[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 38 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1602-S1607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
  S. 565. A bill to establish an employment-based immigrant visa for 
alien entrepreneurs who have received significant capital from 
investors to establish a business in the United States; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to support the StartUp Visa Act of 
2011, as the leading Republican cosponsor, because I believe this 
legislation will increase the possibility that companies such as 
Google, Intel, Yahoo and Proctor & Gamble--which were all started 
completely or in part by immigrant entrepreneurs--will continue to be 
founded in America. This legislation will help immigrant entrepreneurs 
like Paroon Chadha, Purdue University alumnus and cofounder of a 
company that currently employs more than two dozen American-born 
Hoosiers and continues to grow--as demonstrated by plans to hire four 
additional staff members in April 2011. Paroon and I believe America 
remains the best country in the world to do business and that we should 
continue attracting immigrant entrepreneurs to help drive innovation 
and job creation here at home.
  At a time when our country struggles to achieve full economic 
recovery, foreign-born entrepreneurs who wish to establish companies 
and create jobs in the United States, often with the financial backing 
of American investors, are instead operating from other countries 
because they find the process of immigrating to the U.S. too difficult. 
The logic of our current approach places America at a competitive 
disadvantage in the global race to attract the very best talent and is 
counterproductive to our national interest.
  According to a 2009 survey of American entrepreneurs conducted by the 
Kauffman Foundation, an overwhelming majority of the participants felt 
that ``the United States cannot have a sustained economic recovery 
without another burst of entrepreneurial activity.'' Over the past 15 
years, immigrant entrepreneurs have started 25 percent of venture-
backed public companies and 40 percent of companies in the high 
technology sector. A 2007 report commissioned by the National Venture 
Capital Association noted that the market capitalization of publically 
traded venture-backed companies founded by immigrant entrepreneurs 
exceeded $500 billion.
  The StartUp visa represents a commonsense solution to this problem 
and does not require the creation of new visas. The bill proposes to 
draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category, which is a set-aside 
of visas for immigrants who invest at least $1 million in the U.S., and 
thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where 
unemployment is high, foreign nationals need only invest $500,000 to 
obtain residency. Many more visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 
category than are used, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs will 
not require additional visas.
  Better utilizing existing visas, immigrant entrepreneurs living 
outside the United States would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa 
if a qualified American investor agrees to financially sponsor their 
entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $100,000. After 2 
years, their business must have created five new jobs and raised not 
less than $500,000 in additional capital investment or generate not 
less than $500,000 in revenue.
  Additionally, immigrant entrepreneurs currently residing in the 
United States on an unexpired H-1B visa or immigrant entrepreneurs 
currently in the country who have completed a graduate level degree in 
science, technology, engineering, math, computer science, or other 
relevant academic discipline from an accredited United States 
institution of higher education would be eligible for a StartUp visa. 
Eligibility in each of these cases is contingent upon the immigrant 
entrepreneur demonstrating that they will be self-sufficient and that a 
qualified U.S. investor will financially back their entrepreneurial 
venture with a minimum investment of $20,000. After 2 years, their 
business must have created three new jobs and raised not less than 
$100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than 
$100,000 in revenue.
  Finally, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the U.S. who have 
controlling interest of a company based in a foreign country that has 
generated, during the most recent 12-month period, not less than 
$100,000 in revenue from sales in the U.S. would be eligible to apply 
for a StartUp visa. At the conclusion of 2 years, this immigrant 
entrepreneur must have created three new jobs in the U.S. and raised 
not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not 
less than $100,000 in revenue.
  Immigrant entrepreneurs want to come to America, hire Americans, and 
create jobs right here for Americans--and we should be helping them 
come. Senator Kerry and I believe that it is in our national interest 
to encourage those who can help drive the next generation of innovation 
to do it here, not someplace else. This plan has the support of 
investors, immigrants, technology organizations, and taxpayers. I ask 
for your support on passage of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 566. A bill to provide for the establishment of the National 
Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill and 
talk about an issue that has, unfortunately, become a regular 
occurrence in Alaska and holds great interest to the Nation and the 
world. I am talking about volcano monitoring. While erupting volcanoes 
are a early constant part of our lives in Alaska, it usually takes a 
worldwide event such the eruption last year of a volcano in Iceland, 
which disrupted air traffic in Europe and around the world, to capture 
the public's attention.
  Two years ago it was the eruption of Mount Redoubt, which cancelled 
hundreds of flights in Alaska that motivated me to introduce the 
National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act. I reintroduce 
the bill now because it is still vitally important to the United 
States.
  The volcanoes in Alaska make up well over three-quarters of U.S. 
volcanoes that have erupted in the last two hundred years. About 50 
volcanic eruptions occur around the world every year, according to the 
United States Geological Survey, USGS. The United States ranks third, 
behind Indonesia and Japan, in its number of historically active 
volcanoes.
  That is why it is so important to fund volcano monitoring, which in 
Alaska is through the Alaska Volcano Observatory. The Alaska Volcano 
Observatory, AVO, is one of five Volcano observatories in the United 
States. It is a joint program of the United States Geological Survey, 
the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and 
the State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. AVO 
is unique in the United States and probably the world, in that it is a 
thoroughly collaborative undertaking of federal scientists, state 
scientists, and university faculty and students.
  AVO was formed in 1988, after an eruption of Mount Augustine, and 
uses federal, state, and university resources to monitor and study 
Alaska's hazardous volcanoes, to predict and record

