Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I will vote for the conference report because I believe we have few higher priorities than the safety and well-being of our troops deployed in harm's way. This legislation is critical to the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing funding to purchase life-saving armor, replenishing stocks of spare parts and ammunition, and increasing the government's financial support for the families of America's fallen heroes.

Probably one of the most significant provisions in this legislation is the $308 million added above what the President proposed to ensure that more humvees deployed in combat are adequately armored. Just as in the previous 2 years, I have been deeply troubled by continuing shortfalls in the administration's plans for outfitting our troops with the protection they need. Over 1,600 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war in March 2003. And rarely a day goes by that one does not hear about an improvised explosive device or roadside bomb seriously injuring an American there. This conference report is a step in the right direction to better prepare our troops for these threats, but more always needs to be done to ensure greater security for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We owe it to them to make sure they have the resources to protect themselves as best they can.

And we owe it to their families here at home to make sure that their sacrifices are so honored. This bill also authorizes the Department of Defense to increase to $500,000 the amount that can be paid to surviving families of deceased servicemen and women. In addition, this bill rightly includes traumatic injury insurance of up to $100,000 for military personnel seriously wounded in action. These provisions are the least we as Americans can provide to the families of our men and women in uniform who are giving so much to our Nation.

Not all of this bill directly pertains to our troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, however. And while I support many of these provisions, there are some sections that give me pause. On the positive side, I am pleased by the conference committee's decision to retain the amendment put forth by Senator Warner to stop the Navy from downsizing its aircraft carrier fleet. We must retain the ability to quickly project power around the globe, particularly as emerging powers in Central and East Asia amass powerful fleets in direct challenge to U.S. Naval supremacy. And this amendment rightly puts the brakes on the administration's efforts to cut too deeply into our Navy's critical assets.

In terms of homeland security, this bill adds an additional $450 million over the President's proposal for more border security and customs agents. I support these additional resources and am pleased the conferees included them in this bill.

But this bill is not perfect. Indeed, I have some serious concerns about provisions that are included in the conference report before us. I also have concerns that certain important issues are not addressed by this bill.

First, I am greatly disappointed that the conferees decided to include the majority of the text that makes up a bill called the REAL ID Act. There are many troubling provisions in this language--virtually the same language that Republican members of the House tried to push through as part of last year's intelligence reform legislation. At that time, the 9/11 Commission opposed its inclusion. And the Senate managers of the bill prevented it from being included in conference.

But now, the vast majority of the REAL ID language has been included in the conference report before us. Although I do not sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am concerned that this package of provisions was never debated within that panel. I would note that an effort to include the language in the Senate version of the emergency supplemental was withdrawn after bipartisan opposition to its inclusion.

This bill's REAL ID provisions, among other things, would require State departments of motor vehicles to verify documents used to obtain drivers licenses. This is an unfunded mandate--the language included in this bill does not specifically appropriate any amount for this purpose. Reportedly, the National Conference of State Legislatures estimates that REAL ID will cost States between $500 million and $700 million over 5 years to implement. Many States are already dealing with budget shortfalls. What impact will this additional financial have on States' abilities to provide basic services for their residents?

These licensing regulations also raise privacy issues, as DMVs will gain access to much private information. All Americans, when renewing or obtaining a new license, will be subject to these provisions. Certainly, some reform with respect to identification documents might be needed. But this partisan and hasty approach is not the right way to do it--especially when State governments are currently working to establish reasonable standards for reform that can be implemented. These are only two of the many troubling provisions of the REAL ID language, which deal with issues as far reaching as eligibility for asylum in the U.S. and border security.

I also have concerns about issues that were left out of this bill. For example, this bill does not include language addressing the practice of renditions--the process whereby the U.S. has reportedly transferred foreign prisoners, detainees, or combatants to other countries for interrogation purposes. Often, the countries to which these people have been transferred are known to practice torture. Yet, few specifics are known about the practice of renditions.

Nor does this bill address important issues of accountability, such as the extension of the lifespan of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, or the SIGIR. The SIGIR has performed admirably, but its doors will be closed years before it can complete its task of accounting for all American taxpayer money devoted to the reconstruction of Iraq. Senator Feingold filed an amendment that would have fixed this problem. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership failed to support

his efforts, and the amendment was ruled non-germane--even though the SIGIR had originally been created and its authority subsequently extended as part of an emergency supplemental bill.

All in all, this bill is a mixed bag. But it contains critically important provisions to support our troops--specifically, it will help provide some of the equipment our troops need in order to finish their jobs safely. Moreover, it will help further the process of training Iraqi Army and police forces so that U.S. troops can finish their jobs and come home. I believe that it is incumbent upon this body to swiftly pass this spending bill. That is why I intend to support it when it comes to a vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Grassley in announcing the introduction of the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005 (FDASA). I would like to thank Senator Grassley for his commitment to this issue and his willingness to work on this important legislation in a bipartisan manner. Senator Grassley and I have spent the past several months crafting this legislation, which will create a new center within the FDA that will be responsible for ensuring that prescription drugs are safe once they are on the market.

Our hope is that the creation of this new center will restore confidence in the medicines that so many Americans rely on to safeguard their health and well-being. Patients should be able to rest-assured that the drugs they take to help them will not hurt them instead.

The American pharmaceutical industry is a true success story. Their incredible innovations over the last few decades have saved and improved millions of lives, and made prescription drugs an integral part of quality health care. I am proud to say that Connecticut is home to a number of leading pharmaceutical companies. There is very little question that the American drug industry is the world leader. This is due, in no small part, to the FDA. Throughout the world, the FDA seal of approval--the words ``FDA Approved''--has stood as the gold standard for safety and quality.

Unfortunately, events of the past year have put patients at risk and have seriously tarnished the FDA's image. Recent developments have cast into doubt the FDA's ability to ensure that the drugs that it approves are safe--especially once they are on the market. These concerns are bad for patients, bad for physicians, and bad for the drug industry.

Like many Americans, I have been deeply disturbed by the revelations of significant risk associated with widely used medications to treat pain and depression. These revelations raise real and legitimate questions about the safety of drugs that have already been approved. It would be one thing if these drugs were in a trial phase, but safety issues are being identified in drugs that are already on the market and widely used. Health risks significant enough to remove drugs from the market or significantly restrict their use are becoming clear only after millions of Americans have been exposed to real or potential harm.

It has been estimated that more than 100,000 Americans might have been seriously injured or killed by a popular pain medication, while millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants that could put them at risk. This recent spate of popular medicines being identified as unsafe underscores the need to take additional steps to monitor and protect safety after a drug has been approved.

The legislation that Senator Grassley and I are introducing today will do three things to restore confidence in the words ``FDA Approved,'' and ensure that the FDA has all the tools that it needs to protect patients. First and foremost, it will establish within the FDA a new center--the Center for Postmarket Drug Evaluation and Research (CPDER)--which will report directly to the FDA Commissioner and be responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of drugs and biological products once they are on the market.

