Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2005

Mr. President, when we talk about moving toward energy independence in this country, we are really speaking to the issue of reducing America's dangerous dependence on imported oil. Our addiction to oil is most acute in the U.S. transportation sector where a stunning ninety-seven percent of our fuel comes from petroleum--97 percent. In the electricity sector we have largely turned away from oil but not so in transportation.

Fortunately a growing percentage of transportation energy is now coming from clean, domestically-produced renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. With the nearly 8-billion-gallon Renewable Fuels Standard now the law of the land, renewable fuels will supply 5 percent of the energy for our passenger vehicles by 2012, perhaps more. These home-grown, environmentally friendly alternatives made from corn, soybeans and other sources of biomass are helping to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the rural economy while substantially reducing dependence on foreign oil.

The best part of this trend is that the health, community, and domestic security benefits of renewable fuels come with the bonus of price savings at the pump. Ethanol prices in this country can be as much as 70 cents a gallon less than regular gasoline. Drivers in my State of Iowa are saving as much as 10 cents a gallon on E10--a blend of just 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. This is a savings of about $100 a year for a typical family.

A report earlier this year by the Consumer Federation of America found that consumers throughout our country would experience similar savings if all refiners offered E10. That is a significant savings in all regions of the country. Now, consider the savings if ethanol and other renewable fuels were blended not at 10 percent, but at 85 percent or more. That $100 a year savings turns into hundreds of dollars each year for a typical family.

Unfortunately, right now only about two percent of vehicles on the road in the United States can use ethanol blends of 85 percent--what we call E85. It turns out standard gasoline engines aren't designed for the different fuel to oxygen ratio.

The good news is, manufacturing a new vehicle to run on E85 or other clean alternative fuel blends is simple--the manufacturer adds a fuel sensor and modifies the engine calibration and fuel line to allow the vehicle to run on gasoline or a combination of gas and alternative fuels.

Right now, these ``flex-fuel'' vehicles cost at most an additional $100 or so to produce. Some cost estimates are as low as $50. Many auto manufacturers offer them to customers at no additional cost. But few Americans are even aware of the option.

At a time of record-high gas prices and continued instability in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries of the world, I believe that all Americans deserve the option to choose the fuel they put in their car.

In Brazil, all new vehicles on the road are expected to be flex-fuel- ready by 2008--meaning every new vehicle owner will have the choice to fill up with gasoline, ethanol, or a combination of the two. If the Brazilians can do it, why can't we?

That's why today Mr. Lugar, Mr. Obama and I are introducing the Fuel Security and Consumer Choice Act to require that automobile manufacturers equip a growing percentage of new vehicles sold in the U.S. for flexible fuel operation. Mr. Lugar is a leader in promoting research and development into the conversion of cellulosic biomass into useable fuels. Mr. Obama is a leader in promoting renewable fuels and in particular E85.

Starting eighteen months after the bill's enactment, manufacturers will be required to equip 10 percent of their cars and light trucks with flex-fuel vehicle, FFV, capability. This is a modest proposal. Several manufacturers are close to meeting or beating this requirement already.

Each model year thereafter, the requirement increases 10 percentage points, so in the second year the manufacturers would have to make at least 20 percent of their vehicles FFVs, and so on, until in about ten years' time 100 percent of new vehicles sold in the United States are flex fuel. I recognize that we could be more aggressive in our timetable, but I believe we've struck the right balance here in pushing and prodding.

In addition, the bill allows auto manufacturers to bank and trade FFV credits toward meeting the requirements. In other words, if one company produced more than its required percentage of FFV vehicles in a given year, it could trade or sell extra credits earned to another company that would then use them to meet the bill's requirements. Credits would have a three-year window if banked or traded. This banking and trading provision is similar to others in law, in the RFS for example, making it that much easier for companies to meet statutory obligations at the lowest possible cost.

