A bill to provide for teacher acculturation, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I am introducing the Teacher Acculturation Act of 2005 as a means to address an issue that impedes effective learning in our Nation's classrooms, and that is cultural incongruence. Such a lack of congruence exists in a wide range of situations, from rural and underserved communities in remote areas to well-populated urban centers, from my State of Hawaii to areas on the Eastern seaboard. The dynamic I am describing exists along lines of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, age, and many other vectors, which can muddy the stuff of learning that needs to be transmitted between students aiming to learn and teachers seeking to teach.

As many of my colleagues and I have said many times, our children are our future. Furthermore, our great Nation is dependent on the success of our educational system and what it is delivering to our children. An essential part of our educational system is a highly qualified teacher with knowledge of the subject area, and the ability to teach that subject to students. This is the most important factor in the academic success of the student. My bill will address one attribute of that success: the ability of the teacher to present the lesson in a way that students are ready to learn it.

I started my professional life as a teacher, so improvement of the field of education is never far from my thoughts. Even after all of my teacher training, I remember walking into a classroom and thinking, ``What do I do now?'' and, ``Will I be able to connect with my students?'' I have never forgotten those thoughts. Through my bill, I hope to work to help teachers answer these and similar questions, particularly for those teachers who are placed in States that are new to them, or in parts of their home States with which they have little or no familiarity. In my State of Hawaii, according to an article published Monday in the Honolulu Advertiser, Hawaii's 258 public schools need 1,400 to 1,600 new teachers every year to replace those who retire or leave the system, particularly in the areas of special education, speech pathology, autism, and hearing impairment. However, only about 500 Hawaii teachers are graduating and earning their licenses every year from both public and private colleges, and many of them are being drawn away from the State to schools on the mainland. Recruiting trips by the Hawaii Department of Education are seeking hires in cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. I would like to help to ensure the success of these and other teachers in similar situations across the country, to help smooth their adjustment to their new homes, and thus, make a fluid transition to their new classrooms.

The Teacher Acculturation Act seeks to address cultural incongruence between the teacher and the student population in the classroom. To be successful, the teacher must be prepared to teach in a way that students are ready to learn. And with a increasingly diverse student population, that becomes harder and harder as time goes by. To achieve these ends, the bill proposes programs in three parts.

The first two parts recognize the success of ongoing and sustained professional development to affect positive change in teaching pedagogy. The bill authorizes demonstration programs that aim to assist teachers in learning, developing, and implementing pedagogies that help all students learn. I have modeled the programs on the Lesson Study theory of change, which is a model that uses a cohort of professionals for lesson development, presentation of the developed lesson by a member of the cohort to a class, observation of the presentation by other members of the cohort, and post-presentation analysis and reflection by the entire cohort, along with coaches, mentors, and supervising practitioners. A group of teachers working together to improve their pedagogy has been shown to be very effective, and this model is becoming more popular at every level in teacher education and professional development, from classroom work in colleges of education, to cohort work by candidates for National Board Certification--the highest performance achievement available to a teacher in the United States.

The first demonstration program would take place during the time the prospective teacher is in a college or school of education, and introduces a multicultural awareness component into the pre-service teaching activities. In this program, prospective teachers would work with members of the community, trained academics, and practicing teachers to learn about cultural characteristics of the student population, to develop pedagogies and curriculum to fit those cultures, and to study how to deliver the new lessons in a culturally relevant style. Prospective teachers would then deliver these lessons to the students in a real classroom setting while student teaching. Post- teaching analysis, reflection, and discussion would then allow the student teacher to analyze and reflect upon the performance.

The second demonstration program is structured similarly to the first program, but conducts a professional development activity during the time the teacher is new to the profession--generally the first three years--recognizing that many teachers develop teaching styles in these initial years that they may use for the duration of their teaching careers. Through this program, a cohort of teachers would undertake a year-long program, which includes two summers, under the direction of a coach trained in multicultural education. Participating teachers would already be placed in teaching positions and have a defined learning community to work with. If done right, such a program has the potential to involve the whole school community and, eventually, contribute to whole school change.

These two programs taken together have the potential to develop a cadre of teachers adept at teaching in ways that are culturally- relevant, ways that address the needs of the students, and ways in which the students are ready to learn. I truly feel that such programs working with new and prospective teachers can make a difference in addressing the current achievement gap, particularly impacting the groups most at risk of being on the losing end of the achievement gap.

The third section of the Teacher Acculturation Act of 2005 would set up Centers of Excellence in Multicultural Education. These centers would support the professional development activities from the first two parts of the bill by providing trained mentors, coaches, and academics, as well as undertaking research into the areas of multicultural education. The centers would also develop activities for use by schools and districts to provide ongoing professional development opportunities to all faculty or teachers.

We must never forget that a solid education is the cornerstone of our future. And a highly qualified teacher is needed to provide that education. The teacher not only needs to be knowledgeable about the subject being taught, but needs to know how to teach the subject to the students. This bill would help address the question of how. It seeks to prepare the teacher to deal with groups of students with different learning styles, as well as to identify the needs of divergent groups of students and how to vary teaching to support the learning of these students. My bill seeks to improve learning among those groups who are underserved today. Although my bill alone would not eliminate the achievement gap, it seeks to provide a good start.

