Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 5, 2007, at 10 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and its Continuing Importance'' on Wednesday, September 5, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 226.

Witness List:

Panel I: The Honorable John Lewis, United States Representative [D- GA-5th].

Panel II: Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC; Theodore Shaw, Director-Counsel and President, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Washington, DC; Peter Zamora, Washington, DC Regional Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund [MALDEF], Washington, DC; Gail Heriot, Commissioner, United States Commission on Civil Rights, Professor of Law, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA; Robert P. Moses, President The Algebra Project, Inc., Cambridge, MA; Robert H. Driscoll, Partner, Alston & Bird, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today Wednesday, September 5, 2007, from 2 p.m.-4 p.m. in SD-628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 17 and the joint resolution be referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warriors legislation, be printed, as passed by the Senate on July 25, 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 196, just received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 308, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, September 6; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time of the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there be a period of morning business for 60 minutes with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that the time be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that at the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill, Senator Bunning be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes; that at the conclusion of his remarks, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Coleman amendment with the time equally divided between Senators Coleman and Bunning or their designees; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to all remaining amendments, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon disposition of

the Coleman amendment, the amendment vote sequence be: Sanders, Salazar, Brown, McConnell, and then final passage; that after the first vote of the sequence, vote time be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, if there is no further business today, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Arizona has a request.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Appropriations Committee, I call up an amendment in the form of a committee substitute which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and related agencies appropriations bill to the Senate. This is a unique bill for many reasons, not the least of which is it is the first appropriations bill that will be considered under the requirements of S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. On August 2, 2007, the Senate approved S. 1 by a vote of 83 to 14, clearing the measure for the President's signature. When signed by the President, this ethics reform legislation will significantly improve the transparency and accountability of the legislative process.

Although the White House has requested the Senate not submit the legislation to the President until he returns from his overseas travels, I wish to assure Senators we intend to abide by the requirements of S. 1 during the consideration of this bill. The legislation requires that the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction certify that certain information related to congressionally directed spending be identified and that the required information be available on a publicly accessible congressional Web site in a searchable format at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill.

The information required includes identification of the congressionally directed spending and the name of the Senator who requested such spending. This information is contained in the committee report numbered 110-85, dated June 18, 2007, and has been available on the Internet for over 2 months.

In addition, pursuant to the standards required by Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran, letters from each Member with a congressionally directed spending item in this bill or accompanying report are available on the Internet certifying that neither the Senator, nor his or her spouse, has a pecuniary interest in such spending item.

I am submitting for the Record the certification by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Before yielding to Senator Hutchison, I would like to thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. Also, I would like to thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, for her support and assistance, her knowledge and experience on the subcommittee, and her dedication to veterans and the military have been tremendous assets in developing this bill. I am particularly pleased to bring the bill to the floor today in anticipation of welcoming Senator Johnson back. He is our subcommittee chairman. He will return tomorrow. This bill is a testament to Senator Johnson's tenacity in the face of adversity and to his leadership, even though as he recuperated, he was involved in the process and proceedings and he too shared the deep concerns of the Nation's military families and our Nation's veterans. I am deeply honored to be managing this bill on the floor for him.

I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as thus amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments; and that no points of order be considered waived by this agreement.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Hutchison for her hard work and that of her staff. She has been a very positive and laudable member of the committee. She has vast experience, having served on the committee many years, and has made a major contribution to this legislation, and she should be acknowledged for that contribution.

Mr. President, this is a critically important piece of legislation, and I hope that the Senate will act on it expeditiously. Both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations have urged prompt action on this bill, and the President himself has cited the importance of not delaying crucial funding for our Nation's veterans and military forces.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill funds urgently needed investments in the facilities in which our military forces and their families live and work and train for battle. It also provides funding for the benefits and medical care acutely needed by our Nation's veterans.

The bill before the Senate today provides a total of $109.2 billion in funding, including $64.7 billion in discretionary funds. In all, the discretionary funding is $4 billion over the President's budget request. As Senator Hutchison said, the President is prepared to sign the legislation as it is.

Funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs totals $87.5 billion, of which $44.5 billion is for mandatory programs and $43 billion is for discretionary programs, an increase in discretionary funding of $3.6 billion over the President's budget request.

We have independently determined additional needs for military construction and veterans affairs, and we found a responsible way to meet these additional needs.

