A bill to direct the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit semi-annual reports regarding settlements relating to false claims and fraud against the Federal Government.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that protects the retirement benefits earned by public employees and eliminates barriers which discourage many Americans from pursuing careers in public service. This bill will repeal two provisions of the Social Security Act--the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision--which unfairly reduce the retirement benefits earned by public employees such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

The Government Pension Offset reduces a public employee's Social Security spousal or survivor benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of his or her public pension.

Take the case of a widowed, retired police officer who receives a public pension of $600 per month. His job in the local police department was not covered by Social Security, yet his wife's private- sector employment was. An amount equal to two-thirds of his public pension, or $400 each month, would be cut from his Social Security survivor benefits. If this individual is eligible for $500 in survivor benefits, the Government Pension Offset provision would reduce his monthly benefits to $100.

In most cases, the Government Pension Offset eliminates the spousal benefit for which an individual qualifies. In fact, 9 out of 10 public employees affected by the Government Pension Offset lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their spouse paid Social Security taxes for many years.

The Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits by up to 50 percent for retirees who have paid into Social Security and also receive a public pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.

While the reforms that led to the creation of the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision were meant to prevent public employees from being unduly enriched, the

practical effect is that those providing critical public services are unjustly penalized.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Pension Offset provision alone reduces earned benefits for more than 300,000 Americans each year, by upwards of $3,600. In some cases, for those living on fixed incomes, this represents the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

Nearly one million Federal, State, and municipal workers, as well as teachers and other school district employees, are unfairly held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits.

Private-sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $656 in average monthly career earnings. However, under the Windfall Elimination Provision, retired public employees are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $656 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $300 per month.

This unfair reduction in retirement benefits is inequitable. The Social Security Fairness Act will allow government pensioners the chance to receive the same 90 percent of their benefits to which nongovernment pension recipients are entitled.

We must do more to encourage people to pursue careers in public service. Unfortunately, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision make it more difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; and, it does so at a time when we should be doing everything we can to recruit the best and brightest to these careers.

California's police force needs to add more than 10,000 new officers by 2014--a growth of nearly 15 percent--while hiring more than 15,000 additional officers to replace those who leave the force.

It is estimated that public schools will need to hire between 2.2 million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 2009 because of record enrollments. The projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers and critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring additional teachers.

California currently has more than 300,000 teachers but will need to double this number by 2010, to 600,000 teachers, in order to keep up with student enrollment levels.

Most importantly, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision hinder efforts to recruit new math and science teachers from the private sector. As our world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is imperative that our school children receive the finest math and science education to ensure our Nation's future competitiveness in the global economy.

It is counterintuitive that on the one-hand, policymakers seek to encourage people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, while on the other hand, those wishing to do so are discouraged because they are clearly told that their Social Security retirement benefits will be significantly reduced.

Now that we are witnessing the practical effects of these 20 year old provisions, I hope that Congress will pass legislation to address the unfair reduction of benefits that essentially sends the message that if you do enter public service, your family will suffer and will be unable to receive the full retirement benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled.

I understand that we are facing deficits and repealing the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision will be costly.

I am open to considering all options that move us toward our goal of removing this inequity by allowing individuals to keep the Social Security benefits to which they are entitled while promoting public sector employment.

We should respect, not penalize, our public service employees. I hope that my colleagues will join me in sending this long overdue message to our Nation's public servants, that we value their contributions and support giving all Americans the retirement benefits they have earned and deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chambliss and a number of other co-sponsors in introducing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Reauthorization Act. This bill would take the $1,095,000,000 amount which Congress authorized for the Byrne/ JAG grant program in fiscal year 2006 in the Violence Against Women and DOJ Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162), and reauthorize that same amount for the program in each year through fiscal year 2012.

The ``Byrne/JAG'' program resulted from the 2005 consolidation of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, and the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants.

Named after New York Police Officer Edward Byrne, who was killed in the line of duty in 1988, it provides critical support to State and local law enforcement officials.

