Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice Act

Mr. President, how much time remains under the Smith unanimous consent request for a half hour?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to join my colleague at this time to discuss the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act that Senator Smith and I are introducing today.

Mr. President, first, I want to say how much I appreciate Senator Gordon Smith. At a time when our citizens all across the land and in our home State of Oregon believe there needs to be more bipartisanship, Senator Smith doesn't just talk about it, he is consistently willing to meet me more than halfway on critical issues, and he does that with other colleagues in the Senate.

As we begin our time discussing this legislation, I want to let him know how much I appreciate the chance to cooperate with him once again. As he stated, we did put the issue of catastrophic health coverage at the top of our bipartisan agenda for the Senate session.

What it comes down to, Mr. President, is that Senator Smith and I believe it is a moral blot on our Nation for a country as good and rich as ours to send millions of its citizens to bed at night fearing they will be wiped out if a serious medical illness hits them. That is the reality. It is the reality for families who have no coverage at all, and it is the reality for families who have some measure of coverage, say, through an employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough.

Senator Smith and I want, in a bipartisan way, to tackle both of those kinds of concerns. That is why we have put forward the legislation we introduced today. I think now is an ideal time for bipartisanship on the catastrophic health coverage issue.

If you look back over the last few years, Senator Kerry, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, had an excellent proposal with respect to catastrophic coverage, and I said so in the course of that campaign. But I also said at the time that I thought our distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, also had a good catastrophic coverage proposal. You could debate the various merits of the Kerry proposal and the Frist proposal--which approach involved a little more government, which approach involved the private sector--but at the end of the day, for the purposes of government work, they were pretty darn similar.

So when Senator Smith and I sat down after the 2004 election, we said let's finally get this done. Democrats and Republicans have been talking for years about how to make sure that all our citizens have a safety net under them so that they will not get wiped out from medical illness. We settled on this approach, which we thought would give us the opportunity to try some fresh, creative ideas for protecting our citizens.

Let me give an example of what happens in, for example, South Carolina, Oregon, or anywhere else in this country. If you have a small business with six people working there, and one of them gets sick, that essentially blows up the whole health premium structure for all six of the employees.

What we ought to look at is something called reinsurance. Under reinsurance, that employee who gets sick could get a bit of help for their high bills through a modest role for government, and if government steps in, in that kind of instance, you have an opportunity to hold down all of the costs for the entire six-person firm. So we should have been looking at reinsurance years ago, but because Senator Smith, who chairs the Senate Aging Committee, has been examining these questions and has worked with me, now we are going to have a chance to tackle it in a way that I think is going to give us the opportunity to get the job done.

We are also very concerned about people who have no coverage at all. So what happens if you have no coverage at all is folks walk into a hospital in Oregon or in South Carolina, usually they show up in the emergency room, and the hospital has to absorb those costs. What we would do is give that person who now has no coverage at all the possibility of actually buying some private coverage in the marketplace with a bit of a subsidy in order to be able to have coverage that would pick up at least a portion of those bills that the hospital is now absorbing.

At the end of the day, those are the two principal kinds of instances we are facing--folks who have some coverage through a private employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough, and folks who don't have any coverage at all. Under that approach, we would like to make it possible for them to get into the private insurance market, protect them from catastrophic illness. We think we can do it with a modest subsidy coming from government.

My sense is that we are now looking at health care on two tracks in our country. The first track is a track that suggests we can take steps right now in areas like catastrophic coverage to protect our citizens. There are other ideas I have advanced during this Congress. For example, Senator Snowe and I have now gotten a majority of Senators to agree with our proposal to lift the restriction so Medicare can bargain and hold down the costs. That, like the question of catastrophic coverage, is a step you can take right now. Let's protect our citizens from the catastrophic illness and let's hold down the costs of medicine. Those are practical, bipartisan approaches that can be taken today. We ought to pursue them and get them done.

