A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide additional discretion to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in contracting with State approving agencies, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to help ensure the long-term ability of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to promptly dispense justice in all veterans cases.

In 1988, Congress created this court to hear appeals from decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs, most commonly on veterans' claims for disability compensation based on injuries or diseases they suffered during service. As was discussed at a hearing I called last year while serving as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the CAVC is facing some serious challenges, which may impede its ability to consistently provide timely decisions to our Nation's veterans.

In fact, between 2004 and 2006 the court experienced something akin to a ``perfect storm.'' The last four of the original judges, who were appointed when the court was created, all retired, taking 60 years of experience with them; the court's incoming caseload experienced a dramatic 67-percent increase; and the court was left with a single judge who had at least 2 years of experience deciding these often complex cases. As a consequence, the court received 30 percent more cases than it decided during that time and the number of pending cases doubled in less than 2 years. With over 6,000 cases still pending, almost 4,000 more than a decade ago, and with the court continuing to receive record levels of incoming cases, veterans seeking justice from the court may feel the effects of this ``perfect storm'' for many years to come, as the court struggles to eliminate the existing backlog and to keep up with new appeals.

For the men and women who have served, sacrificed, and suffered for our Nation, I believe we must take steps to ensure that they will receive timely decisions on their appeals, not just today but for many years to come. That is why I am introducing this bill to help the court deal with its existing caseload and to help ensure that, in the long term, the court will not face such a devastating combination of events.

As one means of helping with the current caseload, the bill would modify the rules that govern the recall of retired judges. Under current law, a retiring judge may opt to be recall eligible, which means the judge may be involuntarily called back to work for up to 90 days per year when needed and may voluntarily serve up to 180 days per year. For this court, like other Federal courts, the option of receiving help from retired judges can be an extremely important resource. In fact, last year, after the court began recalling retired judges to help with its caseload, the court's productivity rose over 19 percent in 3 months.

In view of the obvious value of having experienced retired judges continue to decide veterans' cases and the fact that they currently receive the same salary as active judges regardless of how much, if any, service they provide in a year, it would be a win-win situation for veterans, the court, and taxpayers if a retired judge opted to return to the bench more frequently or for longer periods than current law permits. To allow for that possibility, the bill would eliminate the 180-day cap and permit a retired judge to voluntarily serve in recall status as many days during a year as he or she wishes.

Also, because the court may need an unprecedented level of service from retired judges in the next several years to help deal with its caseload, the bill would provide an incentive for the current complement of recall-eligible judges to provide as much service as practical during that time. Specifically, the bill would provide that, once a recall-eligible judge has served an aggregate of 5 years of recall service, the judge will no longer be subject to involuntarily recall and will continue to receive the same salary, that of an active judge.

To put that into perspective, if a retired judge were to be recalled for 90 days each year, as current law permits, it would take 20 years to provide the equivalent of 5 years of recall service. In addition to allowing judges to accelerate their service into fewer years, at a time when it may be most beneficial to veterans, this change may also encourage retired judges to serve in recall status for longer periods of time. This should help minimize concerns expressed by the Chief Judge in recent years about how much retired judges would be able to accomplish in the limited 90 day recall period. With these changes, the court should have the judicial resources it needs to handle its caseload in the near term.

In addition, this bill would take steps to ensure that the court, in the long run, is not faced with a difficult transition like the one it experienced in recent years. By way of background, the original judges, except for one who died, all retired between 2000 and 2005, with four of those retirements occurring within a single 12-month period. Given the delays inherent in the appointment and confirmation process, this left the CAVC without a full complement of active judges for much of that 5-year period. As the Chief Judge testified in 2006, functioning with less than seven judges ``led to a backlog'' of cases at the court.

Perhaps more significantly, this cluster of retirements meant that, as of August 2005, the court had only one judge, the new Chief Judge, who had at least 2 years of experience on the bench. In the words of that Chief Judge, ``no other Federal court would be faced with the transition that we were faced with as of August 2005. Where else in the Federal judiciary system could I, the junior judge . . . suddenly become the senior judge, and have all of the experience of the court departing?'' The Chief Judge also opined that ``[t]his turnover on the Court has had great significance, particularly in the short term, on the Court's case management.''

The effects of this turnover may have been magnified by the fact that this court deals with a very specialized area of law, which by all accounts has become increasingly complex in recent years. In fact, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States recently described veterans' law as ``a complex thicket of court decisions and statutory requirements.''

To further complicate the situation, the court experienced a dramatic rise in the number of incoming cases in recent years. In fact, in 2005 the court received 37 percent more cases than it had received in any prior year and, then, in 2006 the court received an even higher level of incoming cases. As I indicated earlier, the combined effect of these factors led the court to be ``in the red'' for several years, taking in almost 3,000 more cases than it decided.

Although some factors that have contributed to the court's challenges cannot be controlled, it seems clear that multiple retirements of experienced judges within a relatively short period of time can have a profound impact on the court's ability to decide veterans' cases. It is worth noting that Congress previously attempted to stagger the retirement dates of the judges by temporarily expanding the size of the court and by shortening the length of two judges' terms. Despite those efforts, it is possible that 6 of the 7 judges now on the bench will retire within a 4-year window, an even shorter period than the disruptive turnover between 2000 and 2005.

That is why I believe we need to try a completely new approach to help ensure that experienced judges will stay

on the bench for as long as practicable and will not retire in clusters as their terms expire. To that end, this bill would eliminate the term limits for any new judges appointed to the court and would provide those judges with full pay-of-the-office only when serving as an active judge or when providing service as a recalled retired judge. The combined effect of those provisions should encourage judges to stay on the bench longer before they retire and to regularly volunteer for recall service after they retire.

Yes, this represents a significant departure from the traditional model for article I courts. But as experience has shown, the current model is not adequate to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions on their claims and we simply cannot allow further disruptions in service to our Nation's heroes each time the court turns over. Once judges gain years of valuable experience in this complex, specialized area of law, we should not force them, and their experience, into retirement. Rather, we should take steps, as this bill would do, to permit veterans and the court to receive the maximum possible benefit from their years on the bench.

To avoid ``changing the rules'' on those judges who have already been appointed and confirmed, these changes would be prospective, applying only to judges appointed to the court on or after the date of enactment of this bill. In the meantime, I hope the changes to the current recall provisions that I mentioned earlier will help avoid a difficult transition when the current sitting judges retire.

In addition to these changes to the term limits and recall rules, the bill would require the Chief Judge, in conjunction with the court's stakeholders, to set guidelines for when recall would be appropriate, taking into account such factors as the number of active judges, temporary or prolonged increases or decreases in caseload, and the complexity of the caseload. It would also require the court to submit annual performance reports to Congress including information on the court's workload during the prior year, as well as an analysis of whether the standards for recalling judges were met and what service, if any, was performed by retired judges. Such guidelines should aid the court, retired judges, and Congress in planning for periods when recall will likely be used and when it will not.

