Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 36: Page 129, after line 21, insert the

following:

Sec. 744. For purposes of the provisions of law amended by

subparagraph (B) of section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform

Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), relating to compensation of

Members of Congress, no adjustment under section 5303 of

title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have

taken effect in fiscal year 2008 in the rates of basic pay

for the statutory pay systems.

Page 129, line 22, strike ``744'' and insert ``745''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Lowey Amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. This amendment is a poison pill that will result in a veto by the President.

The original Mexico City policy, which was emasculated in the Appropriations Committee, prevents U.S. population assistance funds from going to foreign organizations which ``perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.'' This was done to ensure compliance with the long-standing law that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to finance abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. The Stupak-Smith amendment restores the Mexico City policy to its original intent.

On the other hand Mr. Chairman, the Lowey amendment, masks the effort to fund pro-abortion organizations with U.S. tax dollars. This amendment would provide economic support in the form of valuable commodities and other items to organizations that promote and provide abortion as a method of family planning. Additionally, this amendment does not increase USAID funding for contraceptives, as the amendment's supporters have claimed.

In fact, it does nothing to increase contraception and simply diverts contraceptive commodities from organizations that DO NOT promote or provide abortion to organizations that DO promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning.

This ``stealth amendment'' further undermines the Mexico City policy that President Reagan established in 1984. Prior to the implementation of the Mexico City policy by President Reagan in 1984, organizations which support abortion such as Planned Parenthood kept two sets of books in order to qualify for U.S. funds: one tracking the use of taxpayer dollars for services such as family planning counseling and contraception distribution, and another chronicling the use of private organization funds for abortion-related expenses. Mr. Chairman, we all know that money is fungible. Such double bookkeeping ensured that taxpayer dollars for family planning inevitably subsidized abortion by freeing up more private funds for this purpose. The Mexico City policy was adopted to stop this practice.

Mr. Chairman, while President Clinton revoked this policy, it was reinstated by President Bush to ensure American citizens are not forced to pay for a procedure many find morally abhorrent.

Additionally Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues that the President has threatened to veto any legislation that weakens existing pro-life protections. Opposing the Lowey amendment and supporting the Stupak-Smith amendment will ensure that the hard work our colleagues have put into this appropriations bill is not for nothing.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lowey amendment and support the Stupak-Smith Amendment to restore the Mexico City Policy to its original intent.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Molly Lloyd, who has recently retired from my congressional staff after 8 years of dedicated and excellent service to the constituents of the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. With a 1-year-old daughter, Ellie, and 5-year-old daughter, Emma, she and her husband, Mark, are devoting their time to their family, which makes a tribute to her all the more bittersweet. I wish the Lloyds all the happiness in the world as they embark on the next stage of their lives together.

Molly is a lifelong Nebraskan and was born to proud parents Kay and Bob Koozer in Omaha. She graduated from Westside High School in 1991 and attended Hastings College where she earned a bachelor's degree in communications in only 3 years. After college, she worked to elect Mayor Hal Daub for the city of Omaha and served as his director of public affairs until 1997. I was fortunate to gain her as a member of my congressional staff upon my election in 1998.

In fact, although people in the community criticized me for hiring someone so young to become the director of my Omaha office, their criticisms were soon silenced as her talents and her commitment to selfless public service became obvious to the entire community. Her strong leadership skills and fierce dedication to conservative principles have served my office well.

Molly knows her hometown inside and out and is an active member of the community, including volunteering and advocating for causes and organizations such as the Joslyn Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, and as a founder of the Leadership Circle to help the next generation of women leaders enter public service. Despite her departure from our Omaha office staff, we know Molly will continue to do great things for the betterment of our State and community.

I appreciate Molly's friendship, and I respect her dedication and invaluable contributions over the past eight years. I trust Molly will succeed in all her future endeavors. I am proud to call her a friend and to congratulate and honor her today for all that she has accomplished. I wish her many blessings and much happiness as she begins this new part of her life. Although I am tremendously sorry to see her leave our office, her young daughters will now be privileged to receive the full-time benefits of her extraordinary talents.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Wynn amendment to the Energy & Water Appropriations bill.