Finally, the bill would leave intact the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) credits for FFV production. However, the bill would change the way the credits are calculated for vehicles produced above the required percentages. Rather than keeping the assumption that the vehicle runs 50 percent of the time on fuel like E85, which isn't an appropriate figure since most don't run yet on E85, we phase-down the assumed use from 50 percent in the first model year the requirement applies to 30 percent in the second year, 10 percent the third year, and 0 percent thereafter. This should still spur interest among automakers in the early years of the requirement to go beyond the minimum FFV production levels outlined in the bill to get the extra credits. And in the meantime the FFV requirement is kicking in and the ramp up of FFVs won't dilute or weaken CAFE.

This bill will give American consumers true choice in fuel selection for the first time. Drivers will have the option to choose low-price, high-performance E85, or another fuel. My firm belief is that consumers will choose to buy home-grown renewable fuels that directly reduce oil dependence rather than buy traditional fossil fuels often derived from unstable regimes around the globe.

Now, I don't doubt some automobile manufacturers will complain that this requirement is unduly onerous, that it will hurt the industry somehow. Well, I heard the same thing back in 1989 when I proposed another revolutionary idea: closed captioning for TV sets. Industry was in an uproar when I suggested that the hearing impaired should have access to television programming on the public airwaves. The industry said closed captioning would bankrupt it and drive the price of televisions through the roof.

But then, an amazing thing happened. Electronics manufacturers realized that they could reach a broad range of new audiences, including not just the hearing impaired, but also the learning disabled, and immigrants for whom English is a second language. Sales for several companies reached an all-time high, and with implementation across the electronics industry, the cost of the closed captioning chip dropped dramatically to less than a dollar a set.

I have no doubt that vehicle manufacturers will discover similar unexpected efficiencies and benefits with flex fuel vehicles. As more Americans discover the savings from flexible fuels, the more they will seek them out. What better way to boost car sales than to market the fuel cost savings that flexible fuel vehicles offer? Any very small additional cost of the flex-fuel vehicle will be more than offset by the price benefits drivers will achieve from a flexible fuel supply over time, not to mention the tremendous energy security benefits for our Nation.

The country will benefit from cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and an enhanced rural economy. Simply, put, this is a low-cost measure with a tremendous payoff.

It is already well-established that federal auto standards for the benefit of our Nation are an appropriate policy option. It's also important to note that auto manufacturers already comply

with literally dozens of other requirements having to do with the make- up, design, and performance of their vehicles. Making an FFV is a lot cheaper than putting in air bags, or many other components.

Agriculture and renewable fuels producers are ready to provide the fuel. Automobile manufacturers have the technology to do it. Given the country's great energy and security challenges, all sectors must do their part to chart a path toward energy independence: government, individual citizens, energy companies, and yes, auto manufacturers.

I'm grateful that this legislation has been endorsed by a wide array of renewable fuel, agriculture, clean energy and security organizations, including the Renewable Fuels Association, American Coalition for Ethanol, Alliance to Save Energy, Set America Free, and National Corn Growers Association.

In closing I want to recognize Mr. Lugar and Mr. Obama for co- sponsoring this legislation with me today. Mr. Lugar and I have teamed up many times over the years, most recently to enact the national Renewable Fuels Standard, which we did as part of the comprehensive energy bill. This bill builds upon the RFS, to guarantee that renewable fuels which are being produced in ever greater abundance can find a home in just about any vehicle on the market a few short years from now. I am thankful for his leadership on this and so many other important energy security issues. I am also grateful to Mr. Obama for his leadership.

I hope we can rapidly enact this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the School Energy Crisis Relief Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to award School Energy Grants to the poorest school districts in each State. I am pleased that Senators Schumer, Clinton, and Bingaman have joined me in sponsoring this bill.

With cold weather setting in, people all across the country are worried about the sky-high cost of energy. Americans are feeling pain at the pump, and they are feeling even more pain at home, with home- heating costs expected to rise as much as 70 percent above last year's levels.

At the same time, many public school districts across the country are struggling to cope with a dramatic, unexpected surge in their energy costs. Schools are facing a double hit: they operate large fleets of buses, and they must heat large, sprawling buildings. This problem is especially acute in the West and Midwest, where many school districts cover large geographic areas, and in urban areas, which are burdened with some of the nation's oldest and often least energy-efficient buildings.