More importantly, the number of recall-eligible judges and their level of activity are important factors that must be considered in determining whether the court has sufficient judicial resources. If current caseload trends continue and the court, even fully utilizing the services of recalled judges, is unable to provide veterans with the level of service they deserve, the addition of judgeships may need to be considered. These guidelines and reports will allow Congress to closely monitor that situation to ensure that the court has the necessary capacity.

Finally, the bill would recognize the critical and increasingly demanding role of the Chief Judge by allowing the salary of the Chief Judge to be increased by $7,000 per year, and the bill would direct the General Services Administration to provide Congress with a report as to the feasibility and desirability of converting the court's current location into a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center.

It is my sincere hope that the fundamental changes in this bill will help ensure that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is able to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions, now and for many years to come. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to ensure that veterans and their families have access to educational assistance benefits unimpeded by layers of bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements.

Each year, the Department of Veterans Affairs provides educational assistance benefits to veterans, servicemembers, reservists, and their families to pursue a wide array of educational opportunities, including traditional college degrees, vocational training, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training programs. VA contracts with entities called ``State approving agencies,'' SAAs, to assess whether schools and training programs are of sufficient quality for individuals to receive VA education benefits while pursuing their programs. That SAA approval process was originally instituted after World War II to help stem abuses of veterans' education benefits, such as scam vocational and business schools profiting from those education benefits and then not providing veterans with an education of any value.

Today, unlike 60 years ago, schools and educational programs of all types may be scrutinized by a number of different entities, including the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, various national and regional accrediting bodies, and state licensing agencies. In fact, in 1995 the Government Accountability Office found that a substantial portion of the approval activities performed by SAAs overlapped with work done by others. Several years later, the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance concluded that veterans should be ``the primary judge of the appropriateness of accredited courses to their plans for the future'' and that ``[a]pproval of institutions accredited by accrediting bodies recognized by the Department of Education should suffice for veterans' training approval.''

In the years since those findings, Congress has altered the responsibilities of SAAs by requiring them to perform additional functions, such as promoting the development of apprenticeships and on- the-job training programs, conducting outreach services, and approving licensing tests. However, the traditional approval functions performed by SAAs, which are specifically required by statute, have not been significantly modified.

Last year, in order to assess whether veterans face unnecessary or inefficient barriers in accessing VA education benefits under the current system, I asked GAO to evaluate the extent to which SAA approval activities currently overlap with functions performed by the Departments of Labor and Education and what value is added by the services performed by SAAs. Let me give you a few examples of GAO's recent findings:

Many education and training programs approved by SAAs have

also been approved by the Departments of Education or Labor

and VA and SAAs have taken few steps to coordinate approval

activities with those Departments.

To streamline approval processes, VA should collaborate

with other agencies but, according to VA, that may be

difficult because of the specific approval requirements in

law.

VA does not require SAAs to track the amount of resources

they spend on specific duties and functions, including those

that may be performed by other agencies, and thus does not

have all relevant information to make resource allocation

decisions or to determine whether it is spending federal

funds efficiently and effectively.

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness and progress of

SAAs because VA does not have outcome-oriented performance

measures in place to fully evaluate their performance.

Although I have no doubts about the dedication and sincerity of SAA personnel in the field, I believe GAO's findings demonstrate that we do not have a systematic or objective way to determine whether the current mix of services provided by SAAs, which are mandated by statute, are either necessary or beneficial to the veterans and their families who participate in VA's education programs. That is why I believe we should overhaul the entire statutory scheme regarding SAAs, as this bill would do, to help eliminate redundant administrative procedures, increase VA's flexibility in determining the nature and extent of services that should be performed by SAAs, and improve accountability for any activities they undertake.

Specifically, this bill would strike statutory provisions that mandate what activities SAAs must perform, how those functions must be carried out, and how VA must pay for them. Instead, VA would have authority to contract with SAAs for services that it deems valuable and to determine how those services should be performed, evaluated, and compensated. The bill would also require VA to coordinate approval activities performed by State approving agencies, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and other entities to reduce overlapping and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. To ensure that VA, Congress, and other stakeholders will be able to objectively assess the effectiveness of any functions performed by SAAs, VA would be required to establish outcome-oriented performance measures and SAAs would be required to track and report information on the resources expended on all activities they perform.

Finally, the bill includes a provision, similar to legislation that the Senate passed last year, that would provide a $19 million spending authorization for SAAs effective at the start of the upcoming fiscal year and would allow, for the first time, SAA funding to be drawn from both mandatory spending accounts and discretionary accounts. By way of background, since 1988 VA payment for the services of SAAs has been made only out of funds available for ``readjustment benefits'', a VA account funded through mandatory appropriations, and has been subject to annual funding caps.

For the current fiscal year, SAA funding from this entitlement account is capped at $19 million, but under current law there will be a $6 million reduction in authorized spending, to $13 million, for every fiscal year thereafter. Although the provisions of this bill would maintain a $19 million funding level in future years, it is important to note that that level is a ceiling, not a floor. As with any private- sector business or good-government business model, budgeting and funding decisions should be linked to performance and VA should contract only for those services that are necessary and valuable.

In sum, this bill would provide VA with the flexibility to streamline approval processes, eliminate redundant bureaucratic procedures, focus resources on services that will meet the current needs of education program participants, and ensure that veterans and their families will not confront layers of bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements in accessing their educational assistance benefits. I ask my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to enhance educational assistance benefits provided to active duty servicemembers, veterans, members of the Guard and Reserve, and their survivors and dependents by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, and the Department of Defense.

In recent years, many veterans' organizations, members of Congress, and others have highlighted the need to modernize these education programs to support emerging and alternative education opportunities and to recognize that the role of Guard and Reserve members has been transformed since September 11, 2001. This bill would take significant steps in that direction by providing greater flexibility in the use of these education benefits, revising eligibility criteria to reflect current mobilization strategies for Guard and Reserve units, and enhancing the education program for our ``citizen soldiers'' who have been called up to serve in the war on terror.

First, this bill would provide veterans, Guard and Reserve members, and their spouses and dependents with additional flexibility in using existing education benefits. Traditionally, educational assistance benefits have been paid in equal monthly allotments throughout a semester or term. For veterans, the maximum basic rate is now $1,075 per month, which means a veteran may receive at least $9,675 over the course of an average school year and almost $39,000 during a 4-year college program.

This system works well for veterans attending a traditional four-year college. But, as the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance reported in 1999, the existing payment structure ``constrains veterans and servicemembers desiring to enroll in short- term career-focused technical courses,'' a problem that is ``especially acute if the cost of the course dramatically exceeds the benefits payable for the few months' duration of the course.''

That is why in 2001 I cosponsored legislation to establish an ``accelerated'' payment option for veterans' education benefits. With that program now in place, a veteran may receive an up-front, lump-sum payment of up to 60 percent of the cost of certain high-tech, high-cost programs. Since that option was made available, many veterans have used that additional flexibility to train for jobs in high technology sectors of the economy, such as the computer and telecommunications industry, the aerospace industry, and the electronics industry.

Then last year, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I supported legislation that would have expanded this option to allow accelerated payments for short-term, high-cost education programs leading to jobs in any high growth sectors of the economy. Although VA also supported that legislation, VA testified that ``implementation would be challenging'' and that ``[i]t would be cleaner and more direct if the bill simply stated that all high-cost short-term courses were eligible for accelerated payments.''