Contrary to statements in the Energy & Water Committee Report questioning the level of hydrogen technology research and development, fuel cells technology is much closer than 2050.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation took 60 years from the first Wright Brothers flight to putting a man on the Moon; it will not take us that long to make hydrogen fuel cells mainstream. Hydrogen cars and fueling stations exist; we are almost there. The funding levels in the Fiscal Year 2008 Energy & Water appropriations bill will help provide the final push we need to overcome remaining obstacles and see hydrogen cars and fueling stations become a reality.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, Hydrogen Fuel Cells are already in use in larger facilities. In my own District, the Henry Doorly Zoo uses fuel cells to generate electricity for its Lied Jungle exhibit, making it more energy efficient. Additionally, the U.S. Air Force is using fuel cell technology for its Global Observer program.

Mr. Chairman, energy security and independence have to become a reality. Hydrogen is a potentially limitless supply and a renewable, clean resource that deserves to be funded at its current level, if not more.

Mr. Chairman, let me first say I support this 1 percent, just like I did last year and the year before. Just to make sure that the American public understands, this is 1 percent off of the nearly 5 percent increase. So it isn't even a reduction from last year's number of 1 percent. It is simply shaving 1 percent off of the increase.

I came down here because I heard some of the speakers on the other side, or at least one, that was talking about they had to correct the problems of the Republicans spending like drunken sailors, which kind of amazed me considering that the debate on the House floor in the last 2 years on appropriations was how we weren't giving enough money.

When I looked up to see what the Republican bill was last year when we were in the majority, it was a 1.5-percent increase versus the nearly 5 percent this time. So they are up here talking about an increase of about 2\1/2\ times, maybe three times what we originally proposed last year. And by the way, I supported the 1 percent when it was only a 1.5-percent increase below the rate of inflation. I think that is the type of drunken spending that the American taxpayers told us in the last election that they did not want. They want that type of fiscal restraint, not two or three times the rate of inflation. They want fiscal responsibility injected back into our reasoning and the bills that we are passing.

So I think a reduction of this 4.5-, 4.7-percent increase is simply the responsible thing to do.

The gentleman from Georgia, I appreciate you bringing this 1 percent. I think that this is something that the voters, strike voters, the American public thinks we should be doing this year. We come off the heels last week of voting for bills with double-digit increases. So this is a time to inject some reasonableness.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to reduce the size of this bill, the cost of this bill.

I have got to tell you I grew up in the late 1970s. I remember pretty distinctly the policies of Jimmy Carter. I remember the high unemployment rates. I remember the high inflation rates.

I recall getting my driver's license and getting that 1970 station wagon to drive and waiting in a line for gas two blocks long; and when you got there, there was one pump yet working and the others had the 11 by 8 piece of paper that said ``out of gas'' on it. I think those are the policies which some of my friends on the left are advocating today. I just have to openly wonder how well Honda Civics would work in the sand in Iraq if we can't use military vehicles because of their gas mileage.

But let's get back to the real issue of what we're talking about here today, and that's ways of controlling spending. Yes, it is showing a difference between the majority party and the minority party in the sense of spending.

We are here fighting to reduce the size of their bill. We would like to bring it to last year's level where it was only a 1.6 percent increase, and they were yakking about how we needed to spend more, and when they got in control, they were able to do that.

They have a bill here before us today that increases the spending way above the President's request. This amendment just simply brings it down, $1.13 billion to the President's request. So either way we can fight to reduce the size of their bills, and last week's bill. Again, they were both double-digit increases.

I think this type of debate is healthy. It also does show, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, that there are policy differences. There are priority differences between the two parties, and we are showing how we are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this amendment.

As a member of the Energy Committee, I want to debunk a couple of myths that have been perpetrated today in the debate. First of all, that this was done hastily and thoughtlessly. The fact of the matter is the issue of the transmission of electricity has been an issue for many years. Many hearings have been held, much debate. It was part of the Energy Act. What we have to do is resolve the issue how we get energy from generator A to consumer B. In between we have to figure out how to do that.

Myth number two is that this runs roughshod over States' and communities' rights. The reality is that they are involved in the process. They are involved in working with FERC, and FERC has to work with them on the siting issues. And only when there is a conflict do they get to break that conflict by rising above it.

