Loan Forgiveness for Certified Teachers Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Corzine, and Senator Gregg to introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

This bill addresses the growing tide of identity theft cases by requiring banks, credit bureaus, and other financial institutions to take some practical steps to protect sensitive personal information.

What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans or other services in the victim's name.

The criminal literally assumes the identity of the victim for illicit gain.

Identity theft has become the number one white collar crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to make a major effort to protect Americans' personal information.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are victimized by identity theft each year.

The personal losses as a result of these crimes are major. The average financial loss from an identity theft case is $17,000 and it takes a typical victim 18 months to restore his or her good credit.

In some cases, victims are falsely saddled with criminal records or are denied loans and other valuable financial services.

Identity theft is frighteningly easy to commit. One of my constituents, Kim Bradbury of Castro Valley, knows this too well. Kim reported that an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name through the Internet in less than 60 seconds. The false application only had her Social Security number and birth date correct.

Kim only found out she was an identity theft victim when a representative of a telemarketing company called her at home while she was feeding her one-year child. The representative told her that someone with a different address had applied for a credit card in Kim's name.

In Kim's case, it appears that her Social Security number was stolen by a fellow employee who also had stolen the identities of several dozen company employees. The thief ultimately stole over $100,000 in merchandise, including 20 cell phone accounts, via identity fraud.

All indicators suggest that the crime continues to grow at an alarming rate.

Just two months ago, Federal prosecutors announced the largest single identity theft case in U.S. history. Three individuals allegedly sold the credit and personal information of 30,000 people.

At one national credit reporting agency, consumers requested 53 percent more fraud alerts in fiscal year 2001 than fiscal year 2000.

As of December 2001, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, Identity Theft Clearinghouse averaged more than 3,000 call-ins per week, a seven-fold increase since the clearinghouse began operation in November 1999.

The Identity Theft Prevention Act offers a series of practical steps to cut-off criminal access to sensitive consumer data.

No. 1, Credit card number truncation on receipts: first, the Identity Theft Prevention Act would require all new credit-card machines to truncate any credit card number printed on a customer receipt.

Thus, when a store gives a customer a receipt from a credit card purchase, only the last five digits of the credit card number will show.

This prevents identity thieves from stealing credit card numbers by retrieving discarded receipts.

Existing machines would have to be reprogrammed to truncate credit card numbers on receipts within four years after enactment of the legislation.

No. 2, Fraud alerts: the bill would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to impose a fine on credit issuers who issue new credit to identity thieves despite the presence of a fraud alert on the consumer's credit file.

Too many credit card issuers are granting new cards without adequately verifying the identity of the applicant. Putting some teeth into fraud alerts will curb irresponsible granting of credit.

No. 3, Free credit reports: third, the legislation would entitle each consumer to one free credit report per year. Currently six States, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont, have laws entitling consumers to one free credit report per year from the national credit bureaus.

According to identity theft victim advocates, identity theft is detected much earlier if consumers actively monitor their credit files. The cost of credit reports is a major obstacle to their use by consumers.

No. 4, Change of address: finally, the bill requires a credit card company to notify consumers when an additional credit card is requested on an existing credit account within 30 days of an address change request.

This provision addresses a common method of identity fraud where a criminal steals an individual's credit card number, and then obtains a duplicate card by informing the issuer of a change of address.

The Identity Theft Prevention Act requires financial institutions to implement needed precautions to prevent identity fraud and protect a person's good name.

Verifying a credit applicant's address, complying with ``fraud alerts'', and truncating credit numbers on receipts are all measures that will make it harder for criminals to engage in identity fraud.

It is appropriate and necessary for financial institutions to take these steps. These companies have a responsibility to prevent fraudsters from using their services to harm the good name of other citizens.

Morever, in this complex, information-driven society, consumers simply can't protect their good name on their own.

I strongly believe this legislation will provide desperately needed tools to combat identity theft, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure its passage.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this bill with Senator Harry Reid to increase the maximum loan cancellation amount available to credentialed teachers from $5,000 to $10,000.

Educational research is clear: the single most important contributor to raising student achievement is having well-trained, high-caliber teachers in the classroom. And yet, far too many of our Nations' students are being taught by teachers who are not fully credentialed.

This is especially true in low-income communities, where 22 percent of the teachers do not have credentials, more than 10 times the rate in wealthy communities.

Because good teachers can make such a positive difference in the classroom, the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' signed by President Bush last year, requires States to ensure that all teachers in our public schools are ``highly qualified'' by the 2005-2006 school year. This benchmark, which I believe was long overdue, is one that I applaud and was pleased to support last Congress.

And while we have taken a bold first step by committing that our children will receive quality education from a licensed teacher, our work is far from over.

We must now strengthen our commitment by helping States look for new ways to reach prospective teachers and build quality into their teacher preparation and development programs.

Nationwide, it is estimated that approximately 2 million new teachers will need to be hired by 2009.

