Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small bill, but one with important consequences. My measure, the ``Access to Cancer Therapies Act,'' would provide coverage of all oral anti-cancer drugs under the Medicare program. I am pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing this measure.

As my colleagues know, there is no Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit today. If there was, we would not need this legislation. There should be and there must be a meaningful and fair Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses, and they can't defer their illnesses or their costs.

This legislation also reminds us of how crucial prescription drug coverage will be in the future. In 1993, Congress created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer drugs--but only if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided ``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be injected. At present, upwards of 90 percent of cancer drug therapy is covered by Medicare either in a physician office or in a reimbursed oral form. But by 2010 as much as 25 percent of cancer drug therapy will be in the form of oral drugs that are not currently covered.

As cancer therapy moves more toward reliance on oral drugs, Medicare coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies, or else even the intent of this very limited policy will be meaningless and Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer therapies. And without this legislative change, beneficiaries will increasingly bear the burden of buying these drugs from their own pockets, which most seniors can ill-afford.

While biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, Medicare policy is currently unable to provide reliable access to these medications for beneficiaries with cancer.

This legislation is important not only to seniors surviving cancer, but to all Americans. A recent poll conducted for the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship found that 9 out of 10 Americans believe that Medicare should pay for all medically approved cancer therapies.

Even if we do not succeed in enacting a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit this year, it is time to do what Americans want for cancer survivors by passing the Access to Cancer Therapies Act in the 108th Congress. This legislation gives people with cancer immediate access to life-saving drugs. This is a stop-gap provision that would be phased out when a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit is put into place that would cover oral anti-cancer drugs consistently with all other drugs.

At the very least, we must ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are available to our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The act will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. In the last Congress, 57 Senators cosponsored this bill. This is an opportunity to improve our Medicare program immediately. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small bill, but one with important consequences. My measure, the ``Access to Cancer Therapies Act,'' would provide coverage of all oral anti-cancer drugs under the Medicare program. I am pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing this measure.

As my colleagues know, there is no Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit today. If there was, we would not need this legislation. There should be and there must be a meaningful and fair Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses, and they can't defer their illnesses or their costs.

This legislation also reminds us of how crucial prescription drug coverage will be in the future. In 1993, Congress created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer drugs--but only if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided ``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be injected. At present, upwards of 90 percent of cancer drug therapy is covered by Medicare either in a physician office or in a reimbursed oral form. But by 2010 as much as 25 percent of cancer drug therapy will be in the form of oral drugs that are not currently covered.

As cancer therapy moves more toward reliance on oral drugs, Medicare coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies, or else even the intent of this very limited policy will be meaningless and Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer therapies. And without this legislative change, beneficiaries will increasingly bear the burden of buying these drugs from their own pockets, which most seniors can ill-afford.

While biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, Medicare policy is currently unable to provide reliable access to these medications for beneficiaries with cancer.

This legislation is important not only to seniors surviving cancer, but to all Americans. A recent poll conducted for the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship found that 9 out of 10 Americans believe that Medicare should pay for all medically approved cancer therapies.

Even if we do not succeed in enacting a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit this year, it is time to do what Americans want for cancer survivors by passing the Access to Cancer Therapies Act in the 108th Congress. This legislation gives people with cancer immediate access to life-saving drugs. This is a stop-gap provision that would be phased out when a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit is put into place that would cover oral anti-cancer drugs consistently with all other drugs.

At the very least, we must ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are available to our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The act will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. In the last Congress, 57 Senators cosponsored this bill. This is an opportunity to improve our Medicare program immediately. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I thank the Senator from California whose amendment to S. 113 I rise to support. I am a cosponsor of her amendment.

We live in a time in which we can never feel completely safe. There are terrorists throughout the world and here at home who have sworn to kill Americans. That is what they are trained to do. That is what they want to do. That is what they plan to do. We fight a war knowing that it may increase the terrorist threat against us. We buy duct tape and plastic sheeting. We plan escape routes for our families. We make decisions about whether to go to public events or ride a subway, or do all kinds of things. Does it change our lives or not? We are not even sure of that yet.

In times such as this, we in Congress have a special responsibility. We must be vigilant in our lawmaking and our oversight to make certain that the executive branch, our intelligence, and law enforcement agencies have all the legitimate tools to do their jobs in an efficient and effective way.

But our responsibility does not end there. It is easy to write laws to remove obstacles to prevent the Government from obtaining information. We have done that. Our challenge is to write laws that strengthen our security without undermining privacy and liberty. This is something our Nation has never faced before in the way which it is now going to be facing for the next several years.

It is our responsibility to look very closely at every piece of legislation related to fighting terrorism and ask: Do we need it? Does it make us feel safer? Yes. But do we really need it? Does it accomplish the goals we are seeking? And does it go too far?

I have cosponsored the Feinstein substitute amendment to S. 113 because I believe the language of the substitute is crafted carefully-- very carefully--to accomplish our goals in the fight against terrorism without going too far.

Mr. President, I would like to explain why I believe that.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was designed to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence inside the United States using electronic wiretaps. Later, physical searches were added to the law.

Before FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the executive branch ran wiretaps for national security purposes without judicial review, without approval of any sort. Such wiretaps were potentially unconstitutional and, because of that, threatened the viability of espionage prosecutions and raised serious questions regarding civil liberties.

The Congress enacted FISA with the recognition that our national security required the collection of foreign intelligence in the United States through intrusive means under different circumstances and using different standards than in the criminal warrant context, and the courts have upheld the constitutionality of FISA.

The purpose of FISA is the collection of foreign intelligence. The standard used to distinguish between FISA collection and wiretaps related to criminal activity involves a determination that the target is a ``foreign power'' or linked to a ``foreign power.'' In the case of terrorists, the Government must show the target is an ``agent of a foreign power,'' a terrorist group operating overseas.

Both S. 113 and the Feinstein substitute address and solve the following problem: What if you have a non-U.S. person in the United States who is engaging in or preparing to engage in international terrorist activities, but the Government does not have enough evidence to link him to an overseas group?

Both S. 113 and the Feinstein substitute eliminate the requirement that the Government produce to the FISA court evidence showing a direct link between the target and a foreign terrorist group.

So why is the Feinstein substitute better?

Under S. 113, the Kyl-Schumer bill, a key principle of FISA is eliminated. Even if the Government has actual evidence that the target is not connected to a foreign terrorist group, under Kyl-Schumer, the Government can still get a FISA wiretap order. This simply goes too far, and it is not necessary, in the judgment of this Senator.