Having taken those concerns into account, this bill would allow veterans to receive accelerated payments for any short-term, high-cost education programs, and it would authorize VA to spend up to $3 million for those payments in each fiscal year from 2009 to 2012. Not only would this provide veterans with the flexibility to pursue nontraditional or technical educational opportunities, but it may help veterans quickly obtain job skills that currently are in high demand.

For example, the trucking industry is now experiencing a critical shortage of trained drivers, but the GI Bill, as currently structured, may pay only a fraction of the cost for a veteran to take the 6 to 8 week training course, about $2,000 of a total $6,000 bill. With the availability of accelerated payments for those and other short-term, high-cost training programs, veterans may be able to obtain the skills needed

to thrive in sectors of the economy that, today, are growing rapidly and can provide them with lucrative, rewarding career opportunities.

In addition, the bill would, for the first time, provide Guard and Reserve members with the option of receiving accelerated payment of their education benefits. They, too, would be eligible to receive up- front, lump-sum payments of up to 60 percent of the cost of any short- term, high-cost education program. For fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the bill would authorize $2 million per year for the Montgomery GI bill, Selected Reserve program and $1 million per year for the smaller Reserve Educational Assistance Program to make these payments.

To ensure that the families of veterans also have flexibility in the use of their education benefits, the bill would extend the same accelerated payment option to participants in the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program. It would authorize VA to spend up to $1 million per year for those payments in fiscal years 2009 to 2012.

The second principal goal of the bill is to update and enhance the education program for members of the Guard and Reserve who are called to active duty. In 2004, recognizing the increased sacrifices being made by our ``citizen soldiers'' who are fighting in the War on Terror, Congress created the Reserve Educational Assistance Program for Guard and Reserve members who are activated for at least 90 days after September 11, 2001. This program was a significant step in the right direction, providing a maximum benefit of $860 per month for 36 months, a total possible benefit of over $30,000.

However, the maximum monthly benefit requires a deployment of 2 continuous years or more of active duty, and the Secretary of Defense has recently announced that ``from this point forward, members of the Reserves will be involuntarily mobilized for a maximum of one year at any one time, in contrast to the current practice of sixteen to twenty- four months.'' To bring those eligibility criteria in line with current practice, this bill would allow members of the Guard or Reserve to receive the maximum benefits if they are deployed for an aggregate period of 3 or more years.

Finally, the bill would provide these ``citizen soldiers'' with access to a valuable option now available only under the Montgomery GI bill program for active duty servicemembers. Specifically, it would allow members of the Guard or Reserve to contribute up to $600 in order to receive an additional $150 per month in education benefits, which amounts to an additional $5,400 in benefits over the course of 36 months. Under this bill, Guard and Reserve members would, for the first time, have access to this valuable opportunity.

With these modifications, we can take significant strides towards ensuring that current education programs are up-to-date and flexible and that they provide members of the Guard and Reserve with benefits commensurate with the level of service they are now performing on behalf of the entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

If the Senator will yield for a quick question?

I wanted to ask the distinguished Senator, earlier before he was able to come to the floor, there was a unanimous consent request offered with regard to the ALS registry, and I, on his behalf, lodged an objection, although I have no personal objection. I just want to ask the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma if it is his understanding it was on his behalf?

Mr. President, I understand why we find ourselves in this terrible posture today and why some people are calling this Congress the broken Congress, the dysfunctional Congress. If you look at the chart that was alluded to a moment ago about the last 31 days of the Senate, we have had 15 days of the last 31 days actually in session. We have had 10 rollcall votes. We have had 10 rollcall votes in the last 31 days. As a matter of fact, we should be having rollcall votes now on the farm bill, which is the bill I thought was before the Senate. But, instead, our colleagues from the other side of the aisle decided to put on this show for the American people to try to portray themselves as passing legislation, although they knew it could not be done in the manner in which they proposed--while we should be passing the farm bill.

Let me talk for a moment about the opportunities that they have squandered by their mismanagement of the calendar over this last year. I asked the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, if he would agree to a unanimous consent request, and also the majority leader, to help fund our troops who are in harm's way during a time of war. They objected to that.

As a matter of fact, Republicans attempted to call up the Veterans appropriations bill before the Veterans Day holiday, and the Democrats objected to bringing up that bill. Just to be clear, this is the appropriations bill that funds veterans affairs and military construction and is important not only to keeping our commitments to our veterans but to maintaining a decent quality of life for the families who are left behind while their loved one is in harm's way in Iraq or Afghanistan and other dangerous places across the world.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked that appropriations bill like they blocked the emergency funding for the troops that is needed in order to avoid the 100,000 notices to civilian employees of the Department of Defense that they are going to be laid off. They are going to get those notices before Christmas that they are going to be laid off by mid-February unless Congress does the job it should have done a long time ago. That is not even to mention--which I will mention--the funding necessary for the Department of Defense to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan to root out al-Qaida and other foreign fighters, Islamic extremists who are trying to kill American

soldiers and who, if given an opportunity to reorganize themselves in Iraq, would use that as another launching pad to carry out murderous attacks against Americans and our allies.

Just to be clear, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, asked me about a meeting where the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State were present. I explained, as I have just explained here today, what the situation would be like if we failed to act, and as a result of their objection, we are not acting on a timely basis.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Republican leader that is dated December 7, 2007, signed by Gordon England to the Honorable Mitch McConnell.

Mr. President, as the letter makes clear, while the Department of Defense has the ability to fund the troops in the field until mid-February--around March for the Marine Corps--this comes at great expense to those in the Department of Defense, both in and out of uniform. The only reason the Department of Defense can basically rob Peter to pay Paul in terms of paying its bills is because other activities will not be funded, to include training, repair of equipment, and salaries. This letter makes clear that under the current law, furlough notices must soon be issued, potentially right around the time Christmas hits.

This is not any way to run the business of our Nation. Unfortunately, because of the way our colleagues have led the Senate, we have squandered a tremendous opportunity to solve the problems the American people sent us here to solve.

We have had 66 votes on cloture motions--in other words, efforts to force legislation down the throat of the minority without an opportunity for debate or amendment. That is a guaranteed recipe for failure. As everyone in this body knows, under the rules of the Senate, neither the majority nor the minority can have their own way without bipartisan cooperation. That is the way to get things done. But, rather than get things done for the American people, what we have seen is a ``my way or the highway'' approach on the part of the leadership on the other side of the aisle. That is the reason we have had 63 votes, 63 votes so far this session, on the war in Iraq, with various attempts on the other side of the aisle either to attach strings to that money or to impose arbitrary deadlines on our commanders in the field or what I would submit is basically to insist on surrender dates.

These are the same folks who called the surge a failure before it even started. They have said they supported the troops but yet, when it comes time to show their support by making sure they have the funding for the equipment and the training, to pay salaries, and to maintain a decent quality of life for their loved ones who are left behind, instead of acting on that stated support for the troops, have failed to act.

