Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2007

Mr. President, families across America are facing serious challenges in today's global economy. The value of their wages is declining, the cost of living is going up, and many of their jobs are being shipped overseas.

We must respond to this challenge to ensure that our citizens can still achieve the American dream. We have the best workers in the world, and we must prepare them to compete and succeed in the global economy.

America has long been at the forefront in innovation, invention, and education. But other countries are catching up and surpassing us.

America's 15 year olds scored below average in math and science literacy compared to the youth of other developed nations on the most recent international assessment by the Programme for International Student Assessment.

We are losing ground in overall high school and college graduation rates. The U.S. has dropped below the average graduation rate for OECD countries. Out of 24 nations, the U.S. ranks 14th, just ahead of Portugal.

Since 1975, the U.S. has dropped from 3rd to 15th place in the production of scientists and engineers.

Federal investment in research and development is essential to keep us competitive, but federal dollars have been shrinking as a share of the economy. Funding for government research programs has fallen in real terms and is less than in 2004.

At the same time, fast-growing economies such as China, Ireland, and South Korea are realizing the potential for economic growth that comes with investing in innovation. China's investment in research and development rose from $12.4 billion in 1991 to $84.6 billion in 2003, an average increase of 17 percent a year. Over the same period, the increase in U.S. investment averaged only 4 to 5 percent annually.

Study after study tells us that we need major new investments in education and in research and development to stay ahead. We cannot just tinker at the margins and expect to retain our leadership in the global economy. We have a responsibility to make the investments that are necessary to our progress--a responsibility to our people, our economy, our nation, and our national security.

Last year, the Council on Competitiveness urged a focus on lifelong skill development--through elementary, secondary and higher education, and workforce training and support, as essential to keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation.

The recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' emphasized these recommendations. Two of the report's four major recommendations involved education as the solution to meeting the global challenge. The report set out a broad roadmap for keeping America competitive, but it prioritized investment in education over all other recommendations.

The National Association of Manufacturers has also issued a report urging renewed focus on education and training to keep American businesses competitive.

Last week, the National Governors Association released its ``Innovation America'' plan, which outlines opportunities for Federal investment to help spur innovation in the states. Here again, improving education and access to high quality job training take center stage.

It is clear that we must act, and today we are taking a step toward putting America back on the right track.

I am pleased to join a number of my colleagues today in reintroducing the ``America COMPETES Act,'' or the ``America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act.'' The bill is identical to legislation we introduced last year, but the need for action is even more important today to keep America competitive in the years to come.

The legislation responds to many of the recommendations in the ``Gathering Storm'' and other recent reports; it takes important steps to encourage innovation in America as a way to create jobs and move our economy forward. Often, as we know, it is federally funded research that primes the pump for technological, medical and scientific breakthroughs. The bill will double basic research funding by the National Science Foundation by 2011. It also puts us on a strong course to doubling basic research funding by the Department of Energy.

In addition, the legislation creates a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, based on successful models being used in established and emerging economies in Europe and Asia. The Council will bring together the heads of federal agencies with leaders in business and academia to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation. Japan for some time has had a similar council, and Ireland--the Celtic Tiger--has already had extraordinary success in expanding its R&D strength since it established its council two years ago.

The bill also strengthens programs at college and universities to encourage renewed interest in nuclear science. Massachusetts has long been a leader in nuclear research. There are fewer than three dozen licensed research reactors in the United States, and three of them are located at Massachusetts universities--University of Massachusetts Lowell, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and MIT. These colleges will have a vital role as nuclear science expands, and this bill will help expand their programs and establish new ones to meet the growing demand.

We must also make the research and development tax credit permanent. The incentive provided by the credit has led to quality jobs, better and safer products, greater productivity and a stronger and more robust national economy. A growing number of countries recognize the importance of research and development spending to future economic growth, and they now offer more generous R&D tax incentives than the United States. The top 6 pharmaceutical companies, and American high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel and GE have all opened advanced R&D facilities in India. We must give American companies the certainty that our tax incentives will continue year after year and will not expire, so that they can choose to maintain these high-skilled jobs here at home, to keep America at the cutting edge as a leader in innovation in the global economy.

R&D investments also depend on a talented pool of well-trained individuals who can make discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Jobs in science and engineering are expected to increase 70 percent faster than those in other fields over the next 6 years.

To ensure that Americans are well-trained for these jobs, we must improve education at all levels--from the very early years in a child's life all the way through doctoral study and beyond--especially in math, science, engineering and technology.

International comparisons of student achievement show that the United States is slipping behind other countries, but detailed analysis shows that the picture is more complex. The real problem lies in the serious and pervasive achievement gap in this country between higher income students and lower income students and between white students and students of color.

On the most recent test comparing student achievement in industrial nations, white students in the United States performed better than the average for all countries in both math literacy and problem-solving, while their Hispanic and African American peers did worse. Low-income students in the U.S. performed worse than their high-income peers, and also performed worse than other low-income students in over half of the developed countries surveyed.

If we can close this achievement gap, and guarantee all children in this country a world-class education, we can put America back at the top of the list. To do so, we need to renew and improve upon the important reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act this year. As we

do so, we must make a strong commitment to adequately fund those reforms.

