Tribal Colleges and Universities Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act

Mr. President, it should be our common purpose to guarantee the promise of a good education to all from birth through college. The strength, security, and future of our Nation lie in the education and character of our people.

In recent years, on a bipartisan basis, we have been working to improve pre-school, elementary, and secondary education. We should move forward in the same bipartisan way on higher education.

Last year, on a bipartisan basis, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to raise standards for students in elementary and secondary schools to hold schools and states accountable for results. These worthwhile school reforms deserve to be well-funded, so that all public school students will have a fair chance to succeed.

Last year, Senator Gregg and I also introduced a bipartisan bill to improve the quality of early childhood education in the states, and help ensure that young children begin school ready to learn.

This year, in the Education Committee, again on a bipartisan basis, we have worked to strengthen the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and ensure that special needs children receive a quality education. I hope we can pass that legislation soon, to assure that the federal government meets its full obligation to children with disabilities.

The next great challenge we should confront on a bipartisan basis is to ensure that every student with the talent, desire, and drive to go to college is able to afford to go to college. Education is the golden door of opportunity, but for too long, the door of higher education has been closed to many students, because of their inability to pay. Surely, we have reached a stage in America where we can say it and mean it--cost will never be a barrier to a college education.

Just as Social Security is a promise of retirement security to senior citizens, just as Medicare is a promise of health security to senior citizens, so we should make ``Education Security'' a promise to every young American. If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to a college, we should guarantee that you can afford the cost of the four years it takes to earn a degree.

As we move forward on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, let us come together again on a bipartisan basis to make college affordable to all qualified students. No students should have to mortgage their future to obtain a college degree.

At other times in our nation's history, we have acted boldly to extend college opportunity. In 1862, a year after the Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act which set aside at least 90,000 acres in each Union State--30,000 acres for each of the state seats in Congress. The Act was named for Congressman Justin Morrill from Vermont, and the funds from sales of the land were to be used for public colleges and universities in the fields of engineering, agriculture, and military science. In the following years, over 70 colleges were established, and in 1890, the Morrill Act was extended to Southern and Western States. Today, over 3.5 million students are educated in public colleges and universities first created under the Morrill Act.

The next great benchmark in higher education came in 1944 when President Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI Bill to help the vast number of veterans who would be returning to civilization when World War II ended. The nation embraced the transforming principles that became a cornerstone of our democracy, that the benefits of college education should be available to all in our society, not just the elite, the wealthy or the white. In less than a decade, 8 million veterans benefitted from the GI Bill, and the immense success of that bill is in no small measure the reason why the World War II generation is now called the Greatest Generation.

In the half century since the GI Bill was enacted, we have made ongoing efforts to make college a reality for as many young men and women as possible. In 1972, we created what we now know as Pell Grants to make college affordable for low and middle income families. Since then, over 79 million students have attended college with the assistance of a Pell Grant, which are named for our distinguished colleague Claiborne Pell, who served as Chairman of the Senate Committee.

In 1993, we created the Direct Loans to make inexpensive student loans available to college students. In the same year, we created AmeriCorps to encourage young people to serve their communities and pursue their education.

Now, in this new century, in this new century, it is essential for Congress to take new steps to make the dream of a college education a reality for all.

Men and women with a college degree now earn 75 percent more than those without it--a million dollars more in earnings over their lifetime. Those who use computers on the job earn 43 percent more than those who do not. Jobs requiring at least some post-secondary education are estimated to account for over 40 percent of total employment growth over the next decade.

The need for a college education is greater that ever, but so is cost, and the soaring cost today is often pressing college education out of reach for qualified students. Last year, tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose an average of 14 percent, and the year before, 10 percent. For families in the lowest quartile of income average public university costs now consume over 62 percent of their income--compared to 42 percent in the early 1970's.

It is shameful that federal aid has not kept pace with rising tuition. Twenty years ago, a Pell Grant covered over 80 percent of four-year college costs. Today, it covers less than 40 percent. Twenty years ago, the typical package of student financial aid had 60 percent in grants and 40 percent in loans. Today, the ratio is reduced the typical package now has 40 percent in grants and 60 percent loans--and the grant-loan imbalance is getting worse.

Each year, over a half a million high school graduates who are qualified for college do not go to college full-time, because they cannot pay the bill. The average low-income, college student has an average of $3,800 a year in college costs not covered by grants, loans, work, or family savings.

Students who begin college have trouble staying in college and graduating from college. Only 48 percent of students from upper-income families graduate from college by age 24, and that figure is seven times the graduation rate of students from low-income families. Only 7 percent--7 percent--of low-income students graduate from college by age 24. Students from minority backgrounds and those who would be the first in their family to achieve a four-year college degree are 33 percent more likely to drop out of college.

Only forty percent of all whites in ages of 18 to 24 attend college. Only 30 percent of African-American and only 16 percent of all Latinos are enrolled in college. Four in ten Latino college students drop out within three years of their enrollment.

We cannot allow these unacceptable percentages to continue. We must do more to help students attend and finish college, and do more to help colleges train more teachers and better teachers for our public schools so that more young men and women will be able to go to college and earn their degree, and fulfill their role in the nation's future.

