Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time for morning business be yielded back.

Mr. President, first, let me express my disappointment that we are here under these circumstances. This is not the way we should be handling this important national security legislation.

The fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill should have been considered by the Senate, in fact, 7 months ago when it was reported unanimously by the Intelligence Committee. That is usually the way things are meant to work. For reasons that are still not clear to me, it was never brought before the Senate.

Because of the importance of this legislation, Vice Chairman Bond and I made the Intelligence bill the first order of business this January when the new Congress convened. We hoped the Senate could act swiftly on the bill so we could move to the conference with the House, but an anonymous hold on the other side prevented us from bringing up the bill and passing it by unanimous consent. Again, I am not

clear what the reason for that might have been, but it was discouraging to us and, in any event, it precluded our taking any action whatsoever.

Fortunately, Senator Reid understands how important this legislation is. So last week he attempted to call up the bill. But even that simple motion to proceed to the bill was blocked, forcing the Senate to invoke cloture by a vote of 94 in favor and 3 against.

The Senate, after 7 months of delay, is finally considering the legislation that sets the policy framework for the Nation's intelligence efforts, but because of the inordinate number of obstacles put in the path of the bill to date, the majority leader has been forced to file a motion to invoke cloture on this legislation. I agree with him that this is the only way to force the Senate to finally do its job and pass this very important bill. It is unfortunate, but it has to happen. This is national security legislation.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support cloture so that we can move this bill forward to a conference with the House. I know I am joined by my colleague, the vice chairman. I understand that some, both in the Senate and in the administration, have expressed concern with a number of the provisions of the bill. The Office of Management and Budget issued a Statement of Administration Policy last Thursday including a veto threat, and unfortunately that statement ignored several important developments and several changes Vice Chairman Bond and I have proposed in a managers' amendment, which I am going to talk about briefly.

The administration complains about the magnitude of the fences and other restrictions contained in the classified annex to the bill. They ignore the fact that the classified annex was drafted last September with a view to having it in full effect for the full fiscal year. Vice Chairman Bond and I decided in January that the best approach to achieve swift passage was to simply bring up and pass the bill as it had been reported unanimously last year.

We have always known that many of these provisions have become outdated or have been overtaken by events. Of course, they will be adjusted, or perhaps dropped, when we go to conference. We have no intention of fencing 50 percent of a program with only 4 or 5 months left in this year. Please give us some credit.

Perhaps the more important omission in the OMB statement is the effort that Vice Chairman Bond and I have made to address, through a managers' amendment, many of the administration's specific concerns with those legislative provisions. I will run through these provisions quickly.

As reported by the committee, the bill requires two actions related to the public disclosure of intelligence budgets. First, it requires the public release of an overall budget request authorization and appropriation, the so-called top line, one number for all intelligence spending.

The second action is a study and report by the Director of National Intelligence on whether the top line for each intelligence community element; that is, the CIA, NSA, et cetera, can always be declassified without harming national security. This was a recommendation, in fact, of the 9/11 Commission.

The managers' amendment; that is, the amendment by Senator Bond and myself, struck that requirement for a study and a report on the agency- level declassification. The study and report alarmed some who believed that declassification itself would cause no harm but worry that it could lead to a ``slippery slope'' of revealing too much information.

The managers' amendment returns the bill language to the specific stated objective; that is, the declassification of the overall national intelligence budget. This is something the Senate has voted for twice in the last 2\1/2\ years, including last month when it passed S. 4.

This concurrent version of the authorization bill includes another provision that has passed the Senate twice but which concerns the administration and some of our colleagues. That provision in section 108 provides additional authority for congressional committees, including the Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate, to obtain intelligence documents and information.

The managers' amendment modifies section 108 in three ways. First, it doubles the amount of time the administration will have to respond to these priority requests from 15 to 30 days.

Second, section 108 currently applies to requests from any committee--any committee--that has jurisdiction over any part of intelligence, not just the Intelligence Committees of full jurisdiction in the House and Senate. This amendment will limit the provision to requests from the Intelligence Committees.

Third, it would make clear the Intelligence Committee could specify a greater number of days than 30 for intelligence community responses. We are not unreasonable people, and if more time is needed, we would, obviously, want to be helpful.

