Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about changing our Senate rules by a simple majority vote. That is what we did last week.

Mr. President, as you know, the new classes that came in in your year and the year after have worked on these rule change issues, and the last 2 years, I have been working to find a way for the Senate to break through the gridlock and to function on behalf of the American people, to focus, as we are doing with this bill, on jobs for the American people.

Last week, the Senate took the step of changing our rules with a simple majority vote. This was done in accordance with the Constitution, article I, section 5. The Senate has done this on many occasions in the past, and, like those previous rule changes, the action taken last week was not intended to destroy the uniqueness of the Senate but, instead, to restore the regular order of the body.

I applaud the majority leader for getting us back on track. The Senate should be focused on the jobs agenda of the American people, and Majority Leader Reid has put us on the right path. He may be forced to do this again, but it is important that he stay focused on that agenda and all of us stay focused on the jobs agenda of the American people.

At the beginning of this Congress, I, along with Senators Harkin and Merkley, tried to do that. Ultimately, our success was limited. We didn't achieve the broad reforms we wanted . . . but we did initiate a debate that highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the rules, and resulted in a ``gentleman's agreement'' between Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell.

There was some hope that the agreement would encourage both sides of the aisle to restore the respect and comity that is often lacking in today's Senate. Unfortunately however, that agreement rapidly deteriorated and the partisan rancor and political brinksmanship quickly returned.

What unfolded last Thursday in this chamber is yet another example of what this body has become. The Senate had invoked cloture on the Chinese currency bill, thus limiting further debate on the measure to 30 hours. It was at this point Republicans moved to offer a potentially unlimited number of nongermane amendments to the bill.

Each of these amendments would have required a suspension of the Senate rules, meaning the approval of 67 Senators rather than 60, in order to consider them. This was not an effort to improve the bill but simply a procedural strategy to score political points and force votes on unrelated legislation. Majority Leader Reid raised a point of order that motions to suspend the rules post-cloture were dilatory, which was rejected by the Chair. A majority of Senators then voted to overturn the decision of the Chair, thus changing the precedent and limiting how amendments can be considered once cloture is invoked.

As expected, many of my Republican colleagues called last week's action by the majority a power grab and ``tyranny of the majority.'' They decried the lack of respect for minority rights. I agree: We must respect the minority in the Senate. But respect must go both ways. When the minority uses their rights to offer germane amendments, or to extend legitimate debate, we should always respect such efforts. But that is not what we have seen. Instead, the minority often uses its rights to score political points and obstruct almost all Senate action. Instead of offering amendments to improve legislation, we see amendments that have the sole purpose of becoming talking points in next year's election.

It is hard to argue that the majority is not respecting the traditions of the Senate, when the minority is paralyzing this body purely for political gain.

During the debate over rules reform we had in January, many of my colleagues argued that the only way to

change the Senate rules was with a two-thirds supermajority. As we saw last week, that's simply not true. Some call what occurred last week the ``constitutional option,'' while others call it the ``nuclear option.'' I think the best name for it might be the ``majority option.''

As I studied this issue in great depth, one thing became very clear-- Senator Robert Byrd may have said it best during a debate on the floor in 1975 when he said, ``at any time that 51 Members of the Senate are determined to change the rule . . . and if the leadership of the Senate joins them . . . that rule will be changed.''

We keep hearing that any use of this option to change the rules is an abuse of power by the majority. However, a 2005 Policy Committee memo provides some excellent points to rebut this argument. And just to be clear, these citations are from a Republican Policy Committee memo.

Let me read part of the Republican memo:

This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S.

Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always

had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power

to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote.

Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option

in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents

changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress.

And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules

after the constitutional option had been threatened,

beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in

1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a

longstanding feature of Senate practice.

The Senate, therefore, has long accepted the legitimacy of

the constitutional option. Through precedent, the option has

been exercised and Senate procedures have been changed. At

other times it has been merely threatened, and Senators

negotiated textual rules changes through the regular order.

But regardless of the outcome, the constitutional option has

played an ongoing and important role.

The memo goes on to address some ``Common Misunderstandings of the Constitutional Option.''

One misunderstanding addressed a claim we heard last week that, ``The essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the constitutional option is exercised.''

