Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED. 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. REED

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

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

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED. 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. REED. 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. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me begin by commending Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley and their colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Rockefeller, for extraordinary work. This effort represents great legislating based upon principled compromise to achieve a noble objective, which is to provide health coverage to the children of America. I can't think of a more laudable effort than that which has been led and spearheaded by both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. They deserve our praise and our support. I am here today to lend my support to the expansion of the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, to support this endeavor which is so critical to the health of the country, literally and figuratively. It is not only a sensible policy in terms of investing in children, it is also morally compelling. What more lofty objective can we have than to give children access to health care, to be able to grow up in this country knowing they can receive medical attention when they need it? We are in a situation now where, remarkably, the Nation's level of poverty is growing. It is higher now than it was in 1970. We have not had a President since Lyndon Johnson try to tackle this issue head on. This bill recognizes that there are families who don't have the resources to buy health insurance, but they have a claim as Americans and as citizens to at least have their children covered. I hope we can do that by passing this legislation. It is estimated there are 37 million Americans in poverty, 13 million of whom are children. These are not merely statistics; they are our neighbors in every State in the Union. They are youngsters who we hope one day will grow up healthy and strong to participate not just as workers in this economy but as productive citizens of this great land. To do that they need access to health care. We also know that children without access to health care fare very poorly in school and have difficulties. These difficulties become more and more complex, and they compound over the years. In fact, one of the strongest arguments for this legislation is that it makes sense as an investment. It is better to pay now rather than later, in terms of social disruption and serious health problems. That is something I hope even the most hard-nosed colleague in the Senate will appreciate. One of the consequences of this issue of growing poverty and the bifurcation of income between the rich and the rest of us in what we all consider to be the ``land of opportunity,'' sadly, is that opportunity is not as evident or as palpable as it was in the past. One of the great engines of opportunity for any individual, in addition to education, is health and the ability to seize these opportunities-- work, education, and service to others. Again, I think this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. We have to do more. We have to recognize there are families who are working two jobs--mothers and fathers working 50, 60, 70 hours a week-- and still they don't have the resources necessary to pay for the increasing cost of health care for their children or themselves. They are squeezed between paying the rent, providing food for the family, and are looking, many times, for ways to cover the cost of health care for their children. I am very proud to have been one of the original cosponsors of CHIP in 1997. We were fortunate in Rhode Island to have on the Finance Committee Senator John Chafee, who was one of the leading advocates of the program. As Senator Grassley suggested, this program was crafted with a bipartisan effort in 1997, and one of the great leaders in that was John Chafee. In many respects, we are here today--both of us--to renew his commitment to the children of America. Over the past decade, this program has been an unequivocal success. It has reduced the number of low-income uninsured children in this country. It has done what it said it would do, and it has done it well. In Rhode Island, we have a combined Medicaid/CHIP program called RIteCare. Our program has been instrumental in reducing uninsured children, and it made a difference for hard-working families in my State. While this program made great strides, there is still much more work to be done. I want to take a few moments to address some of the issues raised about the Senate Finance Committee agreement and talk to some of the points raised in this Chamber criticizing that agreement. I believe this agreement is not only sound policy, but it addresses a major concern in the country. The proposal before us would achieve several key objectives supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. First, it preserves coverage for all 6.6 million children presently covered under the CHIP program. Second, it renews the original intent of the program by making a real commitment to cover an additional 3.2 million children who are eligible for coverage but not enrolled. These two important goals are achieved by allocating $35 billion over 5 years. The original program was financed through the Federal cigarette excise tax, and the proposal before us continues to use this mechanism. The bill also addresses a problem with the formula that was beginning to plague a growing number of States, including my State of Rhode Island. Last December, I