I know the other side of the aisle has given us a copy of various unanimous consent requests to give us fair notice of their intention to ask for unanimous consent, and we have done the same.

On behalf of this side of the aisle, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2363, which is funding for military construction and veterans affairs.

I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am disappointed to hear the objection. This is the same Veterans appropriations bill and Military Construction bill that was passed this summer by the Senate and this summer as well by the House. Why is it that it has been delayed all this time? This is funding for the very veterans who have sacrificed so much and given so much in the service to this country who are being told: No, we are going to hold that money back because essentially you are part of our political plans to put together a huge Omnibus appropriations at the end of the year and try to force the President and the minority to accept bloated Washington spending, when, in fact, there is no objection to passage of that Veterans bill or Military Construction bill, and it should be passed today by unanimous consent without further delay.

Mr. President, I have one other unanimous consent request I would like to offer. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3997, a bill to provide tax relief for our troops. I further ask that the amendment at the desk, which is the text of S. 2340 and provides for full funding of our troops, emergency funding for our troops, be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed.

Mr. President, I regret the obstruction on the part of the majority. This provision, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief Act, would ensure that our military members are treated fairly under our own tax laws. It would make clear that combat pay can be treated as income for purposes of qualifying for the earned-income tax credit. It would also make improvements to the rules for mortgage bonds for veterans, clarify rules regarding survivor and disability payments, and continue to provide pay and benefits to National Guard and Reserve members called to Active Duty. I have already mentioned the component of it that would provide full funding on an emergency basis to our troops who are currently fighting and, unfortunately, some being wounded and dying in service to their country and protection of our freedoms, which has now been objected to once again.

I will finish my remarks for this period where I started and say that we have squandered our opportunities to govern. The only way you can govern

in the Congress is by building a governing coalition, Democrats working with Republicans to try to solve the Nation's problems. When one side or the other tries to jam their agenda down the throat of the other side, it does not work, and exhibit A is the dismal record of this broken Congress during this last year.

I see why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are getting nervous, why their desperation to pass legislation is beginning to show, because they realize they had the opportunity to lead, they realize they had the opportunity to govern, but they have squandered that opportunity. So now, in the last week and a half before the Christmas recess, they are out here trying to act as if the minority has obstructed them, when, in fact, if they had only met us halfway and worked with us to solve some of the big issues that confront our country in a bipartisan and constructive way, we would have met them halfway and we would have solved many of those problems.

I will.

The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is exactly correct. My recollection is only 1 out of the 12 appropriations bills has actually been signed by the President, and that was after the fiscal year ended, meaning that essentially Congress is doing what no business, what no family could get away with; that is, basically to pay the bills on a timely basis. So it is another example of this broken Congress and squandered opportunity to work together to do our basic duty.

Unfortunately, I think what we have seen now is an unfortunate game being played out where, rather than pass those bills on an individual basis, there is going to be an attempt to roll them into a giant Omnibus appropriations bill, which someone observed the other day is Latin for ``hold on to your wallet.'' The President has insisted that he is going to hold the line, as he well should, on wasteful Washington spending which would require tax increases on the American people at a time when the economy is entering into a flat period. It is exactly the wrong time--if there is ever a right time--to raise taxes.

I would.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is absolutely correct.

I would further say in response to his question, you know there is a marked contrast to the tone that was set at the very beginning of this Congress with the new majority in charge. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, who was on the floor earlier, said:

I think the people across America said to us in this last

election, we want you to compromise, we want you to find

solutions, we do not want you to play to a draw with nothing

to show for it.

Well, that is in the Congressional Record on January 4, 2007. I agreed with that statement then. But, as I say, it stands in marked contrast to what we have seem demonstrated this last year.

The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, who was on the floor earlier, on that same date said:

All too often we in Washington get lost in the world of

Washington, the focus on getting something done, something

done for the American people gets lost.

Well, I wish they had heeded their own advice because what we have to show for this last year is very little, indeed. Failing to take care of our most basic responsibilities, as the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out, to fund the Government on a timely basis--the fact is, we find ourselves in a terrible position now, with just a few days remaining until the Christmas break to get that work done.

Mr. President, I agree again with the statement made and respond in the affirmative to the question propounded by the Senator from New Hampshire. This Congress has spent 11 months holding Iraq political votes that have had no chance of becoming law.

We have had 63 votes thus far this session. In the meantime, while the majority has been fiddling, the business of the American people has not been done. I think about the issues besides those of national security that cry out for solutions, things such as border security and immigration reform. Couldn't we have used some of this time more constructively to solve one of the biggest domestic issues confronting the country today? How about energy policy? We have an energy bill that raises taxes on domestic producers and encourages our dependence on foreign oil, when we could have worked together to pass an energy policy that would have prepared us for the future. We have not done that. Health care, which is a tremendous concern of my constituents in Texas and elsewhere, we could have acted to deal with the health care access cost and quality crisis in this country, but we have not.

I know there are other colleagues who wish to speak.

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business on our side?

Mr. President, in a moment I am going to yield and ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama be recognized for up to 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso, for up to 10 minutes.

To be clear, we have had objections from the majority, from our Democratic friends, to legislation that is vitally important to our veterans and to our active-duty military: the Veterans' Administration and military construction funding bill that was passed by both Houses of the Congress last summer and which has been held up and held hostage to the political games here in Washington, as well as the emergency troop funding that is needed to fund ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which we have discussed as well. This is a personal issue, as 1.7 million veterans live in my State in Texas. We have 15 major military bases where military families live and work. One out of every 10 active-duty military members who wears the uniform of the United States calls Texas home, and we have guards and reservists who are also serving valiantly in Iraq and elsewhere.

The bill which has been blocked by the majority would provide $20 billion in military construction funds important for our troops and quality of life for our military families, and it is important to my State of Texas because of our support for the troops and military families. It contains almost $90 billion for our veterans, which includes their health care, upgrading facilities, money to hire additional claims processors so veterans don't have to wait so long to get the benefits to which they are entitled. As I said, there are about 1.7 million veterans in Texas and they need these funds, and they shouldn't be held hostage to the political games here in Washington with regard to an omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on this side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining be evenly split between the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2318, a bill that provides permanent relief from the alternative minimum tax, which extends the 2001 tax cuts and the 2003 capital gains dividends tax relief, and that the bill be read the third time and passed.

I further ask that the bill be held at the desk until the House companion arrives, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Senate-passed bill be inserted, and the House bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. President, I am disappointed, and I think the American people are going to be disappointed if we don't deal with the alternative minimum tax, which, of course, was targeted at the ``rich'' when it was passed but which now affects 6 million taxpayers and which, if we don't act, will affect 23 million middle-class taxpayers next year.

My distinguished colleague didn't mention the capital gains and dividends tax relief, which has been so important as a stimulus to the economy, which has resulted in 50 months of uninterrupted job growth since we passed that legislation. I hope we will continue to work on that.

Unfortunately, given the compression of time due to the squandering of opportunities earlier this year to act on this important legislation, I am afraid we are not going to get it done before we break for Christmas. The IRS is going to have to send out notices to many new taxpayers of their increased tax bill under this AMT, unless we act promptly.

