Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to increase tax fairness for America's primary and secondary school teachers.

Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society. These women and men dedicate their careers to educating the young people of America. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including in my home state of Utah, the salary of the average public school teacher is significantly below the national average.

For a variety of economic and organizational reasons, schools across the nation are experiencing difficulties in recruiting teachers-- especially in the fields of math and science. There are at least two sources to this problem. First, schools are experiencing high levels of turnover related to retirement, relocation, and attrition. Second, there is an insufficient supply of new qualified math and science teachers coming in to the schools to compensate for the turnover.

As a result of these factors, 31 percent of secondary schools across the nation report difficulties in filling math and science faculty positions. This teacher recruitment problem is especially troubling because it disproportionately affects small schools in urban and rural areas, especially those with limited access to funding.

Unfortunately, the problems of retention and recruitment of public school teachers are exacerbated by the unfair tax treatment these professionals currently receive under our tax law. Specifically, teachers are greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of the total amount of out-of-pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying, as well as by the inability to deduct their professional development expenses. Let me explain.

As with many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their fields of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to improve their knowledge or teaching skills. For example, in order to be certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, NBPTS, a teacher must pay a fee of $2,500. Expenditures like these are necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the best education possible.

Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves spending not insignificant amounts of money to provide basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. New teachers in their first and second years are especially susceptible to a large financial burden as they must start from scratch in establishing a curriculum and classroom for their students.

I realize that employees in many fields incur expenses for professional development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these costs are reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case with school teachers. Other professionals who are self-employed are generally able to fully deduct these types of expenses.

Under the current tax law, unreimbursed expenses for all employees are deductible generally, but only as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However, there are two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-deductible for most teachers. The first hurdle is that the total amount of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed 2 percent of gross income before they begin to be deductible.

The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the 2 percent floor, if any, combined with all other deductions of the taxpayer, must exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only about one-third of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize. The unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct their professional development and out-of-pocket supplies expenses.

Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example. Let us consider the case of a first-year teacher in Utah, whom we will refer to as Michelle. Michelle is newly married. She and her husband together expect to earn $48,000 this year. As a brand-new teacher, Michelle has none of the classroom decorations, materials, or curriculum aides that veteran teachers have accumulated. In an effort to quickly collect some necessary items for her classroom, a new teacher like Michelle will probably spend close to $1,500 of her own money. She will not be reimbursed for any of these expenses by the school district.

Under current law, Michelle's expenditures are deductible, subject to the two limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses must exceed 2 percent of her and her husband's joint income before they begin to be deductible. Two percent of $48,000 is $960. Thus, only $540 of her $1,500 total expense is potentially deductible-- that portion that exceeds $960.

As a married taxpayer, Michelle's standard deduction this year is $11,400. Her total itemized deductions, including the $540 in qualified miscellaneous deductions for her professional expenses and out-of- pocket classroom supplies, will fall far short of the standard deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $540 of the original $1,500 in out-of-pocket costs is deductible for Michelle. What the first limitation did not block, the second one did, and Michelle gets no deduction at all for these expenses under the current law.

The entry-level employees in the teaching field are the first- and second-year teachers like Michelle, who receive the lowest relative salary and yet often incur the greatest school-related expenses. These expenses place a heavy burden on our teachers and can act as a significant barrier to entry to the teaching profession. Many of these new teachers are renting and fresh out of college, and are thus very unlikely to be able to itemize their deductions. Therefore, without the ability to itemize, the teachers with the greatest need of tax relief are the ones least likely to receive it.

This problem is not isolated to first-year teachers. Veteran educators, like Kristen Adamson, also an elementary school teacher in Utah, have also expressed their concerns about this tax inequity. Kristen is preparing for a class of 35 fifth-graders next year--the most she's ever had. She, like most teachers, feels that it is her duty to provide all of her students with the materials they will need to successfully complete their school work. There are few careers that I know of in which employees take similar initiative.

This year, due to limited state funding, Kristen will be forced to choose between a class set of colored pencils or a class set of crayons. Whatever the district does not provide, Kristen will be forced to purchase herself. Further, the school district provides only one

notebook per student, but her pupils require a minimum of four each to organize their work. With 35 students, these costs can add up very quickly. Kristen typically does not have enough deductions to itemize and therefore, like most teachers, will receive little or no tax relief.

As you can see, public school educators are at a marked disadvantage under the current tax law, and they deserve better treatment. Not only is the situation morally unacceptable, it is aggravating to our teacher retention and recruitment problems.