Byrne/JAG is a law enforcement funding program run by the Department of Justice. For more than 20 years, grants from Byrne/JAG and its predecessor programs have funded state and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control programs.

One of the most popular uses of Byrne/JAG funds is to support multi- jurisdictional task forces, which help fight drug and firearm traffickers, gangs, pharmaceutical diversion, and organized crime in America's communities.

Results from Byrne/JAG are real. According to data compiled by the National Criminal Justice Association from self-reported metrics submitted by State Administering Agencies for the 2004 grant year, task forces funded in part by Byrne/JAG grants were responsible for: 54,050 weapons seized; 5,646 methamphetamine labs seized; and $250,000,000 in cash and personal property seized, not including the value of narcotics seized. They were also responsible for removing massive quantities of controlled substances from America's streets, including: 2.7 million grams of amphetamine and methamphetamine; 1.8 million grams of powder cocaine; 278,200 grams of ``crack'' cocaine; 73,300 grams of heroin; 75 million cultivated and noncultivated marijuana plants, and 27 million kilograms of marijuana.

As Ron Brooks, President of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC) testified last June, ``more than one- third of all meth lab seizures were conducted by Byrne-funded task forces.''

We get good returns on this investment. The National Sheriff's Association estimates that, with 2,794 personnel in multi- jurisdictional drug tasks forces, this equates to: 79 drug arrests per full-time employee (221,475 total); 6 kilograms of cocaine seized per FTE. (17,991 total); 2 kilograms of meth seized per FTE, 5,452 kilos total''; 400 grams of heroine seized per FTE, 1,177 kilos total, 306 lbs. of processed marijuana per FTE, 855,309 total; and 3 meth lab responses per FTE, 8,983 total.

And our rural communities are especially dependent on Byrne/JAG grants. Byrne/JAG grants to the States are allocated 60/40, so that 40 percent of the funds must be set aside for distribution to local governments. In short, this is one of the only sources of federal funds for sheriffs and police chiefs in many of our smaller towns and counties.

When Byrne/JAG and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program were well funded, state and local law enforcement officers produced real results. It is no coincidence that, during this period, we saw more than a decade of steady reductions in violent crime.

Unfortunately, Federal funding for these justice assistance programs has been dramatically slashed in recent years. As late as Fiscal Year 2003, the Byrne grant programs had been funded at a level of $900 million. In Fiscal Year 2004, however, it was reduced to $725 million. And in FY2005, Byrne/JAG was cut to $634 million.

That year in California, the Governor issued a notice to the law enforcement community, advising that this change would ``significantly reduce the amount of drug control and criminal justice funding in California''--by a whopping $14 million in one year, just for my State.

In Fiscal Year 2006, the program was cut even further, to only $416.5 million--amounting to a 54 percent cut from Fiscal Year 2003. In Fiscal Year 2006, and then again in Fiscal Year 2007, the President's budget proposed eliminating the Byrne program entirely.

In response, the Senate voted to restore Byrne funding in Fiscal Year 2006 to its Fiscal Year 2003 level of $900 million, but that increase was taken out of the final conference report.

For Fiscal Year 2007, the Senate again restored $900 million in a budget amendment, but no appropriations bill was passed.

What have we seen in the wake of these cuts to State and local law enforcement and the Byrne/JAG program?

After a decade of declines, FBI reports for 2005 showed a rise in violent crime in every region of our country--an overall increase of 2.5 percent, the largest reported increase in violent crime in the U.S. in 15 years.

For the first six months of 2006, the numbers for violent crime were even worse--up again in every region, and with a surge of nearly 3.7 percent. And the number of robberies--which many criminologists see as a leading indicator of future activity--was up by almost 10 percent. The reduction in Byrne/JAG and other similar funding is not the only reason for this increase. Experts also cite the spread of criminal street gangs like MS-13, for example, as a major factor in the jump in violent crime.

When we are faced with such challenges, however, the Byrne/JAG program has a clear role to play in addressing America's growing violent crime problem.