If we know for certain a person really has no foreign connections, if he or she is a true ``lone wolf''--a foreign ``Unabomber,'' for example--then it is a straightforward criminal investigation. There is no foreign intelligence to be gotten at all, and that person is not a valid target under FISA.

The Feinstein substitute gets the Government everything it wants without changing FISA in a way that damages its basic premise; to wit, FISA is for the collection of foreign intelligence and should not be used when the only objective at hand is the collection of criminal evidence.

Mr. President, I commend the carefully crafted solution offered by the Senator from California to a very difficult problem. As the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 165, the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act. This legislation is another critical piece in our ongoing efforts to increase the security of our aviation system. I commend my colleagues, Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein, for their continued leadership on this critical issue.

Over the past 18 months, we have worked every day to improve security in our airports and on our airplanes. While we set in place unprecedented improvements in aviation security, clear gaps remain. Today's legislation is aimed at filling security gaps in the vast and economically vital air cargo network by providing the Transportation Security Administration and related security agencies with the authority and resources they need to implement new air cargo security requirements.

This important legislation, which passed the Senate last year as part of S. 2949, the Aviation Security Improvement Act, requires TSA to establish a system to screen, inspect, or otherwise ensure security of all cargo transported by air and to establish a system for regular inspection of airport and cargo shipping facilities. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not act on this legislation last year. Improving the security of our nation's air cargo system must be addressed this year, and I am pleased that the Senate has acted quickly to pass this vital legislation again in the 108th Congress.

The Air Cargo bill would take several steps to improve the security of air cargo. The bill requires the Transportation Security Agency, TSA, to develop a strategic plan to ensure that all air cargo is screened, inspected, or otherwise made secure. TSA would also be required to develop a system for the regular inspection of air cargo shipping facilities, the establishment of a database of known shippers, companies and persons that regularly ship cargo, in order to bolster the Known Shipper Program, and review and assess the existing federal security program for freight forwarders, companies that accept and consolidate freight and tender it to an all cargo or passenger carrier for air shipment. The bill allows TSA to revoke the certificates of freight forwarders if the agency finds that they are not adhering to security laws or regulations.

The legislation also mandates that TSA develop a security training program for persons who handle air cargo and all cargo carriers would be required to develop security plans that would be subject to approval by TSA.

During the Commerce Committee's consideration of the legislation a number of important amendments offered by Senators Wyden, Boxer, and Bill Nelson were adopted that strengthened the bill.

These provisions included requiring Secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the impact on the privacy and civil liberties of the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, requiring background checks of alien flight school applicants to include applicants for flight training of planes below 12,500 pounds, and to transfer these responsibilities from the Department of Justice to the Transportation Security Administration, and requires guidelines for verifying passenger identification.

The Committee also adopted provisions to have the FAA and TSA conduct a study on blast-resistant cargo containers, allowing cargo pilots to participate in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, and requiring the Department of Homeland Security to issue a report on how best to defend passenger aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles.

The Air Cargo Security Improvement Act is another important step in our efforts to improve our nation's aviation security network, but it is by no means the final step. I spend countless hours each week as part of my duties on the Intelligence Committee and we all recognize that the changing nature of threats will require continued vigilant oversight and modifications to our security network. There are no guarantees, but we can and must continue to work every day to make sure that the people who fly and the places they fly from are safe.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor all West Virginians who have served our country in the military, especially those currently overseas. Former Senator Daniel Webster once said, ``God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to defend it.'' West Virginians are known for their dedication to military service and patriotism, and to this day West Virginians continue their proud tradition of military service. Our soldiers are committed to our Nation's principles, and they are tireless in their efforts to preserve liberty. I rise today to honor these intrepid men and women whose military service and commitment is unmatched--they make me extremely proud to be a West Virginian.

Only 3 States had a higher service rate than West Virginia during World War II. Thirty-six percent of West Virginia's male population-- more than one out of every three men--served during that war. Nearly 4,700 West Virginians died fighting for our freedom in that war.

West Virginia had the highest service rate during the Korean War, with 16.2 percent of our men participating. During that war, tragically West Virginia also suffered the highest death rate, with about 40 war- related deaths for every 100,000 citizens, a total of over 800 deaths.

West Virginia had the second-highest service in the Vietnam War, with 20.3 percent of our men serving. During that war, again West Virginia had the highest casualty rate in the Nation. More than 700 citizens from our State died in battle.

Now we are engaged in a war on terror--a war that our troops are fighting heroically. Thousands of West Virginia military personnel are taking part in the war effort, from active duty troops, to brave citizens in the National Guard, to Reservists. Not long ago, the world saw a symbolic climax of this war as the imposing symbol of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was toppled. This moment could not have happened without the bravery and sacrifice of American forces and these forces would not be complete without the long-standing dedication of West Virginians.

We must not forget those men and women who protected our freedom. In 1940, pilot V.A. Rosewarne remarked, ``The universe is so vast and so ageless that the life of one [person] can only be justified by the measure of his [or her] sacrifice.'' West Virginia has lost proud soldiers in Afghanistan and also in the recent war in Iraq. In any war, there are those who make the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives, and we must honor them. Let me take this opportunity to mention the sense of honor that runs so deep in a representative sample of these West Virginians.

Second Lieutenant Therrel ``Shane'' Childers was born into a proud military family near West Hamlin, WV, and he always dreamed of a military career. On March 21, at 30 years of age, he became the first U.S. soldier killed in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom. His devout determination led a childhood friend of his to say, ``I can feel deep in my heart that he was doing what he was meant to do,'' and his mother to say, ``He died doing what he loved best, and that was being a Marine.''

There are countless examples of such heroes. Kenny Shadrick, from the mining town of Skin Fork, WV, was the first recorded American death in the Korean War. On July 5, 1950, he gave his life in the fight against tyranny. While it was July 5 in Korea, it was still Independence Day in the United States, and I am sure Kenny understood what he was fighting for as he bravely shot bazooka rounds at the approaching enemy tanks until his life was tragically cut short. President Truman articulated Kenny's sacrifice well when he wrote: ``He stands in the unbroken line of patriots who dared to die that freedom might live.'' West Virginia will never forget the service of people like Kenny.

More recently, the world has heard the heroic story of Private Jessica Lynch, the teenager from Palestine, WV, whose rescue as a prisoner of war from Iraq was universally celebrated. As a matter of fact, approximately 400 West Virginians are surviving former

prisoners of war, a further testament to the courage and patriotism present in West Virginia. Still today, Jessica is being treated for an injury to her spine and fractures to her right arm, both legs, and her right foot and ankle. She has endured so much pain, and yet her family tells me she has remained cheerful since her rescue. So much courage in such a young soldier as Jessica inspires us all, and underscores how proud I am to represent my fellow West Virginians.

