Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2005

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer legislation to halt Saudi Arabia's support for institutions that fund, train, incite or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents and organizations.

Despite the Saudi government's attempts to show otherwise, a growing amount of evidence indicates that Saudi Arabia has provided only lackluster support for U.S. investigations into terrorist networks, such as al Qaeda. Mounting documentation and reports have revealed that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Saudi citizens have provided significant amounts of financial support to al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. The Saudi government continues to use direct and indirect means to support organizations that propagate hate and incite terror around the world.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001, mandates that all states ``refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts . . . take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts . . . deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts . . . ensure that

any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice'' and that member countries ``afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts.'' I would like to share some findings with my colleagues that I believe paint a clear picture that Saudi Arabia has failed to comply with this U.N. standard.

Saudi Arabia's lack of cooperation with the United States is not a post 9/11 phenomenon. At the time of the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, I chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee. I visited Dhahran and had the opportunity to inspect the results of the car bomb which killed nineteen of our airmen and injured 400 others. In that situation, U.S. investigators were denied the opportunity to interview the suspects. I personally met with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and requested that the FBI be permitted to speak with suspects in custody. Crown Prince Abdullah denied my request and informed me that the United States should not meddle in Saudi internal affairs. The murder of nineteen U.S. airmen and the wounding of 400 more hardly qualifies as a Saudi internal affair.

A joint committee of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives issued a report on July 24, 2003, which found ``a number of U.S. Government officials complained to the Joint Inquiry about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11 attacks.'' With regard to dealing with Saudi officials, General Counsel of the Treasury Department, David Aufhauser, testified on July 23, 2002, that ``there is an almost intuitive sense, however, that things are not being volunteered. So I want to fully inform you about it, that we have to ask and we have to seek and we have to strive.''

The Saudi Government has asserted its right to question Saudi nationals captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, yet according to a September 15, 2003 issue of Time Magazine, the Saudi Government denied ``U.S. officials access to several suspects in custody, including a Saudi in detention for months who had knowledge of extensive plans to inject poison gas in the New York City subway system.''

In a June 2004 report entitled ``Update on the Global Campaign Against Terrorist Financing'', the Council on Foreign Relations reported that ``we find it regrettable and unacceptable that since September 11, 2001, we know of not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups who have been publicly punished.''

Additionally, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United

States, also referred to as the 9/11 Commission, interviewed numerous military officers and government officials who repeatedly listed Saudi Arabia as a prime place for terrorists to set up bases. ``In talking with American and foreign government officials and military officers on the front lines fighting terrorists today, we [9/11 Commission] asked them: If you were a terrorist leader today, where would you locate your base? Some of the same places come up again and again on their lists . . . the Arabian Peninsula, especially Saudi Arabia.''

The U.S. should not be in the position of begging for information and expending time and energy pleading for assistance from Saudi Arabia on matters of such great importance to our national security.

In the case of funneling funds to terrorist organizations, Saudi Arabia cannot be permitted to turn a blind eye to the millions of dollars its citizens funnel to radical organizations. It sends a message to the U.S. that they are not serious about stemming the flow of support for terror and it sends a message to their own people that this type of behavior is tolerated.

The New York Times reported on September 17, 2003, that ``at least fifty percent of Hamas's current operating budget of about $10 million a year comes from people in Saudi Arabia.'' In a July 3, 2003 report, The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported that various Saudi organizations have funneled over four billion dollars to finance the Palestinian intifada that began in September 2000.

The 9/11 Commission also clearly stated that ``Saudi Arabia's society was a place where al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals through charities.''

In testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee in July 2003, David Aufhauser, General Counsel of the Treasury Department, was asked if the trail of money funding terrorists led back to Saudi Arabia. He indicated that ``in many cases it is the epicenter.''

Not only has the government failed to halt the hemorrhaging of terrorist funds from its citizens, but its own leadership has reportedly provided significant support for terrorist organizations. Saudi Arabia must begin by getting its own house in order which includes rooting out those of its leaders and those in its government who are fanning the fire of hate. According to the aforementioned MEMRI report, ``for decades the royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been the main financial supporter of Palestinian groups fighting Israel.''

In addition to financial support, Saudi Arabia, through its various domestic and foreign institutions, has supported the spread of radical ideology. A report released on January 28, 2005 by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom found that Saudi Arabia is the state most responsible for the propagation of material promoting hatred, intolerance, and violence within United States mosques and Islamic centers, and that these publications are often official publications of a Saudi ministry or distributed by the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, DC.