This statistic, combined with the reality that roughly 200,000 veteran teachers will need to get their teaching certificate by the 2005 school year or lose their ability to teach, makes it clear that States have an ambitious requirement to fulfill in a short amount of time.

But many States and school districts argue that they lack the resources necessary to fulfill these mandates on their own.

The gravity of this problem is vividly depicted in California, where at least 300,000 new teachers will need to be hired and credentialed by 2008 to replace retirees and to accommodate the projected population growth at a time when the State is experiencing a drastic budget shortfall. All of this must happen during a time when the State is experiencing drastic budget shortfalls. The California State Board of Education projects that all of these changes will cost $6 billion.

The $6 billion price tag does not include the costs associated with credentialing 32,000 emergency credentialed teachers, which is 11 percent of California's entire workforce, by the 2005 school year. This task alone would cost California $365 million.

And none of these cost-estimates take into account the cost of credentialing teachers in other States with high percentages of the teaching work force not fully credentialed.

While I strongly believe that States need to be held accountable for ensuring that all teachers are fully credentialed. But I also recognize that in order for States to meet this Federal mandate on time, many may need guidance and support from the Federal Government.

This is not just a matter of holding those in the local school district or the local schoolhouse accountable; it is also a question of holding those in positions of public trust from the schoolhouse up to the statehouse, and to the U.S. Capitol, too, accountable for making sure that the job gets done.

I believe that this bill takes a good first step in doing just that by creating a balance between State and Federal accountability and addressing two obstacles confronting school districts as they prepare for the 2005 academic year: lack of incentives to lure teachers into teacher credentialing programs early and lack of resources available to teaching institutions to improve and build upon their credentialing curriculum.

I believe that the Federal Government should recognize the value of having a qualified teacher in a low income classroom by enhancing the loan cancellation benefits of credentialed teachers.

Current law allows teachers to receive up to $5,000 of their student loans to be forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a low- income school. Unfortunately, few teachers have taken advantage of this program because of the low loan cancellation amount available to them in comparison to the length of service required for eligibility.

To encourage recent graduates of teacher licensure programs to enter and remain in the teaching field, this bill doubles the maximum loan cancellation amount to $10,000 for credentialed teachers teaching for five years in a low income school.

And while uncredentialed teachers would continue to be eligible for loan forgiveness available to all teachers under the current law, the enhanced benefits for uncredentialed teachers will expire on December 31, 2005, just in time for the mandated deadline set for all teachers to be fully licensed.

The second element of my bill authorizes grants to institutions of higher education to create and expand credentialing programs. Funds would be made available to colleges and universities to develop and implement teacher preparation programs including curriculum development that focuses on credentialing teachers.

I strongly believe that teachers desiring to become credentialed should have every resource available to them to do so. These components are meant to complement State programs already available to credentialed teachers, which aim to improve teacher quality and tenure.

To California's credit, since the 1999-2000 school year, 5,000 emergency credentialed teachers have been successfully placed in State- backed teacher preparation programs. And the State is working to create and improve teacher preparation programs that include relevant course work, classroom training, and mentoring by a veteran teacher, with a goal of full credentialing.

But this is not happening in every school district nationwide and it must, States and local school districts should work together to prioritize available funds to set up programs to ensure that every teacher within their district is adequately trained.

States must continue to look for innovative ways to keep qualified teachers in the classroom, especially in low performing school districts, and funnel available Federal funds to local initiatives to get emergency certified teachers into credentialing programs.

We as a Nation must continue to make providing quality education to our children a top priority. Passing legislation is just the first step. With the expected population growth and the need to replace teachers approaching retirement, States must act swiftly and aggressively to ensure that neither children nor teachers are left behind.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation that would give States and teachers the necessary resources to ensure that every teacher is a ``highly qualified'' teacher. Our Nation's students deserve nothing less.

Mr. President. I rise to reintroduce, along with Senator Judd Gregg, the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act. This is critical legislation, especially in light of the increasing number of cases of identity theft.

In fact, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, this week announced that identity theft is the Nation's top consumer fraud complaint for the third consecutive year.

Last year, this legislation was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Finance Committee was set to vote on it as well, but it got entangled in an unrelated, amendment.

It is my hope that Congress will approve this legislation this year, so that we can begin to protect one of the most fundamental rights of all Americans.

I believe all Americans should have the right to: control how their personal identifying information is used. Keep their Social Security number out of the public domain. Limit disclosure by public agencies of personal information; and I also believe that Americans have the right to expect that businesses and government agencies will

protect your personal information held within their databases.

Lately, however, these rights have been seriously compromised by thieves who are stealing American's identity's in record numbers.

Just in the last year, identity theft cases have doubled nationwide. American consumers filed approximately 163,000 identity theft complaints with the FTC in 2002. Fully 43 percent of all the complaints the FTC receives are about identity theft.

My own State, California, has more victims than any other State. The FTC recorded 30,738 identity theft cases last year from California consumers alone.

Senator Gregg and I are reintroducing our Social Security number protection bill because Social Security numbers are the keys thieves use to unlock and take over a person's identity.

