OPEN Government Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act.'' My State of Hawaii is home to 115,000 veterans, nearly 18,000 of whom avail themselves of VA health care. Unfortunately, the level of care provided to those living on Oahu and the Neighbor Islands--Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the Big Island--is not at the optimal level. My legislation would significantly improve the level of care the veterans residing in Hawaii have so bravely earned.

Hawaii is undoubtedly an exceptional place to make one's home, and its population continues to grow each year. As such, the number of veterans seeking VA health care has grown. However, the level of services provided to Hawaii's veterans has failed to keep pace. Additionally, each day more veterans are returning home to Hawaii from the Global War on Terror, including Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. It is critical that these brave men and women receive adequate care. It is equally critical that today's veterans receive needed long- term care and mental health care.

My bill would ensure that care and facilities are optimized, that the burden of VA personnel is diminished, and that veterans throughout the state receive specialized care. Specifically, my legislation calls for new Community Based Outpatient Clinics and Vet Centers in areas that desperately need additional health care facilities, as well as expanding services at those already in existence. Satellite clinics providing both medical care and mental health counseling would be opened on the islands of Molokai and Lanai, which currently lack VA facilities. Staff levels at existing clinics and Vet Centers would be increased to compensate for these new clinics and to provide needed community-based long-term care, such as home care. My legislation also authorizes the construction of a $10 million mental health center on the grounds of Tripler Army Medical Center, which will include an inpatient Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder residential treatment program.

That our veterans receive the long-term care to which they are entitled is of major concern to me. In fact, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, of which I am Ranking Member, held a hearing on the potential demand for long-term care just this May. I would like to point out that the VA Center for Aging in Honolulu--the only VA nursing home in the State--has a mere 60 beds. This is nowhere near sufficient to care for the number of veterans who reside there. Furthermore, community nursing home beds are limited. Given the dearth of nursing home beds, both VA and community, the Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act authorizes a medical care foster program on the Island of Oahu. Modeled on the successful Medical Care Foster Program at the Central Arkansas Veterans Health Care System, such a system places veterans in a permanent foster home, allowing them to remain in the community while receiving the care they need.

Because I believe specialized care, such as orthopedics and opthamology, are limited on the neighbor islands, the bill directs that VA fully study the provision of such care. VA would then be required to make a formal determination as to the adequacy of specialized care. I may seek to direct improvements in this area at a later date.

This bill is vital to those veterans residing in Hawaii. Though they may live far from the other veterans on the mainland, they are just as entitled to quality health care.

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

Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce legislation that would enhance the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) ability to provide mental health and other specialized services to its patients. At a time when our Nation is at war, it is imperative that we ensure that all veterans have access to top quality mental health care, whether they visit a VA hospital or clinic.

At the time of its creation, the VA health care system was tasked with meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Those veterans who suffered from spinal cord injuries, amputations, blindness, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse, and homelessness required unique forms of treatment and rehabilitation. During the past few decades, VA has emerged as the industry leader in providing specialized services to these types of patients. Much of VA's expertise in these areas remains unparalleled in the larger health care community-- particularly with regard to mental health care.

However, it is with great dismay that I rise today, as VA's specialized programs are in jeopardy due to budget constraints. Increased demand and flatline budget increases over the past

few years have literally starved the system. Sadly, this problem is not a new one. Back in 1996, Congress recognized the merits of these specialized programs and that they could be vulnerable to cuts because of their smaller scale. As such, we enacted legislation that required VA to retain its capacity to provide specialized services at the levels in place at the time of the bill's passage in 1996, and to annually report as to the status of its compliance with this requirement.

Despite this effort by Congress and the actions of my predecessors on this Committee to subsequently strengthen the original legislation to protect VA's specialized services, VA continues to underfund and cut back resources for these vital programs. Additionally, VA has employed measures such as counting dollars according to 1996 levels to appear as if they are in compliance. In the area of mental health care, this has been especially true. My proposed legislation amends the statute to ensure that capacity funding levels are adjusted for inflation. We need to be talking about real dollars--not 1996 dollars--to get a true sense of VA's capacity to care for veterans with mental health needs.

