Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution and our Budget chairman, Senator Conrad, who has done an extraordinary job in developing such a thoughtful resolution.

This budget resolution helps to get our country back on the right fiscal track, and it highlights many priorities for American families that were neglected or ignored over the last few years. For example, this resolution increases discretionary education funding by about $9 billion so that we can invest in title 1, IDEA and improving Pell grants and student aid.

Another important change is the investment in our veterans by providing $3.5 billion more for the VA. This resolution approximately matches the funding request of the veteran's organizations, known as the independent budget. It is a travesty that VA has been underfunded in the past as veterans are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In West Virginia, I host confidential roundtables to listen in private to our returning veterans. I want to hear from them personally about their experience in combat, and their care and treatment after they come home. I am deeply disturbed by stories of hassles to get medical appointment and lengthy delays in processing claims for benefits. Every veteran who has bravely served our Nation deserves timely and quality care and benefits. Because of the violence and intense combat, many of our returning veterans want and need mental health care. We have a moral obligation to care for our veterans, both those coming home today and the aging veterans of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. This budget resolution is a meaningful downpayment to fulfill our obligations. It will let us investment in mental health care, and begin to improve our VA benefits system so that wounded soldiers do not have to wait ridiculous amounts of time to get their benefit claims resolved.

One part of this resolution that is deeply important to me is the investment of $50 billion for reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. In 1997, I fought hard to create this program, and I am enormously proud of the success of CHIP in providing insurance coverage to children. In my own State of West Virginia, there are nearly 40,000 children covered through CHIP each year. This budget resolution will allow us to move CHIP forward in two important ways: first, to maintain coverage for children currently enrolled in the program today and, second, to expand coverage to children who are eligible but not yet enrolled in the program. This provision is a strong signal of the new priorities of the leadership in the 110th Congress. I would like to particularly thank Senator Conrad and his staff for the commitment this resolution makes to CHIP. I know this budget wasn't easy. I know that there are many competing priorities for limited Federal resources and an ever escalating demand. But, I am so proud that Democrats are taking a stand for children and making CHIP reauthorization the top health care priority this year.

This budget resolution is responsible. It restores pay-as-you-go rules. But it also includes deficit-neutral reserve funds so that Congress can move forward on important areas like reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, competitiveness and other domestic priorities that have been ignored for too long. I have been proud to support this budget resolution throughout a long day of votes, and I want to thank and commend our chairman, Senator Conrad, for a job well done.

Mr. President, amendment No. 591 would create a deficit neutral reserve fund and would allow for legislative action by the Finance Committee to improve the child support enforcement system as long as the costs were offset.

The child support program has collected more than $23 billion for 17 million children participating in the program. The Congressional Research Service found that this program is one of the most important safety net programs reducing poverty rates for working families.

Unfortunately the Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, made deep cuts in this enforcement funding. A preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office indicates that $11 billion in child support payments will go uncollected over the next 10 years, even if States backfill half of the lost Federal funds.

Child support payments allowed more than 300,000 families to close their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families cases in 2004. Families go on welfare less often and leave sooner when they receive reliable support payments. In addition, Federal costs for Medicaid, food stamps, and other means-tested programs decrease when both parents support their children.

The child support program collected $4.58 in private dollars for every $1 spent by Federal, State, and county governments. The Office of Management and Budget rated the child support program as one of the most effective government programs.

As States implement the cuts in the DRA, fewer children will receive reliable support from their parents. States and counties will collect support less consistently and it will take longer to establish paternity and support orders. Employer outreach initiatives will be curtailed. Domestic violence services and initiatives to help low- income fathers work and stay involved with their children will be reduced or eliminated. Interstate enforcement will be less dependable.

As program resources are reduced, a State's ability to meet Federal performance measures will deteriorate. A downward spiral in performance will further decrease State program funds and increase penalty risks. Counties in particular rely on performance incentive funding to operate. The performance gap will widen between States and counties able to backfill funds and those that cannot.

Mr. President, I speak today in support of the budget resolution. I have many highly complimentary things I could say about Senator Conrad, who has probably the toughest job in the Senate. He has proceeded brilliantly, fairly, calmly, and within the public interest. The public interest is, to me, the most important. He has shown that commitment by including $50 billion for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

I reserve a note of personal privilege. I first became aware of what happens to children--in this case, in rural America--when I was a Vista volunteer in West Virginia in 1964 and 1965. I saw children and their families who had no concept of health care. Never in their lives did they have health care or most anything else that really counted in terms of giving them hope. So that has been kind of my moral compass ever since. It is the way I vote, it is the way I feel, and it is who I am.

