Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Industry Merger Antitrust Enforcement Act. This legislation will significantly strengthen the antitrust laws to prevent anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions in the oil and gas industry.

We have all seen the suffering felt by consumers and our national economy resulting from rising energy prices. Last year, gasoline prices shattered the once unthinkable $3.00 a gallon level, before receding in the fall. Prices are on the move upward once again, having increased by 15 percent in the last month alone. And prices for other crucial energy products--such as natural gas and home heating oil--have undergone similar sharp increases in the last year.

Industry experts debate the causes of these extraordinarily high prices. Possible culprits are growing worldwide demand, supply disruptions, the actions of the OPEC oil cartel and limits on refinery capacity in the United States. But we cannot overlook one important factor--the substantial rise in concentration and consolidation in the oil industry. Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office has counted over 2,600 mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures in the oil industry. Led by gigantic mergers such as Exxon/Mobil, BP/Arco, Conoco/ Phillips and Chevron/Texaco, by 2004, the five largest U.S. oil refining companies controlled over 56 percent of domestic refining capacity, a greater market share than that controlled by the top ten companies a decade earlier.

This merger wave has led to substantially less competition in the oil industry. In 2004, the GAO concluded that these mergers have directly caused increases in the price of gasoline. A study by the independent consumer watchdog Public Citizen found that in the five years between 1999 and 2004, U.S. oil refiners increased their average profits on every gallon of gasoline refined from 22.8 cents to 40.8 cents, a 79 percent jump. And the grossly inflated profit numbers of the major oil companies--led by Exxon Mobil's $8.4 billion profit in the first quarter of 2006, which followed its $36 billion profit in 2005, the highest corporate profits ever achieved in U.S. history, are conclusive evidence--if any more was needed--of the lack of competition in the U.S. oil industry. While it is true that the world price of crude oil has substantially increased, the fact that the oil companies can so easily pass along all of these price increases to consumers of gasoline and other refined products--and greatly compound their profits along the way--confirms that that there is a failure of competition in our oil and gas markets.

More than 90 years ago, one of our Nation's basic antitrust laws--the Clayton Act--was written to prevent just such industry concentration harming competition. It makes illegal any merger or acquisition the effect of which ``may be substantially to lessen competition.'' Despite the plain command of this law, the Federal Trade Commission the Federal agency with responsibility for enforcing antitrust law in the oil and gas industry has failed to take any effective action to prevent undue concentration in this industry. Instead, it permitted almost all of these 2,600 oil mergers and acquisitions to proceed without challenge. And where the FTC has ordered divestitures, they have been wholly ineffective to restore competition. Consumers have been at the mercy of an increasingly powerful oligopoly of a few giant oil companies, passing along price increases without remorse as the market becomes increasingly concentrated and competition diminishes. It is past time for us in Congress to take action to strengthen our antitrust law so that it will, as intended, stand as a bulwark to protect consumers and prevent any further loss of competition in this essential industry.

Our bill will strengthen merger enforcement under the antitrust law in two respects. First, it will direct that the FTC, in conjunction with the Justice Department, revise its Merger Guidelines to take into account the special conditions prevailing in the oil industry. In reviewing a pending merger or acquisition to determine whether to approve it or take legal action to block it, the FTC follows what are known as ``Merger Guidelines.'' The Merger Guidelines set forth the factors that the agency must examine to determine if a merger or acquisition lessens competition, and sets forth the legal tests the FTC is to follow in deciding whether to approve or challenge a merger. As presently written, the Merger Guidelines fail to direct the FTC, when reviewing an oil industry merger, to pay any heed at all to the special economic conditions prevailing in that industry.

Our bill will correct this deficiency. Many special conditions prevail in the oil and gas marketplace that warrant scrutiny, conditions that do not occur in other industries, and the Merger Guidelines should reflect these conditions. In most industries, when demand rises and existing producers earn ever-increasing profits, new producers enter the market and new supply expands, reducing the pressure on price. However, in the oil industry, there are severe limitations on supply and environmental and regulatory difficulty in opening new refineries, so this normal market mechanism cannot work. Additionally, in most industries, consumers shift to alternative products in the face of sharp price increases, leading to a reduction in demand and a corresponding reduction in the pressure to increase prices. But for such an essential commodity as gasoline, consumers have no such option they must continue to consume gasoline to get to work, to go to school, and to shop. These factors all mean that antitrust enforcers should be especially cautious about permitting increases in concentration in the oil industry.