I have been fighting to pass legislation that will help alleviate this long-standing problem for almost a decade. In 2001, I first introduced the Tax Equity for School Teachers Act. This legislation would have provided an unlimited tax deduction for the out-of-pocket expenses school teachers incur to acquire necessary training and materials.

Rather than being available only to those who are able to itemize their deductions, this bill would have made these expenses ``above-the- line'' deductions, meaning they would be deductible whether or not the teacher itemized on their tax return.

Unfortunately, only a part of this bill was enacted. The 2001 tax act included an above the-line deduction for $250 for the costs of classroom expenses. While this was a step in the right direction, it was essentially a symbolic gesture as teachers typically spend far more than $250 on school-related expenses. This deduction has expired and has been renewed several times, but it expired again at the end of last year. It is not clear when Congress is going to extend it.

The bill I am introducing today would do three things. First, it would reinstate the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of- pocket expenses for classroom supplies, make it permanent, and remove the $250 cap. Second, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the professional development expenses for school teachers. Finally, to assist in the recruitment of teachers in the most-needed fields, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the cost of professionals in the fields of math, science, and technology to certify to become public school teachers.

Under my bill, first-year teacher Michelle would be allowed to deduct all $1,500 of her professional development and classroom supplies expenses, whether she itemized or not. Similarly, Kristen would be able to deduct all of the expenses she incurred to provide materials for her students. This would help provide tax equity and a measure of much- needed tax relief for scores of underpaid professionals. It would also help retain current public school teachers and attract new ones to the field.

Some might argue that such a generous deduction would be giving teachers preferential treatment. I disagree. Most organizations provide training and supplies for their employees that are fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable to the employee. Yet, public teachers pay for training out of their own pocket, as is the case with NBPTS certification.

Others may question the wisdom of my bill granting an unlimited tax deduction. Why not place a limit or cap on the amount that may be deducted, some might ask. Again, I respectfully disagree with such critics. It is important to keep in mind the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit. My bill calls for tax deductions, which essentially act as a cost-sharing arrangement between the teacher and the government. Deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax. A credit, on the other hand, is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of tax that is due.

With a tax deduction, a public school teacher is not receiving a cash subsidy or reimbursement for his or her expenses. Rather, he or she is merely obtaining a reduction in the amount of income that is taxed. Thus, the most benefit a teacher would receive under my bill would be a 35 percent reduction in the cost of professional development, supplies, or certification expenses. For the vast majority of teachers, the amount would be far less than 35 percent, because they are in lower tax brackets. This means that the teacher is still responsible for paying for the biggest portion of these costs. In other words, this bill does not provide an incentive for teachers to spend unnecessary funds; it simply provides a discount for teachers who use their common sense and spend their money appropriately. If anything, this deduction is not generous enough, but it would go a long way toward providing help for these dedicated professionals.

Support for mathematics and science education at all levels is necessary to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology. I endorse the efforts of some of my colleagues to encourage more of our best and brightest students who choose these fields of study. Sup ort for qualified STEM teachers, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is equally important. If we are successful in increasing the supply of STEM students, we will need to take drastic measures to increase the already strained supply of STEM teachers. This bill would provide incentives for these professionals to enter the teaching profession by allowing expenses in connection with teacher licensing and certification to be fully deductible, above the line, the same as professional development and supplies expenses of teaching professionals.

This bill would provide modest tax relief for teachers who, for too long, have been treated unfairly under our tax laws. It would alleviate significant barriers to entry to the teaching profession and would help solve some of our teacher recruitment and retention problems. Our teachers deserve whatever help we can provide. It is time that Congress recognized this unfairness and corrected it. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 and to recognize the original cosponsors of the bill: Senator Warner, Senator Graham, Senator Snowe, Senator Sanders, Senator Brown of Massachusetts, Senator Merkley, Senator Stabenow, Senator Dodd, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Carper, Senator Pryor and Senator Harkin. This innovative legislation will save consumers money, create American skilled labor jobs, and reduce home energy consumption.

If enacted, HOME STAR will build on existing policies and initiatives that have already proved effective. The program is supported by a broad coalition of over 600 groups including construction contractors, building products and mechanical manufacturers, retail sales businesses, environmental groups and labor advocates.

HOME STAR will provide point-of-sale instant savings to encourage homeowners to install residential energy upgrades such as air sealing, insulation, and high efficiency furnaces and water heaters.