I strongly believe that the creation of such a new, independent center is necessary. There have been disturbing reports that suggest that the FDA does not place enough emphasis on drug safety, and that concerns raised by those in the Office of Drug Safety (ODS) are sometimes ignored and even suppressed. An internal study conducted by the HHS Office of the Inspector General in 2002 revealed that approximately one-fifth of drug reviewers had been pressured to approve a drug despite concerns about safety, efficacy, or quality. In addition, more than one-third said they were ``not at all'' or only ``somewhat'' confident that final decisions of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) adequately assessed safety. The creation of a new center will raise the profile of drug safety within the agency.

Second, our bill will provide the Director of CPDER with significant new authorities, including: the authority to require drug companies to conduct postmarket studies of their products if there are questions about safety or effectiveness; the authority to take corrective actions, such as labeling changes, restricted distribution, and other risk management tools, if an unreasonable risk exists; the authority to review drug advertisements before they are disseminated, and to require certain disclosures about increased risk; and in extreme cases, the authority to pull the product off the market.

These new authorities will allow the FDA to act quickly to get answers when there are questions about the safety of a drug, and to act decisively to mitigate the risks when the evidence shows that a drug presents a safety issue. With these authorities, we will never again have a situation where a critical labeling change takes two years to complete, as was the case with Vioxx. When we are talking about drugs that are already on the market and in widespread use, any delay can put millions of patients in harm's way.

Third and lastly, this legislation will authorize the appropriation of $500 million over the next 5 years to provide the new center with the resources to carry out the provisions of this legislation.

I would like to thank several groups that have endorsed this bill, and that were instrumental in its drafting, including Consumer's Union, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), the National Women's Health Network (NWHN), the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Consumer Federation of America, and the Center for Medical Consumers.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues, including Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy on the HELP Committee, to see this legislation enacted as soon as possible. By strengthening the ability of the FDA to ensure the safety of prescription drugs once they are on the market, this legislation will allow physicians to prescribe, and patients to use, prescription drugs without wondering if the medicines intended to help them will hurt them instead. It will help ensure that the term ``FDA-Approved'' will remain the gold standard for safety and quality.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Grassley in announcing the introduction of the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005 (FDASA). I would like to thank Senator Grassley for his commitment to this issue and his willingness to work on this important legislation in a bipartisan manner. Senator Grassley and I have spent the past several months crafting this legislation, which will create a new center within the FDA that will be responsible for ensuring that prescription drugs are safe once they are on the market.

Our hope is that the creation of this new center will restore confidence in the medicines that so many Americans rely on to safeguard their health and well-being. Patients should be able to rest-assured that the drugs they take to help them will not hurt them instead.

The American pharmaceutical industry is a true success story. Their incredible innovations over the last few decades have saved and improved millions of lives, and made prescription drugs an integral part of quality health care. I am proud to say that Connecticut is home to a number of leading pharmaceutical companies. There is very little question that the American drug industry is the world leader. This is due, in no small part, to the FDA. Throughout the world, the FDA seal of approval--the words ``FDA Approved''--has stood as the gold standard for safety and quality.

Unfortunately, events of the past year have put patients at risk and have seriously tarnished the FDA's image. Recent developments have cast into doubt the FDA's ability to ensure that the drugs that it approves are safe--especially once they are on the market. These concerns are bad for patients, bad for physicians, and bad for the drug industry.

Like many Americans, I have been deeply disturbed by the revelations of significant risk associated with widely used medications to treat pain and depression. These revelations raise real and legitimate questions about the safety of drugs that have already been approved. It would be one thing if these drugs were in a trial phase, but safety issues are being identified in drugs that are already on the market and widely used. Health risks significant enough to remove drugs from the market or significantly restrict their use are becoming clear only after millions of Americans have been exposed to real or potential harm.

It has been estimated that more than 100,000 Americans might have been seriously injured or killed by a popular pain medication, while millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants that could put them at risk. This recent spate of popular medicines being identified as unsafe underscores the need to take additional steps to monitor and protect safety after a drug has been approved.

The legislation that Senator Grassley and I are introducing today will do three things to restore confidence in the words ``FDA Approved,'' and ensure that the FDA has all the tools that it needs to protect patients. First and foremost, it will establish within the FDA a new center--the Center for Postmarket Drug Evaluation and Research (CPDER)--which will report directly to the FDA Commissioner and be responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of drugs and biological products once they are on the market.

I strongly believe that the creation of such a new, independent center is necessary. There have been disturbing reports that suggest that the FDA does not place enough emphasis on drug safety, and that concerns raised by those in the Office of Drug Safety (ODS) are sometimes ignored and even suppressed. An internal study conducted by the HHS Office of the Inspector General in 2002 revealed that approximately one-fifth of drug reviewers had been pressured to approve a drug despite concerns about safety, efficacy, or quality. In addition, more than one-third said they were ``not at all'' or only ``somewhat'' confident that final decisions of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) adequately assessed safety. The creation of a new center will raise the profile of drug safety within the agency.

Second, our bill will provide the Director of CPDER with significant new authorities, including: the authority to require drug companies to conduct postmarket studies of their products if there are questions about safety or effectiveness; the authority to take corrective actions, such as labeling changes, restricted distribution, and other risk management tools, if an unreasonable risk exists; the authority to review drug advertisements before they are disseminated, and to require certain disclosures about increased risk; and in extreme cases, the authority to pull the product off the market.

These new authorities will allow the FDA to act quickly to get answers when there are questions about the safety of a drug, and to act decisively to mitigate the risks when the evidence shows that a drug presents a safety issue. With these authorities, we will never again have a situation where a critical labeling change takes two years to complete, as was the case with Vioxx. When we are talking about drugs that are already on the market and in widespread use, any delay can put millions of patients in harm's way.

Third and lastly, this legislation will authorize the appropriation of $500 million over the next 5 years to provide the new center with the resources to carry out the provisions of this legislation.

I would like to thank several groups that have endorsed this bill, and that were instrumental in its drafting, including Consumer's Union, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), the National Women's Health Network (NWHN), the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Consumer Federation of America, and the Center for Medical Consumers.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues, including Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy on the HELP Committee, to see this legislation enacted as soon as possible. By strengthening the ability of the FDA to ensure the safety of prescription drugs once they are on the market, this legislation will allow physicians to prescribe, and patients to use, prescription drugs without wondering if the medicines intended to help them will hurt them instead. It will help ensure that the term ``FDA-Approved'' will remain the gold standard for safety and quality.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore the rights of all veterans and their families to receive an official grave marker of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This legislation addresses an unfortunate inequity that exists for veterans who passed away during the period between November 1, 1990 and September 11, 2001.

It may come as a shock to my colleagues to learn that while all other veterans are entitled to the VA's official grave markers, current law forbids veterans who passed away during this eleven year period from being so honored.

This situation is unacceptable and must be remedied.

Nearly one year ago today, the National World War II Memorial was unveiled to the public. Countless Americans who have passed its 50 stone pillars since that time have been reminded of the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who served our country. at its time of greatest need.

But as Senator Bob Dole stated at its dedication ceremony, the World War II Memorial is not a tribute to war and conflict. Rather, he said, ``it's a tribute to the physical and moral courage that makes heroes out of farm and city boys and that inspires Americans in every generation to lay down their lives for people they will never meet, for ideals that make life itself worth living.''