I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Texas for their leadership. With that leadership comes a very clear voice about the problems this current Congress is facing. They are problems that are historic in character. I was once in the majority. It was the minority who said: We can do better and, therefore, we should run the Congress. In the last election, the American people listened and they changed the Congress. While I was chairing the Veterans' Affairs Committee at that time, we lost the Congress--we, the Republicans--by a reality of dropping to 32 percent in the minds of Americans as to an effective and responsible Congress. The minority played on that. They became the majority. They took over the leadership. They made a great deal of promises. Here we are in the eleventh and a half hour headed toward the twelfth hour of this session of Congress. They have not accomplished it. They have dropped below 11 percent in favorable rating among the American people.

The American people do want to see us get along. At the same time, they want their Government to function in a timely and responsible way. That is exactly what this Congress has failed to do.

I come to the floor to speak about two issues specifically. The assistant majority leader came to the floor earlier today and asked unanimous consent that S. 1233 and S. 1315 be allowed to come to the floor under unanimous consent or to come to the floor with debate and final passage. The reason he had to do that was before the Thanksgiving recess, I came to the floor and objected to the movement of those bills. The Senator from Oklahoma also now objects to the movement of those bills. I think it is very important that not only does the record bear why we objected but the American people clearly understand why we are objecting, because these are veterans bills.

These are bills that deal with critical needs of America's veterans. I was once chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I am not going to suggest that I need to add credentials to my record as supporting America's veterans. My responsibility is to make sure the services to our veterans get delivered in a responsible and timely way, that the truly needy service-connected and poor veteran gets served, and that the needs of those coming in out of Afghanistan and Iraq, who then become veterans out of our active service, are met in an immediate way. That is the responsibility of this Congress. It is not to keep adding and adding and adding new programs that may or may not be necessary and adding and adding and adding billions of dollars that anyone in service to veterans can say is at best questionable. It is for those reasons that I objected to those bills.

Now, let me break down why because there are some very real issues here.

S. 1233 is an important piece of legislation that a majority of those of us who supported the legislation to begin with agreed to. It is called the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007. Any bill with that title would capture your imagination. One of the great concerns we have today is the traumatic brain injuries our men and women in service are coming out of Iraq with, especially because of the types of bombs that are being used over there. Oftentimes, this kind of injury does not show up in a veteran until he or she becomes a veteran.

If you look down through the priorities of that bill, you look at increased veterans' travel benefits--yes, rural veterans coming to veterans centers to be served; a major medical facilities project; adding to the expanded services of veterans health care; professional scholarship programs; extended time for preferred care; help for low- income veterans; traumatic brain injury program enhancement; assisted- living pilot program enhancement--all of those very valuable and very meaningful, strongly supported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee and strongly supported by this Senate.

But what happened at the last minute was that a Senator on the other side added a new program. They said: We are going to allow Priority 8 veterans to become eligible for the full service of health care under the veterans health care system. What is a Priority 8 veteran? A Priority 8 veteran is one who has no service-connected disability or injury or health care concern. Did they serve? Yes, they served. Did they sustain any injury or physical needs as a result of their service? No. Are they at the poverty level or below? No. They are above it. And in most instances--in fact, in a high percentage of them--through their own employment, they have health care.

So for a good number of years, because of costs, we who watch the veterans issues and Presidents and Secretaries of the VA have said we will not serve them. They will not be eligible for the full benefits. This President, President Bush, said: I will make them eligible, but they need to pay a small fee, a couple hundred bucks a year, to have access to the greatest health care program in the world. The minority at that time, the Democrats, said: No. They get it free of charge or they don't get it.

Well, all of a sudden into this very valuable bill they parachuted Priority 8 veterans. What does that do? Well, if you go talk to the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, they are going to tell you that it might cause a substantial problem. Why? Because all of a sudden in this health care system there could be 1.3 million more Americans eligible for health care--not planned for, not anticipated, not budgeted for, but parachuted in, I have to believe all in the name of trying to show a concern for veterans and to demonstrate that maybe we are a little more sensitive than the other side.

What does that mean? Well, it also means the potential of between $1.2 billion more expended in 2008 and up to $8.8 billion more by 2012. Did they fund it? No. Have they stuck it in the bill? Yes. Are they trying to create a priority? Yes. Are they trying to create a new expenditure? Yes. And I said: No. Let's serve our poor and our needy and our disabled first and our traumatically brain injured and our post-traumatic stress syndrome veterans. Let's serve them now. Let's put money into the bill to do that.

So the Senator from Texas talked about the VA-MILCON bill that is right at the desk right now, sent out by the ranking minority member of the VA-MILCON Subcommittee, on which I serve, of Appropriations, Senator Hutchison. We are trying to get a vote on it. That bill--that bill alone--has nearly $8 billion worth of new spending in it for veterans. That is a near 17.5-

to 18-percent increase over last year. I believe it can be said, other than defense, to be the largest increase in a budget of all of Government for this year. But the money I am talking about, the new money for Priority 8, is not even in that one. All of this new money for veterans needs that is in the bill that we are being told cannot be passed, that we keep trying to get a vote on, does not even include the $1.5 billion to $8 billion necessary to fund this new program for veterans who are not needy, who are not service connected, and who have not been eligible for a good number of years.

That is why we are saying no. You take Priority 8 out of this, and the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act, S. 1233, could pass, and it would pass on a voice vote because the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--have always supported our veterans. But we will not nor will I allow us to get caught in the game of first you argue on the other side that we have a war nobody likes and a President who is not managing it well, and then on the other side you are saying we are not taking care of our veterans. I reject that, and I reject it totally for these reasons.

While I was chair and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and throughout the Bush administration, we have increased the funding for veterans on an annualized basis anywhere from 10 to 12 percent. When I talk about the appropriations bill that is at the desk for veterans being a historically large increase, well, the one the year before was a historically large increase. We have never ducked our responsibility to veterans. But we must prioritize, and we must focus on the truly needy, and we must focus on those who are coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan and traumatic brain injury and all of those who continue to suffer today. That is the first bill, and it will continue to be objected to until they take out those kinds of add-ons.

Let's talk about the second bill. The second bill is S. 1315. Now, that is an interesting bill because if you look at it on its face value, you say: Yes, that makes some sense. We are going to give a veterans' benefit enhancement to a certain class of veteran. Let me tell you who that veteran is.

The bill includes roughly $900 million in new entitlement spending on an array of veterans' benefits, but what is interesting is, it is moving money away from poor, elderly, disabled and wartime U.S. veterans. It is taking effectively $2,000 annually from our veterans and moving it over to a veteran who does not even live in the United States and is not a citizen of the United States--a Filipino veteran.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Why I object to this--and I call this bill the ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill--is quite simple. If any of you have watched the Ken Burns PBS series ``The War,'' there is one whole segment of that about the war in the Philippines and the Filipinos who came forward to fight with Americans and even serve in American uniforms in defense of their land and ours during World War II. They did not become American citizens. They were Filipinos, and they have always received benefits. But this bill now reaches in and takes money away from our veterans, our poor veterans, because of a court case and is giving it to them.

