PLEA Act

Mr. President, I am introducing the Teacher Acculturation Act of 2005 as a means to address an issue that impedes effective learning in our Nation's classrooms, and that is cultural incongruence. Such a lack of congruence exists in a wide range of situations, from rural and underserved communities in remote areas to well-populated urban centers, from my State of Hawaii to areas on the Eastern seaboard. The dynamic I am describing exists along lines of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, age, and many other vectors, which can muddy the stuff of learning that needs to be transmitted between students aiming to learn and teachers seeking to teach.

As many of my colleagues and I have said many times, our children are our future. Furthermore, our great Nation is dependent on the success of our educational system and what it is delivering to our children. An essential part of our educational system is a highly qualified teacher with knowledge of the subject area, and the ability to teach that subject to students. This is the most important factor in the academic success of the student. My bill will address one attribute of that success: the ability of the teacher to present the lesson in a way that students are ready to learn it.

I started my professional life as a teacher, so improvement of the field of education is never far from my thoughts. Even after all of my teacher training, I remember walking into a classroom and thinking, ``What do I do now?'' and, ``Will I be able to connect with my students?'' I have never forgotten those thoughts. Through my bill, I hope to work to help teachers answer these and similar questions, particularly for those teachers who are placed in States that are new to them, or in parts of their home States with which they have little or no familiarity. In my State of Hawaii, according to an article published Monday in the Honolulu Advertiser, Hawaii's 258 public schools need 1,400 to 1,600 new teachers every year to replace those who retire or leave the system, particularly in the areas of special education, speech pathology, autism, and hearing impairment. However, only about 500 Hawaii teachers are graduating and earning their licenses every year from both public and private colleges, and many of them are being drawn away from the State to schools on the mainland. Recruiting trips by the Hawaii Department of Education are seeking hires in cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. I would like to help to ensure the success of these and other teachers in similar situations across the country, to help smooth their adjustment to their new homes, and thus, make a fluid transition to their new classrooms.

The Teacher Acculturation Act seeks to address cultural incongruence between the teacher and the student population in the classroom. To be successful, the teacher must be prepared to teach in a way that students are ready to learn. And with a increasingly diverse student population, that becomes harder and harder as time goes by. To achieve these ends, the bill proposes programs in three parts.

The first two parts recognize the success of ongoing and sustained professional development to affect positive change in teaching pedagogy. The bill authorizes demonstration programs that aim to assist teachers in learning, developing, and implementing pedagogies that help all students learn. I have modeled the programs on the Lesson Study theory of change, which is a model that uses a cohort of professionals for lesson development, presentation of the developed lesson by a member of the cohort to a class, observation of the presentation by other members of the cohort, and post-presentation analysis and reflection by the entire cohort, along with coaches, mentors, and supervising practitioners. A group of teachers working together to improve their pedagogy has been shown to be very effective, and this model is becoming more popular at every level in teacher education and professional development, from classroom work in colleges of education, to cohort work by candidates for National Board Certification--the highest performance achievement available to a teacher in the United States.

The first demonstration program would take place during the time the prospective teacher is in a college or school of education, and introduces a multicultural awareness component into the pre-service teaching activities. In this program, prospective teachers would work with members of the community, trained academics, and practicing teachers to learn about cultural characteristics of the student population, to develop pedagogies and curriculum to fit those cultures, and to study how to deliver the new lessons in a culturally relevant style. Prospective teachers would then deliver these lessons to the students in a real classroom setting while student teaching. Post- teaching analysis, reflection, and discussion would then allow the student teacher to analyze and reflect upon the performance.

The second demonstration program is structured similarly to the first program, but conducts a professional development activity during the time the teacher is new to the profession--generally the first three years--recognizing that many teachers develop teaching styles in these initial years that they may use for the duration of their teaching careers. Through this program, a cohort of teachers would undertake a year-long program, which includes two summers, under the direction of a coach trained in multicultural education. Participating teachers would already be placed in teaching positions and have a defined learning community to work with. If done right, such a program has the potential to involve the whole school community and, eventually, contribute to whole school change.

These two programs taken together have the potential to develop a cadre of teachers adept at teaching in ways that are culturally- relevant, ways that address the needs of the students, and ways in which the students are ready to learn. I truly feel that such programs working with new and prospective teachers can make a difference in addressing the current achievement gap, particularly impacting the groups most at risk of being on the losing end of the achievement gap.

The third section of the Teacher Acculturation Act of 2005 would set up Centers of Excellence in Multicultural Education. These centers would support the professional development activities from the first two parts of the bill by providing trained mentors, coaches, and academics, as well as undertaking research into the areas of multicultural education. The centers would also develop activities for use by schools and districts to provide ongoing professional development opportunities to all faculty or teachers.

We must never forget that a solid education is the cornerstone of our future. And a highly qualified teacher is needed to provide that education. The teacher not only needs to be knowledgeable about the subject being taught, but needs to know how to teach the subject to the students. This bill would help address the question of how. It seeks to prepare the teacher to deal with groups of students with different learning styles, as well as to identify the needs of divergent groups of students and how to vary teaching to support the learning of these students. My bill seeks to improve learning among those groups who are underserved today. Although my bill alone would not eliminate the achievement gap, it seeks to provide a good start.

This bill is supported by leading experts and organizations in the field of multicultural education, including Ms. Joyce Harris, Executive director of the National Academy for Multicultural Education, Dr. James Banks of the Center for Multicultural Education at the University of Washington, and Dr. Randy Hitz, Dean of the College of Education at the University of Hawaii. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce legislation that would establish Parkinson's Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers and Multiple Sclerosis, MS, Centers of Excellence in the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. The need for research and care is extremely pressing at a time when VA is dealing with meeting the demands of veterans suffering from debilitating neurological diseases.

VA has been a leader in the advancement of medicine and should be applauded for its progressive and innovative research endeavors. Yet, continued strides in specialized research are necessary to address the specific health care needs of our veterans. Through the establishment of the Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis Centers, VA clinicians and educators will be able to gain a better understanding of these diseases that affect not just our veterans, but Americans across the nation. It is through this understanding that clinicians will be able to provide more effective patient care, treatment, and education.

