Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President. I want to add my thanks and congratulations to the conference leaders and the dedicated staff for completing the negotiations on the America Competes Act. This legislation is an important investment in our Nation's strategy to promote competitiveness. It is a bipartisan package with broad support, based on the National Academy of Sciences report known as The Gathering Storm. Many members deserve our thanks and praise, and the report is a strong example that Congress can come together to develop comprehensive public policy. America Competes is a comprehensive package that includes major sections covering math and science research and education initiatives. I am particularly pleased and proud that the legislation will reauthorize the National Science Foundation, NSF, at $22 billion from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2010, to support several grant programs intended to encourage more students to teach math and science, as well as grants for college and graduate student science research. I have worked long and hard on programs within NSF. This bill supports the principle that the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, increases in proportion with the overall budget of NSF. Earlier this year, I introduced a bipartisan bill, S. 753, the EPSCoR Research and Competitiveness Act of 2007 which makes a similar recommendation. In my view, if our country seeks to broadly promote competitiveness, every state needs to be part of the effort. The EPSCoR program helps enhance the competitiveness of the 24 States, including West Virginia, that have historically not received as many NSF grants. The NSF continues its strong, peer-reviewed, merit-based competitive grants, but underserved States get support to achieve NSF's high standards. EPSCoR is an essential part of our national competitiveness strategy. Our country will not do as well if only half of our States are competitive. It is also important to recognize that the EPSCoR States are home to 20 percent of the population and 25 percent of doctoral and research universities. Our States host 18 percent of academic scientists and engineers, and their institutions train nearly 20 percent of science and engineering graduate students. Even more interesting is the fact that 7 of the top 10 energy producing States are EPSCoR States. To be competitive, we must continue to invest in the EPSCoR program and our EPSCoR States for the long term. It is good for the States, but it is also a fundamental building block for our national policy. EPSCoR will enhance science and competitive which will help increase the number of scientists and engineers. It will encourage good science projects in States with unique aspects such as energy resources, proximity to our oceans, and other helpful scientific resources. Two other programs that received generous support in the final package are the NSF's Math and Science Partnerships and the Noyce Scholarships. Both initiatives were including in the 2001 reauthorization of the National Science Foundation. Having sponsored legislation years ago to develop both programs, I am thrilled by current success of the programs in training teachers and recruiting top math and science majors into teaching. Expanding these programs will help improve math and science education which will be the cornerstone for our future competitiveness. This is a good investment for the future of West Virginia, and our entire country.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this is a monumental day for all Americans but especially children and their families. I am proud of the work we have accomplished over the past few days in the Senate on the Children's Health Insurance Program--or CHIP--Reauthorization Act of 2007. Renewing this program for another 10 years is a fitting way to mark this Sunday, August 5th's 10-year anniversary of the day the first CHIP bill was signed into law. As you know, this legislation was the result of countless hours of negotiations between Senators Baucus, Grassley, and Hatch and I. CHIP legislation has a history of bipartisanship, I am quite proud of it. Many Members of this Chamber had hoped for something different in this bill. There were some on the other side of the aisle who wanted to place further restrictions on those covered by this bill and decrease the funding to $15 million. I know that there were others on this side of the aisle who wanted to add benefits and increase the funding to $50 billion. Individually, we were each tempted by some of the suggested changes in the more than 86 amendments to this bill. But the fundamental goal has been sustained throughout our debates and votes--expanding access to health care for millions of children, including those eligible children who are not yet enrolled. Each of us knows the statistics in our own State. I am proud that nearly 39,000 West Virginians were enrolled in the program last year. These kids can see a doctor when they get sick, receive necessary immunizations, and get the preventative screenings they need for a healthy start in life, because of this important program. The passage of this bill means 4,000 more West Virginia children will have affordable and stable health insurance coverage including access to basic preventative care and immunizations. Bipartisan passage in the Finance Committee was our first ``win.'' Senate passage is the next bold step. Our