This legislation would also mandate that VA carry out a number of measures designed to improve mental health and substance abuse treatment capacity at Community-Based Outpatient Clinics and throughout the VA system. Currently, many clinics do not even provide mental health services at all. My bill would ensure that at least 90 percent of all clinics can provide mental health services, either onsite or through referrals. Furthermore, it would establish more comprehensive performance measures to provide incentives for clinics to maintain mental health capacity, for primary care doctors to screen patients for mental illness, and require that every primary health care facility be able to provide at least five days of inpatient detoxification services.

Finally, the bill seeks to foster greater cooperation between VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) in treating servicemembers and subsequently veterans who suffer from some form of mental health or readjustment disorder. It has been estimated that anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the men and women who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will require treatment for a mental health issue. The bill would direct the two Departments to agree upon standardized separation screening procedures for sexual trauma and mental health disorders, as well as establish a joint VA-DoD Workgroup to examine potential ways of combating stigma associated with mental illness, educate servicemembers' families, and make VA's expertise in the field of mental health more readily available to DoD providers.

We still have much work to do in the area of mental illness associated with service in the armed forces. But this bill is a step in the right direction. I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill, for it not only seeks to combat disorders that can be very debilitating, but it also would protect specialized services that are at the heart of VA's mission.

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

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation that will expand the services available to our Nation's veterans and their dependents, and improve the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide health care services to this same group of deserving Americans. I take a few moments now to explain the provisions of this legislation.

First, the bill would, in section 2, exempt veterans enrolled for VA care from all copayments for hospice care services provided by VA. Over the past several years, VA has greatly expanded its efforts to provide compassionate end-of-life care for our Nation's heroes. Last year, Congress made efforts to ensure that the surviving spouses and children would not receive bills for such services following the deaths of such veterans who were in the hospice program. Unfortunately, last year's legislation did not go far enough, and today some veterans' families are still paying for this care. This provision would end that practice in all hospice care settings.

Section 3 of the bill would exempt former Prisoners of War from copayments that are applicable to care in a VA extended care facility. Congress has already exempted this deserving group of veterans from other VA medical copayments, and this provision would complete the range of services available to these veterans free of charge. In addition, this section bill would remove the requirement that VA maintain the exact number of nursing home care beds in VA facilities as it had during fiscal year 1998. Now before some suggest that I am advocating the reduction in services available to veterans, I'd like to explain how the current requirement came about and why I believe it should be reconsidered.

The requirement that VA maintain a specified level of nursing home beds was inserted into the law in 1999 when Congress enacted legislation to expand options for non-institutional, long-term care services available to veterans. At that time, some felt that by growing the non-institutional care program, VA would seek simply to shut all of its institutional care capacity. So in a compromise, Congress decided that fiscal year 1998 would be the year against which changes in the institutional care program would be measured. And then it required that VA maintain all of the beds it had in 1998.

Since 1998, VA has increased the number of veterans it treats by nearly 2 million. Yet, year after year, VA reports to Congress that it does not need to maintain the number of nursing home beds required by law. Does that mean VA is closing beds unnecessarily? No. It means VA has followed the progress of medicine and is offering tens-of-thousands of veterans non-institutional care services while keeping them at home rather than in VA nursing home beds. I do not believe that Congress should continue to mandate the maintenance of an arbitrarily-determined number of beds in a system that is trying to effectively use every dollar it can to provide real and needed services to our veterans. This provision reflects that belief.