The establishment of the Parkinson's Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers stems from the same spirit that inspired the conception of a great alliance formed between VA and the National Parkinson Foundation, Inc., NPF, in June of 1999. This alliance created an opportunity for the two entities to come together to develop research and treatment symposiums, provide information concerning Parkinson's disease, and also provide VA physicians that treat at least 20,000 Parkinson's patients with continuing education.

Those affected with Parkinson's Disease not only suffer from symptoms that manifest themselves physically, such as through tremors, muffled speech, slowness and impaired mobility. There are also psychological effects characterized in the form of depression for those suffering from this diseases. Through these centers, clinicians and educators can determine better ways to manage symptoms associated with Parkinson's Disease, as well as those symptoms such as fatigue and spasticity associated with MS that will give veterans suffering from these diseases a better quality of life.

Since the time of its inception, the VA health care system was tasked with

meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Though VA is providing the necessary care to those currently affected by the disease, more can be done to develop new treatments to reduce the symptoms and slow down the progression of the disease.

This legislation will provide VA with the opportunity to establish these centers and mark a new phase in the pursuit of enhanced treatment for those that struggle with the daily challenges imposed by these diseases, which includes not only the veteran patients but their families as well. The Parkinson's Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence will also be beacons of hope towards finding a cure for degenerative neurological diseases.

I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill as a commitment to advancing research and education for veterans battling Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. I also wish to thank Congressman Lane Evans, who serves as the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for his leadership on this issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005. I am pleased to have Senators Inouye, Lautenberg and Levin join me in cosponsoring the bill. My legislation encourages Federal, State, and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, Indian tribes and private entities to work together through a cost-shared, cooperative grant program to control and mitigate the spread of invasive species.

Invasive species are defined as harmful, nonnative plants, animals, or organisms likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm, or harm to human health. They are widespread throughout the United States and cause billions of dollars of damage annually to crops, rangelands, and waterways. The globalization of trade, the massive volume of cargo shipments, and rising tourism have combined to increase the chance of introductions of nonnative species into the United States. They are responsible for damage to native ecosystems and vital industries such as agriculture, fisheries, and ranching. The economic, social, recreational, and ecological losses attributable to invasive species are huge. A recent Cornell University study estimated that invasive plants and animals cost the U.S. economy $137 billion annually. The costs are predicted to increase substantially as more invasive species enter the country.

The implications of the nationwide invasive species problem are enormous. The Ecological Society of America notes that invasive species contribute to the listing of 35 to 46 percent of all threatened and endangered species. Nowhere, however, are the impacts greater than in my home State of Hawaii. Hawaii is known for its biodiversity. Hawaii has more than 10,000 species found nowhere else on Earth. Unfortunately, invasive species are the number one cause of the decline of Hawaii's threatened and endangered species. This is a serious concern because of the 114 endangered species that have become extinct during the first 20 years of the Endangered Species Act, almost half were in Hawaii. Recently, gall wasps were found laying eggs in wiliwili trees. These trees were once a dominant species in dry Hawaiian forests. Now they are nearly 90 percent gone with the remnants of the remaining trees, primarily found on Maui and the Big Island, threatened by the invasive gall wasp. The fragility of our native species is compounded by the fact that most introduced species have no natural predators in the State, and such predators cannot simply cross a State border to enter Hawaii. Hawaii's Invasive Species Partnerships, a group comprised of a state council and island-based committees stated in its 2004 report that ``the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive species is the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural environment, and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and visitors.'' Hawaii is plagued with pest invasions to a greater extent than almost any other location in the world. The invasion has limited our agricultural export market, decreased bio-diversity in the forests, and decimated native bird populations. It is imperative that this serious issue receive our full attention.

Let me give you just a few examples of invasive species problems in Hawaii. Control efforts for the Formosan ground termite are estimated to cost residents in Hawaii more than $150 million per year. Damage to our agricultural industry and the related control costs of the Mediterranean fruit fly are more than $450 million annually. Miconia, an invasive tree infesting more than 15,000 acres of rainforest in Hawaii, eliminates the habitat of endangered plants and animals and causes serious erosion problems that threaten our water supply. Bush Beardgrass is a drought-tolerant grass that increases the risk of brushfires. Wildlife authorities say the grass is beyond control on Kauai and the Big Island. Native birds in our rainforests are succumbing to malaria spread through introduced mosquitos. Coqui frogs can reach densities of 8,000 frogs per acre and threaten Hawaii's real estate, export floriculture, and nursery industries. The brown tree snake has invaded Guam and devastated native bird populations there. If the snakes become established in Hawaii, economic costs have been estimated to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars. Red fire ants threaten the agriculture industry in Hawaii and in 14 Southern States, causing more than $2 billion in annual damage. As you can see, the list

of problems is long and the time to address the issue of invasive species is now, before even more serious problems crop up.

With 73 percent of land in the continental U.S. held privately, our Federal lands will not be adequately protected without public-private partnerships. My bill requires coordination between the National Invasive Species Council, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and State invasive species councils and plans. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants to promote the development of voluntary State assessments to establish inventories and priorities for controlling invasive species. This is a critical step in establishing an invasives program, but many States do not have the resources to carry out this critical assessment. The legislation also provides additional grants to public or private entities, or Indian tribes, to carry out in partnership with a Federal agency an eradication, containment, or management project on Federal land or adjacent land. Control grants are cost-shared with partners. The criteria for ranking control projects include shared priorities in State and Federal plans, the severity of the invasive species impact on a State, and whether the project fosters results through public-private partnerships. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill provides rapid response funds for States facing new outbreaks of invasive species, to eradicate serious new outbreaks. Rapid response funds are critical to States in order to combat newly identified invasives.

I was pleased to see that Federal departments would receive an overall increase for the seven invasive species general categories in the President's fiscal year 2006 proposed budget. I appreciate the consideration that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have given this important issue. However, I was dismayed to see that the budget for the category of control of invasive species declined by $25 million from its fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Control is an essential element in combating invasive species and requires additional funding.