Let me be clear to my colleagues on other committees with jurisdiction that touches on intelligence matters, because some of them are sensitive about this issue. These changes will in no way limit their ability to ask for and receive intelligence-related information. In fact, any Senator can ask for such information.

The amendment sets up an expedited procedure available to the Intelligence Committees, but it does not change existing relations or procedures for obtaining such information for other committees. That should be of comfort. If another committee were to encounter difficulty in obtaining intelligence information, they could easily ask the intelligence community to request the information under this expedited procedure. It sounds wordy; in fact, it is very easy. I think this is a sensible modification to alleviate the concern that the Intelligence Committee would be overwhelmed with requests requiring short turnaround times. Vice Chairman Bond and I are sensitive to that concern and modified the matter.

A second provision of the bill dealing with the provision of information to Congress is section 304. That section tightens up the requirement for the President to fully inform the Intelligence Committees about intelligence activities, including covert actions. Section 304, as reported, requires if the President does not inform all members of the committee about intelligence activity, the DNI must provide all members with a summary with sufficient information to permit members to assess the legality, benefits, cost, and advisability of these activities. This is on a case-by-case basis.

There was a discussion of this provision during our markup, and the administration has objected that this requirement is too detailed. The managers' amendment seeks to resolve that objection by providing instead that the DNI submit a classified notice with ``a description that provides the main features of the intelligence activities.'' This standard is sufficiently broad to allow the notification of members, but at the same time protects sensitive sources and methods or ongoing operations.

Section 310 of this bill, as reported, would establish a pilot program on access by the intelligence community to information protected by the Privacy Act. This provision was controversial and several members expressed reservations. We subsequently learned the administration is no longer seeking this authority, so the managers' amendment strikes section 310 from the bill.

Finally, the managers' amendment modifies one of the reporting requirements included in the bill. Section 314 requires a classified report from the Director of National Intelligence about clandestine prisons. One part of that provision called for reporting on the location of any clandestine detention facility. Vice Chairman Bond and I agreed this particular information was of such sensitivity it should not be included in this report. The managers' amendment strikes that one requirement.

Mr. President, might I ask before calling up the managers' amendment, does the distinguished vice chairman wish to speak?

Mr. President, will the vice chairman have adequate time to speak?

Mr. Bond. Mr. President, if the chairman wishes to offer the amendment, I will be happy for him to do that. I will talk as long or short as I have the opportunity.

Mr. President, I offer the managers' amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Madam President, in essence, what I will do is repeat what my valued and distinguished vice chairman said. It is a fact of life. The vice chairman and I have both been Governors. It is a fact of life that Governors don't like to have oversight. They don't get it. The legislatures don't get it. They get it by the people every 4 years.

It is a little different here. The President sends legislation. We look at it. It gets passed or not. But the country is so huge, and there are innumerable problems, none of which are more important than the national security. It is incredibly important not just to take the President's decision and assume that it is right. Maybe that works at the State level, but it doesn't work here.

We have an absolutely sacred obligation--and in this case a life-and- death obligation--to review, to do oversight, to ask questions, to call people in and to have closed hearings. We have endless numbers of closed hearings which are attended by members of the committee. Suddenly, this committee has come together, it is alive, and this sense of oversight is felt and appreciated by the intelligence community.

This single sheet of paper which every single Member will get when they come to the Chamber shows how Vice Chairman Bond and I, working together as we always do, made five major amendments to try to accommodate the administration with respect to the managers' amendment, which is the pending amendment. We worked those through very carefully, we agreed upon them, and they are now before us.

Then there is a separate list of five more individual amendments where we try to be responsible and responsive. That is all we can do.

The great sadness to this Senator over the past several years has been the inability of the Intelligence Committee to do oversight. That is our obligation. We need to know what is happening. There are certain areas which become so sensitive that it may be that only the vice chairman and I can be informed. People grumble about that, and so be it. That is national security protection. But we have to know what is going on, and that is the purpose of this legislation.

It has been a long time coming. The majority leader has spoken to that point. I recommend to my colleagues who come to the Chamber to vote that they take a look at this paper.

We have worked to try to accommodate the administration's objections. I am sure we have not accommodated all of them, but we have addressed some important ones without in any way interfering with our ability to do proper oversight.