The fourth section of the legislation, if enacted, would ensure that veterans who seek emergency medical services at the nearby community medical facilities are treated no differently financially than if the care had been provided at a VA medical facility. This is an important issue in the provision of quality health care for our veterans. VA has some evidence that veterans who need emergency services are bypassing local medical facilities, and are attempting to ``make it'' to a VA facility even in the face of an emergency, because of concerns that VA's reimbursement policies for non-VA provided

emergency care will result in the veteran paying more out-of-pocket costs. Clearly, that is not the kind of behavior Congress wants to encourage in our veterans. Nor is it good medicine. This provision would clarify once and for all that veterans will be treated equally regardless of where emergency care treatment is sought.

Section 5 of the bill would authorize VA to provide or pay for up to the first fourteen days of care for a newborn child of an enrolled female veteran who delivers her baby under VA provided, or VA financed, care. As most of my colleagues know, VA provides what it calls a ``comprehensive package of health benefits for eligible veterans.'' Unfortunately, for the increasing number of female veterans enrolling for VA care, the word ``comprehensive'' does not include coverage for a newborn's first few days of needed care. This type of arrangement is common in the private sector. In my judgment, this is an issue we must address to assure our female service members that, as more and more of them join the service and change the face of the American military, we will make certain that the face of VA changes right along with it.

Section 6 would allow private health care providers to recoup costs for care provided to children afflicted with spina bifida of Vietnam veterans--children who are, by law, entitled to VA-provided care--when the costs are not fully covered by VA reimbursements. This so-called ``balance billing'' authority would prohibit charging individual patients or veterans themselves. Only a beneficiary with private insurance could have his or her insurance cover charges not covered by VA. This provision is important because it will provide a financial incentive to many providers who, unfortunately in some cases today, are not willing to provide the very specialized services needed by these children because some costs are not reimbursed by VA at a sufficient rate.

Section 7 of this bill would increase the authorized level of funding for the Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I know all of my colleagues would agree that any man or woman who served this country in uniform should not be among the unfortunate Americans who find themselves on the street without shelter. VA has made tremendous strides in this area by providing grant programs, health care services, mental health treatment, and other assistance to those veterans who do find themselves on the street. This provision would ensure that good programs remain on track for the foreseeable future.

The eighth section of this bill would authorize VA medical centers to employ Marriage and Family Therapists. I realize that to some of my colleagues this may sound as though VA is beginning to become a family health care system and not a veterans' health care system. I want to assure any who harbor such concerns that this is not the intention or the purpose of this proposed authority. Rather, this proposal seeks to recognize that for some veterans, the trauma and experiences of war may lead to troubles at home. Often in these situations, treatment as a family is more effective for the betterment of the veteran. Of course, preservation of the family is an extremely important byproduct of this treatment approach as well. I do not believe it is incompatible with the mission of treating our veterans to focus on their family well- being when it is appropriate. The military is offering many of these services already to those who are returning from overseas. These programs are receiving good reviews from those in the mental health and counseling professions. It seems only logical that we extend successful ideas from the military experience to our veterans.

Section 9 would provide pay equity for the national Director of VA's Nursing Service. Currently, this position is paid at a rate that is less than all of the other service chiefs at VA's Central Office. I believe correcting this inequity is not only a matter of fairness, but a long overdue recognition that VA's nursing service is just as important to the provision of health services for our veterans as the pharmacy service, the dental service, and other such services within

Mr. President, I rise to express strong support for S. 1181, concerning the Federa1 Freedom of Information Act--or FOIA. The bill is cosponsored by Senator Leahy--with whom I am pleased to be working on a number of FOIA issues--as well as by Senators Alexander, Feingold, Isakson, and Specter. I am pleased that S. 1181 enjoys strong bipartisan support and the support of numerous organizations across the ideological spectrum. I can't imagine a more commonsense, good government bill. It should not be controversial. I am aware of any opposition to it. I am informed that the administration has no concerns about it. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure by voice vote on June 9, and I am hopeful that the Senate will take up this matter shortly.