This bill is supported by leading experts and organizations in the field of multicultural education, including Ms. Joyce Harris, Executive director of the National Academy for Multicultural Education, Dr. James Banks of the Center for Multicultural Education at the University of Washington, and Dr. Randy Hitz, Dean of the College of Education at the University of Hawaii. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce legislation that would establish Parkinson's Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers and Multiple Sclerosis, MS, Centers of Excellence in the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. The need for research and care is extremely pressing at a time when VA is dealing with meeting the demands of veterans suffering from debilitating neurological diseases.

VA has been a leader in the advancement of medicine and should be applauded for its progressive and innovative research endeavors. Yet, continued strides in specialized research are necessary to address the specific health care needs of our veterans. Through the establishment of the Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis Centers, VA clinicians and educators will be able to gain a better understanding of these diseases that affect not just our veterans, but Americans across the nation. It is through this understanding that clinicians will be able to provide more effective patient care, treatment, and education.

The establishment of the Parkinson's Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers stems from the same spirit that inspired the conception of a great alliance formed between VA and the National Parkinson Foundation, Inc., NPF, in June of 1999. This alliance created an opportunity for the two entities to come together to develop research and treatment symposiums, provide information concerning Parkinson's disease, and also provide VA physicians that treat at least 20,000 Parkinson's patients with continuing education.

Those affected with Parkinson's Disease not only suffer from symptoms that manifest themselves physically, such as through tremors, muffled speech, slowness and impaired mobility. There are also psychological effects characterized in the form of depression for those suffering from this diseases. Through these centers, clinicians and educators can determine better ways to manage symptoms associated with Parkinson's Disease, as well as those symptoms such as fatigue and spasticity associated with MS that will give veterans suffering from these diseases a better quality of life.

Since the time of its inception, the VA health care system was tasked with

meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Though VA is providing the necessary care to those currently affected by the disease, more can be done to develop new treatments to reduce the symptoms and slow down the progression of the disease.

This legislation will provide VA with the opportunity to establish these centers and mark a new phase in the pursuit of enhanced treatment for those that struggle with the daily challenges imposed by these diseases, which includes not only the veteran patients but their families as well. The Parkinson's Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence will also be beacons of hope towards finding a cure for degenerative neurological diseases.

I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill as a commitment to advancing research and education for veterans battling Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. I also wish to thank Congressman Lane Evans, who serves as the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for his leadership on this issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005. I am pleased to have Senators Inouye, Lautenberg and Levin join me in cosponsoring the bill. My legislation encourages Federal, State, and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, Indian tribes and private entities to work together through a cost-shared, cooperative grant program to control and mitigate the spread of invasive species.

Invasive species are defined as harmful, nonnative plants, animals, or organisms likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm, or harm to human health. They are widespread throughout the United States and cause billions of dollars of damage annually to crops, rangelands, and waterways. The globalization of trade, the massive volume of cargo shipments, and rising tourism have combined to increase the chance of introductions of nonnative species into the United States. They are responsible for damage to native ecosystems and vital industries such as agriculture, fisheries, and ranching. The economic, social, recreational, and ecological losses attributable to invasive species are huge. A recent Cornell University study estimated that invasive plants and animals cost the U.S. economy $137 billion annually. The costs are predicted to increase substantially as more invasive species enter the country.

The implications of the nationwide invasive species problem are enormous. The Ecological Society of America notes that invasive species contribute to the listing of 35 to 46 percent of all threatened and endangered species. Nowhere, however, are the impacts greater than in my home State of Hawaii. Hawaii is known for its biodiversity. Hawaii has more than 10,000 species found nowhere else on Earth. Unfortunately, invasive species are the number one cause of the decline of Hawaii's threatened and endangered species. This is a serious concern because of the 114 endangered species that have become extinct during the first 20 years of the Endangered Species Act, almost half were in Hawaii. Recently, gall wasps were found laying eggs in wiliwili trees. These trees were once a dominant species in dry Hawaiian forests. Now they are nearly 90 percent gone with the remnants of the remaining trees, primarily found on Maui and the Big Island, threatened by the invasive gall wasp. The fragility of our native species is compounded by the fact that most introduced species have no natural predators in the State, and such predators cannot simply cross a State border to enter Hawaii. Hawaii's Invasive Species Partnerships, a group comprised of a state council and island-based committees stated in its 2004 report that ``the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive species is the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural environment, and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and visitors.'' Hawaii is plagued with pest invasions to a greater extent than almost any other location in the world. The invasion has limited our agricultural export market, decreased bio-diversity in the forests, and decimated native bird populations. It is imperative that this serious issue receive our full attention.

Let me give you just a few examples of invasive species problems in Hawaii. Control efforts for the Formosan ground termite are estimated to cost residents in Hawaii more than $150 million per year. Damage to our agricultural industry and the related control costs of the Mediterranean fruit fly are more than $450 million annually. Miconia, an invasive tree infesting more than 15,000 acres of rainforest in Hawaii, eliminates the habitat of endangered plants and animals and causes serious erosion problems that threaten our water supply. Bush Beardgrass is a drought-tolerant grass that increases the risk of brushfires. Wildlife authorities say the grass is beyond control on Kauai and the Big Island. Native birds in our rainforests are succumbing to malaria spread through introduced mosquitos. Coqui frogs can reach densities of 8,000 frogs per acre and threaten Hawaii's real estate, export floriculture, and nursery industries. The brown tree snake has invaded Guam and devastated native bird populations there. If the snakes become established in Hawaii, economic costs have been estimated to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars. Red fire ants threaten the agriculture industry in Hawaii and in 14 Southern States, causing more than $2 billion in annual damage. As you can see, the list

of problems is long and the time to address the issue of invasive species is now, before even more serious problems crop up.