For affluent suburban districts, these unanticipated energy costs are a challenge. But for poor school districts, they are a full-blown crisis. Many school boards face a choice between paying their higher energy bills or cutting instructional staff and programs.

My bill would allow the Secretary of Energy to award grants to schools districts with the highest percentage and highest number of students eligible for Title I assistance. The grant amounts would be awarded based on the population of school-age children in the district, as well as the regional costs of transportation and heating fuel.

This is a nationwide crisis, and it calls for an urgent Federal response. School districts across the country are already implementing drastic measures in response to higher energy costs. In Kentucky, for instance, several school districts have cut back to four days of classes per week. In September, most of Georgia's schools cancelled classes for two days in an effort to conserve energy and cut costs.

In my State, the Iowa Association of School Boards estimates that, this winter, there will be $40 million shortfall in funding to cover school heating costs. Higher fuel costs for school buses could worsen the shortfall by another $8 million. And because that will come out of the fixed general fund for public education, every additional dollar spent on energy costs will come at the expense of classroom and instructional quality. For example, Charles City, IA, expects to spend $140,000 more on fuel this winter. That's enough to pay the salaries of four teachers.

According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, school districts are responding to the energy crisis by reducing staff, increasing class sizes, reducing course offerings, postponing technology purchases, or cutting Headstart transportation programs. Many school districts are lowering their thermostats to unhealthful levels. In fact, just yesterday, I heard that the school district in Ottumwa, IA, has asked parents to start sending kids to school with coats to keep them warm indoors. This is just not acceptable.

In addition, I remind my colleagues that school districts--especially high-poverty school districts--are struggling heroically to try to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is penny wise and pound foolish to force these districts to cut instructional staff and classroom resources in order to pay their higher energy bills. And none of us can be comfortable with the prospect of children sitting at their school desks in coats and scarves to fight off the chill. As I said, this is just not acceptable.

The poorest school districts all across America are in desperate need of assistance with their energy costs. Low-income children deserve the opportunity to learn and achieve in classrooms that are properly heated. And we certainly don't want schools to be eliminating school days and laying off teachers because of higher energy costs. So we need to act. I urge my colleagues to support the School Energy Crisis Relief Act so we can respond to this emergency as expeditiously as possible. According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, this has led to some schools deciding to scale back after-school activities because of heating costs and to cut non-varsity sports because they lack funding necessary to take them to games. It is very troubling to me that schools have been forced to make cuts that have directly affected the educational experience of the children in their schools, in the name of rising fuel costs. For instance, some schools have had to cut back on field trips, put off buying new text books and school supplies, while reducing course offerings in fine arts and academics.

In addition, the Iowa Association of School Boards has reported that schools have cut back on staff and increased class sizes while also turning down the thermostat in the classroom. I ask, Mr. President, are we supposed to expect students to learn at a high-level when rising energy costs have put them in overcrowded, cold classrooms?

But this problem is not specific to my home State of Iowa. As the sponsor of companion legislation in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Baca, pointed out that some schools in Kentucky have cut back to four-day school weeks to keep their energy costs down. Recently, Georgia schools cancelled two days of classes in an attempt to keep their costs down. In Colton Joint Unified District in Congressman Baca's congressional district, the price of a gallon of diesel fuel has risen from under a dollar at one point to $2.72 a gallon increasing annual fuel costs by over $300,000.

So I have come to the floor today to introduce the School Energy Crisis Relief Act. This legislation meets the needs of struggling school districts by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to award grants to poor school districts struggling to balance skyrocketing energy costs with providing a quality education. Grants would be awarded to the poorest urban and rural school districts in each state. In Iowa alone, this means both poor rural and urban districts would be eligible to receive grants.

I ask for my colleagues support for the School Energy Crisis Relief Act and urge the Senate to work quickly to pass this crucial legislation and provide relief to those school districts in need.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking member, who are two of the finest public servants I have ever had the privilege of knowing, for their leadership of that committee on which I serve and for their leadership on this important legislation before the Senate, which I support. I also thank them for including two of my amendments in the bill, the first of which is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I am proud to coauthor with Senator Murray of Washington and Senator Collins of Maine, that says the Department of Defense must honor its promise to pay reenlistment bonuses to members of the Army National Guard. I was told yesterday that the Pentagon has reversed its position and has now approved the National Guard's payment of those promised reenlistment bonuses.