I also think there is another track to health care. I noticed that Senator Hatch was on the Senate floor. He and I were the authors of the legislation creating the Citizens' Health Care Working Group that is going to look at opportunities to make sure that all Americans have decent, affordable coverage. We have only been on that issue for more than 60 years--going back to the 81st Congress, in 1945, and Harry Truman. I have said let's also work on that second track that involves getting all Americans under the tent for essential and affordable health care coverage.

That obviously isn't going to get done in the next 15 minutes. But if the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, as Senator Smith and I have sought to do on the catastrophic issue, and as Senator Hatch and I have sought to do on a broader approach to look at health care that works for all Americans--if we team up and look at health care on those two tracks, I think we can make a great contribution for our country.

There are no costs going up in the United States like medical bills. We spent $1.7 trillion last year on health care. There are 290 million Americans--I guess we are approaching 300 million. When you divide $1.7 trillion by 290 million Americans, it comes to something like $25,000 that could be sent to every family of four in America with the amount of money now being spent on health care.

So while we are spending enough money, my sense is that we are not spending it in the right places. Once again, Senator Smith has given us an opportunity to think creatively about better ways to approach the use of the health care dollars. I was pleased when Senator Smith suggested in our legislation that we also make it possible to include a focus on health care prevention. We are not doing enough with health care prevention in this country. The Medicare Program shows that pretty well. Medicare Part A, for example, will pay huge checks for senior citizens' hospital bills, but Medicare Part B pays virtually nothing for prevention to keep people well. That makes no sense. We need a sharper focus on health care prevention, and one of the things that I think is attractive about Senator Smith's leadership on this issue is that he has said even in the context of looking at catastrophic health care, let's put a sharper focus on prevention. We are going to make it possible in this legislation to do that.

I note we have other colleagues on the floor. I have secured time to focus on the Voting Rights Act legislation later in the afternoon, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk for a few minutes about the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act Senator Smith and I are introducing today. We have focused on a number of issues in a bipartisan fashion over our years in the Senate, but this has the potential to be the biggest as it relates to the needs of our citizens at home.

We want to make sure when folks go to bed at night, they don't have to fear they are going to be wiped out financially by a serious medical illness. This legislation moves us one step closer toward the goal. We hope many colleagues on both sides of the aisle will want to support the legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I today are introducing the

Medicare Prescription Drug Lifeline Act. This legislation provides a solution for those seniors falling into the coverage gap, also known as the doughnut hole of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The doughnut hole occurs when the spending for a senior's drug expenses reaches $2,250: at the point, the senior is on their own until their spending for prescription drugs reaches a total of $5,100, where the benefit picks up again. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that nearly 7 million seniors will fall into the coverage gap this year.

Seniors who enter this ``no man's land'' of spending face the same problems seniors faced before the drug benefit even began: they skip doses, they don't take all their medicine to make it stretch, and they are forced to choose between their food and fuel costs and their prescription drug costs.

This legislation would take three steps to deal with this problem: First, the Secretary of HHS would be required to let seniors know they are approaching the coverage gap. Second, it would allow seniors, when they are notified that they are reaching the coverage gap, to switch plans to avoid the gap. Finally, the legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to examine ways in which the benefit could be redesigned to eliminate the gap without increasing Federal spending. Together, these provisions will give seniors a lifeline to coverage.

Senator Snowe and I both voted for the legislation that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit. When we did so, we pledged that we would continue to work to improve the benefit. Senator Snowe and I have teamed up together on many occasions to try to reduce the cost of the prescription drug program by giving the Secretary the same power other Government officials have to bargain for better prices. Our legislation has won a majority of votes in the Senate, and we intend to continue to press for that power.

The latest effort is aimed at another shortcoming in the law: finding a way to help seniors avoid falling into the coverage gap. Senator Snowe and I believe that our legislation will help seniors a straightforward way to avoid the gap.

Congress needs to address both these issues and we will continue our strong commitment to seniors by working to improve the drug benefit.

Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, and Bingaman, on the 37th anniversary of the lunar landing when American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin set foot on the Moon, to introduce the Spaceport Equity Act of 2006--a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry.