[[Page S1603]]

eruptive activity, and to mitigate volcanic hazards to life and 
property. Alaska has over 30 active volcanoes currently being monitored 
by the Alaska Volcano Observatory. No other observatory in the world 
comes even close to that number. AVO also analyzes available satellite 
data twice daily for thermal anomalies and ash plumes at about 80 
volcanoes in the north Pacific. Russian volcanoes frequently put ash 
into areas where the U.S. has aviation safety responsibilities. 
Alaska's active volcanoes also offer superb opportunities for basic 
scientific investigations of volcanic processes. An important component 
of AVO's program is to conduct research at selected volcanic centers.
  Alaska's volcanoes are potentially hazardous to passenger and freight 
aircraft as jet engines sometimes fail after ingesting volcanic ash. On 
December 15, 1989, a Boeing 747 flying 240 kilometers, 150 miles, 
northeast of Anchorage encountered an ash cloud erupted from Redoubt 
Volcano and lost power in all four jet engines. The plane, with 231 
passengers aboard, lost more than 10,000 feet of elevation before the 
flight crew was able to restart the engines. After landing, it was 
determined the airplane had suffered about $80 million in damage. The 
U.S. Geological Survey said about 100 encounters of aircraft with 
volcanic ash were documented from 1983 to 2000. In some cases engines 
shut down briefly after sucking in volcanic debris, but there have been 
no fatal incidents.
  The FAA estimates, based on information provided by the Federal 
Aviation Administration, that more than 80,000 large aircraft per year, 
and 30,000 people per day, are in the skies over and potentially 
downwind of many of Alaska's volcanoes, mostly on the heavily traveled 
great-circle routes between Europe, North America, and Asia. Along this 
route, which coincidently follows the northern portion of the Pacific 
``ring of fire'', are over 100 volcanoes capable of depositing ash into 
the flight path. Some are in Japan, many are in Russia, but about half 
are in Alaska. By analyzing satellite imagery and working with the 
National Weather Service to predict where winds will carry the ash, AVO 
assists the Federal Aviation Administration in warning aircraft of 
areas to avoid.
  Volcanic eruptions from Cook Inlet volcanoes, Spurr, Redoubt, 
Iliamna, and Augustine, can have severe impacts, as these volcanoes are 
nearest to Anchorage, Alaska's largest population center. The last 
major series of eruptions of Mt. Redoubt occurred in the spring of 
2009. The Alaska Volcano Observatory had recorded 26 volcanic eruptions 
and/or explosions at Redoubt volcano.
  There were several impacts from this series of eruptions from Mount 
Redoubt. Two major lahars, mudflows, moved down the Drift River and 
partially inundated an oil terminal. Airborne ash clouds posed a hazard 
to aviation and caused multiple flight cancellations and reroutes. 
Alaska Airlines cancelled approximately 200 flights. FedEx, United 
Parcel Service and several other cargo airlines rerouted aircraft to 
Seattle. Ash fall forced Ted Stevens International Airport, the third 
busiest cargo airport in the world, to close for 20 consecutive hours. 
Disruption to the aviation industry was significant for passenger 
travel and cargo transportation between Asia and North America. Minor 
ash fall impacted several communities as far downwind as Delta 
Junction, Alaska, 400 miles northeast of Anchorage. Elmendorf Air Force 
Base assets were temporarily relocated. There were also impacts to oil 
field operations due to the cessation of oil storage at Chevron's Drift 
River Oil Terminal. The economic impact is estimated to be less than or 
equal to the Redoubt eruptions also disrupted air traffic in the 
region. Hundreds of commercial flights were cancelled and cargo 
companies were significantly impacted. This resulted in employees being 
placed on unpaid leave during periods when airport operations were shut 
down.
  International volcano monitoring is also a role of the Federal 