With 73 percent of land in the continental U.S. held privately, our Federal lands will not be adequately protected without public-private partnerships. My bill requires coordination between the National Invasive Species Council, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and State invasive species councils and plans. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants to promote the development of voluntary State assessments to establish inventories and priorities for controlling invasive species. This is a critical step in establishing an invasives program, but many States do not have the resources to carry out this critical assessment. The legislation also provides additional grants to public or private entities, or Indian tribes, to carry out in partnership with a Federal agency an eradication, containment, or management project on Federal land or adjacent land. Control grants are cost-shared with partners. The criteria for ranking control projects include shared priorities in State and Federal plans, the severity of the invasive species impact on a State, and whether the project fosters results through public-private partnerships. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill provides rapid response funds for States facing new outbreaks of invasive species, to eradicate serious new outbreaks. Rapid response funds are critical to States in order to combat newly identified invasives.

I was pleased to see that Federal departments would receive an overall increase for the seven invasive species general categories in the President's fiscal year 2006 proposed budget. I appreciate the consideration that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have given this important issue. However, I was dismayed to see that the budget for the category of control of invasive species declined by $25 million from its fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Control is an essential element in combating invasive species and requires additional funding.

I would like to acknowledge the fine work being accomplished by the National Park Service in establishing its Exotic Plant Management Teams. These Teams are designed to provide a highly trained, mobile strike force of plant management specialists to assist parks in the control of exotic plants. Approximately 2.6 million acres in the national parks are infected and 234 parks have invasive animals in need of management. To date, 17 Teams have been deployed throughout the country. I am grateful to the Pacific Island Team for its efforts to protect increasingly rare native communities in the Hawaiian Islands from invasion. Control of exotic species is one of the most significant land management issues facing national parks. Although I applaud the current efforts of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service, a more coordinated and forceful attack on invasive species is needed. The attack must have robust funding and work in partnership with the States.

I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking a leadership role in addressing its invasive species problems. Two years ago the Hawaii State Legislature established the Hawaii Invasive Species Council to coordinate the State's fight against animal and plant invaders, with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Land and Natural Resources in leading roles. The Hawaii State Legislature has directed approximately $8 million to the invasives campaign so far. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council and each county council are committed to a proactive approach to preserve the environmental heritage and economic security of our communities for generations to come. In addition, many public and private partnerships have been formed to protect our common natural resources. For example, the East Maui Watershed Partnership brings together multiple public and private landowners and the County of Maui to control invasive species and protect 100,000 acres of our prime watershed areas. This is just one example of many highly successful and dedicated partnerships in Hawaii working to preserve our invaluable resources.

The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, a coalition of representatives from major environmental organizations, has extended its full support for this legislation. Its letter of support calls this bill ``one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with the growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's ecological and economic health.'' The State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, also supports the bill. The Department acknowledges that success in invasive species projects in Hawaii have come largely from the formation of strong partnerships between State, County and Federal agencies and private groups -exactly what my legislation endorses. My bill is also supported by the Conservation Council of Hawaii, the National Wildlife Federation affiliate in Hawaii. I greatly appreciate these endorsements.

As Federal efforts to combat the growing tide of invasive species increase, some landowners and private property advocates are concerned that increased efforts to combat invasives and support native plants and animals could lead to the next big government invasion of private lands. Let me assure you this is not a property rights issue. Any action taken by governments or nonprofits through this bill can occur only with the participation and willingness of the property owner.

There are increasingly severe problems and economic burdens associated with invasive species in our Nation that are borne at the State and local levels. If ever there was a time to commit to defending the security of our domestic resources for the future, it is now. My legislation provides the support necessary for agencies, organizations, and individuals to implement cooperative projects to address new threats and long-standing invasive species problems. This is an issue that must be confronted.

I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record, as well as the letters of support from Hawaii and national groups, and urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Roads to Success Act of 2005, which is legislation designed to expand higher educational and career opportunities for American students. There is no doubt as to the benefit of receiving a post-secondary education. The level of education that individuals accumulate has an important influence on their experience in the labor market. According to 2002 U.S. Census Bureau statistics on educational attainment and earnings, the mean earnings of men with a bachelor's degree is $63,354, while the mean earnings of men with a high school degree is $32,363. This is a difference of more than $30,000 or 97 percent.

In recent years, there have been clear signs that more Americans are pursuing higher education opportunities. In June 2002, USA Today reported that 63 percent of high school graduates go to college immediately after graduation, the highest percentage in U.S. history. Yet not all of the news on college graduation rates has been good. Only 18 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanic high school graduates earn a bachelor's degree by their late twenties, compared to 33 percent of whites according to the National Center for Education Statistics, NCES, in 2001. Further, in 2000, NCES reported that 22 percent of low-income, college qualified high school graduates do not pursue post-secondary education, compared to 4 percent of high-income graduates.

As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many middle school and high school students that they do not have the preparation necessary to enroll in higher education institutions. On a trip to the Commonwealth, I joined Andrew McKelvey--the founder of the McKelvey Foundation--to announce Federal funding for entrepreneurial scholarships to rural, low-income Pennsylvania high school graduates. During that trip, I had a frank discussion with Mr. McKelvey regarding the need to not only ensure access to funding for students to pursue higher education, but the need to inform students about the importance of higher education, as well as prepare students for the application process.