I would like to acknowledge the fine work being accomplished by the National Park Service in establishing its Exotic Plant Management Teams. These Teams are designed to provide a highly trained, mobile strike force of plant management specialists to assist parks in the control of exotic plants. Approximately 2.6 million acres in the national parks are infected and 234 parks have invasive animals in need of management. To date, 17 Teams have been deployed throughout the country. I am grateful to the Pacific Island Team for its efforts to protect increasingly rare native communities in the Hawaiian Islands from invasion. Control of exotic species is one of the most significant land management issues facing national parks. Although I applaud the current efforts of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service, a more coordinated and forceful attack on invasive species is needed. The attack must have robust funding and work in partnership with the States.

I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking a leadership role in addressing its invasive species problems. Two years ago the Hawaii State Legislature established the Hawaii Invasive Species Council to coordinate the State's fight against animal and plant invaders, with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Land and Natural Resources in leading roles. The Hawaii State Legislature has directed approximately $8 million to the invasives campaign so far. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council and each county council are committed to a proactive approach to preserve the environmental heritage and economic security of our communities for generations to come. In addition, many public and private partnerships have been formed to protect our common natural resources. For example, the East Maui Watershed Partnership brings together multiple public and private landowners and the County of Maui to control invasive species and protect 100,000 acres of our prime watershed areas. This is just one example of many highly successful and dedicated partnerships in Hawaii working to preserve our invaluable resources.

The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, a coalition of representatives from major environmental organizations, has extended its full support for this legislation. Its letter of support calls this bill ``one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with the growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's ecological and economic health.'' The State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, also supports the bill. The Department acknowledges that success in invasive species projects in Hawaii have come largely from the formation of strong partnerships between State, County and Federal agencies and private groups -exactly what my legislation endorses. My bill is also supported by the Conservation Council of Hawaii, the National Wildlife Federation affiliate in Hawaii. I greatly appreciate these endorsements.

As Federal efforts to combat the growing tide of invasive species increase, some landowners and private property advocates are concerned that increased efforts to combat invasives and support native plants and animals could lead to the next big government invasion of private lands. Let me assure you this is not a property rights issue. Any action taken by governments or nonprofits through this bill can occur only with the participation and willingness of the property owner.

There are increasingly severe problems and economic burdens associated with invasive species in our Nation that are borne at the State and local levels. If ever there was a time to commit to defending the security of our domestic resources for the future, it is now. My legislation provides the support necessary for agencies, organizations, and individuals to implement cooperative projects to address new threats and long-standing invasive species problems. This is an issue that must be confronted.

I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record, as well as the letters of support from Hawaii and national groups, and urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. President, today I am, again, introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 40 years ago. That promise, building and completing a network of highways through the Appalachian region is known today as the Appalachian Development Highway System or ADHS. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to have my legislation included in the reauthorization of the Federal-aid Highway Program, a program at the core of Federal infrastructure investment.

Over the course of the 108th Congress, we failed to reauthorize this program. That legislation should have been enacted into law prior to beginning fiscal year 2004. We are now more than one third of the way through fiscal year 2005 and the 109th Congress must initiate new bills to get the job done. I know I speak for many Senators in stressing the need to complete this job during this session of Congress. We must authorize a bill that addresses our deteriorating highways and bridges, and is not squeezed by the artificial funding ceiling that the administration wants.

The administration's own Conditions and Performance Report again reminds us that a great deal more investment in our infrastructure is essential to prevent the further deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges.

At a September 30, 2002 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Administrator Mary Peters testified that, despite the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. Funding for highway infrastructure by all levels of government will have to increase by more than 65 percent or $42.2 billion per year to actually improve the condition of our Nation's highways. A funding increase of more than 17 percent or $11.3 billion is necessary to simply maintain the current poor condition of our highway network, where more than one in four of our Nation's bridges are classified as deficient.

At the end of 2002, I worked doggedly to ensure that the Senate prevailed in the conference with the House on the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 and rejected every penny of the $8.6 billion cut in highway funding proposed by President Bush. In 2003, I was pleased to join with Senators Bond and Reid, the respective chairman and ranking member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in sponsoring a bipartisan amendment to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 boosting funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I am one of only two members still serving in the Congress that had the privilege of casting a vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System. I did so as a Member of the other body back in 1956. Of equal if not greater importance to the transportation needs of my region, however,

were the findings of the first Appalachian Regional Commission in 1964, that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system would bypass the Appalachian region because of the extremely high costs of building highways through Appalachia's rugged topography.

In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my region of the country would have been left with a transportation network of dangerous, narrow, winding roads following the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains.

One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September of 2002 that especially caught my eye was her statement that ``the condition of higher-order roads, such as interstates, has improved considerably since 1993 while the condition on many lower-order roads has deteriorated.'' The pattern of road conditions mirrors the distribution of wealth in our country. The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation becomes especially pertinent when one contemplates the challenge of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System.

We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region still wait for the Federal Government to make good on its 40-year-old promise to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete. My home State of West Virginia is below the average for the entire Appalachian region with only 72 percent of its mileage complete and open to traffic.

Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor roads. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is the most comprehensive report on the status of the Appalachian Development Highway System to date, and I commend the staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission for their hard work on this report. The last report was completed in 1997 just prior to Congressional consideration of TEA-21.

The enactment of TEA-21 signaled a new day in the advancement of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through the work of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the administration, we took a great leap forward by authorizing direct contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to the States for the construction of the ADHS. Up until that point, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System was limited to uncertain general fund appropriations. By providing the States of the Appalachian region with a predictable source of funds to complete ADHS segments, TEA-21 reinvigorated efforts to keep the promise made to the people of the Appalachian region.

This initiative has been a great success. States are making progress toward the completion of the system. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and, the cost to complete the system has been reduced by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds.

I am pleased to report that the 13 States, to date, have succeeded in obligating just under 90 percent of the obligation authority that has been granted to them for the completion of the system. A 90-percent obligation rate compares quite favorably to some of the other transportation programs through which the States were granted multiple years to obligate their funds.

According to the ARC's Cost to Complete Report, the remaining Federal funds needed to complete the ADHS as the system was defined at the time that report was completed are now estimated to be $4.467 billion. When adjusted for inflation over the life of the next highway bill, using the standard inflation calculation for highway projects, a total of $5.04 billion will need to be authorized to complete the system. That is a lot of money and I believe that figure deserves some explanation.