Government. It likely saved many lives--and significant money--in the 
case of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, where 
the United States had military bases at the time. The cataclysmic 
eruption lasted more than 10 hours and sent a cloud of ash as high as 
22 miles into the air that grew to more than 300 miles across. The 
United States Geological Survey spent less than $1.5 million monitoring 
the volcano and was able to warn of the impending eruption, which 
allowed authorities to evacuate residents, as well as aircraft and 
other equipment from U.S. bases there. The USGS estimates that the 
efforts saved thousands of lives and prevented property losses of at 
least $250 million.
  It is not enough to justify a program by just identifying a danger. 
The more important question is whether something can be done to reduce 
the impact of a volcanic eruption in terms of property damage and loss 
of life. That means getting people out of harm's way by providing 
advance warning. And this is exactly what the USGS Volcano Hazards 
Program seeks to do through the existing volcano observatories in the 
United States.
  The advances made in monitoring can now provide much more accurate 
and timely predictions of eruptions. As an example, in 1989, AVO was 
only able to provide a few days warning before Mount Redoubt erupted. 
This year, they began to detect activity and notified the public two 
months before it eventually erupted.
  The biggest challenge remains finding an adequate and stable source 
of funding. The USGS Volcano Hazards Program has been constantly 
underfunded. Both USGS and the FAA provide funding, but it is not 
enough to manage all the observatories or provide for an expansion of 
the system to cover increased monitoring and volcano research.
  It is because of the inadequate funding, and critical importance of 
this program, that I intend to introduce a bill that will provide the 
funding stability that volcano monitoring needs. This program shows 
that with a modest investment, a very large benefit can be produced in 
reducing the impacts of catastrophic events.
  My legislation will establish a National Volcano Early Warning and 
Monitoring System within the United States Geological Survey to monitor 
warn and protect citizens from undue and avoidable harm from volcanic 
activity. The USGS will coordinate a management plan with the other 
relevant federal departments, including the Department of 
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  The legislation authorizes appropriations of $15 million annually to 
the Department of Interior to carry out the Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 567. A bill to amend the small, rural school achievement program 
and the rural and low-income school program under part B of title VI of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, 
Senator Collins, as we introduce the REAP Reauthorization Act of 2011. 
Nearly one-third of America's public schools are in rural places, and 
23 percent of our students attend these schools. Unfortunately, the 
unique nature of rural schools creates significant challenges as they 
work to meet federal education requirements.
  Geographic isolation, diseconomies of scale, and poverty are some the 
challenges commonly cited as major barriers to education delivery in 
rural places. Unfortunately, Federal education funding programs--which 
are often based on population--do not provide adequate resources for 
rural schools to overcome these obstacles and meet programmatic 
requirements. Additionally, rural school districts often forgo federal 
education dollars because they lack the capacity to apply for 
competitive grants.
  Senator Collins and I began working together a decade ago to ensure 
equity for rural schools. With bipartisan support, we successfully 
fought to include the original Rural Education Achievement Program--
otherwise known as REAP--in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  To date, REAP is the only source of federal funding dedicated to 
helping

