Today there are eight National Scenic Trails that provide 
recreation, conservation, and enjoyment of significant scenic, 
historic, natural, or cultural qualities. Designating the Pacific 
Northwest Trail a National Scenic Trail will give it the proper 
recognition, bring benefits to countless neighboring communities, and 
promote its protection, development, and maintenance.
  Adding the Pacific Northwest Trail to the National Trail System has 
gained the support of Commissioners in Clallam, Jefferson. Island, 
Skagit, Whatcom, Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille Counties in 
Washington and Boundary County in Idaho. Mayors in numerous cities 
along the trail support the economic impact the trail has had on their 
communities
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to come hike the 
Pacific Northwest Trail if ever given the opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

                                S. 2943

  There being no objection, the text of bhe bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

       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 ``Pacific Northwest National 
     Scenic Trail Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) in accordance with section 5(c)(22) of the National 
     Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)(22)), a feasibility 
     study of the proposed Pacific Northwest Trail was--
       (A) conducted by the Director of the National Park Service 
     and the Chief of the Forest Service; and
       (B) completed in June 1980;
       (2) the feasability study contained--
       (A) a conclusion that the Pacific Northwest Trail ``would 
     have the scenic and recreational qualities needed for 
     designation as a National Scenic Trail''; but
       (B) a recommendation against the designation of the Pacific 
     Northwest Trail, citing as obstacles factors that are present 
     in every other national scenic trail that has been designated 
     under the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et 
     seq.);
       (3) undaunted, the founder of the Pacific Northwest Trail 
     and many supporters--
       (A) moved forward with the creation of the Pacific 
     Northwest Trail; and
       (B) established a private volunteer organization to build, 
     maintain, and promote the Pacific Northwest Trail;
       (4) similar to each other national scenic trail designated 
     under the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et 
     seq.), the Pacific Northwest Trail stands as an outstanding 
     example of the recreational opportunities that can be 
     provided through a partnership among the Federal Government, 
     State and local governments, private nonprofit trail 
     organizations, individual volunteers, and landowners;
       (5) today, approximately 950 miles of the Pacific Northwest 
     Trail are completed and provide significant outdoor 
     recreational experiences to citizens and visitors of the 
     United States, thus providing on-the-ground proof of the 
     feasibility and desirability of designating the Pacific 
     Northwest Trail as national scenic trail, as required under 
     section 5(b) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244(b));
       (6) 3 segments of the Pacific Northwest Trail have already 
     been designated by Congress as national recreation trails; 
     and
       (7) because the entire route of the Pacific Northwest Trail 
     was found to qualify for designation as a national scenic 
     trail, Congress should--
       (A) designate the entire Pacific Northwest Trail as a 
     national scenic trail; and
       (B) provide administrative, technical, and financial 
     assistance in accordance with the National Trails System Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL SCENIC 
                   TRAIL.

       Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(26) Pacific northwest national scenic trail.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Pacific Northwest National Scenic 
     Trail, a trail of approximately 1,200 miles, extending from 
     the Continental Divide in Glacier National Park, Montana, to 
     the Pacific Ocean Coast in Olympic National Park, Washington, 
     following the route depicted on the map entitled `Pacific 
     Northwest National Scenic Trail: Proposed Trail', numbered 
     T12/80,000, and dated February 2008 (referred to in this 
     paragraph as the `map').
       ``(B) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.
       ``(C) Administration.--The Pacific Northwest National 
     Scenic Trail shall be administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       ``(D) Land acquisition.--The United States shall not 
     acquire for the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail any 
     land or interest in land outside the exterior boundary of any 
     federally-managed area without the consent of the owner of 
     the land or interest in land.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2944. A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 
to examine and improve the child welfare workforce, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill 
that will address a pressing need in our nation's child welfare system: 
improvements to the child welfare workforce. In 2006, the most recent 
year for which data are available, approximately 905,000 children were 
determined to be victims of abuse or neglect. Whether a child needs in-
home support or foster care, family preservation or adoption, the child 
welfare workforce strives to meet the individual needs of children and 
families, so that safety and permanency are achieved as quickly as 
possible.
  Unfortunately, the members of the child welfare workforce face a 
variety of barriers to their execution of this critically important 
work. Due to high caseloads and workloads, caseworkers have 
insufficient time to interact with children and families, prepare 
individualized plans, and provide services. Burnout and turnover are 
endemic to