We all owe these soldiers and so many more from all over West Virginia and across the country, past and present, an enormous debt of gratitude. For the dead: we celebrate and remember their lives, mourn their deaths, and thank God that such people served.

For the living, we must fight for them, who have fought so bravely for us. We cannot forget to honor our veterans. I will continue to fight for them as well--for the nearly 25,000 West Virginia veterans of the Persian Gulf, for the 65,000 surviving West Virginia veterans from the Vietnam era, for the more than 30,000 surviving West Virginia veterans of the Korean War, for the 36,000 aging veterans of World War II, and for the next generation of veterans coming home from the Middle East. So today, with my sincerest gratitude and pride for the services of these men and women, I pledge to always honor their sacrifices, because all West Virginians understand the sacrifices they have made and the respect they have earned.

West Virginians have always felt a sense of duty toward America, and we have always answered the call for military service. West Virginians understand the importance of living in a free society, and we also understand the patriotic duty and sacrifice required to do so. West Virginia soldiers have always reminded me of General MacArthur's description of the American soldier: ``Possessed of enduring fortitude, patriotic self-denial, invincible determination . . . giving his youth and strength, love and loyalty . . . one of the world's noblest figures.'' I am honored to say that the good people of West Virginia, in particular, exemplify noble military service and proud patriotism.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation being introduced today that will dramatically improve the child tax credit. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Lincoln, for her hard work on behalf of our Nation's working families.

In the 6 years since the child tax credit was first enacted, it has provided important tax relief to families across the country. Income taxes can be particularly burdensome to moderate income families who are facing increased costs for food, housing, medicine, education, and other basic needs for their children. Indeed, almost half of the benefits of this credit are enjoyed by families with taxable income under $50,000 per year. This is important in States like mine; in West Virginia, almost 80 percent of the taxpayers have annual incomes below $50,000.

While the current child tax credit is excellent--it could be even better. The $600 credit, which is available only for children under the age of 17, does not truly recognize the costs that face many families raising children. Moreover, many working families do not have enough income to qualify for the credit. Make no mistake, I am talking about hard-working parents who go to

their jobs every day and take their responsibilities to their children very seriously. These parents are paying payroll taxes, but cannot provide for some of the basic needs of their children. The legislation introduced today would improve the law so that a greater portion of the child tax credit could be refunded to these admirable parents.

Specifically, this legislation includes two important improvements to the current child tax credit that will benefit all families who claim the credit. First, the legislation would increase the amount of the tax credit from $600 to $1,000 immediately. Second, the bill increases the age of children who are eligible for the credit from 16 to 18. We know that 17- and 18-year-old children are facing enormous educational expenses in order to attend college or technical school. We ought to help parents pay for this education by allowing them to continue to receive the child tax credit until their child is a legal adult. The bill also includes two important improvements to the eligibility criteria for the refundable credit. By lowering the income threshold for the refundable credit and increasing the percentage of income eligible for the refundable credit, we can ensure that more of the families most in need of assistance can benefit from this credit.

The child tax credit is one of the most important ways that Congress can demonstrate its support for America's families. And I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation which would dramatically improve the child tax credit.

Mr. President, the continuing economic crisis facing the U.S. airline industry also imperils the future of hundreds of small and rural communities across our country as air carriers drastically reduce service to small and rural communities. While small and rural communities have long had to cope with limited and unreliable service, these problems have been exacerbated by the weakened financial condition of most major U.S. airlines.

Faced with declining revenues brought on by the Nation's economic downturn, the events of September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq most carriers have substantially reduced or eliminated service to many communities. In the last month, United Air Lines, US Airways and Continental Airlines announced significant service cuts to West Virginia.

Last month, this Congress provided $3.5 billion in direct and indirect benefits to the Nation's airlines. I strongly supported this package because our economy requires a strong and vibrant airline industry. In my own aviation relief package, I had provided resources to the airlines to continue to provide air service to small and rural communities. Even in the best of times, these communities face a difficult time maintaining and developing new air service options. Today, their challenge is preventing the complete loss of air service. In these difficult economic and uncertain times, I strongly believe that the Federal Government must continue to assist our most vulnerable communities stay connected to the Nation's aviation network--a network paid for by all Americans.

The reduction or elimination of air service had a devastating effect on the economy of a community. Having adequate air service is not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of economic survival. Without access to reliable air service, no business is willing to locate their operations in these areas of the country no matter how attractive the quality of life. Airports are economic engines that attract critical new development opportunities and jobs.

West Virginia has been able to attract firms from around the world because corporate executives know they can visit their operations with ease. Rural and small town America must continue to be adequately linked to the Nation's air transportation network if its people and businesses are to compete economically with larger urban areas in this country and around the world.

In the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, we began to address the need to improve air service in small and rural communities. I, along with many of my colleagues, supported the creation of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program, a competitive grant program to provide communities with the resources they needed to attract new air service to their communities. The program is an enormous success. Over 180 communities applied for 40 grants in the first year funds were available. The Department of Transportation has announced the next round of funding.

In West Virginia, Charleston received money under the program and has used it to successfully attract a new service connection to Houston, an important gateway to the markets of Latin America. This program gave local communities the ability and flexibility to meet local air transportation needs.

The Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, cosponsored by myself and Senator Lott, reauthorizes the expands the successful Small Community Air Service Development Program. The bill authorizes the participation of 120 communities over 3 years.

Many of our most isolated and vulnerable communities whose only service is through the Essential Air Service Program have indicated that they would like to develop innovative and flexible programs that communities who received Small Community Air Service Development grants to improve the quality of their air service.

It is for this reason that I, along with Senator Lott, have introduced the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003. The legislation reauthorizes the Department of Transportation's Essential Air Service, EAS, program and creates a series of pilot programs for EAS communities to participate to stimulate passenger demand for air service in their communities.

Under the bill, communities are given the option on continuing their EAS as is or they may apply to participate in new incentive programs to help them develop new and innovative solutions to increasing local demand for air

service. The EAS Marketing and Community Flexibility Programs would provide communities new resources and tools to implement locally developed plans to improve their air service. By providing communities the ability to design their own air service proposals, a community has the ability to develop a plan that meets it locally determined needs, improves air service choices, and gives the community a greater stake in the EAS program.

Specifically, these new EAS pilot programs include authorization for the use of smaller planes to decrease cost or increase frequency, communities to cost-share for service above base EAS subsidy level, alternative service at up to 3 EAS points if a community applies, an opt out of the EAS program with a one-time infusion of funding to assist in transition out of the program, and DOT to mandate multiple code-sharing arrangements for EAS providers.