On June 18th, the Washington Post reported on the launching of Kazakhstan's first satellite and their catapult into the space transportation industry. Home to the world's largest space center, the Baikonur Consmodrome, this ex-Soviet state is joining the list of rivals to the U.S. space industry. America's competitive edge is declining and will continue to do so unless we act now. My colleagues and I recognize this, and that is why we are introducing this most important legislation.

U.S. satellite manufacturers face increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of a sufficient domestic launch capability. The United States once dominated the commercial satellite-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent;

however, that market share has since declined to 50 percent. An even smaller share of U.S.-manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports. This comes at an estimated loss of $1.5 to $3.0 billion to the U.S. economy.

The space economy is made up infrastructure of manufacturers, service providers, and technologists in both the Government and private sector that deploy and operate launch vehicles, satellites, and space platforms. Many everyday goods and services rely on space infrastructure, including broadcast, cable, and satellite television, global internet services, satellite radio, cellular and international phone calls, etc.

Satellites are also used for global positioning systems, known as GPS, which enable us to have hands-on directions in our cars and vehicles. GPS is also influential in the trucking, aviation, and maritime industries for day-to-day operations and for our Nation's military operations. Thousands of gas stations use inexpensive small satellite dishes to connect to credit card networks so customers can pay instantly at the pump. Satellites also generate 90 percent of the weather forecasting data in the United States and are used to track hurricanes, tsunamis, and other weather phenomenon.

These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA, priority for launches at these facilities is given to Government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a back seat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability. This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors.

Spaceports are subdivisions of State governments that provide additional launch infrastructure than that available at Federal facilities. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Spaceport authorities function much like airport and port authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to the industry, which in turn benefits the surrounding communities. Many States are forming space authorities to pursue ways of developing space transportation infrastructure.

The Florida Space Authority was the first such entity, which was created as a subdivision of the Florida State government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Florida Space Authority is focused on leading the State's space industry in new directions through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and provide innovative, forward-thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry.

The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, but efforts are underway to establish 13 additional commercial spaceports in Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly impacted by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from government-sponsored or subsidized competitors in Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, Russia, and now Kazakhstan.

Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion dollars in economic activity, over $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs; and $56.5 billion, more than half of this economic activity, was from satellite services. A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' And 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.''

The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies--those influenced by space technology research and development. Home roof insulation and air filtration, antilock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and lasik surgery all owe thanks to NASA and space-based research. The list of space ``spin-off' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. marketshare in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will impact other fields.

As you can see, this once government-dominated industry is now becoming a diverse mix of government and commercial entities--also leading way into future avenues of commercial space transportation, such as space tourism.

The increase in recent commercial launches includes the debut of the first commercial crewed suborbital launches of SpaceShipOne--leading the way to public space travel. ``Space tourism,'' as public space travel is now referred, has the potential to become a major growth industry. Recent market studies have shown space tourism has the potential to become a billion-dollar industry within 20 years.

Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010. If the United States continues as is, we will only be able to capture 10 percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the United States is expected to pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the United States means a loss to our economy and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation Division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism.

Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities, which get priority over commercial projects. If the United States is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry.

On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in spaceport infrastructure. According to recent studies by the Florida Space Authority, increase spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015--this does not include the economic activity generated from impacted tourism, secondary contracts, and spinoff technologies.

Other modes of transportation--highways, airports, and seaports-- currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports?

This Spaceport Equity Act of 2006 would provide spaceports with the same treatment provided for airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equity Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects.

Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt

bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector.

This proposal does not provide direct Federal spending for our commercial space transportation industry but, rather, creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private capital investment in industry infrastructure. By issuing tax-free bonds to finance spaceport infrastructure, space authorities could provide site-specific and vehicle-specific tailoring to promote the competition and innovation necessary to maintain the U.S. competitive edge in the space transportation industry.

This is an efficient means for achieving our space transportation needs, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this most important effort by cosponsoring this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about two bills I am introducing today and to speak out in support of rural Colorado and rural America. The two bills--one to increase investment in broadband technology in rural areas, and another to permanently fund the payment in lieu of taxes program--are the first bills I am introducing as a Senator. I am proud they are both targeted at rural Colorado.