I know this budget was not easy for the chairman of the Budget Committee. But I am so proud the chairman and the Democrats are standing up for children and making CHIP reauthorization the top health priority of this year. This is not a Democratic program. This is not a Republican program. If there is anything at all that was ever an American program--Governors, everybody--nobody can disagree on the power of this program, with the exception that it is now in deep stress. It has been cut by two-thirds from its present inadequate funding.

This amendment would not only restore the full 6 million children who are not covered--and, again, I want you to contemplate a child not covered, a child who develops a toothache, a child who develops a stomachache, a child who is miles from a hospital and whose family may not have a car to get that child there.

Children's health insurance means everything. Immunization, preventive care--CHIP is the only program that has ever done this. We did this with Medicare in 1965. We did it 30 years later with the Children's Health Insurance Program. I think it is the single most accepted Federal program in my State of West Virginia, with the exception, obviously, of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.

The problem is the budget was cut. So of the 6 million who originally were covered, many are now not covered. We have many problems facing us. The budget chairman, Senator Conrad, has corrected these problems. He has included not only the 6 million who were on it but many of whom were cut or would be cut, and then he has included the 6 million more who are eligible because they qualify in every way except there is not the money to cover them. There would now be the money to cover them.

I have never faced the problem, to be honest, could I make it in life in some way or another, where was my next meal coming from, what would happen if I had some kind of an illness. That is not the typical experience in lots of rural America and urban America. That is where my heart lies, with those people. I think we have a sacred responsibility as a Senate, on the most bipartisan issue I can possibly think of, to remedy this problem and to take care of it quickly by adopting this piece of legislation.

We remember, in 1977, there were 10 million uninsured children. The failure of health care reform in the early 1990s took away our will, took the wind out of our sails. It turned us into incrementalists. So we did not start thinking about the big picture, how to cover Americans broadly.

I can remember standing on the floor of the Senate with the senior Senator from Massachusetts. People were saying: Well, this is nationalized health insurance. We were waving our Blue Cross-Blue Shield cards. It did not make any difference, once it was labeled that was it: dead on arrival. That was a tragedy and now is a particular tragedy with respect to children.

So today we have almost 9 million children under the age of 18, and they still have absolutely no health insurance. How does one walk into this body, with the health insurance we have, with the people we represent, and allow a situation like that to continue? It is a profound moral issue. It takes the form of legislation, it takes the form of goodwill and determination, but it is a profound moral obligation of the richest country in the world.

So I am strongly for this Baucus legislation. I think we have an obligation to adopt it. I hope we have the courage and the skill to do so.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with my colleagues Senators Craig, Dorgan, Vitter, Klobuchar, Tester, Landrieu, Crapo, Baucus, and Cantwell to introduce the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation stands for the very basic premise that businesses should serve their customers, and do so at reasonable rates.

This essential concept of capitalism is what our economy is based upon. Those ideas, plus promoting competition and protecting consumers, were prime motivating factors when Congress in 1980 passed the Staggers Act. The Staggers Act provided a government agency--now the Surface Transportation Board (STB)--with the ability to prevent monopoly abuses of those shippers left ``captive'' to just one railroad, and to make sure that the railroads in competitive situations were able to operate in such a way that they could be profitable. Somewhere along the way the part of the STB mandate calling on the agency to protect shippers, and by extension consumers, has been ignored, or at least subsumed into the STB's fervor to see the railroads profitable.

And profitable they are. What is important for my colleagues to recognize is that neither I nor any of my cosponsors want the railroads to fail. We want, and this country needs, a healthy freight rail industry. From coal to chemicals to plastics to forest products to grain and potatoes, America's shippers depend on the railroad industry to carry their products to customers across the country to keep our economy moving.

What no member of Congress should want to see is a freight rail system dominated by four regional carriers whose business plans are based on bleeding their captive customers dry. Meanwhile, these companies invest none of their profits in infrastructure expansion to handle current traffic, much less the expected need in the decades to come.

This is by no means the first time my colleagues have seen me introduce legislation in this vein. In fact, this is at least the eighth time that I have asked my colleagues to look into the problems in our freight rail network and to work with me to fix it. Businesses in my home State of West Virginia have been describing problems with the railroads to since before I came to the Senate in 1985. Like businesses anywhere, West Virginia industries depend on efficient and dependable rail service at fair prices to move their products to market.