Accordingly, our bill directs the FTC and Justice Department to revise their Merger Guidelines to take into account the special conditions prevailing in the oil industry--including the high inelasticity of demand for oil and petroleum-related products; the ease of gaining market power; supply and refining capacity limits; difficulties of market entry; and unique regulatory requirements applying to the oil industry. This revision of the Merger Guidelines must be completed within six months of enactment of this legislation.

The second manner in which this legislation will strengthen antitrust enforcement will be to shift the burden of proof in Clayton Act challenges to oil industry mergers and acquisitions. In such cases, the burden will be placed on the merging parties to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that their transaction does not substantially lessen competition. This provision would reverse the usual rule that the government or private plaintiff challenging the merger must prove that the transaction harms competition. As the parties seeking to effect a merger with a competitor in an already concentrated industry, and possessing all the relevant data regarding the transaction,

it is entirely appropriate that the merging parties bear this burden. This provision does not forbid all mergers in the oil industry--if the merging parties can establish that their merger does not substantially harm competition, it may proceed. However, shifting the burden of proof in this manner will undoubtedly make it more difficult for oil mergers and acquisition to survive court challenge, thereby enhancing the law's ability to block truly anti-competitive transactions and deterring companies from even attempting such transactions. In today's concentrated oil industry and with consumers suffering record high prices, mergers and acquisitions that even the merging parties cannot justify should not be tolerated.

As Chairman of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe that this bill is a crucial step to ending this unprecedented move towards industry concentration and to begin to restore competitive balance to the oil and gas industry.

Since the days of the break-up of the Standard Oil trust one hundred years ago, antitrust enforcement has been essential to prevent undue concentration in this industry. This bill is an essential step to ensure that our antitrust laws are sufficiently strong to ensure a competitive oil industry in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support the Oil Industry Merger Antitrust Enforcement Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007 (``NOPEC''). It is time for the U.S. government to fight back on the price of oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. This bill will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic principles of free competition.

Our bill will authorize the Attorney General to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will expressly specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. I have introduced this bill in each Congress since 2000. This legislation has passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously three times since it was first introduced, and in 2005 passed the full Senate by voice vote as an amendment to the Energy Bill before being stripped from that bill in the conference committee. It is now time, in this new Congress, to finally pass this legislation into law and give our Nation a long needed tool to counteract this pernicious and anti-consumer conspiracy.

Throughout the last year, consumers all across the Nation watched gas prices rise to previously unimagined levels. As crude oil prices exceeded $40, then $50 and then $60 per barrel, retail prices of gasoline over $3.00 per gallon became commonplace. While prices temporarily receded last fall, the general trend is significantly upwards, and prices are rising even today. Gas prices have increased 32 cents in the last month alone to a national average of

$2.56 per gallon, a nearly 15 percent increase in just one month.

As we consider gas price changes, one fact has remained consistent any move downwards in price ends as soon as OPEC decides to cut production. Referring to the 18 percent rise in worldwide crude oil prices since the start of the year, OPEC President Mohammed al-Hamli commented ``we had a bad situation at the beginning of the year. It is much better now.'' The difference--combined output cuts of 1.7 million barrels of oil a day adopted by OPEC last October and December driving up crude oil prices. And while OPEC enjoys its newfound riches, the average American consumer suffers every time he or she visits the gas pump or pays a home heating bill.

So there is no doubt that the price of crude oil dances to the tune set by OPEC members. Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated.

Real people suffer real consequences every day in our Nation because of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices are a silent tax that takes hard- earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump. Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a Midwest winter can tell you about the tremendous personal costs associated with higher home heating bills.