More than 70 percent of the increase--$2.6 billion--is for the Veterans Health Administration. This increase will allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to dedicate additional resources to deal with spiraling health care needs for veterans, including the urgent needs of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Chief among needs, in terms of widespread impact, is the treatment of traumatic brain injury and post- traumatic stress disorder.

The extent of these problems among returning veterans--and the strain that the treatment of them is placing on the Veterans health care system--is only now coming to be fully understood. The Defense Department estimates that as many as 30 percent of returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans suffer from traumatic brain injury or post- traumatic stress disorder--or both. This is a startling statistic and a looming crisis that needs to be addressed immediately.

The urgency of this problem was among the top findings cited in the report of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, better known as the Dole-Shalala Commission. The commission's report, which was released earlier this summer, spotlights the need to aggressively prevent and treat post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, including preparing for the long- term consequences of these injuries.

Many of the veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan will require years, if not a lifetime, of medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. And this new influx of veterans is occurring at a time when the veterans from previous wars are aging and requiring substantial increases in medical services as well as long-term care.

It is vital that the Department of Veterans Affairs have adequate resources to address these emerging and unanticipated requirements without draining funds from other needed and high priority programs, such as long-term care for aging veterans.

Unfortunately, for too long, the President's Office of Management and Budget has ignored the financial impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the Department of Veterans Affairs, and has continued to penny pinch the Department's budget.

As a result, the Department of Veterans Affairs has struggled over the past several years--often unsuccessfully--to keep pace with the rising demands for veterans health care. It has been Congress that has had to lead in providing the resources to bail out the Department when its projected health care costs fell abysmally short of the mark. And it has been Congress that has led the effort to provide the Department with more resources for mental health care programs at a time when the requirement for such services is soaring.

I am pleased to report that the bill before the Senate today corrects the deficiencies of the past and provides the necessary investment to guide the Department into the future.

And there is more good news for veterans in this bill. This legislation provides $1 billion over the President's budget request for minor construction and nonrecurring maintenance of veterans hospitals and clinics. Last February--after the President submitted his fiscal year 2008 budget request and after the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center were revealed--the Veterans Affairs Department released a report identifying roughly $5 billion worth of deficiencies in its facilities system-wide. If we do not want to see another Walter Reed horror story in veterans' facilities, we need to move aggressively to correct these deficiencies, and the funding in this bill will allow the Department to do so.

The bill also includes $131 million to hire at least 500 new claims processors to reduce the growing backlog of veterans' disability claims. The Veterans Benefits Administration currently has a backlog of almost 400,000 pending claims, with the average claim taking almost 6 months to process. In testimony before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in March, the GAO highlighted the need for the VA to take steps to reduce the existing backlog of claims and improve the accuracy and consistency of decisions. This bill takes dead aim at correcting those problems.

I know, as all my colleagues do--because we get the calls in our State offices from veterans who need help and have an unusually long time in which their claim is being processed--that sometimes the claims are rejected and have to be resubmitted or are pending

appeals. All of this is going to be corrected, and it is going to help the people who need help, veterans who need access to the veterans system quickly and efficiently, and we hope this bill will do that.

On the military construction side, which is the other major provision in our legislative agenda, the bill provides $21.2 billion. While this is a substantial increase over last year's funding level, it should be noted that more than half of the budget request was to fund the 2005 base realignment and closure program and the President's Grow the Force Initiative. For military construction associated with conventional mission requirements, the budget request, following the trend of the past 5 years, was basically flatlined, but we have two major initiatives--the BRAC of 2005 and the new initiative of the President to increase principally the size of the Army--and those initiatives have required additional funding.

The Senate bill fully funds the President's $8.2 billion request for BRAC 2005 and for his Grow the Force Initiative, and it increases funding for the regular military construction program by nearly $400 million over the President's request. Especially in a time of war, we must not skip on funding the basic infrastructure needed to support our men and women in uniform.

The Senate bill also provides $320 million--that is $100 million over the President's budget request--for the BRAC 1990 legacy program. This goes back to the prior BRAC in 1990.

It is important that the Government keep its commitment to the communities affected by prior BRAC rounds and ensure that environmental cleanup of closed military installations is completed as thoroughly and rapidly as possible. Although it has been nearly 13 years since the last round of closures under the previous BRAC rounds, the backlog and environmental cleanup remains at $3.5 billion. At the current rate, it will take decades to return some of that property to a safe and usable condition. In the meantime, affected communities cannot use much of the land on which these bases sit.