We in this Nation have to figure out how we get electricity from point A to consumer B. Think of this corridor as a transportation highway. And when we think of it as a highway, we understand why we have to do it this way.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your patience as some of us exercise our frustration and try and make a point or two. And I want to commend the gentlelady from Virginia for offering this amendment to cut $1.241 million from the Office of General Counsel and the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account from the fiscal year 2008 level that's being proposed here.

It would still be an increase, but there's two areas that I want to highlight with my frustration, and one is, with an overall level of antagonism and kind of vitriolic partisanship that's occurring here, and I think a lot of it's a frustration or results from our frustration.

For example, in the last year or so, as our friends in the now majority, then minority, were bringing up and talking about how we were spending so much and that we were out of control, and I've got to tell you, I voted against some of our appropriation bills because I thought that they were too high.

The interesting part is when people in my district would come up, having bought into this rhetoric, I said, but you don't understand that we're fighting with them every day to keep it as low as it is. I said, if they're in charge, just wait.

Well, here we are with the first bill, and it's a 13.6 percent increase over last year's appropriation. And we had a speaker up here earlier that talked about building that base. You increase it 13.6, and then next year, when you increase it 13.6, just the exponential increases in the budget.

When you look at those that we passed last year, we are barely above the inflation rate in these discretionary accounts, but yet we were criticized by the now majority for being too ``spendy.''

So I see the irony, and most of it was, you know, we tried to tell people last year that this is just their campaign nasty rhetoric. But it seems odd to me that just their first bill they're going to increase it so dramatically.

Now, I'll tell you another area of my frustration was coupled with the criticism from the now majority last year about earmarks and the process. And we passed a bill last year that altered the process for earmarks, and it was one that I thought was very appropriate because it dealt with earmarks by spreading sunshine on the process. And I really believe that sunshine is always the best disinfectant. So we adopted a process that embraces sunshine. What it means is that somebody had to have ownership for an earmark request, and that the earmark request had to go through what we would deem regular order, which means you submit it to the appropriations subcommittee staff, then I would go and testify in front of that subcommittee on my earmark; we could have give and take and an intellectual conversation about that, and it would be then voted upon by that subcommittee, which would then raise up to the committee level where that earmark or that Member request would then be reviewed again.

The most important part of the process is when you get it out of the appropriations arena and bring it to the House floor where everyone can then see it and determine whether or not there should be an amendment to strike that particular provision from the appropriation bill. This is when everyone then gets to be part of the process of making sure that it's a valid, well, whatever is determined to be valid, but whether it's not, you know, a rainforest in Iowa City or some type of pet project like that.

I remember last year we voted probably almost on every appropriation bill at least a dozen amendments to strip out these type of really pet projects that just really didn't mean much for the Nation, but certainly may have meant something for a neighborhood. Now, most of those failed, although I voted in favor of most of them.

I move to strike the last word.

I do appreciate the gentleman's secondary or second-degree amendment. The good chairman stood up and gave an eloquent argument about what the primary and secondary amendment is not about. But what it is about, in my opinion, is the hypocrisy in two different areas, the hypocrisy of having boards out front of their offices talking about the mounting debt and then the first appropriation bill increasing the discretionary spending by 13.6 percent. Then, also, the hypocrisy of talking about a culture of corruption and how it spills over to earmarks.

Well, the way to cure that is transparency. The first appropriation bill out of the block hides them so we can't debate them on the House floor. That's what this is about. This is why we're upset and coming to the floor and discussing this issue. I'm very frustrated with this process of hiding these earmarks.

Well, they are not being hidden, they are just not being included in this bill so they can be dropped in at a later date, at a time when we don't have an opportunity to review them and determine them on an individual basis, the merits or lack of merit for any specific project listed. That's atrocious.

What's mostly atrocious and frustrating and hypocritical about it is the fact that these folks campaigned on reforming that, and they were the ones to throw out all the good forms of transparency so they can hide them from us.

That's wrong, and that's why we're down here. That's why we're down here, to show our frustration with blowing the lid off the spending now

and hiding these earmarks at a time when the people want to know what we're doing with earmarks here. They want them to stop. At the very least, they want to make sure that they're valid ones and not Members' pet projects.

Now, the gentleman from North Carolina with the second-degree amendment, you indicated you wanted to expand what Chairman Price mentioned as well.