HOME STAR incorporates a two-tiered approach that will offer flexibility to homeowners when choosing efficiency improvements to install. Under the Silver Star program, rebates averaging $1,000 will be offered for the installation of each eligible energy-saving measure such as new insulation and high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, up to maximum of $3,000 per home. Under the Gold Star program, there will be performance-based grants of $3,000 for a 20 percent reduction in home energy consumption and $1,000 for each additional 5 percent of verified energy reduction as determined by a comparison of the energy consumption of the home before and after the retrofit.

In addition to the short-term rebate programs in Home Star, our revised bill includes longer term efficiency tax policies to maintain the momentum for energy efficient home retrofits. These performance- based energy improvement tax credits will encourage the continuation of Gold Star-type whole home retrofits.

HOME STAR will create American jobs in the construction industry, which has lost 1.6 million jobs since December 2007, with unemployment rates topping 25 percent in some regions. HOME STAR leverages private investment to create a strong market for home energy retrofits, and will put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work as well as stimulating demand for building materials produced by American factories.

Finally, HOME STAR will reduce home energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil. HOME STAR helps Americans pay for cost-effective home improvements, create permanent reductions in household energy bills, and reduce our national carbon footprint. Residential energy efficiency improvements covered by the HOME STAR program reduce energy waste in most homes by 20 to 40 percent. When combined with low-interest financing, these retrofits can be cash-flow positive upon project completion. An initiative with a potential to retrofit over 3 million homes, HOME STAR will achieve significant reductions in building- related greenhouse gas emissions while generating long-term energy savings for American consumers and reducing energy usage by an amount equal to four 300 megawatt power plants.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would transfer administrative jurisdiction of the Valles Caldera National Preserve from the Valles Caldera Trust to the National Park Service. I am pleased that my colleague from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is cosponsoring the bill.

Between the New Mexico communities of Jemez Springs and Los Alamos, lies the Valle Grande, a magnificent valley surrounded by foothills and forested mountains. When standing in this valley, visitors begin to realize they are actually inside a larger bowl-shaped formation. This is the Valles Caldera--one of only three supervolcanoes in the United States. The oldest of the three--having formed 1.25 million years ago-- the Valles Caldera is also the smallest. Yet the caldera rim spans more than 100,000 acres in area whose violent eruption created a volcanic ash plume that stretched from northern Utah to central Kansas. Because of its relatively small size as compared to the two other supervolcanoes in the U.S.--Yellowstone, WY, and Long Valley, CA, the Valles Caldera provides visitors with excellent opportunities to learn about large volcanic eruptions and their impacts on surrounding landscapes while they stand in a single space to experience one of the world's best examples of an intact resurgent caldera. In 1975, the Valles Caldera received formal recognition as an outstanding and nationally significant geologic resource when it was designated a National Natural Landmark.

As is the case in many parts of New Mexico, the geologic history of the Valles Caldera is inextricably linked to our State's cultural history. For example, the people of Jemez Pueblo chose the area as the best site to establish their community. The Valles Caldera and the adjacent Jemez Mountains provided the Pueblo with an ample food and water supply, natural defenses, and weapon-making materials present in the many obsidian quarries found in the area. In fact, the obsidian was of such high quality that spearheads made from these quarries have been discovered as far away as eastern Mississippi and northern Mexico. Needless to say, the Valles Caldera and the peaks that formed within it are sacred and highly revered by Jemez Pueblo and many other nearby tribes and pueblos.

The volcanic ash dispersed by the volcano's eruption also had a lasting impact on the history of migration and settlement by Ancestral Puebloan people in the region. As the ash and pumice settled, it formed layers of sediment, and over time, rivers helped to carve these layers into deep canyons. Archeologists have found evidence of nomadic tribes following large mammals into the region, and Ancestral Puebloans built homes alongside and into the soft canyon walls. Many of these awe- inspiring settlements are protected in Bandelier National Monument, where the National Park Service educates visitors about how the unique volcanic history of the Valles Caldera made these settlements possible.