Yes.

Postponement of Judiciary Committee Hearing

Madam President, I thank the Senator and yield to the Senator from Massachusetts such time as he may require.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I have to declare myself absolutely a series of things: furious, double-crossed, misled, minimized--in terms of my role as a Senator and as chairman of the Intelligence Committee--shocked by the arrogance of the technique that was used between the White House and the minority leader to say to Republicans, after weeks in which Vice Chairman Bond and I worked out a compromise on a managers' amendment on which we worked in good faith--I dropped things he did not like, he dropped things I did not like--but it was a genuine effort.

Vice Chairman Bond, whom I respect greatly, stood here praising the managers' amendment. Then the word came down from the White House--not from Vice Chairman Bond but from the White House--through the minority leader, that this vote was to be a test of Republican Party loyalty and that therefore all Republicans were instructed to vote against it.

In all of my years in the Senate, and certainly all of my years on the Intelligence Committee, I have never seen something so repugnant, putting politics over national security. That is the bottom line. Politics was put over national security.

An order came down: This is a test of Republican Party loyalty. When it comes to that, by golly, you put politics over national security.

Thirty-one people, at least, died at Virginia Tech University this afternoon. All of my kids went to camp there. I know a number of students down there. I called to find out that they were OK, and there was grief everywhere. Republicans were standing up, Democrats were standing up expressing they were horrified.

I was just trying to figure out how many intelligence agents, how many soldiers--because of inadequate intelligence or because of some slip-up or something we had not done, something which we were prepared to correct or did correct in the managers' amendment--died, and I suspect the number was essentially greater than 31.

Now, my heart goes out to those 31. I know some of them who were spared. I was in despair until I knew they were OK.

But this act of cynicism, this act for the third year in a row, blocking intelligence legislation is beyond me. We all understand nothing can happen in military action without intelligence leading the way in; to scout out the territory, to get the feeling, to get through language skills, et cetera, to get the feeling of what is going on so we know what we are getting into.

I will not get into the importance of intelligence for Iraq or Afghanistan, but this is a real crusher. I am not shocked or discouraged with the intelligence. I am more fired up than ever on intelligence. I am shocked because something like this happens in the United States Senate for any reason at any time. I have been in this body for 24 years.

I have been in this body for 24 years, and on one occasion a majority leader called me at home--I happened to be shaving, and it was not a convenient phone call--and asked me to vote against a particular piece of legislation, which I was going to vote against in any event. That has never happened since then. Not once have I been instructed by my party or by my minority or majority leader to vote a certain way.

Yet when it comes to national security, to funding intelligence agencies, where we change the authorities, where we spent weeks in trying to work out hard problems, and did so in the managers' amendment, with more amendments to come, which we would have agreed to, to alleviate the White House's concern--the White House decided they do not like oversight. Well, I understand that. When I was a Governor, I did not like oversight. Nobody likes oversight, but it is our constitutional responsibility. We do not have that choice. We have that duty.

One of the great things about the Intelligence Committee is it has come together in recent months to accept this responsibility and to reach out and take hold of it with a vigor and a lust that makes us want to do more--but not to overdo but to do. Then along comes this vote.

It certainly is the most disappointing day, the most disappointing vote, the most disappointing sign of where we are in this country--the most disappointing sense of the relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch--the failure of the realization we exist for a reason, that we work hard, getting ready for this vote because we had a chance to do it. Then comes down the instruction: No. Politics trumps national security. Prove you are a loyal Republican. Vote no.

It is not a good day in the Senate.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Monday, April 16, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 731, National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007 and S. 962, Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 17; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal

of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Republican leader or his designee, and the final 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; that at close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 372, the Intelligence authorization bill; that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. in order to accommodate the respective party conference work sessions.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Warner and Senator Webb.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the time remaining under morning business, and I further ask consent that after my time expires, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, be recognized for a period of 5 minutes.

Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to extend my deep appreciation to my good friend, Senator Reid, for his very genuine persistence in pursuing this Intelligence authorization bill. He has worked hard, both as minority leader and as majority leader, to try to make this happen.

I suspect Senator Bond and I will have some fairly strong words to say in agreement about this because I think both of us are very dismayed that despite the very considerable efforts of Vice Chairman Bond and myself--we operate very closely together--to get agreement on this bill, there is still an objection to its consideration, as I understand.