We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices. Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame disruptions in supply. Others point to the EPA requirement mandating use of a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the Midwest or other ``boutique'' fuels around the country. Some even claim that refiners and distributors have illegally fixed prices. On this issue, I have repeatedly asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate these allegations. As a result of our requests, the FTC has put a task force in place to find out if those allegations were true. While we continue to urge the FTC to be vigilant, the FTC has to date found no evidence of illegal domestic price fixing as a cause of higher gas prices.

But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in government has yet tried to take any action. Our bill will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. The bill will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will authorize the Attorney General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``sovereign immunity'' or ``act of state'' to escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our bill will overrule one twenty-year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity.

The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle.

Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our Justice Department to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of price increases.

There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American consumers. A few years ago, for example, the Justice Department secured record fines totaling $725 million against German and Swiss companies engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Their behavior harmed consumers by raising the prices consumers paid for vitamins every day and plainly needed to be addressed. As this and other cases show, the mere fact that the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to shield them from violating these most basic standards of fair economic behavior.

Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law if engaged in by private companies. If OPEC were a group of international private companies rather than foreign governments, their actions would be nothing more than an illegal price fixing scheme. But OPEC members have used the shield of ``sovereign immunity'' to escape accountability for their price-fixing. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, though, already recognizes that the ``commercial'' activity of nations is not protected by sovereign immunity. And it is hard to imagine an activity that is more obviously commercial than selling oil for profit, as the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will establish that the sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel are violating antitrust law.

The suffering of consumers across the Nation in the last year has made me more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's repeated decisions to cut oil production and the FTC's conclusion for the last several years that there is no illegal conduct by domestic companies responsible for rising gas prices, I am convinced that we need to take action, and take action now, before the damage spreads too far.

I urge my colleagues to support our legislation so that our Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, since the March 2003 start of the Iraq war, more than 24,042 members of our Nation's armed forces have been injured, more than 10,685 of them too severely to be returned to action.

I have visited these soldiers at Walter Reed, at Fort Dix, and at the East Orange Veterans Hospital. I have heard stories consistently from our veterans about fighting against DoD and VA bureaucracy for months and even years simply to receive the basic benefits they are owed by a grateful Nation.

The controversy at Walter Reed again brings to light the shortcomings in the process our returning veterans must deal with in their difficult transition from soldier to civilian. Just as

the deplorable conditions that have come to light are unacceptable, so too are the countless stories detailing the maze of forms, hearings, and medical evaluations that prevent so many of our veterans from getting the health care and benefits they need.

Too often, it seems that rather than thanking the soldier for their sacrifice, this system sets up yet another battle of bureaucracy. Too often, it seems that the system is stacked against the very soldiers it is designed to help. Too often, veterans must seek out their own treatment options and benefits or risk missing deadlines and losing benefits. It doesn't have to be this way. We have an obligation not only to fulfill the promises we make to America's fighting men and women, but to do so in a manner that ensures the benefits we owe them are made readily available.

At the East Orange VA hospital in my State of New Jersey, for instance, we have a modern War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center that stands underutilized because many veterans aren't even informed that it's there. Patients whose quality of life could be drastically improved by the technology the center provides miss the opportunity simply because they are not aware the option is available. This country can do better; the will of the American people is to do better; now this government must do better.

That's why I am proud to introduce the ``Veterans Navigator Act'', a bill that would expand and enhance the important work done by VSOs and other non-governmental organizations to guide our Nation's servicemen and women to and through the VA healthcare system. It would, in fact, acknowledge the work of these organizations by providing $25 million in grants over 5 years to augment their capabilities.

The ``navigator'' concept is not new. It is similar to the Patient Navigator demonstration program I introduced and which was subsequently enacted into law. There, we also took a successful small-scale program being used at select medical facilities around the country and expanded it by providing grants for a scaled-up demonstration program to serve those with cancer and other chronic diseases, and in particular, to provide support to medically underserved populations.

With the Veterans Navigator bill, I propose to do something similar, capitalizing on the successes of the Patient Navigator concept, to help our troops. The $25 million over 5 years in the bill would allow VSOs and other organizations to apply for grants so that they could hire and train navigators to provide assistance, on an individualized basis, to members of the Armed Forces as they transition from military service to the VA healthcare system. They would do so in coordination with DoD and the VA. Right now, many VSOs rely principally on donations to perform these services.