Identity thieves use Social Security numbers to: fraudulently obtain credit cards, access existing financial accounts, commit bank fraud, falsely obtain employment and government benefits; and create additional false identification documents, such as drivers' licenses.

Sally Twentyman, for instance, had her identity stolen when a thief rifled through her mail and stole credit card renewal forms.

The thief used her name and Social Security number to make $13,000 in cash advances and to open two additional credit card accounts in her name.

Not surprisingly, reports of Social Security number misuse have risen lockstep with the growth in identity theft.

Allegations of Social Security number fraud have increased by 600 percent over the past several years from 11,000 in 1998 to 73,000 in 2003.

Social Security Number Prevention Act:

The goal of this legislation is straightforward, to get Social Security numbers out of the public domain so that identity thieves can't access the number.

First, this bill prohibits anyone from selling or displaying an individual's Social Security number to the general public without the individual's consent, but does permit legitimate business-to-business and business-to-government uses of the number.

This practice occurs today. A stranger or stalker can buy your Social Security number off the Internet for a few dollars.

In one troubling case, Christopher Jones, a twenty-five-year old employee at the University of North Carolina-Pembroke, stole approximately 3,000 Social Security numbers through his job handing out towels and other equipment at the university gym.

In order to get equipment from Mr. Jones, students had to give him their Social Security numbers. Jones mined these numbers over several months and advertised the Social Security numbers for sale on eBay with an opening bid of $1.00 per number for a block of 1,000 numbers.

One advertisement, for example, read ``100 (one hundred social Security # Numbers Obtain False Credit Cards Idenity Theft I Don't Care Bid Starts at a Dollar a Piece USPS Money Orders only all Different.''

Second, this legislation gives consumers the right to refuse to give out their Social Security numbers to companies that don't really need it.

Companies, however, can still require Social Security numbers for purposes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, for background checks, if required by law, or if the number is necessary to verify identity or prevent fraud.

Third, this legislation curbs the public display of Social Security numbers on government documents. Specifically, the bill removes Social Security numbers from government checks and driver's licenses.

In addition, the bill prohibits governments entities from displaying Social Security numbers on public records that are posted on the Internet or in electronic media after the effective date of the act.

I don't believe a complete stranger should not be able to get access to my Social Security number from my birth certificate or marriage license, especially just by logging onto the Internet!

Finally, this legislation creates new penalties targeting the misuse of Social Security numbers. Specifically, the bill gives the Social Security Administration the authority to issue civil penalties of up to $5,000 for people who misuse Social Security numbers.

The bill also creates a maximum five year prison sentence for anyone who obtains another person's Social Security number for purpose of locating or identifying that individual with the intent to physically harm that person.

This legislation is fundamental to protecting the identities of American citizens.

I look forward to working with Senator Gregg to secure its passage this year, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This legislation arises out of a hearing Senator Grassley and I held in the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control in December 2001 on the proliferation of Ecstasy and other club drugs generally, and the role of some promoters of all-night dance parties, known as ``raves'', in distributing Ecstasy to young people. Our bill provides Federal prosecutors the tools needed to combat the manufacture, distribution or use of any controlled substance at any venue whose purpose is to engage in illegal narcotics activity. Rather than create a new law, our bill merely amends a well-established statute to make clear that anyone who knowingly and intentionally uses their property, or allows another person to use their property, for the purpose of distributing or manufacturing or using illegal drugs can be held accountable, regardless of whether the drug use is ongoing or occurs at a single event.

While my legislation is aimed at the defendant's predatory behavior, regardless of the type of drug or the particular place in which it is being used or distributed, one problem that we are facing currently involves so-called ``club drugs'' and raves. According to a report which the Partnership for a Drug Free America will release in the near future, teens who report attending a rave are seven times more likely to have tried Ecstasy than teens who report not attending a rave. I find this statistic quite troubling.

Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are ``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times Magazine espoused in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can even be fatal. Just last month we got some encouraging news: after years of steady increase, Ecstasy use is finally beginning to decrease among teens. That said, the rate of use remains unacceptably high and we still have quite a bit of work to do to counter the widespread misconception that Ecstacy is harmless, fashionable and hip.

At the Drug Caucus hearing, witnesses testified that rogue rave organizers commonly go to great lengths to portray their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend. They advertise their parties as alcohol-free events and some even hire off-duty police officers to patrol outside the venue. But the truth is that some of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club drugs'', such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine, is widespread.

But even as these promoters work to make parents think that their events are safe, they send a different message to kids. Their promotional flyers make clear that drugs are an integral part of the party by prominently featuring terms associated with drug use, such as the letters ``E'' or ``X''--street terms for Ecstasy, or the term ``rollin''', which refers to an Ecstasy high. They are, in effect, promoting Ecstasy along with the rave.