I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you for your explanation. I think, coming here with amendments that cut the amount of this bill, even if we can reduce it from 13.6 to 13 percent or down to something reasonable like the rate of inflation, 2 or 3 percent or 4 percent, then at least that puts it in the realm of what's reasonable. But this hypocrisy is just really frustrating me.

Yes. I did not submit any.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I come here today with the common sense and hopefully consensus amendment that directs USAID to give priority to organizations based in the United States when awarding grants to NGOs to rebuild Afghanistan.

The experience and expertise of U.S. organizations in public institutions to rebuild Afghanistan should be utilized and recognized by USAID. It's also a fact that when people of Afghanistan see Americans helping to rebuild their schools and providing teachers and helping their economy, that a true and positive perception of our Nation increases.

My straightforward amendment states that USAID should give priority consideration to U.S.-based organizations that have a proven track record of assisting young nations like Afghanistan to educate its children and teach them skills that will lead to economic growth and revitalization.

The Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska's Omaha campus is a great example of a proven institution, experienced institution, in providing cost-effective services to Afghanistan, as well as other nations,

that has experience in administering programs within Afghanistan, and teaching the people of Afghanistan, and yet were not considered to be a subcontractor with USAID.

There are undoubtedly many more examples of expertise and assistance from United States programs dedicated to the betterment of nations and their citizens. It seems only right that USAID give priority to U.S. organizations with established records of service and success.

I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for his instructive input, advice, counsel and kind words and acceptance of the amendment.

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

Offered By: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 6: Page 303, line 4, strike ``and''.

Page 303, after line 4, insert the following:

(B) in the first sentence, by inserting after ``less than

one'' the following: ``or two, as determined by the board of

directors of the appropriate Federal home loan bank,''; and

Page 303, line 5, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the introduction of The ALS Registry Act of 2007 by my colleague Eliot Engel of New York and myself. A similar bill introduced in the 109th Congress, H.R. 4033, garnered the support of 215 of our colleagues, nearly 50 percent of the members of the House of Representatives. Today, we are joined by 80 additional original cosponsors in this effort.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal, progressive, neurodegenerative disease affecting motor nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. Approximately 5,600 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, each year. It is estimated that as many as 30,000 Americans have the disease. The average life expectancy for a person with ALS is 2 to 5 years from the time of diagnosis. There is no known cure for ALS.

There is currently no single national patient registry which collects and stores information on the prevalence and incidence of ALS in existence in the United States. The establishment of a national registry will help identify the occurrence and frequency of ALS and other motor neuron disorders and collect data which is badly needed for ALS research, disease management and the development of standards of care in order to significantly enhance the nation's efforts to find a treatment and cure for ALS.

All diseases bring hardships on those afflicted, but ALS is particularly cruel in the quickness of the onset, the severity of the symptoms and the fatal nature of the condition. The provisions in our bill creating a nationwide registry for persons afflicted with ALS are important steps forward in strengthening the efforts to understand, treat and one day eradicate this terrible disease. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the ALS Registry Act and I am proud to join my friend Mr. Engel in bringing forward this important legislation.

Offered By: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 1: Title II, subtitle C, add at the end the

following:

Mr. Speaker, I hope the American public sees the irony in the votes that we are going to take this afternoon and evening. Before us now we are going to take a vote to pull out of Iraq immediately. Then, right after that, we are going to take a vote to fund the troops so they can stay a while.

So I guess the only difference between the House Democrats today and Senator Kerry a year ago, where he voted for Iraq before he voted against Iraq, is that our friends get to do it all in the same day.

Now, the other irony that I thought was interesting today is that we had a visitor, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, that was coming here with a message of what is really going on in Iraq. And he met with a group of us this morning in HC-9, separated only by a thin wall to the caucus that was occurring with our friends from the other side of the aisle where they were plotting the strategy of how to get out of Iraq.

I think it shows one of the differences between the two parties where we are meeting with the government officials on how to get them stood up, how do we strengthen the government there so they can take over their own operations without falling to the al Qaeda; at the same time, our friends are plotting on the other side to pull out and abandon them.

I think the day is just full of ironies, and I hope that the general public gets to see those today.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition.