The considerable cost of completing the last 20 percent of the ADHS is explained by the fact that the easiest segments of the system to build have already been built. Much of the costs associated with completing the most difficult unfinished segments are driven by the requirement to comply with other Federal laws, especially the laws requiring environmental mitigation measures when building new highways through rural areas. While the $5.04 billion figure may seem large to some of my colleagues, I would remind them that the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in Federal infrastructure investment over 6 years. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the next highway bill will authorize an even greater amount.

Of critical importance to this debate is the fact that the unfinished segments of the ADHS represent some of most dangerous and most deficient roadways in our entire Nation. Often lost in our debate over the necessity to invest in our highways is the issue of safety. The Federal Highway Administration has published reports indicating that substandard road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents. I am quite certain that the percentage is a great deal higher in the Applachian region.

The Federal Highway Administration found that upgrading two-lane roads to four-lane divided highways decreased fatal car accidents by 71 percent and that the widening of traffic lanes has served to reduce fatalities by 21 percent. These are precisely the kind of road improvements that are funded through the ADHS. In my state, the largest segment of unfinished Appalachian Highway, if completed, will replace the second most dangerous segment of roadway in West Virginia. So, even those who would question the wisdom of completing these highways in the name of economic development should take a hard look at the fact that the people of rural Appalachia are taking their lives in their hands every day as they drive on dangerous roads. It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. If we enact another six-year highway bill with sufficient funds to complete the system, we will finally pay the full costs of the ADHS some 45 years after the system was first promised to the people of my region. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act,'' will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system. Importantly, it will guarantee that the states of the Appalachian Region do not pay a penalty, either through the distribution of minimum allocation funds, or the distribution of obligation limitation, for receiving sufficient funds to complete the Appalachian system.

I am very pleased that this administration has taken on the goal of completing the ADHS. In her letter accompanying the Cost to Complete Report, Administrator Peters said ``the completion of the ADHS is an important part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration. We consider the accessibility, mobility and economic stimulation provided by the ADHS to be entirely consistent with the goals of our agency.'' Ms. Peters further stated that the Appalachian Regional Commission's 2002 Cost to Complete Report, ``provides a sound basis for apportioning future funding to complete the system.'' I thank Mary Peters and the entire Federal Highway Administration for their leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with Ms. Peters and her agency to ensure that this commitment is borne out in the transportation reauthorization legislation that is developed by the Congress.

Completion of a new highway bill will be an enormous task for this Congress--one that is now more than 2

years overdue. As I look back over the many years of my public career, one of the accomplishments of which I am most proud was my amendment providing an additional $8 billion in funding to break the logjam during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Another was my sponsorship of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment during the Senate debate of TEA-21 in 1998. That effort resulted in some $26 billion in funding being added to that bill and put us on a path to historic funding increases for our nation's highway infrastructure. I look forward again to working with my fellow Senators on completion of a bill that makes the necessary investments in our nation's highways, not just in the Appalachian region but across our entire country.

Mr. President, in recent years, the public profile of the National Guard has changed considerably. Known mainly for the contributions of citizen-soldiers to their States and communities, today the men and women of the National Guard are serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, enduring hardships in two of the world's most dangerous places.

In spite of the long deployments, far away from the small towns and big cities that these citizen-soldiers call home, the National Guard continues its work for our States and the American people. Today, I introduce legislation to support a most successful program that has helped the National Guard change the lives of tens of thousands of young Americans.

In 1991, I provided the first funding to establish a pilot program known as the National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Program. Over the years, this program has expanded in size and scope and is now known as the National Guard Youth Challenge Program.

The Youth Challenge Program gives high school dropouts the skills they need to turn their lives around. The advantage of using the National Guard to provide a structured environment for these students has been confirmed in studies by the Defense Science Board in 2000, the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Children in 2003, and the Department of Defense in 2004.

The program now operates 27 academies in 24 States, including West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Over 5,000 cadets are now in training, and more than 58,000 have graduated from the program since 1993. Fully three-quarters of the Youth Challenge graduates have earned their high school diplomas in the program, but the program is at the mercy of shrinking state budgets.

In March 2004, the Department of Defense recommended an increase in Federal support for the program in order to prevent any more closures of Youth Challenge academies. The bill I introduce today would write that recommendation into law, phasing in the additional Federal support over 3 years.

My legislation also proposes to increase the authorization for the Youth Challenge program by $16.3 million, including $6.3 million for the proposed increase in the Federal share of the Youth Challenge Program's cost for Fiscal Year 2006.

My bill authorizes an additional $10 million to provide the first significant per-student increase in funding since the program began. For more than 12 years, the funding of the Youth Challenge Program has remained constant at $14,000 per student, per year. Imagine that. Think of that. At a time when the cost of education is growing by leaps and bounds, the Youth Challenge program has held the line on its budget for more than 12 years.

But such discipline means that there have been cutbacks in teachers, uniforms, and activities. The additional $10 million authorized in my bill would end these cutbacks, and may also be used to open new Youth Challenge academies, giving more at-risk youth a chance to change their lives.

Many of the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard serve our country in distant lands, but their commitment to their communities continues. The legislation I introduce today will strengthen that commitment by expanding the National Guard Youth Challenge Program for disadvantaged youth.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Roads to Success Act of 2005, which is legislation designed to expand higher educational and career opportunities for American students. There is no doubt as to the benefit of receiving a post-secondary education. The level of education that individuals accumulate has an important influence on their experience in the labor market. According to 2002 U.S. Census Bureau statistics on educational attainment and earnings, the mean earnings of men with a bachelor's degree is $63,354, while the mean earnings of men with a high school degree is $32,363. This is a difference of more than $30,000 or 97 percent.

In recent years, there have been clear signs that more Americans are pursuing higher education opportunities. In June 2002, USA Today reported that 63 percent of high school graduates go to college immediately after graduation, the highest percentage in U.S. history. Yet not all of the news on college graduation rates has been good. Only 18 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanic high school graduates earn a bachelor's degree by their late twenties, compared to 33 percent of whites according to the National Center for Education Statistics, NCES, in 2001. Further, in 2000, NCES reported that 22 percent of low-income, college qualified high school graduates do not pursue post-secondary education, compared to 4 percent of high-income graduates.