We must also invest in teachers. Research shows that having a high quality teacher for five years in a row can overcome the average 7th grade mathematics achievement gap between lower income and higher income children.

But almost half of math classes taught in high poverty and high minority schools are taught by teachers without a college major or minor in math or a related field. The problem is even more serious in middle schools--70 percent of math classes in these schools are taught by a teacher who doesn't even have a minor in math.

Our bill recognizes and responds to the critical need to recruit and train high quality math, science, technology and engineering teachers to teach in schools with the greatest need, so that we can begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that all American students can compete on a level playing field with their peers in other nations.

The bill provides a 10-fold increase in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation to recruit math, science, engineering and technology students and professionals to become teachers in high-need school districts.

It provides grants to institutions of higher education to create undergraduate programs that integrate the study of math, science, engineering, or critical need foreign language with teacher education, modeled on the successful U-Teach program at the University of Texas. It also helps institutions create part-time master's degree programs to improve the content knowledge and teaching skills of current teachers. In both of these programs, universities would partner with high-need school districts to ensure that these resources go where they are needed most.

The bill expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century Program at the National Science Foundation to provide cutting-edge summer professional development programs for teachers who teach in high-need schools. It also creates a summer institute program in the Department of Energy to strengthen the math and science teaching skills of elementary and secondary school teachers.

Recruitment and training of good teachers are important, but so is retention of good teachers. Each year, over 200,000 teachers leave the profession--6 percent of the teaching workforce. High attrition rates mean that one of every two teachers hired will completely drop out of teaching within 5 years-just when they have gained the experience needed to consistently improve student achievement.

To be successful in closing the achievement gap, we must also do more to see that teachers have an incentive to stay in their classrooms once they are there.

We should provide financial incentives--through fellowships or salary increases--to teachers who commit to teach in the highest need schools, where the unique challenges make the schools the hardest to staff. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to add this critical component to the effort.

In addition to providing a high quality teacher in every classroom, we must also ensure that children in low-income school districts have access to the same college preparatory classes that more affluent school districts are able to provide--and, importantly, that they have the preparation they need to succeed in those classes. To do so, the bill expands access to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes as well as pre-AP and pre-IB courses, especially in high need schools, and creates a program to improve instruction in math for elementary and middle school students and provide targeted help to students struggling with the subject.

The bill also addresses the critical need to ensure our education system is preparing students for the challenges they will face after graduation from high school.

According to recent research, the nation loses over $3.7 billion a year in the cost of remedial education and lost earning potential because students are not adequately prepared to enter college when they leave high school.

For students directly entering the workforce, 60 percent of employers in a survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers said that a high school diploma did not adequately prepare a typical student with even basic skills to qualify for an entry level job.

Many states have recognized the need to better align elementary and secondary school standards, curricula, and assessments with the demands of college, the 21st century workforce and the Armed Forces. Our bill provides grants to assist states in those efforts. The grants would support state P-16 councils that bring together leaders in the early education, K-12, and higher education communities, in the business sector, and in the military to improve the rigor of elementary and secondary education and prepare students for the postsecondary challenges they will face.

These provisions will help spur the development of more rigorous standards, as well as innovative curricula that engage our children in learning and inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. It will assist states in the work they are doing to create new disciplines in engineering and technology at the elementary school level to teach students the practical applications of math and science. The National Center for Technological Literacy at the Museum of Science in Boston is at the forefront of these efforts.

In addition to the education programs at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the legislation relies on the resources of the Department of Energy to assist in the effort to improve math and science education. The National Labs at the Department of Energy can have a critical role in these efforts, and so can the more than 300 colleges and universities across the country conducting research supported by the Department of Energy. I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to ensure that the resources of the Department of Energy are used to enhance educational opportunities for children not only in the states that host National Labs, but across the country.

It is also becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed to and immersed in critical foreign languages and cultures. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy.

Currently, the U.S. government uses tens of thousands of employees with foreign language skills in 100 languages and more than 80 Federal agencies. In addition, American businesses increasingly need employees experienced in foreign languages and international cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

For students to become proficient in these critical foreign languages, they must have access to a sustained course of study, beginning in the early grades.

But currently, only one-third of students in grades 7-12 and a mere 5 percent of elementary school students study a foreign language.

Even fewer study critical need foreign languages. Only about 24,000 of approximately 54 million elementary and secondary school children in the United States are studying Chinese. In contrast, more than 200 million children in China study English--a compulsory subject for all Chinese primary school students.

The bill begins to address these needs by providing grants to institutions of higher education and local educational agencies to work in partnerships to create programs of study in critical foreign languages for students from elementary school through postsecondary education.

These programs and investments will help prepare our students to compete in the 21st century, but if we are serious about keeping America competitive, there is still more we can--and must--do.

A college degree is fast becoming the price of admission to participation in the global economy. Today, over 60 percent of jobs require some postsecondary training, and the number is rising rapidly. Such jobs bring higher pay as well. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that in the United States, earnings of people with a post-secondary degree are 72

percent higher on average than those with only a high school diploma.

But with soaring costs and stagnant financial aid, college is increasingly out of reach for students and families. Research shows that 400,000 students a year do not go to a four-year college because they cannot afford it. 170,000 do not go to college at all.