This is a rather simple and focused amendment that recognizes that our Homeland Security Department has had difficulties communicating to its partners. My Governor called me last year when the press showed up in his office and wanted an answer about a grant and no one had notified the Governor's office. We contacted the National Governor's Association, NGA, and found out that this is a very deep and epidemic problem with our Department of Homeland Security.

So all that we are asking in this amendment is that in regard to grants that affect the State, that the State be put into the communication loop so when reporters show up at their office asking for comment, they actually know what the reporters are talking about.

I think it is egregious that reporters get to be notified sooner than the grant recipient or the State that was denied the grant.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, with that very articulately stated and persuasive argument, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 1: At the end of title XI add the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Let me say from the outset: I am strongly opposed to violent crimes committed against an individual, regardless of the motivation of the person committing it. That is why I support strong state and local prosecution measures to curb violent crime and increase safety in our communities. In fact, I am a principal supporter in Congress for increasing Federal funding for state and local law enforcement officers to curb gang and drug crimes, which often leads to violent crimes.

I have also spent considerable time in my district meeting with groups who have experienced discrimination or have been targets of violent behavior simply due to their race, religion or sexual orientation. The concerns they have raised with me have weighed heavily on my mind, and have caused me to reconsider my views on our Constitution's Tenth Amendment.

In the past, I have not supported Federal hate crimes legislation since it has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local prosecutors rather than the Federal Government. States have the right to apprehend and prosecute criminals under their own criminal codes, which must be respected. They also have the right to enhance penalties as they see fit, and many states have taken that step. My own state of Nebraska enacted comprehensive hate crimes legislation in 1997.

The Nebraska legislation authorizes judges to impose harsher penalties in criminal cases when a determination is made that the crime was committed due to the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability or because of his or her association with persons who fit the specified classifications. The enhanced penalties for hate crimes provided for in the statute would be the next highest penalty classification above the one statutorily imposed for the crime, with the death penalty as the only exception. A broad variety of criminal charges could be enhanced, including manslaughter, assault, terroristic threats, stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual assault of an adult or child, arson, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. Our state statutes also provide victims with the authority to bring civil actions against attackers.

The actions taken by Nebraska and so many other states are appropriate because the states have the ability to expand their criminal codes as each sees fit. At the same time, there is no Federal nexus and thus no need for duplicative Federal legislation.

The Tenth Amendment is clear: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' At some point, we have to stop federalizing every problem in the country, no matter how large or small. When the states are addressing a problem effectively, there is

no need for the Federal Government to add an extra layer of bureaucracy. Crime and punishment, with few exceptions, are in the purview of state legislative authority. I am unwilling to interfere with that constitutional balance, no matter how worthy the underlying subject matter might be. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 1592.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007.

This bipartisan legislation will benefit nearly one million disadvantaged children nationwide

by expanding Head Start's focus on school readiness. Low-income children will be taught key early learning skills such as alphabet, number, color and shape recognition to help them succeed in their school years.

This bill also opens poor-performing Head Start programs to greater public scrutiny and needful competition. Triennial program reviews by the Federal government and independent investigation by the Government Accountability Office have revealed that some Head Start programs operate with Federal tax dollars despite chronic financial mismanagement, health and safety concerns, and poor community involvement.

H.R. 1429 would help remedy this situation by requiring Head Start programs to demonstrate active partnerships with local school districts to ensure smooth transitions for children into kindergarten. Poor- performing programs would be opened to competition every 5 years. Annual disclosures of financial information and greater participation of parents in the decisions of Head Start governing boards will also make a difference.

I have personally seen the benefits of partnering local school districts with Head Start. Several years ago, a long-standing Head Start program serving 1,000 children in Douglas County, Nebraska was transferred to the control of the Omaha Public School District to end long-standing financial mismanagement and safety concerns for children.

Omaha Public Schools went the extra mile by partnering with EduCare, an outstanding private preschool program that involves the entire family, emphasizes best practices, and focuses on early learning skills to help disadvantaged children succeed in school and life.

EduCare was created by Susie Buffett and currently serves 239 children from Omaha families living below the poverty level. Families must either work, be in job training, or attending school to qualify. Enrollment is free, with costs covered by the Nebraska Department of Education, Omaha Public Schools, the Department of Health and Human Services and private sources.