Over 400 years ago, in 1598, my family helped found the oldest city in what is now these United States. They named the city Santa Fe--the City of Holy Faith--because they knew the hand of God would guide them through the struggles of survival in the ages ahead.

For the next four centuries, that faith in their future guided them to overcome extremely painful and challenging times. As humble and poor farmers, the circumstances of their lives forged the priceless and tireless values of my father Henry and mother Emma. And they instilled those values in their children.

My family has now farmed the same lands in southern Colorado, 110 miles north of Santa Fe, for almost 150 years. On that ranch, we did not have a telephone, and the power lines did not reach us until 1981. Although we were poor in material goods, we were rich in spirit. My parents were part of the World's ``greatest generation''--my father a proud veteran of World War II and my mother a proud servant in the War Department. Although neither had a college degree, they taught us about the values and the promise of America. All eight of their children became first-generation college graduates, inspired by their dedication to God, family, community, and country.

As Colorado's U.S. Senator, I am proud of my values and roots in rural Colorado. Rural America is the heart of our great Nation.

The values my parents taught me are the fundamental values that make this country the place I am privileged to call home.

Unfortunately, the America where I grew up is vanishing, left behind by a Washington DC that has lost touch with what is important to the people of the heartland. I fear that rural Colorado, like the rest of rural America, has become ``the forgotten America.''

Rural America has given up its sons and daughters to the cause of freedom without hesitation and in numbers that far exceed its proportion of the country's population. It has worked quietly to put food on our tables, and remains humbly grounded, seeking neither praise nor thanks.

Yet when the President reported on the State of the Union, there was not a word on the state of the more than 3,000 counties that make up rural America--not a word. And in the administration's budget, the programs and investments vital to those communities--PILT, block grants, conservation programs, investments in animal and food safety, and investments in technology, schools and law enforcement--were drastically cut.

Last week, I traveled nearly 2,000 miles to every corner of Colorado and convened 17 meetings with elected officials representing Colorado's 64 counties.

In those meetings, I heard the state of rural America in the words of the people who are fighting for their families everyday.

The state of rural America is sadly the state of the forgotten America.

In rural Colorado, residents face lower incomes and are far more likely to be unemployed than people in urban and suburban areas.

In Crowley County, east of Pueblo, there is only one nurse practitioner to serve a county of nearly 6,000 people. If you get sick in Crowley County, you have three choices: wait, go to the emergency room, or hope you get better.

In Routt County, veterans have to travel nearly 200 miles to Grand Junction to see a doctor in the VA clinic. A few months ago, there was no waiting list to see a doctor. Now, there's a waiting list of 400, which means veterans in western Colorado wait 5 months to see a doctor.

The Dolores County Sheriff, Jerry Martin, has to make hiring decisions based not on public security demands but on the ability of his department to provide health care to the prospective employee. Health care premiums have risen 20 percent every year the last 3 years in Dolores County.

Across the State, people told me that their health care premiums dwarf their mortgage payments because in many cases they pay over $1,000 per month for health insurance for their families.

Between 1996 and 2000, one in three of our rural schools saw its enrollment drop more than 10 percent.

Though they continue to excel on State tests, too many of our rural schools have been forced to divert valuable resources to fulfill the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind.

In Kiowa, Moffat, and Custer Counties, our teachers are paid much less than teachers in the big cities. In Kit Carson County, where teachers sometimes teach two and three subjects, only half of our teachers right now would meet new Federal standards requiring them to be certified for each subject.

And in the town of Rico, half of Main Street is boarded up: there's a liquor store, but not much else. According to the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, that may be part of a larger trend: Main Street in rural Colorado is losing its storefronts at an alarming rate.

Compare those needs to the budget the Administration recently proposed.

While we are facing a shortage of qualified and trained health care employees, the administration budget this year cut health professions training by almost two thirds, $290 million.

While our State tries to deal with a devastating budget crisis, the Administration dramatically reduced funding for the Community Development Block Grants on which towns, from Greeley to Grand Junction to Denver, depend.

