Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to create a 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund, and I am proud to have the bipartisan support of my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. We have a tradition of working together, especially on education and technology.

This legislation is designed to support and encourage those States that are willing to accept the bold challenge of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills to teach the core subjects, but to also go beyond the basics to include 21st Century themes like global awareness and entrepreneurial literacy. The partnership's framework emphasizes skills like critical thinking, innovation and communication skills. It also promotes information and communications technology literacy, known as ICT literacy, and life and career skills such as self direction and leadership. This bold agenda needs to be woven into State education strategy at every level, including standards and assessments, curriculum, professional development, and learning environments.

Every State willing to accept and work to implement such a progressive model and agenda deserves encouragement and support. That is why this bill would create a 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund to provide Federal matching dollars for new State investments and foundation donations to 21st Century Skills. There would also be a Federal tax incentive for corporate donations. The Federal Government won't put up a dime until a state's plan is approved by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a nonprofit organization of leading technology companies and education leaders. But the Federal Government will offer matching grants to help States that are willing to make an investment in such quality education.

This is an important investment, and the next step to enhance education and prepare our students for the new, competitive workforce. This initiative also will emphasize global awareness, civic literacy and life skills so young people understand our place in the world and are ready to take on greater responsibilities in understanding and improving their own communities.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills Partnership has introduced a new model for education. It represents a bold and important new direction for the future of education in this country. This legislation is designed to help the Federal Government become a partner and play a positive role in preparing our students for their future.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple bill to try and provide some fairness to States as they struggle to try and implement the new, stringent standards of the welfare reform reauthorization imposed as part of the Deficit Reduction Act on 2007. As a former member of the West Virginia State Legislature and as a Governor, I know that implementation of such mandates can take time.

Let me share the timeline that States face in coping with the new rules on welfare reform, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF. Most of the pending legislation on TANF, including President Bush's plan had a multiyear phase in proposals for tougher work requirements.

But the legislation that passed was a stark change with no time for States to develop new policy and no time for State legislature to react to new policy. Additionally States could be penalized for their policy even before they get guidance from officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, that their work verification plan is approved. This is just not fair.

Here is the history. In October of 2005, the House Workforce Committee passed legislation to phase-in higher work standards.

In November of 2005, the Senate approved a budget reconciliation bill without new work requirements. Later that month, the House approved a reconciliation bill that phased-in higher work requirements.

On December 19, 2005, the conference agreement on the Deficit Reduction Act imposed tougher work standard that will take effect on October 1, 2007. States will also face penalties if they do not meet new, unpublished work verification requirements.

The President signed the bill into law in February 2006.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not issue regulations to define work activities and outlining the requirements for work verification plans until June 29, 2006.

States had just 3 months to develop their work verification plans based on the new regulations, and the plans are due on September 30, 2006.

On October 1, 2006, the tougher work standards as measured by work verification took effect.

Today, May 22, 2006, no State has received approval of their work verification plans submitted over 7 months ago. But States could be penalized for failing participation standards today before they have gotten guidance from HHS that their work verification plans are approved, and they know what is expected of them.

This is just not fair. States need to know what the rules are for work, and what they can count for work before any penalties should be assessed, even if they are not due until a future date. Some of the potential penalties are harsh, including a 5 percent cut in the State's block grant in the first year, and a requirement to increase State matching funds. Such cuts could be imposed when the value of TANF block grant has shrunk by more than 20 percent since 1996.

My bill is simple fairness. It states that no financial penalties can be imposed on a State until 12 months after a State gets official approval by HHS of its work verification plans. This allows each State a year to come into compliance. States are trying, but they do not yet know what officially counts as work so they should not face any penalties until after the rules are clear.

Welfare reform is not supposed to be about penalties and pushing families off the caseload. Welfare reform is supposed to be about promoting responsibility and self-sufficiency. States, and the families, on the program deserve to know with certainty what it takes to ``play by the rules.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2007. This legislation is an issue of fairness. It clearly states that every special needs child who needs adoption assistance in order to gain a safe, permanent home deserves it.

Throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children, children who are at- risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. While foster care is able to provide for the basic needs of these children, we must ultimately be able to provide them with a safe permanent home.

Congress demonstrated their dedication to this when they passed the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, which led to the number of nationwide adoptions nearly doubling. But even with

these significant gains we cannot forget over 100,000 children in foster care are waiting for adoption. In West Virginia, there are 94 children waiting for adoption. For some of these children, described as having ``special needs,'' placement in a safe permanent home is especially difficult. Special needs children face increased obstacles in adoption due to factors such as their age, disability, or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together.

In an effort to offer additional support to those in foster care who have the most difficulty finding a safe and permanent home, adoption subsidies are provided to encourage the adoption of ``special needs'' children. These subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children.