On February 16, shortly before the President's Day recess, the Senator from Vermont and I introduced the OPEN Government Act of 2005, S. 394--bipartisan legislation to promote accountability, accessibility, and openness in government, principally by strengthening and enhancing the Federal law commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act. On March 15, the Terrorism subcommittee convened a hearing on that legislation. Like S. 1181, the OPEN Government Act is a good bill to strengthen and enhance FOIA. But I recognize that the OPEN Government Act will take some time to work through.

When I served as attorney general of Texas, it was my responsibility to enforce Texas's open government laws. I am pleased to report that Texas is known for having one of the strongest set of open government laws in our Nation. And since that experience, I have long believed that our Federal Government could use ``a little Texas sunshine.'' I am thus especially enthusiastic about the OPEN Government Act because that bill attempts to incorporate some of the most important principles and elements of Texas law into the Federal Freedom of Information Act. And I am gratified that Senators Alexander, Feingold, Isakson, and Nelson of Nebraska are cosponsors of this bipartisan Cornyn-Leahy legislation.

The OPEN Government Act is the culmination of months of extensive discussions between the offices of Senators Cornyn and Leahy and members of the requestor community. It is supported by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and a broad coalition of organizations across the ideological spectrum, including:

American Association of Law Libraries; American Civil

Liberties Union; American Library Association: American

Society of Newspaper Editors; Associated Press Managing

Editors; Association of Alternative Newsweeklies;

Association of Health Care Journalists; Center for

Democracy & Technology; Coalition of Journalists for Open

Government; Committee of Concerned Journalists; Common

Cause; Defenders of Property Rights; Education Writers

Association; Electronic Privacy Information Center;

Federation of American Scientists/Project on Government

Secrecy; Free Congress Foundation/Center for Privacy &

Technology Policy; Freedom of Information Center, Univ. of

Mo.; The Freedom of Information Foundation of TX; The

Heritage Foundation/Center for Media and Public Policy;

Information Trust; League of Women Voters of the United

States; Liberty Legal Institute; Magazine Publishers of

America; National Conference of Editorial Writers;

National Freedom of Information Coalition; National

Newspaper Association; National Press Club; National

Security Archive/Geo. Wash. Univ.; Newspaper Association

of America; OMB Watch; One Nation Indivisible;

OpenTheGovernment.org; People for the American Way;

Project on Government Oversight; Radio-Television News

Directors Association; Reporters Committee for Freedom of

the Press; Society of Environmental Journalists.

I am particularly pleased to report the recent endorsements of three conservative public interest groups--one devoted to the defense of property rights--Defenders of Property Rights, led by Nancie G. Marzulla--one devoted to the issue of racial preferences in affirmative action programs--One Nation Indivisible, led by Linda Chavez--and one devoted to the protection of religious liberty--Liberty Legal Institute, led by Kelly Shackelford.

This broad and diverse support across political parties and across the ideological spectrum is important because it demonstrates that the cause of open government is neither a Republican nor a Democrat issue-- neither a conservative nor a liberal issue. Rather, it is an American issue. Accordingly, I look forward to future Senate action on the OPEN Government Act.

In the meantime, S. 1181 should be very easy for the Senate to approve today. It simply implements section 8 of the OPEN Government Act. It would simply help to ensure an open and deliberate process in Congress by providing that any future legislation to establish a new exemption to the Federal Freedom of Information Act must be stated explicitly within the text of the bill. Specifically, any future attempt to create a new so-called ``(b)(3) exemption'' to the Federal FOIA law must specifically cite section (b)(3) of FOIA if it is to take effect.

The justification for this provision is simple: Congress should not establish new secrecy provisions through secret means. If Congress is to establish a new exemption to FOIA, it should do so in the open and in the light of day. FOIA establishes a presumption of disclosure. But if documents are to be kept secret pursuant to a future act of Congress, as is sometimes appropriate and necessary, we should at least make sure that that act of Congress itself not be undertaken in secret.

