A bill to amend the Head Start Act to improve provisions relating to updating population data.

Mr. President, the continuing activation of military reservists to serve in Iraq and the war on terror has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's small businesses. Too many small businesses, when their employees are asked to leave their jobs and serve the Nation, are unable to continue operating successfully and face severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. At the same time, more than one-third of military reservists and National Guard members suffer a pay cut when they're called to defend our Nation. Large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to reservist employees called up for active duty and to replace them with a temporary employee. However, many small businesses are unable to provide this assistance or temporarily replace the employee. I believe the Federal Government must take action to help small businesses weather the loss of an employee to active duty and protect small business employees and their families from suffering a pay cut to serve our Nation. That is why I am introducing legislation that will provide an immediate tax credit to assist both military reservists who are called to active duty and the small businesses who must endure their absence.

The Small Business Military Reservist Tax Credit Act that I am introducing today will provide immediate help to affected small businesses through a Federal income tax credit and a reduced withholding requirement to help pay the difference in salary for a reservist called up to active duty and the cost of temporarily replacing that employee while he or she is serving our Nation. Specifically, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $12,000 to any very small business, defined as any business with up to 50 employees, whose employee has been called up for active duty. Up to $6,000 can be used to assist in paying any difference in salary for the activated reservist and up to an additional $6,000 can be used to help hire a temporary replacement. For small manufacturers with up to 100 employees, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $20,000, up to $10,000 to hire a temporary replacement. This tax credit is critical to immediately help struggling entrepreneurs keep their small businesses running after the loss of an employee to temporary military service. Too many American small manufacturers are already facing a difficult economy and strong international competition. This legislation provides higher thresholds for small manufacturers because they need greater help and employ more technical workers who are more expensive and difficult to replace. It will also help cushion the financial cost of being a citizen soldier for our reservists. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by the Reserve Officers Association.

Since 1973, the United States has built an all-volunteer military of which reservists are an essential part. Our reservists are much more than weekend warriors. When they are called to active duty, they are a critical ingredient of any long-term or significant deployment of American forces. Everyone knows the contributions our reservists have made in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. They have been serving our country with distinction and pride for many years and should not be penalized financially for their honorable service. The use of reservists is a significant way to reduce the costs of maintaining a standing army and the cost of carrying a full standing army, in lieu of having a critical reservist component, far outweighs the small, targeted tax credit developed in this legislation.

Reservists have become a vital component of U.S. forces in Iraq and the war on terror. On September 14, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13223 authorizing the activation of up to 1 million military reservists for up to two years of active duty. Since October 2002, there has been a presidentially approved ceiling of 300,000 on the number of reservists that can be on duty at any one time. Some 295,000 reserves have been called up cumulatively since the issuance of the original Executive Order. Today, there are about 181,500 reserves on active duty in the war against terrorism.

Just today, the Army announced that thousands of National Guard and Army Reserve forces will be required to extend their tours of duty. The new order requiring 12-month tours in Iraq and elsewhere means that many National Guard and Army Reserve troops could have their mobilizations extended anywhere from 1 month to 6 months. Extending tours of duty will make it more difficult for reservists, their families and the small businesses where they work to endure the hardships associated with serving our nation. It is imperative that we provide them with immediate assistance.

A recent story in the Financial Times demonstrates the heavy price that some small businesses are forced to pay when one of their employees is called up for active duty. Lt. Col. Stephen Brozak, a Marine reservist and small business partner, was called up for active duty in November 2002. In addition to being a partner in the small financial services firm, Westfield Bakerink Brozak, Stephen is the only research analyst in the San Diego-based company. Since Stephen left to serve our country, the company has been unable to continue working on the investment banking issues he covered. This has dramatically affected the company's profitability and bottom line. To compound the problem, this small businesses is unable to provide Stephen a salary while he is on active duty and cannot afford to hire a replacement. Small businesses, like Stephen's, should not be crippled or incapacitated when their workers are called to serve our Nation. Our reservist solders who are called away from their jobs to serve our country should not have to endanger their family's finances to do so.