I am particularly pleased that this bill adds $234.6 million above the President's budget request for Guard and Reserve military construction projects. The Guard and Reserve are central components of our Nation's military forces. Yet the President's request for military construction to support these components has been steadily declining. The Senate bill corrects that deficit.

Because of the enhanced scrutiny of earmarks under the requirements of S. 1 and the guidance of Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran, it is important to understand how the military construction portion of this bill is funded. The vast majority of military construction funding is project based. That means Congress cannot correct deficiencies in the President's budget request simply by increasing the top line of individual accounts. Military construction funding is allocated by project and by law. Each and every major construction project must be individually authorized and individually funded. The President's military construction budget request is composed primarily of earmarked projects, and congressional increases to the budget request must also be earmarked for specific projects.

The 2008 Senate bill includes 665 individual earmarks, of which 580 were requested by the President. The staff of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee worked diligently to identify every earmark in the Senate bill. Every Senator was required to submit to the committee both a written request and a letter of financial interest before a request would be considered. Moreover, the military construction title of this bill is developed in close coordination with the Senate Armed Services Committee, and every congressionally directed project in the appropriations bill is authorized in the Defense authorization bill. The process could not be more open and aboveboard.

It has been reported that the Senate bill harbors $6.5 billion in undisclosed earmarks, which comprises the funding for construction projects in the BRAC 2005 account. This characterization reflects an unfortunate misunderstanding of the BRAC account which I am pleased to clarify for the record.

Unlike the regular military construction program, the BRAC account does not require line-item authorization and appropriation for individual projects. Instead, the account receives lump-sum funding from which the Defense Department develops a spending plan to implement the recommendations of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Neither Congress nor the Defense Department has the authority to deviate from the Commission's recommendations. It is the policy of this committee to not earmark or accelerate funding for specific projects within the BRAC account because of the complicated domino effect of closing and realigning facilities among installations. Thus, each of the BRAC 2005 projects identified in the committee report was determined by the administration, in accordance with the BRAC law. The account includes no congressional earmarks.

I regret that due to a lack of understanding of the BRAC process, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill has been used as a poster child for undisclosed earmarks. Such an assertion is inaccurate on its face, but to correct any lingering misconceptions, I have prepared a list of the 189 BRAC 2005 projects that were published in the report accompanying the bill, annotated to show that each project, since it was funded through the President's budget request, was requested by the President.

I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record so there can be no question as to the origin of these projects.

Mr. President, it has been a remarkable process putting this bill together, principally because of the staff of the subcommittee on both sides. I wish to particularly thank Christina Evans, B.G. Wright, and Chad Schulken for the majority, and Dennis Balkham, Chris Heggem, and Yvonne Stone for the minority for their hard work and cooperative effort to produce this bill.

I believe the 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill is an excellent piece of legislation, one that is needed now, not later. It is needed to fund programs that are crucial to our national defense, to the defense of the Nation, and to the well-being of our veterans. I hope and urge that the Senate quickly pass this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 2 p.m. in executive session to continue to receive information relating to the treatment of detainees.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, at 2 p.m., in room 419 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony from the Government Accountability Office on the situation in Iraq.

Mr. President, let me first begin by commending Senators Coleman and Klobuchar for their very aggressive and appropriate response to a crisis in their home State of Minnesota. We were proud, all of us, to join with the Senators in helping their people in the face of great need.

This is interesting, because I rise for the moment to speak about another measure which both Senator Coleman and Senator Klobuchar have joined with me as cosponsors of, and that is the temporary protective status for Liberians. The Presiding Officer, Senator Whitehouse, is also a cosponsor, along with Senators Kerry and Leahy. It is a bipartisan measure. It is in response to a situation where there are thousands of Liberians here legally, but they are in danger of being deported because their status could change by October 1.

The House of Representatives earlier this week passed unanimously by voice vote H.R. 3123, which would extend for 1 year their temporary protected status. In fact, the minority leader, Mr. Blunt, was the key leader in this effort, along with our colleague from Rhode Island, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, and I again thank Senators Coleman and Klobuchar, and all the cosponsors.

The Liberian individuals we are talking about were in the United States in the late 1980s and early 1990s when a brutal civil war broke out in Liberia. They could not go home, and this country granted them protective status. That status, in one form or another, has been continued for now almost 15, 16 years. There are many families of Liberians in this country whose children are American citizens--in fact, who are about on the verge of college or even older.