conference, like all of the CHIP negotiations, will be intense. But if we keep our focus on covering children and bipartisanship, I am confident that we will achieve our vital goal of continuing this successful program for children. Many individuals have worked long and very hard on this legislation for months. I truly appreciate the efforts of Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and their professional staff. Senators Hatch and Snowe and their staff played an essential role in our negotiating team. But I also want to take a moment to mention the extraordinary work of my health care legislative assistant, Jocelyn Moore. She is enormously dedicated and she has a deep commitment to health care policy, especially the needs of children. Jocelyn is a talented professional who have been working around-the-clock for many months. My legislative director, Ellen Doneski, has also been involved throughout the process and is a real leader. I am grateful for their dedication and commitment and inspired by the intellect and mastery of the issue of children's health policy. I thank my staff, and my colleagues. Let's get ready for conference negotiations and stay focused on what matters most--covering children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the manager of the bill. I wanted to pick up on a point Senator Conrad made briefly. I want to get this so clear at the beginning of this whole amendment debate and whatever debate follows: The whole concept that somehow this Children's Health Insurance Program is a Government-run health care program--is wrong. Throw that out. It is completely and totally wrong. It is not even an entitlement program. It is a capped block grant program to the States. It is optional. The States don't have to use it if they don't want to. All of them do, including the District of Columbia, but it is optional. In virtually all cases, the CHIP programs as they are carried out by the States are funded through private insurance, very much the way it was done in the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan. Thirty-nine States only use private insurance. It has nothing to do with the Government-run health insurance program. It is health insurance under the private sector using insurance companies, private insurance companies. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise with great pride today to speak in support of the Children's Health Insurance Program--or CHIP-- Reauthorization Act of 2007, legislation I authored with Senators Baucus, Grassley and Hatch to provide health care to 4 million children in need. It is fitting that we are starting debate on CHIP reauthorization today because in less than 1 week--on Sunday, August 5, 2007--we will be celebrating the 10-year anniversary of the date that this landmark and widely successful program was signed into law. This all started out quite some time ago with John Chafee and myself and some others, about 10 years ago. But there has been an intensity of effort led by Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, myself, and Orrin Hatch over the last 3 months, meeting up to 2 hours a day, virtually every day, our staff meeting around the clock to try to reach bipartisan consensus, which we have reached, all by giving up some and reaching accommodation. I have to say I have a lot of pride in what we are doing today. But I hope we will fulfill our work in the Senate in the next few days. It is interesting that Sunday, August 5, 2007, is the actual 10-year anniversary this program. As you know, it expires at the end of September, in which case all children who now have health insurance under this program--all of children, not only the new ones we are including, but all of them--would lose their health insurance. This legislation is incredibly personal to me, if I may say so, because I spent 4 years chairing the National Commission on Children. It was a long time ago. I swore I would try to honor the commission with its very wide spectrum of American public officials and private people, by getting our unanimous recommendations into law. And one of them was, in fact, the Children's Health Insurance Program. So I do that very carefully. I also do that with a certain personal emotional experience. When our oldest son was born, when he was 10 days old, he developed something called pyloric stenosis, which is called projectile vomiting, which means your stomach is not taking in food. Because we had health insurance, and we could afford health insurance--unlike the people of the chairman of the Finance Committee's bill that we are discussing. Because we could afford that health insurance, we could take him down to the hospital. He had an operation, and he is doing fine. Otherwise he would have died. So that is partly what is inside of me during this debate. As I think about this, I think in 1997 we were acting out of despair and frustration because of what was not happening for children. Sometimes I think this body's best work comes at a point when we do reach genuine despair and frustration, when we cannot take it any more. We are so aware of what we are not doing that we proceed to do it. I think that is part of what is propelling us now. The Children's Health Insurance Program is proven, as the chairman of the committee has said. It works very well. In 2006, more than 6 million children were enrolled and were receiving good benefits. Together, CHIP and Medicaid have significantly increased