It is a privilege today to join our Democratic colleagues on the Education Committee, in introducing the College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 to improve college opportunity for qualified students. We know that too many families and students across the country are struggling to afford the cost of college and we should do all we can to

help them. The bill will improve access to college in six key ways. It helps students pay for college by providing more financial aid. It slows the excessive increases in college tuition. It makes the repayment of students loan less costly. It encourages and rewards students working their way through school. It help minority and low- income students go to college and finish college. It improves the recruitment and training of public school teachers who will prepare the next generation of college students.

In compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the cost of our bill is offset by eliminating windfall profits to banks that participate in the student loan program.

Fulfilling a pledge of ``Education Security'' requires renewed resolve by everyone--students, families, colleges, states, and the federal government. Students should work to save money for college. Families should pay what they can afford. Colleges should commit to reducing increases in tuition. States should continue as much support as they can for students. Federal support should fill the gap that remains.

Under our bill, $1,500 more in student aid will be available to hard- pressed, middle-class families and $3,800 to lower income families.

We increase the maximum Pell grant by nearly $500, from $4,050 to $4,500, in order to keep pace with rising costs of tuition in public colleges; 4.8 million lower income and working class students will get larger Pell grants and 200,000 middle-class students will get Pell grants for the first time.

The Act makes $3,000 in HOPE tax credit aid available to low-income families who currently do not receive this aid, in part because the tax credit is not refundable, and doubles the $1,500 HOPE scholarship tax credit that middle-class families currently receive. Over 4 million Pell grant students in families with a median income of $15,200 a year will receive the HOPE tax credit for the first time. For 3.2 million middle-income families, their tax credit will double in size.

The bill increases campus-based financial aid programs such as College Work-Study and the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, which means $200 more in aid to needy students on average.

The bill eliminates $100 in annual student taxes (also called ``origination fees'') on federal need-based loans. Over 5 million students will no longer have to pay these up-front fees for the privilege of borrowing tens of thousands of dollars.

For needy families struggling to send their children to college, these changes will provide $3,800 in additional college aid each year-- $500 in increased Pell aid, $3,000 in HOPE tax benefits, $200 more in campus-based aid, and $100 in waivers of student loan fees.

The rising cost of college is an increasingly serious problem for the nation. Students need more financial aid each year. Families need protection from tuition increases that year after year are in the hundreds, or even thousands of dollars. We have ignored the tuition increase problem in higher education for too long.

In fact, few students actually pay ``sticker price'' tuition at private colleges, since many get a discount. At private universities, 8 out of every 10 students receives a discount from the published tuition cost, and those discounts average 40 percent of the sticker price.

The sticker price of college tuition is rising for many reasons. Public colleges are dependent on state funding that has been declining with the struggling national economy. As states cut back their support for higher education, tuition rises. Colleges can reduce some costs in order to limit tuition increases, and we can help them do so.

Tuition is rising in general because colleges believe that in the constant competition for students and faculty, it is necessary for each college to have the best facilities and programs. In effect, and because of this, a ``higher education arms race,'' colleges are constantly striving to be ahead of the competition.

This bill rejects the price controls on college tuition that some have suggested. Instead, it creates incentives for colleges to reduce costs. It reduces regulatory costs for colleges and supports voluntary limits on cost growth. It requires states to do their part in supporting higher education. It ensures that families obtain better information about the true cost of college. And importantly, it rejects the idea of withholding federal student aid for students who attend colleges with excessive tuition costs, because doing so would hurt the neediest students.

Our bill supports the creation of college consortiums that will jointly buy in bulk and share the costs of health care, libraries, faculties, and other needs, so that they achieve economies of scale. It reduces regulatory burdens on colleges. When we lower the operating costs of colleges, we make it easier for them to restrain tuition increases.

The bill requires the Secretary of Education to convene a ``higher education arms control'' summit. Groups of competing colleges will be convened by the Secretary to negotiate limits on future growth in tuition. The Secretary will be given the authority to waive anti-trust protections, when the waiver is needed to achieve reduced tuition growth.

States and colleges must do their part to make college affordable. The bill insists that states must not treat college students like piggy banks to balance state budgets. The bill offers a new partnership to States, under which additional federal resources will be available to states that invest in higher education. States that dramatically cut higher education will be limited to current levels of aid.

Finally, our bill requires schools to publish their true tuition: the extent and average amount of discounts offered to students. Families should know how much school really will cost and how possible it is to bargain for the best deal.

No matter what we do on grants and college costs, loans will continue to be a large part of college aid, but that debt should not be excessive. Today, the average debt on student loans is $17,000, but it can exceed $100,000 for graduate students and professional students. This bill makes it easier to repay student loan debt or work it off. It creates a new refinancing option for borrowers now saddled with consolidated loans at high interest rates. It saves taxpayers money by rewarding student and school participation in the Direct Loan program.

The Act converts the current tax deduction for interest tax on student loans into a tax credit. This bipartisan proposal of Senator Snowe and Senator Schumer will provide low-income graduates with up to $1,500 in reimbursement for interest in student loans.