Freedom House also found that ``while the government of Saudi Arabia claims to be `updating' or reforming its textbooks and study materials within the Kingdom, its publications propagating an ideology of hatred remain plentiful in some prominent American mosques and Islamic centers, and continue to be a principal resource available to students of Islam within the United States.''

One such document Freedom House collected from a Herndon, Virginia mosque, distributed by the Cultural Department of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, was found to contain ``virulent denunciations of Christians and of the infidelity of their beliefs and practices. It offers intricate guidelines concerning the proper relations Muslims should have with non-Muslims while they reside in the latter's `lands of shirk and kufr' (i.e. lands of idolatry and infidelity).'' The report also found a fatwa in a Saudi Embassy publication condemning tolerant Muslims and ``is followed by selective Koranic verses that spell out the infidelity of Jews and Christians and condemn them to the eternal fires of hell.''

In a May 2003 report on Saudi Arabia, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom found ``some Saudi government-funded textbooks used both in Saudi Arabia and also in North American Islamic schools and mosques have been found to encourage incitement to violence against non-Muslims.'' The Commission further found ``offensive and discriminatory language in Saudi government-sponsored school textbooks, sermons in mosques, and articles and commentary in the media about Jews, Christians, and non-Wahhabi streams of Islam.''

The September 13, 2003 issue of Time Magazine reported eighth and ninth grade Saudi textbooks which read ``that Allah cursed Jews and Christians and turned some of them into apes and pigs . . . and that Judgment Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.''

Time also, found that ``many of the Taliban, who went on to rule much of Afghanistan, were educated in Saudi-financed madaris in Pakistan.'' In the September 2003 issue of Time Magazine, a former Saudi diplomat, Mohammed al-Khilewi, stated that ``the Saudi government spends billions of dollars to establish cultural centers in the U.S. and all over the world'' and that they ``use these centers to recruit individuals and to establish extreme organizations.'' It is no surprise that it is from these fertile grounds that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were born and radicalized.

To be successful in the global war on terrorism we need the proactive and full cooperation of all nations--especially those who consider themselves allies of the United States.

The Saudi Government must provide complete, unrestricted and unobstructed cooperation to the United States in the investigation of terrorist organizations and individuals. This bill directs the President to certify to Congress that the Government of Saudi Arabia is fully cooperating with the United States in investigating and preventing terrorist attacks, has closed permanently all Saudi-based terror organizations, has ended funding for any offshore terrorist organization, and has made all efforts to block funding from private Saudi citizens and entities to offshore terrorist organizations. If Saudi Arabia fails to take such steps, this legislation will require the President to prohibit certain exports to Saudi Arabia and restrict the travel of Saudi diplomats. This legislation permits the President to waive such sanctions if he determines it is in the national security interest of the United States.

Two major objectives in the Global War on Terrorism are to deny terrorists safe haven and to eradicate the sources of terrorist financing. We cannot be successful in this war by ignoring the problem Saudi Arabia presents to our security. The government of Saudi Arabia can no longer remain idle while its citizenry continues to provide the wherewithal for terrorist groups with global reach nor can it continue to directly facilitate and support institutions that incite violence.

President Bush has stated that the United States ``will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends.'' The 108th Congress passed, and the President signed, the Syrian Accountability Act. I believe the Saudis are a much greater threat to U.S. interests than the Syrians and there ought to be a very firm approach to our relationship with the Saudi Government. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the problems in our bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia must be confronted openly-- this legislation takes a step in that direction.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce The Gynecological Cancer Education and Awareness Act of 2005 also known as Johanna's Law.

Every year, over 80,000 women in the United States are newly diagnosed with some form of gynecologic cancer such as ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer. In 2005, 29,000 American women are expected to die from these cancers.

Early detection of these cancers must be improved to decrease this tragic loss of life. Unfortunately, thousands of women in the U.S. each year aren't diagnosed until their cancers have progressed to more advanced and far less treatable stages. In the case of ovarian cancer, which kills more women in the U.S. than all other gynecologic cancers combined, 70 percent of all new diagnoses take place after this cancer has progressed beyond its earliest and most survivable stage.