The United States Chamber of Commerce estimates that 70 percent of military reservists called to active duty work in small- or medium-size companies. Everyone knows that small businesses continue to be a most effective at creating new jobs and spurring economic growth nationwide. Small businesses employ over 50 percent of the nation's work force. Nationwide, small businesses are currently creating 75 percent of new jobs. Furthermore, many these small businesses provide quality goods and services that are a vital link in the supply chain for our national defense. Many these small companies need immediate help to keep their business going while their employees are sacrificing for our country in Iraq and elsewhere.

Many of our reservists left their companies in good shape. They were profitable, providing goods or services, creating jobs, adding to the tax base. Our nation should do everything possible to ensure that upon their return, reservists and their businesses to do suffer unnecessary hardships that ranges from impaired operations financial ruin; from deserted clients to layoffs, and even closure.

Beyond the hardship of leaving their families, their homes and their regular employment, more than one-third of military reservists and National Guard members face a pay cut when they're called for active duty in our armed forces. Many of these reservists have families who depend upon that paycheck to survive and can least afford a substantial reduction in pay. Unlike many big businesses that can afford to provide supplemental income to make up for the salary disparity for military reservists called to active duty, most small businesses cannot afford to provide this benefit. This makes it more difficult for small businesses to attract and keep workers. I think it is imperative that we help families of reservists maintain their standard of living while their loved one serves our nation. We must ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family.

Back in 1999, I wrote the Military Reservist Small Business Relief Act, which was enacted into law during the 106th Congress and authorized the Small Business Administration (SBA) to defer existing loan repayments and to reduce the interest rates on direct loans that may be outstanding, including disaster loans, for small businesses that have had a military reservist called up for active duty. It also established a low-interest economic injury loan program administered by the SBA through its disaster loan program. These loans have been available to provide interim operating capital to any small business when the departure of a military reservist for active duty causes economic injury. According to published reports, more than 10,000 small businesses have applied for these loans since August 2001. However, in today's economy, many small businesses are unable to take on additional debt to continue their operations. These small businesses need immediate tax relief to assist them in hiring a replacement and to pay their reservist worker who is away serving our country.

This bill will help every small business whose owner, manager or employee is called to active duty. Most immediately, this bill will assist those small businesses whose employees are in service in Iraq and elsewhere but the act also applies to future contingency operations, military conflicts, or national emergencies.

I ask all my colleagues to support this important legislation to help both military reservists and the small businesses they are forced to leave when they are called up for active duty.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye to introduce the Indian Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation Act of 2003.

Recently, a significant report has been issued that, once again, calls into question the equity and effectiveness of Federal spending on Indian programs.

This is not a new problem and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's report entitled ``A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country'' shows that the volume and methodologies of Federal spending are still both off the mark.

The Commission's report found an ongoing failure to provide funds for the health, education and safety of Indian communities at levels equivalent to other U.S. populations and determined that, despite many studies, ``no coordinated, comprehensive Federal effort has been made to audit spending and develop viable solutions.''

The Commission's Report recommended each of the six agencies primarily responsible for delivery of Federal services to Indians to: (1) conduct internal monitoring of its spending and budgeting for Indian programs; (2) ensure better coordination with other agencies; and (3) monitor unmet needs. It also urged Congress to appropriate funds to meet the unmet needs of Indian people and urged the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to create uniform standards for tracking and spending on Indian programs.

The bill I am introducing today will address these ongoing problems and bring a rigorous analysis to the actual needs of Indian people, gauge how Indian programs are funded, and better tailor these programs so that needs are met and programs are carried out in an effective and efficient way.

The bill: 1. directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a uniform method, criteria, and procedures for determining, analyzing, and compiling the program and service assistance needs of Indian tribes and Indians nationwide; 2. requires Federal agencies to conduct Indian Needs Assessments aimed at determining the actual needs of tribes and Indians eligible for programs and services administered by such agencies; 3. directs the Secretary to develop a uniform method, criteria, and procedures for compiling, maintaining, keeping current, and reporting to Congress all information concerning: (a) agency annual expenditures for programs and services for which Indians are eligible/ (b) services or programs specifically for the benefit of Indians; and (c) agency methods of delivery of services and funding; 4. requires Federal agencies responsible for providing services or programs to or for the benefit of tribes of Indians to: (a) file Annual Indian Program Evaluations with specified congressional committees; and (b) publish annual listings in the Federal Register of all agency programs and services for which Indian tribes may be eligible; 5. directs the Secretary to: (a) report to specified congressional committees on the coordination of Federal program and service assistance for which tribes are eligible; and (b) file a Strategic Plan for the Coordination of Federal Assistance for Indians.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye to introduce the ``Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2003'' to combat child abuse in Native American communities.