To encourage public service, the Act forgives the debt on Direct Loans for remaining after ten years for students in certain public sector jobs. Currently, student loan debt is often so large that it prevents students from accepting public interest jobs and forces them to look for higher paying jobs in the private sector. The bill rewards those who choose lower paying public interest jobs in sectors where the need is great, such as public safety, law enforcement, teaching, and public interest legal services.

In addition, the Act enables all college graduates to refinance their student loans, just as their families would refinance a home mortgage. Under current law, graduates who make payments on multiple variable interest rate student loans can consolidate their loans today into a single fixed rate loan at the relatively low interest rate of 3.42 percent. But over 5 million borrowers consolidated their student loans years ago at higher interest rates. The bill enables them to refinance that consolidated loan at today's prevailing interest rate.

The availability of new Refinanced Direct Loans will dramatically reduce student loan repayment for millions of college graduates. A middle-class borrower, for example, with $60,000 in student loan debt at 7 percent interest will save $1,200 a year, or more than $10,000 over the life of the loan, if they refinance under this proposal.

Further, the bill rewards schools and students that save taxpayers money by participating in the federal Direct Loan program. For every dollar borrowed through the Direct Loan program instead of the traditional private FFEL program, taxpayers save approximately fourteen cents. Our bill offers schools that participate in the Direct Loan program a percentage of the federal savings earmarked for student

aid. Taxpayers will save money and students will receive more financial aid, as a result of this ``Direct Loan Reward Program.'' It's a win-win proposal.

In light of the growing need today, current law imposes too heavy a penalty on students who work their way through college. Their financial aid is reduced by 50 cents for every after-tax dollar they earn.

This bill exempts from penalty the first $9,000 earned by traditional college students and the first $18,000 earned by adults attending college. Those students who work to support their college education deserve this additional assistance.

This bill includes a series of proposals to enable larger numbers of minority first-generation college students to go to college and graduate from college. Our national commitment to diversity in college education has been re-affirmed earlier this year by the Supreme Court. A major part of that commitment is preparing all young persons to approach the doors of higher education, making sure the gates are fully and fairly open to them, helping students to pay the costs, and enabling them to stay in college and graduate from college.

The Act increases funding for the successful TRIO and GEAR UP programs that provide information and counseling about college preparation, financial aid, and admissions.

It increases the access of low-income students to college preparation and tutoring programs for the Scholastic Achievement Test and American College Test that have been proven to be effective.

In addition, it assists students in making well-informed decisions on college applications and enrollments, encourages colleges to act on their own to modify policies that make it more difficult for already disadvantaged students to apply or enroll.

The Act supports partnerships between community colleges and four- year colleges, and it encourages them to provide targeted assistance in the form of tutoring, financial aid, child care, counseling, mentoring, and innovative course schedules, all with the goal of improving the admission, retention and graduation rates of low-income students, and non-traditional students.

Increased funding will be available for Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. These colleges are the source of an extraordinary proportion of minority graduates from college and they deserve greater support.

The federal government must do its part in strengthening further diversity in higher education and colleges and individual students must do their part as well. Diversity is our nation's strength, and all of us have an obligation to support it.

The Act includes a series of initiatives to help recruit and retain high-quality teachers for the nation's public schools. A fundamental aspect of preparing students for college means making sure they have a good teacher in every classroom.

The shortage of such teachers is increasingly severe. America will need more than 2 million new teachers in the next decade. Today, approximately one in every three teachers leaves teaching within the first three years, and almost half leave within the first five years. The No Child Left Behind Act has set a goal of a highly-qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006. Clearly, it is time for the nation to make teacher training a priority.

The Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 included a new title II program to respond to the teacher shortage. The Act scales up the current title II ``pilot program'' and strengthens and expands it, so that every State will receive funds every year, in order to assure that as many children as possible are taught by highly qualified teachers.

The Act authorizes additional for State Grants and Partnership Grants, with the goal of establishing formula grants for every State. We need to train teachers more effectively, attract more men and women to the field of teaching, and encourage them to continue in the field. These grants will improve preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers, and help States and schools put a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

By increasing the accountability of teacher preparation programs, the Act strengthens teacher preparation courses, so that teachers will have the skills and support they need to succeed in the classroom. The bill creates a new national database to provide accurate information on the quality of these preparation programs.

In addition, the Act establishes innovative programs to attract and retain teachers. A mentoring program will help train new teachers and provide professional assistance from more experienced teachers. A new home-ownership program will provide teachers in high-need districts with funds to afford the purchase of a home. A separate initiative will develop links between community colleges and four-year colleges in teacher preparation programs, and help train teacher aides in high-need communities to become teachers.

The Act also helps attract teachers to high-need areas in high-demand subjects, by increasing the amount of student loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $15,000, for teachers who teach math, science, special education, bilingual education, or early education in these areas.

Good teachers in our schools are essential for preparing students to enter college. We must do all we can to support them and give them the training necessary to enable all students to achieve.