A national integrated threat demands a national integrated response, with State and local law enforcement leading the way, but with the Federal Government providing meaningful support. Byrne/JAG facilitates. that design, by allowing State and local leaders to leverage resources in key areas,

and facilitating collaboration among those in law enforcement, corrections, treatment, and prevention.

A review of programs around the country reveals that some Byrne/JAG- funded task forces receive between $30 and $40 from State or local sources for every Federal dollar they receive. Rather than supplanting other sources, Byrne/JAG often leverages Federal dollars, by providing the incentive needed for local agencies to cooperate, communicate, share information and build good cases.

Because State and local cops account for 97 percent of all drug arrests in America, further Byrne/JAG cuts will have a clear effect, as NNOAC President Ron Brooks testified: [T]ake away the Byrne-JAG drug task forces and I guarantee you will have fewer lab seizures . . . The meth supply will continue to grow, as will the toxic meth waste that is being dumped in many neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, some of this is already happening. After the recent cuts to Byrne/JAG, the governor of Texas eliminated funding for most drug task forces in his State, because he decided the limited funding available was needed instead for border enforcement. Narcotics officers throughout the United States also report a similar trend of eliminations and decreases of task forces.

Without multi-jurisdictional task forces, officers will revert to working within their own stovepipes, arresting mere targets of opportunity instead of focusing on organizational targets that have a disproportionate impact on the problem. Police officers will return to working within their own teams rather than cooperating and using shared intelligence to identify wider drug trafficking investigations.

Since 9/11, we have understandably placed greater emphasis on the terrorist threat from abroad, and protecting our borders. But to save the perimeter and lose the heartland to international drug cartels, American street gangs, local meth cookers and neighborhood drug traffickers would be a hollow victory indeed.

Last year, a group of 15 organizations--including NNOAC, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs' Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Alliance of Drug Enforcement Agencies, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals--all came together to call for the Byrne/JAG program to be funded at the $1.1 billion level.

The 15 groups represented more than 456,000 law enforcement officers, drug court judges, treatment practitioners, and prosecutors from over 2,000 counties and more than 5,000 community prevention coalitions. And for the 110th Congress, funding Byrne/JAG at the $1.1 billion level remains a top law enforcement priority.

Passage of this bill will respond to such requests from law enforcement, and also send a clear message that any further efforts by this Administration to reduce or eliminate the Byrne/JAG program in the Fiscal Year 208 budget will be strongly resisted by this Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset (GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many public employees when they retire.

Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire.

These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees as well. Given their important responsibilities, it is unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable to collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwis'e would be entitled.

While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP.

Almost one million retired government workers across the country have already been adversely affected by these provisions. Many more stand to be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families.

The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who receive a government pension from work not covered under Social Security, such as pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 percent of their first $656 average monthly career earnings, government pensioners checks are based on 40 percent--a harsh penalty of more than $300 per month.

The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her public pension. It is estimated that 9 out of 10 public employees affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.

What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security in retirement.

I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO would double her current retirement income.

These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher from Otisfield, ME, wrote:

``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly

in response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the

current pool of educators near retirement in the next few

years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard

hours are not great selling points to young students when

selecting a career.

I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found

out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former

life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in

Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each

year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that

because of my many years of maximum Social Security

contributions, I would still have a livable retirement

`wage.' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an

educator in your State.''

In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME--who was then 73. Mrs. Worcester told the Committee about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just $171 a month in Social Security benefits, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years. After paying for her health insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in total pension income.

After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute teaching just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2007. This Act authorizes prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who

have prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate market for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have either died or have retired.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary bill through the legislative process quickly.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that I introduced last November along with the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, and that I am again introducing today. The bill would expand the number of eligible recipients of retroactive payments under the Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or ``TSGLI'', benefit. Most of my colleagues have perhaps heard the story of how this important benefit became law and what its intended purpose is, but I believe it is worth repeating.

In April of 2005 I was visited by three servicemembers who were seriously injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). They were members of an organization called the Wounded Warrior Project, and they told me of their lengthy recovery times at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the financial toll that that period of convalescence had on them and their families. They talked about wives, parents, and other relatives who had taken long absences from work, and some who had even quit their work, in order to spend time with those recovering at Walter Reed. And they told me that the Department of Veterans Affairs compensation system was no help because, by law, those benefits do not kick in until after separation from service.