Indeed, monuments like the World War II Memorial serve as a reminder of the service, sacrifice and dedication of our veterans. The 4,000 stars resting on the Wall of Freedom remind us that too many paid the ultimate price.

Many Americans have a similar experience when they visit the grave of a former veteran--often a friend or relative. Most of these grave sites have markers paying tribute to the veteran's service. We place flags by their side on Memorial Day. Until 1990, moreover, the family of a deceased Veteran could receive reimbursement for a VA headstone, a VA marker, or a private headstone. However, in the name of cost-cutting, measures were taken to prevent the VA from providing markers to those families that had purchased gravestones out of their own pockets.

In my view, this measure was a serious injustice. Nearly all families today provide for some gravestone or other privately purchased marker following the death of a relative. Yet most were unaware of the new VA regulation. Many veterans were buried without any official recognition of their service to our country. As of 2001, the VA estimated that it was forced to deny nearly 20,000 requests for such markers every year.

This body first endorsed a provision restoring the right of every veteran to receive a grave marker as early as June 7, 2000 as part of the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Bill. This body approved this language again on December 8, 2001. But it was not until December 6, 2002 that legislation was signed into law as part of the Veterans Improvement Act allowing VA markers to be provided to deceased veterans retroactively. Unfortunately, however, when the bill went to a conference with the House of Representatives, this benefit was only applied retroactively to September 11, 2001 rather than to November 1, 1990, the date at which the new VA regulation came into effect. Veterans who passed away between those two dates were cut out.

That decision has never satisfied me or many veterans and their families. Why should one veteran receive recognition, while the family of another is told that there is nothing our government can do simply because of the date of their passing?

My legislation will correct this inequity. This bill is simple. It ensures that all veterans who have passed away since 1990 are able to receive a VA grave marker.

It is inexpensive. In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that providing such a benefit to all veterans would cost no more than $3 million per year for the first 5 years. Since most of the families of veterans who passed away between 1990 and 2001 have already completed their burial plans, it is safe to assume that a substantially smaller number of individuals would require this benefit.

Today is the seventh anniversary of the passing of Agostino Guzzo, a Connecticut resident who bravely served in the United States Armed Forces in the Philippines during World War II. His family interred his body in a mausoleum at the Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, Connecticut. The family was not aware of the VA's restrictions on grave markers, and was told by the VA that there was no way to receive an official recognition.

Agostino's son, Thomas Guzzo, brought the matter to my attention, and, along with Representative Nancy Johnson, we were able pass to legislation granting Agostino the memorial he deserves. But too many families are still denied such markers. This legislation honors the memory of Agostino Guzzo and all of the veterans who have served their country in war and in peace. Thomas Guzzo's commitment to this issue has not ended. The commitment of this Congress to the issue should continue as well.

I hope our colleagues will give this important legislation their favorable consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore the rights of all veterans and their families to receive an official grave marker of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This legislation addresses an unfortunate inequity that exists for veterans who passed away during the period between November 1, 1990 and September 11, 2001.

It may come as a shock to my colleagues to learn that while all other veterans are entitled to the VA's official grave markers, current law forbids veterans who passed away during this eleven year period from being so honored.

This situation is unacceptable and must be remedied.

Nearly one year ago today, the National World War II Memorial was unveiled to the public. Countless Americans who have passed its 50 stone pillars since that time have been reminded of the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who served our country. at its time of greatest need.

But as Senator Bob Dole stated at its dedication ceremony, the World War II Memorial is not a tribute to war and conflict. Rather, he said, ``it's a tribute to the physical and moral courage that makes heroes out of farm and city boys and that inspires Americans in every generation to lay down their lives for people they will never meet, for ideals that make life itself worth living.''

Indeed, monuments like the World War II Memorial serve as a reminder of the service, sacrifice and dedication of our veterans. The 4,000 stars resting on the Wall of Freedom remind us that too many paid the ultimate price.

Many Americans have a similar experience when they visit the grave of a former veteran--often a friend or relative. Most of these grave sites have markers paying tribute to the veteran's service. We place flags by their side on Memorial Day. Until 1990, moreover, the family of a deceased Veteran could receive reimbursement for a VA headstone, a VA marker, or a private headstone. However, in the name of cost-cutting, measures were taken to prevent the VA from providing markers to those families that had purchased gravestones out of their own pockets.

In my view, this measure was a serious injustice. Nearly all families today provide for some gravestone or other privately purchased marker following the death of a relative. Yet most were unaware of the new VA regulation. Many veterans were buried without any official recognition of their service to our country. As of 2001, the VA estimated that it was forced to deny nearly 20,000 requests for such markers every year.

This body first endorsed a provision restoring the right of every veteran to receive a grave marker as early as June 7, 2000 as part of the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Bill. This body approved this language again on December 8, 2001. But it was not until December 6, 2002 that legislation was signed into law as part of the Veterans Improvement Act allowing VA markers to be provided to deceased veterans retroactively. Unfortunately, however, when the bill went to a conference with the House of Representatives, this benefit was only applied retroactively to September 11, 2001 rather than to November 1, 1990, the date at which the new VA regulation came into effect. Veterans who passed away between those two dates were cut out.

That decision has never satisfied me or many veterans and their families. Why should one veteran receive recognition, while the family of another is told that there is nothing our government can do simply because of the date of their passing?

My legislation will correct this inequity. This bill is simple. It ensures that all veterans who have passed away since 1990 are able to receive a VA grave marker.

It is inexpensive. In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that providing such a benefit to all veterans would cost no more than $3 million per year for the first 5 years. Since most of the families of veterans who passed away between 1990 and 2001 have already completed their burial plans, it is safe to assume that a substantially smaller number of individuals would require this benefit.

Today is the seventh anniversary of the passing of Agostino Guzzo, a Connecticut resident who bravely served in the United States Armed Forces in the Philippines during World War II. His family interred his body in a mausoleum at the Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, Connecticut. The family was not aware of the VA's restrictions on grave markers, and was told by the VA that there was no way to receive an official recognition.

Agostino's son, Thomas Guzzo, brought the matter to my attention, and, along with Representative Nancy Johnson, we were able pass to legislation granting Agostino the memorial he deserves. But too many families are still denied such markers. This legislation honors the memory of Agostino Guzzo and all of the veterans who have served their country in war and in peace. Thomas Guzzo's commitment to this issue has not ended. The commitment of this Congress to the issue should continue as well.

I hope our colleagues will give this important legislation their favorable consideration.

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

Mr. President, as a cosponsor, I rise to discuss the DeWine/Bingaman amendment. This important measure would designate $20 million for critical election assistance, employment and public works projects, and police assistance in Haiti. I am pleased that agreement has been reached to include this amendment in the managers' package.

It has been just over a year since President Jean Bertrand Aristide was forced into exile. It is well known that the United States played an active role in his departure. I do not wish at this time to consider just how great that role may have been. But as I have stated before, I am troubled that our Government chose to use its influence to remove a democratically elected leader--and for all of President Aristide's faults, he was that--rather than working to restore stability.

To its credit, the United Nations Peacekeeping force in Haiti, MINUSTAH, has done much to reestablish security following President Aristide's departure. I applaud those countries, particularly those Latin American countries, which have contributed forces. I am also encouraged by the work of the international community in support of the Haitian elections scheduled for this fall.