At the end of the 5 years, the VA Secretary would submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the Veterans Navigator demonstration program and recommend whether or not it should be made permanent.

Often called National Service Officers or counselors, a navigator is a ``sherpa'', a guide through the maze of paper and people and specialists and benefits. A navigator is an advocate for those no longer able to go it alone. A navigator is a facilitator, someone who will be with you through the process, to provide the expertise you will need to transition between active duty and veterans status and to get the urgent care you need.

Let me be clear: a navigator does not supplant the role of the DoD or the VA. A navigator is meant to complement the work done by these organizations, particularly at a time when those systems are struggling to meet the needs of the soldiers returning from war and will continue to do so long after the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have ended.

While all veterans will benefit, the bill focuses particular attention on four underserved groups in the military community: the seriously injured or wounded soldiers, female soldiers, those suffering from psychological problems like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, and members of the activated National Guard and Reserves.

These underserved groups have not been sufficiently served in existing VA and DoD transition programs and activities. It is these underserved groups who especially need continuity of care as they enter and wind their way through the VA medical system. Part of the reason they have not been adequately cared for is that the nature of the current wars we are fighting, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, is different from previous conflicts we've undertaken.

During the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, we have the largest activation of National Guard and reservists since World War II. As of March 12, according to DoD, the United States had 141,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq. Of these, 119,005 were active component personnel and 21,995 were National Guard and Reserves. These numbers are set to increase due to the recent announcement by President Bush to send at least 20,000 more troops to Iraq by May.

The GAG released a report in February 2005 citing deficiencies in benefits for these soldiers. The report concluded that National Guard and Reserve soldiers ``are given little help navigating a thicket of regulations and procedures necessary to gain access to military doctors.''

To complicate matters, members of our National Guard who seek medical care must file for an extension of their active duty status in order to continue to access military bases and hospitals.

In its report, GAG also concluded that, and I quote, ``the Army has not consistently provided the infrastructure needed to accommodate the needs of soldiers trying to navigate their way through the ``active duty medical extension'' (ADME) process . . . this has resulted in injured and ill soldiers carrying a disproportionate share of the burden for ensuring that they do not fall off their active duty orders.''

The Veterans Navigator Act would help minimize such occurrences by providing National Guardsmen and Reservists someone to help bring them through the ADME process and to help correct any discrepancies before they cause a delay in accessing VA medical care.

Veterans with psychological problems also need help. In the last several years, we've been hearing a lot more about post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD in veterans and those returning from conflict. The GAO report concluded that almost four out of five service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who were found to be at risk for PTSD were not provided appropriate medical assistance. All of these factors mean that now, more than ever, our Nation's soldiers need help moving between the DoD and VA realms.

According to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs, roughly 13 percent of service men and women returning from Iraq suffer from PTSD. GAO has concluded that roughly 78 percent of those service members at risk for PTSD do not get further evaluation. That means they return to active duty or are discharged without receiving the appropriate care.

It is the nature of this disorder to appear not right after the traumatic event is experienced, but often not until an individual re- experiences an event, has a flashback or is somehow reminded of a battlefield event. That may not happen until after a service member has been discharged from service. Once PTSD does emerge, the veteran may not know how to access VA medical assistance, or he or she may not have yet enrolled into the VA medical system.

Again, as in the case of the severely wounded, time is of the essence. PTSD can manifest itself so severely as to incapacitate a soldier, making medical care more urgent. In the case of returning National Guardsmen and Reservists, the problem is made more complex because of the 2-year time limit on filing for VA benefits.

Since 1991, opportunities for women in our Nation's armed forces have grown. For the first time, the military is placing women in support units at the front line. This has come partly as the result of more than 10 years of policy changes making 91 percent of the career fields gender neutral.

The Navy and the Air Force have begun to allow female soldiers to fly fighters and bombers. The Army has expanded the role of women in ground-combat operations. Right now, ``women command combat military police companies, fly Apache helicopters, work as

tactical intelligence analysts, and serve in artillery units.''