Yet, the current law does not make these Federal subsidies available to all families adopting ``special needs'' children. Under this law, only a fraction of the children waiting to be adopted would qualify for support. Federal subsidies are only given to families who adopt special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits. This is, simply, wrong. A child's eligibility for these important benefits should not be dependent on the income of his or her biological parents, these are the parents whose legal rights to the child have been terminated, the parents who have abused or neglected the child.

It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. The Adoption Equality Act of 2007 will do this by removing the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, thereby making all children who meet the definition of ``special needs'' eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. The bill would also give States an incentive to make additional improvements to their welfare systems by requiring that States reinvest the moneys they save as a result of this bill back into their State child abuse and neglect programs.

The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving home. This bill is a wise investment if we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple bill to try and provide some fairness to States as they struggle to try and implement the new, stringent standards of the welfare reform reauthorization imposed as part of the Deficit Reduction Act on 2007. As a former member of the West Virginia State Legislature and as a Governor, I know that implementation of such mandates can take time.

Let me share the timeline that States face in coping with the new rules on welfare reform, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF. Most of the pending legislation on TANF, including President Bush's plan had a multiyear phase in proposals for tougher work requirements.

But the legislation that passed was a stark change with no time for States to develop new policy and no time for State legislature to react to new policy. Additionally States could be penalized for their policy even before they get guidance from officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, that their work verification plan is approved. This is just not fair.

Here is the history. In October of 2005, the House Workforce Committee passed legislation to phase-in higher work standards.

In November of 2005, the Senate approved a budget reconciliation bill without new work requirements. Later that month, the House approved a reconciliation bill that phased-in higher work requirements.

On December 19, 2005, the conference agreement on the Deficit Reduction Act imposed tougher work standard that will take effect on October 1, 2007. States will also face penalties if they do not meet new, unpublished work verification requirements.

The President signed the bill into law in February 2006.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not issue regulations to define work activities and outlining the requirements for work verification plans until June 29, 2006.

States had just 3 months to develop their work verification plans based on the new regulations, and the plans are due on September 30, 2006.

On October 1, 2006, the tougher work standards as measured by work verification took effect.

Today, May 22, 2006, no State has received approval of their work verification plans submitted over 7 months ago. But States could be penalized for failing participation standards today before they have gotten guidance from HHS that their work verification plans are approved, and they know what is expected of them.

This is just not fair. States need to know what the rules are for work, and what they can count for work before any penalties should be assessed, even if they are not due until a future date. Some of the potential penalties are harsh, including a 5 percent cut in the State's block grant in the first year, and a requirement to increase State matching funds. Such cuts could be imposed when the value of TANF block grant has shrunk by more than 20 percent since 1996.

My bill is simple fairness. It states that no financial penalties can be imposed on a State until 12 months after a State gets official approval by HHS of its work verification plans. This allows each State a year to come into compliance. States are trying, but they do not yet know what officially counts as work so they should not face any penalties until after the rules are clear.

Welfare reform is not supposed to be about penalties and pushing families off the caseload. Welfare reform is supposed to be about promoting responsibility and self-sufficiency. States, and the families, on the program deserve to know with certainty what it takes to ``play by the rules.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2007. This legislation is an issue of fairness. It clearly states that every special needs child who needs adoption assistance in order to gain a safe, permanent home deserves it.

Throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children, children who are at- risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. While foster care is able to provide for the basic needs of these children, we must ultimately be able to provide them with a safe permanent home.

Congress demonstrated their dedication to this when they passed the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, which led to the number of nationwide adoptions nearly doubling. But even with

these significant gains we cannot forget over 100,000 children in foster care are waiting for adoption. In West Virginia, there are 94 children waiting for adoption. For some of these children, described as having ``special needs,'' placement in a safe permanent home is especially difficult. Special needs children face increased obstacles in adoption due to factors such as their age, disability, or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together.

In an effort to offer additional support to those in foster care who have the most difficulty finding a safe and permanent home, adoption subsidies are provided to encourage the adoption of ``special needs'' children. These subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children.

Yet, the current law does not make these Federal subsidies available to all families adopting ``special needs'' children. Under this law, only a fraction of the children waiting to be adopted would qualify for support. Federal subsidies are only given to families who adopt special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits. This is, simply, wrong. A child's eligibility for these important benefits should not be dependent on the income of his or her biological parents, these are the parents whose legal rights to the child have been terminated, the parents who have abused or neglected the child.

It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. The Adoption Equality Act of 2007 will do this by removing the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, thereby making all children who meet the definition of ``special needs'' eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. The bill would also give States an incentive to make additional improvements to their welfare systems by requiring that States reinvest the moneys they save as a result of this bill back into their State child abuse and neglect programs.