When our troops returned home from World War II, we created the GI Bill and sent them to college to learn the skills they would need in the changing world. The pay off to the nation was immense. The economy reaped an estimated $7 in benefit for every dollar invested in that effort.

In recent decades however, federal grant aid has dwindled and the grants don't go as far as they used to. Thirty years ago, seventy-seven percent of the federal assistance provided to students was in the form of grants, but in recent years the number has dropped to twenty percent.

With college costs skyrocketing, the value of the Pell Grant has not kept pace. To ensure the prosperity of our families and the nation, we must open the doors of college to all by restoring the Pell Grant as the foundation of the student aid system.

Last year, Congress squandered an opportunity to significantly increase aid for low income students. The Senate passed a bill that would have immediately increased the Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,500. But this increase was rejected, and the funds were used instead to pay for tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans.

Last month, under the new Democratic leadership, Congress made a strong down payment to help low-income families afford college by raising the maximum Pell grant for the first time since 2003 from $4,050 to $4,310.

I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that higher education is the key to keeping America competitive, and I look forward to working with them to build on this down payment as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act this year to ensure that the cost of college is not a barrier to full participation in the new economy.

We need to reform the federal student aid system to redirect excessive lender subsidies into additional help and support for students and families, including increased need-based aid, making student loans more manageable, and providing loan forgiveness for individuals in public sector careers.

We must also do more to address the devastating impacts of the global economy on American workers and their families.

Our workers are facing global competition that is often fundamentally unfair, but this bill does nothing to level the playing field or to help ease the burden of their transition to the global economy. To truly improve our national competitiveness, we must address all aspects of this challenge. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of working Americans.

First, we need to level the playing field in the competition for good jobs. Americans have nothing to fear from competition that's fair. But it's not fair when Americans are competing with foreign workers who lack basic protections such as child labor laws, a minimum wage, or the right to organize. It's not fair when U.S. companies cut costs by exploiting and abusing foreign workers.

We need to exercise global leadership in promoting fair wages and safe working conditions for workers around the world, reward companies that treat their foreign workforces fairly, and be a strong voice in sanctioning those countries that will not play by the rules.

Beyond these basic steps to level the playing field, we owe a particular duty to American workers who are losing their jobs because of trade. We all benefit from the lower prices and variety of products that globalization provides, but many of our most vulnerable workers are paying the price. We've lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, and service sector jobs are now moving overseas as well. These are good, middle-class jobs, with decent wages and benefits that form the core of the American middle class.

Our response to globalization must address the disappearance of good jobs. We must create the good jobs of the future. We must eliminate tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We must give fair warning to workers who are at risk of losing their jobs to overseas competition, so that they can plan for their futures. We must strengthen our commitment to help workers who lose their jobs to adjust to the new economy, with well-funded training and income assistance programs that ease the transition to new employment.

Fulfilling our commitment to American workers also demands that we give them their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. Both houses of Congress have now voted overwhelmingly to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and that vital legislation should reach the President's desk soon. But that's only a first step. We need to do much more to promote good jobs and ensure that workers get their fair share of economic growth. We also must give workers a stronger voice in the new economy by protecting their right to organize and form a union.

If we truly want to be competitive in the global economy, we need to address these challenges facing the American workforce head on. Our employees deserve greater job security in the present, and better job opportunities in the future. I hope that the same bipartisan coalition that has worked together so effectively on this competitiveness bill can also work together to address these important issues for America's working families.

The legislation we are introducing today is not a complete package. What it does represent is the beginning of a strong commitment that we will need to sustain and build on if America is to remain competitive in the years ahead. It's gratifying that this bill has strong bipartisan support, because that support is critical to ensuring that these proposals become a reality.

Words alone will not keep America competitive. This legislation must be more than a promise. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to ensure that Congress provides the new investments essential to fully support these important proposals.

Americans know how to rise to challenges and come out ahead. We've done it before and we can do it again. We rose to the challenge after World War II with the GI Bill. We rose to the Soviet Union's challenge of Sputnik in 1957 by passing the National Defense Education Act, and we went on to inspire the nation in the next decade by sending a man to the moon and by doubling the federal investment in education.

We need the same bold commitment now to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges we now face. The America COMPETES Act can be an effective first step. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon the bill as it moves forward and to expand on these efforts in the months to come to make this essential initiative as effective as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without congressional authorization. The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of military activities.

I have taken great care in the preparation of this bill to ensure it will not in any way prevent our military forces from carrying out their tactical responsibilities in places such as Iraq and in the international waters off of Iran's coast.

I want to put up a chart. These are the exceptions that are clearly outlined in this bill: The legislation allows American forces to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks that might be initiated from Iran as well as those that might be begun elsewhere and then carry over into Iranian territory; the so-called hot pursuit exception. I have also excluded operations relating to intelligence gathering.

The major function of this legislation is to prevent this administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the

proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor.

Unlike the current situation in Iraq, where cutting off funds might impede or interrupt ongoing operations, this legislation denies funding that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the first place.

In the past 2 weeks, we have seen a fresh willingness on the part of this administration to pursue new approaches for a regional settlement that will eventually allow the United States to withdraw our forces from Iraq and also increase stability in the Middle East. I commend Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates for their efforts in bringing about what seems to be the beginning of a clear and much needed course correction.