Here is my problem. First of all, they do not live in this country, and they are not U.S. citizens. They are currently receiving benefits. But for the average U.S. veteran, their benefits, right now under law, cannot exceed $10,929 a year. That is roughly 24 percent of the average U.S. household income. But this benefit which is in this bill gives to a veteran--a non-U.S. citizen, living in the Philippines--100 percent of the average household income in the Philippines. They are taking that money away from our veterans to do it. That is the ``Robin Hood in reverse'' effect. At least Robin Hood, when he took money, left it in Nottingham. He spread it out amongst his own. Here we are taking money from our own and sending it all the way to the Philippines.

Now, let me say, and let me be very clear, Americans have treated Filipino veterans fairly. After the war, the United States provided $620 million--or $6.7 billion in today's dollars--to repair the Philippines. The United States provided $22.5 million--$196 million in today's dollars--for equipment and construction. We have a hospital in the Philippines, and Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States--in the United States--are fully eligible for all VA veterans' benefits based on their level of service. Survivors of Filipino veterans who died as a result of their service are eligible for educational assistance and all kinds of programs.

That is why I object. First of all, because we are taking money away from ours, but also because we have been more than generous since that war ended to our comrades, the Filipinos, who fought side by side with American men and women, who were in the Philippines at the time, after we were able to reclaim the Philippine Islands. So we have done wonderfully by them, and we have been very supportive of providing them with programs.

Remember, the average U.S. veterans' benefit--24 percent of U.S. average household income--is limited. Yet we are taking that money away from them now, giving it to Filipino veterans who are non-U.S. citizens, and increasing their benefit to over 100 percent of the average household income in the Philippines. U.S. dollars spent in the Philippines at that amount lifts--there is no question about it--lifts that Filipino dramatically. The question is, Is it fair? Is it equitable? My answer is, It is not. I offered to say, yes, we can bump them a little bit, but let's take the rest of this money and put it into educational benefits for our veterans coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer in the committee was no.

So that is why these bills are in trouble on the floor. They have loaded them up. They are too heavy. The tires are blowing out from under the trucks of these bills simply because too much is too much. In the instance of this, Disabled American Veterans--that great organization which is a loud spokesperson for our veterans--is saying: Whoa, wait a moment here. Enough is enough, and this is too much. They themselves oppose this legislation as it is currently written.

So here we have a funding bill on the floor with a 17.5- to 18- percent increase over last year's funding for veterans, and we are not allowed to vote on it. We have funding at the highest level ever for America's veterans, as we should and as we must, but these bills take us well beyond it in an unfunded environment or in one instance reaching in the pocket of our poor and disabled veteran and taking that money out and putting it into the pocket of a veteran living in the Philippines, who never became an American citizen, and who never came to this country, who has chosen to stay in his homeland. We now give them benefits, but this is a benefit well beyond what is even currently being offered to our own. Those are the fundamental reasons why we have objected.

I was pleased when the Senator from Texas said to the Senator from Illinois, the assistant majority leader: No. Yes, we will object, and we are not embarrassed about doing it, because there have to be priorities to our funding, especially at a time when the VA budget that is at the desk is the largest increase of a veterans' budget, to my knowledge, ever. We are proud of that, but there is a point when enough is, in fact, enough.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request for material to be inserted in the Record?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that minority views on S. 1233 and minority views on S. 1315 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2007. I am pleased to have the support and cosponsorship of Senator Grassley for this important legislation, and I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter to advance the bill through the judiciary Committee and to secure its enactment into law.

The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act will take the next step toward wiping out the domestic production of methamphetamine, or ``meth.'' The bill will make it easier to use electronic logbook systems in order to monitor sales of meth precursor drugs and notify enforcement agencies when individuals illegally stockpile these precursors by traveling from pharmacy to pharmacy.

This legislation is endorsed by the National Alliance of State Drug Enforcement Agencies, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Troopers Coalition, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Counties, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. I also want to commend and thank Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and her staff for their assistance in preparing this legislation.

For years, the manufacture and use of methamphetamine have plagued communities in Illinois and throughout the Nation. Meth is unique among illegal drugs in that its harms stem not only from its distribution and use, but also from the clandestine manufacturing labs that meth ``cooks'' use to make meth. These labs pose serious dangers to those who live nearby and to the surrounding environment. Law enforcement agencies in Illinois and elsewhere are forced to devote a significant percentage of their time to locating, busting, and cleaning up meth labs.

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, ``Combat Meth Act,'' enacted in 2006, took several important steps to reduce domestic meth manufacturing. These steps included limiting the amount of meth precursor drug products that a purchaser can buy, such as pseudoephedrine, and requiring pharmacies to keep written or electronic logbooks recording each precursor purchase. The Combat Meth Act has led to a drop in the number of meth labs discovered in many States.

However, domestic meth cooks have begun adapting to the Combat Meth Act. They have figured out how to circumvent the act's restrictions by ``smurfing,'' or purchasing illegal amounts of meth precursor drugs by traveling to multiple pharmacies that keep written logbooks and buying legal quantities at each one. According to Illinois law enforcement authorities, smurfing now accounts for at least 90 percent of the pseudoephedrine used to make meth in Illinois.

The next step in combating domestic meth production is to promote the use of effective electronic logbook systems. Law enforcement experts agree that if pharmacies maintain electronic logbook information and share that information with appropriate law enforcement and regulatory agencies, this information can be used to prevent the sale of meth precursor drugs in excess of legal limits, and to identify and prosecute ``smurfs'' and meth cooks.

This legislation, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act, facilitates and encourages the use of meth precursor electronic logbook systems in several ways.

First, the bill revises the technical logbook requirements in the Combat Meth Act. While the Combat Meth Act provides for the use of electronic logbook systems, several of the act's requirements are not tailored for logbooks kept in electronic form. For example, under the act, a prospective purchaser must ``enter[] into the logbook his or her name, address, and the date and time of the sale.'' This requirement is unwieldy for retailers who use electronic logbook systems, because many purchasers cannot type quickly or accurately. The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act would permit retailers' employees to type the name and address of a purchaser into an electronic logbook system, and would allow retailers to use software programs that automatically record the date and time of each sale. Under the bill, a retail employee would have to ensure that the name the employee types into the system matches the name on the ID that the purchaser is currently required to present.

Also, the Combat Meth Act requires purchasers to sign a logbook at the time of sale, regardless of whether the seller uses a paper or electronic logbook. Collecting and retaining electronic signatures requires a large amount of computer memory, and the transmission of these electronic signature files to law enforcement agencies does not provide a significant law enforcement benefit. Sellers who use electronic logbook systems should be given the option of collecting signatures on paper, as long as those signatures are stored for the requisite 2-year retention period, and as long as the signatures are clearly linked to the electronically-captured sale information.

The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act would permit a seller who uses an electronic logbook to collect purchaser signatures through any of three different methods: (1) having the purchaser sign an electronic signature device; (2) having the purchaser sigh a bound paper book in which the signature is placed adjacent to a unique identifier number, or a printed sticker that clearly links the signature to the purchaser's logbook information; or (3) having the purchaser sign a document that the seller prints out at the time of sale that displays the required logbook information and contains a signature line. These options ensure that each purchaser's signature will be collected, but they give sellers flexibility in developing cost-effective electronic logbook systems.