The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving home. This bill is a wise investment if we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the decade-plus of

service that Ken Crockett has dedicated to the State of West Virginia. For the last 11 years, Ken has served as the director of the West Virginia Japan Office in Nagoya, which sits in the Aichi Prefecture of Japan.

West Virginia has opened trade offices throughout the world in order to encourage economic relationships with our State. The Japan Office has helped draw a number of Japanese businesses to open new locations in West Virginia, as well as helped the businesses already in West Virginia export their products to Japan. In addition to the economic benefits of this relationship, the Japan office has facilitated a number of cultural and educational exchanges--all under Ken's leadership.

In Ken's years as director of the West Virginia Japan Office, our State and Japan have seen a dramatic, if not astronomical, rise in their economic relations. West Virginia is currently home to 19 Japanese companies that have created thousands of direct and indirect jobs for our State's citizens. Japanese investors have been, and continue to be, outstanding corporate citizens of West Virginia-- contributing economically and culturally to the quality of the State.

I have seen Ken's work firsthand on a number of occasions in Japan on trade missions with various Governors. Ken's relationships and his presence in Nagoya have been very valuable for our development efforts. He operated with a strong dedication to our collective goals and an understanding of both Japan and West Virginia.

Very soon, Ken will be embarking on a new career with NGK Spark Plugs--West Virginia's first major Japanese investor--and a trailblazer for our State's Japanese automotive industry. Ken will bring to that job the same determination, commitment, and hard work ethic he brought to the State's economic development efforts. We look forward to working with him in his new position as we continue to strengthen our ties with our State's existing Japanese investors.

Mr. President, I thank the Senate and ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Ken's service to my State and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Dr. David Tawei Lee, who has been Taiwan's chief representative to the United States. Dr. Lee will be assuming his new post as Taiwan's top envoy in Canada this month, leaving his post in Washington to take on this new role in Ottawa.

I have known David for decades, and he has been a staunch ally and strong advocate for West Virginia. He has helped me, and our State, to make inroads in the Taiwanese economy and has been instrumental in the continuing success of businesses with roots in both Taiwan and West Virginia. This ongoing economic relationship is enormously important for both sides and has allowed West Virginia to continue to grow its burgeoning aviation industry and to explore business opportunities we never thought possible.

As a result of the hard work of Representative Lee and others, Sino Swearingen Aircraft Company continues its push toward mass production of one of the most impressive business jets in the world. In addition, in my personal interactions with David, he has always been straightforward, honest, compassionate, and well-informed. I knew he would level with me during any difficult time and that I could count on him to fairly and accurately relay the results of our meetings to his people.

Representative Lee has worked hard during the last 2\1/2\ years to renew and strengthen the political, economic, and social ties that bind the United States and Taiwan. On many difficult occasions, David Lee has risen to the challenge, and as Taiwan's Chief Representative to the United States he has given countless hours assisting lawmakers, administration officials, and the private sector in understanding the complex relationship between our people and ensuring that our longstanding friendship continues.

Representative Lee was educated at the National Taiwan University and received his Ph.D. in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia. David is a true democrat, firmly committed to the principles of democracy and capitalism. He has been an asset for both Taiwan and the United States, and he has served Taiwan with honor, integrity, and distinction.

Dr. Lee's record of distinguished public service to his people spans more than two decades. He began his career at the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, Office in Washington, DC, in l982 as a staff consultant and soon rose to various important posts in Taiwan's foreign ministry. From l997 to l998, he was Director-General, Government Information Office, and Government spokesman for Taiwan. From l998 to 2001, he served as Deputy Foreign Minister; from 2001 to 2004, he was Taiwan's Representative to the European Union, stationed in Belgium. Since the summer of 2004, he has served as the Republic of China's chief representative in the United States.

Our loss here in Washington will be Canada's gain. In his new role as Taiwan's representative to Canada, David will continue to be a strong advocate for policies that will encourage expanded trade and a continuing good relationship between Taiwan and the rest of the world. Again, I would like to take this opportunity to wish Representative and Madame Lee the very best of luck. They are our good friends, and we will miss them.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith, to reintroduce the Access to Medicare Imaging Act. This legislation would place a 2-year moratorium on the imaging cuts enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, of 2005, pending the outcome of a comprehensive Government Accountability Office, GAO, study on imaging utilization and payment within the Medicare Program.

Each year, millions of Medicare patients receive medical imaging services, including X-rays, CT-scans, MRIs, and PET scans, just to name a few. Imaging technologies are a critical component of early diagnosis and treatment for many life-threatening conditions, like cancer and heart disease. Medical imaging equipment allows providers to rapidly exchange images across the internet, facilitating greater and timelier physician consultation and improving the quality of care received by patients.