My second amendment authorizes an additional $50 million for childcare for Active-Duty military families and an additional $10 million for family assistance centers. The committee bill already provided for increased funding for these two vital programs, and I thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to these further authorizations which parallel the increased funding that I added to the Senate's 2006 Defense appropriations bill.

Our military families are facing increased pressures as husbands and wives are deployed in faraway war zones and thus separated from their families for up to 18 months at a time. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has reported that some 38,000 children of Active-Duty families are being denied childcare in military facilities due to the lack of funding for the centers and for the spaces needed. This imposes an unfair additional hardship on these wonderful American families. The extended absence of a parent is compounded by the lack of available, reliable childcare. For the same reasons of extended absences, emotional and financial stresses, and the understandable need for support, the military family assistance centers are more important now than ever. They are especially valuable for the families of Reserve and Guard men and women whose wife or husband is called to active duty and then deployed in adjusting to extended absences and then readjusting to the spouses return or, in the worst case, to the spouse's not returning home alive, or returning home seriously wounded or maimed for life. When we talk about supporting our troops, which all of us truly want to do, two very important ways are through childcare and family assistance services.

I wanted to take this opportunity to address briefly a related area, one vital to our national security. Last week the Washington Post reported that the CIA is operating secret prisons in up to eight other countries, including one in a former Soviet gulag in eastern Europe. These are so-called ``black sites'' where reportedly the CIA's ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' some of which are prohibited by U.N. convention or U.S. military law--in other words, torture--are being used against unidentified subjects for indefinite periods of time. They are reportedly being denied lawyers or any opportunity to defend themselves against whatever charges of wrongdoing have brought them there.

At the same time, the Vice President has reportedly given ``one of the most impassioned pitches he has ever delivered'' to Republican Senators at last week's caucus lunch opposing the McCain amendment, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 9, that would prohibit the use of torture against detainees. The President has reportedly threatened to veto the entire 2006 Defense appropriations bill if it contains the McCain amendment. The Vice President was reportedly urging that the prohibition against torture be stricken, or at least an exception be given to the CIA.

Now we know why the President and the Vice President are so adamantly opposed to the Senate's ban on the use of torture or want an exemption for the CIA. It is because the CIA is operating secret prisons in other countries where torture is allegedly being used. Why else would they be against prohibiting torture, if they weren't doing it or intending to do it?

In response to the Post story, Republican congressional leaders sent a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees requesting them to ``immediately initiate a joint investigation into the possible release of classified information to the media alleging that the United States Government may be detaining and interrogating terrorists at undisclosed locations abroad. As you know, if accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and would imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.''

Well, with all due respect, I say that the Republican leaders have the right idea but the wrong focus. There ought to be a congressional investigation, but it ought to be on the existence of those secret prisons, on who is being held there, why, for how long, and how are they being treated, whether torture is being used, and why these ``black

sites'' are being hidden from Congress. I know my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, has just proposed an amendment to this legislation that would require disclosure of these secret sites.

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of his amendment.

The oversight responsibilities of Congress have tragically been emasculated by this administration, and too many Members of Congress have acquiesced. They have bowed to this administration's wishes or demands that it be able to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, and to whomever it wants. And then, if they are caught doing it, they say it is part of the war against terror, or that it is essential to our national security.

You don't defeat terror with terror. You don't stop those inhuman beings who would commit atrocities by committing atrocities against them. And you don't make our citizens more secure by taking away other people's brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers to secret gulags and torturing them for months or years. Of those torture victims themselves, if you release them, does anyone suppose that they will not be filled with hatred and revenge towards the United States? After they have been tortured, you keep them secretly locked up forever so they can't torture Americans in return?

These are not only hideous, horrible, and inhuman practices, they are stupid policies, shortsighted, misguided, and immoral policies which, if not illegal, should be, and which, to use the CIA's term, will blow back or boomerang against our own citizens in the years ahead.