EduCare has a low child-to-adult ratio: three infants per adult, and six preschoolers per adult. Bachelor level staff members are trained in early childhood education, and the program contains strong academic components to help children succeed in school, including limited english proficiency children.

Buffett has said: ``We look at the whole entire family, not just the child.'' Parents are directed to community resources to improve home life, such as food shelters and Christmas toy drives. Single mothers are helped with transportation and job searches.

Prelimary evaluation data indicates that the EduCare program is making a significant difference in the lives of children. Upon entering the program, children's language, literacy and social emotional areas of development are assessed. Most children initially score in the borderline range of development. Annual assessment results have shown the majority of participating children gained more vocabulary words in the course of the school year than one would expect based on maturity.

By the time they transitioned to kindergarten, EduCare's children were scoring very close to the national average. Standardized assessments of children's literacy and kindergarten readiness skills show similar results. Because research has shown children's vocabulary and pre-literacy skills to predict later school success, every Head Start program should help children reach such strong learning potential while addressing the short and long-term needs of the child's family. EduCare is an incredible success story in the lives of low-income children.

I also want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a provision of this bill to protect Head Start for children of military families. The privatization of military housing created an artificial raise in a military family's income, making their children ineligible for Head Start. H.R. 1429 would disregard the Basic Housing Allowance from a family's income when determining Head Start eligibility. Servicemembers protecting our freedom need not worry about their children's continued access to Head Start.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we can go even further in the future to strengthen the academic emphasis in Head Start and give states and excellent programs such as EduCare a greater ability to improve the lives of low-income children and their families. H.R. 1429 makes good progress in this direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Montgomery G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 2007 to eliminate the burdensome enrollment fee that prevents more of our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from gaining a college education.

Today's military members are consummate professionals meeting the difficult challenges of their service with courage, skill and expertise. Obtaining a college education is critical to expanding their expertise to better serve the United States and the cause of freedom. However, the current $100 monthly enrollment fee required for participation in the Montgomery G.I. Bill could prevent young enlisted military families from furthering their education.

More than half of the enlisted men and women in our armed forces have family responsibilities that limit their income choices. Currently, only 3.9 percent of enlisted active-duty members of the armed forces have a bachelor's degree, compared to 86.6 percent of the officers' corps. The $100 per month enrollment fee required for participation in the G.I. Bill sets up an unnecessary barrier to educational opportunities for enlisted military families trying to make ends meet and care for their children.

I have heard from current and former military members, public housing organizations, and groups advocating on behalf of military families that enlisted military members at pay grades E-5 and below would most benefit from the elimination of the $1,200 annual enrollment fee.

For these families who struggle to meet their basic needs and the needs of their children, an additional $1,200 each year will have a significant impact on the family budget. The legislation I am introducing today will allow servicemembers to utilize G.I. Bill education benefits to improve their family's circumstances and their future career opportunities.

This legislation would help improve military families' quality of life by ensuring the G.I. Bill continues to provide realistic and relevant educational opportunities to servicemembers defending our country.

The G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 2007 would accomplish two critical goals: Eliminate the $1,200 G.I. Bill enrollment fee for active duty servicemembers at pay grades E-5 and below, and allow all servicemen and women serving on active duty to opt into the G.I. Bill with no penalty or enrollment fee.

This is an issue of fundamental fairness. The men and women serving our country in wartime should not have to choose between the long-term benefits of the G.I. Bill and the short-term demands of their paycheck.

This legislation will provide tremendous benefits to our Nation. The G.I. Bill is one of the greatest investments ever made by the American people in our economy and the lives of young men and women who selflessly serve in the military. The ``Greatest Generation'' servicemembers who returned home from WWII and received a higher education under the G.I. Bill became our Nation's entrepreneurs, teachers, doctors and community leaders.

R.C. Thompson, a former Commanding Officer of Top Gun, and a former Commander of a carrier airwing in Afghanistan, said: ``This legislation would send a great signal to our young men and women in uniform that our Nation is unified behind them, and our sense of purpose remains strong. I was fortunate to receive my education through the G.I. Bill, and I know that $100 a month is a lot of money to a young married person serving overseas. This legislation will enable them to do a lot of good for their families when they return home.''

I urge my colleagues to join me in improving opportunities for our servicemembers and their families by cosponsoring the Montgomery G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 2007.