This would have been unheard of a decade ago, but it's happening right now. Right now, record numbers of female soldiers are fighting on the front lines and, as a result, more are being seriously wounded or killed. A Baltimore reporter profiling women soldiers' participation in Iraq observed that ``the war in Iraq has been an equal opportunity employer, by killing and injuring a historic number of female soldiers in combat situations.''

Therefore, a VA medical system designed to treat wounded male soldiers must now ensure that female soldiers get the right kind of medical care. They will need help finding that care and getting access to that care. A veteran navigator can help them do that.

Because of the length and size of the deployment, many more soldiers are being seriously wounded. According to the GAO, roughly 30 percent of U.S. soldiers wounded in combat during World War II later died. Today, that number has dropped to 3 percent for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan due to advances in technology and protective gear.

While this is clearly a positive development, it also means that many of these injured soldiers are returning home with severe disabilities, including traumatic brain injuries and missing limbs that require comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services.

But, severe injuries often mean a lengthy transition from active duty to veteran status. As my story earlier indicates, the physical evaluation of a seriously wounded service member to determine whether he or she can return to active duty can take months to complete. In the interim, the VA has to be able to identify these soldiers so that they can perform early outreach, provided that they have the information to do so.

Despite this, the GAO observed in a March 2005 report that the VA faces ``significant challenges in providing services to seriously injured service members.''

In many cases, VA staff have reported that seriously injured service members are simply not ready to begin thinking about VA benefits or dealing with the VA system during the recovery process. The problem here, as GAO has pointed out, is that the VA has no policy for maintaining contact with these soldiers down the line, once they are discharged. Contact is often conducted on an ad hoc basis. Navigators can also help these seriously wounded soldiers.

VSOs such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans and so many others have emphasized the importance of maintaining contact with seriously injured veterans who do not initially apply for VA health care benefits because it may be many months or even years before they are prepared to apply for them.

The Veterans Navigator can help perform this function. Because this individual or individuals have reached out to the injured service member before his or her discharge, they can, in coordination with the VA caseworkers, remain in contact with them as they recover and prepare to re-enter civilian life. The navigator can also help obtain information from DoD on seriously injured soldiers earlier on so that they can help ensure that all service members and veterans benefit from VA health care services at the right time.

At a time when many active duty service people and veterans have fought and often made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, we cannot risk having any soldier fall through the cracks. We cannot take the risk that our female soldiers, who are fighting alongside their male colleagues, may not receive the medical care they need. We cannot risk the lives and health of soldiers with PTSD. We cannot risk the lives and the health of any service member who put their lives at risk for our country.

As we have seen with the situation at Walter Reed, DoD and VA simply do not have the manpower to effectively handle the influx of veterans cases coming into the system. With a backlog of over half a million claims, the VA can not adequately address the individual needs of America's warriors. Our service members didn't have to wait to sign up to serve their country; they shouldn't have to wait and fight to get the benefits they are seriously entitled to.

The very least that we can do is to ensure that all of these brave men and women are able to access the medical benefits to which they are entitled, particularly in their time of greatest need. At some point in each of our lives, we might need a guiding hand to help us find our way. Today, I am proposing to provide that helping hand to our troops in a time of their greatest need. It is the very least that we can do.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation that would expand the Federal student loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers.

Nationwide, only 31 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program.

In California, that number is even smaller: only 21 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree.

To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning.

Recruiting and retaining teachers with such qualifications is critical to ensuring that our children start elementary school ready to learn.

A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), found that ``teachers with higher education levels were found to have more high quality language activities and more creative activities in their classrooms.''

In order to give every child a jump start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving.

Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better.

Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of about $21,000--almost half the amount of elementary school teachers' salary of about $43,000.

Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, makes it increasingly difficult to attract and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers.

We must provide incentives to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in this important field.

This legislation would allow recent college graduates (obtaining a minimum of a bachelor's degree), and current Head Start teachers without a degree, to receive up to $5,000 of their Federal student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a qualified Head Start program; and provide Head Start teachers with the same opportunity as currently offered to eligible elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 5 years of service.