As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many middle school and high school students that they do not have the preparation necessary to enroll in higher education institutions. On a trip to the Commonwealth, I joined Andrew McKelvey--the founder of the McKelvey Foundation--to announce Federal funding for entrepreneurial scholarships to rural, low-income Pennsylvania high school graduates. During that trip, I had a frank discussion with Mr. McKelvey regarding the need to not only ensure access to funding for students to pursue higher education, but the need to inform students about the importance of higher education, as well as prepare students for the application process.

The bill I am introducing today, the ``Roads to Success Act of 2005'', will help to educate middle school and high school students in grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, about higher education and career opportunities. This bill will create a program which will provide students with access to information on higher education and career development, and prepare students with the skills necessary to plan for higher education. The availability of information on higher education opportunities makes an enormous difference to students contemplating continuing their education at the undergraduate level.

My legislation will authorize a grant to Roads to Success, a nonprofit educational organization, to develop a core curriculum to be taught in the classroom to equip middle and high school students with the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue post-secondary education and their career goals. Given the importance of higher education, it makes sense to prepare students for the undergraduate process as part of their class instruction to ensure that all students have access to the necessary information to attain their objectives. To this end, middle schools and high schools participating in the program will dedicate one hour each week of their classroom activity to higher education and career preparation of students utilizing the core curriculum.

Additionally, I seek to create a network of intensive academic support for students by encouraging public-private partnerships to emphasize the importance of higher education and career development. Partnerships with private entities create a unique opportunity for middle schools and high schools to supplement and enhance the core curriculum by offering appropriate enrichments, including guest speakers, videos and web-based services. For example, through these partnerships, middle school and high school students will gain first- hand knowledge of the skills that businesses are seeking by having the opportunity to speak with business leaders, as well as perhaps tour local facilities. This will underscore the significance and importance of higher education for students as they embark on their future career paths.

To implement this initiative, my bill will authorize $10 million annually for fiscal years 2006 through 2011, for Roads to Success to develop a core curriculum which has as its cornerstone increasing awareness of the importance of higher education, developing career awareness, building life skills, and providing education planning to students. Under this legislation, Roads to Success will award subgrants to five State educational agencies to offer higher education preparation programs using the core curriculum in middle and high schools with historically low rates of student application and admission to post-secondary institutions.

It is my sincere hope that this act will ensure that students who wish to enroll in a higher education institution will have access to the tools and resources necessary to help them plan for undergraduate study. We must take this step to encourage students to pursue their educational and career goals--especially those who might not otherwise have this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this act, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2005, which would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance the protection of the United States agricultural industry and food security through increased prevention, detection, response and recovery planning.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, Congress has taken substantive actions to protect America and indeed, the world from the threat of terrorism. Yet, there is a significant component of the United States that is at risk from terrorist attacks, and that is American agriculture. The United States agriculture industry accounts for 13 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, makes up 8 percent of our foreign trade, and accounts for over $192 billion in cash receipts. More specifically in Pennsylvania, agriculture is the number one industry with over 59,000 farms and ranches producing cash receipts exceeding $4 billion annually. Less than 2 percent of the American people are considered farmers or ranchers; however, they are responsible for feeding 100 percent of the American population. It is incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to ensure that the American farmer and rancher, and our Nation's food supply, are protected from any act of terrorism.

During the 108th Congress, I held four forums on the issue of agroterrorism and food security at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture working in conjunction with the PA Secretary of Agriculture to address the needs and concerns of Pennsylvania's producers, processors, commodity representatives, veterinarians, public health officials, university administrators, and local government representatives. Collectively, the comments and issues raised at these forums provided the impetus to craft this necessary and timely legislation.

This legislation would afford the American farmer, rancher, and the United States agriculture industry the protection it deserves. My bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize the act of agroterrorism, ensuring that we have a legal recourse against individuals seeking to disrupt our interstate commerce and foreign trade, or who try to coerce our civilian population or government. An agroterrist act would be defined as a criminal act that consists of causing, financing, or attempting to cause damage or harm to, or destruction of, a crop, livestock, raw agricultural commodity, food product, farm or ranch equipment, a material, or any other property associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in an agricultural activity, that is committed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to disrupt interstate commerce or foreign commerce of the United States agricultural industry. Further, I have included the death penalty provision in this legislation to be consistent with existing laws concerning acts of terrorism.

Beyond criminalizing the act of agroterrorism, this legislation would provide farmers and ranchers with on-farm bio-security resources; tools that reduce the potential for disease outbreaks. Through these resources, our farmers and ranchers would be able develop preparedness, response and recovery planning techniques. These techniques would enable farmers and ranchers to control access to their farms, separate animal shipping vehicles from animal feed facilities, and know what risks visitors present. Ultimately, the intent of this provision is to ensure that our first responders have the information, training, and critical infrastructure they need to react aggressively to an incident of agroterrorism.

The impact of globalization affects agriculture in ways that many would be unaware. For example, livestock and crop diseases can be obtained and disseminated with ever increasing ease. These diseases are endemic to other parts of the world and can be extracted from common materials, such as soil. Additionally, agricultural inspections at ports of entry, the first line of defense against the entry of foreign animal and plant diseases, have declined over the last two years at a time when imports have increased. Therefore, I have called for the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Interior, Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate and enhance monitoring, surveillance, and intelligence capabilities concerning threats, delivery systems, border controls, and actions that could be directed against the agriculture sector.

This legislation would authorize significant grant funding for States to establish state and local emergency response plans, information management, and to provide training for first responders, in the event of an animal or plant disease outbreak. The 2001 foot

and mouth disease outbreak in England required extensive intervention to eradicate and control the spread of disease. Therefore, the question remains if our Nation is ready to respond to such an outbreak, whether caused by a natural event or an act of terrorism.

Additionally, this legislation would authorize funding for pilot grant demonstrations concerning on-farm bio-security. The majority of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and processors are family owned or small businesses, and they need our assistance in strengthening and changing their practices to meet the challenges they are facing in this war on terror. It is our duty as their representatives to provide the tools they need to preserve the American farm and ranch.