Women are often diagnosed many months, sometimes more than a year after they first experience symptoms due to a lack of knowledge of early warning signs of gynecological cancers. Adding to the challenge of a prompt and accurate diagnosis is the similarity of gynecological cancer symptoms to those of more common gastrointestinal conditions and benign gynecologic conditions such as perimenopause and menopause. Women too often receive diagnoses reflecting these benign conditions without their physicians having first considered gynecologic cancers as a possible cause of the symptoms.

The Gynecological Cancer Education and Awareness Act will improve early detection of gynecologic cancers by creating a national awareness and an education outreach campaign to inform physicians and individuals of the risk factors and symptoms of these diseases. When gynecological cancer is detected in its earliest stage, patients 5-year survival rates are greater than 90 percent and many go on to live normal, healthy lives.

The national awareness campaign will be carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to increase women's awareness and knowledge of gynecologic cancers. The campaign will maintain and distribute a supply of written materials that provide information to the public about gynecologic cancers. Further, the program will develop public service announcements encouraging women to discuss their risks for gynecologic cancers with their physicians, and inform the public about the availability of written materials and how to obtain them. The projected cost of the awareness campaign is $5 million per year from 2006-2008, totaling $15 million.

The educational outreach campaign will be carried out through demonstration grants through HHS. These demonstration grants will go to local and national non-profits to test different outreach and education strategies, including those directed at providers, women, and their families. Groups with demonstrated expertise in gynecologic cancer education, treatment, or in working with groups of women who are at especially high risk will be given priority. Grant funding recipients will also be asked to work in cooperation with health providers, hospitals, and state health departments. The projected cost of the educational outreach campaign is $10 million per year from 2006-2008, totaling $30 million.

This legislation was brought to my attention by my friend Fran Drescher, who was diagnosed with uterine cancer in 2000 and whose diagnosis was also delayed due to her lack of knowledge about symptoms of this disease. She has recovered from uterine cancer and is advocating on behalf of gynecological cancer awareness. She also brought to my attention one of the many victims of gynecological cancers Johanna Silver Gordon, after whom this bill is named, who was diagnosed at an advanced stage of ovarian cancer.

Johanna, the daughter and sister of physicians, was extremely health conscious taking the appropriate measures to maintain a healthy lifestyle including exercising regularly, eating nutritiously, and receiving annual Pap smears and pelvic exams. Johanna however did not have the information to know that the gastric symptoms she experienced in the fall of 1996 were common symptoms of ovarian cancer. She didn't learn these crucial facts until after she was diagnosed at an advanced stage of this cancer. Despite aggressive treatment that included four surgeries, various types of chemotherapy, and participation in two clinical trials, Johanna died from ovarian cancer 3\1/2\ years after being diagnosed. Johanna is survived by her sister Sheryl Silver who has tirelessly worked to increase the information available regarding gynecological cancers.

As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I led, along with Senator Harkin, the effort to double funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over five years. Funding for the NIH has increased from $11.3 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $28.5 billion in fiscal year 2005. In 2004, the NIH, through the National Cancer Institute provided $212.5 million for gynecological cancer research. Further, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provided $209 million in fiscal year 2005 for breast and gynecological cancer screening and diagnostic services, including: pap tests, surgical consultation, and diagnostic testing for women whose screening outcome is abnormal. To date, the Program has screened more than 2.1 million women, provided more than 5 million screening exams, and diagnosed 66,295 pre-cancerous cervical lesions and 1,262 invasive cervical cancers. We must continue these efforts to do more to provide information about gynecological cancer to physicians and those most at risk.

I believe this bill can provide desperately needed information to physicians and individuals so that women can be diagnosed faster and more effectively. I urge my colleagues to work with Senator Harkin and me to move this legislation forward promptly.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Federal Agency Data-Mining Reporting Act of 2005. I want to thank Senator Sununu for cosponsoring this bill. He has consistently been a leader on privacy issues, and I am very pleased to work with him on this effort. I also want to thank Senators Leahy, Akaka, Jeffords and Wyden for their support of the bill.

The controversial data analysis technology known as data-mining is capable of reviewing millions of both public and private records on each and every American. The possibility of government law enforcement or intelligence agencies fishing for patterns of criminal or terrorist activity in these vast quantities of digital data raises serious privacy and civil liberties issues--not to mention questions about the effectiveness of these types of searches. But more than two years after Congress first learned about the Defense Department's program called Total Information Awareness, there is still much we do not know about the Federal government's other work on data-mining., We found out last year from a GAO report that there are 199 Federal data-mining programs, 122 of which rely on personal information and 29 of which are for the purpose of investigating terrorists or criminals, but we don't know the details of those programs. This is information we need to have. Congress should not be learning the details about data-mining programs after millions of dollars are spent testing or using data-mining against unsuspect- ing Americans.

Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance already undertaken by this Administration, the unchecked, secret use of data-mining technology threatens one of the most important values that we are fighting for as we combat terrorism--freedom. My bill would require all Federal agencies to report to Congress within 90 days and every year thereafter data-mining programs developed or used to find a pattern indicating terrorist or other criminal activity and how these programs implicate the civil liberties and privacy of all Americans. If necessary, information in the various reports could be classified.

Let me clarify what this bill does not do. It does not have any effect on the government's use of commercial data to conduct individualized searches on people who are already suspects. It does not end funding for any program, determine the rules for use of data-mining technology, or threaten any ongoing investigation that uses data-mining technology.

My bill would simply provide Congress with information about the nature of the technology and the data that will be used. The Federal Agency Data-Mining Reporting Act would require all government agencies to assess the efficacy of the data-mining technology and whether the technology can deliver on the promises of each program. In addition, my bill would make sure that Congress knows whether the Federal agencies using data-mining technology have considered and developed policies to protect the privacy and due process rights of individuals.

With complete information about the current data-mining plans and practices of the Federal government, Congress will be able to conduct a thorough review of the costs and benefits of the practice of data- mining on a program-by-program basis and make considered judgments about which programs should go forward and which should not. Congress will also be able to evaluate whether new privacy rules are necessary.

Data-mining could rely on a combination of intelligence data and personal information like individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information contained in commercial or public databases. Congress must

conduct oversight to make sure that government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense use these types of sensitive personal information appropriately.

Furthermore, data-mining is unproven in this area. The government argues that data-mining can help locate potential terrorists before they strike. But we do not, today, have evidence that data-mining will prevent terrorism. In fact, some technology experts have warned that data-mining is not the right approach for the terrorism problem. The financial world has successfully used data-mining to identify people committing fraud because it has data on literally millions, if not billions, of historical financial transactions. And the banks and credit card companies know, in large part, which of those past transactions have turned out to be fraudulent. So when they apply sophisticated statistical algorithms to that massive amount of historical data, they are able to make a pretty good guess about what a fraudulent transaction might look like in the future.

We do not have that kind of historical data about terrorists and sleeper cells. We have just a handful of individuals whose past actions can be analyzed, which makes it virtually impossible to apply the kind of advanced statistical analysis required to use data-mining in this way. That doesn't mean we should stop the Federal government from attempting to solve that problem, but it raises serious questions about whether data-mining will ever be able to locate an actual terrorist. Before the government starts reviewing personal information about every man, woman and child in this country, we should learn what data-mining can and can't do--and what limits and protections are needed.

We must also bear in mind that there will inevitably be errors in the underlying data. Everyone knows people who have had errors on their credit reports--and that is the one area of commercial data where the law already imposes strict accuracy requirements. Other types of commercial data are likely to be even more inaccurate. Even if the technology itself were effective, I am very concerned that innocent people could be ensnared because of mistakes in the data that make them look suspicious. The recent rise in identity theft, which creates even more data accuracy problems, makes it even more important that we address this issue.

Most Americans believe that their private lives should remain private. Data-mining programs run the risk of intruding into the lives of individuals who have nothing to do with terrorism or other criminal activity and understandably do not want their credit reports, shopping habits and doctor visits to become a part of a gigantic computerized search engine operating without any controls or oversight.

The Administration should be required to report to Congress about the impact of the various data-mining programs now underway or being studied, and the impact those programs may have on our privacy and civil liberties, so that Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and personal liberties.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. All it asks for is information to which Congress and the American people are entitled.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military. The GI Bill continues to be one of the most important benefits of military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers shouldn't be taking advantage of their earned education benefits.

That is why I'm introducing the ``GI Bill for Life Act of 2005,'' which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited time to use their earned benefits.

The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job

training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services.

Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368.

If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40-60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they earned.

Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefits for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't I use them within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment.

Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life--as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10- and 14 year limitation.

But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service--but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate.

A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington--wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.''

In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``[m]any 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.''

While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans.

My legislation, the GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so.

Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap.

Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010,40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace.

A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high-quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal-oriented, and steadfast and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector

Eliminating the GI Bill 10- and 14-year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time.