Based on their experiences, these wounded warriors recommended that I pursue legislation to create a new insurance benefit for those with traumatic injuries such as theirs. The insurance would pay between $25,000 and $100,000 as soon as possible after an injury occurred, thereby bridging the gap in assistance needed during the time of a wounded servicemember's recovery and the time of his or her separation from service. They asked that I make the legislation prospective only, meaning that they, and hundreds of others, would go without any TSGLI payment. I honored that request and, together with Senator Akaka and other Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, introduced an amendment to the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill then pending before the Senate.

A second degree amendment was later unanimously agreed to which authorized retroactive benefit payments to all of those injured in the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) theaters of operation--providing for TSGLI payments to hundreds of servicemembers who had been seriously injured since the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, the retroactive TSGLI provision was consistent with other retroactive benefits approved within the Emergency Supplemental bill, such as $238,000 in combined Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and death gratuity benefits that were provided retroactively to survivors of those killed in combat operations since the start of the War on Terror. Needless to say, the TSGLI amendments were approved by the Congress and enacted into law.

Fast forward to the present. TSGLI has been up and running since December 1, 2005, and provides financial assistance of $25,000 to $100,000 to traumatically injured servicemembers within, on average, 60 days of the date of the injury causing event. As of January 5, 2007, almost 2,233 wounded OIF/OEF servicemembers have benefited under the retroactive portion of the program. For those with injuries post December 1, 2005, it does not matter if an injury occurs as a result of combat operations or training exercises--payment under TSGLI is available in either situation; 626 wounded servicemembers have benefited under this aspect of the program.

The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the TSGLI benefit in September 2006. The Committee received testimony from the Wounded Warrior Project, the organization largely responsible for TSGLI's conception. While very pleased with the program overall, a serious concern was raised regarding the equity of only extending retroactive TSGLI payments to those injured during Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Mr. Jeremy Chwat, testifying for the Wounded

Warrior Project that day, used the example of one servicemember as representative of others who are not now eligible for benefits:

Brave men and women like Seaman Robert Roeder who was

injured on January 29, 2005 when an arresting wire on the

aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, severed his left leg

below the knee . . . Although the ship was on its way to the

Gulf and the training exercises being conducted were in

preparation for action in either Operation Enduring or Iraqi

Freedom, Robert's injury does not qualify for payment.

Furthermore, since enactment of the 2005 Emergency Supplemental, retroactive SGLI and death gratuity benefits combining $238,000 have been expanded to provide payments to survivors of all servicemembers who died on active duty, whether in combat or not. The reason behind the expansion of retroactive benefits was a recognition that military service is universal in character; that each military man or woman, no matter where they are serving, contributes in a unique way to make the United States Armed Forces second to none.

The legislation I am again introducing today, along with Senator Akaka, will make the TSGLI retroactive payment eligibility criteria consistent with the other benefit program retroactive payment criteria I just mentioned. Thus, if this legislation is enacted, all traumatically injured servicemembers who served between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, will be eligible for TSGLI payments, irrespective of where their injuries occurred. Unofficial estimates from VA suggest that there may be over 215 active duty personnel who, like Seaman Roeder, sustained traumatic injuries during this time period while performing their military duties.

Both the Wounded Warrior Project and the National Military Families Association have expressed their support for this bill. And I now ask my colleagues for their support. This is the right thing to do for our military men and women.

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

Mr. President, on the 5th anniversary of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), I rise today to introduce The Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids (SPEAK) Act, a bill designed to start the job of holding every child in America to the same high standards. At its core, SPEAK will create, adopt, and implement voluntary core American education content standards in math and science while incentivizing States to adopt them.

America's leadership, economic, and national security rest on our commitment to educate and prepare our youth to succeed in a global economy. The key to succeeding in this endeavor is to have high expectations for all American students as they progress through our Nation's schools.