By doing so, unscrupulous promoters get rich as they exploit and endanger kids. Some supplement their profits from the $10 to $50 cover charge to enter the club by selling popular Ecstasy paraphernalia such as baby pacifiers, glow sticks, or mentholated inhalers. And predatory party organizers know that Ecstasy raises the core body temperature and makes the user extremely thirsty, so they sell bottles of water for $5 or $10 apiece. Some even shut off the water faucets so club goers will be forced to buy water or pay admission to enter an air-conditioned ``cool down room.''

After the death of a 17-year-old girl at a rave party in New Orleans in 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an assessment of rave activity in that city which showed the close relationship between these parties and club drug overdoses. In a two year period, 52 raves were held at the New Orleans State Palace Theater, during which time approximately 400 teenagers overdosed and were treated at local emergency rooms. Following ``Operation Rave Review'' which resulted in the arrest of several rave promoters and closing the city's largest rave, overdoses and emergency room visits dropped by 90 percent and Ecstasy overdoses were eliminated.

State and local governments have begun to take important steps to crack down on rave promoters who allow their events to be used as havens for illicit drug activity. In Chicago, where Mayor Daley has shown great leadership on this issue, it is a criminal offense to knowingly maintain a place, such as a rave, where controlled substances are used or distributed. Not only the promoter, but also the building owner and building manager can be

charged under Mayor Daley's law. The State of Florida has a similar statute making such activity a felony.

And in Modesto, California, police officers are offering ``rave training classes'' to parents to educate them about the dangers associated with some raves and the club drugs often associated with them.

At the Federal level, there have been four cases in which Federal prosecutors have used the so called ``crack house statute'' or other Federal charges to go after rogue rave promoters. These cases, in Little Rock, AR, Boise, ID, Panama City, FL, and New Orleans, LA, have had mixed results, culminating in two wins, a loss and a draw, suggesting that there may be a need to tailor this Federal statute more precisely to the problem at hand. As a result, last session I proposed legislation which would do just that. I am reintroducing it today and I am pleased to have Senator Grassley once again as the lead cosponsor. I might note that the legislation is also included in the Democratic leadership crime bill.

After I introduced this legislation last year, a great deal of misinformation began circulating about it. I want to make the record clear. Simply stated, my bill provides technical corrections to an existing statute, one which has been on the books for 16 years and is well established.

Critics of my bill have asserted that if the legislation were to become law ``there would be no way that someone could hold a concert and not be liable'' and that the bill ``holds the owners and the promoters responsible for the actions of the patrons.'' That is simply untrue. We know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill would address. The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Coalition of Licensed Beverage Associations, COLBA, be printed at the end of my statement. COLBA, who initially expressed concerns that my bill would make their members liable for the actions of their patrons, has endorsed my legislation because they realized that my bill was not aimed at responsible party promoters.

I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are decent, law abiding people who are going to discourage drug use, or any other illegal activity, at their venues. But there are a few promoters out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their events. Some of these folks actually distribute drugs themselves or have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at their events, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional flyers, tell their security to ignore drug use or sales, or send patients who need medical attention because of a drug overdose to a hospital across town so that people won't link emergency room visits with their club. What they are doing is illegal under current law. My bill would not change that fact. Let me be clear. Neither current law nor my bill seeks to punish a promoter for the behavior of their patrons. As I mentioned, the underlying crack house statute has been on the books since 1986, and I am unaware of this statute ever being used to prosecute a legitimate business.

The legislation simply amends the current ``crack house statute'' in two minor ways. First, it clarifies that Congress intended for the law to apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to ``single-event'' activities, such as a party where the promoter sponsors the event with the purpose of distributing Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. After all, a drug dealer can be arrested and prosecuted for selling one bag of drugs, and the government need not show that the dealer is selling day after day, or to multiple sellers. Likewise, the bill clarifies that a ``one-time'' event where the promoter knowingly distributes Ecstasy over the course of an evening, for example, violates the statute the same as a crack house which is in operation over a period of time. Second, the bill makes the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor venues, such as where a rogue rave promoter uses a field to hold a rave for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Those are the only changes the bill makes to the crack house statute. It does not give the Federal Government sweeping new powers as the detractors have asserted.

Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health of their patrons including providing water or air conditioned rooms, making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, etc. That is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the findings, which is the only place in the bill where these items are mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these things is not enough to signify that an event is ``for the purpose of'' drug use.

The reason that I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill the ``rave scene'' or silence electronic music, all things of which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of testimony I heard at a number of hearings about the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised as places for people to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids.

Last year people criticized the bill's title, the ``RAVE Act'', because they thought it was unfairly targeting raves. Although I do not believe that I was unfairly targeting anybody, I have changed the title to the ``Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003.''

In addition to amending the crack house statute, the legislation also addresses the low penalties for trafficking gamma hydroxybutyric acid, GHB, by directing the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the current penalties and consider increasing them to reflect the seriousness of offenses involving GHB. Currently, GHB penalties are simply too low. In order to get five years for a GHB offense, you have to have more than 13 gallons of the drug, equivalent to 100,000 doses and a street value of about $1 million. According to the DEA, big-time GHB dealers distribute approximately one gallon quantities of the drug, the penalty for which is currently only between 15 and 21 months. These cases simply aren't being prosecuted at the Federal level because the penalties are so low. The Sentencing Commission needs to take a look at this problem and consider raising the penalties for this dangerous drug.