Today, Liberia has made some progress. It has a democratically elected president. She is a remarkable woman, leading her nation. But, still, it is not a country that is ready to accept individuals who are in the United States, who are part of our community, who have American children, and who are contributing to our communities. We should, I think, give them the opportunity to make a choice of whether they should stay here or go back to their homeland of Liberia.

Every year they face a precipice that comes on October 1, when they worry whether their status will be extended; when they worry whether they will have to leave children behind, give up their jobs, leave their community and be lifted up, literally, to go back to a country which is, quite frankly, not ready to accept them and to use their talents. So each year we have been able to, either through administrative decision or through our efforts here, extend their stay. I urge that my colleagues consider taking up H.R. 3123, and I requested on behalf of my cosponsors a unanimous consent to do that. I am told that on the Democratic side there were no objections, but, apparently, there are some objections on the other side. I want to make it clear to all my colleagues I will renew this request time and time again when we return in September.

We have to act before October 1. It would be unfair, unjust, and unwise not to grant this exemption. It was accepted on a bipartisan basis overwhelmingly in the other body, and I think we should do the same here in the Senate. I urge any of my colleagues who have questions--and I think at this juncture there are many who might have legitimate questions--please, I would be happy to answer them. I would be happy to respond. I believe I can make a compelling case that in terms of fairness, in terms of equity, in terms of recognizing what these individuals have done to contribute to communities all across this country, they should be granted at least 1 more year. This is not a permanent adjustment, this is an additional year.

Let me stress one thing also. We have had a great deal of discussion in this Congress about immigration. These individuals are legally here in the United States, and they have been given the opportunity to work, they pay taxes, and they are not qualified for any social benefits. I am very proud of Rhode Island because we have a large community, relatively speaking, and they have become extraordinarily productive members of our community. So I feel very strongly, and I know my colleague, the Presiding Officer, does, that we are going to do all we can over the several weeks before October 1 to make sure this is adopted; that we follow the other body in doing so. I don't want anyone to mistake my objection to other provisions that are going forward. I am sincerely committed to getting this done. I hope we get it done, and I thank the Presiding Officer for his cosponsorship and leadership.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Co-Teaching Educator Professional Development Act of 2007 to help improve the education of children with disabilities.

A result of the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, is that States, districts, and schools in Rhode Island and nationwide have increasingly begun utilizing a ``co-teaching'' model to make sure that students with disabilities have the highest quality teachers. Co-teaching is a term that describes a general education teacher and a special education teacher jointly teaching students with and without disabilities in the same classroom. Co-teaching ensures that students with disabilities receive not only the special instruction, supports, and services they are entitled to under IDEA, but also are taught the same rigorous academic content as any other students.

However, achieving this is no easy task. Successful co-teaching requires that educators truly work together so their knowledge and skills truly complement one another. At the end of the day that requires that specialized professional development is provided to these teachers.

As such, the Co-Teaching Educator Professional Development Act of 2007 would amend Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act to award competitive grants to school districts to provide high-quality professional development opportunities for general education teachers, special education teachers, principals, and administrators to ensure that these educators have the necessary pedagogical, collaborative, planning, and interpersonal skills to successfully implement a co- teaching model and increase the achievement of students with disabilities. Such professional development training would help teachers, principals, and administrators address diverse learning and student needs; clearly define classroom, teaching, and decision-making responsibilities; develop effective communication, problem-solving, classroom management, and conflict resolution skills; and jointly develop and plan a student's IEP and overall classroom curriculum.

In short, this bill provides teachers, principals, and administrators with the skills and tools to help ensure that children with disabilities receive the

educational assistance and support they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007, to foster the development of a highly skilled and effective teacher workforce capable of improving student achievement in this country.

We are slated to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this Congress for the first time since 2001. The key to this reauthorization will be ensuring that states, districts, and schools are given the resources, tools, and support to improve student learning, including targeted, high-quality efforts to improve a school when it is identified as in need of improvement under the law.

Improving teacher quality is the single most effective step we can take to increase student achievement and turnaround failing schools. Studies have found that 40 to 90 percent of the difference in student test scores can be attributed to teacher quality. Unfortunately, new teachers, not just those in hard-to-staff schools, face such challenging working conditions that nearly half leave the profession within their first 5 years, one-third leave within their first 3 years, and 14 percent leave by the end of their first year.

However, research has shown that offering new teachers comprehensive, multi-year mentoring and guidance cuts attrition rates in half, and helps these teachers become high-quality professionals who improve student achievement. At the same time, we know that experienced teachers also need effective, sustained professional development to maintain and improve their teaching skills.