children's health insurance. Even as the overall number of uninsured Americans who are not children have gone up, the number of insured children have remained steady and it even declined. In fact, between 1997 and 2005, CHIP and Medicaid reduced the percentage of children below 200 percent of poverty without health insurance by about one-third. More insured children, less uninsured because of the good work of this bill. West Virginia, we have 39,000 children who are affected by this program. One can say that 39,000 is not very many, or one can say that is 39,000 lives that have been profoundly and intimately affected by all of this. Again, I am moved by that. I started work as a Vista volunteer in West Virginia. I remember what it was like when kids did not get health care. And that feeling remains in me today as strongly as it did in 1964 when I went to West Virginia for the first time. Anyway, the facts are not so good for everybody. There is a wonderful 12-year-old boy named Deamonte Driver. His mom knows that feeling all too well. Her son lost his life because the Medicaid coverage lapsed for him, and a dental infection spread to his brain and he died. That happens in America. It happens every single day. We do not notice it. But that is what we are here in this Chamber for: to minimize that as much as we possibly can. The bill before us today is $35 billion. That provides health insurance coverage for 4 million low-income children who would otherwise be uninsured. Let me repeat. They would be uninsured. Most of them are already eligible for Medicaid or CHIP but not currently covered, and that is at a cost of $35 billion over 5 years--not per year but over 5 years. As Peter Orszag, who is the very talented CBO Director, said this is the most efficient possible way per new dollar spent to get reduction of roughly 4 million uninsured children. Now, it was not easy to get to this point. It was very hard for me because I wanted a $50 billion program. It was in the budget mark for $50 billion. There are a lot of things we had to give up because we had to arrive at a place where Republicans and Democrats could agree. As we met every afternoon for several hours in Chairman Baucus's office, we had to come to a point where Republicans who wanted $22 billion, or the President's program, or us, who wanted $50 billion, where we could ratchet it down so we could agree on something. So we agreed on the $35 million. That is where our chairman, Max Baucus, was a fearless leader. He and I have sort of agreed--I think we have all agreed--we are going to oppose any amendment which enlarges this program, which would tend to make us happier, or which would diminish the program, which would tend to make others happier. We are going to oppose amendments. That is not a comfortable thing to do. We don't offer enough dental in this bill for my taste. But when somebody comes and says: I want more dental because dental is so important, because so many kids lose their teeth by the time they are 14, 15-years-old, I will oppose that, because I want to keep the integrity of this bill to make sure that 10 million children who are at risk of no health insurance without CHIP get to keep their health insurance. Our legislation passed the committee 17 to 4. The Finance Committee is a tough committee. Seventeen to four it passed; that is a huge vote. So today is monumental. The bill does basically three things. The bill eliminates the Federal CHIP shortfall so States could keep covering the 6.6 million kids they cover now. You remember the President reduced the budget from $15 billion to $5 billion, so that would have taken effect. The increase in health care costs has also made things more difficult. So eliminating the shortfalls restores CHIP coverage to 1.4 million children. Again, 1.4 million is a lot of families, a lot of lives who would have lost CHIP and faced a lot of agony and a lot of people staying up at night lost in despair. Secondly, it provides new Federal resources for States to cover 2.6 million children currently eligible for Medicaid or CHIP but not enrolled. They are out there, as eligible as anybody else, but they are not enrolled because the money isn't there for them. We have sent $20 billion to Saudi Arabia to do what they want, to buy arms. I keep asking: What if we were to do some of that here? What if we were to do that on climate change? That is not the discussion of the afternoon so I won't pursue it, but our legislation includes 1.7 million who are Medicaid eligible, and 900,000 who are CHIP eligible. This 2-to-1 ratio matches the ratio of uninsured Medicaid-eligible children to uninsured CHIP-eligible children. And, third, this bill improves the predictability and stability of the CHIP funding formula so that States can cover more children. At the proper time, I will support my colleagues in strongly supporting this bill, which is a start.