The bill I am introducing today, the ``Roads to Success Act of 2005'', will help to educate middle school and high school students in grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, about higher education and career opportunities. This bill will create a program which will provide students with access to information on higher education and career development, and prepare students with the skills necessary to plan for higher education. The availability of information on higher education opportunities makes an enormous difference to students contemplating continuing their education at the undergraduate level.

My legislation will authorize a grant to Roads to Success, a nonprofit educational organization, to develop a core curriculum to be taught in the classroom to equip middle and high school students with the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue post-secondary education and their career goals. Given the importance of higher education, it makes sense to prepare students for the undergraduate process as part of their class instruction to ensure that all students have access to the necessary information to attain their objectives. To this end, middle schools and high schools participating in the program will dedicate one hour each week of their classroom activity to higher education and career preparation of students utilizing the core curriculum.

Additionally, I seek to create a network of intensive academic support for students by encouraging public-private partnerships to emphasize the importance of higher education and career development. Partnerships with private entities create a unique opportunity for middle schools and high schools to supplement and enhance the core curriculum by offering appropriate enrichments, including guest speakers, videos and web-based services. For example, through these partnerships, middle school and high school students will gain first- hand knowledge of the skills that businesses are seeking by having the opportunity to speak with business leaders, as well as perhaps tour local facilities. This will underscore the significance and importance of higher education for students as they embark on their future career paths.

To implement this initiative, my bill will authorize $10 million annually for fiscal years 2006 through 2011, for Roads to Success to develop a core curriculum which has as its cornerstone increasing awareness of the importance of higher education, developing career awareness, building life skills, and providing education planning to students. Under this legislation, Roads to Success will award subgrants to five State educational agencies to offer higher education preparation programs using the core curriculum in middle and high schools with historically low rates of student application and admission to post-secondary institutions.

It is my sincere hope that this act will ensure that students who wish to enroll in a higher education institution will have access to the tools and resources necessary to help them plan for undergraduate study. We must take this step to encourage students to pursue their educational and career goals--especially those who might not otherwise have this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this act, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2005, which would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance the protection of the United States agricultural industry and food security through increased prevention, detection, response and recovery planning.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, Congress has taken substantive actions to protect America and indeed, the world from the threat of terrorism. Yet, there is a significant component of the United States that is at risk from terrorist attacks, and that is American agriculture. The United States agriculture industry accounts for 13 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, makes up 8 percent of our foreign trade, and accounts for over $192 billion in cash receipts. More specifically in Pennsylvania, agriculture is the number one industry with over 59,000 farms and ranches producing cash receipts exceeding $4 billion annually. Less than 2 percent of the American people are considered farmers or ranchers; however, they are responsible for feeding 100 percent of the American population. It is incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to ensure that the American farmer and rancher, and our Nation's food supply, are protected from any act of terrorism.

During the 108th Congress, I held four forums on the issue of agroterrorism and food security at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture working in conjunction with the PA Secretary of Agriculture to address the needs and concerns of Pennsylvania's producers, processors, commodity representatives, veterinarians, public health officials, university administrators, and local government representatives. Collectively, the comments and issues raised at these forums provided the impetus to craft this necessary and timely legislation.

This legislation would afford the American farmer, rancher, and the United States agriculture industry the protection it deserves. My bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize the act of agroterrorism, ensuring that we have a legal recourse against individuals seeking to disrupt our interstate commerce and foreign trade, or who try to coerce our civilian population or government. An agroterrist act would be defined as a criminal act that consists of causing, financing, or attempting to cause damage or harm to, or destruction of, a crop, livestock, raw agricultural commodity, food product, farm or ranch equipment, a material, or any other property associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in an agricultural activity, that is committed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to disrupt interstate commerce or foreign commerce of the United States agricultural industry. Further, I have included the death penalty provision in this legislation to be consistent with existing laws concerning acts of terrorism.

Beyond criminalizing the act of agroterrorism, this legislation would provide farmers and ranchers with on-farm bio-security resources; tools that reduce the potential for disease outbreaks. Through these resources, our farmers and ranchers would be able develop preparedness, response and recovery planning techniques. These techniques would enable farmers and ranchers to control access to their farms, separate animal shipping vehicles from animal feed facilities, and know what risks visitors present. Ultimately, the intent of this provision is to ensure that our first responders have the information, training, and critical infrastructure they need to react aggressively to an incident of agroterrorism.

The impact of globalization affects agriculture in ways that many would be unaware. For example, livestock and crop diseases can be obtained and disseminated with ever increasing ease. These diseases are endemic to other parts of the world and can be extracted from common materials, such as soil. Additionally, agricultural inspections at ports of entry, the first line of defense against the entry of foreign animal and plant diseases, have declined over the last two years at a time when imports have increased. Therefore, I have called for the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Interior, Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate and enhance monitoring, surveillance, and intelligence capabilities concerning threats, delivery systems, border controls, and actions that could be directed against the agriculture sector.

This legislation would authorize significant grant funding for States to establish state and local emergency response plans, information management, and to provide training for first responders, in the event of an animal or plant disease outbreak. The 2001 foot

and mouth disease outbreak in England required extensive intervention to eradicate and control the spread of disease. Therefore, the question remains if our Nation is ready to respond to such an outbreak, whether caused by a natural event or an act of terrorism.

Additionally, this legislation would authorize funding for pilot grant demonstrations concerning on-farm bio-security. The majority of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and processors are family owned or small businesses, and they need our assistance in strengthening and changing their practices to meet the challenges they are facing in this war on terror. It is our duty as their representatives to provide the tools they need to preserve the American farm and ranch.