For these reasons, I am introducing the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007, cosponsored by Senators Murray, Obama, and Brown. This legislation amends Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act to create a new $500 million formula-based program for school districts to provide targeted assistance so teachers in low-performing, high- poverty schools get comprehensive, high-quality multi-year guidance and mentoring for new teachers and systematic, sustained professional development for experienced teachers.

First, this legislation would direct funding to districts with failing schools to help implement a high-quality induction program for teachers throughout at least their first two years of full-time teaching. This intensive support for beginning teachers would incorporate proven strategies such as: rigorous mentor selection; ongoing mentoring with school-protected release time; research-based professional development for mentors and school leaders; and research- based teaching practices, formative assessments, and teacher portfolios. Research has demonstrated that such mentoring for beginning teachers at institutions like the New Teacher Center at University of California, Santa Cruz provides a return on investment, $1.66 for every $1

spent; increases the new teacher retention rate, to 88 percent after 6 years in some California districts; and strengthens beginning teacher effectiveness to such an extent that their students demonstrate learning gains similar to those students of their more veteran counterparts.

Second, the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007 would offer funding for struggling schools to provide their veteran teachers with ongoing professional development and training, including helping such schools develop and implement rigorous curricula aligned to State standards and student needs; design and evaluate assessments; implement strategies to improve student achievement and teacher effectiveness; train teachers, principals, and administrators in effective coaching strategies, analyzing school and student data, and strategies for teaching students with disabilities and English Language Learners; and utilize teacher leaders, coaches, or content experts to support learning and model effective collaboration skills.

This assistance would be tied to a modified definition of professional development based on successful nationwide models such as the National Staff Development Council, with an increased focus on collaboration among teachers, including engaging established teams of teachers to plan and develop instruction across grade level and content area and to evaluate and analyze data on student achievement and learning goals. This professional development would occur multiple times per week during the regular work day, and be supported by school principals through school-based coaches, mentors, or lead teachers who allocate time, resources, and structured facilitation to the learning teams or cohorts.

Lastly, this legislation requires that an external evaluation be conducted of the mentoring and professional development programs authorized and supported under this act. Outcomes would be based on measures such as teacher retention, student learning gains, teacher instructional practice, and parent, family, and community involvement.

We must act on this bill and continue to push for increased Federal investment in improving schools through enhanced teacher quality and professional development. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of meeting the current highly qualified requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, but to take the next step and ensure that each and every classroom in America is taught by an effective teacher. Teachers are the key to student success and student success will in turn keep our country competitive in today's global economy.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007, which will provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, teaching our young people about their natural world should be a priority, and this legislation is an important first step.

For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education. Mr. President, 30 million students and 1.2 million teachers annually are involved in these programs.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. Fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and a lack of funding for these critical programs.

The legislation that I am introducing today would address these two causes. It would provide funding to States to train their teachers in the field of environmental education, and it would provide support for outdoor environmental education programs for children and a model environmental education curriculum. The bill would also create incentives, through new funding, for states to develop environmental literacy plans to make sure students have a solid understanding of our planet and its precious natural resources. Finally, the legislation would reestablish the Office of Environmental Education within the U.S. Department of Education to oversee critical environmental education activities. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups.

The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education ...'' In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future.

Climate change, conservation of precious natural resources, maintaining clean air and water, and other environmental challenges are pressing and complex issues that influence human health, economic development and national security. Finding widespread agreement about the specific steps we need to take to solve these problems is difficult. Environmental education will help ensure that our Nation's children have the knowledge and skills necessary to address these critical issues. In short, the environment should be an important part of the curriculum in our schools.

I know my constituents in Rhode Island, as well as the residents of other States, want their children to be environmentally literate and have a connection with the natural world. I am proud to sponsor this important legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Co-Teaching Educator Professional Development Act of 2007 to help improve the education of children with disabilities.

A result of the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, is that States, districts, and schools in Rhode Island and nationwide have increasingly begun utilizing a ``co-teaching'' model to make sure that students with disabilities have the highest quality teachers. Co-teaching is a term that describes a general education teacher and a special education teacher jointly teaching students with and without disabilities in the same classroom. Co-teaching ensures that students with disabilities receive not only the special instruction, supports, and services they are entitled to under IDEA, but also are taught the same rigorous academic content as any other students.