There is no question that this area is worthy of Federal protection, and efforts to preserve this area were proposed as early as 1899. However, it was only ten years ago that the Federal government was finally able to acquire this property for the American people. At that time, Senator Domenici and I were successful in passing the Valles Caldera Preservation Act which authorized the acquisition of the property and established an experimental framework for the management of the Preserve for a period of 20 years. The legislation established the Valles Caldera Trust, composed of a nine-member board of trustees, whose members are appointed by the President and have particular expertise in fields important to the management of the Preserve. The bill also directed the Trust to manage the Preserve in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability after fifteen years. Five years thereafter, the Trust would be Although the individual members have done their best to fulfill the original legislative directives, time has shown in my opinion that this management framework is not the best suited for the long-term management of the Preserve.

Part of the experimental management framework was a requirement that the Valles Caldera Trust manage the Preserve in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability while providing for public access and protection of the Preserve's natural and cultural resources. This has proved to be a virtually impossible mandate to satisfy. Since its inception, the Preserve has not received adequate funding under the current arrangement and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future. In addition, most members of the board and outside observers believe the Trust will be unable to achieve the financial self-sustainability requirements called for by the original Act. The Trust has also indicated an infusion of approximately $15 million may be necessary to complete construction and deferred maintenance costs on the Preserve. I do not believe this funding will be forthcoming under the current management and budgetary framework. Moreover, much of the funding responsibility has been laid on the shoulders of Congress to provide the necessary annual funding that is not included in the President's annual budget. This arrangement is not sustainable in my opinion, and the existing statutory termination of the trust is looming.

With that said, the trust and its executive staff have made valuable progress in various areas of management. One prime example is the science and education program established by the Trust. Through the scientific activities on the preserve, the trust has been able to adapt its management based on the ecological demands of the caldera. The trust has promoted the scientific research of flora and fauna on the preserve and the impacts of climate change in the Jemez Mountains to cite a few of their ongoing activities. It is my belief that the transition in management should allow for the retention of the best management practices that the Trust has achieved.

Many New Mexicans have told me that they would like the preserve to be managed by an agency that will expand visitation and recreational opportunities while also ensuring the protection of the preserve's unique resources. Simply put, while my constituents eagerly want more access, they have stated clearly and directly--``Don't overrun it.''

I believe the National Park Service is best suited to manage the preserve while ensuring its long-term conservation.

The National Park Service's mission supports the activities called for most by my constituents, including expanded recreational opportunities, scientific study, and the interpretation of the natural and cultural resources in the preserve. As I discussed earlier, the Preserve provides a world-class opportunity for the interpretation of the geologic history of this unique area and of the fascinating geologic and cultural history that binds the Valles

Caldera and Bandelier National Monument.

Under our proposed legislation, management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve will be transferred to the National Park Service to be administered as a unit of the National Park System. The bill directs the Park Service to manage the Preserve to protect and preserve its natural and cultural resources, including its nationally significant geologic resources. Hunting and fishing would continue to be allowed, and grazing would also continue to be permitted. The National Park Service would also be directed to establish a science and education program utilizing the best practices created by the trust, as I discussed earlier.

The legislation would maintain the existing character of the preserve while strengthening protections for tribal, cultural, and religious sites and providing access by pueblos to the preserve. In addition, in consultation with the surrounding pueblos, restrictions will be put in place on the development and motorized vehicle use on the sacred volcanic domes within the preserve, similar to the current restrictions on Redondo Peak, the highest peak within the preserve.

I would like to emphasize that in no way is this legislation a criticism of the good work and valuable accomplishments made by the Board Members of the Valles Caldera Trust and the preserve staff. However, I believe having the preserve managed by the National Park Service--an agency with a mission protecting natural, historic, and cultural resources while also providing for public enjoyment of those resources--is more appropriate for the long-term future of the Valles Caldera. In my view, the desire for increased public access, balanced with the need to protect and interpret the Preserve's unique cultural and natural resources, would be best served by National Park Service management of the preserve.

It is my strong belief that transferring management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve to the National Park Service will be the best way to ensure the protection and enjoyment of the preserve over the long term. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as it is considered in the Senate.

The Los Alamos County Council and Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce have submitted resolutions in support of National Park Service management of the preserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express support for S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, and to introduce two pieces of legislation that I hope will be included in the final reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act that is passed by this body.

I commend Chairman Lincoln and Ranking Member Chambliss for their successful efforts to produce a bipartisan and fully paid for Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill--a bill that won unanimous support in the Agriculture Committee where it passed this past March.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is critically important to the health, well-being, and even education of our nation's children. It seeks to confront the challenges of hunger and obesity that are increasingly pervasive in our youth. Specifically, the act reauthorizes our nation's major Federal child nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, including the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, WIC, the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program.