A pilot program added at the request of Senator Lott would allow DOT to require a cost-share for up to 10 communities within 100 miles of a hub. I have significant reservations about forcing communities to pay for a service the Federal Government promised them.

In addition, the communities that participate in EAS are small and isolated and have lower than average per captia incomes than urban or suburban communities. Cash-strapped communities will have to provide anywhere between $50,000 and $120,000 in local funds to continue their EAS service. I worked with Senator Lott to make sure DOT considers a variety of relevant factors when selecting communities, to provide communities appeal rights, and to make sure they have access to all other pro-active pilot programs. I will monitor DOT's implementation of this pilot program closely.

Small and rural communities are the first to bear the brunt of bad economic times and the last to see the benefits of good times. The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation industry have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional resources and tools for small communities to help themselves attract adequate air service. The Federal Government must make sure that our most vulnerable towns and cities are linked to the rest of the Nation. My legislation builds on existing programs and strengthens them. If these bills are enacted, our constituents will have the tools and resources necessary to attract air service, related economic development, and most importantly expand their connections to the national and global economy.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation being introduced today that will dramatically improve the child tax credit. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Lincoln, for her hard work on behalf of our Nation's working families.

In the 6 years since the child tax credit was first enacted, it has provided important tax relief to families across the country. Income taxes can be particularly burdensome to moderate income families who are facing increased costs for food, housing, medicine, education, and other basic needs for their children. Indeed, almost half of the benefits of this credit are enjoyed by families with taxable income under $50,000 per year. This is important in States like mine; in West Virginia, almost 80 percent of the taxpayers have annual incomes below $50,000.

While the current child tax credit is excellent--it could be even better. The $600 credit, which is available only for children under the age of 17, does not truly recognize the costs that face many families raising children. Moreover, many working families do not have enough income to qualify for the credit. Make no mistake, I am talking about hard-working parents who go to

their jobs every day and take their responsibilities to their children very seriously. These parents are paying payroll taxes, but cannot provide for some of the basic needs of their children. The legislation introduced today would improve the law so that a greater portion of the child tax credit could be refunded to these admirable parents.

Specifically, this legislation includes two important improvements to the current child tax credit that will benefit all families who claim the credit. First, the legislation would increase the amount of the tax credit from $600 to $1,000 immediately. Second, the bill increases the age of children who are eligible for the credit from 16 to 18. We know that 17- and 18-year-old children are facing enormous educational expenses in order to attend college or technical school. We ought to help parents pay for this education by allowing them to continue to receive the child tax credit until their child is a legal adult. The bill also includes two important improvements to the eligibility criteria for the refundable credit. By lowering the income threshold for the refundable credit and increasing the percentage of income eligible for the refundable credit, we can ensure that more of the families most in need of assistance can benefit from this credit.

The child tax credit is one of the most important ways that Congress can demonstrate its support for America's families. And I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation which would dramatically improve the child tax credit.

Mr. President, the continuing economic crisis facing the U.S. airline industry also imperils the future of hundreds of small and rural communities across our country as air carriers drastically reduce service to small and rural communities. While small and rural communities have long had to cope with limited and unreliable service, these problems have been exacerbated by the weakened financial condition of most major U.S. airlines.

Faced with declining revenues brought on by the Nation's economic downturn, the events of September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq most carriers have substantially reduced or eliminated service to many communities. In the last month, United Air Lines, US Airways and Continental Airlines announced significant service cuts to West Virginia.

Last month, this Congress provided $3.5 billion in direct and indirect benefits to the Nation's airlines. I strongly supported this package because our economy requires a strong and vibrant airline industry. In my own aviation relief package, I had provided resources to the airlines to continue to provide air service to small and rural communities. Even in the best of times, these communities face a difficult time maintaining and developing new air service options. Today, their challenge is preventing the complete loss of air service. In these difficult economic and uncertain times, I strongly believe that the Federal Government must continue to assist our most vulnerable communities stay connected to the Nation's aviation network--a network paid for by all Americans.

The reduction or elimination of air service had a devastating effect on the economy of a community. Having adequate air service is not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of economic survival. Without access to reliable air service, no business is willing to locate their operations in these areas of the country no matter how attractive the quality of life. Airports are economic engines that attract critical new development opportunities and jobs.

West Virginia has been able to attract firms from around the world because corporate executives know they can visit their operations with ease. Rural and small town America must continue to be adequately linked to the Nation's air transportation network if its people and businesses are to compete economically with larger urban areas in this country and around the world.

In the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, we began to address the need to improve air service in small and rural communities. I, along with many of my colleagues, supported the creation of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program, a competitive grant program to provide communities with the resources they needed to attract new air service to their communities. The program is an enormous success. Over 180 communities applied for 40 grants in the first year funds were available. The Department of Transportation has announced the next round of funding.

In West Virginia, Charleston received money under the program and has used it to successfully attract a new service connection to Houston, an important gateway to the markets of Latin America. This program gave local communities the ability and flexibility to meet local air transportation needs.

The Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, cosponsored by myself and Senator Lott, reauthorizes the expands the successful Small Community Air Service Development Program. The bill authorizes the participation of 120 communities over 3 years.

Many of our most isolated and vulnerable communities whose only service is through the Essential Air Service Program have indicated that they would like to develop innovative and flexible programs that communities who received Small Community Air Service Development grants to improve the quality of their air service.

It is for this reason that I, along with Senator Lott, have introduced the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003. The legislation reauthorizes the Department of Transportation's Essential Air Service, EAS, program and creates a series of pilot programs for EAS communities to participate to stimulate passenger demand for air service in their communities.

Under the bill, communities are given the option on continuing their EAS as is or they may apply to participate in new incentive programs to help them develop new and innovative solutions to increasing local demand for air

service. The EAS Marketing and Community Flexibility Programs would provide communities new resources and tools to implement locally developed plans to improve their air service. By providing communities the ability to design their own air service proposals, a community has the ability to develop a plan that meets it locally determined needs, improves air service choices, and gives the community a greater stake in the EAS program.

Specifically, these new EAS pilot programs include authorization for the use of smaller planes to decrease cost or increase frequency, communities to cost-share for service above base EAS subsidy level, alternative service at up to 3 EAS points if a community applies, an opt out of the EAS program with a one-time infusion of funding to assist in transition out of the program, and DOT to mandate multiple code-sharing arrangements for EAS providers.