This legislation would ensure that our National Veterinary Stockpile contains sufficient amounts of animal vaccine, antiviral, or therapeutic products to appropriately respond to the most damaging animal diseases affecting human health and the economy. Additionally, let us not think that agroterrorism pertains only to animals. A plant disease event can impact our agricultural economy as well. Therefore, I have included provisions to ensure that our U.S. National Germplasm system can respond to such an event with the use of disease-resistant seed varieties.

Compounding the threat of agroterrorism is the fact that the United States is currently experiencing a shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural areas. This results in an inability to respond to a disease outbreak whether natural or an act of terrorism. In response to this decline, this legislation would provide both educational debt repayment for veterinarians serving American agriculture during a disease outbreak and capacity building grants for colleges and schools of veterinary medicine to design higher education training programs in exotic animal diseases, epidemiology, and public health.

The last provision of this legislation would require the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, HHS, Interior, and the Administrator of EPA to submit a report to Congress that describes the feasibility and need for modernizing or replacing current federal Biological Level 3 and Biological Level 4 laboratories responsible for research, technology development, diagnostic, and forensic activities on plant and animal diseases, including zoonotic diseases. As a nation we cannot adequately fight a modern war on terrorism using technology and laboratories that have exceeded their capability and useful life span.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which would secure our Nation's most critical infrastructure, our food supply. As a nation, we cannot take for granted that our food supply will not be susceptible to terrorist activities. The measures called for in this legislation would not impose any new regulations on our farmers, ranchers, or processors but rather would provide them with the tools necessary to counteract agroterrorism. Without question, the time has come for concerted action to ensure the protection of American agriculture.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Reorganization Act.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms program assists hundreds of mostly small and medium-sized manufacturing and agricultural companies in Montana and nationwide when they face layoffs and lost sales due to import competition. Qualifying companies develop adjustment plans and receive technical assistance to become more competitive, so that they can retain and expand employment.

The program is very cost effective. It requires the firms being helped to match the Federal assistance with their own funds, and it pays the government back in federal and State tax revenues when the firms succeed.

For example, TAA for Firms is helping Montola Growers from Culbertson, Montana, to develop cosmetic applications for its safflower oil. And it is helping Porterbilt Company of Hamilton to expand its product line.

Currently, TAA for Firms clients receive assistance preparing petitions and adjustment plans from twelve Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers, which are Commerce Department contractors. Program and policy decisions are made by a small headquarters staff in the Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration.

In the Trade Act of 2002, Congress voted to reauthorize this important program for seven years and to increase its authorized funding level. The program seemed headed toward some years of smooth sailing. But it turns out that is not the case.

For reasons unrelated to TAA for Firms, EDA began more than a year ago to move all its headquarters programs to its six regional offices. For TAA for Firms, that means clients will still get the same local services from the TAACs, but decisions will be made in six regional offices plus a national policy office. The likely result is more personnel needed to run the program, more layers of government, less centralized and consistent decision making, and less accountability-- all without any likely improvement in customer service.

In preparation for this reorganization, EDA transferred or otherwise eliminated most of its experienced TAA staff in the Washington office. But to date it has not completed the transfer and hired or trained the necessary regional staff. So the program is in limbo.

Meanwhile, the President recently announced a multi-agency consolidation of economic development programs that will eliminate EDA and its regional offices. Not surprisingly, the latest word from EDA is that plans to complete the move of TAA for Firms to the regional offices are now on indefinite hold. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget zeroes out TAA for Firms, even though Congress has authorized the program through fiscal year 2007. With funding in doubt and the Washington-based management structure for TAA for Firms already largely dismantled, this program is on the verge of a crisis.

TAA for Firms was not broken until someone decided to fix it. Now it is doomed to stay in limbo unless Congress acts to clean up the mess.

The bill I am introducing today solves these problems by moving administration of the TAA for Firms program from EDA into a different part of the Commerce Department--the International Trade Administration. I introduced this same bill last year with 15 co- sponsors.

Relocating the program to ITA makes sense. ITA has experience running this program, which was located there prior to 1990. Relocating TAA for Firms to ITA will result in fewer lays of government and more centralized and accountable program management than running it through EDA's regional offices or some new economic development agency.

Relocating the program also creates synergies by allowing better coordination of the TAA for Firms program with other trade and trade remedy programs administered by ITA. And it enhances the ability of the Finance Committee to carry out its oversight responsibilities for this program and for trade policy in general.

I do not want to see this important TAA program die of neglect. This legislation is a simple matter of good, sensible government. I encourage my colleagues to lend it their support.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act.

Frankly, I am disappointed to be here introducing this bill yet again.

Just last week, the substance of the bill was adopted by a majority of members of the Finance Committee as an amendment to the implementing legislation for the United States-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. But today, the administration sent us the final implementing bill with the amendment stripped out.

President Bush likes to say that trade is for everyone. That we all share the benefits, including workers. And he claims to care a lot about having a skilled workforce that can keep American businesses competitive in global markets.

This amendment presented the President with the perfect opportunity to put his money where his mouth is.

He could have said to the American people--as President Clinton did when Congress considered the NAFTA--that just as all Americans share in the benefits of trade, we all bear a responsibility for its costs. Trade liberalization and trade adjustment go hand in hand. And then he could have provided America's service sector workers with access to the one program designed to make that happen--Trade Adjustment Assistance.

But by submitting the CAFTA implementing bill stripped of the Trade Adjustment Assistance amendment passed by the Finance Committee, he chose not to.