This legislation would ensure that our National Veterinary Stockpile contains sufficient amounts of animal vaccine, antiviral, or therapeutic products to appropriately respond to the most damaging animal diseases affecting human health and the economy. Additionally, let us not think that agroterrorism pertains only to animals. A plant disease event can impact our agricultural economy as well. Therefore, I have included provisions to ensure that our U.S. National Germplasm system can respond to such an event with the use of disease-resistant seed varieties.

Compounding the threat of agroterrorism is the fact that the United States is currently experiencing a shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural areas. This results in an inability to respond to a disease outbreak whether natural or an act of terrorism. In response to this decline, this legislation would provide both educational debt repayment for veterinarians serving American agriculture during a disease outbreak and capacity building grants for colleges and schools of veterinary medicine to design higher education training programs in exotic animal diseases, epidemiology, and public health.

The last provision of this legislation would require the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, HHS, Interior, and the Administrator of EPA to submit a report to Congress that describes the feasibility and need for modernizing or replacing current federal Biological Level 3 and Biological Level 4 laboratories responsible for research, technology development, diagnostic, and forensic activities on plant and animal diseases, including zoonotic diseases. As a nation we cannot adequately fight a modern war on terrorism using technology and laboratories that have exceeded their capability and useful life span.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which would secure our Nation's most critical infrastructure, our food supply. As a nation, we cannot take for granted that our food supply will not be susceptible to terrorist activities. The measures called for in this legislation would not impose any new regulations on our farmers, ranchers, or processors but rather would provide them with the tools necessary to counteract agroterrorism. Without question, the time has come for concerted action to ensure the protection of American agriculture.

Mr. President, in light of the most recent evidence uncovered about Enron's participation in the Western Energy Crisis, I rise today to introduce the Energy Market Oversight Bill with Senators Levin, Harkin, Cantwell and Wyden.

This bill would: Improve Price Transparency in Wholesale Electricity Markets. The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish an electronic system to provide information about the price and availability of wholesale electricity to buyers, and sellers, and the public.

Prohibit Round Trip Electricity Trades. The bill prohibits the simultaneous buying and selling of the same quantity of electricity at the same price in the same location with no financial gain or loss. Round trip or ``wash trades'' are essentially bogus trades whereby no electricity changes hands, but the profit from the trades enriches the bottom-line of a company's financial report.

Increase Penalties for Violations of Federal Power Act. Maximum fines for violations of the Federal Power Act are increased from $5,000 to $1,000,000.; and maximum sentences are increased from 2 to 5 years. Current fines are extraordinarily low and therefore provide no deterrence to illegal activity.

Increase Penalties for Violations of Natural Gas Act. The bill increases maximum fines for violations of the Natural Gas Act from $5,000 to $1,000,000.

Prohibit Manipulation in Electricity Markets. Manipulation is prohibited in the wholesale electricity markets and FERC is given discretionary authority to revoke market-based rates for violations. Strangely enough, manipulation of energy markets is not specifically prohibited. This would add language to Part II of the Federal Power Act.

Repeal the ``Enron exemption''. Repeals the Commodities Future Modernization Act exemption for large traders in energy commodities and applies the anti-manipulation and anti-fraud provisions of the Commodities Exchange Act to all Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives. In my view, when Congress exempted energy from the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, it created the playing field for the Western Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, and cost millions of people millions of dollars.

Provide CFTC the Tools to Monitor OTC Energy Markets. For Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives that perform a significant price discovery function, including trades on electronic trading facilities, the bill requires large sophisticated traders to keep records and report large trades to the CFTC. This does not change the law, only applies the law that exists for futures contracts to over the counter trades in the energy markets.

Limit on Use of Data. Requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to seek information that is necessary for the limited purposes of detecting and preventing manipulation in the futures and over the counter markets for energy; to keep proprietary trade and business data confidential except when used for law enforcement purposes. This does not require the real-time publication of proprietary data.

No Effect on Non-Energy Commodities or Derivatives. The bill would not alter or affect the regulation of futures markets, financial derivatives, or metals. We have specifically stated on page 20 the following: ``The amendments made by this title have no effect on the regulation of excluded commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act.''

In addition, the bill states: ``The amendments made by this title have no effect on the regulation of metals under the Commodity Exchange Act.''

The Western Energy Crisis of 2000-2001 has still not been resolved. Meanwhile, more and more information about Enron's role in the crisis emerges. On February 3, 2005, the Snohomish Public Utility District released transcripts of tapes showing that on January 17, 2001, Enron traders concocted false repairs for a Las Vegas power plant--making power unavailable that would have been delivered to California--on the very same day that supplies were so tight that Northern California experienced a Stage 3 power emergency and rolling blackouts hit as many as 2 million consumers.

By taking the plant offline, Enron was also in direct violation of an Emergency Power Order by U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson that required power generators to make power available to California.

Telephone transcripts between Enron and the Las Vegas plant

Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I are introducing legislation to combat the use of fraudulent immigration documents, particularly passports and other travel documents.

The need to prevent and prosecute passport and travel document fraud is clear, and this bill would increase penalties for the use of fraudulent travel documents.

We know that the threat of terrorism against the United States is real and as the 9/11 Commission Report states, ``for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In order to minimize the threat of terrorism to the United States, we must make every effort to limit the use of fraudulent immigration documents.

The bill Senator Sessions and I are introducing would make the use of fraudulent travel documents--such as passports, Border Crossing Cards, Canadian driver's licenses or identification cards, transportation letters for parolees, military identification cards or green cards--an aggravated felony which will mandate detention and increase the likelihood of prosecution.

Today, this is not the case. Instead, fraudulent documents are routinely returned to the offender and individuals are allowed to return home without suffering any consequences from their attempts to circumvent our immigration laws.

Why is this a problem?

Firstly, admission to the United States is a privilege and not a right. We should not tolerate fraud and deception at our ports of entry, particularly because it should be apparent that a terrorist organization as sophisticated as Al Qaeda is well aware of our current procedures and can be expected to take full advantage of them.

Secondly, the 9/11 Commission found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001 could have been intercepted by border officials, based in part on their travel documents. In fact, all but one of the September 11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document and some of those documents were acquired by fraud. All of the hijackers opened bank accounts in their names and used passports and other identification documents that appeared valid on their face.

Even before September 11, 2001, the use of fraudulent immigration documents to enter the United States was a threat that we did not sufficiently heed.