A pilot program added at the request of Senator Lott would allow DOT to require a cost-share for up to 10 communities within 100 miles of a hub. I have significant reservations about forcing communities to pay for a service the Federal Government promised them.

In addition, the communities that participate in EAS are small and isolated and have lower than average per captia incomes than urban or suburban communities. Cash-strapped communities will have to provide anywhere between $50,000 and $120,000 in local funds to continue their EAS service. I worked with Senator Lott to make sure DOT considers a variety of relevant factors when selecting communities, to provide communities appeal rights, and to make sure they have access to all other pro-active pilot programs. I will monitor DOT's implementation of this pilot program closely.

Small and rural communities are the first to bear the brunt of bad economic times and the last to see the benefits of good times. The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation industry have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional resources and tools for small communities to help themselves attract adequate air service. The Federal Government must make sure that our most vulnerable towns and cities are linked to the rest of the Nation. My legislation builds on existing programs and strengthens them. If these bills are enacted, our constituents will have the tools and resources necessary to attract air service, related economic development, and most importantly expand their connections to the national and global economy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003. Last year, this bill had broad bipartisan support with 65 cosponsors. Its companion legislation in the House of Representatives had 227 cosponsors. If the Senate considers an appropriately targeted and sized economic growth package, which includes investment incentives for businesses, this legislation should be a priority for inclusion in that legislation as it will help jump start a struggling sector of the economy.

The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and forever changed the way America lives and works. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of advanced networked communications exponentially each year. However, where just a decade ago access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications needs, today many people, businesses and other organizations require the ability to transmit and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites. This need will only continue to grow. In the near future, access to broadband services will be as critical as having a telephone.

Over the last several years, companies have built networks that meet today's broadband need as fast as they can. Even with the recent downturn in the telecommunications industry, technology companies continue to roll out the current generation of broadband facilities in urban and suburban areas. They continue to tear up streets to install fiber optics, convert cable TV facilities to broadband telecom applications and develop innovative new DSL technologies. As the economy improves, these companies will greatly expand the rate of deployment of these and other technologies for urban and suburban consumers providing them access to the cutting-edge technologies and services.

Other areas of this country are not as fortunate. In rural and inner city areas access to even the current generation of broadband communications is limited. Investment continues to lag behind wealthier urban and suburban communities. This imbalance has only been exacerbated due to the telecommunications industry's recent financial troubles. In fact, only a limited number of broadband providers exist outside the prosperous areas of big cities and suburban areas nationwide. A few positive signs are occurring though. Small rural telecommunications companies are slowly expanding into providing these services. They are limited in their ability to provide these services because of the expense of installing the infrastructure. This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve, terrain is difficult and populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of our current broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office-- which is the case for most rural Americans. In inner cities, companies may believe that lower household income levels will not support a market for their services, so they choose not to invest in these communities. This is a classic situation of market failure that we must address.

The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity to continue are alarming. People and businesses in well served communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban and suburban communities, will be able to build upon the inherent advantages of a networked economy. People and businesses in other areas, often in rural areas as in inner cities, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, would continue to be at an economic and educational disadvantage.

We have seen how savvy businesses have crushed their competitors who failed to take advantage of technological innovations, businesses in infrastructure-rich areas that already have an advantage, ultimately could crush competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is equally true for rural and inner city students, workers trying to gain new skills, and regular individuals who want to participate in the information-based New Economy compete against their non-rural peers. The result could be devastating for Americans who live in rural areas or in our inner cities: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and business failure concentrated in their communities.

Denying Americans who live in rural areas and inner cities a chance to participate in our information-based global economy is also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner city locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production environments. It is not an understatement to say that the deployment of technology could fundamentally transform the future of rural and inner city America.

We have to make a decision on whether or not rural and inner city communities are going to have the same opportunities as their wealthier urban and suburban counterparts. I, along with many of my colleagues, believe they should and must. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 would address this disparity.

The Act would give companies the incentive to build current generation broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very targeted tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband facilities in rural or inner city areas a tax credit equal to ten percent of their investments over the next 5 years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in technology that I just described. The credit is also restricted to investments needed for high-speed broadband telecommunications services. This means that only powerful broadband services are covered. Companies cannot claim that inferior services qualify for the credit. Only facilities that can download data at a rate of speed of 1.0 megabytes per second, and upload data at 180 kilobytes per second qualify. These speeds will allow the broadest possible number of technologies to be eligible for the credit.

In addition, the bill provides a 20 percent tax credit for companies that invest in next generation broadband services. These powerful new services that can deliver data capacities of 22 megabytes per second download and 5 megabytes per second upload will be the infrastructure the economy requires as the digital economy expands. We need to reward the companies who have the foresight to invest in these next generation broadband services--they will benefit the whole country. These limited credits will provide the market the ability to affordably and profitably serve rural and inner city communities.

The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 is part of the solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans and Americans living in inner cities must have the chance to participate in the technological revolution that shows no signs of abating. Without access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003. Last year, this bill had broad bipartisan support with 65 cosponsors. Its companion legislation in the House of Representatives had 227 cosponsors. If the Senate considers an appropriately targeted and sized economic growth package, which includes investment incentives for businesses, this legislation should be a priority for inclusion in that legislation as it will help jump start a struggling sector of the economy.

The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and forever changed the way America lives and works. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of advanced networked communications exponentially each year. However, where just a decade ago access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications needs, today many people, businesses and other organizations require the ability to transmit and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites. This need will only continue to grow. In the near future, access to broadband services will be as critical as having a telephone.

Over the last several years, companies have built networks that meet today's broadband need as fast as they can. Even with the recent downturn in the telecommunications industry, technology companies continue to roll out the current generation of broadband facilities in urban and suburban areas. They continue to tear up streets to install fiber optics, convert cable TV facilities to broadband telecom applications and develop innovative new DSL technologies. As the economy improves, these companies will greatly expand the rate of deployment of these and other technologies for urban and suburban consumers providing them access to the cutting-edge technologies and services.

Other areas of this country are not as fortunate. In rural and inner city areas access to even the current generation of broadband communications is limited. Investment continues to lag behind wealthier urban and suburban communities. This imbalance has only been exacerbated due to the telecommunications industry's recent financial troubles. In fact, only a limited number of broadband providers exist outside the prosperous areas of big cities and suburban areas nationwide. A few positive signs are occurring though. Small rural telecommunications companies are slowly expanding into providing these services. They are limited in their ability to provide these services because of the expense of installing the infrastructure. This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve, terrain is difficult and populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of our current broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office-- which is the case for most rural Americans. In inner cities, companies may believe that lower household income levels will not support a market for their services, so they choose not to invest in these communities. This is a classic situation of market failure that we must address.