Totaling $4.5 billion in additional funding over the next 10 years, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is the largest new investment in child nutrition programs since their inception--and it is completely paid for by off-sets in other USDA programs. This added funding will allow for an increase in reimbursement rates for school meals, which is an important provision since current reimbursement rates fall short of the funding schools need in order to provide nutritious meals with fresh fruits and vegetables to students. The bill also makes mandatory the funding authorized in the Child Nutrition Act to help schools establish school gardens and source local foods through ``farm to cafeteria'' efforts.

Beyond funding, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act makes enrollment into the free school meals program automatic for foster children and for students already enrolled in Medicaid. The bill further promotes the establishment of school wellness policies, and allows the USDA to set school nutrition standards for all foods, including those sold a la carte, in vending machines and during special events such as afterschool sports.

While this bill, combined with the President's request of $10 billion for child nutrition programs over the next 10 years, represents a huge step toward a healthier population of young people, I believe there is room for even more improvement. To this end, I am today introducing the Child Nutrition Enhancement Act, and the Ensuring All Students Year- Round, EASY, Access to Meals and Snacks Act. These two bills will help schools ramp up their nutrition and health programs, and ensure that kids have access to food, even on weekends and holidays when they cannot get meals at school. These bills also enjoy House support, with Representatives Polis and Larsen already having introduced companions in that chamber.

The Child Nutrition Enhancement Act would expand the Team Nutrition Networks program, a USDA program that provides grants to school districts to support State Wellness and Nutrition Networks in schools that conduct nutrition education and enhance school wellness. To allow this expansion, the bill includes mandatory funding at a level of 1 cent per reimbursable meal through National School Lunch Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, totaling approximately $70 million per year. Such funding would be used for State staff and programs, formula-based grants and USDA administration.

The Ensuring All Students Year-round Access to Meals and Snacks Act would allow local government agencies and private nonprofit organizations to feed children meals and snacks 365 days-a-year through the Summer Food Service Program, whether it be after school, on weekends and school holidays, or during the summer. School supplemental food providers find that children often go hungry on weekends and school holidays because their main source of nutrition is the free school lunch program. This bill would allow food service programs to fill in the gaps on holidays and weekends when kids are likely to miss meals, and ease the administrative burden of food service programs by allowing year round meals and snacks through the Summer Food Service Program, rather the current requirement to switch back and forth between the Summer Food Service Program and other child nutrition programs such as the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

With September 30th as the looming deadline for reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, I call on my colleagues and the leadership in the Senate to expedite the debate and passage of the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act. I look forward to working with the Agriculture Committee and the Senate leadership to include the Child Nutrition Enhancement Act, and the EASY Access to Meals and Snacks Act in the final bill, and to complete the legislative process for this important reauthorization.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in introducing a bill to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve as a unit of the National Park System. Known as the Valle Grande, this icon of the Jemez Mountains is one of the largest volcanic calderas in the world. The vast grass-filled valleys, forested hillsides, and numerous volcanic peaks make the Valles Caldera a treasure to New Mexico, and a landscape of national significance millions of years in the making.

Volcanic activity began in the Jemez Mountains about 10 million years ago. This activity reached a climax about 1.5 million years ago with a series of explosive rhyolitic eruptions that dropped hundreds of meters of volcanic ash for miles surrounding the caldera, and gave the surrounding area its distinctive landscapes of pink and white tuff overlaying the black basalts of the Rio Grande Rift. In the millennia following the Caldera's explosive creation, natural processes of erosion and weathering carved vibrant canyons and left pinion topped mesa stretching like fingers away from the massive caldera. As the great valley was drained of magma, and later a caldera lake, it filled with the diversity of plants and wildlife that makes the area so valuable to biologists and ecologists today. With such resources and natural beauty, it is no wonder that for millennia people have also been an integral part Valle Grande.

For generations innumerable, the Valles Caldera has been a part of life for the Pueblo Tribes of northern New Mexico. Today, the caldera continues to have important cultural and religious significance, something that must and will be respected and protected as the preserve moves into the management of the National Park Service.

In recent centuries, the Valles Caldera has been often in private ownership beginning with Spanish settlers who introduced livestock to the grassy valleys that continue to fatten elk and cattle in the summer months. Recognizing the unique national significance of the caldera, the Federal Government finally purchased the area in 2000 through the Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which I was proud to help shepherd through Congress with Senator Bingaman and then-Senator Domenici. The subsequent creation of the Valles Caldera National Preserve included the creation of a board of directors and the Valles Caldera Trust to manage the area. The legislation also included mandates for stakeholder involvement and eventual financial self-sufficiency of the preserve.