As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military. The GI Bill continues to be one of the most important benefits of military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers shouldn't be taking advantage of their earned education benefits.

That is why I'm introducing the ``GI Bill for Life Act of 2005,'' which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited time to use their earned benefits.

The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job

training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services.

Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368.

If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40-60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they earned.

Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefits for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't I use them within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment.

Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life--as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10- and 14 year limitation.

But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service--but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate.

A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington--wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.''

In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``[m]any 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.''

While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans.

My legislation, the GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so.

Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap.

Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010,40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace.

A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high-quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal-oriented, and steadfast and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector

Eliminating the GI Bill 10- and 14-year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time.

As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.

Mr. President, I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a serious threat to the security of our Nation. Criminal gangs, originally from Central America, are infiltrating several major cities in this country and threatening the safety and security of our citizens.

MS-13, also known as Mara Salvatrucha, is a brutal and violent gang responsible for horrific acts of violence. MS-13 gang members are identified by the various tattoos on their bodies. They have origins in El Salvador, but you find they are frequently found now in Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. This gang uses extreme

acts of violence to try to intimidate people, not only in Central America but in America itself. According to the Bureau of Immigration, Customs and Enforcement, MS-13 poses the greatest threat to Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, Newark, the Washington, DC, area, and Miami. MS-13 has been active in increasing their numbers here in the United States by assisting other members enter the United States from Central America. Federal authorities provide that there are between 8,000 and 10,000 members of MS-13 in the United States and my concern is that if we don't act now to stop them, they will be able to get a toe-hold here in the United States and significantly increase their membership and horrific form of violence.

What is some of that violence? According to law enforcement officials, MS-13 has been involved in murder, extortion, robbery, rape, drug trafficking and human smuggling throughout the United States. Here in the Washington, DC, area, for example, two members of MS-13 were found guilty of the stabbing and throat slashing murder of a 17-year- old government witness who was 7 months pregnant at the time of her gang-ordered execution. And to apparently to send some kind of message of intimidation, the gang members disfigured her corpse. Many of their crimes also involve drug trafficking and could very well expand to arms trafficking. And, who knows whether their crimes will soon extend into the terrorist network itself that we are so concerned about. The Bureau of Immigration, Customs and Enforcement reports that there has been speculation of links between MS-13 and international terrorist groups like al-Qaida. The F.B.I. is investigating these rumors of a possible link, but to date has discovered no evidence establishing this link.

In Honduras, MS-13 members murdered 28 women and children 2 days before Christmas. Their victims were on a bus returning home after having gone to shopping for Christmas gifts; some of the children were still clutching the Christmas gifts they had just purchased with their mothers. The purpose of this horrific act of violence was to intimidate the Government of Honduras from cracking down on these gangs.

Over the recess last week, I went to Honduras with our Four Star General, the Combatant Commander of the United States Southern Command.

We went there to meet with the Honduran President Ricardo Maduro, and our ambassador, Ambassador Palmer, to try to have a better understanding of this problem, and what we should do not only to help a country such as Honduras that is trying to get its arms around these gangs and to stop the violence but to keep this from spreading into the United States.

As a result of what I have learned, and the exceptional threat this gang poses to United States, I am filing legislation today that will do a couple of things. First, it will give our consular officers in law an automatic reason to reject entry into the United States for anyone they know, or have reasonable grounds to believe, is a member of one of these gangs. Secondly, this legislation I am filing would up the penalty for anyone smuggling one of these gang members into the United States from 1 to 10 years.

I am also cosponsoring legislation with the senior Senator from California which goes after gang violence by trying to give additional Federal assistance to local law enforcement as they try to grapple with this.

I have a good example. In south Florida last week, after I had returned from Honduras, I met with the joint task force of multiple levels of law enforcement--city, the county, sheriff deputies, the Feds, and the State--that has formed a joint team to attack this problem and to try to keep these gangs, specifically MS-13, from getting a toe-hold in south Florida. We hope if we are successful in Florida it will be an example to the rest of the country, and with the increased penalties offered by this legislation, it will give our law enforcement and our consular officers additional tools to stamp out this violence, this gang-related activity that could lead itself very much into the hands of the terrorists who are trying to exact so much harm upon us as a country and as a people. The time to act to stop the spread of this gang is now, before they are able to spread their web of violence to more cities and areas within the United States. I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this bill.