In total dollars, the size of this legislation is approximately $15 billion a year. For a sense of context, I would note that we have just approved an $87 billion package for Iraq, have a $786 billion annual discretionary budget, and a $2.3 trillion annual mandatory and discretionary budget. This legislation is comparatively small.

There are three types of cost included. First, there are the tax provisions that total approximately $9.2 billion a year--the same size as the President's tax breaks on dividend and capital gain income. We should replace those dividend and capital gains cuts for the very wealthy instead with the education tax benefits included in this legislation for families trying to pay for college.

Second, there are about $1.3 billion in annual changes to the student loan program for which this legislation fully pays. The bill eliminates windfall profits to lenders in the loan program in order to pay fully for the elimination student loan origination fees and to enable borrowers out of school to refinance their consolidated loans.

In particular, this bill closes a loophole in the student loan program whereby taxpayers subsidize a small minority of lenders to the tune of over $400 million a year in order to assure them a 9.5 percent rate of return. 9.5 percent is too much in today's interest rate environment. All lenders should receive the same guaranteed market rate of return for participating in the student loan program and no more.

Finally, the legislation includes approximately $4.5 billion in annual increases in discretionary education spending. That amount equals one half of one percent of the discretionary budget and is the same amount that education funding increased last year. It is a modest proposal, frankly.

In the past, higher education policy helped the poor and the middle class together. In recent years, though, we have developed separate approaches for these two groups--grants for the poor, and tax benefits for the middle class. The median family income of recipients of Pell grants is $15,000 a year. The HOPE Scholarship tax credit is available only to families with more than $40,000 in income.

Because of the high cost of higher education for everyone, and because each student's own interest in a college education is also in our common interest, this bill will help both hard-pressed low-income and hard-pressed middle income families to send their children to college and prepare them for the future.

Our bill has the support of a variety of national groups: the United States Students' Association, the United States Public Interest Research Group, the Direct Loan Coalition, the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, the Council for Opportunity in Education, the College Migrant Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and Kaplan, Inc.

Quality, affordability, and diversity--these are the focus of this act because these are the three great challenges we face today in higher education policy and each closely related to the others. Together, we can meet these new challenges in this new century and make the promise of Education Security a reality not just a reality for some of our citizens but a reality for all of our citizens.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, to introduce the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln and Cochran in sponsoring the bill.

The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to ensure that States have the resources they need to upgrade major two-lane roads across the Nation to high-quality four-lane divided highways. The goals of this bill are to improve the safety of our most dangerous highways and to stimulate economic development in rural areas.

I think most Senators would agree that the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is one of the transportation marvels of the 20th century. The system's 46,000 miles of divided highways interconnect virtually every major urban area in the Nation. The system represents one of the most efficient and safest highway systems in the world.

Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was planned, it left many rural communities and smaller urban areas without direct links to the high-quality transportation network that the interstate highways provide. Many of these smaller and rural communities continue to suffer economically because of the lack of high-quality four-lane highways.

To address this issue, in 1995 Congress developed the concept of a National Highway System as a way of extending the benefits of an efficient highway network to all areas of the country. Congress designated the National Highway System to help focus Federal resources on the Nation's most important roads.

Today there are about 160,000 miles on the National Highway System, including all of the interstate highways and all other routes that are important to the Nation's economy, defense, and general mobility. The NHS comprises only 4 percent of the Nation's roads, but carries more than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic and 90 percent of tourist traffic.

The NHS reaches nearly every part of the Nation. According to the Federal Highway Administration, about 90 percent of America's population lives within 5 miles of an NHS route. All urban areas with a population of more than 50,000, and 93 percent with a population of between 5,000 and 50,000, are within 5 miles of the NHS. Counties with NHS highways have 99 percent of

all jobs, including 99 percent of all manufacturing jobs, 97 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of agricultural jobs.

The NHS is the critical transportation link for most of our Nation's rural areas. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that, of the 160,000 miles now on the National Highway System, fully 75 percent, or 119,000 miles, are in rural areas. Of the 1.2 trillion total vehicle miles traveled in 2000 on NHS roads, about 60 percent were in rural areas.

I hope all Senators will agree that improving highway safety should be our top priority. When it comes to highway safety, the fact is that travel on four-lane roads is safer than two-lane roads. This is especially true in rural areas. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 1998 the rate of traffic fatalities on all rural roads was 2.39 per 100-million vehicle miles; however, the rate on rural interstate highways was half as high--only 1.23 per 100 million vehicle-miles.

The reason for the lower fatality rate on rural interstate highways should be obvious. When a road has only one lane in each direction, trucks and other slow-moving vehicles increase the hazard of passing. Vehicles turning on or off a two-lane road can also increase risk. A divided four-lane highway greatly reduces these perils.

Of the 119,000 miles of rural NHS roads, about 33,000 miles are interstates and another 28,000 miles have been upgraded to four or more lanes. The remaining 58,000 miles--more than half of this rural highway network--are still only two-lane roads with no central divider. These are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System.