[[Page S1604]]

rural school districts overcome financial inequality caused by 
geographic isolation and poverty. REAP dollars make a critical 
difference in rural States like North Dakota, where schools with 
graduating classes of five try to enact the same education reforms and 
provide ash same opportunities as those provided by schools with 
graduating classes of 500. Since its creation, REAP has provided rural 
schools with flexibility and over $1.5 billion to carry out Federal 
education programs.
  With the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, we are reintroducing our REAP Reauthorization Act in the 
112th Congress. The REAP Reauthorization Act makes improvements to the 
Rural Education Achievement Program that will more closely target 
Federal resources to geographically isolated and high-poverty rural 
districts.
  The program-wide changes made in this bill will provide many 
districts with access to necessary resources by allowing eligible 
districts that do not receive funds under the Small Rural Schools 
Program to participate in the Rural Low Income Schools Program. Our 
bill also incorporates new locale codes to make the program consistent 
with those developed by the National Center for Education Statistics.
  Additionally, the bill makes program-specific improvements to the 
Small, Rural School Achievement Program to increase minimum and maximum 
grant allocations when REAP is funded at $200 million or above. Lastly, 
our REAP Reauthorization proposal incorporates a more accurate 
measurement of poverty to determine eligibility for the Rural and Low-
Income Schools Program. With these changes, more school districts and 
students in rural America will benefit from REAP resources.
  I am pleased that Senator Collins is joining me again this year as an 
original cosponsor of this bill, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to pass this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 567

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Education Achievement 
     Program Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. SMALL, RURAL SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM.

       Sections 6211 and 6212 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7345, 7345a) are amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6211. USE OF APPLICABLE FUNDING.

       ``(a) Alternative Uses.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an eligible local educational agency may use the 
     applicable funding that the agency is eligible to receive 
     from the State educational agency for a fiscal year to carry 
     out local activities authorized under any of the following 
     provisions:
       ``(A) Part A of title I.
       ``(B) Part A or D of title II.
       ``(C) Title III.
       ``(D) Part A or B of title IV.
       ``(E) Part A of title V.
       ``(2) Notification.--An eligible local educational agency 
     shall notify the State educational agency of the local 
     educational agency's intention to use the applicable funding 
     in accordance with paragraph (1), by a date that is 
     established by the State educational agency for the 
     notification.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--A local educational agency shall be 
     eligible to use the applicable funding in accordance with 
     subsection (a) if--
       ``(A)(i)(I) the total number of students in average daily 
     attendance at all of the schools served by the local 
     educational agency is fewer than 600; or
       ``(II) each county in which a school served by the local 
     educational agency is located has a total population density 
     of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and
       ``(ii) all of the schools served by the local educational 
     agency are designated with a school locale code of Fringe 
     Rural, Distant Rural, or Remote Rural, as determined by the 
     Secretary; or
       ``(B) the agency meets the criteria established in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) and the Secretary, in accordance with 
     paragraph (2), grants the local educational agency's request 
     to waive the criteria described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(2) Certification.--The Secretary shall determine whether 
     to waive the criteria described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii) based 
     on a demonstration by the local educational agency, and 
     concurrence by the State educational agency, that the local 
     educational agency is located in an area defined as rural by 
     a governmental agency of the State.
       ``(c) Applicable Funding Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `applicable funding' means funds provided under any of 
     the following provisions:
       ``(1) Subpart 2 and section 2412(a)(2)(A) of title II.
       ``(2) Section 4114.
       ``(3) Part A of title V.
       ``(d) Disbursement.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives applicable funding for a fiscal year shall disburse 
     the applicable funding to local educational agencies for 
     alternative uses under this section for the fiscal year at 
     the same time as the State educational agency disburses the 
     applicable funding to local educational agencies that do not 
     intend to use the applicable funding for such alternative 
     uses for the fiscal year.
       ``(e) Applicable Rules.--Applicable funding under this 
     section shall be available to carry out local activities 
     authorized under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 6212. GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants to eligible local educational agencies to enable the 
     local educational agencies to carry out activities authorized 
     under any of the following provisions:
       ``(1) Part A of title I.
       ``(2) Part A or D of title II.
       ``(3) Title III.
       ``(4) Part A or B of title IV.
       ``(5) Part A of title V.
       ``(b) Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary shall award a grant under subsection (a) to a local 
     educational agency eligible under section 6211(b) for a 
     fiscal year in an amount equal to the initial amount 
     determined under paragraph (2) for the fiscal year minus the 
     total amount received by the agency under the provisions of 
     law described in section 6211(c) for the preceding fiscal 
     year.
       ``(2) Determination of initial amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The initial amount referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is equal to $100 multiplied by the total number 
     of students in excess of 50 students, in average daily 
     attendance at the schools served by the local educational 
     agency, plus $20,000, except that the initial amount may not 
     exceed $60,000.
       ``(B) Special rule.--For any fiscal year for which the 
     amount made available to carry out this part is $100,000,000 
     or more, subparagraph (A) shall be applied--
       ``(i) by substituting `$25,000' for `$20,000'; and
       ``(ii) by substituting `$80,000' for `$60,000'.
       ``(3) Ratable adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the amount made available to carry 
     out this section for any fiscal year is not sufficient to pay 
     in full the amounts that local educational agencies are 
     eligible to receive under paragraph (1) for such year, the 
     Secretary shall ratably reduce such amounts for such year.
       ``(B) Additional amounts.--If additional funds become 
     available for making payments under paragraph (1) for such 
     fiscal year, payments that were reduced under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be increased on the same basis as such payments 
     were reduced.
       ``(c) Disbursement.--The Secretary shall disburse the funds 
     awarded to a local educational agency under this section for 
     a fiscal year not later than July 1 of that fiscal year.
       ``(d) Special Eligibility Rule.--A local educational agency 
     that receives a grant under this subpart for a fiscal year is 
     not eligible to receive funds for such fiscal year under 
     subpart 2.''.