But the answer to the problem of drug use at raves is not simply to prosecute irresponsible rave promoters and those who distribute drugs. There is also a responsibility to raise awareness among parents, teachers, students, coaches, religious leaders, etc. about the dangers of the drugs used and sold at raves. The DEA is already doing some of this through its club drug awareness campaign, where DEA agents are holding conferences with local women legislators to get information out about the dangers of these substances. The legislation provides funds to the DEA to continue this important work. Further, the bill authorizes nearly $6 million for the DEA to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state who can work with communities following the arrest of a significant local trafficker to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment programs.

It is the unfortunate truth that some raves are havens for illicit drugs. Enacting the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act will help to prosecute the promoters who seek to profit from exploiting and endangering young lives and

will take steps to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about the dangers of Ecstasy and other club drugs associated with raves.

I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this legislation.

Mr. President, I come to the Chamber this morning, with a number of my colleagues, to discuss what is a critical issue in timber country across the United States, where men and women go to work every day in our sawmills only to find the mill has been shut down and the lights have been turned out.

As a result, that has been a problem which has grown for some time because of the Canadians, their style of production at this moment, and the huge volume of timber they are pouring into this country. It is a market condition that will continue to shut down many of our mills, some that will never turn on their lights again, some that will never again employ men and women in the small towns where most of those mills are across the country.

Today, some of my colleagues and I are introducing legislation to work cooperatively with the administration in trying to resolve this through negotiation. This legislation is being offered on behalf of myself, Senator Baucus, Senator Crapo, my colleague from Idaho, who is in the Chamber, Senator Sessions, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator Cochran, Senator Burns, and Senator Lincoln.

In introducing this legislation today, we are amending the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify what is an appropriate deduction from the price of merchandise. We believe the deduction of the countervailing duty should be included in the calculation in determining whether or not and to what extent there have been sales dumped at less than fair market value in the United States.

Some time ago, we established a countervailing duty against Canadian products coming into this market. This is in response to that and the way it is calculated.

While the Department of Commerce has worked diligently on the softwood lumber case, the Canadian industry and Government continue to effectively avoid the countervailing duty and antidumping orders. The most recent move by the Canadian Government to avoid the countervailing duty is to declare a significant region of interior British Columbia bug kill timber. This particular green lumber--or timber in this case-- is being sold at salvage prices and has flooded the amount of available timber already in the market.

The price for this timber is now as low as a dollar per thousand board feet, while the competitive market value is over $100 per thousand board feet--in other words, on the stump at the time of the sale.

I remind my colleagues a majority of this determined bug kill has not yet been affected by bugs. It is simply a decision made by the Canadian Government in this instance. Yet they are selling it at prices that are as if it had been affected by disease.

Next, British Columbia has revised their forest practice code to reduce costs to the lumber manufacturers by decreasing forestry standards and placing logging corporations in charge of

enforcement actions. That is like the U.S. Forest Service turning to the logging companies and saying the logging companies can enforce all of the environmental laws, as well as the laws under which we govern and manage our forests. We will turn that authority over to the logging companies.

What does this do to Canadian timber companies? It literally saves them millions of dollars in operating expenses.

These recent and blatant moves by the Canadians reveal their true desires to continue to flood the U.S. markets and their unwillingness to find a resolution that provides both security for U.S. and Canadian jobs.

Our proposal specifies that countervailing duties are to be treated as a cost of production, a clarification of the Trade Act that all duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States. The deduction of countervailing duty would assist in determining whether or not and to what extent there have been sales dumped at less than fair market value in the United States.

Dumping is when a company sells a product into the United States for less than its cost of production. The Department of Commerce currently does not consider countervailing duties, which offset subsidies, as a cost of production when calculating the amount of dumping and requisite antidumping duties. The Department's policy of ignoring countervailing duties when calculating antidumping duties undervalues the actual amount of the dumping.

Fair value typically is the sales price of the merchandise in the country-of-origin market. The antidumping analysis compares fair value of a good from another country to the fair value of a good from the United States to determine if the good from another country was dumped at an unfair price in the U.S. market.

For example, in the U.S.-Canadian softwood lumber dispute, the Department of Commerce determined that the Canadian provinces subsidize their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value. It also found that Canadian companies were selling lumber in the United States at below their subsidized cost of production, requiring an antidumping duty of 8.79 percent.

The antidumping duty currently undervalues the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the price of lumber rather than comparing the cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the price of lumber. It is all in the math, and in this kind of math it is quite obvious that Canadians are taking tremendous advantage of the marketplace. As I said earlier, the lights in the sawmills across America are going out.