The memo rebuts this by stating:

When Majority Leader Byrd repeatedly exercised the

constitutional option to correct abuses of Senate rules and

precedents, those illustrative exercises of the option did

little to upset the basic character of the Senate. Indeed,

many observers argue that the Senate minority is stronger

today in a body that still allows for extensive debate, full

consideration, and careful deliberation of all matters with

which it is presented.

Changing the rules with a simple majority is not about exercising power but it is about restoring balance. There is a fine line between respecting minority rights and yielding to minority rule. When we cross that line, as I believe we have many times in recent years, the body is within its rights to restore the balance.

This is not tyranny by the majority, but merely holding the minority accountable when it abuses the rules to the point of complete dysfunction. Neither party should stoop to that level.

Many of my colleagues argue that the Senate's supermajority requirements are what make it unique from the House of Representatives, and other legislative body around the world. I disagree. If you talk to the veteran Senators, many of them will tell you that the need for 60 votes to pass anything is a recent phenomenon. Senator Harkin discussed this in great detail during our debate in January and I highly recommend reading his statement.

Senator Leahy raised the issue on the floor last week when he said;

I keep hearing this talk about 60 votes. Most votes you win

by 51 votes, and this constant mantra of 60 votes, this is

some new invention.

I think this gets at the heart of the problem. We are a unique legislative body but not because of our rulebook. Complete gridlock and dysfunction can't be what our Founders intended. Rather than a body bound by mutual respect that moves by consent and allows majority votes on almost all matters, we have become a supermajoritarian institution that often doesn't move at all.

With the tremendously difficult economic circumstances facing this country, the American people cannot afford a broken Senate. They are frustrated. And they have every right to be. This is not how to govern, and they deserve better. Both sides need to take a step back and understand that what we do on the Senate floor should not be about setting up the next Presidential election or winning the majority next November but about helping the country today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Executive Summary of The Constitutional Option.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, this week President Obama stood beside Israel and the cause of peace when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly. I rise today to also stand beside our ally and friend, Israel, and the goal of its two-state solution. I firmly believe that only a two-state solution can lead to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.

Unfortunately, we are heading down a path that will not lead to a lasting peace. Involvement by the U.N. General Assembly will not lead to a solution but will act as a disruptive force. I urge the parties to use the time in New York to begin a constructive dialog toward agreement on final status issues. If peace is to be achievable, then we must break through the cycle of failure that has too often plagued negotiations. U.N. action will not resolve the issues acting as a roadblock to peace.

It is important also to note, as the President stated, that peace will not come until each side ``learns to stand in each other's shoes.'' Each party must realize the other's aspirations, because their futures are intricately intertwined. No action at the United Nations can remove or change what is an essential fact. For Israel, the two- state solution will enable its people to enjoy a secure and peaceful future. For the Palestinians, the goal of nationhood can only occur through negotiations with Israel.

I believe the President is making a good-faith attempt to realize and understand the aspirations of each party, while standing firm with our friends. The central reality is this: We will only recognize a Palestinian state as part of an agreement that leads to a lasting peace. This is in the best interests of Israel, the Palestinian people, the United States, and the international community.

There is no time like the present to restart the hard work needed to achieve a lasting peace. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently pressed on the urgent need to return to negotiations in an op- ed in the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

While I don't agree with everything the Prime Minister wrote, I do believe he was especially correct about one point:

I truly believe that a two-state solution is the only way

to ensure a more stable Middle East and to grant Israel the

security and well-being it desires. As tensions grow, I

cannot but feel that we in the region are on the verge of

missing an opportunity--one that we cannot afford to miss.

He concludes in his piece:

Now is the time. There will be no better one. I hope that

Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas will meet the challenge.

I also hope that today both parties sit down in New York and avoid the disruption that will be caused by a vote in the United Nations.

Exhibit 1

Peace Now, or Never

(By Ehud Olmert)

Jerusalem.--As the United Nations General Assembly opens

this year, I feel uneasy. An unnecessary diplomatic clash

between Israel and the Palestinians is taking shape in New

York, and it will be harmful to Israel and to the future of

the Middle East.

I know that things could and should have been different.