Well, what was a troubling situation 22 years ago for about 20 percent of rail shippers captive to the more than 40 Class I railroads then is a nightmare now for hundreds of companies in almost every industry and in virtually every part of the United States that are being underserved and overcharged by the five remaining Class I railroads. I have worked for years in a bipartisan and regionally diverse coalition of members of Congress to change a system that just is not working. Our goal is to improve the economic situation for rail shippers and retail shoppers. And, I hasten to add, we seek to strengthen and improve the economic vitality of the Class I railroads, as well.

I am sure that my colleagues will hear from railroads that we are ``re-regulating.'' My colleagues should carefully review our bill and find where we would regulate anything that is not already regulated. This is, of course, the point. The railroads have touted the success of the deregulation, but what they fail to mention is that the Staggers Act never deregulated the railroads where shippers had no competitive transportation options. The railroads can have all the opinions about our legislation that they want, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

What has happened while the railroads have consolidated and mischaracterized this effort on behalf of shippers? Shippers and end- use consumers have paid increasingly high prices for electricity, food, medicine, paper products; the chemicals to protect our water supply and crops, and the basic ingredients of the plastics in many of the goods we purchase. It was not supposed to be this way.

In 1980, when Congress passed the Staggers Act, it was seeking to rescue the railroads from a burdensome and counterproductive regulatory scheme overseen by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). In the decades leading up to passage of the Staggers Act the freight rail situation was bloated with unprofitable railroads forced to make un- economic choices regarding track, routes, and countless other business decisions. The Staggers Act was an attempt to let the marketplace create a more workable system. Where rail shippers were already captive to one railroad, the ICC was supposed to continue to protect shippers' rights and to require railroads to meet their responsibilities.

As the marketplace evolved, the ICC, and its successor agency the STB, were supposed to make sure that railroad consolidation and industry policy did not harm rail customers. The only reason the railroads in 2007 can say that my colleagues and I are attempting to ``re-regulate'' them is that the regulatory agencies charged with regulating them all along largely have abdicated their responsibilities, and have been sadly ineffective on the rare occasion when they purport to be carrying out the part of their mission that includes maintaining the advantages of competition.

To the extent that the Staggers Act has been successful in fulfilling its promise, that success has been completely one-sided. Railroads are no longer struggling to be profitable. Neither are they struggling to serve their customers. The STB, which should be working to make the system work, is more of a problem than it is a solution. The only parties still struggling are the shippers, and our bill is designed to make it a fair fight.

The title of our bill, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act, really says it all. Cosponsors of this legislation seek a freight rail system envisioned in the drafting of the Staggers Act. We hope to remind the STB of its responsibilities, and give its enforcement the teeth successive Chairmen have told Congress the Board needs.

As I have said, this legislation is about making capitalism work for all parties in the freight rail marketplace, not just for the monopoly railroads. Shippers need Congress to remind the STB that good service at reasonable rates is not an outrageous demand. Congress must demand that shippers that ask for a rate quote are given one. Unbelievably, the STB's reading of the Staggers Act allows shippers no such right.

In addition to that most basic right of business negotiations, our legislation would do the following: clarify and restate the STB's responsibility to shall promote competition among rail carriers, as well as requiring reasonable rates and dependable service in keeping with the railroads' common carrier obligation; remove so-called ``paper barriers,'' contractual restraints on short-line and regional railroads that prevent them from providing improved service to shippers; modify the rate challenge process, and implement real-world evidentiary standards and burden of proof requirements; authorize STB to require ``reciprocal switching,'' the transfer of traffic between railroads, where it is in the public interest; affirm the railroads' obligation to serve; cap filing fees for STB rate cases at the level of federal district courts; allow Governors to petition the STB for declarations of ``areas of inadequate rail competition,'' with appropriate remedies; create position of Rail Customer Advocate in the Department of Transportation; and establish a system of ``final offer'' arbitration for disputes over agriculture, forest product, and fertilizer shipments.

Solutions to these problems are long overdue. I commend to my colleagues the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act as a set of common-sense solutions to unresolved problems that are putting American competitiveness at risk.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing America's Better Classroom Act, an essential initiative to respond to the overwhelming needs for school construction and renovations. I welcome the support of my colleagues, Senator Harkin, and Senator Kerry, who have been strong leaders on school construction and education policy. This bill is a wise investment in education and economic development; it creates jobs while we build and renovate our schools.