For the fifth year in a row, the Administration's budget fails to fulfill the funding promises made in the No Child Left Behind law, but still heaps mandates on local schools.

Moreover, the proposed budget eliminates low-interest loans for students who have the grades but can't afford to go to college and eliminates funding for vocational training that many rural Colorado students use.

The proposed budget cuts $250 million from one of the most successful small business investment programs and decimates USDA investments in rural economic development.

While we combat methamphetamine production and invest precious resources in meth lab clean up, the budget cuts Safe and Drug Free School grants, the COPS program by nearly $500 million, and State and local homeland security training programs by 60 percent.

I want to propose two small steps in my effort to reinvest in rural America. In coming months I intend to introduce measures to strengthen rural law enforcement, revitalize rural health care, invest in Main Street, strengthen rural education, help ensure efficient and equitable sharing of water resources and underscore the values that shape every rural community in Colorado.

The first bill is on the PILT program. I know that education in rural America is funded through a variety of means, including through resources passed to rural counties through the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program.

The idea behind the PILT program is simple. It makes sure that local communities in States like Colorado--States that have seen large parts of land set aside by the Federal Government for public use--do not lose valuable resources from foregone property taxes. Those resources fund programs from education to law enforcement.

Unfortunately, this year the administration's budget is again proposing to cut that funding. Thanks to the efforts of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, such as Senator Bingaman, some of that funding has been won back over the last several years, and I

am hopeful we will do so again this year.

But our local communities should not have to wait and wonder every year whether their resources for schools, roads and law enforcement will make it into the budget, and that is why I am introducing a bill to make permanent the funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program.

I am also introducing a bill to increase investment in broadband technology in rural communities. Bringing broadband to our rural schools will give our students there access to technology that millions of other students take for granted. With broadband will come world class research and access to AP courses at Colorado's universities. And with broadband we will see the economic development for which rural Colorado has been waiting.

The benefits of this investment do not stop in education and business. Telehealth is increasingly vital in rural Colorado, held back in some cases by the lack of investment in infrastructure. That same infrastructure limits investment opportunities in rural communities.

With this bill I am building on the hard work of others and saying that it is long past time for us to invest in the world class broadband that rural communities need and are right to expect. My bill does that in three ways.

First, it will establish our Nation's first Rural Broadband Office to coordinate all Federal Government resources as they relate to broadband.

Second, it will help broadband providers keep pace with our rapidly changing technology.

And third, it calls on the Congress to live up to its responsibility to fully fund rural utilities.

It has been a long road that has carried me from that ranch in the San Luis Valley, growing up as one of eight siblings and proudly attending college and law school before having the privilege to serve in U.S. Senate.

In all of this, I have never forgotten where I come from. In my office, I have a sign on my desk that reads ``No Farms, No Food.'' Every day I look at it, and I am reminded of just how dependent we are on the people of rural Colorado, and in rural communities all across America.

At a meeting with leaders from Colorado's farmer and rancher community last month, a wheat farmer from southeastern Colorado told me this: ``Senator, you'd never believe how many farmers refuse to go to the doctor when they get sick. It's not that they aren't really sick. It's that they can't afford the doctor.''

Unfortunately, Mr. President, I do believe that wheat farmer, and I know rural America needs our help.

In America, the most powerful, prosperous, idealistic country the world has ever known, we can do better.

And protecting that way of life--in our churches and town halls, Main Streets and living rooms, ranches and independent drug stores--demands it. Together, we can make sure that no one anywhere in this country feels that he is part of a ``Forgotten America'' any longer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the Senator from New Jersey.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Darfur Accountability Act. This is an issue that I and a number of my colleagues have as much passion about and as much conviction and concern as anything that we could speak about on this floor. As we stand here today, 225,000, maybe more, Darfurians in the Sudan have died over the last 2 years. A million and three quarters are displaced, living in camps. Senator Brownback is a cosponsor of the Darfur Accountability Act, along with Senators DeWine, Talent, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, and Lieberman--a bipartisan basis. All believe strongly and passionately that we need to act now.