But without United States leadership, I am afraid that any temporary stability will be fleeting. Indeed, the Bush administration and the international community had an opportunity to become engaged in Haiti well before we reached the current state of affairs. It failed to do so. The presence of President Aristide used to be the Bush administration's excuse to not properly engage with Haiti. Right or wrong, that issue is no longer a factor.

Leadership here on the part of the Bush administration has been woefully lacking. Indeed, if we continue on our present course, long- term security in Haiti may be critically undermined. Most immediately, without increased United States support, the success of Haitian elections scheduled for this fall is in jeopardy--elections, which I might point out, could do much for the stability and well-being of the Haitian people.

Mr. President, during the past year, Haitians have endured unimaginable hardships. Flooding in late May claimed almost 3,000 lives. Tropical Storm Jeanne killed nearly 2,000--making it the deadliest storm this hurricane season. These catastrophes were only compounded by a deteriorating security environment. They created a vicious cycle where widespread looting and rioting significantly impeded disaster relief efforts.

Sadly, such violence and insecurity persists. The government lacks control over substantial portions of the country. Armed gangs continue to terrorize the capital of Port-au-Prince. Elements of the former military have occupied towns and police stations throughout the countryside. Since September alone, around 400 Haitians have been killed as violence spiraled out of control after an escalation in pro- Aristide protests.

The ongoing disorder is perhaps best symbolized by a February 19 attack on Haiti's national prison. Approximately a dozen armed men assaulted the facility and released 481 prisoners, including drug dealers and other suspected criminals. The attack--which appears to have been assisted from inside--is indicative of the government's inability to fully control even its own security forces.

If we are going to move toward a more hopeful future for Haiti, then we need to renew our support for the Haitian people. That means, of course, working to establish basic security. Clearly, we need to reign in the armed gangs and former military. But that is not enough. Long- term stability also requires a sustained commitment to democratic institutions and to economic development.

Last July, the United States pledged approximately $250 million in aid for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The United States provided $130 million of that assistance last year. That's a good start. But we need to do more.

Mr. President, the United Nations peacekeeping force in Haiti, MINUSTAH, is making important contributions to peace and stability in Haiti. While it was criticized for early inactivity, MINUSTAH has recently stepped up its efforts to disarm former members of the Haitian military and others. Indeed, recently two United Nations peacekeepers were killed during operations to control police facilities previously occupied by members of the former military.

Despite this increase in activity, it is hard to imagine how MINUSTAH can establish real security at its current force level. MINUSTAH only reached its full strength of approximately 7,000 military personnel and 1,600 civilian police officers in December. Haiti also has about 4,000 of its own police officers, but most of these individuals are badly trained and poorly armed.

By comparison, New York City, which has roughly the same number of citizens as Haiti, is patrolled by 40,000 well trained and equipped police officers. That is over three times the number of security personnel as in Haiti. And it is worth noting that New York is not plagued by many of the problems that Haiti faces every day.

That is why this amendment includes funding to support police activities in Haiti. A critical aspect of this assistance must be police reform. Because regrettably, human rights groups report that some members of the Haitian police have committed abuses, including arbitrary arrests and, possibly, extrajudicial executions. Unless we create a climate of trust in Haiti with respect to that nation's police force, there can be no lasting security. And it is difficult to build trust without respect for the rule of law and the rights of individuals. Any police assistance, therefore, must be used to teach good policing practices, not just provide new resources for personnel, guns and ammunition.

Mr. President, the elections scheduled for this fall in Haiti could be a critical step toward achieving lasting stability. After all, only democratically elected governments have the legitimacy necessary to fully address the persistent security and socio-economic problems facing the Haitian people.

With assistance from the United Nations and the Organization of American States, the Haitian government is organizing voter registration and preparing the technical measures necessary to conduct accurate and fair polling. Smooth and successful polling operations are necessary to ensure that the election outcome is never in doubt. To enhance the effectiveness of these efforts, this amendment would make available critically needed funds for election assistance.

To ensure full legitimacy, however, I believe that the Haitian government must also take steps to re-engage with the Lavalas family party of President Aristide, which has threatened to boycott the elections. The Lavalas party is the largest and best organized party in Haiti, and without its participation, I am concerned that the election results will not be accepted by the Haitian people.

A critical step toward re-engaging the Lavalas party would be releasing former Prime Minister Neptune and any other Lavalas party members who are currently being held without formal charges being brought against them by Haitian authorities. To that end, I, along with several of my colleagues, wrote to Prime Minister Latortue requesting that he inform us on what charges the former Prime Minister is being held, and if there are no formal charges filed, to release him immediately. I have yet to receive an answer from the Haitian government.

But in the long-term, no single election can eliminate the instability and disorder that has afflicted the Haitian people for centuries. These problems have their root in persistent poverty and economic dislocation, and they can only be resolved through active engagement by the United States.

Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere; 65 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. The average income is $250. Life expectancy is a mere 53 years, and half of the population does not have access to clean drinking water. Only 50 percent of the population works in the formal economy. In such an environment, is it any wonder that Haiti has suffered from years of violence and disorder?

Sadly, children are particularly affected by these impoverished conditions. Over one in ten Haitian children dies before age five. Approximately 20 percent of all children suffer from malnourishment. Haiti also has the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the western hemisphere, and 4,000 to 6,000 children in Haiti are born with the virus each year. Yet according to the World Bank, in the 1990's, there were only two physicians for every 10,000 Haitians. That figure is unlikely to have improved. To combat the effects of such abject poverty, this amendment would provide assistance for employment projects.

For many Haitians, moreover, economic progress is impossible because they lack access to needed infrastructure. There are not enough roads, schools or hospitals. That is why funds designated by this amendment would also be available for important public works.

Lastly, I encourage my colleagues to use the benefits of trade to help the Haitian people. Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor Senator DeWine's HERO Act. This important legislation would have helped reinvigorate the Haitian economy by granting preferential trade treatment to certain Haitian textile products. I was pleased that the Senate passed this bill last year. Unfortunately, it met opposition in the other body. I hope we can make that legislation a priority in the 109th Congress.

Mr. President, in 1994, the United States launched an armed intervention to reestablish Haitian democracy. Last year, the United States again sent a contingent of Marines to restore stability. Too often in our history, our neglect of Haiti's most basic problems have left us with no choice but to intervene when instability breaks out into open crisis. Only through proactive leadership and a commitment to long-term development in Haiti can we break this cycle. For all these reasons, I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted as part of the managers' package. I urge the conferees to ensure that this language is included in the conference agreement of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STAND UP) Act of 2005--an important piece of legislation that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage drivers in our country.

We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative stage in a person's life. They are a bridge between childhood and adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and girls transition successfully into young men and women.

As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk- taking. A groundbreaking study to be published soon by the National Institutes of Health concludes that the frontal lobe region of the brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age of 25. In my view, this important report implies that we approach teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also implies that we have a societal obligation to steer teenagers towards positive risk- taking that fosters further growth and development and away from negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and the well-being of others.

Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road. And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle causes severe harm and death.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between 15 and 20 years of age. In 2002, teenage drivers, who constituted only 6.4 percent of all drivers, were involved in 14.3 percent of all fatal motor vehicle crashes. In 2003, 5,691 teenage drivers were killed in motor vehicle crashes and 300,000 teenage drivers suffered injuries in motor vehicle crashes.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that teenage drivers have a fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Furthermore, teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.

Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that the chance of a crash by a driver either 16

or 17 years of age is doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with three or more peers in the vehicle.

Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often highprofile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers, and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle. Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.

One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before earning the full privileges associated with an unrestricted driver's license. Each learning stage is designed to teach a teenage driver fundamental lessons on driver operations, responsibilities, and safety. Each stage also imposes certain restrictions, such as curfews on nighttime driving and limitations on passengers, that further ensure the safety of the teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other motorists.

First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years in age decreased in each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years in age decreased by 40 percent between 1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's GDL system was in effect. The number of ``at-fault'' crashes involving teenage drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.

These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative. There are four principal components of this legislation about which I would like to discuss.

First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains three core requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board. These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system, implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, and placing a restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision.

Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each, requiring at least 30 hours of behind-the-wheel driving for a novice driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated, misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or driving without a fastened seatbelt.

Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational materials on the GDL law.

Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non- compliance.

There are those who will say that the STAND UP Act infringes on States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that working to protect and ensure the lives and safety of the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists in this country is national in scope and a job that is rightly suited for Congress. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.

The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well- known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to 50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly, these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STAND UP) Act of 2005--an important piece of legislation that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage drivers in our country.

We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative stage in a person's life. They are a bridge between childhood and adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and girls transition successfully into young men and women.

As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk- taking. A groundbreaking study to be published soon by the National Institutes of Health concludes that the frontal lobe region of the brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age of 25. In my view, this important report implies that we approach teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also implies that we have a societal obligation to steer teenagers towards positive risk- taking that fosters further growth and development and away from negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and the well-being of others.

Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road. And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle causes severe harm and death.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between 15 and 20 years of age. In 2002, teenage drivers, who constituted only 6.4 percent of all drivers, were involved in 14.3 percent of all fatal motor vehicle crashes. In 2003, 5,691 teenage drivers were killed in motor vehicle crashes and 300,000 teenage drivers suffered injuries in motor vehicle crashes.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that teenage drivers have a fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Furthermore, teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.

Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that the chance of a crash by a driver either 16

or 17 years of age is doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with three or more peers in the vehicle.

Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often highprofile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers, and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle. Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.

One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before earning the full privileges associated with an unrestricted driver's license. Each learning stage is designed to teach a teenage driver fundamental lessons on driver operations, responsibilities, and safety. Each stage also imposes certain restrictions, such as curfews on nighttime driving and limitations on passengers, that further ensure the safety of the teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other motorists.

First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years in age decreased in each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years in age decreased by 40 percent between 1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's GDL system was in effect. The number of ``at-fault'' crashes involving teenage drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.

These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative. There are four principal components of this legislation about which I would like to discuss.

First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains three core requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board. These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system, implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, and placing a restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision.

Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each, requiring at least 30 hours of behind-the-wheel driving for a novice driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated, misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or driving without a fastened seatbelt.

Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational materials on the GDL law.

Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non- compliance.

There are those who will say that the STAND UP Act infringes on States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that working to protect and ensure the lives and safety of the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists in this country is national in scope and a job that is rightly suited for Congress. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.

The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well- known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to 50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly, these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I commend the efforts of Basketball without Borders, an initiative that promotes friendship, understanding, and healthy living for young people around the world.

Today, the National Basketball Association, NBA, and the International Basketball Federation, FIBA, announced that Basketball without Borders will hold four instructional camps in the coming year. For the first time, Basketball without Borders will be staged on four continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. It will feature professional basketball players from diverse backgrounds, including China's Yao Ming, Argentina's Manu Ginobili, Germany's Dirk Nowitzki, and Congo's Dikembe Mutombo.

The Basketball without Borders initiative is more than an opportunity for children to meet their favorite players and learn basketball skills. It is also a chance for them to learn important lessons about the world in which they live.

In addition to basketball instruction, the children who participate in Basketball without Borders will learn about HIV/AIDS prevention, the importance of education, and ways to lead a healthier life. They will also have the opportunity to meet children whose ethnicities, backgrounds, and cultures are different from their own.

I also applaud the NBA and FIBA for the charitable efforts that are part of the Basketball without Borders initiative. As part of this year's program, the NBA will be conducting several auctions on its website, with the proceeds funding community improvement efforts worldwide, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

As public figures, professional athletes can send a strong message by serving as role models both on and off the playing field. It is my hope that the players who are taking part in Basketball without Borders will inspire basketball fans around the world to take a closer look at ways they can extend a hand of friendship to diverse communities around the globe. I salute the athletes who are participating in this worthy venture, as well as all those whose hard work has made this initiative possible.

Mr. President, I honor Ralph Sturges, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe. On April 13, Chief Sturges will receive the Citizen of the Year award from the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut.

Chief Sturges is known throughout southeastern Connecticut for his leadership, his community involvement, and his humility. Even as he has risen in the ranks of the Mohegan Tribe, from serving as a member of the Tribal Council in the 1980s to becoming lifetime chief in 1991, he has never lost a sense of who he is or what he stands for.

Born in 1918, Ralph Sturges served in our armed forces during the World War II as a security and intelligence officer. He went on to work for the Philadelphia Legal Aid Society and the Salvation Army, as well as the Legnos Boat Company.

Chief Sturges was renowned for his skills as a craftsman, particularly as a sculptor of traditional Mohegan cultural symbols. Among his many works were a whale sculpture donated to Governor Ella Grasso and the carving of a base for the headstone of the Mohegan chief Samuel Uncas.

When Ralph Sturges was elected lifetime chief of the Mohegan Tribe, as he puts it, he ``didn't have a telephone and didn't have an office.'' He devoted a great deal of time and energy over the coming decade to the cause of securing federal recognition for the Mohegans--a goal that was realized on March 7, 1994.

Today, the Mohegan Tribe stands as a remarkable success story. So much of this success is due to the efforts and dedication of Ralph Sturges, as well as countless others who worked with him over the years.

Chief Sturges is an outstanding citizen, a respected leader, and a devoted member of the Mohegan tribe. He has forged strong bonds between his tribe and the State of Connecticut, as well

as the Federal Government. These bonds have reaped tremendous benefits, not only for the Mohegan Tribe, but all of Southeastern Connecticut. The relationship between Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe serves as a model that other states and tribal nations would do well to emulate.

The honor Chief Sturges will receive this Wednesday is well-deserved. I applaud Ralph Sturges for all of his accomplishments, I congratulate him on this distinguished award, and I wish him continued health and happiness.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, in order to move things along in time, I appreciate the willingness of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to accept the amendment. It is very simple amendment.

It says that foreign companies involved in developing the President's Marine One helicopter must pledge in writing that they will not conduct business with state-sponsors of terrorism during the contract and 5 years after it has been completed. Moreover, it provides that those involved in building such technologies will be subject to at least the same export licensing requirements as other defense projects built jointly by the U.S. and foreign manufacturers, as governed by the U.S. Arms Export Control Act.