Since 1962, Trade Adjustment Assistance--what we call ``TAA''--has provided retraining, income support, and other benefits so that workers who lose their jobs due to trade can make a new start.

The rationale for TAA is simple. When our government pursues trade liberalization, we create benefits for the economy as a whole. But there is always some dislocation from trade.

When he created the TAA program, President Kennedy explained that the Federal Government has an obligation ``to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.''

For more than 40 years, we have met that obligation through TAA, which is principally a retraining program designed to update worker skills.

The TAA program has not been static over time. Congress periodically revises the program to meet new economic realities. Most recently, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress completed the most comprehensive overhaul and expansion of the TAA program since its inception.

I am proud to have played a leading role in passing this landmark legislation. But I am also the first to admit that our work is not done. Economic realities continue to change, and TAA must continue to change with them.

One fundamental aspect of TAA that has remained unchanged since 1962 is its focus on manufacturing. We only give TAA benefits to workers who make ``articles.''

Excluding service workers from TAA may have made sense in 1962, when most non-farm jobs were in manufacturing and most services were not traded across national borders.

But today, most American jobs are in the service sector. And the market for many services is becoming just as global as the market for manufactured goods.

In 2002, the service sector accounted for three quarters of U.S. private sector gross domestic product and nearly 80 percent of non-farm private employment.

Trade in services is a net plus for the U.S. economy. Although trade in goods continues to dominate, services accounted for 29 percent of the value of total U.S. exports in 2002 and the service sector generated a trade surplus of $74 billion.

Just as we have seen with trade in manufactured goods, however, there are winners and losers from trade. Trade in services will inevitably cost some workers their jobs.

Indeed, there have been some well-publicized examples in the papers. Software sign. Technical support. Accounting and tax preparation services. Not long ago, a group of call center workers in Kalispell, MT saw their jobs move to Canada and India.

Examples abound of service sector jobs--even high tech jobs-- relocating overseas. A series of studies estimate that between a half million and over 3 million U.S. service sector jobs would be moved offshore in the next 5 to 10 years.

That doesn't mean the total number of jobs in the U.S. economy is shrinking. But the fact that jobs may be available in a different field is cold comfort to a worker whose own skills are no longer in demand.

That is why this legislation is so important. It is a simple matter of equity.

When a factory relocates to another country, those workers are eligible for TAA. But when a call center moves to another country, those workers are not eligible for TAA. They should be.

The benefits service workers will receive under this legislation would be exactly the same as those that trade-impacted manufacturing workers now receive. They include retraining, income support, job search and relocation allowance, and a health coverage tax credit.

Hard working American service workers deserve this safety net. These benefits will always be second best to a job. But they can really make a difference in helping workers make a new start.

Truthfully, I am mystified by why the President so cavalierly dropped the TAA for Services amendment and let this opportunity pass him by. His actions are entirely inconsistent with his stated desire to make trade benefit all Americans. But, sadly, this has become a pattern.

Despite the obvious benefits of the TAA program, the Bush Administration fought tooth and nail against every penny, and against every provision in what became the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002. Extending TAA to service workers was one of many needed improvements that was struck in the final version of the bill.

Again in the last Congress, the extension of TAA to service workers was offered as an amendment to the JOBS Act and opposed by the Administration. It garnered 54 votes from both sides ofthe aisle-- failing only on a technicality.

The world is changing and TAA must keep up with the times. Last year's Senate vote and this year's Finance Committee vote make clear that there is wide support for extending TAA to service workers. I truly believe this bill's time has come. I will work hard to move this legislation this year.

I want to thank Senators Coleman and Wyden for co-sponsoring this legislation. They have been stalwart supporters in the fight to bring equity to service workers. I look forward to working with them to make TAA for service workers a reality.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pascua Yaqui Mineral Rights Act of 2005 to provide for acquisition of subsurface mineral interests in land owned by the Pascua Yaqui tribe and land held in trust for the Tribe.

The Pascua Yaqui tribe has purchased in fee four parcels of land, totaling approximately 436 acres, from the State of Arizona. These parcels are adjacent to the Tribe's reservation near Tucson, AZ. The Tribe subsequently applied to have these lands taken into trust pursuant to the 25 CFR Part 151 process. The Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the trust application. However, the State of Arizona objected because it still owns the subsurface mineral rights when it conveys its Trust lands. Based on the State of Arizona's objection, the Tribe's trust application was stayed pending resolution of the mineral rights title issue. Arizona law prevents the State from selling these mineral interests and I understand that the only way they can be acquired is through an act of condemnation brought by the United States pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3113. The State of Arizona has conditionally consented to a condemnation action.

It has since been discovered that an additional 140 acres of the reservation was also former State of Arizona trust land that was purchased in fee by the Tribe and taken into trust without obtaining the mineral estate. The State of Arizona has also conditionally consented to a condemnation action with regard to these additional 140 acres.

In additional to the mineral interests condemnation, this legislation covers another subject. Under 360 acres of the reservation, the United States owns the mineral interests for itself, rather than in trust for the tribe. Although that acreage was originally purchased in fee, it was previously patented by the U.S. and the U.S. retained the mineral interests to that property for its own benefit, currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This legislation would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to transfer those mineral interests to the U.S., to be held in trust for the Pascua Yaqui tribe.

The result of the legislation I introduce today would be to allow the United States to obtain and/or consolidate ownership of the mineral interest only, in its name, in trust for the Pascua Yaqui tribe. These mineral interests are under the surface of land already either owned by the Pascua Yaqui tribe, or held in trust for the Tribe by the United States.