Such a change in the Department's policy, we believe--those of us who have authored this legislation--is consistent with the practices of the European community and of Canada. It is time the Department of Commerce correct this accounting error, and it is time for the Canadian Government and their industry leaders to come to the table to negotiate a free and fair market price for both U.S. and Canadian lumber products.

I believe this Congress will not tolerate the kind of dumping activity that is going on in the market today, which appears to be at this moment not only blatant but an attempt to grab even a larger market share in this country.

For years, I have worked on this issue, and I clearly recognize the importance in the overall market of Canadian lumber in our market to meet our housing demands, but to do so and to expand that market base at a cost to U.S. jobs and U.S. producers is not fair, nor is it balanced. That is why we have introduced this legislation today.

Several other colleagues who are cosponsors in the legislation plan to come to the floor during this period of morning business to speak to this issue. I am extremely pleased to be joined by Senator Baucus, Senator Lott, and Senator Snowe. I mention those three specifically because they are on the Finance Committee. This is legislation that will be referred to the Finance Committee.

As my colleague from Idaho so clearly said, this is a simple correction in the law. It is a practice followed by other countries in Europe and Canada itself. Clearly, it would change the dynamics of how we deal with Canada, but it would also show the Canadians that we are not going to stand idly by and allow what is so blatant and so intentional in both the pricing of their stumpage and, therefore, the cost of entry into our market. Blatant dumping in the market for the purpose of gaining market share and putting some of our businesses out of business should not be tolerated.

We have all heard over the years the phrase ``mill town.'' It is so true today, still, in those areas of our country that are adjacent to private and public forests, that it is the sawmill that often is the larger employer in the community, providing excellent jobs at high pay to the men and women who live within that community. When that mill goes down and those citizens are out of work, there is no alternative, there are no other jobs, or there are limited jobs in the community. That community oftentimes is anywhere from 20 to 100 to 150 miles from the next community.

So that wage earner oftentimes is faced with a very tough choice he or she may have to make. That is not just to go search for another job but oftentimes to pick up their family and move from that small community they had chosen to live in and to raise their families. Why? Because a singular employee in this instance was either shut down or put out of business. Why? Because of predatory practices on the part of our friends to the north. And I say ``friends'' because I believe that. But certainly in this segment of their economy, they are choosing to enter the most lucrative timber market in the world--ours--with a thriving, aggressive homebuilding industry and an economy in the homebuilding industry that is very strong today, to supply that product.

I recognize the sheer demand for dimensional lumber in this market is much greater than both United States producers from private and public lands can supply, and Canadians can and have had and will have a substantial portion of our market. But now, to do so intentionally so the big boys can get bigger in Canada, putting oftentimes out of business the smaller producer here in the United States, is something we should not stand idly by and tolerate.

Mr. President, I see I am being joined in the Chamber by my colleague from Mississippi. Senator Lott is a cosponsor of the legislation we have just introduced dealing with the Tariff Act of 1930. Mississippi has a thriving timber industry that is a major contributor to their State's economy, and especially to rural Mississippi's workforce. So I will be happy to yield to Senator Lott for him to discuss this issue, of course, or any other issue he might wish to discuss.

Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Lott coming to the Chamber this morning to speak on the role the timber industry plays in the

economy of Mississippi and how important it is. It is important to rural Mississippi, to rural Idaho, to rural America, where we struggle mightily to keep a viable productive job base.

Clearly over the last decade, the economy of this country flourished. And while all of that was going on, it was rural Idaho that felt much of the pain and shared not in that new growth economy, in part because of the very problem both Senator Lott and I and Senator Baucus and others are addressing. My colleague Senator Crapo spoke to the matter as well.

This is a relatively simple adjustment in trade law, but it could have a substantial impact on the Canadians and the current practices in which they are involved, practices we believe are not in the best interest of both governments and both countries.

To have a nearly ``cut at will'' policy, both in provincial and crown timber in Canada, is at best frustrating to some of us who believe not only is that bad policy but, from an environmental point of view, it is not an effectively balanced policy. Are the practices being adhered to that should be adhered to for the purposes of sustaining yields and ongoing production of timber? Or is it simply an effort to keep people at work, in this instance, and, more importantly now, because of the declaration of green timber unaffected by disease or bug, now being called bug kill timber, is it simply a policy to grab an increasingly larger portion of the market? When many of these medium- and small-size mills go down, oftentimes they don't come back. If they are down for a longer period of time, the workforce disperses in search of another job and, as a result of that, many of these mills that go down will stay down permanently.

That is exactly what larger producers in Canada are hoping for, as it will allow them an ever-increasing larger portion of the market here in the lower 48 States.

I hope the Finance Committee will hold hearings and move quickly on this issue. It is important for our economy and, more importantly, it is a small town, mill town issue that in many States, such as Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, and throughout the South where there are large timber reserves, becomes a critical way of sustaining the rural economy.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries.

This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.

Last year, I introduced this same legislation, and with the help of a wide range of organizations and other Senators, we put this issue on the front and center in Congress. I am pleased that a number of Committees are looking at this issue and considering holding hearings in the coming weeks.