It is almost inconceivable to me we are forced to come to this point of cloture and motions to proceed and all kinds of things on a national security bill. I do not understand that, where that comes from, why the motivation, how that happens.

In any event, we are talking about the authorization bill of the Intelligence Committee for 2007; and this is already the period for the 2008 authorization bill. It is inexcusable. From 1978 through 2004-- that is a long time, 1978 to 2004--every year, there was an authorization bill, like every year there is a military authorization, Armed Services authorization bill. It happens in all major committees. The Senate had an unbroken 27-year record of having authorization bills every single year. This year and the last year--and I think the preceding year--we did not.

It is very frustrating to the Senator from Missouri and myself. This should be considered, and is considered, must-pass legislation. It is in the national interest. We are in the middle of a war on terror. Our continued military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan calls for an analysis of what is going on in the intelligence community, putting it into authorization form so it can go on to be discussed and debated on the floor.

It is a matter of life and death. But we are being blocked again from considering a bill that provides the legislative roadmap for America's intelligence programs. America is not meant to work that way. Similar to the bills I have mentioned, you have to get authorization. It is done routinely. It is very puzzling.

Now, there are 16 separate provisions under our 2007 authorization bill--we are in the period for the 2008 authorization bill--enhancing and clarifying the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. These provisions include improvements to the way we approach and manage human intelligence, which the vice chairman and I feel very strongly about, information sharing, and the ability to manage intelligence community resources. Those are words with a great deal behind them.

I, like many of my colleagues, have been increasingly concerned about the seemingly endless stream of leaks of classified information. This bill includes provisions improving the authority of the Director of National Intelligence, whom we put in charge to look at matters such as these, and the Director of the CIA to protect intelligence sources and methods and a provision to increase the penalties for unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a covert agent.

The bill also contains numerous provisions intended to improve oversight of the intelligence community. We have not been doing that in the sense that we should, and Vice Chairman Bond and I worked very closely together on this issue. He is a ferocious pursuer of intelligence wherever he can find it, and he usually manages to bring it back with him. Section 408 will establish a statutory inspector general for the intelligence community. The DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, has used his power to create an IG, but the power to do so doesn't mean a requirement to do so. So we would strengthen that position in this legislation and make it more accountable to Congress.

Section 434 of the bill strengthens accountability and oversight of the technical intelligence agencies by providing a very important matter: that the heads of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are to be appointed by the President, as they have been but with the advice and consent of the Senate. That has not been the case. This is an enormous fountain of intelligence, and we think they ought to be responsive to the two Intelligence Committees in the Senate and the House.

My colleagues may be surprised that the head of an agency with as central a role in the intelligence community as the National Security Agency or an agency with the enormous budget of the National Reconnaissance Office is not appointed with Senate confirmation. It is really shocking. Whether it was an oversight or not, I have no idea, but it is wrong. Senator Mikulski pointed this out. This bill would correct that.

Section 108, cosponsored in committee last year by Senators Levin and Hagel, seeks to improve the timely flow of information to congressional intelligence committees. In other words, things can't be put off for a year or 2 years, 6 months or whatever. We try to enforce our view that we are an oversight group and we intend to be treated as such and we will not be treated in a lesser way. Similar language was included in the intelligence reform legislation that passed the Senate in 2004 and in S. 4, which passed the Senate last month.

There are requirements for the provision of specific information, including a report on the implementation of the Detainee Treatment Act and a separate report on the operation of clandestine detention facilities. These are not trivial matters, as the Presiding Officer understands, and they cannot be dealt with trivially by this body, and therefore we need this bill.

These provisions are all intended to improve our ability to make decisions

leading to better intelligence for the military and policymakers. There is no reason the Senate cannot pass the bill and do so quickly so that we can conference with the House and do that quickly so that we can pass the bill, the authorization bill of 2007, here in April of 2007 and proceed on.