As Senator Bingaman and I take steps today to begin a transition of the Valles Caldera into the National Park System, I want to applaud the decade of work that both the Board of Trustees and the Valles Caldera Trust have dedicated to the preserve. I especially want to highlight the contributions of individual employees who have been on the ground in the caldera, day after day, developing research programs that utilize the unmatched natural resources of the caldera, managing cattle grazing and expanding the livestock program to include cutting edge scientific research, and extending educational opportunities in the caldera to students from across state and the country.

With the heavy mandate of self-sufficiency looming and the annual struggle to get sufficient funding for the caldera, Senator Bingaman and I are proposing a new direction forward. As a new unit of the National Park Service, the National Preserve will have a sustainable future with greater access to the public.

Since 1939, the National Park Service has conducted numerous studies of the Valles Caldera. In each, the Park Service consistently deemed the area of significant national value because of its unique and unaltered geology, and its singular setting, which are conducive to public recreation, reflection, education, and research. With this legislation the Secretary of Interior is directed to continue the longstanding grazing, education, and hunting programs that so many New Mexicans value as a once-ina-lifetime opportunity. By utilizing the resources and skills within the National Park Service, I believe the Valles Caldera National Preserve will continue to prosper as a natural wonder full of significant geology, ecology, history, and culture.

The Valle Grande is truly that: a great valley that so very many New Mexicans value and feel connected to. The future of the preserve is of utmost importance to us in New Mexico, and also has significance nationally. I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman and all of the stakeholders who care about the future of this preserve to ensure that this legislation emerges from the legislative process with improvements that are supported by my colleagues in the Senate and-- most importantly--by the people of New Mexico.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I don't know since when the GI bill all of a sudden became the greatest hallmark of Democrats. It's of both parties, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to express my concerns about the way, once again, we are legislating outside of regular order, leaving undone significant fixes needed to correct known substantive and technical problems with the bill. And this all goes back to the way the GI bill came to us. It came to us as a political instrument, not properly even vetted through the House. It came as a political instrument in a highly Presidential election time.

The House committee was doing its work on modernizing the Montgomery GI bill. Stephanie Herseth and John

Boozman were doing yeoman's work, under the guidance of Chairman Filner, and they were doing everything that they were supposed to do to that bill. Sure enough, they took a bill that was drafted by one staffer who had not been properly vetted in the Senate and sent that bill over to the House without even being vetted here by the House. And then Speaker Pelosi wanted to do that, and it was all about, at that time, jamming John McCain.

Now I voted for that when it came here to the House floor. The reason I did that is I wanted a seat at the table. I wanted to be able to correct problems with the bill. We cited 10 or 11 of the problems that we had with the bill, all of which were ignored.

So what happened? All these inequities, all these poor drafting errors, the challenge that the administration even had with regard to the implementation of the legislation. Oh, once again we'll just do something quickly, with expediency, bypass the House process, ignore regular order, dump it on the administration, and then force them to fix it. And then, if they don't do things according to the timeline for which we foresee, then we'll just beat 'em up. This is like the worst way to legislate.

If you want to do proper governing, you don't worry about winning and losing and who's getting credit, whether a Democrat is getting credit or a Republican is getting credit. You don't think about winning and losing. Good government is about the collective ideas of all people of this House.

So, once again, what are we doing? Here comes a bill, once again, coming from the Senate to us on issues that we haven't even had a chance to pore through. Oh, let's come to the floor. Let's cheerlead. Let's embrace. And you're doing it, once again, in a lame duck session.

Then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, in 2006, when Democrats took over the House, what did Dennis Hastert do? He held a conference and he told Republicans: Respect the will of the American people. We will not legislate our agenda in a lame duck.

What are you doing? You're ignoring the will of the American people and trying to jam everything imaginable that you can before you, quote, lose power. So let's do gays in the military and let's jam everything imaginable you can. Let's do this. You're creating even more inequities in this bill than you think that you're correcting.

In order to understand my concerns: Originally the bill cost nearly $80 billion and was not paid for. We could be headed for a similar situation by passing this bill today without going through regular order.

I received a long list of technical changes from the VA that would have facilitated successful implementation. Unfortunately, the majority continues to block my efforts for these changes. In the end, the House once again will have no say in a major piece of legislation expanding veterans' benefits.