The Department of Education reports that the average public school building is 42 years old. In 1995, GAO estimated that we needed $112 billion for school construction and renovations of the three-quarters of our schools that need funding to bring the buildings into good overall condition. A more recent survey in 2001 in the Journal of Education Finance indicates that the need is increasing, and the unmet need for school infrastructure over the next decade is over $200 billion. My State of West Virginia will need as much as $2 billion for school construction and renovations.

Combine these statistics with the fact that there is a proven relation between the condition of school buildings and the performance of students, and it is not difficult to see that the state of our schools is entirely unacceptable. It is our responsibility to do all we can to remedy this situation.

America's Better Classroom Act provides the financial tools to do this. It will continue the Qualified Zone Academy Bonding (QZAB) Program, which, in recent years, has provided $4.2 million for support of school construction and renovations in disadvantaged communities. This provision would provide $2.8 billion to continue and expand the successful QZAB Program. Effective programs deserve continued support.

But the truth is that many school districts need help with school construction and renovations, but cannot qualify for the QZAB program. This is why the America's Better Classroom Act creates a $22 billion Qualified School Bonding Program. Funding will be allocated to the States based on the Title 1 formula so it is targeted, but the States will have flexibility in allocating support among school districts.

When I visit schools in West Virginia, I am often stunned by the aging buildings and compelling needs. In our fast-growing Eastern Panhandle, new schools must be built or renovated to accommodate rapid population growth. In other parts of the State, older school buildings need renovations to be safe learning environments for our students. As technology plays an increasingly important role in education, classrooms need to be updated.

States and communities need the America's Better Classroom Act so that we can make needed investments. School construction can play a positive role in helping to stimulate our economy and create needed jobs and is also an important investment in our children's education.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing America's Better Classroom Act, an essential initiative to respond to the overwhelming needs for school construction and renovations. I welcome the support of my colleagues, Senator Harkin, and Senator Kerry, who have been strong leaders on school construction and education policy. This bill is a wise investment in education and economic development; it creates jobs while we build and renovate our schools.

The Department of Education reports that the average public school building is 42 years old. In 1995, GAO estimated that we needed $112 billion for school construction and renovations of the three-quarters of our schools that need funding to bring the buildings into good overall condition. A more recent survey in 2001 in the Journal of Education Finance indicates that the need is increasing, and the unmet need for school infrastructure over the next decade is over $200 billion. My State of West Virginia will need as much as $2 billion for school construction and renovations.

Combine these statistics with the fact that there is a proven relation between the condition of school buildings and the performance of students, and it is not difficult to see that the state of our schools is entirely unacceptable. It is our responsibility to do all we can to remedy this situation.

America's Better Classroom Act provides the financial tools to do this. It will continue the Qualified Zone Academy Bonding (QZAB) Program, which, in recent years, has provided $4.2 million for support of school construction and renovations in disadvantaged communities. This provision would provide $2.8 billion to continue and expand the successful QZAB Program. Effective programs deserve continued support.

But the truth is that many school districts need help with school construction and renovations, but cannot qualify for the QZAB program. This is why the America's Better Classroom Act creates a $22 billion Qualified School Bonding Program. Funding will be allocated to the States based on the Title 1 formula so it is targeted, but the States will have flexibility in allocating support among school districts.

When I visit schools in West Virginia, I am often stunned by the aging buildings and compelling needs. In our fast-growing Eastern Panhandle, new schools must be built or renovated to accommodate rapid population growth. In other parts of the State, older school buildings need renovations to be safe learning environments for our students. As technology plays an increasingly important role in education, classrooms need to be updated.

States and communities need the America's Better Classroom Act so that we can make needed investments. School construction can play a positive role in helping to stimulate our economy and create needed jobs and is also an important investment in our children's education.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for moving expeditiously to move the confirmation for John Preston Bailey to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter for reporting this nomination to the full Senate, and I commend Mr. Bailey to my colleagues as exactly the type of nominee we should all support for seats on the Federal bench.

John Bailey did something somewhat unusual after he earned his degree from Dartmouth College. He came back. He defied a longstanding trend of our best and brightest young men and women leaving to seek their fortunes and not returning. He went on to earn his law degree from the School of Law at West Virginia University and then served as a law clerk for the Honorable Charles Haden II. Judge Haden was a Republican and a Ford appointee but was also a good friend to this Senator. He was a fair and decent man widely respected for his intellect and his diligent efforts to arrive at the correct outcome. I can only hope that John Bailey chooses to emulate his former mentor, Judge Haden. Knowing what I know of John Bailey, he will, and West Virginians will benefit.