For individuals living in rural or medically underserved areas, such as many parts of West Virginia, imaging technology is particularly important. In West Virginia, access to imaging equipment is a very big deal. Without these technologies, many individuals would be denied much needed treatment and invaluable peace of mind. Sadly, provisions included as part of the DRA leave some of our most vulnerable citizens at risk by jeopardizing their access to these imaging services.

Consider, if you will, the Center for Advanced Imaging at West Virginia University. This state-of-the-art facility offers the rare integration of clinical imaging with medical research and development. Imaging services are provided for patients throughout the State of West Virginia and bordering rural regions in Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Because of imaging technology, trained medical staff at West Virginia University can take a digital image and, within minutes, send a precise copy to a major medical facility in Seattle, WA. There, it can be read by a specialist, who can then return a written report by email. A few years back this was still science fiction, but now it happens every hour, of every day, across the country.

As incredible as these services may seem, and as important as they are to the practice of effective clinical medicine, there is a perception that imaging services also come with an increased cost. Over the past few years, the use of imaging services by Medicare beneficiaries has increased significantly. In fact, MedPAC reported in March 2005

that imaging grew at twice the rate of all other physician fee schedule services between 1999 and 2003. During that time, MRI and CT procedures increased by 15 to 20 percent per year on their own.

In addition to rising costs, MedPAC further reinforced ongoing concerns about potential overuse of imaging services and the sudden increase of outpatient-based imaging in primary care settings. Citing a lack of training and implementation of imaging guidelines, MedPAC called upon Congress to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to define and execute such standards.

Given the MedPAC report, imaging reimbursement became an easy budget target during the reconciliation debate in 2005. On January 1, 2007, as directed by the DRA, payments for medical imaging services delivered in a physician's office or imaging center were capped at a rate not to exceed the rate paid to a hospital's outpatient department. In some instances, this has resulted in a 30-50 percent reduction from previous Medicare imaging reimbursement rates and has created questions as to the long-term availability of these vital services for Medicare recipients.

I believe the $8 billion in imaging cuts were prematurely added to the Deficit Reduction Act in order to meet a budget target and were not based on sound public policy. These cuts represent almost a third of the total savings included in the Deficit Reduction Act, yet they were never debated by Congress. Physicians need imaging technology to ensure the best possible health outcomes for their patients, and they deserve to be fairly compensated for providing their patients access to this revolutionary technology.

The legislation that I am proposing today along with Senators Smith, Kennedy, Collins, Murray, Isakson, Kohl, Coleman, Casey, Cornyn, Menendez, Burr, Lincoln, Graham and Harkin would declare a 2-year moratorium on the imaging cuts included in the DRA so that both the Government Accountability Office and Congress can better assess what payment or policy reforms are necessary to maximize the effectiveness of the imaging technology available to Medicare recipients. The insight garnered from a comprehensive GAO study will be invaluable to Congress. In the meantime, however, we cannot stand by and allow our elderly and disabled to suffer so that we can meet an arbitrary budget target. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this timely legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith, to reintroduce the Access to Medicare Imaging Act. This legislation would place a 2-year moratorium on the imaging cuts enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, of 2005, pending the outcome of a comprehensive Government Accountability Office, GAO, study on imaging utilization and payment within the Medicare Program.

Each year, millions of Medicare patients receive medical imaging services, including X-rays, CT-scans, MRIs, and PET scans, just to name a few. Imaging technologies are a critical component of early diagnosis and treatment for many life-threatening conditions, like cancer and heart disease. Medical imaging equipment allows providers to rapidly exchange images across the internet, facilitating greater and timelier physician consultation and improving the quality of care received by patients.

For individuals living in rural or medically underserved areas, such as many parts of West Virginia, imaging technology is particularly important. In West Virginia, access to imaging equipment is a very big deal. Without these technologies, many individuals would be denied much needed treatment and invaluable peace of mind. Sadly, provisions included as part of the DRA leave some of our most vulnerable citizens at risk by jeopardizing their access to these imaging services.

Consider, if you will, the Center for Advanced Imaging at West Virginia University. This state-of-the-art facility offers the rare integration of clinical imaging with medical research and development. Imaging services are provided for patients throughout the State of West Virginia and bordering rural regions in Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Because of imaging technology, trained medical staff at West Virginia University can take a digital image and, within minutes, send a precise copy to a major medical facility in Seattle, WA. There, it can be read by a specialist, who can then return a written report by email. A few years back this was still science fiction, but now it happens every hour, of every day, across the country.

As incredible as these services may seem, and as important as they are to the practice of effective clinical medicine, there is a perception that imaging services also come with an increased cost. Over the past few years, the use of imaging services by Medicare beneficiaries has increased significantly. In fact, MedPAC reported in March 2005

that imaging grew at twice the rate of all other physician fee schedule services between 1999 and 2003. During that time, MRI and CT procedures increased by 15 to 20 percent per year on their own.