Yes, there should be a congressional investigation into how unelected people with no accountability to the American people or to the civilized world can usurp the powers and responsibilities which are this Congress's by law, and why this Congress has let them get away with it and continues to look the other way while they blacken America's great name, debase our good values, and endanger our national security with their depravity.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and Senator Biden be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, in recent weeks the American people and Members of the Senate have heard allegations about the existence of secret prison facilities operated by the U.S. Government in various countries around the world.

Now, I know many of my colleagues take this matter very seriously. The Central Intelligence Agency has reportedly requested a Justice Department investigation of how classified intelligence information made its way into print. Clearly, the revelation of the potential of these programs is a serious national security matter. It is one we can all agree on, no matter where we sit.

No one in this Chamber underestimates the seriousness of the war on radical Islamic terrorists. It is a war we have to win, we must win. And no one underestimates the depravity and the viciousness of our enemies. We do not need to look any further than the bombings last night in Jordan to once again be reminded of the kind of enemy we face--an enemy willing to always target the innocent. We know that success in any war requires the informed consent of the American people. And in an issue as sensitive as this, that informed consent can only be derived from the Congress's full and appropriate understanding and involvement in these issues. That in and of itself requires information and cooperation from the administration so we in Congress can provide effective and informed oversight. That begins by knowing what the money we authorize and appropriate is being used to do. The American people demand no less than that. The fact is, we are not aware; we are not as a Congress performing that proper oversight. The vast majority of us first heard about the possibility of clandestine detention facilities in the Washington Post last Wednesday.

Since then, we have heard that this may have been discussed by Vice President Cheney in a meeting with the Republican caucus. That obviously comes from statements by people at the caucus made publicly. If, as has been reported by Senator Lott, members of the Republican caucus can hear about these facilities from the Vice President of the United States, then the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ought to be able to receive a full accounting.

So the amendment I offer today seeks to simply assert, appropriately, congressional oversight in this matter by requiring two classified reports--one by the Secretary of Defense and one by the Director of National Intelligence--to the appropriate committees, detailing the involvement of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community in these activities if, indeed, there is any.

Not later than 60 days after enactment, the Secretary of Defense will provide a classified report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees of any knowledge or participation in the operation of clandestine facilities by the Department of Defense, including support provided by the Department of Defense to any other part of the U.S. Government or foreign government. The Secretary of Defense must also report on whether the Department has transported any individuals to or from such a facility, and whether detainees in such facilities are to be tried by military commission. Finally, this report will include details about detainees held at DOD facilities for other Government agencies.

The second classified report required by this amendment is from the Director of National Intelligence to the Intelligence Committees of both the House and the Senate. In it, the Director will provide a detailed accounting of the nature, cost, and operation of any clandestine prison or detention facility operated by the U.S. Government, regardless of location, where detainees from the global war on terror are being or have been held.

Now, let me be clear: We are not passing judgment on the merit or the value of these facilities. What we are saying is we need to know and understand what the policy of our country is, what is being done with taxpayer money, and what are the appropriate accounting and oversight mechanisms with respect to this.

In its reporting, the Washington Post said:

The CIA and the White House, citing national security

concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded

Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in

open testimony [about the facilities].

My colleagues will note that both of these reports would be classified, both of them would be limited to the committees of jurisdiction. This is not about open testimony. It is about Congress doing its appropriate job through the appropriate committees.

I do not have any doubt that in the American public's mind we are all united and determined to win the war against radical Islamic terrorists. But I do know that any administration that tries to keep Congress in the dark ultimately winds up damaging the very effort we are engaged in. We have seen this all through history. This goes back for years in the relationship of oversight by the Congress and efforts by administrations to undertake clandestine initiatives on their own.

The executive branch cannot win this by itself. It needs Congress to be invested. It needs Congress to be knowledgeable. It needs Congress to act on behalf of the American people. And in this case, the simple job of oversight is critical to our ability to maintain the consensus necessary for our Nation. We have seen too often too many instances of efforts that go awry that cost us leverage as a nation, cost us leverage with other communities, and ultimately may even cost us lives of Americans because they do go awry without the proper consent.