This bill, which we will be introducing today, provides the tools, the authorities to confront the crisis of humanity that is taking place in Darfur. It can be a reflection of our Nation's commitment to live up to the most solemn promise of our time and our Nation's values--to never stand by quietly while genocide goes forth, while genocide rages in a part of the world. ``Never again'' is the rallying cry we have all heard from the tragedy of World War II, from the response and understanding of the tragedy of Rwanda and genocides across history. Man's horrific treatment of his fellow man in genocide must be stood up against, must be pushed back against. We must say no.

It has been more than 7 months since the resolution introduced by Senator Brownback and myself declaring the atrocities in Darfur to be declared genocide passed the Senate. It has been more than 7 months since the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution. And it has been 6 months since Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same declaration.

Genocide continues. Just 1 month ago a U.N. commission confirmed a litany of atrocities that have become all too familiar in this situation:

Government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate

attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced

disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms

of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement

throughout Darfur.

It has been going on for 2 years. The report stated that the atrocities were ``conducted on a widespread and systematic basis,'' and that the ``magnitude and large-scale nature of some crimes against humanity, as well as their consistency over a long period of time, necessarily imply that these

crimes result from a central planning operation.''

This is public policy in the Sudan--public policy. Maybe more compelling is a series of articles, two of which I will put into the Record, that are reflective of the public and transparent and dogged coverage by a New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, which document completely the nature of the atrocities going on, including, unfortunately, some of the pictorial efforts that bring forth the certainty that genocide is taking place.

I will submit a column written on February 23, ``The Secret Genocide Archive,'' which carries pictures in the New York Times of some of the outcomes of our failure to act. Then there is a second column which I will put into the Record. It is in today's paper, March 2, 2005, ``The American Witness,'' where a U.S. marine on the ground, a captain in the Marine Corps, is citing and stating and documenting the continuation of this tragedy in the lives of these people in Darfur.

I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are truly at a historic moment. The U.N. Commission confirmed that these atrocities were continuing even as it was doing its investigation. By the way, we just released from the U.S. State Department a report on human rights practices in countries around the world. The February 28 report reconfirmed our own Government's view that what is taking place is genocide.

We bear the responsibility that came out of the Holocaust to remember the horrors that lead to genocide. That is why we passed the genocide convention, and it is time to act. That is what this accountability act is all about. It has a lot of detail in it. But the fact is, it is to get us up and moving. I could use a little more graphic language. We have no right to stand by while human life is being taken day after day and displacement is taking place day after day. All over this country, people of faith of all denominations, student groups, and people from all walks of life are speaking out about this in our churches, our community centers, everywhere. They expect our Government and the international community to act. The time to act is now.

Let me describe the legislation, if I may. First, it reconfirms that genocide continues in Darfur. Last week, Human Rights reported new accounts of rapes, tortures, and mutilations from eyewitnesses. This needs to be dealt with. There is little doubt whatsoever that this continues. Again, I refer to the Kristof articles, which are very graphic in their explanation. Reflecting on time, I will not go through the details. There are many of these accounts.

There is no reason to turn our backs on this issue. Remember the imperative: Never again. This legislation offers specifics about how the genocide should be stopped. It calls for a military no-fly zone in Darfur. This discussion about no-fly zones has been going on for the better part of a year. It is time to make sure that we as an international community, as a nation, stand up and say, let's implement that.

Recent reports state that as recently as January, the Government of Sudan used aircraft and helicopters to impose its desire in implementing its genocide on the people of Darfur along with the jingaweit militia, which are notorious about implementing this.

The legislation also lays out the report for the African Union mission in Darfur. In September of last year, the Senate passed an amendment by Senator DeWine and myself that sets aside $75 million in aid to the African Union so they could accelerate their monitoring and assistance on the ground in Darfur. So far, we have begun to use some of those resources. I think at this point it is about $20 million. Unfortunately, the authorization was for 3,300 African Union troops on the ground, but there are about 1,800 there today. This is 7 months after our efforts to get this done. We need to stop the killing now. That means we need to get the troops on the ground now; we have to spend the money now. It is absolutely time that we stand up and take notice and move on this issue.