In addition to rising costs, MedPAC further reinforced ongoing concerns about potential overuse of imaging services and the sudden increase of outpatient-based imaging in primary care settings. Citing a lack of training and implementation of imaging guidelines, MedPAC called upon Congress to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to define and execute such standards.

Given the MedPAC report, imaging reimbursement became an easy budget target during the reconciliation debate in 2005. On January 1, 2007, as directed by the DRA, payments for medical imaging services delivered in a physician's office or imaging center were capped at a rate not to exceed the rate paid to a hospital's outpatient department. In some instances, this has resulted in a 30-50 percent reduction from previous Medicare imaging reimbursement rates and has created questions as to the long-term availability of these vital services for Medicare recipients.

I believe the $8 billion in imaging cuts were prematurely added to the Deficit Reduction Act in order to meet a budget target and were not based on sound public policy. These cuts represent almost a third of the total savings included in the Deficit Reduction Act, yet they were never debated by Congress. Physicians need imaging technology to ensure the best possible health outcomes for their patients, and they deserve to be fairly compensated for providing their patients access to this revolutionary technology.

The legislation that I am proposing today along with Senators Smith, Kennedy, Collins, Murray, Isakson, Kohl, Coleman, Casey, Cornyn, Menendez, Burr, Lincoln, Graham and Harkin would declare a 2-year moratorium on the imaging cuts included in the DRA so that both the Government Accountability Office and Congress can better assess what payment or policy reforms are necessary to maximize the effectiveness of the imaging technology available to Medicare recipients. The insight garnered from a comprehensive GAO study will be invaluable to Congress. In the meantime, however, we cannot stand by and allow our elderly and disabled to suffer so that we can meet an arbitrary budget target. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this timely legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important policy matter facing our Nation. Many of us in this body have for years called for a national broadband policy. Today, I am formally proposing the establishment of that national policy. I will propose that we take two steps: establish a goal, and develop a strategy to meet the goal.

Although broadband services are expanding and more consumers are subscribing to broadband, our Nation is falling behind the rest of the world in the deployment next generation broadband infrastructure. Broadband as we know it will be obsolete and we must begin to examine how the United States can remain a leader in communications technology. As a nation, we must have a thoughtful national policy to make sure all Americans have the communications infrastructure that they need to learn and compete in a global environment.

A national broadband policy is critical to the future of our country. Having a very robust broadband network available to all Americans would provide a tremendous social and economic benefit. The latest phrase in the broadband lexicon is ``exaflood.'' It refers to the flood of new, high bandwidth applications that are now available to those with a fast connection. The number of broadband applications now available is almost unimaginable.

In the last year, social networking Web sites, such as YouTube and MySpace, have become integral parts of our society. But, expanded connectivity would allow doctors to diagnose remotely medical conditions, music students to study with an instructor hundreds of miles away, and scientists to monitor ocean floor vents from their offices on shore. This is the real potential of broadband to transform our lives.

Those who have a fast enough pipe to use those applications will enjoy a huge benefit, both social and economic. As we all recognize, creating next generation broadband networks is crucial to our international competitiveness. It is not news that the United States is lagging many other nations in terms of penetration of current- generation broadband, for example, cable modems and digital subscriber lines. Perhaps more worrisome is that we are also falling behind in terms of next-generation broadband technology.

In Japan, tens of millions of people have access to a direct fiber connection, and 100 megabit connections are commonplace. Korea has been the leader in DSL for years, and now it also is extending fiber all the way to the home. The same is happening in Europe--100 megabit connections are becoming routine in these countries, and it is crucial that the United States not fall behind again. We must have a policy that ensures the deployment of a strong broadband network for all Americans.

The first step in going somewhere is to know where you are going, and the same is true in public policy. We need a goal. And the goal should be an ambitious, yet achievable one. The second step is to decide how to achieve that goal. We need a roadmap. And, we need it now. By the end of 2007, we should establish a national goal and pass a series of policy actions designed to achieve our national goal. There will likely be multiple parts to the plan, and we will likely need to modify those parts over time. But if we do not have a plan, we cannot expect to accomplish our goal.

So today I am introducing a resolution calling for two things: A national goal of 10 megabits per second universally available in the United States by the end of 2010, and 100 megabits by the end of 2015. As I said, that is ambitious, but achievable. A number of different wireline and wireless technologies are today capable of delivering five megabits or more, and their efficacy is constantly increasing. Ten megabits by 2010 is achievable. And by 2015 we can do much better and achieve true next generation speeds.

If we do our work, by 2015 we can become a true ``100 Megabit Nation.'' Today, speeds of 30 megabits or higher are available to millions of Americans due to the healthy competition developing between telephone companies and cable television companies, complemented by many forward-thinking real estate developers and municipalities. These entities are beginning to offer ``triple play'' services, voice, video and data, requiring them to deploy new technologies delivering very fast speeds. Having general availability of 100 megabits is achievable by 2015 if we push the technology envelope. We can do it, and we should resolve today to do so.