It is particularly significant that Iran and Syria have been invited to participate and that the United States will join in the upcoming regional meetings regarding Iraq. These upcoming meetings will offer many different countries the opportunity to address legitimate concerns and to emphasize mutual interests. I am hopeful it will open the door for a different kind of dialogue with Iran.

Despite its newfound level of influence in Iraq, it is not in Iran's best interest to see Iraq disintegrate into anarchy. Iran also has challenges with its own sectarian groups, not the least of which are the Kurds. Al-Qaida represents a threat to Iran as well, and it is not in Iran's interest to see this terrorist movement gain even more power. Free and open access to the Strait of Hormuz also is vital to Iran's economy given its overwhelming reliance on oil exports.

As this regional conference approaches, the rhetoric with respect to possible Iranian activities inside Iraq continues, and the increases to our naval and missile defense presence in the gulf remain. The administration's past failure to engage with Iran diplomatically in a meaningful way, coupled with what Iran could perceive as preparations for a military strike, creates a potent brew that easily could lead to miscalculation on both sides.

The 1988 incident with the USS Vincennes comes to mind, when an overly aggressive commanding officer, operating inside Iranian territorial waters, according to a subsequent admission by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Crowe, shot down commercial passenger aircraft Iran Air Flight 655.

These circumstances--the stated desire of many connected to this administration to invade Iran, the saber-rattling rhetoric, the strategic miscalculations in Iraq--call for this Congress to formalize an historic mandate that in recent years seems to have been lost to the public's understanding. Quite simply, it is the constitutional obligation of the administration to obtain congressional approval in order to commence military action against another country, except under very limited circumstances. This is the very process our Founding Fathers envisioned.

In fact, the records from the Constitutional Convention in August 1787 make this abundantly clear. There was much debate during this convention regarding how much authority should be in the hands of the President with respect to actually initiating military action. The Convention's participants carefully decided the President should not be given the power to decide with whom this Nation should go to war or to undertake aggressive actions without the consent of Congress. The President's powers to initiate military action were to be for the purpose of repelling sudden attacks--and this is the language I have used in this legislation.

As Constitutional Convention delegate James Wilson explained to the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

This system will not hurry us into war, it is calculated to

guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single

man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress.

To state the obvious, Iran is not Iraq. The President has no authority to begin unilateral military operations against Iran. In this regard, I strongly urge my colleagues to consider that the issue before us is not simply policies with respect to Iran but the proper procedures with respect to how we as a government lead the United States.

This is far less a matter of possible differences between Republicans and Democrats than it is our mutual concern for protecting the rightful place of the legislative branch in determining the interests of the country and the possible consequences of further military action. In this regard, I point out that the principal sponsor of similar legislation in the other body is Congressman Walter Jones, a Republican, from North Carolina.

On the one hand, the administration assures us it has no intention of launching military operations against Iran. On the other, the administration tells us all options remain on the table, at a time when our military buildup in the region continues to grow rapidly. While we see encouraging diplomatic initiatives with respect to Iraq, it is important that we clarify formally the perimeter of our immediate military interests in the Middle East.

It is time we move forward to end our military involvement in Iraq, and the path to doing so is not to widen the war into Iran. Proper robust diplomacy will enable us to bring greater stability to the region, to remove the American military from Iraq, to increase our ability to defeat the forces of international terrorism, and, finally, to focus on the true strategic challenges that face us around the world.

I hope my colleagues will take note of the news articles today in the media around the world that show China again has increased its defense budget by double digits last year to the tune of 18 percent. These are strategic challenges the United States is ignoring at its peril as it remains paralyzed in the Middle East.

I believe the American people will welcome this legislation. This administration has used force recklessly, choosing the military option again and again, while never matching the quality of our military's performance with robust, creative diplomacy. Furthermore, the President's signing statement accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.

In signing that 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of a threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely happen to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture of additional support rather than as having any legitimate authority. He stated, and I think it is worth noting:

My signing this resolution does not constitute any change

in the President's constitutional authority to use force to

deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to

the United States interests.

This is a sweeping assertion of powers that leaves out virtually nothing. It is a far different matter than repelling an immediate attack or conducting a war that has been authorized by the Congress. Let us match up a couple of those words. The President is saying, for instance, he possesses the authority to use force to deter threats to U.S. interests. How does one use force to deter a threat rather than responding to it? What kind of U.S. interest is worthy of the use of force? Most importantly, how do these vague terms fit into the historically accepted notions of a Commander in Chief's power to repel attacks or to conduct military operations once they have been approved by the Congress?

During our recent hearings in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I asked both the Secretary of State, and the Deputy Secretary of State during his confirmation hearings, for a clarification of this paragraph. My question was whether this administration believes it has the authority to conduct unilateral military operations against Iran in the absence of a direct attack or a compelling immediate threat, without the consent of the Congress. Both wrote me lengthy letters in reply but neither could give me a clear response.