Providing our Nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified Head Start teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success.

Head Start is the primary Federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing.

Research shows that Head Start is a smart investment in our children's future.

For example, a 2003 Kindergarten Readiness: Head Start Success study of more than 600 graduates in San Bernardino County, CA, demonstrated that society receives nearly nine dollars in benefits, i.e. increased earnings and employment, for every one dollar invested in Head Start children.

That is why we must act now.

Every teacher that the Head Start program loses impacts the quality and access to services for our Nation's neediest children, and ultimately can impact their future success.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Voinovich in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with Senator Durbin to restore our Nation's agricultural inspection functions to the Department of Agriculture.

This bill would transfer the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program--AQI--from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection back to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--(APHIS).

In 2003, as part of the Homeland Security Act, agricultural inspections at all points of entry in the United States were transferred from the USDA to DHS. Four years later, it is clear that fewer agricultural inspections are being conducted at our borders and ports.

I have heard this message loud and clear from: California Secretary of Agriculture A.G. Kawamura, California Farm Bureau, the American Landscape and Nursery Association, the California Agriculture Commissioners and Sealers Association, the Nisei Farmers League, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, Defenders of Wildlife, and the San Diego County Agriculture Commissioner, the Contra Costa County Agriculture Commissioner, and many California farmers.

These groups have observed not only the decrease in the number of inspections since the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--but also decreased communication between the program and State agricultural organizations.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office produced a report that highlighted the problems associated with the transfer of the program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security, entitled ``Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease.''

The GAO study found:

The inspection rate at several key American points of entry has significantly decreased. Inspections decreased in Miami by 12.7 percent, in Boston by 17.9 percent, and San Francisco by 21.4 percent.

Sixty percent of agricultural inspection specialists believed they were doing either ``somewhat'' or ``many fewer'' inspections since the transfer.

Sixty-three percent of survey respondents did not believe that their port had enough agriculture specialists to carry out agriculture duties.

Lastly, 64 percent of the agriculture specialists reported that their work was not respected by Customs and Border Patrol.

These statistics are deplorable.

The failure to protect our borders from the invasion of agricultural pests

places our farmlands and forests at great risk of infestation.

USDA estimates nationally that agricultural pests cost the American agricultural industry an annual loss of about $41 billion.

In California alone, pest infestations cost my State's farmers about $3 billion. This amount includes crops lost in the quarantine, and the cost of measures taken to control and eradicate pest outbreaks.

The farmers in my State continue to battle against serious agricultural pests, such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, the Asian long-horned beetle, the Mediterranean fruit fly, and many others.

During the time that DHS has been in charge of agriculture inspections, Fresno County experienced its first fruit fly outbreak, quarantine, and eradication.

According to the Fresno County Department of Agriculture, a 105- square-mile area had to be quarantined due to an outbreak of the peach fruit fly. The pest is indigenous to Asia, and is believed to have entered the country on smuggled fruit carried by an airline passenger. The eradication effort cost approximately $1 million.

The interception of pests at inspection points, coupled with the elimination and eradication of pest outbreaks, is a top priority for California agriculture organizations. And these groups have asked for help in improving the agricultural inspection process.

But this is not just a California problem. Farmers and foresters from every corner of our country have faced the imposing threat of a foreign agriculture pest invasion.

Here are just a few examples of the pests that threaten our Nation:

The glassy-winged sharpshooter is a devastating new pest for California. Since its migration into California in 1990 from the southeastern United States, the glassy-winged sharpshooter population there has ballooned throughout southern California. This pest transmits Pierce's disease, which threatens 450,000-plus acres of winegrapes, more than 330,000 acres of raisin and table grapevines, a crop production of $4 billion and associated economic activity of $45 billion. There is no known cure for Pierce's disease. The glassy-winged sharpshooter also threatens crops such as almonds, citrus, and peaches as well as native plants, shrubs, and trees.

Citrus canker is believed to have originated in Southeast Asia and was discovered in Florida in 1995. It causes lesions on the leaves, stems, and fruit of citrus trees, causes leaves and fruit to drop prematurely, and makes fruit too unsightly to be sold. The Federal Government has spent $378 million for eradication, with little results.