I want to be clear: This bill does not affect current law in any way, and it does not affect the executive branch in any direct way. It only applies to the process through which Congress must enact any FOIA exemption in the future. For those who are interested in the technical aspects of this bill, I will point out that this provision is modeled after other Federal laws--such as the War Powers Resolution--50 U.S.C. Sec. 1547(a)--and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act--5 U.S.C. Sec. 3347--which also require Congress to act in an explicit fashion in order to carry out particular objectives. Think of it as a direction to the courts--a canon of interpretation, advising on how to construe future acts of Congress.

Senator Leahy and I firmly believe that all of the provisions of the OPEN Government Act are important--and that, as a recent Cox News Service report demonstrates, section 8 in particular is a worthy provision that can and should be quickly enacted into law.

July 4 is the anniversary of the 1966 enactment of the original Federal Freedom of Information Act. Accordingly, we have devoted our efforts this month to getting section 8 approved by Congress and submitted to the President for his signature by that anniversary date. Toward that end, we ask our Senate colleagues to support this measure. And we look forward to working with our colleagues in the House-- including Representatives Lamar Smith and Brad Sherman, the lead sponsors of the OPEN Government Act

in the House, H.R. 867; Chairman Tom Davis, who leads the House Committee on Government Reform; Chairman Todd Platts, who leads the House Government Reform Subcommittee that recently held a hearing to review the Federal FOIA law; and Representatives Henry Waxman and Edolphus Towns, the ranking members of the committee and subcommittee.

S. 1181 is a commonsense, uncontroversial provision that deserves the support of every Member of Congress. I hope that it can be enacted into law quickly, and that Congress will then move to consider the other important provisions of the OPEN Government Act.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the news report I previously mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation to eliminate one of the great inconsistencies in the Internal Revenue Code.

The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is designed to restore some internal consistency to the tax code as it applies to art and artists. No one has ever said that the tax code is fair even though it has always been a theoretical objective of the code to treat similar taxpayers similarly.

The bill I am introducing today would address two areas where similarly situated taxpayers are not treated the same.

Internal inconsistency number one deals with the long-term capital gains tax treatment of investments in art and collectibles. If a person invests in stocks or bonds and sells at a gain, the tax treatment is long term capital gains. The top capital gains tax rate is 15 percent. However, if the same person invests in art or collectibles the top rate is hiked up to 28 percent. Art for art's sake should not incur a higher tax rate simply for revenue's sake. That is a big impact on the pocketbook of the beholder.

Art and collectibles are alternatives to financial instruments as an investment choice. To create a tax disadvantage with respect to one investment compared to another creates an artificial market and may lead to poor investment allocations. It also adversely impacts those who make their livelihood in the cultural sectors of the economy.

Santa Fe, NM, is the third largest art market in the country. We have a diverse colony of artists, collectors and gallery owners. We have fabulous Native American rug weavers, potters and carvers. Creative giants like Georgia O'Keeffe, Maria Martinez, E. L. Blumenshein, Allan Houser, R.C. Gorman, and Glenna Goodacre have all chosen New Mexico as their home and as their artistic subject. John Nieto, Wilson Hurley, Clark Hulings, Veryl Goodnight, Bill Acheff, Susan Rothenberg, Bruce Nauman, Agnes Martin, Doug Hyde, Margaret Nez, and Dan Ostermiller are additional examples of living artists creating art in New Mexico.

Art, antiques, and collectibles are a $12 to $20 billion annual industry nationwide. In New Mexico, it has been estimated that art and collectible sales range between $500 million and one billion a year.

Economists have always been interested in the economics of the arts. Adam Smith is a well-known economist. He was also a serious, but little-known essayist on painting, dancing, and poetry. Similarly, Keynes was both a famous economist and a passionate devotee of painting. However, even artistically inclined economists have found it difficult to define art within the context of economic theory.