The situation we now face is that the administration repeatedly states it seeks no war with Iran at the same time it claims the authority to begin one, and at the same time it continues a military buildup in the region. The legislation I introduce today is intended to clarify this ambiguity. In so doing, the Congress will be properly restating its constitutional relationship

with the executive branch, the Congress will be reinstituting its historical role as it relates to the conduct of foreign policy, and the Congress will be reassuring the American people that there will be no more shooting from the hip when it comes to the gravely serious question of when we send our military people into harm's way.

I emphasize that this bill will not take any military operations off the table nor will it tie the hands of the administration if our military forces are actually attacked from Iranian soil or its territorial waters or by forces that retreat into Iranian territory. Nor does this legislation let Iran off the hook in terms of our insistence that Iran become a more responsible nation, including our positions regarding Iran's nuclear program and Iran's recognition of Israel's right to exist.

I was one of the early voices warning that in terms of national security Iran was a far greater threat than Iraq. This was one of the reasons I opposed the invasion of Iraq in the first place. All of the options regarding Iran remain on the table. The question is in what context these options should be debated, alongside other options designed to eventually open Iran and bring it responsibly into the world community. In my view, and in terms of the constitutional process, absent a direct attack or a clearly imminent threat, the place for that debate is here in the open forum of the Congress and not in some closed-door meeting at the White House.

It is my hope we can take up this necessary legislation either in the format in which I have introduced it today or as an amendment to the 2007 supplemental appropriations bill, which we will consider in the next few weeks. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I would welcome their support.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Kerry today to introduce the Empowered at Home Act. This bill is a continuation of efforts that I undertook in 2005 to improve access to home and community based services for those needing long-term care. This is an important piece of legislation that continues our efforts to make cost-effective home and community based care options more available to those who need it.

In 2005, I introduced the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act with Senator Bayh. That legislation set forth a series of proposals aimed at improving the accessibility of long-term care insurance and promoting awareness about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. It also sought to broaden the availability of the types of long-term care services such as home and community-based care, which many people prefer to institutional care.

The year 2005 ended up being a very important year for health policy as it relates to Americans who need extensive care. In the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress passed into law the Family Opportunity Act, the Money Follows the Person initiative, and many critical pieces of the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act. With the bill I am introducing today with Senator Kerry, I hope to set us on the path to completing the work we started in 2005.

Making our long-term care system more efficient is a critical goal as we consider the future of health care. There are more than 35 million Americans, roughly 12 percent of the U.S. population, over the age of 65. This number is expected to increase dramatically over the next few decades as the baby boomers age and life expectancy increases. According to the U.S. Administration on Aging, by the year 2030, there will be more than 70 million elderly persons in the United States. As the U.S. population ages, more and more Americans will require long- term care services.

The need for long-term care will also be affected by the number of individuals under the age of 65 who may require a lifetime of care. Currently, almost half of all Americans who need long-term care services are individuals with disabilities under the age of 65. This number includes over 5 million working-age adults and approximately 400,000 children.

Long-term care for elderly and disabled individuals, including care at home and in nursing homes, represents almost 40 percent of Medicaid expenditures. Contrary to general assumptions, it is Medicaid, not Medicare, that pays for the largest portion of long-term care for the elderly. Over 65 percent of Medicaid long-term care expenditures support elderly and disabled individuals in nursing facilities and institutions. Although most people who need long-term care prefer to remain at home, Medicaid spending for long-term care remains heavily weighted toward institutional care.

Section 6086 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) was based on the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act. The DRA provision authorized a new optional benefit under Medicaid that allows States to extend home and community-based services to Medicaid beneficiaries under the section 1915(i) Home and Community-Based Services State Option. Under this authority, States can offer Medicaid- covered home and community-based services under a State's Medicaid plan without obtaining a section 1915(c) home and community-based waiver. Eligibility for these section 1915(i) services may be extended only to Medicaid beneficiaries already enrolled in the program whose income does not exceed 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.

To date, only one State, my own State of Iowa, has sought to take advantage of the provision authorized through the DRA. While we had hoped far more States would participate, we know that the relatively low income cap, 150 percent, in the DRA provision creates an administrative complexity that has not made the option appealing for States.

In this bill we are introducing today, the income eligibility standard would be raised for access to covered services under section 1915(i) to persons who qualify for Medicaid because their income does not exceed a specified level established by the State up to 300 percent of the maximum Supplemental Security Income, SSI, payment applicable to a person living at home. This will significantly increase the number of people eligible for these services. States will be able to align their institutional and home and community-based care income eligibility levels.

The bill would also establish two new optional eligibility pathways into Medicaid. These groups would be eligible for section 1915(i) home and community-based services as well as services offered under a State's broader Medicaid program. Under this bill, States with an approved 1915(k) State plan amendment would have the option to extend Medicaid eligibility to individuals: (1) who are not otherwise eligible for medical assistance; (2) whose income does not exceed 300 percent of the supplemental security income benefit rate; and (3) who would satisfy State-established needs-based criteria based upon a State's determination that the provision of home and community-based services would reasonably be expected to prevent, delay, or decrease the need for institutionalized care. Under this new eligibility pathway, States could choose to either limit Medicaid benefits to those home and community-based services offered under section 1915(k) or allow eligibles to access services available under a State's broader Medicaid program in addition to the 1915(k) benefits. These changes will give the States the option of exploring the use of an interventional use of home and community-based services. If States have the flexibility to provide the benefit as contemplated in the bill, they can try to delay the need for institutional care and people in their homes longer.