The Asian long-horned beetle was introduced to the United States in August 1996 inside solid wood packing material from China. The beetle is a serious threat to hardwood trees and has no known natural predator in the United States. The beetle has the potential to destroy millions of acres of America's hardwood forests and industries such as lumber, maple syrup, nursery, and tourism accumulating over $41 billion in losses. The beetle has spread to New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.

In the summer of 2002, scientists detected a new exotic insect in Michigan, the emerald ash borer. This insect is an invasive species originally from Asia. To date, it has killed or damaged millions of ash trees in Michigan. It has been detected in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, and in Ontario, Canada.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--NASDA-- recognizes the impending danger and has first-hand experience of how inspections have changed since the DHS takeover.

NASDA recently announced that one of its key recommendations is to reassign cargo inspection from DHS to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS.

NASDA explains: APHIS has ``the expertise and communication system to carry out a focused and effective agricultural safeguarding effort at our borders.''

Our Nation's agriculture is too important to leave open to the risk of invasion of agricultural pests. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Let us reprioritize the plant and animal border inspections and strengthen the anti-terrorism mission of DHS by returning the Agricultural Quarantine Inspections to its logical place, the United States Department of Agriculture.

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

Mr. President, one of the key components to success in our classrooms is a qualified teacher. One of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act mandates the hiring of qualified teachers by every school in every district.

But what are the incentives to keep qualified teachers in the classroom? I believe we need more targeted incentives to reward teachers willing to stay in the classroom, especially in rural schools and high poverty schools.

Unfortunately, without our help, America's poor and rural schools may not be able to attract the qualified teachers this legislation mandates and our children deserve. Isolated, struggling and competing against higher paying well-funded school districts for scarce classroom talent, such school faces a shortage of qualified teachers. As pressure to hire qualified teachers increases, this shortage will become a crisis, and children already at a disadvantage in relation to their more affluent and less isolated peers will be the ones who suffer most.

Today, I propose a bill that will help bring dedicated and qualified teaching professionals to West Virginia's and America's poor and rural schools, and help give their students the opportunity to learn and flourish that every child deserves. The Incentives To Educate American Children Act--or ``I Teach'' Act--will provide teachers a refundable tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public schools where they are needed most. And it will give every public school teacher--whichever school they choose--a refundable tax credit for earning certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Together, these two tax credits will give economically depressed areas a better ability to recruit and retain skilled teachers.

One-fourth of America's children attend public schools in rural areas, and of the 250 poorest counties in the United States, 244 are rural. West Virginia has rural schools scattered through 36 of its 55 counties, and these schools face real challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers, as well as dealing with other issues related to their rural location.

Attracting teachers to these schools is difficult in large part due to the vast gap between what rural districts are able to offer and the salaries paid by more affluent school districts--as wide as $20,000 a year, according to one study. Disadvantaged schools must overcome similar difficulties. It is often a challenge for these schools to attract and keep qualified teachers. Yet according to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, every school must have qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

My ``I Teach'' Act will reward teachers willing to work in rural or high poverty schools with an annual $1,000 refundable tax credit. If a teacher obtains certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, they will receive an additional annual $1,000 refundable tax credit.

Every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax credit. Every teacher who gets certified will earn a tax credit. Teachers who work in rural or disadvantaged schools and get certified will earn both. Schools that desperately need help attracting teachers will get a boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit most.

In my State of West Virginia, as in over 30 other States, there is already a State fiscal incentive for teachers who earn national board certification. There are over 55,000 teachers with a national board certificate, and 290 are West Virginia teachers. West Virginia offers our national board teachers a $2500 bonus. My legislation builds upon the West Virginia program; together, they add up to a powerful tax incentive for teachers to remain in the classroom and to use their skills where they are most needed.