With these hearings coming up, I want once again to bring this proposal to my colleagues attention. And as the Committee process works itself forward, I expect that we will discover additional issues to address that will strengthen the provisions in my legislation.

But this legislation is where Congress should begin its efforts to promote competition, diversity, and localism in radio.

I love radio. But, over the last year, I have learned that concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry has made it difficult for individuals, artists, and organizations to find outlets to express their creativity and promote diversity.

Music and local news carried over the radio can help society to consider some of the most serious issues affecting our Nation: issues like war and peace, issues like social justice.

If the already diminishing number of gatekeepers of radio content chooses not to air controversial music because it may turn off advertisers, one of the most universal mediums to engage in dialogue will be lost. Regardless of our point of view, we must retain the ability of radio to show the diverse range of voices that form our culture.

I have heard many stories about the effects of this concentration. But perhaps the most compelling was at the annual Congressional Black Caucus event last year, when two people who have been involved in radio for decades told me about the real life importance of diversity in radio.

They spoke about the importance of the locally-owned media that helped raise public awareness of the campaign of the late Harold Washington to become the first black mayor of Chicago. They said that the main avenue for many in the central city to hear about the campaign was through locally-owned radio stations.

If an out-of-State corporation controlled the programming of these radio stations, would this political pioneer have received the same coverage?

I have also heard a great deal from religious organizations about how consolidation harms their ability to reach out in their communities. They have said that we must get to the root of the problem by curbing anti-competitive practices that make it difficult for locally-owned, independent radio stations to prosper.

I also learned about the story of Everett Parker, who during the civil rights movement of the 1960s was a pioneering defender of public interest in broadcasting.

In Dr. Parker's most famous crusade, he and the United Church of Christ went to Jackson, MS, to challenge the license renewals of stations that were blocking coverage of the civil rights movement, even though African-Americans constituted almost half of the audience.

By failing to cover the civil rights movement, the station failed all of the citizens of Jackson by limiting access to information on issues of public importance.

So, joining with the local NAACP, the group went to the Federal Communications Commission and challenged the licenses of the Jackson stations. The case went all the way to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which took away the station's license.

What makes this case so significant is that it established the right of any American to petition the Commission, instead of limiting such petitions to commercial interests.

The radio airwaves continued to be owned by the public. Radio is a public medium. It must serve the public good.

We must promote localism and diversity on our airwaves and crack down on anti-competitive practices that are a result of concentration in the radio and concert industry.

We must address negative consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which opened the floodgates for consolidation and led to anti- consumer and anti-competitive practices.

Just consider how the rise in ticket prices coincided with the passage of the Telecommunications Act. Following the passage of the Act, and the resulting consolidation of the radio and concert industry, ticket prices went through the roof!

Before the passage of the 1996 Act, ticket prices were increasing at a rate slightly higher than the Consumer Price Index. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, ticket prices have increased at a rate almost 50 percentage points higher than the Consumer Price Index. From 1996 to 2001, concert ticket prices rose by more than 61 percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased by just 13 percent.

During the debate of the 1996 Act, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, independent radio stations, and local communities.

Passage of this Act was an unfortunate example of the influence of soft money in the political process. I have consistently said that this Act was bought and paid for by soft money, by unlimited contributions by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to the political parties. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers.

That's why I am pleased to re-introduce this legislation, the Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which would reduce the levels of concentration and curb some of these anti-competitive practices.

My legislation prohibits those who own radio stations and concert promotion services or venues from leveraging their cross-ownership to hinder competition in the industry. For example, if an owner of a radio station and a promotion service hinders access to the airwaves of a rival promoter or artist, then the owner would be subject to penalties.

My legislation will also help to curb the concentration that leads to these anti-competitive practices.

It would strengthen the FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to

scrutinize the mergers of any radio station ownership group that reaches more than 60% of the nation.

My legislation would also curb consolidation on the local level by preventing any upward revision of the limitation on multiple ownership of radio stations in local markets.

The bill would also prohibit the current shakedown system, where the big radio corporations are said to leverage their market power to require payments from artists in exchange for playing their songs. And it would also close a loophole that allows large radio ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' through a third party. In these cases, they control the station through a third party, but the stations are not counted against their local ownership cap.

Songs and ideas should not be broadcast on the radio based on how much money has changed hands. Airplay should be based on good songs and good ideas what the local audience wants to hear.

My legislation would slow the levels of concentration and address a number of concerns that I have heard from artists and others, although it does not address all the issues facing our communities.

Over the coming months, I hope that my colleagues will give this issue their attention, both on the floor and in committee.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that we can work together to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting independent radio stations, local concert promoters, and artists on a level playing field.

People should have choices, listeners should have a diversity of options, and Americans should be able to hear new and different voices. Radio allows us to connect to our communities, to our culture, and to our democracy. It is one of the most vibrant mediums we have for the exchange of ideas, and for artistic expression. We must fight to preserve it, and together I believe we can do just that.