In my State of New Mexico, we have made some progress toward upgrading our rural two-lane highways to four lanes. In recent years, US550 from Bernalillo to Bloomfield, US285 from Interstate 40 to Carlsbad, and a key segment of US54 from El Paso to Alamogordo have been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of US70 from Las Cruces to Clovis is nearly completed. But much more remains to be done.

New Mexico has 2,647 miles of rural roads in the NHS. Eight hundred and ninety-two of these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of New Mexico's NHS highways, 1,755 miles are in the rural parts of my State, especially Chaves, Colfax, Eddy, Lincoln, Guadalupe, Otero, Quay, San Juan, and Union Counties. And almost 70 percent--1,217 miles--of New Mexico's rural NHS highways remain only two-lane roads. These two-lane roads are major transportation routes with heavy truck and commercial traffic. In 2000, a total of 10.3 billion vehicle miles were traveled on New Mexico's NHS highways, and about one quarter, or 2.7 billion miles, were traveled on these rural NHS roads.

Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade the most important two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways. According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all Federal highway funding between 1992 and 2000 has gone either to roads in urban areas or to interstate highways. Consequently, there is a continuing shortfall in Federal highway funding needed to upgrade the most important rural two-lane roads. Our bill will help address the shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be improved to four-lane divided highways.

As in many States, New Mexico's rural counties strongly believe their economic future depends on access to safe and efficient four-lane highways. Basic transportation infrastructure is one of the critical elements for companies choosing where to locate. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety and efficiency of a four-lane divided highway.

Thus one of the top priorities for rural cities and counties in my State is to complete the four-lane upgrade of such key routes as US54 from Tularosa to Nara Visa, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas state line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, and US666 from north of Gallup to Shiprock. These two-lane rural routes in New Mexico not only bear some of the State's heaviest truck and automobile traffic, but also are some of the State's most dangerous roads. In fact, US666 is considered one of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation.

New Mexico is not alone among western states in needing to upgrade two-lane roads on the National Highway System. For example, Texas has almost 3,500 miles of rural two-lane NHS roads. Montana has 2,469 miles, Kansas has 2,293, Nebraska 1,964, Wyoming 1,924, Minnesota 1,897, and Missouri 1,853 miles.

In the East, where States are smaller, many NHS routes remain only two lanes. In Vermont, 78 percent of rural NHS roads are only two lanes, in New Hampshire it's 84 percent and 99 percent in Maine.

I do believe it is time Congress took action to improve the safety of travelers on the highest priority rural two-lane roads. Last year, I secured nearly $1 million in Federal funding to begin the upgrade of US64/87 between Clayton and Raton, which is part of the Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System.

In addition, last week Senator Roberts and I introduced S. 290, which designates U.S. Highway 54 from El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma to Wichita, Kansas, as the SPIRIT High Priority Corridor. Our bipartisan bill has four cosponsors. A high-priority corridor designation provides no additional Federal funding, but helps focus attention on the need to upgrade the nation's major two-lane routes.

The purpose of the bill we are introducing today, the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003, is to provide direct Federal funding to States to upgrade existing two-lane roads in rural areas to safe and efficient four-lane divided highways. The States would determine which two-lane roads they wanted to upgrade. To be eligible for funding, the highway must be on the National Highway System or a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor. Our bill gives funding priority to upgrading the most dangerous two-lane highways, routes most affected by increased traffic as a result of NAFTA, highways that have high levels of commercial traffic, and projects that will help stimulate regional economic growth. Total funding for six years is $1.8 billion from the highway trust fund.

My State bears a substantial burden in the maintenance and upgrading of its portion of critical national highways. New Mexico has 3.3 percent of the Nation's land area, but only 6 tenths of one percent of the population. We have 2.2 percent of all of the interstate highway miles and 1.7 percent of all other NHS miles. At the same time, as a border State, New Mexico is common route for trucks crossing the border with Mexico and heading to or coming from the east and west coasts. It is likely that the upgrading to four lanes of the most important NHS highways in New Mexico might not occur without the supplemental funding provided in my bill.

I continue to believe strongly in the important role of highway infrastructure to economic development. Even in this age of the so- called ``new'' economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of our country.

I recognize that the funding level in this bill is inadequate to upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the next six years. Upgrading an existing two-lane road to a full four-lane divided highway can cost upward of one million dollars per mile.

Moreover, some of the existing two-lane roads probably don't have sufficient traffic to justify upgrading at this time. In addition, some two-lane NHS routes pass through scenic areas where it may not be appropriate to upgrade to four lanes. However, I do believe the funding in this bill will take us a long way toward ensuring the most critical projects are completed in the next six years.

This year Congress will take up the reauthorization of the comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. We are introducing this bipartisan bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety of rural two-lane NHS routes receives the attention it deserves as the debate on reauthorization begins. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, as well as Senators Bond and

Reid of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal resources are in place to hasten the work of upgrading rural two-lane NHS roads to safe, efficient four-lane divided highways.

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

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Thomas, Lincoln, and Johnson entitled ``The Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2003'' is designed to improve the flow of needed bonus payments to physicians serving Medicare patients in Health Professions Shortage Areas, HPSA.

The Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was meant to assist physicians in defraying the higher costs and burdens of serving Medicare patients in shortage areas. Rural areas are know to suffer from physician shortages, both primary care and specialty physicians. In fact, even though 20 percent of America lives in a rural area, less than 11 percent of physicians in the U.S., practice in rural areas.

In my own State, the ongoing loss of physicians from underserved areas has affected both primary care and in particular, specialty services. In many areas, the shortage of specialists exceeds that of the primary care physicians. The New Mexico Health Policy Commission reported in its year 2000 report that 22 percent of residents in Los Alamos and Santa Fe were unable to receive needed specialist care.

While the national ratio of physicians per population is 198 doctors per 100,000 persons, New Mexico ranks 33rd in the country with only 170 physicians per 100,000 population. We are not in a position to ``grow our own doctors'' either as New Mexico ranks 37th among the 46 States with medical schools in graduating physicians per capita.

New Mexico, like many other States with large numbers health profession shortage areas, or HPSAs, must rely on its ability to recruit and retain physicians in underserved areas to meet the health care needs of its citizens. It was the original intent of the MIPP to do this, by allowing for physicians in underserved areas to receive an additional 10 percent add-on in payments for services rendered. These 10 percent ``bonuses'' are meant to be an essential component in our ongoing effort to ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to medical services, particularly in underserved areas.

Unfortunately, the Medicare Incentive Payment Program has fared poorly, with few providers choosing to receive the payments. In fact, the total annual physician payments have never exceeded $100 million, because of a series of disincentives in the legislation.

The program requires a provider to do a number of things to obtain the bonus payments. First, providers must be aware that MIPP payments are available to them. Many providers are unaware of the program's existence. Next, physicians must find out if the patient's medical care occurred in a shortage area. Following this, a unique code must be attached to the Medicare claim, which is then forwarded to the carrier. Finally, after all these steps, providers are subjected to automatic Medicare audits, just for applying for the very payments for which they are eligible.

Providers committed to serving Medicare patients in underserved areas deserve the support assured by the original legislation's intent.

The Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2003 addresses and improves shortcomings in the original legislation by: Placing the burden for determining the bonus eligibility on the Medicare carrier. Eliminating automatic provider audits. Directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a Medicare Incentive Payment Program Educational Program for Providers. Establishing an ongoing analysis of the programs, ability to improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to physician services. Continue to provide the original 10 percent add-on bonus for Part B physician payments in Health Provider Shortage Areas.

Medicare carriers are the logical arbiters to determine whether physician services occurred in a shortage area. Physicians, already overworked, lack sufficient time, resources and training to research and determine whether a service was provided in a HPSA. By placing the responsibility on carriers, with their sophisticated information systems, the physician's administrative burdens will be reduced.

The automatic audits triggered by this program, which are costly, time intensive, and unwarranted, will be lifted under our legislation. By placing the responsibility on carriers to determine payment eligibility the need for provider audits is eliminated.

While the MIPP program is intended to improve beneficiaries' access to physician services, there is no measure of the program's effect on physician availability. The legislation offered today directs CMS to perform an ongoing analysis as to whether these payments actually do improve beneficiaries' access to physician services.

I believe these improvements, in addition to others listed above, will greatly improve patient's access to care.

The following organizations have expressed support for this legislation: American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, and the National Rural Health Association.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Alexander in introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act, which reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Act. I would especially like to congratulate Senator Alexander, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and his staff for working so hard to ensure that this bill would be a bipartisan piece of legislation.

I, like many of my colleagues, was greatly disturbed by the latest U.S. Census poverty data released last month, which shows that poverty rose to 12.1 percent in 2002, bringing the total number of people living in poverty to 34.6 million. The number of children in poverty rose by 400,000, which means that nearly 17 percent of children are living in poverty. Even more disturbing is that the number of people who lack health insurance rose by 2.4 million in 2002, bringing the total number of uninsured to an alarming 43.6 million. Although the proportion of uninsured children did not change between 2001 and 2002, 11.6 percent of all children remain without the necessary safety net of health insurance. Our children truly are our future; we must treat them like the precious resources that they are and provide them with the services and assistance they need.

There are many troubling signs for families today, particularly families with children. Unemployment continues to be a problem. Families are running out of unemployment benefits without finding jobs. The most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that welfare caseloads continue to decline overall, but in many States over the last year, caseloads are increasing. With States facing their worst budget crisis since WWII, many programs for low-income families are being cut. This is particularly a problem given that half the states are cutting child care funds. Parents need affordable child care to get and keep jobs. Clearly, this is a time of crisis for our Nation's low-income individuals and families. It is time for our government to help them through these difficult economic times and give them the opportunities and the tools to lift themselves back onto their feet.