     SEC. 3. RURAL AND LOW-INCOME SCHOOL PROGRAM.

       Section 6221 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7351) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6221. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Grants to States.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 
     6234 for this subpart for a fiscal year that are not reserved 
     under subsection (c), the Secretary shall award grants (from 
     allotments made under paragraph (2)) for the fiscal year to 
     State educational agencies that have applications submitted 
     under section 6223 approved to enable the State educational 
     agencies to award grants to eligible local educational 
     agencies for local authorized activities described in section 
     6222(a).
       ``(2) Allotment.--From amounts described in paragraph (1) 
     for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each State 
     educational agency for that fiscal year an amount that bears 
     the same ratio to those amounts as the number of students in 
     average daily attendance served by eligible local educational 
     agencies in the State for that fiscal year bears to the 
     number of all such students served by eligible local 
     educational agencies in all States for that fiscal year.
       ``(3) Specially qualified agencies.--
       ``(A) Eligibility and application.--If a State educational 
     agency elects not to participate in the program under this 
     subpart or does not have an application submitted under 
     section 6223 approved, a specially qualified agency in such 
     State desiring a grant under this subpart may submit an 
     application under such section directly to the Secretary to 
     receive an award under this subpart.
       ``(B) Direct awards.--The Secretary may award, on a 
     competitive basis or by formula,

[[Page S1605]]