joined a number of my colleagues in crafting an agreement to redistribute unexpended funds from some States and redirect them to States, such as Rhode Island and Georgia and New Jersey, that were rapidly approaching budget shortfalls because they exceeded their CHIP allotment. The Finance Committee, recognizing this issue, has made a proposal that institutes needed changes in the formula used to calculate State CHIP allotments so Congress is not required to resort to eleventh hour deals to shift money from one State that hasn't used it to other States. That is an important change to the legislation. The bill sets aside a portion of funds in case of contingencies, such as what was experienced during Hurricane Katrina. Lastly, the bill tackles a challenge that States have been struggling with since the CHIP program began 10 years ago; that is, reaching children who are uninsured and eligible for coverage but are not enrolled. The bill provides incentive funds and flexibility for States to overcome the many economic, social, and geographic barriers that hinder millions of uninsured children who deserve health insurance coverage. My home State of Rhode Island is a perfect case in point. While Rhode Island ranks 10th nationally in the lowest number of uninsured children--we are very proud of that; in fact, we would like to move up in the ranking from 10 to 1--a recent report by Rhode Island Kids Count indicates that of the estimated 18,680 uninsured children in the State, 11,275 of them were eligible for children's health insurance coverage but were not enrolled. We should enroll all eligible children; that should be our goal. We have to reach these children and, frankly, this legislation will help States become more proactive and successful in enrolling children. There has been criticism directed at the bill. Let me take a moment to respond to some of the criticism. There has been concern about the cost of the package. I understand that alternative versions of the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization will be offered by others in the Chamber during this debate. Some of these bills will have very enticing names, like Kids First, but we should not be fooled by it. The substance of these amendments does everything but put kids first. It won't even maintain the minimum coverage that we have today. Some of the 6.6 million children who are enrolled today will lose out in these alternatives. Rather than expanding coverage, it will contract coverage. We don't want to head in the other direction; we want to move forward. Similarly, others have balked about the $35 billion price tag. I remind my colleagues that our Senate budget resolution allocated $50 million for children's health insurance coverage. The Senate Finance Committee, the chairman and ranking member, labored mightily and came up with the best possible proposal they could get through the committee, and it is a principled proposal. I salute it. But I was disappointed that the committee left on the table $15 billion that could have been used to insure more children. I have joined Senator Kerry in his amendment to restore it. Again, in terms of our budget priorities, the proposal before us today is even less than what was supported in the budget resolution. For those who say it is too expensive, that suggests this hasn't been very carefully considered and indeed it was, unfortunately, somewhat winnowed down. Perhaps the most poignant reference is that, while we were talking about $35 billion over 5 years for children's health, we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. That says a lot about how we have to begin to reshape our priorities. I don't believe we are spending too much on children when it comes to this particular legislation. Some have expressed displeasure over using the Federal cigarette excise tax to finance the package. The bill would gradually raise the tax 61 cents, up to $1, over a 5-year period. This is consistent with the original financing mechanism for the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997. But there is something else interesting here. Cigarette smoking has been identified for decades as one of the chief public health problems in this country, particularly when children start doing it. It is a threat to the health of the Nation, and I doubt if there is anyone in this Chamber who has not had at least one family member's health affected adversely by smoking. I listened to Senator Enzi speak passionately in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week about his father's smoking, which led to his demise, and it also affected his mother. When you raise the price of a product, you curtail the amount of it that is purchased. We are using market forces to help us do something that we should do: reduce the rate of cigarette smoking. Using market mechanisms in this way, not only to raise resources for health insurance for children, but to lower the number of people who engage in smoking will save public health dollars that are being spent to care for people who have lung cancer, emphysema, and other respiratory diseases caused by smoking. There is another concern that has been raised, which is that the agreement grossly expands the CHIP program to parents and childless adults, when in fact the bill does quite the opposite. The bipartisan agreement actually ends the administration's practice of providing States waivers to cover parents and childless adults. To date, 14 States have received waivers to cover parents and childless adults, including my State of Rhode Island. In fact, Secretary Leavitt just approved a 3-year extension of Wisconsin's waiver allowing adult coverage. Frankly, I believe that States deserve the ability to take these steps. I am