[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.
____________________