The principle is clear, and hardly controversial. I am sure my colleagues will agree that there are few more sensitive and more important national security concerns than the safe transport of our country's chief executive. But the aircraft we are talking about today is far more than a mode of transportation. It will be outfitted with some of the most advanced technology available to ensure secure communications and easy maneuvering to avoid any possible threats from the ground and air. As long as the President is in flight, this aircraft will be a global nerve center, with critical information constantly flowing in and essential decisions flowing out. This aircraft needs to be safe and secure, and well-equipped to ensure secure communications. For obvious reasons, the technology making this happen needs to be protected at all costs.

We cannot afford to let America's enemies gain access to any of this critically important technology. That is why companies involved in developing Marine One cannot be allowed to have any relations with our most dangerous adversaries. Such relations might present opportunities for the sharing of designs or materials with state-sponsors of terrorism.

Armed with such information, terrorists could learn about the vulnerabilities of the Presidential helicopter, and attempt to intercept critical communications or effectively target our President from the air or from the ground.

My amendment also says that when it comes to this critically important technology, there should be no chance that anyone wishing America harm could gain access to our most sensitive secrets. When it comes to this critical defense system, there should be no exceptions to our export licensing.

It may come as a surprise to some that this amendment would even be necessary, but it should not come as a surprise that Senator Lieberman, my cosponsor on this amendment, and I are deeply concerned about what could happen. But I am afraid that troubling reports have surfaced about a European partner in the manufacturing team recently awarded the contract to build Marine One. As many of my colleagues know, Agusta Westland, an Italian-British consortium, was tasked with building this helicopter's basic design as well as manufacturing approximately 30 percent of the aircraft's components, including the rotor blades to be built in Yeovil, England, and the main transmission, to be constructed in Cascina Costa, Italy.

Obviously, I have some local interests in this case. The Navy selected the European/American team over the Connecticut-based, All- American Sikorsky team which has administered the Marine One contract for about 50 years. Truth be told, I believe that Sikorsky has a better performing, more experienced aircraft team as well as a superior design. But my concerns go beyond parochial interests, and even the technical merits of the aircraft. I am gravely troubled about the impact this contract award will have on the United States' ability to stay competitive in the global helicopter industry. But more importantly, I am deeply troubled that the European partner in the winning contractor team is currently considering conducting business with a sworn enemy of the United States--the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I have here a list of companies who recently attended an air show in Kish, Iran, exhibiting their wares, and soliciting business from the Iranian Government. Listed at number 50 on this list is Agusta Westland as well as its parent company Finneccanica at number 52. We do not know what they were marketing at their exhibits during the January 18-21 trade show, but it is surely the view of this Senator that no government manufacturer of such sensitive technology as the U.S. Presidential helicopter has any business even entertaining the idea of doing business with state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.

How can we allow the chance that a sworn adversary of the United States like Iran could gain access to America's most sensitive defense technologies? I know that my colleagues are keenly aware of the history of Iran's government, dating back to the taking of American hostages in 1979 and the installation of a brutal fundamentalist dictatorship. But let me be utterly clear about the threat that we are dealing with here. We are talking about one of the three members of what President Bush referred to as ``the Axis of Evil.'' This is how the State Department described U.S. relations with Iran in its most recent Iran country report:

As a state sponsor of terrorism Iran remains an impediment

to international efforts to locate and prosecute terrorists .

. . The U.S. Government defines its areas of objectionable

Iranian behavior as the following: Iranian efforts to acquire

nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; Its

support for and involvement in international terrorism; Its

support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace

process; and Its dismal human rights record.

President Bush himself referred to the threat posed by Iran in his most recent State of the Union address, stating:

Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of

terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people

of the freedom they seek and deserve.

Unclassified intelligence reports have attributed dozens of acts of international terrorism to the Iranian government or surrogate terrorist groups since the 1990s. One such Iranian surrogate is Islamic Jihad, also known as Hezbollah, which publicly has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks on innocent civilians throughout the world from Argentina to Israel. And they continue to prosecute attacks in Israel, and threaten instability in Lebanon.

Meanwhile, terrorists are moving in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan across Iranian borders, attacking U.S. troops with either Tehran's support or outright sponsorship. And today, as we entrust the security of our President and our most sensitive national security secrets to a major European subcontractor, we are facing the prospect of having such a critical U.S. defense system shared with one of the America's gravest adversaries.

The stakes could not be any higher. We cannot afford to allow critical American technology to fall into the hands of terrorist states. And we cannot allow those who wish us harm access to information on any aircraft that would be carrying the President of the United States.

For these reasons, I am offering this amendment which, I repeat, addresses two critical concerns that I have raised here today:

First, my amendment forbids any company involved in building the Marine One aircraft from conducting business with a state sponsor of terrorism; second, it subjects the Marine One contract to standard export controls governing joint U.S.-foreign defense programs, waiving exemptions provided to companies from NATO countries.

I know that there are some who might object to this provision as being too harsh on our allies, particularly since it eliminates waiver protections pertaining to companies in NATO countries. But the honest and sobering reality is that I am not proposing anything nearly as drastic as what our NATO allies are currently doing in the conduct of their own defense contracts.

Unlike the legitimate security concerns I have voiced here on the floor today, our European friends are currently banning non-European helicopter manufacturers from even competing for bids in their countries, simply in order to protect their domestic defense industry. As this chart demonstrates--in the market for medium lift helicopters, the U.S. has been banned from even bidding for contracts with the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Greece.

My amendment does not attempt to impose the same protectionist measures that these countries have imposed. This measure is critically important in safeguarding secrets that are fundamental to our Nation's government. It will ensure that no person with access to our most sensitive national security technologies has the opportunity to share these critical secrets with those who would wish us harm. We are simply standing up for the most sensitive security interests of our nation and the safety of our President.

Anything less would be reckless and a dereliction of our duty as Americans.

I merely point to this fact. Nothing in this amendment would suggest we ought to keep them out of our own country, but we ought to be aware that, while we are talking about free trade, in the European nations themselves a United States firm cannot even get in the bidding process. So there are other reasons why this amendment ought to be adopted.

I urge my colleagues to do so, and I thank the chairman of the committee for supporting the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I will send a copy of an amendment to the desk, but I am not going to offer the amendment right now. I would like to discuss what I would like to do at some point on a matter of significance. I will send the amendment up to the desk and ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, very briefly, I know we are about to maybe have a more important matter come to the floor. I am going to keep my eye on the chairman of the committee so he can let me know when I should wrap up these comments.

The amendment that at some point I would like to offer, either on this bill or another piece of legislation, deals with what I believe is an extremely important issue about enhancing U.S. diplomatic and strategic influence in the Western Hemisphere.

As many of my colleagues know, I have been a member of the Foreign Relations Committee on the subcommittee dealing with Latin America for the 24 years I have been in the Senate, either as the ranking member or as the chairman of the subcommittee.

I am deeply concerned, as I know many of my colleagues are, that while our attention is focused on other parts of the world, for obvious reasons, there is a serious condition developing in Latin America that deserves our attention.

The amendment I would be offering is quite simple. It would permit nations in this hemisphere to receive international military and educational training, so-called IMET training, assistance from the United States.