So be careful getting out there and pounding your chest thinking that you've done a lot of great things or that you've had all the input. We have not.

I am concerned about the policy change in this bill that ends living stipend payments to veterans during periods of time between semesters. You had better think about what you are about to vote on. This cut in veterans' benefits will hit veterans and their families hard, especially during the holiday season, since many schools dismiss for the winter break veterans who would receive their living stipend check during that period. I can't think of a worse idea than to cut a veteran benefit during the Christmas and holiday season. All Americans know that the month of December is already a strain on their pocketbook, and to have your paycheck cut during a devastating time period is pretty tough.

My second policy concern deals with the national cap on tuition and fees. Current law allows the VA to pay up to the maximum in-state tuition and fees for each veteran enrolled in an institution of higher learning. This means that each State has a different maximum amount of tuition and fees that the VA is required to pay. While the revised benefit of up to $17,500 a year will be a windfall for most veterans, there are veterans in several States, including Texas, New York, and New Hampshire that will see their tuition and fees payments reduced. Veterans in these States will be forced to pay for this reduction from other sources or from their own pocket.

For example, a veteran who is a junior studying at Baylor University in Texas currently receives roughly $26,000 in tuition and fee payments per year. Under this bill, that veteran would receive only $17,500 in tuition and fee payments for a difference of $8,500 per year; or, $34,000 over a 4-year time period will be cut from their benefit.

This bill should have included a provision to grandfather the current students in these high-cost States so they are not required to make up the difference in tuition, but the Members of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not get that change, or any other change, for that matter. By removing these interval payments and excluding a grandfather clause, the drafters of this bill were able to pay for their other enhancements of the bill. However, these enhancements are being done at the expense of some veterans to the benefit of other veterans.

It is one of those things which we are always cautious about, cutting one veteran's benefit to the benefit of some other veteran. If you went out and surveyed the average student veteran, I believe they would oppose improving their own benefit at the expense of one of their comrades.

What is even more disturbing to me is that by rushing this bill through without regular order, the majority and the veterans service organizations who support this move don't seem to have a problem with either of these issues that will hurt some of America's veterans in the name of expediency and of the apparent need to score some kind of point here in the lame duck.

I am surprised that the veterans service organizations have jumped on board in support of this bill despite the fact of its cuts of veterans benefits. I am quite certain they are very uncomfortable with me standing here on the House floor talking about the veterans service organizations' support of the cut in veterans benefits.

In a press release on Tuesday, the commander of the American Legion, Jimmie Foster, stated: ``This is great news. This bill rectifies the inequities and shortcomings of the well-intentioned but incomplete Post-9/11 GI Bill and makes it whole.''

It does not. We create even more inequities and make the matter even worse.

In testimony in July before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America stated: ``The discussion draft of Senate 3447 will improve the new GI Bill and ensure that all student veterans have access to the most generous investment in veterans education since World War II.''

At the same hearing, the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated: ``Senator Akaka, your legislation addresses every area of concern the VFW has with improving the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We cannot say enough about the noble intent driving this legislation.''

Madam Speaker, I guess we have a few questions for the veterans who are members of these veterans service organizations. Number one, are your Representatives in Washington really standing up for you when they endorse a bill that cuts your living stipend during the holidays?

Please understand what this does. When an individual finishes their fall semester and before they start their spring semester, their benefits are cut. At some schools they might be out 5 weeks, or 3 weeks, or 4 weeks. We are going to cut their stipend during that break between semesters.

The other question is, are they really representing the view of a veteran when they endorse legislation that cuts tuition payments for some veterans by thousands of dollars while trying to benefit a veteran in some other place?

While I am retiring here at the end of this Congress, I am sure that Members of the new majority will want to hold hearings on the shortcomings in the Post-9/11 GI Bill and look for ways to improve the bill early in the next Congress. That way we can further consider the VA's and the committee's concerns, avoid unintended consequences, and do so in a bipartisan manner, and, most importantly, using regular order and making sure everyone participates in the process. That is

the best way for us to govern a country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3447, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.

The original GI Bill proved to be a landmark initiative for our troops and an outstanding investment in the future of our Nation. The Post-9/11 GI Bill, signed into law in 2008, built on the success of the original program by providing helpful and hard-earned educational and economic benefits for our newest generation of veterans. Although today's legislation seeks to make it easier for veterans to utilize their educational benefits, some of the changes will have detrimental consequences.