I truly believe that a two-state solution is the only way

to ensure a more stable Middle Est and to grant Israel the

security and well-being it desires. As tensions grow, I

cannot but feel that we in the region are on the verge of

missing an opportunity--one that we cannot afford to miss.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, plans to make a

unilateral bid for recognition of a Palestinian state at the

United Nations on Friday. He has the right to do so, and the

vast majority of countries in the General Assembly support

his move. But this is not the wisest step Mr. Abbas can take.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has

declared publicly that he believes in the two-state solution,

but he is expending all of his political effort to block Mr.

Abbas's bid for statehood by rallying domestic support and

appealing to other countries. This is not the wisest step Mr.

Netanyahu can take.

In the worst-case scenario, chaos and violence could erupt,

making the possibility of an agreement even more distant, if

not impossible. If that happens, peace will definitely not be

the outcome.

The parameters of a peace deal are well known and they have

already been put on the table. I put them there in September

2008 when I presented a far-reaching offer to Mr. Abbas.

According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be

solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory

equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip

with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account

the new realities on the ground.

The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas

would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods

would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would

declare sovereignty over the city's holy places; they

wouldn't be administered jointly with the United States.

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within

the frame-work of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new

Palestinian state would become the home of all the

Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the

homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be

prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on

humanitarian grounds.

Because ensuring Israel's security is vital to the

implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would

be de-militarized and it would not form military alliances

with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight

terrorism and violence.

These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas,

and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr.

Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult

decisions.

We Israelis simply do not have the luxury of spending more

time postponing a solution. A further delay will only help

extremists on both sides who seek to sabotage any prospect of

a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution.

Moreover, the Arab Spring has changed the Middle East, and

unpredictable developments in the region, such as the recent

attack on Israel's embassy in Cairo, could easily explode

into wide-spread chaos. It is therefore in Israel's strategic

interest to cement existing peace agreements with its

neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.

In addition, Israel must make every effort to defuse

tensions with Turkey as soon as possible. Turkey is not an

enemy of Israel. I have worked closely with the Turkish prime

minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In spite of his recent

statements and actions, I believe that he understands the

importance of relations with Israel. Mr. Erdogan and Mr.

Netanyahu must work to end this crisis immediately for the

benefit of both countries and the stability of the region.

In Israel, we are sorry for the loss of life of Turkish

citizens in May 2010, when Israel confronted a provocative

flotilla of ships bound for Gaza. I am sure that the proper

way to express these sentiments to the Turkish government and

the Turkish people can be found.

The time for true leadership has come. Leadership is tested

not by one's capacity to survive politically but by the

ability to make tough decisions in trying times.

When I addressed international forums as prime minister,

the Israeli people expected me to present bold political

initiatives that would bring peace--not arguments outlining

why achieving peace now is not possible. Today, such an

initiative is more necessary than ever to prove to the world

that Israel is a peace-seeking country.

The window of opportunity is limited. Israel will not

always find itself sitting across the table from Palestinian

leaders like Mr. Abbas and the prime minister, Salam Fayyad,

who object to terrorism and want peace. Indeed, future

Palestinian leaders might abandon the idea of two states and

seek a one-state solution, making reconciliation impossible.

Now is the time. There will be no better one. I hope that

Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas will meet the challenge.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of H.R. 2646, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2943, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 27 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S. Con. Res. 29, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the matter be placed in the Record as if read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 248 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the matter be placed in the Record as if read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from the following resolutions en bloc, and the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc: S. Res. 273 and S. Res. 261.

I ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 276, S. Res. 277, S. Res. 278, S. Res. 279, S. Res. 280, and S. Res. 281, which were submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 1619 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of tribal education; an issue of great importance to Indian Country, but one that does not receive the attention it should from the rest of the nation.

Native students' academic outcomes show the worst achievement gaps in the country. Graduation rates for American Indians and Alaska Natives are lower than the graduation rates for all other racial and ethnic groups. American Indian and Alaska Native students have a lower average score in reading than other students. Sadly there's been little improvement to these statistics over the past 80 years.

I hear often from many of the tribal school districts in my State, and the issues they face in providing quality education to their students are numerous. Aging infrastructure badly in need of renovation. Difficulties in recruiting trained, Native teachers and administrators. Chronic underfunding and late payments of Impact Aid. The failure of No Child Left Behind requirements to address tribal needs and learning styles especially related to language and culture. All are impediments to the goal of improving educational outcomes of Native American youth.