disappointed that more States won't be able to do it. This bill acts as a check on that administrative authority. It deliberately, at this time, restricts the number of parents and childless adults who can join this coverage. As my colleague, Senator Menendez, mentioned earlier, research shows a strong correlation between parental coverage and the enrollment of eligible children. Once again, the policy behind enrolling parents is sound. But this bill, rather than grossly expanding parental coverage, begins to restrict that coverage. Under the agreement, States with existing coverage expansion waivers will be given a period of transition, and no new States will be granted the opportunity to extend coverage under CHIP. This seems like a reasonable response to these concerns, but I hope as we go forward we might be able to look at the logic behind parental coverage policies as a way to ensure that the whole family-- particularly children--are covered. The proposal also rightly grants States the option to cover pregnant women. Good prenatal care is essential to overall child health and well-being, as well as reducing the number of low birth weight and premature babies. Given the fact that the United States is actually behind most developed countries, and even some developing countries, in terms of these indicators, this step is certainly warranted and overdue. Finally, Members seem to have great consternation over the fact that children's health coverage produces some level of crowding out of private insurance coverage, and the bill is a giant step toward Government-run health care. Again, the rhetoric seems to be at odds with the reality of what is in this bill. I note that most enrollees in public insurance are actually covered through private plans, where States take the money and reimburse the private insurer. The Finance Committee proposal takes the additional step of including something called premium support. It essentially gives States the ability to offer subsidies for children who are eligible for CHIP coverage but have access to employer-sponsored coverage. In my State, we have had this experience. We have a program called RIteShare. The program has enabled thousands of Rhode Island families who otherwise could not afford to remain in private insurance coverage to do so with a little help from the State. It is a marginal contribution to their private health insurance, which allows them to stay in the private market. This proposal, again, goes a long way toward addressing the issue of potential crowding out. I believe this bipartisan agreement represents a very strong step forward to facilitate outreach and enrollment of low-income children. It is not a perfect legislative proposal, but it is an important one based on principled compromise. It reinforces our commitment to children's health. I am amazed the President is already suggesting he might veto it, despite overwhelming public support, and despite the compelling economics that are behind investing in children's health. I hope that we will by our votes demonstrate that this is a bill which should not be vetoed but should be passed quickly so children can continue to enjoy access to health care in our country. We all understand that our future is really about our children. They will be the leaders years from now, and we all hope and wish that they will grow up strong, able to seize the opportunities of this Nation. Beyond hoping and wishing today, we can help make that a reality by voting for this important legislation. I urge all my colleagues to join me in doing so. Finally, I would like to take another moment. As colleagues, we come to the floor, we debate issues and legislation we have sponsored, but the details are worked out by staff members long into the wee hours of the morning. We read speeches prepared by very dedicated staff members. I have the rare privilege of saluting someone who has worked with me for so many years. Lisa German Foster has been with me since January 1996 when I joined the Senate. She is leaving to pursue other endeavors. She started in my office as an unpaid intern and has become recognized here as one of the preeminent staffers with respect to health care issues and one of the most decent and humane individuals one will ever meet. I salute her for her work on this bill, on child health and immunization, on the bone marrow registry, on tobacco legislation. She is a native of my home State of Rhode Island, in Narragansett, but I think she is firmly ensconced in Washington, DC, with her husband Bill and children Aidan and Brady. Lisa, on behalf of all of us here, thank you for your good work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I request time from the Democratic side.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Gerrity, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Senate consideration of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, with a heavy heart, I recognize an American patriot and public servant who passed away on July 17, 2007: GEN Wayne A. Downing, U.S. Army, Retired. Born on May 10, 1940, in Peoria, IL, General Downing graduated from the Spalding Institute in 1958 and was then appointed to the U.S. Military Academy. Following his graduation from West Point in 1962, General Downing served two combat tours in Vietnam as a junior infantry officer. General Downing served his country for 34 years in a variety of command assignments in infantry, armored, special operations, and joint units, culminating in his appointment as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. As a general officer, he commanded the special operations of all services during the 1989 invasion of Panama and commanded a joint special operations task force operating deep behind