Just as the veterans of WWII were the engine of economic recovery and expansion in the post-war period, the most recent generation of veterans will continue their service to America by reaching their full educational and economic potential through the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

While I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote for it, there are some provisions in the legislation that I believe deserve additional consideration. Although I support setting a national average tuition rate for benefits, I am concerned that students in states like New York will be negatively impacted by the $17,500 baseline.

This legislation will reduce benefits for students in New York already enrolled in programs where the cost is above the baseline. Students based decisions about which institution of higher education to attend partly on a benefit level guaranteed in the 2008 law. A ``hold harmless'' provision would have allowed these students to continue to receive the same level benefits for which they are entitled.

Under current law, state approving agencies, SAAs, are charged with approving programs and schools that are deemed appropriate for vets using the GI Bill. S. 3447 permits the Veterans Administration, VA, to make this determination and I am concerned that this responsibility should remain within SAA's jurisdiction, as they have been the experts in protecting veterans from fraudulent programs. The bill goes further by permitting veterans to use their GI benefits at schools without any approval by SAAs or the VA. In my view this is unwise.

This legislation permits the VA to expand GI benefits to trade schools, unaccredited colleges, and programs that lead to no degree or certificate. While I understand that many veterans choose not to take a more traditional path and attend an institution of higher education, I am deeply concerned that taxpayer dollars will go to programs that will not lead to gainful employment.

I am also concerned that this bill includes a so-called ``last- payer'' provision. The last payer provision withholds the student's GI Bill benefit until a calculation is made of any state and private tuition aid, for which a veteran may be eligible. In some cases, this would cause a delay in GI benefits and lead to needless confusion.

As a former college administrator, I am very pleased to see so many veterans returning home and choosing to seek further education. However, I am deeply concerned with a growing number of reports that some institutions may be abusing GI tuition payments by aggressively targeting veterans for academic programs that may not provide an actual benefit to a student, such as preparation for future employment.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that in the 112th Congress we can achieve bipartisan solutions to these issues to protect both taxpayers and distinguished veterans. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a small token of our appreciation for their valor and service to our Nation. I would like to submit for the Record a letter signed by various higher education groups that outlines the community's concerns with this legislation.

American Council on Education,

Washington, DC, December 14, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Council on

Education and the organizations listed below, we write to

express our hope that before adjournment, the 111th Congress

will approve a final version of the

Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvement Act of

2010 that addresses the concerns outlined below.

Both the House version (H.R. 6430) and the Senate version

(S. 3447) make welcome improvements to current law, such as

expanding the benefits to troops serving in the Active Guard

Reserve and to National Guard members who have honorably

served their country on active duty, including at the sites

of natural disasters. The bills also replace the complex

state-by-state tuition and fee cap look-up chart with

language that specifies that GI Bill benefits cover tuition

and fees for veterans attending public institutions while

establishing a single national tuition baseline for those who

enroll in private institutions.

However, we believe that the House version is preferable in

two very critical respects. First, S. 3447 contains a

provision that would add a new source of confusion for

veterans and prevent them from having a clear idea of the

level of support to which they are entitled. This so-called

``last-payer'' provision, which withholds the GI Bill benefit

until a calculation is made of any state and private tuition

aid for which a veteran may be eligible, would not only

confound veterans and delay the delivery of aid, but in some

cases would conflict with state statutes. In contrast, H.R.

6430 does not include such a provision and will help end the

frustration and confusion that far too many veterans have

experienced in attempting to access their benefits.

Second, H.R. 6430 includes an important ``hold harmless''

provision, designed to protect veterans who might otherwise

be negatively impacted by the establishment of a national

baseline. In several states, veterans attending private

institutions currently receive a base benefit that is greater

than the new national baseline amount provided in either

version of the legislation. By failing to include this ``hold

harmless'' language, the Senate bill would reduce benefits

for a number of veterans upon enrollment for a subsequent

term. In contrast, the House bill would help ensure that

veterans continue to receive their current benefits without

interruption.

As this legislation nears passage, we strongly urge you to

modify S. 3447 so that it reflects the approach taken by the

House bill on these two important issues. Our campuses have

worked very hard to smooth out the difficulties that veterans

have faced under current law, and these improvements will

enable them to serve veterans even more effectively.

Thank you for all of your work on behalf of the nation's

veterans.

Sincerely,

Molly Corbett Broad,

President.