I will close by saying: I would remind my colleagues that we are at war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we are at war in scores--or potentially at war in scores of countries around the world where al- Qaida is strong and growing, or groups such as the Taliban or others are growing. We can't have delay. This is an important bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the motion to invoke cloture and allow this process to move forward.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs disability rating systems and the transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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 Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing

during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 987, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 10 a.m., in G50 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Filing Your Taxes: An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 2:15 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``International Perspectives on Alternative Energy Policy: Incentives and Mandates and their Impacts.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 6:40 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider a substitute to S. 3, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing on equal pay for women workers during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 2 p.m. in SD-628.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider pending legislation, to be followed immediately by an Oversight Hearing on Tribal Colleges and Universities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 12, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Committee Authorization, Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation into Replacement of U.S. Attorneys.

II. Bills, S. 236, Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007, Feingold, Sununu, Leahy, Kennedy, Carin; S. 376, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007, Leahy, Specter, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn; S. 849, OPEN Government Act, Leahy, Cornyn, Specter, Feingold; S. 119, War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin; S. 621, Wartime Treatment Study Act of 2007, Feingold, Grassley, Kennedy; S. 798, Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act, Cardin, Warner, Kennedy; S. 735, Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007, Kennedy, Kyl, Coleman, Schumer; H.R. 740, Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007, Scott, Conyers, Forbes, Boucher, Jackson-Lee, Gutierrez, Sherman.

III. Nominations, Robert Gideon Howard, Jr., to be United States Marshall for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Frederick J. Kapala, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Halil Suleyman Ozerden, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; Benjamin Hale Settle, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington.

IV. Resolutions, S. Res. 112, designating April 6, 2007, as ``National Missing Person's Day,'' Schumer, Crapo, Feinstein.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 12, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 2 p.m. for a hearing titled ``GAO's Analysis of the Gulf Coast Recovery: A Dialogue on Removing Obstacles to the Recovery Effort.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 12, 2007, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Pirating the American Dream: Intellectual Property Theft's Impact on America's Place in the Global Economy and Strategies for Improving Enforcement.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members of the Intelligence Committee be given access to the floor during consideration of S. 372 and all pending matters.

Sameer Bhalotra, Randy Bookout, Tom Corcoran, Mike Davidson John Dickas, Melvin Dubee, Lorenzo Goco, Evan Gottesman, David Grannis, Christine Healey, Andy Johnson, Dan Jones, David Koger, Jack Livingston, John Maguire, Paul Matulic, Don Mitchell, Matt Pollard, Kathleen Rice, Eric Rosenbach, Todd Rosenblum, Jacqueline Russell, Alissa Starzak, Don Stone, Greg Thielmann, Louis Tucker, Jennifer Wagner, Christopher White.

I ask further that Ken Johnson, of the Committee staff, be given unrestricted floor privileges during consideration of S. 372 and related pending matters.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Thad Cochran, in

sponsoring the reauthorization of the National Writing Project. We have worked together for many years on the wonderful program that supports teachers and quality writing. Senator Cochran has long been one of this body's strongest advocates for not only the NWP, but for education in general. His leadership is quiet and effective, and truly inspiring.

The National Writing Project, NWP, provides our teachers with professional development to enhance their skills and in turn those teachers bring new skills and new enthusiasm to their classrooms and their students. Over 141,000 educators annually go through the NWP and become invaluable resources to millions of children nationwide. The NWP is at the forefront in the efforts to improve our schools for teachers and students.

The NWP is not only a great idea in theory but it has a record of success by consistently delivering results that can be seen in our classrooms. Students in NWP classrooms have shown demonstrably improved ability to organize and develop ideas in writing. A study published in January 2006 concluded that students whose teachers underwent NWP training uniformly demonstrated positive results.

Every State participates in the program. West Virginia has benefited tremendously from this program. The three sites in my State are Central West Virginia Writing Project, Marshall University Graduate College in South Charleston, the Marshall University Writing Project in Huntington, and the National Writing Project at West Virginia University in Morgantown. I am particularly proud of the leadership at Marshall University on its Technology Project to explore ways to better integrate technology into writing and classroom education. During the 2005-2006 school year the NWP conducted more than 140 programs serving over 3,000 teachers.

The NWP is a perfect example of how the public and the private sector should work in partnership to improve our society. The NWP operating budget comes not only from the Federal Government but from in kind contribution from colleges and universities.

Programs like the NWP are an essential part strengthening our education system, and it deserves our continued support.