However, achieving this is no easy task. Successful co-teaching requires that educators truly work together so their knowledge and skills truly complement one another. At the end of the day that requires that specialized professional development is provided to these teachers.

As such, the Co-Teaching Educator Professional Development Act of 2007 would amend Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act to award competitive grants to school districts to provide high-quality professional development opportunities for general education teachers, special education teachers, principals, and administrators to ensure that these educators have the necessary pedagogical, collaborative, planning, and interpersonal skills to successfully implement a co- teaching model and increase the achievement of students with disabilities. Such professional development training would help teachers, principals, and administrators address diverse learning and student needs; clearly define classroom, teaching, and decision-making responsibilities; develop effective communication, problem-solving, classroom management, and conflict resolution skills; and jointly develop and plan a student's IEP and overall classroom curriculum.

In short, this bill provides teachers, principals, and administrators with the skills and tools to help ensure that children with disabilities receive the

educational assistance and support they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007, to foster the development of a highly skilled and effective teacher workforce capable of improving student achievement in this country.

We are slated to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this Congress for the first time since 2001. The key to this reauthorization will be ensuring that states, districts, and schools are given the resources, tools, and support to improve student learning, including targeted, high-quality efforts to improve a school when it is identified as in need of improvement under the law.

Improving teacher quality is the single most effective step we can take to increase student achievement and turnaround failing schools. Studies have found that 40 to 90 percent of the difference in student test scores can be attributed to teacher quality. Unfortunately, new teachers, not just those in hard-to-staff schools, face such challenging working conditions that nearly half leave the profession within their first 5 years, one-third leave within their first 3 years, and 14 percent leave by the end of their first year.

However, research has shown that offering new teachers comprehensive, multi-year mentoring and guidance cuts attrition rates in half, and helps these teachers become high-quality professionals who improve student achievement. At the same time, we know that experienced teachers also need effective, sustained professional development to maintain and improve their teaching skills.

For these reasons, I am introducing the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007, cosponsored by Senators Murray, Obama, and Brown. This legislation amends Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act to create a new $500 million formula-based program for school districts to provide targeted assistance so teachers in low-performing, high- poverty schools get comprehensive, high-quality multi-year guidance and mentoring for new teachers and systematic, sustained professional development for experienced teachers.

First, this legislation would direct funding to districts with failing schools to help implement a high-quality induction program for teachers throughout at least their first two years of full-time teaching. This intensive support for beginning teachers would incorporate proven strategies such as: rigorous mentor selection; ongoing mentoring with school-protected release time; research-based professional development for mentors and school leaders; and research- based teaching practices, formative assessments, and teacher portfolios. Research has demonstrated that such mentoring for beginning teachers at institutions like the New Teacher Center at University of California, Santa Cruz provides a return on investment, $1.66 for every $1

spent; increases the new teacher retention rate, to 88 percent after 6 years in some California districts; and strengthens beginning teacher effectiveness to such an extent that their students demonstrate learning gains similar to those students of their more veteran counterparts.

Second, the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007 would offer funding for struggling schools to provide their veteran teachers with ongoing professional development and training, including helping such schools develop and implement rigorous curricula aligned to State standards and student needs; design and evaluate assessments; implement strategies to improve student achievement and teacher effectiveness; train teachers, principals, and administrators in effective coaching strategies, analyzing school and student data, and strategies for teaching students with disabilities and English Language Learners; and utilize teacher leaders, coaches, or content experts to support learning and model effective collaboration skills.

This assistance would be tied to a modified definition of professional development based on successful nationwide models such as the National Staff Development Council, with an increased focus on collaboration among teachers, including engaging established teams of teachers to plan and develop instruction across grade level and content area and to evaluate and analyze data on student achievement and learning goals. This professional development would occur multiple times per week during the regular work day, and be supported by school principals through school-based coaches, mentors, or lead teachers who allocate time, resources, and structured facilitation to the learning teams or cohorts.

Lastly, this legislation requires that an external evaluation be conducted of the mentoring and professional development programs authorized and supported under this act. Outcomes would be based on measures such as teacher retention, student learning gains, teacher instructional practice, and parent, family, and community involvement.

We must act on this bill and continue to push for increased Federal investment in improving schools through enhanced teacher quality and professional development. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of meeting the current highly qualified requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, but to take the next step and ensure that each and every classroom in America is taught by an effective teacher. Teachers are the key to student success and student success will in turn keep our country competitive in today's global economy.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

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