The bill that we are introducing today will reaffirm our nation's commitment to alleviating poverty and upholding the American ethos of helping our neighbors. For over 40 years, Community Action Agencies have been using Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds to coordinate and deliver comprehensive poverty programs and services to our nation's poor. From administering Head Start programs, to delivering meals to the sick and elderly, providing adult education and literacy, and implementing the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, CSBG funds are reaching and helping nearly a quarter of all people living in poverty in the United States. It goes without saying, that ideally, we would like to reach out to each and every individual and family living in poverty, but this bill is a start. It is a good start. It is a firm commitment to communities that when times are tough, Community Action Agencies will continue to work at the local level to address local needs.

The bill will enhance community flexibility in serving the poor and working poor. I don't need to tell you, that a poor person living in urban New Haven has different needs from an impoverished family living in rural Danielson, CT. The same holds true for Community Action Agencies across our Nation. One Community Action Agency could be using their CSBG funds to teach computer skills in a town where a major manufacturing plant just closed down, while another Community Action Agency is using the same funds to develop rural waste water management systems. I am pleased that this reauthorization retains and strengthens the flexibility that makes CSBG such a unique and successful program, by upholding and strengthening the successful and innovative Results Oriented Management Assessment (ROMA) system of accountability and monitoring procedures.

I am also pleased that reauthorization of this bill will allow crucial assistance to reach more of our country's poor and working poor by setting a minimum eligibility level for assistance at 125 percent of the poverty level and a maximum of 60 percent of the State median income. In Connecticut alone, nearly 32 percent, or 437,492 households, are below 60 percent of the State median income. Conversely, if we had set the maximum at 185 percent of the poverty threshold, we would only reach 269,373 households. By using the State median income as a maximum, not only will this bill be benefitting the Nation's families living in poverty, but it will also assist those working poor families just above the poverty line, including those leaving welfare to make a smooth and permanent transition to self-sufficiency.

The bill also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which allocates grants to States to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. According to the most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services, 4.8 million households received winter heating assistance, 250,000 benefitted from cooling aid and 87,000 received summer crisis aid in fiscal year 2001. This legislation makes funding LIHEAP more responsive to community needs by basing emergency funding triggers on the price of home energy bills and the average number of heating and cooling days in a month. These simple automatic triggers will ensure that LIHEAP funds are readily available in times of crisis.

Again, I would like to congratulate and thank Senator Alexander for his fine work on this bipartisan piece of legislation. I firmly believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. Every day in this chamber and throughout the halls of the Senate, we talk about leaving no child behind, food stamps, comprehensive health care, job training and rural housing assistance. Mr. President, this bill encompasses all of these programs and services, and many more important poverty initiatives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in helping to strengthen low income communities, so that we can help more families become self-sufficient. In these tough economic times, families deserve this support.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Reed, Clinton and Murray to introduce the Democratic proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 (QUAD).

The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of teachers.

According to a recent CRS report, tuition went up last year at four- year public universities from 1.9 percent in New York to 23.8 percent in Massachusetts. In Connecticut, tuition went up 8.1 percent. According to the College Board, the average cost of attending a public four-year college including tuition, fees, room and board is over $9,000. For private four-year colleges, the average cost is over $24,000. Another study indicates that 29 percent of an average family's income goes toward public university tuition payments and 41 percent of an average family's income goes toward private university tuition. In comparison, the average family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of the annual income.

The simple fact is that many parents are deeply worried about how they are going to pay for their children's higher education. Constant hikes in tuition are not only a source of concern for parents, in some cases they are a source of panic. The legislation we are introducing today is an attempt to alleviate this worry and help working parents and working students afford the high cost of college. We do this in a number of ways.

The QUAD Act will increase the amount of Pell grants available to working families. Two decades ago, Pell grants covered 84 percent of average costs at four-year universities; today they cover less than 30 percent. This bill will reverse this downward trend by raising the maximum Pell Grant for students by $450, from $4,050 to $4,500.

The bill works through the tax code and student loans to make sure students are getting the financial support that they need on the most favorable terms. We eliminate origination fees on subsidized student loans, double the size of the Hope Credit, and allow college graduates a chance to refinance their consolidated loans so that they can take advantage of today's historically low interest rates.

QUAD works to level the playing field in admissions by requiring universities and colleges to be more up-front about their admissions policies and by creating a grant program so that low-income students and minority students have available to them college test preparation programs that on average increase a student's SAT score by 100 points.

The bill creates two new retention programs to ensure that students that start college complete their degrees. Low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years. African-American students are half as likely as white students to graduate, and four in ten Hispanics who enroll in four-year institutions drop out within three years.

QUAD will improve opportunities for undergraduates and graduate students at Minority Serving Institutions by creating new grant programs, removing regulatory burdens and increasing the funding levels of current initiatives. The bill also helps colleges and school districts recruit and train more highly qualified teachers and provides better training for principals and superintendents.

In addition to all of this, QUAD directly addresses the problem of rising college costs. This bill puts into place a requirement that states maintain their portion of higher education funding at 90 percent from fiscal year to fiscal year. If the Federal Government is going to make a commitment to providing more resources to higher education by increasing monies for student aid, it is only fair that we require states to maintain their current share of assistance. States should not be using our proposed increases in federal aid as an excuse to decrease their own spending levels. The states and the Federal Government should be working together on higher education, and not using one or the other as an excuse to reduce their share of the costs.