The legislation also provides specifics about what should be done in a new U.N. Security Council resolution, including sanctions that have previously been threatened by the council but never imposed. For instance, we have an arms embargo against the government in Darfur. We don't have an arms embargo against the Government of Sudan. We have one in Darfur. So they can get the guns and military equipment into Khartoum, and I guess we think somehow they are not going to use it where they are actually taking the lives of the people in Darfur. It is crazy that we have such a limited and ineffectual arms embargo on Sudan. We need to act. It is clear that

we needed it last summer, and it is clear that we need it today.

I was offered the opportunity to visit Darfur last August during that 30-day period when the U.N. Security Council was examining whether Sudan was moving to correct some of the problems, get control of the jingaweit, and actually respond to the international community's imperative that they change their actions. It was clear then that the only thing that was moving the Sudanese Government was the transparency that both journalists and the international community were providing the people who were on the ground, but they had no real interest in stopping the jingaweit or the tragedy on the ground in Darfur. None. It was only pressure from the outside that was going to have any impact on moving forward.

Unfortunately, from that moment on, we have stepped back. We said we were going to do things, and we did not. Guess what. The tragedy continues and has accelerated in many places, particularly south Darfur. It is time to act.

I will save going through the rest of the pieces of legislation, but I hope my colleagues will keep in mind that we have had over 200,000 deaths and one and three-quarter million people displaced, more or less. Nobody is certain of the numbers. Estimates are that 10,000 people die a month in Darfur. Do we have to wake up and understand that we have ``Rwanda 2'' on our hands to act? Do we have to have some incredible tragedy at a single point in time for us to act? It is time to put down serious accountability requirements on the Government of Sudan and to act to stop the killing in Darfur. I can only say that there is nothing that reflects our moral values in this country more than standing up to genocide. Our humanity is being challenged, the very essence of who we are as human beings. Genocide is evil. It should be stopped, and we should remember the imperative: Never again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Colorado. His maiden speech was as brilliant as his life has been. It is an honor to serve with him, when I think about the story of his family and its presence and contribution to this country and the power with which he speaks for those he represents in rural America. This will be one of many speeches that make a great impact on our country. I am honored to serve with him and congratulate him on his initial voyage.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing a bill I proposed in the last Congress to help prepare new teachers to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and talented students. According to the federally funded National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, the large majority of gifted and talented students spend at least 80 percent of their time in a regular education classroom. Of course, gifted students are not gifted only 20 percent of the time. They are gifted all the time. Unfortunately, the lack of teacher preparation means that gifted students are not being challenged during much of the time they spend in the classroom. Their educational needs are not being met.

Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about the needs of gifted children. You might say, ``Why should we worry about these children? They

are the smart ones that the teacher doesn't have to spend so much time on.'' First of all, I'm not talking about your average straight A student who maybe learns the material easily, but much the same way as other students in the classroom. What makes a child gifted and talented is not how well the child does in school, but how he or she learns. A straight A student may or may not be gifted and a gifted student may not always get good grades in school. Gifted and talented children actually have a different way of looking at the world. They tend to have distinct approaches to learning and interacting socially, and they frequently learn at a different pace, and to different depths, than others their age. The bottom line is that gifted and talented children have unique learning needs that need to be met in order for them to achieve to their potential.

To illustrate this point, I would like to remind the Senate of an example I first cited two years ago while speaking on another piece of legislation related to gifted and talented students. It concerns a young elementary school student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was not putting much effort into his schoolwork and was getting bad grades. He was a good kid but he also had a tendency to act up in class. He got along with his classmates, but didn't have many friends. Jose's teacher was frustrated and couldn't figure out what to do with him. Still, Jose's parents saw in him a real hunger for learning and had his IQ tested over the summer. It turns out that what the teacher saw as behavior problems or a lack of work ethic were really symptoms of a gifted student who was not being properly challenged. Jose started leaving his regular classroom a couple of times a week to work with a teacher who was trained in meeting the needs of gifted students. As a result of the added stimulation he received, Jose started to enjoy school more, made friends with his gifted peers, and began to succeed with his regular school work.