I have spent a great deal of time in West Virginia classrooms this year,

and it has become obvious to me that our education agenda suffers greatly from inadequate funding on a number of fronts. That is why I Teach is part of my education agenda. I also want to promote school construction bonds to improve our schools and renovate aging classrooms. For a decade, I have fought for the E-Rate program to provide $2.25 billion in discounts to connect our schools and libraries to modern technology.

Education must be among our top national priorities, essential for every family with a child and vital for our economic and national security. I supported the bold goals and higher standards of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, but they won't be met unless our schools have the teachers and resources they need. I am committed to working closely with my Senate colleagues this year to secure as much funding as possible for our children's education.

As important as school construction and technology are in the classroom, neither can replace a qualified and motivated teacher; therefore making it easier for underserved schools to attract the teachers they need remains one of my most important objectives. I hope each of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation which takes a great stride toward providing better education for every child in the United States.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, to introduce a bill that would restore the American people's access to Presidential papers. This bill is the companion to H.R. 1255, which is sponsored by Representative Henry Waxman, and was passed in the House of Representatives with strong bipartisan support.

In 1978, this body passed the Presidential Records Act and declared that a President's papers were the property of the people of the United States of America and were to be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. The Act provided that Presidential papers would be made available 12 years after a President left office, allowing the former or incumbent President the right to claim executive privilege for particularly sensitive documents. In order to fulfill that mandate, President Reagan in 1989 signed Executive Order 12667, which gave the former or incumbent President 30 days to claim executive privilege.

However, in 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, nullifying President Reagan's order and imposing new regulations for obtaining Presidential and Vice-Presidential documents. President Bush's new order greatly restricts access to Presidential papers by requiring that all requests for documents, no matter how innocuous, be approved by both the former President and current White House. In this way the order goes against the letter and the spirit of the Presidential Records Act by creating a presumption of nondisclosure, thus allowing the White House to prevent the release of records simply by inaction.

The President's order also limits what types of papers are available by expanding the scope of executive privilege into new areas--namely communications between the President and his advisors and legal advice given to the President. The order extends executive privilege to the records of the Vice President for the first time. Also, former Presidents can now designate third parties, including family members and Vice Presidents, to exercise executive privilege on their behalf, meaning that Presidential papers could remain concealed many years after a President's death. These expansions raise some serious constitutional questions. Deleted sentence. My legislation simply seeks to restore a presumption that Presidential records belong to the people of the United States and to create a legitimate, streamlined means of carrying out this body's wishes--making Presidential records available for examination by the public and by Congress.

The administration shouldn't fear passage of this bill. Any documents that contain sensitive national security information would remain inaccessible, as would any documents pertaining to law enforcement or the deliberative process of the executive branch. Executive privilege for both former and current Presidents would still apply to any papers the White House designates. With these safeguards in place, there is no reason to further hinder access to documents that are in some cases more than 20 years old.

By not passing this bill, the Congress would greatly limit its own ability to investigate previous administrations, not to mention limit the ability of historians and other interested parties to research the past. Knowledge of the past enriches and informs our understanding of the present, and by limiting our access to these documents we do both ourselves and future generations a great disservice. Numerous historians, journalists, archivists and other scholars have voiced their disapproval of Executive Order 13233 because they understand how important access to Presidential papers can be to accurately describing and learning from past events. We here in the Congress cannot and should not surrender our ability to investigate previous Presidential administrations because doing so would remove a vitally important means of ensuring Presidential accountbility.

I believe it is time for these documents to become part of the public record. I believe in open, honest, and accountable government, and I do not believe in keeping secrets from the American people. The Presidential Records Act was one of this country's most vital post- Watergate reforms and

it remains vitally important today. In these times when trust in government is slipping more and more every day, we need to send a statement to the American people that we here in Washington don't need to hide from public scrutiny--that instead we welcome and encourage public scrutiny. This bill will send just such a message.

Franklin Roosevelt commented on the opening of his Presidential library in 1941:

``To bring together the records of the past and to house them in buildings where they will be preserved for the use of men and women in the future, a Nation must believe in three things. It must believe in the past. I must believe in the future. It must, above all, believe in the capacity of its own people to learn from the past so that they can gain in judgment in creating their own future.''

I believe that the American people deserve and need access to Presidential records.

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