As the number of Americans reaching retirement age grows proportionally larger, ultimately the number of Americans needing more extensive care will grow. Many of those Americans will look to Medicaid for assistance. States need more tools to provide numerous options to people in need so that they can stay in their own homes as long as possible.

The cost of providing long-term care in an institutional setting is far more expensive care than providing care in the home. States will benefit from having options before them that allow them to keep people appropriately in home settings longer. The more States learn how to use those tools, the more states and ultimately the Federal taxpayer will benefit from reduced costs for institutional care.

I am also pleased that this bill will include key provisions from S. 2337, the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2007. The bill includes important tax provisions that I introduced in previous Congresses as well--most recently, the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act of 2005, introduced in the 109 Congress.

Research shows that the elderly population will nearly double by 2030. By 2050, the population of those aged 85

and older will have grown by more than 300 percent. Research also shows that the average age at which individuals need long-term care services, such as home health care or a private room at a nursing home, is 75. Currently, the average annual cost for a private room at a nursing home is more than $75,000. This cost is expected to be in excess of $140,000 by 2030.

Based on these facts, we can see that our Nation needs to prepare its citizens for the challenges they may face in old age. One way to prepare for these challenges is by encouraging more Americans to obtain long-term care insurance coverage. To date, only 10 percent of seniors have long-term care insurance policies, and only 7 percent of all private-sector employees are offered long-term care insurance as a voluntary benefit.

Under current law, employees may pay for certain health-related benefits, which may include health insurance premiums, co-pays, and disability or life insurance, on a pre-tax basis under cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, ``FSAs''. Essentially, an employee may elect to reduce his or her annual salary to pay for these benefits, and the employee doesn't pay taxes on the amounts used to pay these costs. Employees, however, are explicitly prohibited from paying for the cost of long-term care insurance coverage tax free.

Our bill would allow employers, for the first time, to offer qualified long-term care insurance to employees under FSAs and cafeteria plans. This means employees would be permitted to pay for qualified long-term care insurance premiums on a tax-free basis. This would make it easier for employees to purchase long-term care insurance, which many find unaffordable. This should also encourage younger individuals to purchase long-term care insurance. The younger the person is at the time the long-care insurance contract is purchased, the lower the insurance premium.

Our bill also allows an individual taxpayer to deduct the cost of their long-term care insurance policy. In other words, the individual can reduce their gross income by the premiums that they pay for a long- term care policy, and therefore, pay less in taxes. This tax benefit for long-term care insurance should encourage more individuals to purchase these policies. It certainly makes a policy more affordable, especially for younger individuals. This would allow a middle-aged taxpayer to start planning for the future now.

Finally, a provision that is included in our bill that I am really proud of is one that provides a tax credit to long-term caregivers. Long-term caregivers could include the taxpayer, him- or herself. Senator Kerry and I recognize that these taxpayers--who have long-term care needs, yet are taking care of themselves--should be provided extra assistance. Also, taxpayers taking care of a family member with long- term care needs would also be eligible for the tax credit. These taxpayers should be given a helping hand. As our population continues to age, the least that we can do is provide a tax benefit for these struggling individuals.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the America COMPETES Act. I am pleased to join Senators Reid and McConnell in introducing this bipartisan bill that addresses the challenges in keeping the U.S. competitive in the global economy. The Council on Competitiveness, through their ``Innovate America'' report, and the National Academies, through the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, made it clear that we owe the economic vitality of the Nation to the productivity of highly trained people and the innovations they produce. This bill addresses recommendations in these reports to support the Nation's future health, vitality and economic prosperity.

Only 29 percent of Americans believe the United States has the most innovative economy in the world. Nearly half choose China or Japan instead. Why? The No. 1 reason cited by Americans is that these other countries are more committed to their education, their youth or their schools. We need this to change.

This bill addresses new and expanded approaches to science education and research to meet the future needs of our children and the Nation. Tests show that U.S. students are behind other developed nations in math and science. We also found out in February that seniors in high school cannot read as well as seniors back in 1992. This is telling us that in some areas we are moving backwards. A good education is

every child's way to realize his and her American dream. We must keep moving forward.

We need to consider how we can help our Nation's top universities lead some of their best and brightest students, especially in STEM and critical foreign languages, into successful teaching careers. This bill encourages integrated college math, science, engineering and foreign language programs with teacher development programs to produce certified, knowledgeable teachers in areas with critical needs. The resulting teachers will have the teaching credentials and, importantly, the necessary content expertise in STEM disciplines with the hope of improving student interest and achievement in STEM areas and critical foreign languages.

New teachers are but a small portion of those teaching in STEM classrooms each year across the country. These new instructors need support and mentoring from established teachers. This bill supports master's degree programs for existing teachers seeking to enhance their content knowledge, teaching skills and leadership in STEM and foreign languages. Teachers in these programs study part-time over 2 to 3 years to obtain master's degrees. These programs also prepare them for leadership roles in their schools through participation in, for example, mentoring activities, math and science curriculum enhancements, teacher development, and student achievement evaluations and assessments.