We also do better as a country in these kinds of efforts when Members of both parties across the aisle have joined together in a foreign policy that represents the broad consensus of the American people and where all of us are accepting responsibility for our actions.

I would hope my colleagues, the distinguished chairman and ranking member, would accept this amendment because I think it acts in the best interests of this institution and of our Nation.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would transfer the YouthBuild program from its current home in the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Labor. Transferring departmental jurisdiction over this program will help ensure that Youthbuild continues to receive the funds it needs to help unemployed and undereducated young people ages 16-24 work toward their GED or high school diploma while learning job skills by building affordable housing for homeless and low-income people. It is supported by the YouthBuild Coalition.

Poverty, neglect, abuse, and deprivation of all kinds can prevent people from reaching their true potential. Many of those who have fallen off track, suffered losses, and made mistakes can recover. If given the opportunity, they can learn to cope with obstacles and care effectively about themselves, their families and their communities. YouthBuild helps young people who have lost their way to turn their lives around.

YouthBuild is a uniquely comprehensive program that offers at-risk youth an immediate productive role rebuilding their communities. While attending basic education classes for 50 percent of program time, students also receive job skills training in the construction field, personal counseling from respected mentors, a supportive peer group with positive values, and experience in civic engagement. They build houses for homeless and low-income people while earning their own GED or high school diploma.

YouthBuild is built on success. The first YouthBuild program was created in 1978. At that time, YouthBuild's future founder, Dorothy Stoneman, formed the Youth Action Program to rebuild homes in New York City. The successful renovation of an East Harlem tenement led to a city-wide coalition and in 1990, led to YouthBuild USA, an organization created to replicate this program around the Nation.

In 1992, I introduced legislation which was enacted into law as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, authorizing federal funding for YouthBuild through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In its first 10 years of Federal funding, YouthBuild has demonstrated the ability to bring the most disadvantaged youth into productive employment, higher education, and civic engagement. Since 1994, more than 40,000 YouthBuild students have helped rebuild their communities, creating more than 12,000 units of affordable housing, while transforming their lives at the same time.

YouthBuild has earned majority bipartisan support for Federal funding in the Senate due to its great success in local communities. Today there are 226 YouthBuild programs in 44 States engaging 7,000 young adults.

The number of programs could easily be expanded. Last year alone, 260 communities were denied YouthBuild funding. The programs that exist could easily grow. In 2004, local programs turned away 10,000 applicants solely for lack of funds.

The expansion of YouthBuild would help address critical national problems: the construction industry is short 80,000 workers; over 500,000 youth are dropping out of high school every year with no prospects of becoming gainfully employed; states are spending huge amounts on prisons, housing 365,000 16 to 24 year olds, 65 percent of whom have dropped out of high school.

Consider this story of success: Manny Negron grew up in New Britain, CT. He left school during his Sophomore year after having some personal problems. He started selling drugs and getting into trouble. Then he joined YouthBuild, obtained a GED and learned more about the construction industry. ``Before YouthBuild, I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life.'' Manny said. ``I had no goals, no plans--I had nothing. If it was a weekend when I was partying and in the street, I had no plans. Now it's completely different and YouthBuild did that for me. Now that I'm away from all that, I actually see a future for myself and see what I'm capable of and what I can do with my life.''

Research on 900 YouthBuild graduates several years after program completion showed that 75 percent were employed at an average wage of $10/hour or in college. They were voting and paying taxes. Of those who had committed felonies, the recidivism rate was a strikingly low, 15 percent.

The legislation I am introducing today responds to the Bush administration's attempt to move YouthBuild from HUD to DoL in its FY 2006 budget request. I did not agree with the Administration attempt to transfer YouthBuild in the budget; it was simply the wrong approach. However, my staff has met with Administration officials, with YouthBuild and with YouthBuild's strong supporters. And I believe that we can find a way to do this, and I appreciate that the Administration has shown a willingness to work with us so far. If done properly, I transferring YouthBuild from HUD to DoL could increase YouthBuild's scope, helping it to reach the communities and young people that are currently denied access due to a lack of funds. This legislation not only authorizes the transfer of YouthBuild from HUD to DoL, but also allows unlimited future federal funding, continues centralized management at DoL and continues the historic role of YouthBuild USA as the partner and contractor for quality assurance.