Currently there are 50 different sets of academic standards, 50 State assessments, and 50 definitions of proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act. As a result of varied standards, exams and proficiency levels, America's highly mobile student-aged population moves through the Nation's schools gaining widely varying levels of knowledge, skills and preparedness. And yet, in order for the United States to compete in a global economy, we must strengthen our educational expectations for all American children--we must compete as one Nation.

Recent international comparisons show that American students have significant shortcomings in math and science. Many lack the basic skills required for college or the workplace. This affects our economic and national security; it holds us back in the global marketplace and risks ceding our competitive edge. This is unacceptable.

America was founded on the notion of ensuring equity and opportunity for all. And yet, we risk both when we allow different students in different States to graduate from high school with very different educations. We live in a Nation with an unacceptably high high school dropout rate. We live in a Nation where 8th graders in some States score more than 30 points higher on tests of basic science knowledge than students in other States. I ask my colleagues today what equality of opportunity we have under such circumstances.

This is where American standards come in. Voluntary, core American standards in math and science are the first step in ensuring that all American students are given the same opportunity to learn to a high standard no matter where they reside. They will allow for meaningful comparisons of student academic achievement across States, help ensure that American students are academically qualified to enter college or training for the civilian or military workforce, and help ensure that students are better prepared to compete in the global marketplace. Uniform standards are a first step in maintaining America's competitive and national security edge.

While I realize there will be resistance to such efforts, education is after all a State endeavor; we cannot ignore that at the end of the day America competes as one country on the global marketplace. This does not mean that I am asking States to cede their authority in education. What the bill simply proposes is that we use the convening power of the Federal Government to develop standards and then provide States with incentives to adopt them.

At the end of the day, this is a voluntary measure. States will choose whether or not to participate. States that do participate, while required to adopt the American standards, will be given the flexibility to make them their own. They will have the option to add additional content requirements, they will have final say in how coursework is sequenced, and, ultimately, States and districts will still be the ones developing the curriculum, choosing the textbooks and administering the tests. The standards provided for under this legislation will simply serve as a common core.

The SPEAK Act will task the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) with creating rigorous and voluntary core American education content standards in math and science for grades K-12. It will require that the standards be anchored in the National Assessment of Educational Progress' (NAEP) math and science frameworks. It will ensure that such standards are internationally competitive and comparable to the best standards in the world. It will develop rigorous achievement levels. It will ensure that varying developmental levels of students are taken into account in the development of such standards. It will provide for periodic review and update of such standards. It will allow participating States the flexibility to add additional standards to the core. And, it establishes an American Standards Incentive Fund to incentivize States to adopt the standards. Among the benefits of participating is a significant infusion of funds for States to bolster their K-12 data systems.

What I propose today is a first step. A first step in regaining our competitive edge. A first step in ensuring that all American students have the opportunity to receive a first class, high-quality education. It is not a step that I am taking alone.

The SPEAK Act has garnered endorsements from businesses, math/science organizations, foundations, and the education community, including the National Education Association (NEA). Through the leadership of Congressman Vernon Ehlers in the House of Representatives it shares not only bicameral, but bipartisan support. Together we have all come together to affect meaningful change in our public schools.

We live in an economy where you can no longer lift, dig or assemble your way to success. Today, you've got to think your way to success so that when public education doesn't work, when we fail to compete as one nation, our entire country gets left behind. Low expectations translate to an America that is less competitive on the world stage. If that happens, we are going to wonder why we didn't do anything about it while we still had time.

Core American standards will set high goals for all students, allow for meaningful comparisons of achievement across States, and help ensure

that all of our students are qualified to enter college. At the end of the day, we all want what's best for our country and parents want what's best for their kids. With core standards, America will begin the work of regaining its competitive edge in the global economy. And in the life of every student, equality will be made a little more real with introduction of this bill, as the skills and knowledge we expect of them are no longer made contingent on where they reside.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the SPEAK Act. As we start holding our students to the same high standards, I expect that we will be amazed at the excellence that follows. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the issue of Internet freedom, which is also known as net neutrality, is one that is very important to me. I have long fought in Congress against media concentration, to prevent the consolidation of control over what Americans see, read and hear in the media. Americans have recognized how important this issue is and millions spoke out when the FCC sought to loosen the ownership rules to allow for more consolidation.