My colleagues might say: Well, don't we do that? Haven't we been doing that for years? The answer is yes. But it has been stopped in 11 countries in Latin America, along with economic support funds. The reason is because these nations have not signed on to the so-called article 98 agreement with the United States. The article 98 agreement has to do with the American Service Members Protection Act. That is because the administration is vehemently opposed to the International Criminal Court, and any nation that does not protect American servicemen from potentially being prosecuted under that act would have the international military and educational training funds, along with economic support funds, cut off entirely.

Now, again, I am not arguing at all about whether we ought to have the American Service Members Protection Act. My colleagues have voted for that. That is the law of the land. My concern is linking that legislation with the international military and educational training funds and economic assistance funds.

Let me tell you what has happened as a result of linking these up. We used to have as many as 800 junior officers or senior officers from Latin America come to the United States each year to go to our schools, to learn about how we would conduct our military operations, to receive the critical training that would make them more in tune with our ideals, our values, as military officers.

As a result of this linkage we have now adopted, we now have zero military personnel coming from these countries that I have already mentioned, the 11 countries affected; the countries being Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Uruguay, Barbados, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad, and Tobago.

To give you some idea, we used to have from Peru 172 young officers come to the United States. Because of the linkage, we now have zero. Uruguay sent 202. We now have zero. Venezuela, 73; Ecuador, 85--to give you some idea in the last year or so, and on down the list.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of the number of people coming from these countries on a roughly annual basis be printed in the Record, if I may.

Well, Mr. President----

Mr. President, my point on this amendment is that with the significant deterioration in the connections between our country and these nations that have received in the past the international military and educational training funds and the economic support funds, that we find ourselves in a very precarious position with these countries and the junior officers and senior officers who have come here for their training. So the amendment, in effect, would delink these issues. It does not overturn the American Service Members Protection Act; it just delinks it.

Who is advocating this? SOUTHCOM, which is the military structure and organization that has the responsibility for dealing with Latin America, is a strong advocate of delinking these issues. In fact, in today's Washington Times, the headline is ``U.S. 'hands tied' in South America.'' I will quote from the article:

As the Bush administration tries to craft a new foreign

policy toward an increasingly belligerent Venezuela, Pentagon

and military officials say they cannot blunt that nation's

regional influence unless a law meant to protect U.S.

personnel from prosecution in the International Criminal

Court is changed.

The article goes on:

That law, the American Service Members Protection Act,

prohibits U.S. security assistance funds and most military

cooperation unless a country rejects the U.N.-backed ICC or

signs a bilateral immunity agreement with the United States.

. . .

Of the 22 nations in the world that are on the black list

[so-called]--they have ratified the ICC agreement and have

refused to grant the United States bilateral immunity--11 of

them are in Latin America.

I have listed them already.

So again, I will not go on at great length. I know there is a possibility here of reaching an agreement on a matter that has held up this bill. This amendment would delink these issues. I do not need to emphasize the point. My colleagues should be aware of this.

There was a growing influence from the People's Republic of China in Latin America, offering to spend billions of dollars in the region and I presume, willing as well, to train military personnel. We do not want to lose the tremendous opportunity we have had over the years to maintain these relationships.

Again, I am not here to argue today the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the American Service Members Protection Act. The only case I want to make to my colleagues is, Should we be linking these IMET funds--that is, the international military and educational training funds--and economic support funds, which are critically important in Latin America, with that legislation? I do not think we should. SOUTHCOM, our military leaders, do

not think we should. Roger Noriega, with whom I do not always agree on Latin American issues, thinks it is wrong to link the economic support fund issues as well. So people who have strong credentials, if you will, in opposing the International Criminal Court believe that linking these issues in this region is not serving the interests of the United States well at all.

At an appropriate time, in consultation with the chairman of the committee and others, I would like to pursue this matter to see whether my colleagues might agree that we might delink these issues. With that, again, knowing there are other matters that can be dealt with, I won't belabor the point.

I have some further comments I will make, but I will wait for the appropriate time to do that so that my full statement can be read by those who may be interested in this particular proposal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II, who passed away on Saturday, April 2, 2005.

I certainly will not be able to capture Pope John Paul's entire legacy in these few words. He was a truly remarkable individual who led a truly remarkable life.

Pope John Paul II was a man who had a deep commitment to human freedom political freedom and economic freedom certainly, but more importantly, a freedom of the human soul from the bondage and burdenls of tyranny, oppression, and poverty. As a young man who came of age during World War II, he opposed Nazism. One of his first encyclicals as Pope was in support of workers' rights. During the 1980's, he was one of the leading world figures who helped bring about the end of communism. And he warned us all against the dangers of unbridled capitalism, particularly for those who are less fortunate.

Without a doubt, Pope John Paul II was the most ecumenical Pope the world has ever seen. It is fitting that his passing has sparked an outpouring of appreciation not simply from Catholics, but from people of all faiths.

John Paul II visited 129 countries outside of Italy by far the most of any Pope. He was the first Pope to visit a synagogue or a mosque. He visited the Western Wall in Israel and apologized for the Church's failure to resist and speak out against the Holocaust. Like no other Pope before him, he used his position to build bridges of understanding and respect between different faiths.

Pope John Paul II did not merely give sermons. He led by example. This was particularly evident when it came to the issue of forgiveness. Many of us often talk about forgiveness in an abstract sense. In January 1981, the Pope survived a bullet wound from a would-be assassin. Two years later, he visited and forgave the man who made an attempt on his life.

The Pope was an incredibly charismatic individual. A former actor, he used the skills he developed on stage to his advantage. I was fortunate enough to meet personally with him twice. Like so many, I was impressed not only by his thoughtfulness, and by the depth of his spiritual sentiment, but by his great human vitality, as well as his sense of humor.

In many ways, John Paul II was the first ``modern pope.'' Born in this century, he lived through a world war and saw the emergence of the new threat of terrorism. He witnessed the dawn of the space age, as well as the developments of modern air travel, the computer, and the internet. A great deal of his time was devoted to addressing the tensions that often exist between modern society and Church traditions and doctrines.

The world truly lost an extraordinary leader this past Saturday. His message of faith, hope, and peace inspired millions, even in his final days. I share in the mourning of his passing, and I add my words of tribute to those of so many who have offered them in recent days.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with Senators Durbin and Salazar a very important piece of legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002.

The No Child Left Behind Act received the support of this Senator and eighty-six of our colleagues. Like most, if not all, of our colleagues who supported this bill, I supported it because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing more rigorous standards for measuring student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and last but not least, by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place.

Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. The law is being implemented by the Administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful to students. Furthermore, the law is not only failing to help teachers do their best in the classroom, it also reflects, along with other Administration policies and pronouncements, a neglect and even hostility towards members of the teaching profession.

Worse still, the Administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement No Child Left Behind's much needed reforms is a promise that has yet to be kept. Indeed, the current budget proposed by the Bush Administration underfunds No Child Left Behind by $12 billion. Since passage three years ago, the law has been funded at a level that is more than $39 billion below what was promised when the President signed the Act into law.