The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity to continue are alarming. People and businesses in well served communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban and suburban communities, will be able to build upon the inherent advantages of a networked economy. People and businesses in other areas, often in rural areas as in inner cities, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, would continue to be at an economic and educational disadvantage.

We have seen how savvy businesses have crushed their competitors who failed to take advantage of technological innovations, businesses in infrastructure-rich areas that already have an advantage, ultimately could crush competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is equally true for rural and inner city students, workers trying to gain new skills, and regular individuals who want to participate in the information-based New Economy compete against their non-rural peers. The result could be devastating for Americans who live in rural areas or in our inner cities: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and business failure concentrated in their communities.

Denying Americans who live in rural areas and inner cities a chance to participate in our information-based global economy is also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner city locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production environments. It is not an understatement to say that the deployment of technology could fundamentally transform the future of rural and inner city America.

We have to make a decision on whether or not rural and inner city communities are going to have the same opportunities as their wealthier urban and suburban counterparts. I, along with many of my colleagues, believe they should and must. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 would address this disparity.

The Act would give companies the incentive to build current generation broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very targeted tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband facilities in rural or inner city areas a tax credit equal to ten percent of their investments over the next 5 years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in technology that I just described. The credit is also restricted to investments needed for high-speed broadband telecommunications services. This means that only powerful broadband services are covered. Companies cannot claim that inferior services qualify for the credit. Only facilities that can download data at a rate of speed of 1.0 megabytes per second, and upload data at 180 kilobytes per second qualify. These speeds will allow the broadest possible number of technologies to be eligible for the credit.

In addition, the bill provides a 20 percent tax credit for companies that invest in next generation broadband services. These powerful new services that can deliver data capacities of 22 megabytes per second download and 5 megabytes per second upload will be the infrastructure the economy requires as the digital economy expands. We need to reward the companies who have the foresight to invest in these next generation broadband services--they will benefit the whole country. These limited credits will provide the market the ability to affordably and profitably serve rural and inner city communities.

The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 is part of the solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans and Americans living in inner cities must have the chance to participate in the technological revolution that shows no signs of abating. Without access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing two key education initiatives designed to promote quality education across our country and respond to the compelling needs in our schools. When I meet with teachers and parents, and even business leaders in West Virginia, everyone is concerned about the condition of our school buildings and the importance of qualified committed teachers working in those classrooms.

To address these clear and compelling needs, I am introducing two education bills. The first initiative, America's Better Classroom Act of 2003, is a school construction initiative to respond to the overwhelming needs for school construction. 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. 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.

America's Better Classroom Act provides the financial tools to help build and renovate our schools. It will continue the Qualified Zone Academy Bonding, QZAB, Program that has helped economically disadvantaged communities. This provision would provide $2.8 billion to continue and expand the successful QZAB Program. In recent years, this program has provided $4.2 million for support school construction and renovations in disadvantaged communities. Effective programs have earned continued support.

But the truth is that many schools districts need help with school construction and renovations, which 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.

Last summer, I toured two schools in Berkeley County, WV--Martinsburg High School and South Middle School. The high school was built in 1928, but it had been renovated. The middle school was built in 1954, and needed serious work. The cafeteria had to serve as a part-time classroom, and they used portable trailers. These schools are in our eastern panhandle which is the region of the greatest population growth, so Berkeley County predicts that it will need to build or renovate nine schools over the next 10 years. Given the current state fiscal crisis, states and communities need the America's Better Classroom Act so that we can make needed investments. Also school construction can play a positive role in helping to stimulate our economy and create needed jobs. School construction is a more reliable economic stimulus, and an important investment in our children's education. I am proud to have Senators Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, and Tim Johnson as cosponsors of this important initiative. Senator Harkin has been a true leader on education issues throughout this career, including school construction and renovations.

The next initiative to improve education is a bipartisan bill, known as Incentives to Educate American Children Act, or I TEACH. I am proud to have Senators DeWine, Landrieu, and Cochran as cosponsors.

Under No Child Left Behind, every classroom should have a qualified teacher. Studies suggest that an estimated 2 million new teachers will be needed in our classrooms over the next decade. It will be important to ensure that we recruit and retain good teachers in every classroom, including our most disadvantaged schools and our rural schools, which often have more trouble recruiting and keeping teachers.

Unfortunately, without our help, America's disadvantaged and rural schools may not be able to attract the qualified teachers required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Isolated and impoverished, competing against higher paying and well-funded school districts for scarce classroom talent, they are already facing a desperate shortage of qualified teachers. As pressure to hire increases, that shortage could 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. Principals in West Virginia already are reporting shortages of trained teachers.

To help bring dedicated and qualified teaching professionals into our schools, the I TEACH Act will provide teachers a $1000 refundable tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public schools where they are needed most. In addition to this incentive for disadvantage and rural schools, every public school teacher has the ability to earn a $1000 refundable tax credit if a teacher achieves the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. Under the bill, every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax credit. Every teacher who gets Board certification will earn a tax credit. Teachers who work in rural or poor schools and get certified will have both credits, worth $2000. Schools who desperately need help attracting teachers will get a boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit most.

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 throughout 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. Poor urban 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.

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. 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.

Education should 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 we invest in quality schools and good teachers. I am committed to working closely with my Senate colleagues this fall to secure as much funding as possible for our children's education.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2003. I am proud to have a bipartisan group of cosponsors including Senators DeWine, Landrieu, Collins, Levin and Johnson. Work on this legislation is based on the bipartisan work of the Senate coalition that supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, an historic effort to ensure that a child's safety and health are paramount, and that every child should have a permanent home.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, and since its enactment, adoptions from our foster care system have nearly doubled. In my State of West Virginia, adoptions have nearly tripled. Those adopted children now have a permanent home. But there are still 131,000 in foster care nationwide who have the goal of adoption but are still waiting. In West Virginia, we have 520 children in foster care waiting for adoption, but only 343 children might qualify for support. I believe each child with special needs who is waiting for adoption deserves help but under current law only some do. They are the innocent ones who were victims of abuse and neglect. Clearly we must do more for those children.

Throughout the process of developing the Adoption Act we heard about the challenging circumstances facing children described as having ``special needs''. These include children who are the most difficult to place into permanent homes, often due to their age, disability or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together.

One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. Parents willing to adopt such children were promised health care coverage in 1997 which is essential.