[[Page 7420]]

the child welfare system. The average tenure of a child welfare worker 
is just under 2 years, with staff citing high caseloads, a need for 
greater supervision, and few training opportunities as reasons for 
leaving their positions. This turnover leads to discontinuity of 
services, children's multiple placements in foster care, longer stays 
of children in care, and lower rates of finding permanent homes for 
children. There is evidence that turnover is lower among child welfare 
workers holding a degree in social work than among those who do not; 
yet, fewer than a third of child welfare workers hold these degrees.
  Turnover is also expensive. The U.S. Department of Labor has 
estimated that the cost of worker turnover is equivalent to 
approximately one-third of the worker's annual salary. Therefore, it 
may cost agencies between $10,000 and $20,000 each time a worker leaves 
his or her position. Additionally, costs increase when turnover leads 
to children's extended stays in foster care, as maintaining children in 
foster care is more expensive than establishing permanency through 
reunification, adoption, or guardianship.
  In addition to these obstacles, Federal support for training of child 
welfare workers is restricted. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 
the primary Federal source for child welfare training funds, is linked 
to an outdated income requirement. As a result, States may only access 
these dollars on behalf of a portion of the children in their care. 
Currently, Title IV-E funds may not be used to train child welfare 
staff employed by contracted nonprofit child welfare agencies, a huge 
barrier given the fact that many states rely on these agencies for 
providing necessary services. The Title IV-E training program does not 
address the essential role of non-child welfare professionals, such as 
substance abuse and domestic violence counselors, educators, and mental 
health providers, who work with children and families involved in the 
child welfare system. We must improve States' access to these funds in 
order to attract and maintain a trained and committed child welfare 
workforce.
  Finally, Federal regulations limit the extent to which public child 
welfare agencies can partner with educational institutions to provide 
training to prospective and currently employed child welfare staff. 
Training programs implemented using Title IV-E university partnerships 
have shown great success. States running such programs show up to 90 
percent retention of graduates in child welfare positions, even after 
their employment obligation period has expired. Unfortunately, because 
regulations prohibit private institutions from providing the state 
match for IV-E funded university training programs, state child welfare 
agencies are limited in the university partnerships they can create. As 
such, regions that have ready and willing private schools of social 
work, but few nearby public schools, are often unable to create these 
useful programs.
  The Child Welfare Workforce Improvement Act tackles these challenges 
head on. This legislation calls on the National Academy of Sciences to 
conduct a study that assesses the child welfare workforce nationwide; 
makes recommendations regarding appropriate levels of caseload, 
workload, training, and supervision; and makes recommendations for 
linking workforce data to data on child outcomes. The bill requires the 
Department of Health and Human Services to devise a method for 
regularly collecting data on the child welfare workforce so that it can 
be linked to existing databases of child outcomes.
  Additionally, the bill amends Title IV-E so that federal funds for 
training can be accessed by the full breadth of professionals 
responsible for children and families in the child welfare system. The 
legislation eliminates the 1996 AFDC ``look-back'' for IV-E training 
dollars so that a state can access training funds based on all of its 
children in foster care. It removes limitations so that funds may be 
used to train staff who provide support, preservation, or reunification 
services as well as foster care and adoption services. The bill allows 
related professionals access to short-term IV-E training in order to 
enhance their work with children and families in the child welfare 
system. Finally, the bill permits private nonprofit institutions of 
higher education to contribute matching dollars for IV-E funded 
training programs. This provision will allow State child welfare 
systems to set up university partnerships with a broader range of 
schools, thereby enhancing program quality, and helping to generate a 
cadre of professionally trained and committed child welfare workers.
  We absolutely must support the members of the child welfare workforce 
if we want high quality services for our Nation's vulnerable children 
and families. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in 
this important effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN:
  S. 2948. A bill to provide quality, affordable health insurance for 
small employers and individuals; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, earlier this week, I spoke on the Senate 
floor about Cover the Uninsured Week and a bill I was introducing that 
would increase access to health coverage for small businesses and self-
employed individuals.
  I will formally introduce the Small Business Empowerment Act today, 
and I would like to discuss the bill in a bit more depth.
  First, why is it necessary?
  It is necessary because 82 percent of the uninsured are workers, and 
the overwhelming majority work in small firms.
  In Ohio, 99 percent of firms with more than 50 workers sponsor health 
coverage. About 44 percent of firms with less than 50 do.
  And small employers that do offer coverage are struggling under the 
weight of it. According to the well-respected Rand Corporation, small 
businesses saw the economic burden of health insurance rise by 30 
percent between 2000 and 2005.
  The situation is even worse for the self-employed, who must contend 
with staggeringly high premiums for individual coverage, if, that is, 
they can find an insurer willing to cover them.
  In the meantime, health insurers have been living large, their 
profits increasing by more than a third over the last 5 years. That's 
not revenue, it's profits.
  Middle class families are shouldering the burden of skyrocketing gas 
prices and ballooning food prices, even as the equity in their homes 
erodes and the cost of putting their children through college explodes.
  It would be ideal if they could also afford to pay a king's ransom 
for health insurance.
  They can't. They shouldn't have to.
  With those realities staring us in the face, inaction is the same as 
indifference.
  My legislation attacks the issue of health coverage access from 
several directions.
  To ensure widespread access, the bill would establish a national 
insurance pool modeled after the successful Federal Employees Health 
Benefits program.
  FEHB, which enables enrollees to choose from a variety of health 
plans whose rates and benefits are negotiated by the federal Office of 
Personnel Management, has served members of Congress and federal 
employees well for many years now.
  Under my bill, an independent contractor would manage a program that 
looks like FEHB, with a few modifications to accommodate the market 
segment it would serve.
  A few of those modifications are designed to hold down costs:
  The bill would establish a reinsurance program to pay claims that 
fall between $5,000 and $75,000. This approach minimizes premium spikes 
and makes coverage affordable for companies regardless of the age and 
health of their employees.
  The bill would also establish what is called a ``loss-ratio'' 
standard for insurers. Basically this means that insurers would be 
required to spend most of their premium income on claims, and hold down 
their administrative costs.
  And the bill would identify and apply strategies to ensure that 
providers employ ``best practices'' in health care,