Lawyers in West Virginia have a great deal of respect for John Bailey. He has served the West Virginia legal community as president of the West Virginia State Bar and the West Virginia Bar Association and was a member of the Board of Governors of the West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association. Some West Virginia lawyers and judges I have known for many decades believe John Bailey will be a very capable judge because he is a great lawyer. He takes the facts as he finds them and does not come to the table with preconceived notions as to what the outcome should be. Those traits, along with a first-rate intellect and solid educational and work credentials, make up the formula for the kind of judicial nominee we all hope to see come to the Senate from Presidents of both parties.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays on the Hardiman nomination.

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, 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 to commend and support my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for the hard work on the Head Start reauthorization bill.

I would particularly like to thank Senators Dodd and Harkin for including important language in the bill regarding childhood obesity prevention as part of Head Start. Obesity is a serious health concern, especially in West Virginia where 64 percent of adults in West Virginia are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. An even more alarming statistic, however, is that 28 percent of low-income children between the ages of 2 and 5 are already overweight. Furthermore, overweight children have a 70 percent chance of remaining overweight into their adulthood. Obesity in children is usually caused by lack of physical activity, unhealthy eating patterns, or a combination of the two.

If Head Start can play a role in preventing obesity in children and families, it will be a real achievement, and I strongly believe Head Start can because of our experience in West Virginia.

In December 2004, a pilot program designed by Amy Requa, Head Start health specialist, and Dr. Linda Carson, director of the West Virginia Motor Development Center, West Virginia University was initiated in Head

Start Region III, which includes West Virginia. The program, known as ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning,'' is designed to prevent and reverse obesity among children enrolled in Head Start by integrating physical activity and wise nutrition choices in their daily life and promoting general good fitness habits.

According to the Surgeon General, children should exercise for at least 60 minutes per day. ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' is designed to improve the quality and quantity of exercise performed by children by incorporating it into daily classroom routines. After the first year of the pilot program, results showed that Head Start participants were less sedentary and able to meet the daily exercise requirement, in addition to being able to move with more intensity over longer periods of time.

The benefits of ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' do not end at the classroom. Because the risk of overweight children becoming overweight adults increases when one or more parent is obese, participants are encouraged to extend their healthy physical activity and food choices to the home. ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' is also not an isolated program; it is easily integrated with other community programs targeting childhood obesity and family wellness.

Overall the results after the first year of the ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' show remarkable success. Children enrolled in the initiative showed moderate improvement in body-mass index scores, indicating that they were at healthier weights than at the start of the program. Due to its success, starting this year ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' is extending into Delaware, Pennsylvania, and California.

The goal of Head Start is ``to bring about a greater degree of social competence in the young children of low-income families.'' ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' succeeds in complementing this by creating positive self-esteem among children by removing the depression and social discrimination associated with obesity.

Adding incentives for Head Start agencies to add prevention of childhood obesity is an important improvement. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the Head Start program is reauthorized during this Congress. It was neglected in the past, and we should be sure to review and strengthen our basic programs, such as Head Start.

Madam President, there is a procedural process that is missing.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 20, S. 372, the Intelligence authorization, 2007; that the Rockefeller-Bond amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that a statement by Senator Rockefeller be printed in the Record as if read, without intervening action or debate.

Madam President, let me take this opportunity to thank many people but not the particular Senator who is objecting--1 out of 100. Nevertheless, Senators Reid, Bond, myself, and others have worked very hard to move this fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill forward. All parties have been enormously supportive in this effort. It is one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body. I must express my dismay, my absolute dismay. I will hold it to that.

Despite considerable efforts on the part of the chairman and Vice Chairman Bond and extensive efforts and negotiations to get agreement on this bill, there is still an objection from one Senator for its consideration. Is it just another bill? Not quite. The Senate's failure to pass this critical national security legislation for the past 2 years is remarkably shocking and inexcusable.

In 2005, the Senate failed, for the first time since the establishment of the congressional intelligence committees, to pass an annual Intelligence authorization bill. That means for 27 years we passed authorization bills for the Intelligence Committee. It is not an inconsequential committee. It instructs how intelligence is to be done. There are a number of changes that have been agreed to. All of that failure was followed by a repeat failure in 2006--in 2005 and then in 2006.