It is troubling that many students with their newly-obtained high school diplomas find themselves unprepared for college or the workforce. It is time to ensure that high schools prepare their students for the future. To do this right, States must start aligning what children learn starting in kindergarten, or earlier, to meet the evolving higher education and business needs for the 21st century and beyond.

High schools are not preparing students for college or the workforce. We know that middle and high school students engaged in challenging coursework attend and succeed in college at a greater rate than those who follow programs of study without rigorous content. What happens to the others? To start, more than a quarter of college students end up taking remedial classes. The percentage is much higher, more than two in five, at institutions with large minority enrollments. We need to prepare for the future through college-ready course content and appropriate assessment standards all the way up through our high school and continue that rigor until completion of college. I am pleased that this legislation contains many of the components of S. 109-2337, the College Pathways Act of 2006, a bill I introduced to increase access to postsecondary education through better alignment of curriculum and enhanced data systems.

High-quality data systems are also critical to improve schools and student outcomes. Accountability for high school graduation numbers and drop-out rates is important to addressing education reform in our high schools. States and schools need data systems to trace successful educational outcomes back to specific programs, coursework and interventions. They need to know what works and what doesn't work.

Unique identifier for students from pre-kindergarten through college will permit States to analyze school progress. Test results, grades, college-readiness assessments, assigned teachers and whether students needed remedial courses in college can all go into the data system. This information should provide feedback to make needed improvements while expanding and rewarding areas of success.

The legislation specifies that the unique student identifier could be a bar code. That is appropriate. Bar codes and scanners were created and expanded in the U.S. in part through federally funded research. The National Science Foundation, NSF, funded research on scanners starting back in the 1970s that made accurate bar codes a reality. Few realized at the time the eventual widespread use of the technology. But this is an example of the kinds of basic research investments in innovation and ingenuity that drive much of our economy.

NSF is the principal agency sustaining basic research in all science and engineering fields. Basic research outcomes have led to many important innovations, stimulating economic growth and improving the quality of life for all Americans. This legislation increases the Nation's investment in this innovation by doubling the overall funding for NSF from approximately $5.6 billion in 2006 to $11.2 billion in 2011. NSF's three strategic goals for its portfolio are discovery, learning, and research infrastructure. These goals match up directly with the three primary areas of the America Competes Act: increased research investment, STEM education, and innovative infrastructure.

To encourage more students to enter technical professions, this legislation increases Federal support for STEM graduate fellowships and trainee programs by expanding the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program by 1,250 fellowships. These fellowships follow the students permitting the greatest flexibility in choosing graduate programs that best fit their needs and interests.

We also expand the NSF Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, IGERT, program by 1,250 new traineeships. In the IGERT program, grants are awarded to universities to develop cross- disciplinary training programs for students in areas including science, math, engineering, and policy. The program is intended to produce a change by establishing innovative new models for graduate education and training that reach across traditional disciplinary boundaries. It is also intended to facilitate diversity in student participation, and to contribute to a world-class, broadly inclusive, and globally engaged science and engineering workforce.

This legislation further addresses the issue of improving talent in scientific disciplines by expanding the existing STEM Talent Expansion Program, STEP, to the scope originally intended. The STEP, or Tech Talent program, which I first proposed in October 2001, provides competitive grants to undergraduate institutions to develop new methods of increasing the number of students earning degrees in science, math, and engineering. It is essential that we increase the number of college graduates with the skills to contribute to the science and technology workforce, yet this program has never been fully funded.

The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the principal Federal agency for research in high energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences. This legislation puts the Office of Science on a doubling track, over 10 years, reaching more than $5.2 billion in 2011. We create important educational opportunities through Centers of Excellence in Mathematics and Science. These centers bring together our premier National Laboratories as partners with high-need high schools. National Laboratories also will host summer teacher institutes and will provide expert assistance to teachers at specialty schools in math and science.

The bill also creates an ``Innovation Acceleration Grants'' program to stimulate high-risk research by setting a goal for Federal research agencies to allocate no less than 8 percent of their current R&D budgets to breakthrough research--the kind of research that gave us fiber optics, the Internet and countless other technologies relied on every day in this country and around the world. We anticipate this funding would be used for ``grand challenges'' and other transformation research at the frontiers of discovery and innovation. We must continue to encourage the groundbreaking experimentation and longer term outlook that made this country great.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in this bipartisan effort to address the science, technology and education needs that will fuel innovation and continue to drive American growth and prosperity. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support its passage.

Mr. President, no one has worked harder or sacrificed more in the war on terrorism than our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

Regrettably, they have been tested in unprecedented ways--with too few troops in our overall forces, our soldiers are rotating in and out of Iraq for year-long stretches. By the beginning of next year, members of the 3rd Infantry Division will have spent more time in Iraq than at home in a span of five years.

On top of the physical and psychological strains caused by these deployments, our troops are contending with grave equipment shortfalls and sparse resources to restock their supplies.

Congress and the American public were already informed that two- thirds of the Army's forces in the United States are ``not ready'' for combat duty, largely due to these equipment shortfalls.

But the situation for our National Guard is far worse. In a report submitted to Congress last Thursday by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, we learned that 88 percent of the National Guard has been classified as ``not ready'' for duty. Such a statistic seems earth-shattering to me--it should drive all of us in Congress to action immediately.