Radio is a public medium, and we must ensure that it serves the public good. That's a democratic vision of American radio well worth fighting for.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this bill with Senator Harry Reid to increase the maximum loan cancellation amount available to credentialed teachers from $5,000 to $10,000.

Educational research is clear: the single most important contributor to raising student achievement is having well-trained, high-caliber teachers in the classroom. And yet, far too many of our Nations' students are being taught by teachers who are not fully credentialed.

This is especially true in low-income communities, where 22 percent of the teachers do not have credentials, more than 10 times the rate in wealthy communities.

Because good teachers can make such a positive difference in the classroom, the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' signed by President Bush last year, requires States to ensure that all teachers in our public schools are ``highly qualified'' by the 2005-2006 school year. This benchmark, which I believe was long overdue, is one that I applaud and was pleased to support last Congress.

And while we have taken a bold first step by committing that our children will receive quality education from a licensed teacher, our work is far from over.

We must now strengthen our commitment by helping States look for new ways to reach prospective teachers and build quality into their teacher preparation and development programs.

Nationwide, it is estimated that approximately 2 million new teachers will need to be hired by 2009.

This statistic, combined with the reality that roughly 200,000 veteran teachers will need to get their teaching certificate by the 2005 school year or lose their ability to teach, makes it clear that States have an ambitious requirement to fulfill in a short amount of time.

But many States and school districts argue that they lack the resources necessary to fulfill these mandates on their own.

The gravity of this problem is vividly depicted in California, where at least 300,000 new teachers will need to be hired and credentialed by 2008 to replace retirees and to accommodate the projected population growth at a time when the State is experiencing a drastic budget shortfall. All of this must happen during a time when the State is experiencing drastic budget shortfalls. The California State Board of Education projects that all of these changes will cost $6 billion.

The $6 billion price tag does not include the costs associated with credentialing 32,000 emergency credentialed teachers, which is 11 percent of California's entire workforce, by the 2005 school year. This task alone would cost California $365 million.

And none of these cost-estimates take into account the cost of credentialing teachers in other States with high percentages of the teaching work force not fully credentialed.

While I strongly believe that States need to be held accountable for ensuring that all teachers are fully credentialed. But I also recognize that in order for States to meet this Federal mandate on time, many may need guidance and support from the Federal Government.

This is not just a matter of holding those in the local school district or the local schoolhouse accountable; it is also a question of holding those in positions of public trust from the schoolhouse up to the statehouse, and to the U.S. Capitol, too, accountable for making sure that the job gets done.

I believe that this bill takes a good first step in doing just that by creating a balance between State and Federal accountability and addressing two obstacles confronting school districts as they prepare for the 2005 academic year: lack of incentives to lure teachers into teacher credentialing programs early and lack of resources available to teaching institutions to improve and build upon their credentialing curriculum.

I believe that the Federal Government should recognize the value of having a qualified teacher in a low income classroom by enhancing the loan cancellation benefits of credentialed teachers.

Current law allows teachers to receive up to $5,000 of their student loans to be forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a low- income school. Unfortunately, few teachers have taken advantage of this program because of the low loan cancellation amount available to them in comparison to the length of service required for eligibility.

To encourage recent graduates of teacher licensure programs to enter and remain in the teaching field, this bill doubles the maximum loan cancellation amount to $10,000 for credentialed teachers teaching for five years in a low income school.

And while uncredentialed teachers would continue to be eligible for loan forgiveness available to all teachers under the current law, the enhanced benefits for uncredentialed teachers will expire on December 31, 2005, just in time for the mandated deadline set for all teachers to be fully licensed.

The second element of my bill authorizes grants to institutions of higher education to create and expand credentialing programs. Funds would be made available to colleges and universities to develop and implement teacher preparation programs including curriculum development that focuses on credentialing teachers.

I strongly believe that teachers desiring to become credentialed should have every resource available to them to do so. These components are meant to complement State programs already available to credentialed teachers, which aim to improve teacher quality and tenure.

To California's credit, since the 1999-2000 school year, 5,000 emergency credentialed teachers have been successfully placed in State- backed teacher preparation programs. And the State is working to create and improve teacher preparation programs that include relevant course work, classroom training, and mentoring by a veteran teacher, with a goal of full credentialing.

But this is not happening in every school district nationwide and it must, States and local school districts should work together to prioritize available funds to set up programs to ensure that every teacher within their district is adequately trained.

States must continue to look for innovative ways to keep qualified teachers in the classroom, especially in low performing school districts, and funnel available Federal funds to local initiatives to get emergency certified teachers into credentialing programs.

We as a Nation must continue to make providing quality education to our children a top priority. Passing legislation is just the first step. With the expected population growth and the need to replace teachers approaching retirement, States must act swiftly and aggressively to ensure that neither children nor teachers are left behind.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation that would give States and teachers the necessary resources to ensure that every teacher is a ``highly qualified'' teacher. Our Nation's students deserve nothing less.