To try and help address these issues, I rise today to introduce the Building upon the Unique Indian Learned and Development, or BUILD, Act. This legislation is an important step towards improving the conditions and teaching for Native American students.

In general, our Nation's schools are aging and in a state of disrepair. But this is especially true of BIE schools, where over half of the almost 4,500 education buildings are over 30 years old, and more than 20 percent are more than 50 years old. It is reprehensible that any child is being subjected to learning conditions that are literally a danger to them. Although education construction has improved dramatically over the last few years, the deferred maintenance backlog is still estimated to be over $500 million and increasing annually. How can we expect our students to succeed academically when we fail to provide them with a proper environment to achieve success?

That is why the BUILD Act includes a School Facility Innovation Contest, which would allow students and faculty who learn and work in these old school buildings, as well as engineering and architecture students and faculty nationwide to propose creative ways to improve tribal school facilities through a national competition. It is time for bold, new ideas to renovate or replace these old facilities, and there's no one better to contribute than those who use the buildings most often, and some of the brightest architectural and engineering minds in the country.

In addition to infrastructure needs, a major concern is the achievement gap of Native American students. So many of them are not reaching their academic potential. These students need to be inspired and shown the possibilities in their future. One way to do so is to expose them to successful members of their own communities and cultural backgrounds. These kids must have role models, mentors, and teachers, from their community and culture. Unfortunately, today, while American Indians are 11 percent of the student population, less than 3 percent of their teachers, counselors or principals are also Native American.

New Mexico has already developed some programs to increase the pipeline for Native American teachers and leaders, both in its tribal colleges and non-tribal colleges. These local programs are models for what can be expanded in New Mexico and nationwide. We need many more programs growing local leaders to meet the needs of the tribal schools.

For example, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute offers an Early Childhood Associate Degree program, which works closely with the surrounding tribal communities to meet the Office of Head Start standards for certified Early Childhood educators in their classrooms.

New Mexico State University offers an American Indian Education Doctoral Program in its College of Education, where the majority of students stay to work in NM.

The University of New Mexico offers an Institute for American Indian Education to encourage upper-level Native American undergraduates to consider teaching, and helps paraprofessionals from tribal communities receive their teaching certification. In addition, it offers Native Language teachers professional development and training for language revitalization and immersion style teaching.

At the Zuni Pueblo's ``Grow your Own'' program, started in 1980, tribal members attend Saturday school to produce Zuni-certified teachers, meeting the state's alternative certification.

Research tells us that with incentives, we can increase the number of effective Native teachers and leaders in public and tribal schools. And all of these programs are a great example of it.

But more must be done, which is why the BUILD Act seeks to provide these incentives and expand the pipeline for Native American students to become teachers, principals and administrators. Strong classroom teachers and school leadership must be developed, not left to chance.

In addition to Native American students learning from Native American teachers and mentors, learning in their own language and culture has been shown to improve academic outcomes. Schools can succeed when they promote and maintainan overall educational climate that values and respects Native language and culture, and make the curriculum relevant to Native students' lives. Native American children who are proficient in their native language have higher proficiency in English and lower dropout rates.

My bill would strengthen language and culturally based education by allowing tribal leaders and elders to teach Native language in schools. School districts in New Mexico are piloting programs like these.

For example, the Mescalero Apache Schools developed a Native Language K-12 Curriculum aligned to New Mexico State Standards where tribal members are teaching in the school system.

The Central Consolidated School District is the first public school in the State to implement a language Immersion Program/Model in Navajo language.

The Pueblo of Jemez has created an Education Collaborative by coordinating effort between Tribal, Public, Charter and Bureau school educators and administrators to align curriculum and transitions from one school to the next, while supporting and honoring the Jemez language, culture and traditions.

Also related to this, the BUILD Act reauthorizes the Esther Martinez Act for native language immersion programs, and allows standards, assessments, and teaching strategies to accommodate diverse culture and language learning needs.

Last but not least, the BUILD Act calls for both full and forward funding of Impact Aid. Forward funding so that tribal school administrators will know before the school year begins what resources they have for salaries, for maintenance and utilities, and for supplies. Full funding so that school districts receive the funds they need to provide a quality education to all children.