As a result of the failures of the current Administration to fulfill its commitment to our nation's school children under this law, those children and their teachers are today shouldering new and noteworthy hardships. Throughout the State of Connecticut, for example, students, teachers, administrators and parents are struggling to implement requirements that are often confusing, inflexible and unrealistic. And they are struggling to do so without the additional resources they were promised to put them into place. According to a recent report put together by the Connecticut State Department of Education, through 2008, it will cost the State of Connecticut $41.6 million over and above what the Federal Government is going to supply to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind. Of that $41.6 million, $8 million will need to spent on testing alone. That is a significant amount of money--a significant amount of money that is going to fall on Connecticut taxpayers trying to simultaneously pay for their mortgage, basic health care and the rising cost of their children's tuition.

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise--a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them.

The legislation I am introducing today proposes to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law.

First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional ways to gauge school success in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used to further indicate how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding.

Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement, it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect.

Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area.

Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when excellent teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow states to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies.

In my view, the changes I propose will provide significant assistance to schools struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law all across America. As time marches on and more deadlines set by this law approach--including additional testing, a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and 100% proficiency for all students--we have a responsibility to reassess the law and do what we can to make sure that it is implemented in a reasonable manner. In doing so, we must also preserve the basic tenets of the law--providing a world class education for all American students and closing the achievement gap across demographic and socioeconomic lines. Again, no child should left behind--no special education student, no English language learning student, no minority student and no low-income student. I stand by this commitment.

Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that efforts to increase education funding to authorized levels have thus far been unsuccessful. Despite this, I remain committed to work to change this outcome as well. Clearly, our children deserve the resources

needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality.

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

Mr. PresIdent, I am pleased to rise today with Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Collins, Murray, Durbin, Clinton, Inouye, Levin, Lautenberg and Johnson to introduce legislation which would supply greatly needed support to college students struggling to balance their roles as parents with their roles as students. The Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act (CCAMPIS) would increase access to, support for, and retention of low-income, nontraditional students who are struggling to complete college degrees while caring for their children.

The typical college student is no longer an 18-year-old recent high school graduate. According to a 2002 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 27 percent of undergraduates meet the ``traditional'' undergraduate criteria of earning a high school diploma, enrolling full-time, depending on parents for financial support and not working or working part-time. This means that 73 percent of today's students are considered non-traditional in some way. Clearly, non-traditional students--older students, students with children and students with various job and life experiences--are filling the ranks of college classes. Why? Because they recognize the importance of college to future success. It is currently estimated that a full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. This amounts to a lifetime gap in earnings of more than $1 million.

Today's non-traditional students face barriers unheard of by traditional college students of earlier years. Many are parents and must provide for their children while in school. Access to affordable, quality and convenient child care is a necessity for these students. But obtaining the child care that they need is often difficult because of their limited income and non-traditional schedules, compounded by declining assistance for child care through other supports. Campus- based child care can fill the gap. It is conveniently located, available during the right hours, and of high quality and lower cost. Unfortunately, it is unavailable at many campuses. Even when programs do exist, they are often available to only a fraction of the eligible students. That is where the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act comes in.

The Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act increases and expands the availability of campus-based child care in three ways. First, it raises the minimum grant amount from $10,000 to $30,000. For most institutions of higher education, $10,000 has proven too small relative to the cost and effort required to complete a federal application.

Second, the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act ensures that a wider range of students are able to access services. Present language defines low- income students as students eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant. This language excludes graduate students, international students, and students who may be low-income but make slightly more than is allowed to qualify for Pell grants. CCAMPIS will open eligibility for these additional populations.

Third, the CCAMPIS Act raises the program's current authorization level from $45 million to $75 million so that we not only expand existing programs, but create new ones as well.

Research demonstrates that campus-based child care is of high quality and that it increases the educational success of both parents and students. Furthermore, recipients of campus-based child care assistance who are on public assistance are more likely to never return to welfare and to obtain jobs paying good wages.

Currently, there are approximately 1,850 campus-based child care programs but over 6,000 colleges and universities eligible to participate in the CCAMPIS program. Currently, CCAMPIS funds only 427 programs in states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, the number of non-traditional students across America is increasing. As these numbers increase, the need for campus-based child care will increase as well.

Just last week in Connecticut, I went to Eastern Connecticut State University where I met a number of students who would benefit from this legislation. One woman is attending part-time as an accounting major. She works as a restaurant supervisor and just gave birth to her first child. She is balancing work, family and school. Another woman is a junior social work major with two children. Having already received an associate's degree, she is now working towards a bachelor's degree to increase her competitiveness in the job market. A third woman is pursuing her second degree in physical and health education. A stay-at- home mom prior to re-enrolling, she has three children at home. These are the students that need our assistance--hard working parents trying to improve their lot in life for the good of their children.

This is a modest measure that will make a major difference to students. It will offer them new hope for starting and staying in school. I am hopeful that it can be considered and enacted as part of the Higher Education Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important measure forward.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with Senators Durbin and Salazar a very important piece of legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002.

The No Child Left Behind Act received the support of this Senator and eighty-six of our colleagues. Like most, if not all, of our colleagues who supported this bill, I supported it because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing more rigorous standards for measuring student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and last but not least, by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place.

Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. The law is being implemented by the Administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful to students. Furthermore, the law is not only failing to help teachers do their best in the classroom, it also reflects, along with other Administration policies and pronouncements, a neglect and even hostility towards members of the teaching profession.

Worse still, the Administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement No Child Left Behind's much needed reforms is a promise that has yet to be kept. Indeed, the current budget proposed by the Bush Administration underfunds No Child Left Behind by $12 billion. Since passage three years ago, the law has been funded at a level that is more than $39 billion below what was promised when the President signed the Act into law.

As a result of the failures of the current Administration to fulfill its commitment to our nation's school children under this law, those children and their teachers are today shouldering new and noteworthy hardships. Throughout the State of Connecticut, for example, students, teachers, administrators and parents are struggling to implement requirements that are often confusing, inflexible and unrealistic. And they are struggling to do so without the additional resources they were promised to put them into place. According to a recent report put together by the Connecticut State Department of Education, through 2008, it will cost the State of Connecticut $41.6 million over and above what the Federal Government is going to supply to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind. Of that $41.6 million, $8 million will need to spent on testing alone. That is a significant amount of money--a significant amount of money that is going to fall on Connecticut taxpayers trying to simultaneously pay for their mortgage, basic health care and the rising cost of their children's tuition.

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise--a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them.

The legislation I am introducing today proposes to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law.

First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional ways to gauge school success in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used to further indicate how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding.

Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement, it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect.

Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area.

Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when excellent teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow states to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies.

In my view, the changes I propose will provide significant assistance to schools struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law all across America. As time marches on and more deadlines set by this law approach--including additional testing, a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and 100% proficiency for all students--we have a responsibility to reassess the law and do what we can to make sure that it is implemented in a reasonable manner. In doing so, we must also preserve the basic tenets of the law--providing a world class education for all American students and closing the achievement gap across demographic and socioeconomic lines. Again, no child should left behind--no special education student, no English language learning student, no minority student and no low-income student. I stand by this commitment.

Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that efforts to increase education funding to authorized levels have thus far been unsuccessful. Despite this, I remain committed to work to change this outcome as well. Clearly, our children deserve the resources

needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality.

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