The second part of my resolution says that by the end of this year, 2007, we will develop a strategy for achieving our national goal. I will suggest policy actions for inclusion in that strategy, and many of you will as well. I think we should have tax incentives to push the private sector beyond their current deployment plans, we should offer low-interest loans for the same purpose, we should reform the Universal Service Fund to encourage broadband deployment, we should free municipalities to deploy as they see fit, we should ensure the wise use of wireless spectrum, and the list goes on. There will be new proposals to deal with new challenges and new opportunities. We should develop the first U.S. national broadband policy by the end of 2007, and we should revisit it every year thereafter to modify it as necessary. That is what my resolution calls for.

I invite my colleagues to join me in this call for a national broadband goal and strategy. We have talked about it for years. Now it is time to take action. We owe this to our constituents and the country. We must act to provide them with the benefits that a powerful broadband network can bring, and we must begin today.

Madam President, I rise today with my colleagues to speak about so-called authorized generics. An authorized generic drug is a brand-name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic in order to confuse consumers and shut true generics out of the market. Because it is not a true generic drug and does not require an additional FDA approval, an authorized generic can be marketed during the federally mandated 6-month exclusivity period for generics. This discourages true generic companies from entering the market and offering lower priced prescription drugs. I have introduced legislation--the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act--in order to ban authorized generics during this protected 180-day period, and I had hoped that this legislation could be accepted as part of this bill.

I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's interest in looking into this deceptive marketing practice. And, while I had hoped that we could reach agreement on my legislation as part of this bill, I appreciate the chairman's commitment to working with me to solve this problem as part of the patent settlements discussion. I am also grateful for Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and Hatch's support of the authorized generics language Senator Brown and I worked to include in the underlying bill. This language will undoubtedly help the FTC finish its work, but I want to be clear that I do not believe Congress needs to wait on the FTC study to be completed to act on the problem of authorized generics. At the very least, Congress should impose a moratorium on authorized generic drugs until such time as the FTC study is complete.

I thank my colleagues for these commitments. I look forward to working together with Chairman Kennedy, Senator Enzi, Senator Hatch, and the cosponsors of this amendment Senators Schumer, Leahy, Kohl, and Stabenow to develop strong consensus language that can be enacted as part of the patent settlements legislation.

Mr. President. I want to explain why I missed two votes early during yesterday's session, Senator DeMint's amendment No. 930 and Senator Coburn's amendment No. 918 on S. 761, America COMPETES Act, a bill that I cosponsored. I was confident that my vote would not change the outcome, and the DeMint amendment failed by a vote of 22 to 79 and the Coburn amendment failed by a vote of 27 to 67. If I had been able to come to the floor, I would have voted against both amendments, but the outcome would have been the same.

The reason I missed the votes was that I was attending a very special hearing in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on mental health issues for our returning soldiers. The first panel included a recent Iraq veteran with PTSD, parents of an Iraq veteran who committed suicide after returning home, and parents of an Iraq veteran soldier who died of an overdose of his own prescription drugs while in VA care. One of the families had come from Iowa and the other from California to talk about the tragedy of each son's death and to seek ways to ensure that other families might avoid such tragedies. The Iraq veteran, a combat medic, spoke eloquently on his own problems acknowledging and treating his PTSD and the similar problems of fellow soldiers in his platoon.

One father testified that after his son died of an overdose in VA care, he and his wife went to claim his son's personal effects, and the items were handed to them in a plastic garbage bag. I was shocked and outraged. I knew that it would seem heartless to cut their panel short and not let these parents and this veteran share their full story so I volunteered to stay and listen so that the full story could be given in committee. These families already feel that parts of our Government do not care, and that is sad. I needed to stay to chair the hearing and let these courageous witnesses continue their testimony.

I am very glad I did. Despite the tragedy and grief these individuals face, they are speaking out boldly in hopes of changing the current system so other veterans and other families do

not face the same ordeals they have faced. These are stories that must be told and, more importantly, must be heard in public by those who can and must make changes. These witnesses had good ideas and suggestions on how to change the delivery system for the mental health care of our returning veterans. They spoke passionately about how soldiers are trained to serve bravely and not show weaknesses. I could not walk away from this important hearing about issues crucial to our combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am very grateful to veteran Patrick Campbell, Mr. and Mrs. Randall Omvig, and Mr. Tony Bailey for their compelling personal testimonies. I am committed to push hard for action to change the VA system for future veterans and their families.