So from 1978 through 2004, the Senate had an unbroken 27-year record of completing its work on this critical legislation. You cannot move to appropriations until you go through authorization, particularly in a field such as intelligence authorization that has an unbelievably important role. The Intelligence authorization bill has been considered must-pass legislation for many years--until recently. Now, in the midst of the war on terror, with things going downhill in Iraq, going downhill in Afghanistan, and our continued military involvement in both places, when good intelligence is not just vital but a matter of life and death--and I emphasize the second--we have been prevented from passing that bill that provides the legislative roadmap for our intelligence programs.

Similar to the Defense authorization and appropriations bills, the Intelligence authorization bill is at the core of our efforts to protect America. That is why it is simply incomprehensible, shocking, and debasing that we cannot find a way to bring up and pass this critical legislation.

The result of this continued obstruction will be diminished authority for intelligence agencies to do their job in protecting America. I hope the Senator involved takes satisfaction in that. I am not sure his constituents--if it is a he--would. Yes, I am angry.

The authorization bill contains 16 separate provisions enhancing or clarifying the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The bill includes major improvements in the way we approach and manage human intelligence, information sharing, protection of sources and methods, and even the nominations process for key intelligence community leaders.

I came to the floor several times last year to explain those provisions in detail. Today, I reiterate how important this legislation is to the war on terrorism and to every other aspect of our national security, including the ongoing fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. This should have happened years ago. Somebody objects and, of course, it cannot happen; the rules of the Senate prevail.

There is no reason the Senate cannot pass this bill quickly, so that we can confer with the House before the committee is required to turn its attention to drafting and reporting out what will be another experiment, the 2008 authorization, which we should already be halfway toward completing. If there is objection to passing this bill by unanimous consent, we have been--the vice chairman and I, who worked very well together--more than willing to negotiate a time agreement and quickly debate and pass this long-overdue national security bill.

It is essential we assist the men and women of the intelligence agencies to continue their vital work on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan and something called the war on terror.

Madam President, I conclude by simply saying we need this bill.

I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Madam President, may I just appeal to whatever reasoned and reasonable people there may be around here, and that is that the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee has something to say on this matter which relates to what I said. There is a sequential power in that which I think deserves consideration.

Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Coleman, Senator Feingold, and Senator Vitter, to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. If enacted, this bill would close an incomprehensible legal loophole that has allowed our Nation's freight railroads the unfettered ability to act in anti-competitive ways for too many years. Since before I came to the United States Senate I have been quite stunned at the ability of railroad companies, by virtue of an exemption from our antitrust laws, to ignore the legitimate complaints of their customers, to sidestep the appropriate concerns of elected officials and leaders in the private sector alike, and to consolidate operations and power to the detriment of the consumer.

The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act would benefit businesses, employees, and consumers by providing meaningful government oversight where none exists currently. It will give our Nation's shippers--long captive to monopoly abuses courts were powerless to check, the Surface Transportation Board was unwilling to acknowledge--remedies that will make for a more open and competitive freight rail marketplace.

In my home State of West Virginia and in towns all across the country, companies and consumers are negatively impacted by lack of competitive rail transportation options--a phenomenon often referred as a shipper being ``captive'' to one railroad. Because the antitrust exemptions in place allowed railroads to ignore the rules by which virtually all other American corporations are required to operate, railroads have refused to negotiate in good faith with their customers over the costs of shipping important rail-dependent commodities such as coal, bulk chemicals, and grains and other agricultural products. Manufacturers have been left at the mercy of the railroads and are forced to pay exorbitant transportation rates to ship their goods. Many manufacturers struggle to be competitive with competitors here and abroad because they simply do not have real transportation choices. The bottom line, which should come as no surprise to my colleagues, is that if industrial inputs and the fuel used to produce half of our electricity are artificially high in price, consumers are left paying higher prices for just about everything they buy. This continues to have an overwhelmingly negative affect on West Virginia's economy, as industries served by only one carrier face pressures to cut production in the state, or to leave it altogether.

How has this been allowed to come to pass? It will probably come as a shock to members of the Senate, but the railroad industry is exempt from the Nation's antitrust laws related to mergers, acquisitions, and pooling arrangements approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). They are also exempt from antitrust laws that would otherwise influence ratemaking. Under the current exemptions, private parties cannot file antitrust suits against railroad companies to halt what in would be for every other industry illegal practices. Under current law, railroads are allowed to continue a wide range of anti-competitive practices that severely inhibit the ability of our Nation's businesses from shipping their goods at reasonable rates. What this Nation has experienced in the more than 25 years since the Staggers Act partially deregulated the freight rail market are not efforts by railroads to modernize their systems, improve efficiency, and upgrade service. Rather, rail carriers have manipulated the system to charge their so- called ``captive'' customers as much as they chose to charge, not what the market would normally bear.