     the amount the State educational agency is eligible to 
     receive under paragraph (2) directly to a specially qualified 
     agency in the State that has submitted an application in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A) and obtained approval of the 
     application.
       ``(C) Specially qualified agency defined.--In this subpart, 
     the term `specially qualified agency' means an eligible local 
     educational agency served by a State educational agency that 
     does not participate in a program under this subpart in a 
     fiscal year, that may apply directly to the Secretary for a 
     grant in such year under this subsection.
       ``(b) Local Awards.--
       ``(1) Eligibility.--A local educational agency shall be 
     eligible to receive a grant under this subpart if--
       ``(A) 40 percent or more of the children ages 5 through 17 
     years served by the local educational agency are eligible for 
     a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act; and
       ``(B) all of the schools served by the agency are 
     designated with a school locale code of Distant Town, Remote 
     Town, Fringe Rural, Distant Rural, or Remote Rural, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Award basis.--A State educational agency shall award 
     grants to eligible local educational agencies--
       ``(A) on a competitive basis;
       ``(B) according to a formula based on the number of 
     students in average daily attendance served by the eligible 
     local educational agencies or schools in the State; or
       ``(C) according to an alternative formula, if, prior to 
     awarding the grants, the State educational agency 
     demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that the 
     alternative formula enables the State educational agency to 
     allot the grant funds in a manner that serves equal or 
     greater concentrations of children from families eligible for 
     a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act, relative to the concentrations 
     that would be served if the State educational agency used the 
     formula described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(c) Reservations.--From amounts appropriated under 
     section 6234 for this subpart for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve--
       ``(1) one-half of 1 percent to make awards to elementary 
     schools or secondary schools operated or supported by the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs, to carry out the activities 
     authorized under this subpart; and
       ``(2) one-half of 1 percent to make awards to the outlying 
     areas in accordance with their respective needs, to carry out 
     the activities authorized under this subpart.
       ``(d) Special Eligibility Rule.--A local educational agency 
     that is eligible to receive a grant under this subpart and is 
     also eligible to receive a grant under subpart 1, may receive 
     a grant under this subpart for a fiscal year only if the 
     local educational agency does not receive a grant under 
     subpart 1 for such fiscal year.''.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a program 
designed to address the unique needs of rural schools. The Rural 
Education Achievement Program, or REAP, is designed to help level the 
playing field for small and high-poverty rural school systems. It is 
the only dedicated Federal funding stream to aid rural school districts 
in overcoming the increased expenses caused by geographic isolation.
  Nearly one-third of America's public schools are in rural places, and 
more than 21 percent of our public school students attend these 
schools. Students in rural America should have the same access to 
Federal dollars and a good education as those students who attend 
school in urban and suburban communities. For this reason, I worked 
with Senator Kent Conrad in 2001 to author the law creating the REAP 
program. REAP created two grant programs including the Small and Rural 
Schools Achievement Program, SRSA, which provides additional funding 
and flexibility to small rural school districts, and the Rural and Low-
Income School Program, RLIS, which provides additional funding for poor 
rural school districts.
  Prior to enactment of this law, rural school districts received funds 
calculated on school enrollment. In many of these districts, Federal 
formula programs, which are based on population, do not produce enough 
resources to carry out the purposes the grant is intended to fund. One 
school district in Maine, for example, received only $28 in 2001 to 
fund a districtwide safe and drug-free school program.
  In addition, small and rural school districts often forgo Federal 
education dollars because they lack the personnel and the resources to 
apply for competitive grants. Having fewer personnel also creates 
additional challenges in providing professional development 
opportunities. Small rural districts are often located long distances 
from other districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing 
opportunities to partner or collaborate. By allowing rural school 
districts to combine funds, as well as providing additional funds, REAP 
gives these districts the levels of resources required to undertake 
significant reform. Funds from this program have already helped to 
support new technology in classrooms, distance learning opportunities, 
and professional development activities, as well as a vast array of 
other programs which will help rural districts make progress towards 
the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  In 2007 and 2009, along with Senator Conrad, I cosponsored 
legislation to reauthorize this important program. Unfortunately, no 
action has been taken. The REAP Reauthorization Act of 2011 would 
reauthorize and enact a few focused changes to the law. These changes 
will allow Federal funds to be even more closely targeted to 
geographically isolated districts. One important change will allow 
program eligible districts to participate in the Rural and Low-Income 
School Program if they would not receive financial benefits from the 
Small and Rural Schools Achievement Program.
  Education is an essential driver for economic development. This rings 
true especially in rural America, where schools are the linchpin of 
rural communities. I am encouraged to see that the Maine School 
Management Association has spoken in support of the REAP 
Reauthorization Act of 2011. As cochair of the Senate Rural Education 
Caucus, I will continue to work towards our goal of advancing the 
educational interests of rural schools and districts.
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the Maine School Management Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      Maine School


                                       Management Association,

                                    Augusta, Maine, March 1, 2011.
     Re Reauthorization of REAP.

     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The Maine School Boards Association 
     and the Maine School Superintendents Association want to 
     thank you for your continued sponsorship of the REAP Program. 
     Specifically, our Associations are pleased to support the 
     2011 Reauthorization of REAP. Throughout the years, REAP 
     funding has helped to provide equity for many small schools 
     in Maine and our expectation is that will continue with this 
     Reauthorization.
       Both, the National School Boards Association and the 
     American Association of School Administrators also are 
     supportive of the Reauthorization of REAP.
       The Maine School Boards Association and the Maine School 
     Superintendents Association appreciate your continued support 
     for public education. We want to commend you for your 
     willingness to pay attention to various legislative issues 
     that may impact Maine public schools. We also want to praise 
     your staff for their expertise and accessibility to our 
     organizations. As always, our Associations are available as a 
     resource to you and to your staff.
       Thank you again.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Terry McCabe,
                                     Associate Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Reid, Mr. Lee, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lieberman, and 
        Mr. Kerry):
  S. 569. A bill to provide for fairness for the Federal judiciary; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal 
Judicial Fairness Act of 2011.
  I want to thank Senator Hatch, as well as Senators Leahy, Graham, 
Reid, Lee, Inouye, Bingaman, Lieberman, and Kerry, for working with me 
as cosponsors of this important bill.
  The Federal Judicial Fairness Act is a straightforward bill that 
would ensure that Federal judges receive cost-of-living adjustments to 
their salaries on the same terms as other Federal civilian employees.
  Let me be clear from the outset: This bill would not provide a 
judicial pay raise. In fact, it would not even guarantee a cost-of-
living adjustment for this year, the next year, or the next. Instead, 
it would simply guarantee that in years in which other Federal civilian 
employees receive cost-of-living adjustments to their salaries to 
account for inflation, Federal judges will as well.