When asked to define jazz, Louis Armstrong replied: ``If you gotta ask, you ain't never going to know.'' A similar conundrum has challenged Galbraith and other economists who have grappled with the definitional issues associated with bringing art within the economic calculus. Original art objects are, as a commodity group, characterized by a set of attributes: every unit of output is differentiated from every other unit of output; art works can be copied but not reproduced; and the cultural capital of the nation has significant elements of public good.

Because art works can be resold, and their prices may rise over time, they have the characteristics of financial assets, and as such may be sought as a hedge against inflation, as a store of wealth, or as a source of speculative capital gain. A study by Keishiro Matsumoto, Samuel Andoh and James P. Hoban, Jr. assessed the risk-adjusted rates of return on art sold at Sotheby's during the 14-year period ending September 30, 1989. They concluded that art was a good investment in terms of average real rates of return. Several studies found that rates of return from the price appreciation on paintings, comic books, collectibles and modern prints usually made them very attractive long- term investments. Also, when William Goetzmann was at the Columbia Business School, he constructed an art index and concluded that painting price movements and stock market fluctuations are correlated.

I conclude that with art, as well as stocks, past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but the gains should be taxed the same.

In 1990, the editor of Art and Auction asked the question: ``Is there an `efficient' art market?'' A well-known art dealer answered ``Definitely not. That's one of the things that makes the market so interesting.'' For everyone who has been watching world financial markets lately, the art market may be a welcome distraction.

Why do people invest in art and collectibles? Art and collectibles are something you can appreciate even if the investment doesn't appreciate. Art is less volatile. If buoyant and not so buoyant bond prices drive you berserk and spiraling stock prices scare you, art may be the appropriate investment for you. Because art and collectibles are investments, the long-term capital gains tax treatment should be the same as for stocks and bonds. This bill would accomplish that.

Artists will benefit. Gallery owners will benefit. Collectors will benefit. And museums benefit from collectors. About 90 percent of what winds up in museums like New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art comes from collectors.

Collecting isn't just for the hoity toity. It seems that everyone collects something. Some collections are better investments than others. Some collections are just bizarre. The Internet makes collecting big business, and flea market fanatics are avid collectors. In fact, people collect the darndest things. Books, duck decoys, chia pets, snowglobes, thimbles, handcuffs, spectacles, baseball cards, and guns are a few such ``collectibles.''

For most of these collections, capital gains isn't really an issue, but you never know. You may find that your collecting passion has created a tax predicament to phrase it politely. Art and collectibles are tangible assets. When you sell them, capital gains tax is due on any appreciation over your purchase price.

The bill provides capital gains tax parity because it lowers the top capital gains rate from 28 percent to 15 percent.

Internal inconsistency number two deals with the charitable deduction for artists donating their work to a museum or other charitable cause. When someone is asked to make a charitable contribution to a museum or to a fund raising auction, it shouldn't matter whether that person is an artist or not. Under current law, however, it makes a big difference. As the law stands now, an artist/creator can only take a deduction equal to the cost of the art supplies. The bill I am introducing will allow a fair market deduction for the artist.

It's important to note that this bill includes certain safeguards to keep the artist from ``painting himself a tax deduction.'' This bill applies to literary, musical, artistic, and scholarly compositions if the work was created at least 18 months before the donation was made, has been appraised, and is related to the purpose or function of the charitable organization receiving the donation. As with other charitable contributions, it is limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). If it is also a capital gain, there is a 30 percent of AGI limit. I believe these safeguards bring fairness back into the code and protect the Treasury against any potential abuse.

I hope my colleagues will help me put this internal consistency into the Internal Revenue Code.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Stabenow, Allen, and Durbin. I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation.

Our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.

The situation America faces today is not unlike almost fifty years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had just assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.

In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to stimulate advancement in science and math education. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade.

These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet.

Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.

The truth of the matter is that today, America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future.

The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries.

While slightly better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.

Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.

In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.

The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: according to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America. The American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help. Under current law, the $14 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, two people from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs.

That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every two

years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded with a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education.

We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have approximately $14 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand.

In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a common- sense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor.

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