First enacted in 1990, the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act was aimed at prosecutions of Federal and tribal employees for child abuse and issues arising from child abuse and family violence.

The act established extensive reporting requirements and character investigations for Federal and tribal employees who have regular contact with Indian children, and provided funding for prevention and treatment programs.

Like so many social pathologies, American Indians are victimized by violence more than any other ethnic group.

Research also shows that Indian victims of violence by family members or intimate partners are more likely than any other ethnic group to be injured and need hospital care.

The act is expiring and needs to be reauthorized, but it also needs to include tougher criteria for background checks and a structured method for tribal assumption of child abuse prevention, prosecution and treatment programs.

The bill is designed to improve the ability of the tribes to combat child abuse in their communities, build tribal capacity, and identify the impediments to more effective prevention, investigation and prosecution of child abuse.

The bill also authorizes funding for building comprehensive tribal programs, and training and technical assistance--the cornerstones in developing the necessary expertise in the field. The bill will also facilitate establishment of safety measures for child

protection workers to reduce unnecessary stress and improve program effectiveness.

In its 2002 report entitled ``Violence Against Women: Data on Pregnant Victims and Effectiveness of Prevention Strategies are Limited'', the General Accounting Office cited the Centers for Disease Control and other researchers who found that there was a need for prevention strategies that incorporate cultural perspectives in serving ethnic populations. This bill will promote cultural perspectives by giving special considerations to tribal programs which incorporate traditional healing methods.

Abuse by the Federal and tribal employees was the main reason for enacting the 1990 Act, however, employees are not the only ones that come in contact with Indian children. The bill I am introducing today will expand the scope of positions subject to character investigations and include contractors who have regular contact with Indian children.

This bill clarifies the requirement that all positions within the Departments of Interior and HHS--not simply the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service--that have regular contact with children must undergo character investigations.

I ask Unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure.

Mr. President, it's been more than a year and a half since the No Child Left Behind Act became law. By passing that bill into law, we reaffirmed our commitment to provide every American child with a quality education.

The education of our children must be one of our top priorities, because they are the future of this country. We have to give them the tools they need to succeed.

Unfortunately, the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq have driven education off the national agenda. This is especially disappointing now because public schools across the Nation are in jeopardy as States struggle to close unprecedented budget deficits. At a time when NCLB is imposing new unfunded mandates on States and local governments, schools have watched helplessly as their budgets have been slashed. Many of these schools are located in poor and rural areas, where the achievement gap is widest. These schools simply don't have the resources they need to do their job, and children are being left behind as a result.

Some States, including Nevada, face an additional problem. These States have extremely high rates of population growth, and as a result they find themselves in a never-ending race to fund the growing demand for education. The formulas that allocate Federal education dollars usually don't factor high growth rates into their calculations. So, schools in these States find their backs against the wall even in the best fiscal conditions. You can imagine how precarious their situation is in a time of record federal and state budget deficits.

I mentioned my State, Nevada. The condition of its public schools is, in many ways, quite dismal. Nevada has one of the highest high school dropout rates in the country and one of the lowest high school graduation rates. It is near the bottom in performance on national reading, writing, and math tests. Per-pupil, Nevada spends less money on its students than all but five other States. I could cite many other statistics, but you get the picture--and it isn't pretty.

There is no magic fix for the problems facing schools in Nevada, or any other state. And because schools are primarily the responsibility of individual states, there is only so much the federal government can do to help. But I believe Nevada's problems stem in part from the fact that its high growth rate prevents it from receiving its fair share of Federal education funding. Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation by a wide margin. Its schools struggle each year to make room for new students. Despite all this, Nevada is dead last in Federal per- pupil education funding. And I want to reiterate that this problem is not unique to Nevada--schools in other states also face budget strains as a result of high population growth rates.