[[Page S1606]]

  Under current law, two procedural requirements prevent this from 
happening.
  First, the ``linking'' of judicial and Congressional salaries means 
that judges cannot receive a cost-of-living adjustment unless Congress 
first votes to provide an adjustment for its own Members.
  Second, due to a 1981 provision known as ``Section 140,'' even if 
Congress votes to adjust its own Members' salaries, Congress must pass 
a second, special provision stating that judges should receive this 
adjustment as well.
  The Federal Judicial Fairness Act's would amend this pay structure 
and provide that Federal judges should receive adjustments on the same 
term as other Federal civilian employees.
  Why is this important?
  Article III of the United States Constitution requires that Federal 
judges shall ``receive for their services, a compensation, which shall 
not be diminished during their continuance in office.''
  This is a constitutional guarantee, entitled to due respect. Serious 
concerns arise when, as is the current system, political pressures 
result in the real value of judicial salaries diminishing and declining 
over time. Justice Kennedy expressed it this way in his 2007 testimony 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

       Please accept my respectful submission that, to keep good 
     faith with our basic charter, you have the unilateral 
     constitutional obligation to act when another branch of 
     government needs your assistance for the proper performance 
     of its duties. It is both necessary and proper, furthermore, 
     that we as judges should, and indeed must, advise you if we 
     find that a threat to the judiciary as an institution has 
     become so serious and debilitating that urgent relief is 
     necessary. In my view, the present Congressional compensation 
     policy for judicial officers is one of these matters.

  Additionally, as members of the Senate, I believe we have a 
responsibility to make every effort to recruit and retain the very best 
for the Federal bench. Both recruitment and retention become far more 
difficult when we cannot assure candidates that the salary provided at 
the beginning of a life appointment will hold its value over time. This 
assurance is basic for other Federal employees and should be for our 
Federal judges as well.
  The Federal Judicial Fairness Act is a commonsense, good government 
bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 569

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Judicial Fairness 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. JUDICIAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES.