the Iraqi lines during Operation Desert Storm. General Downing's reputation was that of a smart, decisive, forceful, and caring leader, known in particular for his unwavering determination to accomplish any mission assigned and provide his soldiers the best possible support. His personal courage and leadership by example inspired fierce loyalty from all the soldiers who worked for him. Following his retirement from the U.S. Army in 1996, General Downing had repeatedly answered the call of public service. After the terrorist attack on the U.S. base at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, he was appointed by President Clinton to assess the attack and to make recommendations on how to protect Americans and U.S. facilities worldwide from future attacks. From 1999-2000, General Downing was a member of the congressionally mandated National Commission on Terrorism charged with examining the terrorist threat to the U.S., evaluating America's laws, policies, and practices for preventing and punishing terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, and recommending corrective actions. In the wake of 9/11, General Downing served for almost a year in the White House as national director and deputy national security advisor for combating terrorism. As the President's principal adviser on matters related to combating terrorism, he was responsible for coordinating the military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, information, and financial operations of our war on terror, and for developing and executing a strategy that integrated all elements of national power. Following his assignment at the White House, General Downing returned to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point when he assumed the position of ``Distinguished Chair'' of the Combating Terrorism Center, CTC. Under his leadership, the center sought to better understand foreign and domestic terrorism threats, to educate future leaders, and to provide political analysis and advice to counter future terrorist activities. In addition to his duties at the CTC, General Downing was a visiting faculty member at the University of Michigan Business School conducting seminars on leadership and transformation management and was military and terrorism analyst for NBC News. General Downing's career has epitomized the phrase ``lifetime of service to the Nation'' and exemplified ideals inherent in duty, honor, and country. He was a true warrior who always spoke the truth, insisted on complete honesty from all he worked with, and was the epitome of honorable behavior. As a combat leader, educator, global strategist, and national security expert, General Downing's contributions to our national defense and security are immeasurable. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Kathryn, his daughters Laura and Elizabeth, and the entire Downing family in this time of sorrow. He will be missed dearly by his many friends, colleagues, and an extremely grateful Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, on behalf of the Greek Cypriot population of Rhode Island and Greek Cypriots around the world, I recognize the 33rd anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. At 5:30 a.m. 33 years ago today, heavily armed Turkish troops landed on a narrow northern beachhead in Cyprus 5 days after Greek Cypriot nationalists ousted then-President Archbishop Makarios. The invasion and subsequent occupation was described by Turkey as a ``peace operation'' to protect the minority Turkish population living in Cyprus from being victimized in the aftermath of the coup. However, during the next 2 months, over 200,000 Greek Cypriots fled south or were expelled by Turkish forces. The Turkish Cypriots took over 37 percent of the island and then called a ceasefire, leaving the Greek Cypriots, 82 percent of the population, with under two-thirds of Cyprus. In 1983, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus declared itself a country. Currently, Turkey is the only nation that recognizes this self-declaration of statehood. Despite international efforts over the last 30 years to reunify the island, Cyprus has remained divided with more than 40,000 Turkish troops occupying its northern third. The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly have worked to determine an equally agreeable solution, but talks between the Greek Cypriot south and the Turkish Cypriot north consistently end in a stalemate. A survey completed in February 2007 by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus found that a majority of both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities view the United Nations' presence on the island as a positive. Both see any withdrawal scenario involving the U.N. departing before restoration of normal conditions and a settlement being reached as a negative. We must applaud the continued efforts of the United Nations and the focus of Cypriot leaders to reunite a divided Cyprus and remain, ourselves, committed to ushering the settlement process forward. Cypriot, Mediterranean, and United States interests will benefit from a settlement that addresses all legitimate concerns of both sides and promotes the stability of a hostile region. Sirens wailed across the southern half of Cyprus today, in memory of the day known as ``black anniversary'' among the Greek Cypriots. Cypriot leaders, on both sides of the divide, must take forward steps to wash away the darkness of this day and replace it with peace and tolerance.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, due to the delay of my flight, I was unavoidably absent for vote No. 285, the vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 976. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on the motion to proceed. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Senate will consider this year. It is the first reauthorization of the highly successful Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. I am proud to have been a part of the original bipartisan effort to create this initiative back in 1997. While some on the other side of the aisle will criticize the Finance Committee agreement pending before this Chamber, no one can deny CHIP has played a crucial role in helping to reduce the rate of uninsured low-income children over the past 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the number of uninsured children fell from 22.5 percent in 1996 to 16.9 percent in 2005 due in large part to CHIP. I look forward to a vigorous and spirited debate on this bill, and I am dedicated to working very closely with my colleagues to ensure the Senate will advance a reauthorization bill that reaffirms our commitment to health insurance coverage for children in Rhode Island and around the country.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe A Book Act. Our legislation amends the No Child Left Behind Act to create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long- standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants to highly qualified nonprofit entities to train doctors and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to five years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading. The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of the 40 Rhode Island Reach Out and Read sites. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Prescribe A Book Act and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe A Book Act. Our legislation amends the No Child Left Behind Act to create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long- standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants to highly qualified nonprofit entities to train doctors and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to five years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading. The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of the 40 Rhode Island Reach Out and Read sites. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Prescribe A Book Act and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe that securing our Nation's public transportation systems is one of the most pressing homeland security issues facing our Nation. Over 180 public transportation systems throughout the world have been primary targets of terrorist attacks. In 2001, as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, I held the first hearing on transit security in the wake of September 11. The hearing took place early in the 107th Congress so I am saddened that it has taken us this long to enact legislation to protect our transit systems. I am pleased, however, that tonight we are prepared to pass the conference report to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, including the transit security measures that I authored. While our Nation acted quickly after 9/11 to secure airports and airplanes against terrorists, major vulnerabilities remain in surface transportation. Transit agencies around the country have identified in excess of $6 billion in transit security needs. Transit is vital to providing mobility for millions of Americans and offers tremendous economic benefits to our Nation. In the United States, people use public transportation over 33 million times each week day compared to 2 million passengers who fly daily. Paradoxically, it is the very openness of the system that makes it vulnerable to terrorism. When one considers this and the fact that roughly $7 per passenger is invested in aviation security, but less than 1 cent is invested in the security of each transit passenger, the need for an authorized transit security program is clear. We need to be more vigilant to protect public transit from terrorists. As a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I was proud to author with Senators Dodd and Shelby comprehensive legislation to protect our public transportation systems and the Americans that they serve. Title XIV of The Improving America's Security Act of 2007 authorizes $3.5 billion in grants to transit agencies for capital and operational costs. It also establishes an essential security training program for public transportation employees who are at the front lines of preventing terrorist acts. The act allows the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland Security to determine which federal Department will distribute the grant funding. I urge the Secretaries and the administration to place responsibility for the grant program with the Department of Transportation and make this decision promptly. It is my opinion that this will result in the effective and efficient administration of the program for local transit agencies. Taking action to protect our public transportation systems is long overdue. I am pleased to support the Improving America's Security Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of S. 1642, the Higher Education Amendments of 2007. This important bipartisan legislation, which I helped craft as a Member of the Senate Education Committee, would reauthorize the Higher Education Act for the first time since 1998, expand college access and affordability for students and their families, and ensure that teachers have the necessary skills and supports to effectively raise student achievement in the classroom. This bill builds on our passage last week of the Higher Education Access Act, which makes a nearly $14 billion investment in additional need-based grant assistance for low-income students. That bill also helps middle-class students and families pay down and manage their loan debt by capping monthly loan payments at 15 percent of their discretionary income. And it sends a signal about the need for more talented young people to become nurses, teachers, and librarians by offering them loan forgiveness if they continue in public-service professions for 10 years. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill aimed at making it easier for families to fill out the financial aid form that all students have to fill out to see if they can get tuition assistance. I called the bill the FAFSA Act, Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act. It is based on the recommendations of experts and should help make a sometimes difficult process less time consuming and frustrating. First, it would phase out the complex, one-size-fits-all long form at 7 pages and over 90 questions, using the savings to employ ``smart'' technology to create a tailored online application form to ensure that students answer only the minimum number of questions necessary. Second, the bill would establish a short paper EZ-FAFSA application form, similar to the IRS's 1040-EZ, for the lowest-income students. Third, this legislation allows students to apply for financial aid earlier, and it creates a pilot program to test an early application system under which students apply for aid and receive an aid estimate or determination in their junior year of high school. I am pleased that these provisions are included in the bill the Senate is passing today. The Higher Education Amendments of 2007 also include provisions from another bill that I introduced earlier this year, the ACCESS Act. Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships Act--S. 938, modeled on successful programs like Indiana's 21st Century Scholars Program. Indeed, students in the Indiana initiative were nearly five times more likely than nonparticipants to enroll in college. The ACCESS Act creates a new incentive under the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program to spur states to form partnerships with colleges, businesses, and philanthropies to increase the amount of need-based grants. This new initiative would also make sure that students are aware of this opportunity for more aid in the 7th grade and provide early intervention, mentoring, and outreach services so they can stay on track for college. Again, research has shown that successful college access programs offer these components, and I am glad the bill before us includes them. Furthermore, the Higher Education Amendments include several provisions from my PRREP--Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals--Act, S. 1231, to strengthen the existing Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program and improve college teacher preparation programs. These provisions ensure that prospective and beginning teachers, including for the first time, early childhood educators, have effective teaching skills, intensive, year-long pre- service clinical experiences, and high-quality, sustained multiyear mentoring and support in their first years of teaching. Too often, new teachers lack this kind of training and leave the profession. This bill aims to change that. This legislation also includes my LIBRARIAN--Librarian Incentive to Boost Recruitment and Retention in Areas of Need--Act, S. 1121, to provide Perkins student loan forgiveness for full-time librarians with a master's degree in library science. Librarians working full-time in low-income areas would qualify for up to 100 percent Perkins student loan forgiveness depending on their number of years of experience. Indeed, a love of reading and books is essential to an educated workforce, but too often schools go without a trained librarian. We hear often that serving in the military permits our military personnel to gain help with the costs of college when they leave the service, but all too often it is not enough. That is why I included language in this bill to increase Perkins loan forgiveness for members of the Armed Forces from 50 to 100 percent. The legislation also includes provisions I authored to create a career pathway for students with disabilities by providing training and support to middle school, high school, and university staff to encourage interest and understanding of educational and work-based opportunities for students, including those with disabilities, in disability-related fields. I am also pleased this reauthorization bill includes provisions responding to recently uncovered conflicts of interests between lenders and college financial aid offices. This legislation provides students and families with increased disclosure about special arrangements between lenders and colleges and the terms and conditions of a school's ``preferred lender list''; prohibits payments, gifts, and other inducements from lenders to colleges and financial aid administrators; and requires colleges to establish and follow a student loan code of conduct. The bill we are passing today is significant legislation that addresses one of the top concerns of American families. It tackles the twin goals of increased college access and affordability for students and their families as was intended when the Higher Education Act was created in 1965. It represents an important step in ensuring that every student with the drive and talent to go to college has the opportunity to do so. I thank Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi, and their staffs, particularly Carmel Martin, J.D. LaRock, Missy Rohrbach, Erin Renner, and Emma Vadehra for their excellent work on this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this important bill becomes law, so that we continue our commitment to creating and expanding educational opportunities for all students.