These States deserve their fair share of federal education dollars. It is an issue of fundamental fairness. I hope that we will address this problem in a comprehensive manner the next time we revisit NCLB. In the meantime, however, we should take this opportunity to correct a similar flaw in the way we fund Head Start.

Throughout its 38-year history, Head Start has helped put millions of at-risk children on the path to success by giving them the social and academic skills they need to succeed in elementary school. It is a textbook example of a Federal program that has worked.

Consider some of the statistics. At-risk children who participate in a quality early childhood education program are 33 percent more likely to graduate from high school, and 25 percent less likely to repeat a grade. Since a year of public education for one student costs approximately $5,900, it is safe to say that Head Start has saved taxpayers millions of dollars.

Young women who participated in a quality early childhood education program have 33 percent fewer children out of wedlock, and are 25 percent less likely to become teen mothers. Every dollar we invest in Head Start translates into four dollars of benefits for at-risk children, their families, and American taxpayers.

So as you can see, Head Start is a critical component of public education in this country. Its holistic approach also addresses many of the underlying causes of poor academic performance by providing medical services and guidance for parents of at-risk children.

But State budget crises have placed Head Start programs under siege along with all other aspects of public education--and programs in high- growth states are among the hardest hit. Nevada has seven centralized Head Start agencies that administer almost 50 Head Start programs throughout the State. At current funding levels, these programs serve approximately 2,500 at-risk children not nearly as many as they could serve with adequate resources.

We need to do everything in our power to help Head Start programs meet demand, because better-prepared students make elementary and secondary schools more effective. And because Head Start is a partnership between the Federal Government and States, Congress has the power to make a real difference on this issue.

That is why I am today introducing the High Growth Head Start Assistance Act. It will reward high-growth States, such as Nevada, for their commitment to Head Start by ensuring that programs in their state receive their fair share of Federal funds.

Congresswoman Berkley has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives, and I applaud her leadership on this issue.

This bill will make a difference in the lives of thousands of at-risk children in Nevada and across the Nation. It is a matter of fundamental fairness. Most important, it represents a small but significant step toward fulfilling the promise we made a year and a half ago--a promise to leave no child behind.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homestead Preservation Act which would make available low-interest loans to American workers who have been displaced by international trade so they can continue to make home mortgage payments. This legislation would provide needed mortgage payment assistance to these Americans facing difficult times.

While the relaxation of trade barriers and free trade agreements have opened some new markets to American products and services, it has also led to a decline in the U.S. manufacturing and textile industries. These are the jobs that hard working Americans have depended on for generations and plants and facilities that have helped to sustain communities for decades.

Americans are industrious, hard-working and innovative, but it is unfair to ask them to compete for employment with workforces that do not operate under comparable environmental or labor regulations and in countries that do not reciprocate and violate trade rules. I want to make sure that free trade is at the same time fair trade. The opening of the U.S. market offers great benefit to all Americans, but we should mitigate harm to people making a living in manufacturing or textiles. The People's Republic of China through their currency manipulations, dumping of wood bedroom furniture, textile commands and illegal

semiconductor taxation violate rules of fair trade. One can also look to the recent decision by the Department of Commerce finding that South Korean subsidies provided to Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. have caused great damage to U.S. computer chip manufacturers. As our government continues to follow international trade rules, we owe it to our workers to hold foreign governments accountable for their violations of these agreements.

Going forward, I pledge to take a hard look at all proposed free trade agreements to make sure the interests of the United States are not being compromised. It is essential in the negotiation of these new trade pacts not to place traditional U.S. industries at a distinct disadvantage. Free trade agreements have the opportunity to greatly enhance the economies of the U.S. and its partners, but they must offer generally equal benefits to people in both countries.

Unfortunately, recent years have seen the closing of numerous textile and manufacturing plants in the Commonwealth of Virginia and many can be attributed to international competition. These economic disasters are not unique to my Virginia alone. People in communities in our sister States of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia have experienced such disasters as well. People from Maine to Ohio to California understand and have endured these large layoffs. With each of these closings, a community is thrown into turmoil with families left wondering how ends can be met until new employment is found.

I understand no government program or assistance can substitute for a secure, well-paying job, but I believe the U.S. government can reasonably assist these families as they transition from one career to another. Presently, there are useful assistance programs that aid American workers seeking new employment, but unfortunately, there is nothing currently in place to protect what is usually a family's most valuable financed asset--their home.