[[Page 7421]]

which means that they are providing the right care in the right 
amounts.
  Finally, the bill would target ``price-gouging'' by drug 
manufacturers and other manufacturers of medical products. Price 
gouging occurs in U.S. health care when a company exploits American 
consumers by charging them dramatically higher prices than consumers in 
other wealthy nations.
  Other modifications are designed to ensure that health coverage is 
non-discriminatory.
  Think about it: If you develop a mental illness like clinical 
depression and I develop a medical illness like heart disease, why 
should you be denied health benefits while I receive them? We both have 
paid premiums to cover health care costs and we both need health care. 
Why is my condition more worthy of coverage than yours?
  My bill charges a group representing providers, businesses, 
consumers, economists, and health policy experts with rethinking health 
care coverage to eliminate arbitrary differences in the coverage of 
equally disruptive, disabling, or dangerous health conditions.
  The bottom-line is this. We have an opportunity to expand access to 
health coverage in a way that advances fundamental goals:
  We can reach populations who can't find a home in the current 
insurance system.
  We stand up for American consumers who are paying ridiculous prices 
for essential health care.
  We can demand spending discipline on the part of insurers--they have 
chosen to play a pivotal role in the health of our nation; they can 
live with reasonable limits on their administrative costs.
  We can clean up duplication and random variation in the delivery of 
health care services; and we can end arbitrary coverage rules that turn 
health protection into a health care crapshoot.
  For the sake of small employers and their employees, for the sake of 
self-employed entrepreneurs, and for the sake of every American who 
didn't request a particular health problem and shouldn't be penalized 
for having it, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support 
my bill.

                          ____________________