Let me give you some known examples of terrorists who have entered, or attempted to enter the United States, with fraudulent travel documents: Ahmed Ajaj and Ramzi Yousef attempted to enter the United States with fraudulent passports. Both were later implicated or convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing in February of 1993.

Ahmed Ressam used a fraudulently obtained Canadian passport, and, in 1999 attempted to cross the border from Canada at Port Angeles in Washington State. A border inspector felt Mr. Ressam looked nervous, and a search of his car turned up a trunk full of bombs. There is some debate about the exact target(s) of the attack; however, it seems likely that Los Angeles International Airport and perhaps the millennium celebrations in Seattle were the intended targets.

It is no secret that: as the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear, Al Qaeda has established a complex international travel network that allowed, and presumably still allows, its operatives to legally travel worldwide to train, conduct reconnaissance or otherwise prepare for an attack. This network included, and presumably still includes, the use of altered and counterfeit passports and visas.

Many countries, including France, Portugal and Saudi Arabia, have reported tens of thousands of passports and travel documents stolen. When these are stolen in large numbers, they are sold on the black market to others.

The 9/11 Commission found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who they claim to be--and ensured consequences for any violations--it could potentially have denied entry, deported or come into further contact with the terrorists that were involved in the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General issued the following reports on lost and stolen passports: ``A Review of the Use of Stolen passports from Visa Waiver Countries to Enter the United States'', December 2004; and, ``An Evaluation of the Security Implications of the Visa Waiver Program'' (April 2004).

I encourage my colleagues to read these reports on the vulnerabilities in our current border security. To summarize, the reports state that: In the United States alone, immigration officials have records for 1.2 million stolen passports.

Aliens applying for admission into the United States using stolen passports have little reason to fear being caught and are usually admitted. It has been standard practice to simply return a fraudulent passport to an individual seeking entry and let them return to their country. This, in effect, is the soft underbelly of the entire passport system.

The Director of the U.S. National Central Bureau of INTERPOL said that for 55 of the 181 INTERPOL countries, there probably were over 10 million lost and stolen passports that might be in circulation.

Law enforcement officials state that lost and stolen passports are the greatest security problem associated with the Visa Waiver Program.

And now that I've mentioned the Visa Waiver Program, let me say a few things about this program.

I believe the Visa Waiver Program is the Achilles heel in our immigration system. This program allows roughly 13 million individuals to enter the United States each year from 27 countries, without a visa--meaning they enter without a thorough background and security check.

Since we do not have in place a fully operational entry and exit program, specifically an exit system, we have no real way of knowing if millions of travelers who entered the United States have left as required.

Last year, Congress extended the deadline for one year for countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program to include biometric indicators in passports to verify the identity of bearers at the request of the Administration.

It is likely this deadline will again need to be extended.

I believe that granting another extension will be another opportunity for terrorists, organized crime rings, petty crooks, counterfeiters and forgers to continue entering the United States virtually unnoticed because we won't be able to confirm that they are who they say they are.

The bottom line is that we must crack down on document fraud if we are to protect our borders. There are thousands, even millions, of lost, stolen and fraudulent international passports, travel documents, driver's licenses and other identity documents in circulation, and we must now allow those to compromise our homeland security.

The purpose of this bill is twofold: first, to give the Department of Justice the incentive to vigorously prosecute all cases involving passport and travel document fraud, as well as certain other egregious cases of immigration document fraud.

Second, by encouraging policies that make these cases a priority for prosecution, it will require that Department of Homeland Security officials not return fraudulent documents to travelers, but instead turn them over to the Department of Justice so that they can institute criminal proceedings.

Unfortunately, the prosecution of immigration document fraud is not a high priority for the Department of Justice, because, although current penalties allow for a sentence of up to 25 years, typically most alien's convicted of travel document fraud serve less than one year in prison.

Also, the immigration consequences of document fraud are relatively minor. Low sentences, coupled with minimal immigration consequences, do not provide much incentive for U.S. Attorneys nationwide to consider the prosecution of immigration document cases a priority nor can they be seen as anything but a slap on the wrists of the offenders.

Senator Sessions and I pose a solution to this problem by toughening penalties so that we instill in those seeking to use fraudulent travel and immigration documents a real sense of fear that they will be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under our laws.

In any kind of meaningful border protection plan, one must have a good sense of who is entering and exiting the country. That simply cannot be known if the individual is using a fraudulent document.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd in introducing the ``National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act.'' Our goal is to help States establish electronic databases to monitor the use of prescription drugs and deal more effectively with the growing national problem of prescription drug abuse.

Over 6 million Americans currently use prescription drugs for non- medical purposes. 31 million say they've abused such drugs at least once in their lifetime. Since 1992, the number of young adults who abuse prescription pain relievers and other addictive drugs has more than tripled. Prescription drug abuse among youths 12 to 17 has soared tenfold.

State programs to monitor addictive medications can help curb this abuse. Currently, 20 States have such programs in place, including Massachusetts, but they vary greatly in the collection and storage of the data, and in the methods for using the databases.

The information contained in these databases is important, because it can be used to identify physicians and patients who encourage the non- medical use of prescription drugs. It can also be used to reduce the diversion of prescription drugs for illegal use.

Our bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to make grants to States to establish these needed monitoring programs. For States with existing programs, the grants can be used to improve their systems and standardize the data collected to allow easy sharing of the information between the States.

Any such program, however, must include strong safeguards for medical privacy, and make certain that the database cannot be used to put improper pressure on physicians to avoid prescribing essential drugs. The proper treatment of pain, for example, is an enormous medical challenge, but this essential care will be much more difficult if patients fear that their prescription histories will not be protected, or if physicians begin to look over their shoulder every time they prescribe pain medication.

We all share the goal of reaching the right balance between the interests of patients, physicians, and law enforcement, and we think this legislation does that. It requires that in grant applications, States must propose security standards for the electronic databases, including appropriate encryption or other information technology. States also must propose standards for using the database and obtaining the information, including certifications to be sure that requests for information are legitimate. The bill requires the Secretary to provide a follow-up analysis of the privacy protections within two years after enactment.