For many of these local school districts responsible for educating children connected to federal land, Impact Aid represents the basic funding that supports their schools. Yet, Impact Aid appropriations have not matched the loss in property taxes that these communities would otherwise have been able to use to support their local schools. Impact Aid construction and facilities funds have been redirected to basic support, resulting in school buildings deteriorating and in such poor condition that no parent could expect their child to learn in them. Years of not fully funding Impact Aid has resulted in Indian Treaty Land school districts with insufficient resources to meet Average Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind, including the difficulties to retain highly qualified teachers and purchase adequate computer equipment to educate its children, and an inability to renovate existing facilities and maintain adequate transportation fleets.

In developing the BUILD Act, I worked closely with many tribes, Indian Educators, and Indian institutes of higher education and am happy to have the support from many of them. Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, Institute of American Indian Arts, Navajo Technical College, the NM Indian Education Advisory Council, the National Indian Education Association, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and National Association of Federally Impacted Schools have all endorsed the BUILD Act. I would like to thank them for their support and collaboration.

I would also like to thank Senator Akaka, my chairman on the Indian Affairs Committee, with whom I worked to include many of these provisions in the Native CLASS Act, which he introduced this past June. The Native CLASS Act is important legislation that will improve the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by including provisions to strengthen tribal control of education for Native American students through relationships between tribes and local education agencies and greater parental involvement with school districts; by providing alternatives to detention programs for at-risk Indian children; and by providing for alternative licensure and other incentives to increase the number of skilled native language teachers.

I look forward to working with Senator Akaka and the rest of my colleagues to ensure that the provisions and ideas in the BUILD Act and Native CLASS Act are reflected in any ESEA Reauthorization legislation. Native American children are the future of their communities and our nation. They deserve equal access to resources, teachers, and safe schools. Unfortunately, to date, they have not been getting this. It is long past time for us to do something about it.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of tribal education; an issue of great importance to Indian Country, but one that does not receive the attention it should from the rest of the nation.

Native students' academic outcomes show the worst achievement gaps in the country. Graduation rates for American Indians and Alaska Natives are lower than the graduation rates for all other racial and ethnic groups. American Indian and Alaska Native students have a lower average score in reading than other students. Sadly there's been little improvement to these statistics over the past 80 years.

I hear often from many of the tribal school districts in my State, and the issues they face in providing quality education to their students are numerous. Aging infrastructure badly in need of renovation. Difficulties in recruiting trained, Native teachers and administrators. Chronic underfunding and late payments of Impact Aid. The failure of No Child Left Behind requirements to address tribal needs and learning styles especially related to language and culture. All are impediments to the goal of improving educational outcomes of Native American youth.

To try and help address these issues, I rise today to introduce the Building upon the Unique Indian Learned and Development, or BUILD, Act. This legislation is an important step towards improving the conditions and teaching for Native American students.

In general, our Nation's schools are aging and in a state of disrepair. But this is especially true of BIE schools, where over half of the almost 4,500 education buildings are over 30 years old, and more than 20 percent are more than 50 years old. It is reprehensible that any child is being subjected to learning conditions that are literally a danger to them. Although education construction has improved dramatically over the last few years, the deferred maintenance backlog is still estimated to be over $500 million and increasing annually. How can we expect our students to succeed academically when we fail to provide them with a proper environment to achieve success?

That is why the BUILD Act includes a School Facility Innovation Contest, which would allow students and faculty who learn and work in these old school buildings, as well as engineering and architecture students and faculty nationwide to propose creative ways to improve tribal school facilities through a national competition. It is time for bold, new ideas to renovate or replace these old facilities, and there's no one better to contribute than those who use the buildings most often, and some of the brightest architectural and engineering minds in the country.

In addition to infrastructure needs, a major concern is the achievement gap of Native American students. So many of them are not reaching their academic potential. These students need to be inspired and shown the possibilities in their future. One way to do so is to expose them to successful members of their own communities and cultural backgrounds. These kids must have role models, mentors, and teachers, from their community and culture. Unfortunately, today, while American Indians are 11 percent of the student population, less than 3 percent of their teachers, counselors or principals are also Native American.

New Mexico has already developed some programs to increase the pipeline for Native American teachers and leaders, both in its tribal colleges and non-tribal colleges. These local programs are models for what can be expanded in New Mexico and nationwide. We need many more programs growing local leaders to meet the needs of the tribal schools.