Finally, under the terms of its current gaming compact with the State of Arizona, the Tribe has already constructed the maximum number of casinos it can operate on its reservation at this time. This bill will not authorize additional reservation casinos.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005. In the simplest of terms, this bill would ensure that any town, city, or county that wishes to offer high- speed Internet services to its citizens can do so. The bill also would ensure fairness by requiring municipalities that offer high-speed Internet services do so in compliance with all Federal and State telecommunications laws and in a nondiscriminatory manner.

This bill is needed if we are to meet President Bush's call for ``universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.'' When President Bush announced this nationwide goal in 2004, the country was ranked 10th in the world for high-speed Internet penetration. Today, the country is ranked 16th. This is unacceptable for a country that should lead the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness.

Many of the countries outpacing the United States in the deployment of high-speed Internet services, including Canada, Japan, and South Korea, have successfully combined municipal systems with privately deployed networks to wire their countries. As a country, we cannot afford to cut off any successful strategy if we want to remain internationally competitive.

I recognize that our Nation has a long and successful history of private investment in critical communications infrastructure. That history must be respected, protected, and continued. However, when private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, it is appropriate and even commendable, for the people acting through their local governments to improve their lives by investing in their own future. In many rural towns, the local government's high-speed Internet offering may be its citizens only option to access the World Wide Web.

Despite this situation, a few incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications services have attempted to stop local government deployment of community high speed Internet services. The bill would do nothing to limit their ability to compete. In fact, the bill would provide them an incentive to enter more rural areas and deploy services in partnership with local governments. This partnership will not only reduce the costs to private firms, but also ensure wider deployment of rural services. Additionally, the bill would aid private providers by prohibiting a municipality when acting as both ``regulator'' and ``competitor'' from discriminating against competitors in favor of itself.

Several newspapers have endorsed the concept of allowing municipalities to choose whether to offer high speed Internet services. USA Today rightfully questioned in an editorial, ``Why shouldn't citizens be able to use their own resources to help themselves?'' The Washington Post editorialized that the offering of high speed Internet services by localities is, ``. . . the sort of municipal experiment we hope will spread.'' The San Jose Mercury News stated that a ban on localities ability to offer such services is ``bad for consumers, bad for technology and bad for America's hopes of catching up to other countries in broadband deployment.'' Finally, the Tampa Tribune lectured Federal and State legislators, ``don't prohibit local elected officials from providing a service their communities need.''

My home State of Arizona boasts the largest approved municipal broadband system in the United States, for example. The city of Tempe's wireless system will serve all of the city's 40 square miles and a population of 159,000, including the campus of Arizona State University. Citizens will have Internet access from anywhere at any time, and police, fire, water and traffic services personnel will use the system to enhance their efficiency.

In addition to Tempe, several Native American tribal governments offer high-speed Internet access services to their citizens. This bill would ensure that such offerings could continue to assist Indian country and their ability to connect to the Internet.

Our country faces some real challenges. We need to find ways to use technology to help our citizens better compete. We need to help our businesses capitalize on their ingenuity so that they can become more internationally competitive. That is why we need to do all we can to eliminate barriers to competition and create incentives for the delivery of high-speed Internet services for public suppliers of broadband services, private suppliers of broadband services, and public-private partnerships as well.

I hope my colleagues will join us in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Indian Gaming Commission Accountability Act of 2005 to amend provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act regarding NIGC funding and accountability.

The Indian gaming industry has undergone tremendous growth since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. The regulatory responsibilities of the NIGC, the Federal agency responsible for oversight of the industry, has likewise grown. In recent years the NIGC's budgeting needs have consistently exceeded the $8 million statutory cap, necessitating short-term authorizations to exceed the cap to enable it to adequately enforce the Act.

Rather than merely raising the cap on funding, this legislation amends IGRA's equation for funding the NIGC by allowing the funding to adjust in direct proportion to the revenues of the Indian gaming industry, with funding expanding or contracting as the Indian gaming industry grows or recedes. Under that equation--which provides that fees cannot exceed .08 percent of gross gaming revenues--the NIGC's budget for fiscal 2007 would be capped at approximately $14.5 million.

As the agency's needs have grown, so has the scrutiny of the regulated community and affected parties. It is therefore appropriate that the agency's budgetary choices and program plans be subject to transparency. Therefore, this legislation increases not only the agency's funding, but also its accountability by directing that the NIGC be subject to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). As a result, the agency would be required to develop a Strategic Plan, and annual performance plans and performance reports, all of which will provide critical information to the regulated stakeholders.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely and balanced legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation to fix a huge oversight in pension policy.

In the early 1990s, a large number of U.S. companies began a process of switching their traditional defined benefit pension plans to what's referred to as ``cash balance'' pension plans. A cash balance pension is insured, like a traditional plan, through the PBGC. However, it looks more like a defined contribution plan to participants because the benefit is expressed as some percent of play plus some guaranteed interest rate. This isn't necessarily a bad idea, in and of itself. However, in practice, many of the employees working for these companies were not told what these changes would mean for them. Some companies had their employees work for years without earning any more benefits. Many of those employees didn't figure that out for a very long time. Unfortunately, their lack of understanding in this situation was a key benefit to management. However, once they figured out what was happening, the retirees were furious.

As two consultants who helped put these plans together said at an Actuaries conference in 1998:

``I've been involved in cash balance plans five or six

years down the road and what I have found is that while

employees understand it, it is not until they are actually

ready to retire that they understand how little they are

actually getting.''