The national problem of prescription drug abuse worsens every year. Physicians want to treat pain without contributing to addiction. Law enforcement officials want to stop the flow of prescription drugs from pharmacies to the streets. A national prescription drug monitoring program will provide a valuable resource to achieve these goals. I commend Senator Sessions for his leadership on this important health issue, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to fight prescription drug abuse.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senators Hutchinson, Schumer, and Cornyn in introducing the Hepatitis C Epidemic Control and Prevention Act. Our goal is to provide for the prevention, control, and treatment of Hepatitis C viral infection through education, surveillance, early detection, and research.

Hepatitis C is the most common, chronic, blood-borne infection in the United States. An estimated 5 million Americans are now infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and 30,000 more are infected every year. The rate of infection continues to rise--between 1990 and 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention project a 4-fold increase in the number of persons with chronic infection of the virus.

Persons infected with the Hepatitis C virus come from all walks of life, but those at greatest risk include health workers, emergency service personnel, and drug users. Tragically, the majority of infected individuals are unaware of their infection, are not receiving treatment, and are sources of transmission of the virus to others.

Infection with the Hepatitis C virus has serious health effects. It can cause liver disease, including cirrhosis and liver cancer, and is the leading indicator for liver transplants. The illnesses are often life-threatening--up to 10,000 Americans die yearly from Hepatitis C complications, and it is the 7th leading cause of death for men between the ages of 25 and 64. In addition to the human costs, the disease has massive financial implications. Direct costs associated with care are expected to exceed $1 billion a year by 2010. Without intervention, the epidemic is projected to result in costs of over $54 billion by the year 2019.

Greater Federal investment will have a critical role in reversing this silent epidemic. Our Hepatitis C bill will increase public awareness of the dangers of Hepatitis C, and make testing widely available. For those already infected, it will provide counseling, referrals, and vaccination against Hepatitis A and B and other infectious diseases. It will also support research to develop a vaccine against Hepatitis C, just as we now have for Hepatitis A and B. It will create a multiagency Liver Disease Research Advisory Board and mandate a study of programs used by the Veteran's Administration, in order to provide important lessons and models of care for the nation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will increase surveillance activities, and provide Hepatitis C coordinators to provide technical assistance and training to state public health agencies.

This bill will have a major impact on the lives of millions of Americans who are infected by Hepatitis C, and the families and loved ones who care for them. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to act quickly to pass this needed legislation. I especially commend the impressive work of the students at Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax, VA, for their continuing dedication to informing Members of Congress about this important issue and bringing national attention to it.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my colleagues in introducing the Caring for Children Act of 2005. We were able to work together on both sides of the aisle to prepare this bill to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. The Caring for Children Act reflects our common goals to expand access and improve the quality of child care for children and families throughout the Nation.

Child care is a key issue in both welfare reform and education reform. The success of our welfare system rests on our ability to provide dependable and consistent child care support for low-income families, so that they can work and provide for their families. Improving the quality of child care and the environment in which our children develop is an essential responsibility of our society as a whole, and this legislation can be an important part of our effort in Congress to meet that responsibility.

Today, 65 percent of parents with young children and 79 percent of parents with school age children are in America's workforce. During the working day, 14 million children are cared for by someone other than a parent.

For low-income families and single mothers, child care assistance is a lifeline. Low-income mothers who receive child care assistance are 40 percent more likely to remain employed after 2 years, compared to those who do not receive such support. Yet child care is still unaffordable for far too many families--full-day care can easily cost thousands of dollars a year and become an impossible expense for millions of families.

The Caring for Children Act will expand access to child care and do more to deliver the support that working parents need in obtaining effective child care. The bill supports activities to help parents fmd quality care through State Resource and Referral Centers, so that greater information and outreach to parents will be available.

Child care is a vital support for working parents, and it is also an essential link in preparing young children for school. Research shows that the early environments in which children learn and develop have a profound impact on their later development and on their success in school. Unfortunately, much remains to be done to improve the quality of child care. Nearly half of all kindergarten teachers report that the majority of children in each entering class has specific problems, including difficulty in following directions, lack of even the most basic academic skills, troubled situations at home, or difficulty in relating to other children.

The Caring for Children Act seeks to improve the quality of child care available to low-income children and their families through the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The bill will raise the amount of funds that States must dedicate to quality activities from 4 to 6 percent.

Most important, the Act will promote better child care by focusing on activities that make children ready to learn, and encouraging States to improve child safety and well-being. Funds will be used to provide greater training and support for child care workers, establish voluntary guidelines for school preparedness, and enhance the early learning of young children.

Investments in the child care workforce are also essential to improve the quality of care. Today, only one in

seven child care centers provides a level of quality adequate for child development. Thirty states have no pre-service training requirements for child care workers. Our bill supports professional development and education opportunities for child care providers to upgrade their skills and to use proven and effective early learning materials and teaching strategies in their work. It encourages states to increase the recruitment and retention of qualified child care staff and reduce the high turnover rates in child care centers.

We must also do more to ensure that states provide timely and adequate payments for high quality care. The Caring for Children Act will improve reimbursement rates for care in the states, and more effectively use the market survey required under current law to establish payment rates. I commend Senator Reed for his leadership on those provisions.

Finally, the Caring for Children Act creates a new Federal commitment to serve children in need, including families with infants and toddlers, children with disabilities, and families that require special care during non-traditional work hours. Thanks to Senator Harkin's leadership, the needs of infants and toddlers will continue to be addressed in this bill.

The Caring for Children Act builds on effective practices already underway in many states, but we still have a long way to go to see that all children have access to good child care. More resources are clearly required, and the need is urgent.

In nearly half the states, eligible children are being placed on waiting lists or being turned away altogether. In Massachusetts, over 16,000 low-income children are on waiting lists.

Instead of responding to this need, the President's budget for Fiscal Year 2006 freezes funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Under the Administration's own calculations, 300,000 fewer low- income children will have access to child care assistance by 2010. Surely, we can do better.

It makes no sense to cut back on child care for low-income children. We need to serve as many needy children as possible. I look forward very much to working with our colleagues on the Finance Committee to make that goal a reality as the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant moves forward this year.

I commend Senators Enzi, Alexander, and Dodd for their impressive work on this bill. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this important legislation and work with us to provide the support for quality child care that low-income families throughout America need and deserve.