While all special needs children that are adopted maintain health care coverage, only half are eligible for adoption assistance payments. Current law provides for the payment of federal adoption subsidies to families who adopt only those special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits under the old 1996 AFDC standards. Federal adoption subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these special children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children. Federal adoption subsidies are a vital link in securing adoptive homes for special needs children who by definition would not be adopted without support.

Under current law, a child's eligibility for these important benefits is dependent on the income of his or her biological parents even though these parents' legal rights to the child have been terminated, and these are the parents who either abused or neglected the child. This is, simply, wrong. The Adoption Equality Act will eliminate this anomaly in Federal law by making all special needs children eligible for Federal adoption subsidies.

The Adoption Equality Act is the next logical step to streamline and promote adoptions from foster care. The bill is designed to ``level the playing field'' by ensuring that all children with special needs, and the loving families who adopt them, have the support they need to grow and develop.

First, the bill removes the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, whom the child is leaving, thereby allowing Federal adoption subsidy to be paid to all families who adopt children who meet the definition of special needs.

Second, the bill continues to give states flexibility to determine the definition of a child with special needs, but it is clear that adoption subsidies should only be provided if the child could not be adopted without such assistance.

Third, the bill requires that States reinvest the monies they save as a result of this bill back into their state child abuse and neglect programs which should help promote prevention and family support.

When we talk about how to help abused and neglected children in this country, many complex questions are raised about what constitutes best policy, and how Federal tax dollars should be spent. Yet, at the heart of all the questions are vulnerable children who desperately want a safe, permanent home. The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving and permanent home.

Federal adoption subsidies are designed to encourage adoption of children with special needs--those children who have the hardest time finding permanent, adoptive families. It is an absurd policy to discriminate against thousands of children with special needs based upon the income of their biological, and often abusive, parents. It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted.

The Adoption Equality Act will treat every special needs child the same. It is designed to encourage adoption and support those admirable parents willing to help a child with special needs and a history of abuse or neglect. Such children may have physical disabilities, or other may have emotional challenges due to past abuse and neglect. Such children and families often need special counseling or support services, and that is why the adoption assistance payments are key. If we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home, this is a wise investment.

Mr. President, today I am introducing two key education initiatives designed to promote quality education across our country and respond to the compelling needs in our schools. When I meet with teachers and parents, and even business leaders in West Virginia, everyone is concerned about the condition of our school buildings and the importance of qualified committed teachers working in those classrooms.

To address these clear and compelling needs, I am introducing two education bills. The first initiative, America's Better Classroom Act of 2003, is a school construction initiative to respond to the overwhelming needs for school construction. 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. 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.

America's Better Classroom Act provides the financial tools to help build and renovate our schools. It will continue the Qualified Zone Academy Bonding, QZAB, Program that has helped economically disadvantaged communities. This provision would provide $2.8 billion to continue and expand the successful QZAB Program. In recent years, this program has provided $4.2 million for support school construction and renovations in disadvantaged communities. Effective programs have earned continued support.

But the truth is that many schools districts need help with school construction and renovations, which 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.

Last summer, I toured two schools in Berkeley County, WV--Martinsburg High School and South Middle School. The high school was built in 1928, but it had been renovated. The middle school was built in 1954, and needed serious work. The cafeteria had to serve as a part-time classroom, and they used portable trailers. These schools are in our eastern panhandle which is the region of the greatest population growth, so Berkeley County predicts that it will need to build or renovate nine schools over the next 10 years. Given the current state fiscal crisis, states and communities need the America's Better Classroom Act so that we can make needed investments. Also school construction can play a positive role in helping to stimulate our economy and create needed jobs. School construction is a more reliable economic stimulus, and an important investment in our children's education. I am proud to have Senators Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, and Tim Johnson as cosponsors of this important initiative. Senator Harkin has been a true leader on education issues throughout this career, including school construction and renovations.

The next initiative to improve education is a bipartisan bill, known as Incentives to Educate American Children Act, or I TEACH. I am proud to have Senators DeWine, Landrieu, and Cochran as cosponsors.

Under No Child Left Behind, every classroom should have a qualified teacher. Studies suggest that an estimated 2 million new teachers will be needed in our classrooms over the next decade. It will be important to ensure that we recruit and retain good teachers in every classroom, including our most disadvantaged schools and our rural schools, which often have more trouble recruiting and keeping teachers.

Unfortunately, without our help, America's disadvantaged and rural schools may not be able to attract the qualified teachers required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Isolated and impoverished, competing against higher paying and well-funded school districts for scarce classroom talent, they are already facing a desperate shortage of qualified teachers. As pressure to hire increases, that shortage could 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. Principals in West Virginia already are reporting shortages of trained teachers.

To help bring dedicated and qualified teaching professionals into our schools, the I TEACH Act will provide teachers a $1000 refundable tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public schools where they are needed most. In addition to this incentive for disadvantage and rural schools, every public school teacher has the ability to earn a $1000 refundable tax credit if a teacher achieves the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. Under the bill, every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax credit. Every teacher who gets Board certification will earn a tax credit. Teachers who work in rural or poor schools and get certified will have both credits, worth $2000. Schools who desperately need help attracting teachers will get a boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit most.

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 throughout 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. Poor urban 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.

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. 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.

Education should 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 we invest in quality schools and good teachers. I am committed to working closely with my Senate colleagues this fall to secure as much funding as possible for our children's education.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2003. I am proud to have a bipartisan group of cosponsors including Senators DeWine, Landrieu, Collins, Levin and Johnson. Work on this legislation is based on the bipartisan work of the Senate coalition that supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, an historic effort to ensure that a child's safety and health are paramount, and that every child should have a permanent home.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, and since its enactment, adoptions from our foster care system have nearly doubled. In my State of West Virginia, adoptions have nearly tripled. Those adopted children now have a permanent home. But there are still 131,000 in foster care nationwide who have the goal of adoption but are still waiting. In West Virginia, we have 520 children in foster care waiting for adoption, but only 343 children might qualify for support. I believe each child with special needs who is waiting for adoption deserves help but under current law only some do. They are the innocent ones who were victims of abuse and neglect. Clearly we must do more for those children.

Throughout the process of developing the Adoption Act we heard about the challenging circumstances facing children described as having ``special needs''. These include children who are the most difficult to place into permanent homes, often due to their age, disability or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together.

One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. Parents willing to adopt such children were promised health care coverage in 1997 which is essential.

While all special needs children that are adopted maintain health care coverage, only half are eligible for adoption assistance payments. Current law provides for the payment of federal adoption subsidies to families who adopt only those special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits under the old 1996 AFDC standards. Federal adoption subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these special children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children. Federal adoption subsidies are a vital link in securing adoptive homes for special needs children who by definition would not be adopted without support.