The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act would also create a small but important Federal grant program to help States plan, create or enhance electronic logbook systems. Several States, including Oklahoma, Arkansas, West Virginia and Kentucky, have already begun developing electronic logbook systems, and many other States are considering them. The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act authorizes $3 million in grants

to States and localities, with grants capped at a maximum of $300,000. The bill imposes a 25-percent State matching requirement, to ensure that States have, invested in their logbook systems and have a stake in ensuring the successful operation of these systems.

Instead of mandating how States design their electronic logbook systems, the bill provides incentives for States to design effective logbook systems. Because meth smurfs frequently travel across State lines to stockpile meth precursors, State efforts to develop electronic logbook systems will be more successful if those efforts are coordinated with the activities of other states. The bill would therefore give priority to grant applicants whose logbook systems are developed in consultation with a working group of key Federal, State and private stakeholders spearheaded by the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws. This working group will advise States on best practices in developing logbook systems and will help States develop logbook systems that are compatible and interoperable with other systems across the country.

The bill also gives a grantmaking preference to applicants whose logbook systems are statewide, are capable of sharing information in real time, and are designed to share information across jurisdictional boundaries. At the same time, the bill preserves the privacy safeguards currently established under the Combat Meth Act and State law. To promote accountability, the bill requires the Attorney General to provide an annual report to Congress that evaluates the grant program and its effectiveness in curtailing meth production.

The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act does not mandate the use of electronic logbook systems, nor does it mandate the features that an electronic logbook system must possess. The bill respects the fact that States have enacted various types of anti-meth restrictions above the Federal Combat Meth Act baseline, and that pharmacies and retailers in different States have different capabilities with regard to electronic tracking. At the same time, we want to encourage States to coordinate their development of methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook systems so that smurfs will not be able to supply their meth labs by hopping across State lines. Our bill aims to strike a balance by coordinating the various State efforts, while still allowing States the flexibility to innovate and to respond to their specific State needs.

There are many actions besides promoting electronic logbook systems that we must take to address the scourge of methamphetamine. For example, we must provide for the prevention and treatment of meth use, and we must also prevent the illegal distribution of meth and its precursors over the Internet and from other countries. However, law enforcement experts agree that electronic logbook systems are an important tool in our effort to combat meth, particularly domestic meth labs. We can, and should, do more to help make these logbook systems work.

By facilitating and encouraging the use of electronic logbook systems, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act will help wipe out domestic meth labs and the environmental and social harms they cause. The bill will also help free up law enforcement resources from meth lab busts and cleanup, allowing our law enforcement agencies to focus on other crime prevention and enforcement efforts. The production of methamphetamine has plagued our communities for far too long, and this legislation takes a critical step to stop it. I urge the Senate to pass this important bill.

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

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

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Homeland Security Education Act. This bill encourages initiatives to increase the number of Americans trained in science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign languages.

More than a century ago, Henry Ford revolutionized transportation and industry with the creation of the Model T. This car and the process designed to create it were so innovative that it was copied by every other company. The Model T became the base model for all cars that followed. This is a classic American story. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs in modern history have occurred in the labs, workshops, and classrooms of America. We take pride in our Nation's ability to meet any challenge and solve any problem with innovation and discovery. But we are falling behind. Today's innovations in the auto industry come not from Detroit but from Japan. Engineers in Asia are designing tomorrow's hybrid car while Henry Ford's company and other American companies are just trying to keep up.

America's colleges and universities can play an important role in reversing the decline in American innovation. The United States graduates some of the world's best engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, but a far higher proportion of the students in China, India, South Korea, and Japan are focusing on these fields. The National Academies of Science reports that in 2004, only 32 percent of the undergraduate degrees awarded in the United States were in science or engineering compared to 59 percent in China and 66 percent in Japan. If we do not address this crisis soon, China, India, and Japan will become the new centers for scientific and technological innovation, while American workers scramble to keep up. We must act now to ensure that America remains the world's economic, scientific, and technological leader.

American workers are also increasingly finding themselves at a disadvantage in a multilingual global community. In our increasingly global economy and with a heightened concern for security in the post- 911 world, we need Americans who can speak a foreign language. Only 9 percent of American students enroll in a foreign language course in college. We especially need to focus on less commonly taught languages, including Arabic, Farsi, Chinese, and Korean, and other languages that are of particular value in the world today.

The best place to address both of these concerns is in the classroom. We must adapt our educational system by providing the teachers and resources needed to encourage students to study science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and foreign languages. The Homeland Security Education Act is an important step in the right direction.

This bill would encourage students to pursue math, science, technology, engineering, and critical foreign languages by providing them with $5,000 scholarships. Scientists, engineers, technology professionals, and those fluent in foreign languages would be encouraged to return to the classroom and use their career experiences to inspire students in high-need or low-income schools. New grant programs would encourage educational institutions, public entities, and businesses to enter into partnerships that improve math and science curricula, establish programs that promote students' foreign language proficiency along with their science and technological knowledge, and create and establish foreign language pathways from elementary school through college. Finally, the bill would fund a student loan repayment program for qualified individuals trained in science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign languages who join the Federal workforce.

Our country is quickly approaching a crisis of competitiveness. To avoid falling behind our international competitors in science and innovation, we must confront this problem immediately in our schools. We need to strengthen our students' proficiency in science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign languages and provide them with the incentives necessary to pursue careers in those fields. Today's students are tomorrow's innovators, scientists, and technology leaders, and we can't afford not to invest in them. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Homeland Security Education Act.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Keeping Parents and Communities Engaged or Keeping PACE Act, to foster greater involvement of parents in their children's education, engage community partners in supporting the comprehensive learning needs of students in school, as well as to address our Nation's high dropout rate.

It is clear that engaged parents can make a positive difference in students' achievement. Parents are their children's first teachers, and they have immense influence over their children's attitudes, focus, priorities and goals. Well-informed parents are more likely to be involved, to ask questions, to suggest constructive changes and to make a difference in their child's education. They deserve to know what their children are learning and being tested on, what their children's grades and assessment scores mean, and how assessment data may be used for improvement. Informed and engaged parents can help turn around struggling schools.

We crafted the No Child Left Behind Act to recognize parents as full partners in their children's education. The Act includes essential requirements to develop parent involvement policies and programs, develop and release school report cards, and to establish a team of parents and community representatives to construct a plan to improve schools if they are identified as struggling. We should build on these important reforms. But in the upcoming reauthorization of the law, we must also explore new and innovative strategies to engage parents and communities in helping kids succeed in school.

Better coordination among parents, schools, and the community can also help create a network that enables and empowers students to take advantage of every opportunity to learn. That's particularly important for students needing the greatest help and attention in their learning and those who need more challenging schoolwork to keep them engaged and progressing, as well as students at risk of dropping out of school. Today, more than one million students who enter the ninth grade fail to receive a high school diploma 4 years later and approximately 7,000 students drop out of school every day. We've made great advances in recent years to improve the education of every student, but it remains clear that more must be done to respond to this challenge.