Jose was fortunate that his parents were so perceptive and were able to have him assessed privately. However, not all parents are in a position to recognize the signs of giftedness or to advocate for their child's needs. Even in schools where there are active gifted and talented programs, many students go unidentified. Moreover, even with pull-out programs like the one I described that supplement the classroom experience and other strategies like grade skipping, it is inevitable that many gifted students will spend much of their time in a regular classroom with non-gifted students of the same age but far different ability levels. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that all classroom teachers should have at least a basic knowledge about how to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and talented students in their classrooms. However, a national survey of third and fourth grade teachers by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented found that 61 percent of teachers had no training whatsoever in teaching highly able students.

Only one State currently requires regular classroom teachers to have coursework in gifted education. Some of the techniques used in classrooms to accommodate gifted kids include differentiated curriculum, cluster grouping, and accelerated learning. The time to make sure teachers have the necessary knowledge is when prospective teachers are in their pre-service teacher training programs. If teachers aren't exposed to information and strategies to meet the needs of gifted students in their pre-service training, they may never acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. With the Higher Education Act due for reauthorization, this is the perfect opportunity to encourage schools of education and States to take a greater look at how they can improve teacher preparation programs to integrate instruction on the unique needs of gifted learners.

Title II of the Higher Education Act already contains grants designed to enhance the quality of teacher preparation programs. My bill would simply add allowable uses to these existing grants to provide an incentive for states and teacher training programs to incorporate the needs of gifted and talented students into teacher preparation and licensure requirements. I should point out that this change would not cost the taxpayers any additional money.

Under current law, Title II State grants are awarded directly to States and are to be used to reform State teacher preparation requirements. The law lists seven potential reforms under the allowable uses for grant funds. The first three allowable uses include: strengthening state requirements for teacher preparation programs to ensure teachers are highly competent in their respective academic content areas, reforming certification and licensure requirements with respect to competency in content areas, and providing alternatives to traditional teacher preparation programs. My legislation would add another allowable use, referencing these three reforms, to encourage states to incorporate a focus on the learning needs of gifted and talented students into reforms of state requirements for teacher preparation programs, reforms of state certification and licensure requirements, or new alternative teacher preparation programs. In addition, my bill would add a new allowable use so that States could use grant funds to create or expand new-teacher mentoring programs on the needs of gifted and talented students. This way, new teachers could learn from veteran teachers about how to identify classroom indicators of giftedness and provide appropriate instruction to gifted students.

My bill would also add language to the Partnership Grants, which provide funds to partnerships among teacher preparation institutions, school of arts and sciences, and high-need school districts to strengthen new teacher education. These grants come with three required uses, including reforming teacher preparation programs to ensure teachers are highly competent in academic content areas, providing pre- service clinical experience, and creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development. One allowable use for which a partnership may use funds is preparing teachers to work with diverse populations, including individuals with disabilities and limited English proficient individuals. To this section, my legislation would add gifted and talented students. Recognizing that every teacher could have gifted students in his or her classroom, my bill would also add a new allowable use so that teacher preparation programs could use the funds to infuse teacher coursework with units on the characteristics of high-ability learners. In other words, the idea is not to require additional courses, but rather to discuss how to accommodate for the needs of gifted students throughout the teacher preparation curriculum when new teachers are learning how to present lessons.

Again, my bill does not create a new grant program and doesn't cost any more money. It simply provides an incentive through existing grant programs to encourage States and teacher preparation programs to make sure that new teachers have the skills they will need to identify and meet the unique needs of the gifted and talented students who will be in their classrooms. I think we all recognize how important a quality teacher can be in helping a student achieve. This is no less true with gifted and talented students. Having a teacher that is equipped to meet the unique needs of gifted students can mean the difference between a child hating school and a child loving school; a child falling behind, and a child succeeding beyond all expectations. When a gifted child is left behind, the loss of human potential is doubly tragic. Gifted and talented children are a national resource that we must nurture now for our nation's future. This modest step could reap rewards for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in this investment in our future.