This bill also creates incentives for colleges to cut costs. QUAD creates a demonstration program to provide seed money to colleges and universities that want to explore innovative ways to reduce costs and pass savings on to students. This can be accomplished across universities by pooling resources, making joint purchase of supplies or employee benefits, and creating joint degree programs.

Recently, a 20-member consortium of Wisconsin universities spent $285,000 on staff and resources to find a way to purchase health care jointly. In the first year, they realized a savings of $3.8 million. That is a pretty impressive return on an investment of $285,000. Building on this type of initiative, our bill provides grants of $200,000 to consortia in other states around the country to incentivize these same kinds of cost-cutting measures, measures that have no effect on academic mission or quality of student life.

In the end, it is essential in this reauthorization that we do everything we can to ensure that qualified students are not being locked out of college. The economic costs for families would be immense. A full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings exceeds $1 million.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that every young person in our Nation has an opportunity to rise as high as their talents, dreams and determination will take them.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2003.'' The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. Today, I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and State governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.

In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. In 1998, the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire, devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings regarding the handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the ``known range'' as opposed to the alleged ``historical range'' of the mouse. Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short- grass, semi-arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. further, the State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes to the Endangered Species Act are desperately needed.

Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival.

My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific

or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, States are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.

This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.

In Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?

This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or a private citizen's development of their own property is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species?

This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, that person should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require.

Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de- listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process, and the State who has all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed.

Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this issue to no avail. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.

The point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real goal--recovery and delisting.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to guarantee that Federal agencies identify State, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA.

NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed Federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these Federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action.

Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many States throughout the Nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on Federal lands. NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these Federal lands for their existence.

The ``State and Local Government Participation Act'' is designed to provide for greater input from State and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that State, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many Federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on Federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival.

States and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on Federal lands in their State. Too often, Federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, DC or New York City than the people who actually live in the State where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities are vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decision that will affect their lives.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to re-introduce a bill that reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed in 1996. It is basically the same bill as I introduced in the last Congress and it is designed to allow States to continue the important work to promote work and personal responsibility. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow States to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved millions of Americans from welfare to work.

Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare rolls have left for work.

Seven years ago, we agreed that the bipartisan goal of welfare reform should be to promote work and to protect children. We stood here together,

on unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we believed would help families gain independence and economic self- sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each State designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific to their populations. While the results have been mixed, I believe that encouraging progress has been made. The challenge this year will be to continue to build on our foundation, and be sensitive to the current economic situation and the fiscal crisis States face today.

When we started welfare reform, we had a strong economy. Now, States are struggling and most of their reserves are gone. I believe we can continue the progress of welfare reform, but I strongly believe we must provide the key investments that help welfare parents make a successful transition from welfare to work, including increasing child care funding.

In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. In 2001, I hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the well-being of their children, even as they work.

Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2003. States need help to continue making progress. We should continue to build on this foundation, and not reduce state flexibility. It is essential that we continue welfare reform, not unravel it, or restructure it.

This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, designed by Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and Congressman Levin of Michigan. Under this important provision, States will only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a part-time job has achieved a true accomplishment, and that deserves recognition. It is also the first step toward independence. It is an empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to incorporate their proposal into my bill, and I look forward to working with them closely throughout the welfare debates during this Congress to develop an employment credit that truly rewards work.

At this point, with a soft economy, I believe it is unwise to significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher work participation rates requiring 40 hours per week of work and activities. Such changes, as suggested by the Administration, would double the work requirement for mothers with children under the age of 6, and that does not seem right. Increasing work requirement without new funding for child care, transportation, and job placement activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate. It could hinder state efforts to move parents into private sector jobs. It could undermine our progress.

State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such changes would force states to restructure existing programs that are working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a welfare check. We should not cut back on necessary child care and work supports for working families who are following the rules we set in 1996.

This comprehensive welfare reform bill makes the right investments. It invests $5.5 billion more in child care, which is the amount supported by the Finance Committee in a bipartisan vote last June.

This bill also increases funding for the basic TANF block grant by $2.5 billion because of state need. It provides full funding for the Social Services at $2.8 billion, which was promised to the states in 1996. My bill also would expand and increase the supplemental grants to help the states with high growth and high poverty deal with the challenges of welfare reform. With these new investments, states will be able to increase investment in the fundamental work supports like child care, transportation, and training, that help a parent succeed in moving from welfare to work. States would have flexibility in allocating the new resources, but I believe much of the funding can and will be directed into child care, which is a major priority.

This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage, and I appreciate his leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training and English as a Second Language programs, so parents can get real jobs. In recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program, States have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their caseload to combine work and education.

The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be eligible for grants as well.

A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to improve the support network for parents. These grants are intended to provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare.

Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important aspects of the lives of families and children. This legislation creates a Family Formation Fund to encourage healthy families, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in children's lives. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples.

Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's responsibilities is the well-being of their children.

This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can make even more improvements in our welfare system,

while maintaining our partnership with the States, particularly at this time of severe fiscal problems in our States.