The Homestead Preservation Act has been introduced to meet that need. My legislation would provide families vital temporary financial assistance enabling them to keep their homes and protect their credit ratings as they work toward strengthening and upgrading their skills and search for new employment. Individuals seeking to take advantage of this program would need to be enrolled in a job training or job assistance program. Training and education programs that focus on new technology and emerging industries would aid displaced workers in gaining a skill that will allow them to find a good-paying and secure job in a new field.

At a time when families are dealing with an uncertain future they should feel secure that food will be on the table and a roof will be over their heads. The loans to be provided by the Homestead Preservation Act would not solve all of the problems facing unemployed workers, but they would provide important assistance for families facing the prospect of losing their home.

In closing, I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Warner, Edwards, Dole, Hollings, Graham, Chambliss and Snowe for joining me in introducing this legislation. They know and understand the hardship facing these families and I am grateful that they have signed on to help provide this needed assistance. When offered in the 107th Congress, this Homestead Preservation Act received tremendous bipartisan support. I would respectfully urge my colleagues to consider the value Americans place on owning a home and support this caring and needed initiative.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Daschle, Dodd, Lieberman, Bingaman, Johnson, Feingold and Lincoln to introduce legislation to require the President to report to Congress on his vision for a democratic, economically viable, and politically stable Iraq, his plan for achieving those goals, and an estimate on how much this is going to cost.

After months of dodging questions, giving half-answers, and ignoring Congressional requests, the time has come for this Administration to level with the American people and Congress and spell-out its plan for rebuilding a country torn apart by years of dictatorial rule, ethnic strife, war, and terror.

Our legislation requires the President within 60 days of the enactment of this act to report to Congress on: the current economic, political, and military situation in Iraq including the number, type and location of attacks on U.S. and Coalition military and civilian personnel in the previous 60 days; a discussion of the measures taken to protect U.S. troops serving in Iraq; a detailed plan for the establishment of civil, economic and political security in Iraq, including the restoration of basic services such as water and electricity and the construction of schools, roads, and medical clinics in Iraq; the current and projected monetary costs incurred by the United States, by Iraq, and by the international community; actions taken

and to be taken by the Administration to secure increased international participation in peacekeeping forces and in the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq; a detailed time-frame and specific steps to be taken for the restoration of self-government to the Iraqi people; cost estimates for achieving those goals; and U.S. and international military personnel requirements for achieving those goals.

I am pleased that, as Secretary of State Colin Powell announced last week, the Administration has finally decided to seek an additional United Nations Security Council Resolution authorizing increased U.N. participation in multinational peacekeeping forces and the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq.

Nevertheless, President Bush waited far too long to seek additional help and, as a result, we will face an ever greater challenge in rebuilding Iraq in the months and years ahead. And this past Sunday, President Bush announced his intention to seek an additional $87 billion to fund reconstruction efforts and military and intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What we need now is a plan on how to rebuild Iraq, an estimate on how much it is going to cost, what personnel, both military and civilian, U.S. and international, will be needed, and what the end game will look like.

Our troops, along with our British and Australian allies, performed brilliantly in executing Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their unmatched skill, bravery, and professionalism made us all proud. They overthrew a tyrannical regime in three weeks and, for the first time in over thirty years, brought hope to millions of Iraqis. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

But I believe United States troops assumed too great a burden in terms of manpower and exposure to risk, and will be forced to remain in Iraq longer than expected and at a higher financial cost.

Let us look at the facts.

Sixty-seven Americans have died in hostile action since the President declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003. In total, 286 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, 146 since May 1.

One hundred and thirty-nine thousand U.S. troops are currently serving in Iraq, comprising 85 percent of coalition forces.

Four car bombings in the past month have killed 121 people, including the UN's top envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that the United States is spending approximately $4 billion a month in Iraq and, given the President's statement Sunday, there is no indication that this figure will go down anytime in the near future.

These are enormous commitments, and yet, we do not have a clear indication from the Administration about its intentions in Iraq. And that is why I am introducing this legislation.

We have assumed an enormous responsibility in Iraq and we must stay the course. But let us hear from the Administration on how it intends to stay that course and where that course will lead us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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