We must support and strengthen our elementary and secondary schools and do more to attend to the learning and nonacademic needs of our most at-risk students, which make such a difference in how well they master their subjects. That means support for community programs to meet children's social, intellectual, emotional, and physical needs. It means making parent involvement a top priority, and offering support to schools to involve parents and families more effectively in their children's education, including postsecondary education planning.

The Keeping PACE Act will address these fundamental issues. This bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to encourage and support parent, family, and community involvement in schools, to provide needed supports and services to children, and to ensure that schools are centers of communities.

Educators recognize, on the basis of abundant research and common experience, that parental involvement is a critical element in children's academic and social development. Unfortunately, as noted in a recent report by Appleseed, too often, schools and districts continue to face challenges that impede efforts to effectively advance parental involvement. My bill enables States to award grants to local education agencies to assist schools in hiring and maintaining Parent and Community Outreach Coordinators. These coordinators will build critical partnerships among families, schools, and the community. They'll work with school principals, teachers, and staff to encourage parents to become more involved in their child's education and give them the tools necessary to become successful advocates for their children.

Last year, a Massachusetts pilot initiative placed 17 full-time Family and Community Outreach Coordinators in Boston Public Schools. The Coordinators were responsible for supporting families, teachers, and the community in a common effort to help students excel academically and socially.

Their efforts have worked. The Family and Community Outreach Coordinator at the Condon School in Boston, Massachusetts, has offered workshops for parents on middle school transition and math curriculum; coordinated parent participation on the School Climate Committee, an anti-bullying initiative at the school; helped teachers and parents make connections for parent-teacher conferences; and brought in over 200 parents to participate in the fall open house, where some teachers reported having contact with over 80 percent of their students' families. The Coordinator has also leveraged donations to the school through the generosity of local businesses.

The success of the coordinators led the Boston School Committee to approve its budget for the next school year with the addition of 14 more full-time Family and Community Outreach Coordinators. All together this means that almost 22 percent of Boston Public Schools will have a coordinator by September 2007-2008.

The director of the Harvard Family Research Project notes that many years of research confirm that ``now is the time . . . for action. The question we must ask is, in addition to quality schools, what non- school learning resources should we invest in and scale up to improve educational outcomes, narrow achievement gaps, and equip our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the complex and global 21st century.''

The bill answers that question and responds directly to these needs by creating new grants for community-based organizations to work in partnership with schools to bring essential comprehensive and integrated services to children in need. These support services may include health care, counseling, social services, enrichment, mentorship, and tutoring, services that can often spell the difference between a dropout and a graduate.

Rather than giving teachers, counselors, and principals more to do as they address the non-classroom needs

of students, every school should have a resource they can turn to for help with identifying student needs and leveraging community services to help all students succeed. We know that comprehensive, integrated supportive services increase graduation rates and improve student achievement. In one national report: 82 percent of tracked students improved their attendance in school; 86 percent of tracked students had fewer behavior incidents; 89 percent of tracked students had fewer suspensions. In addition, 98 percent of tracked students stayed in school and 85 percent of eligible seniors graduated. Students who are identified as needing these services, but do not receive them are more likely to drop out of school.

The Lucy Stone School in Boston, Massachusetts, demonstrates the effectiveness of student supports on learning. The once failing school took action and focused on improving core learning skills, a broad array of enrichment activities and health and social supports. Lucy Stone is making strong progress. Students in Grades 3 and 4 are passing the literacy MCAS at rates well above the Boston Public School average percentages, and are approaching State averages. Grade 4 math MCAS passing rates are approaching Boston and State averages as well.

In other communities, diverse community partners have played an important role in providing accelerated learning and mentoring opportunities that have made all the difference for students.

For example, a comprehensive evaluation of nine schools in New England found that classroom participation in community service outdoor learning projects increased student engagement and retention of science knowledge. And the ``Being Enthusiastic about Math and Science'' (BEAMS) enrichment program at the Jefferson National Lab in Virginia, which serves 1,800 inner-city students and their teachers, has resulted in increased achievement and attendance rates, and a better understanding of academic subjects, careers and applications among participating students.

The National Commission on Service Learning found that mentorships and internships with caring adults in a workplace resulted in higher grade point averages and better attendance than for students who spend less time with adult mentors.

There is one particular organization that has a demonstrated track record in helping leverage the integrated services and supports that students need to succeed in school. Communities in Schools (CIS) is the Nation's largest dropout prevention organization, and has a nearly 30- year track record of helping connect students, families and schools with supportive services to help them graduate and prepare for life. With affiliates operating in 27 States and the District of Columbia, Communities in Schools helps about 2 million students every year.

Community involvement means real help for children in need, and the evidence shows. For instance:

In Georgia, CIS currently supports graduation coaches directly serving approximately 37,000 high school students who are at risk of dropping out.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, CIS stepped in to provide morning classes and afternoon activities for students whose parents had lost their social support systems after they were forced to relocate to Houston, Texas.

There are also countless individual stories of community-based integrated services making a difference. In Texas, CIS helped 14-year- old Yeana Carbajal, who was born with cerebral palsy, to obtain proper medical attention and social services, enabling her to return to school after hip surgery when her doctors had told her that would be impossible. Yeana is now back in school and thriving academically and socially.

Another student, who at 14 became the primary caregiver of a mother who eventually died with AIDS, overcame homelessness and became the first in her family to graduate high school. A turning point for her came when she participated in a career exploration program coordinated through the community-based program office at her school. She discovered her special talents in the culinary arts, and is now an honor student at Johnson and Wales University.

Finally, a growing body of educational research suggests that student achievement improves in environments where learning is a community value, and where schools have the ability to address a broad range of educational needs. Many school districts have gone even further to respond to this research, by establishing full-service community schools that directly involve parents, families, and the entire community in education.

The Keeping PACE Act also responds to this research by providing new avenues to establish and support full-service community schools. These efforts have wide-ranging positive impacts, including ``better family functioning and parental involvement, healthy youth development and improved social behavior, improved academic achievement and learning outcomes, and enhanced community life.'' Two prominent researchers in the field further note, ``In community schools . . . schools are transformed into much more than just a portfolio of programs and services. They become a powerful agent for change in the lives of young people and their families and improve the climate of the entire school.''

This bill enables States to provide incentives to local education agencies that coordinate with mayors, community-based organizations, for-profit organizations and other community partners to re-design and modernize their current school plans and facilities to better link students with community resources. School districts across the country are beginning to recognize the benefits of planning a school not only as an academic center for students, but also as a neighborhood center that serves the entire community. Designing schools from the onset to leverage integrated services to students helps meet multiple local needs such as educational, health, social service, and recreational needs.

It's time for America to make a real commitment, and give real opportunity and real fairness to address the comprehensive learning needs of children and families, guarantee a place for parents and families in schools, and provide real hope to our students most at-risk of dropping out. Engaging parents and communities in the success of students enrolled in our public schools is critical to the future and prosperity of our entire Nation.

This bill is supported by 15 organizations representing education communities. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record.