Mr. President, this week is Cover the Uninsured Week. And, I cannot think of a more appropriate time to introduce the legislation that Senators Olympia Snowe, Ted Kennedy, and I introduced yesterday--the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 (S. 1224). There are more than 45 million uninsured people in our country today, and 9 million of them--20 percent--are children. This is an embarrassing statistic for the wealthiest country in the world, and it has catastrophic consequences for our children.

In 1964, when I first came to West Virginia as a VISTA volunteer in Emmons, I was shocked to learn that many of the school-age children living there had never been to a dentist before. I made raising health care standards one of my first priorities in Emmons, and we ultimately got a bus to bring children to the Tiskelwah grade school in Charleston for dental care. Now, more than 30 years later, there are still children in West Virginia and throughout the Nation without access to adequate dental care.

Several weeks ago, millions across the country mourned the death of twelve year old Deamonte Driver, whose lack of dental care led to fatal brain infection. His death was a sad reminder of how our country continues to fail in its efforts to ensure access to vital medical care for our nation's youth. Yet, Deamonte was not the only child to succumb to the perils of inadequate health coverage. There are countless other children who have suffered the same fate. We must make universal coverage for children a national priority and reauthorization of CHIP is the first step in that process.

When CHIP was established in 1997, nearly 10 million children were uninsured. Congress responded by making a landmark, bipartisan commitment to help states provide comprehensive health insurance coverage to millions of these children. As a result, 6 million children have access to medical benefits through CHIP that they would have otherwise been forced to do without. I am proud to have been a part of CHIP's creation, and I am especially proud of the progress this program has made in providing working families an affordable and dependable option for protecting the health and well-being of their children. A healthy start in life is a necessary component in preparing our children to lead healthy, happy and productive lives in the future.

Today, however, we find ourselves in a situation strikingly similar to the dilemma we faced in 1997--more than 9 million children are currently without health insurance in this country. In fact, in 2005, the number of uninsured children increased for the first time since CHIP was enacted. This means that, despite our best efforts, we have taken a step backwards in terms of covering children. We cannot allow this trend to continue. Instead, we must make covering children a top priority--just like we did in 1997.

The CHIP Reauthorization Act makes health insurance coverage for children a priority. Not only does this important legislation renew and strengthen the commitment we made to our working families 10 years ago; it also provides significant new Federal resources for states to reach the 6 million additional children who are currently eligible for Medicaid and CHIP, but unenrolled. With many states already leading the charge on children's health and the additional federal support this legislation provides them, the Nation will be able to take another substantial step forward toward ensuring that all of America's children have comprehensive health insurance.

Our bill strengthens the underlying CHIP financing formula to provide states a stable and reliable source of funding for their efforts to cover more uninsured children. It also combines a variety of approaches, such as Express Lane eligibility, to help states enroll more uninsured kids who are currently eligible for CHIP or Medicaid. These innovative approaches will allow states to reach millions of additional children, particularly in rural parts of the country.

I am especially proud of our efforts to permit states to provide more meaningful coverage for children by including other vital benefits like dental care and mental health services. I have already talked about the importance of oral health for a child, but I'd also like to say something about children's mental health. I spend a lot of time with veterans, many who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and when those veterans get home, their children often suffer as well. We also need to consider the mental health of our children more broadly. Children are living in very tough times. They face enormous amounts of mental pressure from a variety of sources. If the Virginia Tech tragedy taught us anything, it taught us that we need to hug our children everyday and that we need to get appropriate help for our children when they have mental health needs, no matter how big or small.

While I had hoped that we could require Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment (EPDST) services as part of this bill, I believe we were able to reach an appropriate compromise that will help us to achieve broad bipartisan support. I am still as committed as I ever have been to including EPDST services in CHIP. However, Senators Snowe, Kennedy, and I wanted to craft a bill that could pass the Senate, and we believe we have achieved that objective.

A final component of our legislation that I would like to highlight are the important steps we take to develop child-focused quality measures that will directly improve the coverage provided to children enrolled in CHIP. We establish a new child health quality initiative to enhance data collection, identify best practices, develop a pediatric electronic medical record, and disseminate health quality information. We hope this new initiative will greatly improve the health outcomes of children.

In closing, I'd like for our country to get to the point where we never have to have another Cover the Uninsured Week again. Of course I greatly appreciate all the wonderful work the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has done over the years to raise awareness about the uninsured problem. My hope is that we will eventually have universal coverage for all. Certainly, we can take the first step toward achieving that goal by providing health care coverage for all of our Nation's children.

With this reauthorization bill, Congress now has an opportunity to make profound positive changes in the lives of millions of American children and their families. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the passage of the CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, the Republican manager, Senator Bond, and I and our staffs have been working together to clear some amendments, and we have in fact cleared already 10 amendments. I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following amendments, that they be agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. These were agreed to by both sides and have been cleared by all parties. The numbers of the amendments are 845, 846, 856, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, and 872.