But now, Americans face an equally great threat to the democratic vehicle of the Internet. The Internet, which we have always taken for granted as an open and free engine for economic and creative growth, is now also at risk, and this must also become a front burner issue for consumers and businesses.

The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. The marketplace picked winners and losers, and not some central gatekeeper. Our economy, small businesses and consumers benefited tremendously from that dynamic marketplace.

But now we face a situation where the FCC has removed nondiscrimination rules that applied to Internet providers for years, and that enabled the Internet to flourish, and consumers and innovation to thrive.

The FCC removed these rules, and broadband operators soon thereafter announced their interest in acting in discriminatory ways, planning to create tiers on the Internet that could restrict content providers' access to the

Internet unless they pay extra for faster speeds or better service. Under their plan, the Internet would become a new world where those content providers who can afford to pay special fees would have better access to consumers.

On November 7, 2005 then-SBC, now AT&T, CEO Ed Whitacre was quoted in Business Week as saying: ``They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. They don't have anything . . . They use my lines for free--and that's bull. For a Google or a Yahoo! or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!''

In another article a senior executive from Verizon was quoted as saying: ``(Google) is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers.''

Now perhaps if we had a competitive broadband market we would not need to be concerned about the discriminatory intentions of some providers. In a market with many competitors, there is a reasonable chance that market forces would discipline bad behavior.

But this is not the case today: FCC statistics on broadband show that the local cable and telephone companies have a 98 percent share of the national broadband residential access market.

For those that say, the market will take care of competition, and ensure that those that own the broadband networks won't discriminate, that cannot be so when at best consumers have a choice of two providers.

Furthermore, these broadband operators have their own content and services, video, VOIP, media content. They have an incentive to favor their own services and to act in an anti-competitive fashion. Last year Cablevision's Tom Rutledge talking about Vonage made the following statement: ``So, anyone who buys Vonage on our network using our data service doesn't really know what they are doing . . . Our service is better, its quality of service. We actually prioritize the bits so that the voice product is a better product.''

With these developments, consumers' ability to use content, services and applications could now be subject to decisions made by their broadband providers. The broadband operator will become a gatekeeper, capable of deciding who can get through to a consumer, who can get special deals, faster speeds, better access to the consumer.

This fundamentally changes the way the Internet has operated and threaten to derail the democratic nature of the Internet. American consumers and businesses will be worse off for it.

It is for this reason that Senator Snowe and I are reintroducing the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, with the support of Internet businesses large and small, consumer groups, labor and education groups, religious organizations, and many others.

Last year we faced an uphill battle: broadband providers were spending millions of dollars on print and television advertisements and efforts to convince lawmakers to let them act as gatekeepers on the Internet, removing the power from the consumers that drive Internet choice today.

We still face the vast resources of broadband operators that seek to authorize their ability to control content on the Internet. But more importantly on the side of our legislation we have the grass roots support for and the substantive merits of Internet freedom.

In addition, we have proof that it can be done- nondiscrimination rules and Internet freedom can co-exist with profitable business plans. Recently AT&T accepted as a condition of its merger with BellSouth a net neutrality provision written by the FCC. Wall Street immediately reported that it expected no impact on AT&T's bottom line by the acceptance of these conditions, and AT&T is forging ahead, while at the same time having committed to protecting Internet freedom.

It is clear that an open and neutral Internet can co-exist and thrive along with competitive and profitable business models.

But legislation is still critical. The merger conditions are an important step but are not enough. We must restore Internet freedom mandates to the entire broadband industry and make them permanent, ensuring that consumers can continue to receive the benefits of an open and vibrant Internet not only in the short term from AT&T, but from any broadband provider in the longer term.

Today we introduce the Internet Freedom Preservation Act to ensure that the Internet remains a platform that spawns innovation and economic development for generations to come. We look forward to working with our colleagues in Congress to enact these important measures into law.

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