``Right, but they're happy while they're employed.''

One of the most abusive practices in cash balance conversions is known as ``wear away. `` The company freezes the value of the benefits employees already earned, which by law cannot be taken away once given. However, the employer opens a cash balance account for that worker at a much lower dollar level. So they end up working for years contributing to this lower cash balance account, not realizing that contribution is meaningless because their old benefits were higher. At the same time, younger workers do get money added to their account every day. This is clearly age discrimination, and bad pension policy.

In 1999, I introduced a bill to make it illegal for corporations to wear away the benefits of older workers during conversions to cash balance plans. I offered my bill as an amendment. Forty-eight Senators, including 3 Republicans, voted to waive the budget point of order so we could consider this amendment. We did not have enough votes then, but I believe the tide is turning.

After that vote, more and more stories came out about how many workers were losing their pensions. In September of 1999, the Secretary of the Treasury put a moratorium on conversions from defined benefit plans to cash balance plans. That moratorium has

been in effect now for over three years. In April of 2000, I offered a Sense-of-the-Senate resolution to stop this practice, and it passed the Senate unanimously.

There are hundreds of age discrimination complaints currently pending before the EEOC based on some of these abusive cash balance conversions. Clearly, something must be done to address this issue that's been floating around now unresolved for over five years.

Before, I said that wear-away is the least fair practice during conversion. And I have to say that now, public sentiment is really coming around to acknowledge that unfairness. However, aside from wear- away, there's another problem in shifting from a traditional pension to cash balance. In a traditional plan, you accrue most of the benefits toward the end of your career, because there's usually some kind of formula that multiplies top pay times years of service. People tend to earn more salary toward the end of their careers, and if that is multiplied times more years served, the pension grows quickly in later years. But in a cash balance plan, younger workers do better because they are given a flat percent of pay plus some guaranteed interest credit. Interest is good for young people, they have many years to accrue and compound it. So if you get caught in mid-life, mid-career in one of these transitions, you get the downside of both plans.

Before I go any further, I want to be clear on one point--cash balance pensions can be a great deal for workers. Some. And they may help fill a needed niche in the pension world to cover the half of the workforce that currently has no pension. But I will continue my long battle to oppose the unilateral decision of a company to cut off a promise for an older worker, give that money to a younger worker, and not view it as age discrimination.

That is what this issue is all about. It is fairness. It is equity. I know discussion of pension law can become very convoluted. But this can be boiled down pretty simply. It is about what we think a promise from an employer ought to mean.

There is one thing that has distinguished the American workplace from others around the world. We have valued loyalty. At least we used to. That is one of the reasons pension plans exist--the longer you work somewhere, the more you earn in your pension program. Obviously, the longer you work someplace, the better you do your job, the more you learn about it, the more productive you are. We should value that loyalty.

But here, companies are able to take away the benefits of the longest serving workers. What kind of a signal does that send to the workers? It tells workers they are fools if they are loyal because if you put in 20 or 25 years, the boss can just change the rules of the game, and break their promise. It tells younger workers that it would be crazy to work for a company for a long time, that it's best to hedge your bets and move on as soon as it is convenient. It's crazy to trade current pay for the promise of future benefits. So why even take into account the fact that you're being offered a pension plan? This is a very dangerous road to go down.

This destroys the kind of work ethic we have come to value and that we know built this country. But some of these cash balance conversions counter all of that. Here is an analogy. Imagine I hire someone for 5 years with a promise of a $50,000 bonus at the end of 5 years of service. At the end of 3 years, however, I renege on the $50,000 bonus. But the employee has 3 years invested. Had they known that the deal was going to be off, perhaps they would not have gone to work for me. They could have gone to work someplace else for a total higher compensation package. Now imagine that they hire a new guy to join the team, and they give him part of that $50,000 bonus they promised me. Is that the way we want to treat workers in this country, where the employer has all the cards and employees have none, and employers can make whatever deal they want, but can change the rules at any time?

That is why I am introducing this legislation. It is simple. It says that you have to give older, longer serving employees a choice, at retirement, when their pension plan is converted to a cash balance plan to get the benefits earned in the old plan instead. It also says that employers must start counting the new cash balance benefits where the old defined benefit plan left off, instead of starting the cash balance plan at a lower level than an employee had already earned.

This isn't a radical idea. I was very pleased that in February of 2004, the Administration came out with a cash balance proposal that recognized that these transitions are hard on workers. It not only prohibits wear-away but provides for 5 year transition credits for workers caught in the middle of a conversion. Treasury reaffirmed its commitment to this approach in this year's budget request.

I was excited when Treasury first came to the table with a proposal to do more to protect workers here. I was so encouraged by this that I convened a series of meetings over the course of last summer to get all interested parties to the table--everyone from participant rights advocates to industry groups to consultants. I heard some really great ideas, and some that I didn't agree with. But I think there is still room to find answers to this problem. So I'm putting my plan back on the table today. And I really hope that we can continue a meaningful dialog on this issue.

If we do that, this year, we can enact meaningful participant protections moving forward so that there is another pension option out there to cover the roughly half of Americans with no pension at all. But I also want to make it clear that this Senator will never sit idly by as older workers get the rug pulled out from under them just as they thought they were on solid ground for their retirement. I won't stand idly by and watch their money redistributed in an age-discriminatory way. We can have this dialog and we can find a way to fix what's broken here, but not by blessing some of these blatant abuses.