Specifically, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will alter exemptions in current law to allow for the following: Permit the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review mergers under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, and allow them to bring legal action to block anti-anticompetitive railroad mergers. Remove antitrust exemptions that have allowed railroads to merge, acquire new properties, set rates collectively, and otherwise coordinate policies across the entire freight rail market. Allow State Attorneys-General and other private parties to sue for treble damages for violations of antitrust laws, including for collusive activity leading to excessive and unreasonable

rates. Allow State Attorneys General and private parties to sue for court orders to halt anticompetitive conduct. Expand the jurisdiction of the FTC to allow it to enforce antitrust law in the railroad industry.

By granting consumers and shippers long-denied access to the protections of our antitrust laws with regard to the freight rail industry, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act may make strides toward creating the competitive freight rail marketplace envisioned by Congress when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. I hope so. However, because I believe rail customers and retail consumers need greater protection still, along with some of my cosponsors today and others, later this month I will be introducing additional, broader rail policy legislation to declare the rights shippers were meant to have, and the responsibilities railroads were meant to have, when Congress passed the Staggers Act.

For the system to work, there must be a meaningful way to seek redress of grievances and punish wrongdoing. The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will go a long way toward correcting some of the glaring problems those of us who pay attention to the rail marketplace have known about for a long time. It will not fix all the problems in the system, but perhaps its provisions will encourage railroads to negotiate with their customers in good faith. The lack of fairness in the current system is devastating to businesses in my state of West Virginia, and to companies and consumers in every part of the country.

I again express my support for the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This is a problem that affects rural America and urban America, the Grain Belt and the Coalfields, and all points on the compass. Indeed, no American consumer is unaffected by this problem, and all American consumers should take heart: If we enact this bill, help will be on the way.

Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Coleman, Senator Feingold, and Senator Vitter, to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. If enacted, this bill would close an incomprehensible legal loophole that has allowed our Nation's freight railroads the unfettered ability to act in anti-competitive ways for too many years. Since before I came to the United States Senate I have been quite stunned at the ability of railroad companies, by virtue of an exemption from our antitrust laws, to ignore the legitimate complaints of their customers, to sidestep the appropriate concerns of elected officials and leaders in the private sector alike, and to consolidate operations and power to the detriment of the consumer.

The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act would benefit businesses, employees, and consumers by providing meaningful government oversight where none exists currently. It will give our Nation's shippers--long captive to monopoly abuses courts were powerless to check, the Surface Transportation Board was unwilling to acknowledge--remedies that will make for a more open and competitive freight rail marketplace.

In my home State of West Virginia and in towns all across the country, companies and consumers are negatively impacted by lack of competitive rail transportation options--a phenomenon often referred as a shipper being ``captive'' to one railroad. Because the antitrust exemptions in place allowed railroads to ignore the rules by which virtually all other American corporations are required to operate, railroads have refused to negotiate in good faith with their customers over the costs of shipping important rail-dependent commodities such as coal, bulk chemicals, and grains and other agricultural products. Manufacturers have been left at the mercy of the railroads and are forced to pay exorbitant transportation rates to ship their goods. Many manufacturers struggle to be competitive with competitors here and abroad because they simply do not have real transportation choices. The bottom line, which should come as no surprise to my colleagues, is that if industrial inputs and the fuel used to produce half of our electricity are artificially high in price, consumers are left paying higher prices for just about everything they buy. This continues to have an overwhelmingly negative affect on West Virginia's economy, as industries served by only one carrier face pressures to cut production in the state, or to leave it altogether.

How has this been allowed to come to pass? It will probably come as a shock to members of the Senate, but the railroad industry is exempt from the Nation's antitrust laws related to mergers, acquisitions, and pooling arrangements approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). They are also exempt from antitrust laws that would otherwise influence ratemaking. Under the current exemptions, private parties cannot file antitrust suits against railroad companies to halt what in would be for every other industry illegal practices. Under current law, railroads are allowed to continue a wide range of anti-competitive practices that severely inhibit the ability of our Nation's businesses from shipping their goods at reasonable rates. What this Nation has experienced in the more than 25 years since the Staggers Act partially deregulated the freight rail market are not efforts by railroads to modernize their systems, improve efficiency, and upgrade service. Rather, rail carriers have manipulated the system to charge their so- called ``captive'' customers as much as they chose to charge, not what the market would normally bear.