       (a) Repeal of Statutory Requirement Relating to Judicial 
     Salaries.--Section 140 of the resolution entitled ``A Joint 
     Resolution making further continuing appropriations for the 
     fiscal year 1982, and for other purposes.'', approved 
     December 15, 1981 (Public Law 97-92; 95 Stat. 1200; 28 U.S.C. 
     461 note), is repealed.
       (b) Automatic Salary Adjustments.--Section 461(a) of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Effective at the beginning of the first applicable 
     pay period commencing on or after the first day of the month 
     in which an adjustment takes effect under sections 5303 and 
     5304 of title 5 in the rates of pay under the General 
     Schedule, each salary rate which is subject to adjustment 
     under this section shall be adjusted by an amount, rounded to 
     the nearest multiple of $100 (or, if midway between multiples 
     of $100, to the next higher multiple of $100) equal to the 
     percentage of such salary rate which corresponds to the 
     overall average percentage of the adjustment in the rates of 
     pay under the General Schedule.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Begich):
  S. 571. A bill to amend subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act to provide education for homeless children and 
youths, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about legislation that I 
have introduced that is essential to the academic success of millions 
of vulnerable children and youth.
  The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act 
responds to the growing crisis of homelessness in our nation. The 
legislation will help homeless children and youth thrive in school, 
despite the constant moves, trauma, and loss associated with 
homelessness.
  The recession has contributed to homelessness among two groups of 
students: children who are homeless with their families, and youth who 
are homeless on their own. This reality was brought starkly to light in 
a recent CBS 60 Minutes special about homeless children. The series 
documented several Florida families that have fallen on hard times, yet 
are doing their best to make ends meet and keep their children in 
school. It was heartbreaking to see these families who are struggling. 
However, it increased my resolve and determination to introduce this 
legislation, which will provide much-needed support for kids across the 
country.
  The numbers of homeless children are shocking. During the 2008-2009 
academic year, there were almost 1 million homeless children enrolled 
in public schools across the nation. That was a 41 percent increase 
over the previous two years. Unfortunately, this alarming trend shows 
no sign of abating. Many states are reporting increases between 5 and 
35 percent for the 2009-2010 school year. We owe it to these children 
to provide them with a safe place where they can learn and become 
successful adults.
  We know that school offers homeless children and youth structure, 
normalcy, support, and hope--it is a place where they can obtain the 
skills that they will need to avoid poverty and homelessness as adults. 
Yet these students face great educational challenges. High mobility, 
precarious living conditions, and severe poverty combine to create 
major barriers to school enrollment and regular attendance. Many 
homeless children and youth lack basic supplies and a reasonable 
environment where they can do homework. As a result of their 
circumstances, homeless students often perform below their peers in 
math and reading and are more likely to be held back.
  We must do more to assist these students so they do not continue to 
be left behind. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without 
Homes Act of 2011 would do just that. The bill amends the McKinney-
Vento Act's Education for Homeless Children and Youth program. It makes 
a strong law even stronger by reinforcing and expanding the law's key 
provisions: school stability, enrollment, and support for academic 
achievement.
  My legislation will enhance the right of homeless children to stay in 
the same school, so that children who have lost their homes do not also 
lose their schools. It will assist schools in meeting the challenges of 
transporting homeless students by increasing the authorized funding 
level and allowing other federal funds for educating low-income 
students to be used for homeless transportation. When staying in the 
same school is not possible, or not in a child's best interest, the 
legislation will help the student make a seamless transition to a new 
school.
  One of the most successful features of the McKinney-Vento program is 
the requirement for every school district to designate a liaison for 
homeless children and youth. Liaisons identify homeless students, 
ensure their enrollment and attendance, and connect them to community 
resources. Liaisons are the backbone of this program, the unsung heroes 
who have become a lifeline for children and youth in crisis. Yet most 
liaisons do not have the capacity to carry out their required duties; 
they wear many hats and struggle to meet the growing demands of this 
population. As a result, too many homeless children and youth are 
falling through the cracks and missing out on school. The Educational 
Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act will strengthen the 
critical position of homeless liaison by ensuring that liaisons have 
the time, resources, and training to fulfill their mandated duties.
  The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act also 
recognizes the unique needs of certain groups of homeless children: 
preschool-aged homeless children, and unaccompanied homeless youth.
  Young children who are homeless have higher rates of developmental

[[Page S1607]]

delays and other problems that set them back as they start out life, 
yet they face numerous barriers to participating in early childhood 
programs. They miss out on services that can mitigate the harmful 
effect of homelessness on their development. This legislation will 
increase homeless children's participation in preschool programs by 
requiring public preschool programs to identify and prioritize homeless 
children for enrollment, and to develop the capacity to serve all 
identified homeless children.
  Unaccompanied homeless youth struggle to go to school without the 
basic necessities of life or a parent to guide them. We must assist 
unaccompanied homeless youth to overcome the unique educational 
challenges related to being without a home and without a parent or 
guardian. This legislation will help ensure that unaccompanied homeless 
youth have the supports necessary to stay in school, graduate with 
their peers, and move on to a brighter future.
  The history of litigation under the McKinney-Vento Act makes clear 
that we must do a better job helping educators learn about homelessness 
and support them in implementing the law. To this end, the legislation 
provides funding for technical assistance and training, and requires 
participation in professional development activities.
  As we work on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, we must recognize that children who do not know where 
they will sleep at night, or where their next meal will come from, face 
far greater challenges than simply remembering to do their homework. We 
must acknowledge that children who bounce between schools with each 
change of residence have little hope of taking advantage of even the 
best school programs. The most qualified teacher, or the most 
exceptional math or reading program, will not benefit children who are 
not enrolled in school, not attending regularly, and not assisted to 
overcome the barriers caused by homelessness. The Educational Success 
for Children and Youth Without Homes Act builds upon the proven 
successes of the McKinney-Vento Act's Education of Homeless Children 
and Youth program, while addressing remaining challenges. It is 
critical legislation that will help ensure that the homeless children 
of today do not become the homeless adults of tomorrow.

                          ____________________