Will the vice chairman yield?

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma has indicated to me that he will not object to the managers' amendment going forward, if he would be allowed to finish what he was talking about, which I assume would happen within the next 5 or 8 minutes. If that is the case, then we will have made progress.

Objection.

Mr. President, as I indicated before, the distinguished Republican manager, Senator Bond, and I and our staffs have been working together to clear some amendments. We have cleared 10. I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following amendments, that they be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc. The amendment numbers are 845, 846, 856, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, and 872.

Would the Senator yield?

The Senator from West Virginia would be interested as to why it is the distinguished Senator from Texas objects.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I resume my request which I will make in full, and that is that the Republican

manager, Senator Bond, and this Senator from West Virginia and our staffs have been working together to clear some amendments. We have cleared 10 amendments--9 amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following amendments, that they be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. Those amendment numbers are 846, 856, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, and 872.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that it be in order for any of the cleared amendments to be modified to comport to the substitute.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous action on amendments Nos. 856 and 859 be vitiated.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45 p.m. today, the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and without further interning action, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 372, the Intelligence authorization bill; further, that Members have until 4:45 p.m. to file any second-degree amendments.

Mr. President, I should say this has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to truly congratulate the Senator from Rhode Island for his statement which was delivered forcefully, intelligently, accurately, and with great conviction which comes from his extremely broad experience in life.

For this Senator's part, my view is this: Unless the Senate invokes cloture and moves to finish action on the fiscal year 2007 authorization bill, we have failed for the third time, or as Senator Levin put it, since 2004 when we last passed it, to pass important national security legislation. Everything that the American people are worried about, everything that comes out of events like yesterday in Blacksburg, VA--and by the way, I spent a good deal of time on the phone talking to students I know down there--everything points to a massive, tectonic change in the way we are carrying on.

I speak very proudly of a PBS series which is looking at this whole subject. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, 12 consecutive hours of looking at what Islam is, what it isn't; what jihad is, what it isn't; and how we came to this point. It is done from all points of view, usually without any journalists, just soldiers talking. It is brilliant, and I recommend it to my colleagues.

We tried last week to move the Intelligence authorization bill, and we were prevented from doing so due to objection from some of our Republican colleagues. When cloture on the motion to proceed was passed last Thursday, the vote was 94 to 3. That is not just to drop off a number, that is a significant expression of public will in the Senate. The Senate was again prevented from moving to the bill for the purpose of debate and amendment by a continued Republican objection, forced 30 hours to run on the motion to proceed. As a result, we have wasted 2 days.

As my distinguished and good friend Senator Bond said, we wasted 2 days when we could have considered and disposed of many amendments, which we were prepared to do.

Vice Chairman Bond and I have been working together, the two of us, to clear and pass amendments even this day, and have done so, a goodly number of very important ones, because we are determined that this should work. However, many of those 42 amendments filed are extraneous, and they are nonrelevant. We have to pay attention to those things that are outside the jurisdiction of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the purpose of the authorization bill so they don't fall, but we won't be able to get to those.

So I would just conclude this way. Oversight of the activities of the U.S. intelligence community is a necessary and essential duty of this body. It is a duty which Vice Chairman Bond and I take extremely seriously. He is very aggressive about it and cares a great deal about it. I do, too. I think it defines the integrity of the process with which we protect our Nation and the people who protect our Nation, covertly, overtly, as the Senator from Rhode Island talked about.

So it is our constitutional duty. I don't like to be in dereliction of my constitutional duty at any particular time. I can't think of any time that is more important to me not to do so than right now.

In addition, I fear that it sends a disturbing message to the clandestine collectors and the intelligence analysts of the intelligence community who actually watch us and pay a lot more attention to us, particularly here in Washington, and read our tea leaves and take their signals about where they stand on our priority list. I want them to stand at the very top. I think the vice chairman wants them to stand at the very top. If we do not consider them a legislative priority, then I am saddened by that.

I call upon my colleagues to set aside politics and vote for cloture and final passage of this intelligence authorization bill that has languished in legislative limbo for more years than I am happily willing to admit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on whether the Army and Marine Corps are properly sized, organized, and equipped to respond to the most likely missions over the next two decades while retaining adequate capability to respond to all contingencies along the spectrum of combat.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the role of the Federal Communications Commission in reviewing the XM-Sirius merger, and issues related to the effect of this proposed merger on competition and the public interest.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety be authorized to hold a hearing on domestic violence in the workplace during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at 10 a.m., in SD-628.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on readiness and management support be authorized to meet, in closed session, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at 3 p.m., to receive a briefing on the current readiness of U.S. Ground Forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommitte on securities, insurance, and investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2007, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``subprime mortgage market turmoil: Examining the role of securitization.''