Under current law, a child's eligibility for these important benefits is dependent on the income of his or her biological parents even though these parents' legal rights to the child have been terminated, and these are the parents who either abused or neglected the child. This is, simply, wrong. The Adoption Equality Act will eliminate this anomaly in Federal law by making all special needs children eligible for Federal adoption subsidies.

The Adoption Equality Act is the next logical step to streamline and promote adoptions from foster care. The bill is designed to ``level the playing field'' by ensuring that all children with special needs, and the loving families who adopt them, have the support they need to grow and develop.

First, the bill removes the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, whom the child is leaving, thereby allowing Federal adoption subsidy to be paid to all families who adopt children who meet the definition of special needs.

Second, the bill continues to give states flexibility to determine the definition of a child with special needs, but it is clear that adoption subsidies should only be provided if the child could not be adopted without such assistance.

Third, the bill requires that States reinvest the monies they save as a result of this bill back into their state child abuse and neglect programs which should help promote prevention and family support.

When we talk about how to help abused and neglected children in this country, many complex questions are raised about what constitutes best policy, and how Federal tax dollars should be spent. Yet, at the heart of all the questions are vulnerable children who desperately want a safe, permanent home. The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving and permanent home.

Federal adoption subsidies are designed to encourage adoption of children with special needs--those children who have the hardest time finding permanent, adoptive families. It is an absurd policy to discriminate against thousands of children with special needs based upon the income of their biological, and often abusive, parents. It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted.

The Adoption Equality Act will treat every special needs child the same. It is designed to encourage adoption and support those admirable parents willing to help a child with special needs and a history of abuse or neglect. Such children may have physical disabilities, or other may have emotional challenges due to past abuse and neglect. Such children and families often need special counseling or support services, and that is why the adoption assistance payments are key. If we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home, this is a wise investment.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill that is enormously important to veterans in my State of West Virginia and to all veterans across this great Nation. The bill I am reintroducing will extend VA's ability to provide long-term care under two specific authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999.

In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care legislation that required VA for the first time to provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of Public Law 106-117 directed VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled. In addition, VA was to have provided non-institutional care, such as respite care, adult day care, home- based primary care, homemaker/home health aide and skilled home health care to all enrolled veterans. Without extension, both authorities will expire in December, 2003.

Long-term care for veterans has been, and remains, a priority for me. And the extension of these services is critically important to veterans and their families in every State across this country.

Prior to the passage of the Millennium Health Care Bill, when families in West Virginia were told by VA that the long-term care services they needed were not available to them, they would turn to me in despair. I still frequently hear from families of aging, sick veterans who want desperately to keep their husbands, fathers or brothers at home, but in order to do that they need help.

Many of our aging veterans are suffering from debilitating diseases, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a stroke. A large number of these veterans are WW II combat veterans, whose wives are lovingly caring for them at home with very limited resources. The noninstitutional long-term care services currently available within VA provide an array of care that can be a lifesaver for the dedicated care givers of critically ill veterans, and allow these veterans to remain at home.

While the purpose of this bill is clear, let me explain the reason it is so necessary. Within three years of the enactment of Public Law 106- 117, VA was to evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both the nursing home care and non-institutional care provisions, and to make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions. These programs were given an expiration date of four years.

But unfortunately, very little has happened with these long-term care programs. It was not until October, 2001, that VA addressed the requirements of the law by issuing a directive on such noninstitutional long-term care services as respite and adult day care. And even now, we find that how these services are being provided, if at all, varies widely throughout the VA health care system. The delay in implementing these programs will greatly impede our ability to adequately study their effects.

Additionally, in September, 2001, two years after Congress passed the Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999, I asked the General Accounting Office to identify the long-term care services that are available at each of VA's medical centers, and the standards and criteria used by VA to determine which veterans may receive these services.

GAO is expected to release their final report on VA long-term care by May 1, but their preliminary report confirms that VA has not made much progress in implementing noninstitutional long-term care services for veterans.

Therefore, I believe it is critical that both long-term care authorities, due to expire in December of this year, be extended for an additional five years, until December 31, 2008, so that we can be properly evaluate the services and, if need be, make appropriate adjustments.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill that is enormously important to veterans in my State of West Virginia and to all veterans across this great Nation. The bill I am reintroducing will extend VA's ability to provide long-term care under two specific authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999.

In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care legislation that required VA for the first time to provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of Public Law 106-117 directed VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled. In addition, VA was to have provided non-institutional care, such as respite care, adult day care, home- based primary care, homemaker/home health aide and skilled home health care to all enrolled veterans. Without extension, both authorities will expire in December, 2003.

Long-term care for veterans has been, and remains, a priority for me. And the extension of these services is critically important to veterans and their families in every State across this country.

Prior to the passage of the Millennium Health Care Bill, when families in West Virginia were told by VA that the long-term care services they needed were not available to them, they would turn to me in despair. I still frequently hear from families of aging, sick veterans who want desperately to keep their husbands, fathers or brothers at home, but in order to do that they need help.

Many of our aging veterans are suffering from debilitating diseases, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a stroke. A large number of these veterans are WW II combat veterans, whose wives are lovingly caring for them at home with very limited resources. The noninstitutional long-term care services currently available within VA provide an array of care that can be a lifesaver for the dedicated care givers of critically ill veterans, and allow these veterans to remain at home.

While the purpose of this bill is clear, let me explain the reason it is so necessary. Within three years of the enactment of Public Law 106- 117, VA was to evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both the nursing home care and non-institutional care provisions, and to make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions. These programs were given an expiration date of four years.

But unfortunately, very little has happened with these long-term care programs. It was not until October, 2001, that VA addressed the requirements of the law by issuing a directive on such noninstitutional long-term care services as respite and adult day care. And even now, we find that how these services are being provided, if at all, varies widely throughout the VA health care system. The delay in implementing these programs will greatly impede our ability to adequately study their effects.

Additionally, in September, 2001, two years after Congress passed the Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999, I asked the General Accounting Office to identify the long-term care services that are available at each of VA's medical centers, and the standards and criteria used by VA to determine which veterans may receive these services.

GAO is expected to release their final report on VA long-term care by May 1, but their preliminary report confirms that VA has not made much progress in implementing noninstitutional long-term care services for veterans.

Therefore, I believe it is critical that both long-term care authorities, due to expire in December of this year, be extended for an additional five years, until December 31, 2008, so that we can be properly evaluate the services and, if need be, make appropriate adjustments.