Specifically, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will alter exemptions in current law to allow for the following: Permit the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review mergers under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, and allow them to bring legal action to block anti-anticompetitive railroad mergers. Remove antitrust exemptions that have allowed railroads to merge, acquire new properties, set rates collectively, and otherwise coordinate policies across the entire freight rail market. Allow State Attorneys-General and other private parties to sue for treble damages for violations of antitrust laws, including for collusive activity leading to excessive and unreasonable

rates. Allow State Attorneys General and private parties to sue for court orders to halt anticompetitive conduct. Expand the jurisdiction of the FTC to allow it to enforce antitrust law in the railroad industry.

By granting consumers and shippers long-denied access to the protections of our antitrust laws with regard to the freight rail industry, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act may make strides toward creating the competitive freight rail marketplace envisioned by Congress when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. I hope so. However, because I believe rail customers and retail consumers need greater protection still, along with some of my cosponsors today and others, later this month I will be introducing additional, broader rail policy legislation to declare the rights shippers were meant to have, and the responsibilities railroads were meant to have, when Congress passed the Staggers Act.

For the system to work, there must be a meaningful way to seek redress of grievances and punish wrongdoing. The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will go a long way toward correcting some of the glaring problems those of us who pay attention to the rail marketplace have known about for a long time. It will not fix all the problems in the system, but perhaps its provisions will encourage railroads to negotiate with their customers in good faith. The lack of fairness in the current system is devastating to businesses in my state of West Virginia, and to companies and consumers in every part of the country.

I again express my support for the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This is a problem that affects rural America and urban America, the Grain Belt and the Coalfields, and all points on the compass. Indeed, no American consumer is unaffected by this problem, and all American consumers should take heart: If we enact this bill, help will be on the way.

Mr. President, today, I introduce the EPSCoR Research and Competitive Act of 2007, and I am proud to have the bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Reed, Hagel, Baucus, Roberts, and Cochran.

The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, is part of the National Science Foundation and is intended to assist smaller States competing for research grants that historically have not received as much funding from the NSF as larger States. Twenty-six States, representing 20 percent of our Nation's population and 25 percent of our doctoral and research institutions are currently eligible for the EPSCoR program yet receive only 10 percent of the total NSF research funding. EPSCoR funding provides valuable research opportunities in States with unique scientific features. States such as West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana and New Mexico all stand to gain from EPSCoR funding, and our country will gain from the scientists and innovations made in our States.

EPSCoR has the additional bonus of having a proven track record. Over 50 percent of researchers supported by EPSCoR funds have successfully competed for non-EPSCoR funding. EPSCoR is also helping drive the economy in active States by providing cutting edge job opportunities. Seventy-five percent of new technology companies started by university research are based in the States where the original research was done.

In order for our Nation to remain competitive in the global marketplace, EPSCoR will play an important role in promoting science nationwide. This legislation provides some specifics to meet that goal. First off, this bill proposes that the Research Infrastructure Improvements Grant increase to $75 million beginning in fiscal year 2009 and remain at that level through 2012. Secondly, it seeks 20 percent of the EPSCoR budget for the cofunding program, an innovative initiative to help encourage each of the NSF directorates to collaborate and fund meritorious projects from the EPSCoR States. Thirdly, it encourages the NSF Director to develop creative ways to ensure that the EPSCoR States are part of the new major initiatives of the foundation, including cyberinfrastructure and major research instrumentation.

The citizens of West Virginia have benefited tremendously as a result of this program. Competitive Federal research has increased 68 percent in West Virginia since 2001. In 2005 alone, research created more than $147 million in economic activity and supported 4,432 jobs. Much like other States involved, EPSCoR has been a tremendous boon to our flagship higher institutions with West Virginia University and Marshall University having worked together through this program to come up with innovate solutions like never before. To help ensure that EPSCoR States remain competitive, this legislation suggests that EPSCoR grow proportionately with the foundation. To achieve our competitiveness goals and to increase the numbers of engineers and scientists, every State needs to play a role. It is encouraging to note that the administration's budget request for this year seeks a $7 million increase in EPSCoR.

Ensuring the economic well-being of all our States is an essential part of keeping our entire Nation competitive and EPSCoR is an important step in that direction. EPSCoR States are the home for 25 percent of the doctoral and research universities, and our States train nearly 20 percent of our science and engineering graduate students. This legislation will help encourage and promote competitiveness.