This legislation is an attempt to help move the process of transferring the YouthBuild program forward. I look forward to working with Senators Enzi and Kennedy, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to develop compromise legislation that will ensure that YouthBuild continues to assist young people around the nation. I ask that all my colleagues support this legislation and continue to support the YouthBuild.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, as Veterans Day approaches, we pay homage to the soldiers who once stormed the beaches of Normandy, reclaimed the mountains of Korea and crossed the sands of Kuwait. We pay homage to our veterans' sacrifice and courage, and also to the brave men and women who now follow their example in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

In paying respect, we must also follow through on our Nation's commitment's to ensure our veterans receive the benefits they earned and deserve.

Arkansas has a long and distinguished record of service, one that my State is proud of, and one that we will continue to build upon. In addition to honorable service by our active duty soldiers, marines, seamen and airmen, the Arkansas National Guard has mobilized more than 8,000 of its guardsmen since Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, this Veterans Day is an especially poignant one for families in Rogers, AR where 180 guardsmen have just been deployed to serve in Iraq.

Arkansas is not alone in its commitment to military service. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are 393,000 new veterans to care for, including 103,000 who are currently seeking health care from VA hospitals.

We can never truly repay our veterans for their service to our Nation, but we can care for them just as they cared for us. In honor of these men and women, Senator Norm Coleman and I have introduced the Veterans Benefits Outreach Act to help ensure that all veterans collect the benefits they have earned but for whatever reason are not receiving.

Nearly 600,000 veterans nationwide are not receiving the benefits they are entitled to, often due to a simple lack of knowledge that they are eligible.

Instead of veterans having to cut through bureaucracy to learn about and receive the various benefits they earn, our bill seeks to bring this information to them. It requires the VA to prepare a plan to identify veterans who are not enrolled in programs they are eligible for and an action plan to enroll them.

This measure represents an opportunity to help our current veterans and meet the challenges we foresee instead of waiting until benefit problems escalate for a new generation of veterans. I hope this Veterans Day will add the necessary momentum for the full Senate to consider and pass this measure.

We owe this to veterans like Chaplain--Colonel--David McLemore--a soldier's soldier who has dedicated a career to providing outreach to service men and women in the field.

Chaplain McLemore is a native Arkansan and has served as a chaplain in the Arkansas Army National Guard for 21 years. During that time he has served soldiers at the company, battery, battalion, and brigade level. He has personally answered the call to duty in two wars, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom II.

In both of these conflicts, Chaplain McLemore served on the front lines with combat units, where he ministered to soldiers conducting the day-to-day fight with the enemy. Chaplain McLemore always chose to be up front providing a ``Ministry of Presence'' to those in the greatest place of danger.

Those who served in combat with Chaplain McLemore knew that he would always be there with a listening ear, an open heart, and a guiding hand. His mere presence gave courage and inspiration to those who knew that they could lose their lives at any minute.

As any chaplain, Chaplain McLemore did not carry a weapon as he faced the perils of combat, but the soldiers he served with knew that he carried more firepower than any of them, the grace and word of God, and they always wanted Chaplain McLemore and that firepower with them.

They knew that he risked his life every day for one mission, to serve them. In the simple but strong bond of combat, it was clear that Chaplain McLemore loved his fellow soldiers and they loved him.

Two months after his return from Operation Iraqi Freedom II, Chaplain McLemore was involved in a motorcycle accident where he sustained severe injuries. Today, he fights to recover from those injuries in the Veterans Administration Hospital in North Little Rock, AR.

As he does, he has the prayers, respect, and encouragement from us and all of his fellow soldiers. We honor him today for his commitment and selfless service to God, his country, and his fellow soldiers. Thank you, Chaplain David McLemore. God Bless and Godspeed.

We owe all our veterans not only our gratitude, but also our freedoms and American way of life. Our military has kept us safe for a long time. We cannot thank them enough, but we can begin to repay their sacrifices by providing them with the resources they need in the field and the support they have earned when they return home.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.