For example, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute offers an Early Childhood Associate Degree program, which works closely with the surrounding tribal communities to meet the Office of Head Start standards for certified Early Childhood educators in their classrooms.

New Mexico State University offers an American Indian Education Doctoral Program in its College of Education, where the majority of students stay to work in NM.

The University of New Mexico offers an Institute for American Indian Education to encourage upper-level Native American undergraduates to consider teaching, and helps paraprofessionals from tribal communities receive their teaching certification. In addition, it offers Native Language teachers professional development and training for language revitalization and immersion style teaching.

At the Zuni Pueblo's ``Grow your Own'' program, started in 1980, tribal members attend Saturday school to produce Zuni-certified teachers, meeting the state's alternative certification.

Research tells us that with incentives, we can increase the number of effective Native teachers and leaders in public and tribal schools. And all of these programs are a great example of it.

But more must be done, which is why the BUILD Act seeks to provide these incentives and expand the pipeline for Native American students to become teachers, principals and administrators. Strong classroom teachers and school leadership must be developed, not left to chance.

In addition to Native American students learning from Native American teachers and mentors, learning in their own language and culture has been shown to improve academic outcomes. Schools can succeed when they promote and maintainan overall educational climate that values and respects Native language and culture, and make the curriculum relevant to Native students' lives. Native American children who are proficient in their native language have higher proficiency in English and lower dropout rates.

My bill would strengthen language and culturally based education by allowing tribal leaders and elders to teach Native language in schools. School districts in New Mexico are piloting programs like these.

For example, the Mescalero Apache Schools developed a Native Language K-12 Curriculum aligned to New Mexico State Standards where tribal members are teaching in the school system.

The Central Consolidated School District is the first public school in the State to implement a language Immersion Program/Model in Navajo language.

The Pueblo of Jemez has created an Education Collaborative by coordinating effort between Tribal, Public, Charter and Bureau school educators and administrators to align curriculum and transitions from one school to the next, while supporting and honoring the Jemez language, culture and traditions.

Also related to this, the BUILD Act reauthorizes the Esther Martinez Act for native language immersion programs, and allows standards, assessments, and teaching strategies to accommodate diverse culture and language learning needs.

Last but not least, the BUILD Act calls for both full and forward funding of Impact Aid. Forward funding so that tribal school administrators will know before the school year begins what resources they have for salaries, for maintenance and utilities, and for supplies. Full funding so that school districts receive the funds they need to provide a quality education to all children.

For many of these local school districts responsible for educating children connected to federal land, Impact Aid represents the basic funding that supports their schools. Yet, Impact Aid appropriations have not matched the loss in property taxes that these communities would otherwise have been able to use to support their local schools. Impact Aid construction and facilities funds have been redirected to basic support, resulting in school buildings deteriorating and in such poor condition that no parent could expect their child to learn in them. Years of not fully funding Impact Aid has resulted in Indian Treaty Land school districts with insufficient resources to meet Average Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind, including the difficulties to retain highly qualified teachers and purchase adequate computer equipment to educate its children, and an inability to renovate existing facilities and maintain adequate transportation fleets.

In developing the BUILD Act, I worked closely with many tribes, Indian Educators, and Indian institutes of higher education and am happy to have the support from many of them. Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, Institute of American Indian Arts, Navajo Technical College, the NM Indian Education Advisory Council, the National Indian Education Association, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and National Association of Federally Impacted Schools have all endorsed the BUILD Act. I would like to thank them for their support and collaboration.

I would also like to thank Senator Akaka, my chairman on the Indian Affairs Committee, with whom I worked to include many of these provisions in the Native CLASS Act, which he introduced this past June. The Native CLASS Act is important legislation that will improve the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by including provisions to strengthen tribal control of education for Native American students through relationships between tribes and local education agencies and greater parental involvement with school districts; by providing alternatives to detention programs for at-risk Indian children; and by providing for alternative licensure and other incentives to increase the number of skilled native language teachers.

I look forward to working with Senator Akaka and the rest of my colleagues to ensure that the provisions and ideas in the BUILD Act and Native CLASS Act are reflected in any ESEA Reauthorization legislation. Native American children are the future of their communities and our nation. They deserve equal access to resources, teachers, and safe schools. Unfortunately, to date, they have not been getting this. It is long past time for us to do something about it.