As my colleagues know, the National Guard operates under dual authorities: overseas, they become fully integrated into the U.S. Armed Forces, serving under the President in a variety of combat missions; at home, the National Guard serves under our States' governors, performing homeland security functions during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances.

For years now, however, the administration's foreign policies have actually endangered the Guard's abilities to perform either of these functions. Under orders by the administration, National Guard troops have been forced to leave their State's equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan for other troops rotating into combat theaters. Many of their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down and destroyed in battle. But any critical equipment that may have survived is simply being transferred to other units coming into Iraq or Afghanistan.

This means that when the National Guard comes home, they are finding their stocks of equipment--ranging from humvees to night-vision goggles, generators and radios--cleaned out. So today, we face a frightening series of questions--what happens when the next Hurricane Katrina strikes? Who will help restore order? Who will help provide critical emergency response services? And what equipment will they use?

The National Guard Commission, led by former Senate Armed Services Committee Staff Director retired Marine General Arnold Punaro, lays out the problems in stark terms. Unless we address this situation immediately, we will jeopardize not only our troops' safety but our very nation's security.

That is why today I am introducing legislation to rebuild our National Guard and ensure that it can fully perform both its homeland security and national defense missions. According to the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, the President's budget is short $38 billion over the next five years. My bill would allocate funding according to the needs projected by National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum.

Some may suggest that this is not an issue that can simply be fixed with more money. As in prior years, the Department of Defense may say that the defense industry simply just does not have adequate capacity to manufacture all of these new product orders. If that is the case, we will need to find ways to expand our nation's defense production. For that reason, my bill will also require the Defense Department to provide a plan for investing in industry to expand their manufacturing capacity.

This legislation will complement the Leahy-Bond Guard Empowerment Act of 2007, legislation that I have proudly cosponsored to elevate National Guard leadership at the Department of Defense so that it may better contribute to the formulation of key defense policies. But without the necessary resources, the National Guard will be unable to do its job. That is why my legislation is so important today.

These conclusions were further confirmed by a January 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which found that our National Guard's equipment inventories in the United States have decreased largely because of overseas operations. The GAO further found that as of November 2006, nondeployed Army National Guard forces nationwide only have 64 percent of the total amount of equipment they need.

Let me be clear about the reasons why my legislation is needed to lay out our budget for the next five years. While the administration's recent five-year budget projections have sought large increases for National Guard equipment, according to the National Guard Commission Report data, the administration and Republican-led Congresses have repeatedly failed to follow through on such requirements.

According to the Commission, funding from 1999-2005 has been reduced significantly from the amounts identified several years earlier. For example, when the administration's first five-year budget was submitted to Congress, it showed that the Army planned to fund $1.346 billion in Fiscal Year 2004

for Army National Guard procurement. But in reality, the Army Guard actually had only $578.4 million to spend that year. Similarly, the Fiscal Year 2005 budget was initially projected to be $1.625 billion for the Army National Guard. But when it came time to allocate the funding, the Administration and their Congressional allies could only come up with $660.9 million for Army National Guard procurement.

Indeed, while our troops have given their all on the battlefield, the administration and United States Congress have not held up their end of the bargain. We owe it to our troops to do all that we can to promote their wellbeing--whether providing appropriate care at our military and VA hospitals or providing the military equipment they need to complete their missions safely and effectively.

Regrettably, the sad and simple fact is that the administration has repeatedly come up short in this regard. And these failures are having devastating consequences, not only for our troops but for our Nation's very defense and homeland security.

This situation is not new. I have come to the floor to try to address lacking resources for our military's essential equipment needs from the very first year of the Iraq war. In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets to equipment for deactivating high-explosives--all priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide for in their initial budgets. I offered an amendment to the Emergency Appropriations bill to resolve these problems. Unfortunately, the Bush administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated along party lines.

In 2004, we tried a different approach--requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment for military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections of Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Congress approved the legislation. And in October 2004, President Bush signed the bill into law. We approved similar legislation in 2005 to further extend this benefit as troops, their families, and their communities continued to dig into their own pockets to buy needed lifesaving equipment for use on the battlefield.

But last year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls posed a far more serious problem. Working with Senators Inouye, Reed and Stevens, I offered an amendment to address a $17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. Without these additional resources, the Army Chief of Staff claimed that U.S. Army readiness would deteriorate even further. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law. But much more remains to be done.

If Congress and the administration do not finally heed the warnings of the U.S. military's top generals, and fully fund our equipment needs, the Armed Forces' ability to respond to future challenges to America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, or elsewhere in the world--could be harmed.

Moreover, if we do not take the findings of the independent National Guard Commission seriously, and fully address the equipment shortfalls of our Citizen Soldiers here at home, I am afraid we will further erode our states' most pressing emergency response capabilities.

For the last six years, our troops have unconditionally served in Afghanistan, battling Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. And for four years, they have bravely followed orders into Iraq, despite the administration's ill-defined objectives and faulty intelligence.

Our troops have served with characteristic honor, dedication, and skill. It is high time that we meet our commitments to them--and give them the mission-critical gear they need to get their jobs done. I strongly urge my colleagues to support my legislation.