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when Lady Bird Johnson passed away on the afternoon of July 11, 2007, the United States mourned the loss of a dignified and compassionate First Lady. Even though she is gone, she has left us with the legacy of her beautification of America. Through her diligent efforts, Mrs. Johnson was not only an advocate for the natural beauty of America but also of the beauty and strength of its people. Sharon and I extend our deepest sympathy to her daughters Lynda and Luci, their families, her friends, and all of those whose lives have been touched by her life's work. As President Lyndon B. Johnson entered the White House in one of our Nation's most harrowing moments, Mrs. Johnson stood by her husband with poise and courage that helped comfort a wounded nation. Her service to our country would go even further as she became a leading voice for preserving and defending America's natural resources. Here in the Nation's Capital, people can't help but be reminded of Mrs. Johnson's vigorous work to adorn Washington, DC, with flowers, giving us an aesthetic that all Americans could take pride in and enjoy. I have always shared Mrs. Johnson's deeply held love for the beauty of the United States, from the mountains of West Virginia to the plains of Texas. It was because of her commitment to the environment and the splendor of our country that the Beautification Act of 1965 was passed. She strove to line our highways with wildflowers and still found time to enjoy walking through the national parks that she fought to protect. In addition to her work with the environment, I truly admire her efforts to address poverty in the United States. Under President Johnson, the VISTA program was enacted, sending out volunteers to improve the conditions of impoverished communities. I can proudly say that as a VISTA volunteer in Emmons, WV, I saw firsthand the immense benefits of this program for participants and for the communities they serve. I will never forget her devotion to her husband, her family, and her country. I will never forget her passion fighting for civil rights and against poverty. Nor will I ever forget her determination to leave a beautiful America for future generations. Lady Bird Johnson, again, held my sincerest respect and appreciation. To her family and the people of Texas, I offer my deepest sympathies. Mrs. Johnson was a valuable public servant, an inspiration and a friend. More than anything else, she was an irreplaceable First Lady.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I believe that we must provide access to higher education, which still too many hard-working American students cannot afford without the help of Federal financial aid. I support the Higher Education Access Act because it will increase the access to education for many more students. In the 2005 to 2006 academic year, the average cost of a U.S. public college or university was $12,108, with the average Pell grant covering 33 percent of tuition, fees, and room and board. For a West Virginia public college or university in the 2005 to 2006 academic year, the average cost was $9,992, with the average Pell grant covering 41 percent of tuition, fees, and room and board. A senior in West Virginia graduating from college has an average of $16,041 in student loan debt. This bill will help offset that cost. The first provision of the bill will increase the aid available to those students who qualify for Federal assistance. By making changes to the current provisions of the Pell grant program, more low-income students will have the opportunity to pursue higher education that otherwise might have been out of their reach. Another vital and helpful component of this legislation is the repayment cap and loan forgiveness program, which would help repay student loans of those individuals who have decided to enter the public sector. Those students who go on to become social workers, public defenders, or teachers in high-need subject areas deserve our help getting the education they need for these essential careers. Too often, a college graduate who wants to pursue a career in social work or another aspect of public service may not be able to afford to choose that career because of the low salaries and their high student loan debts. The Higher Education Access Act will address this concern by placing a cap on Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income, which will bring much needed relief to graduates with excessive loan burdens. For example, a social worker with one child in West Virginia earning $26,800, with average loan debt of $16,041 would have his or her monthly payments reduced by $107, from $185 to $78, a reduction of 58 percent. We should encourage those willing to work in public service by offering relief from the high cost of student loans when they start off on their careers through the 15-percent cap and loan forgiveness. Over 4 years ago, I sponsored legislation with the former Senator Mike DeWine to provide student loan forgiveness for social workers and attorneys in the child welfare system. This legislation reflects our goals and expands it to cover a broader range of public service careers--it is a strong, long-term investment in our communities and families. The act is designed to keep rates for the lenders fair and direct as much help as possible to our students. This year, 37,297 West Virginia students will receive $103.3 million in Pell grants. If this legislation debated today is enacted into law, West Virginia students in the coming academic year will have access to $19 million more in Pell grants and student aid. Pell grants have not increased during the past year while the cost of education has increased exponentially. This bold increase in the Pell grant program is needed to keep pace with the changing financial demands of higher learning. The Higher Education Access Act will provide hope and opportunity for students in West Virginia and across our country. It represents a commitment to education and a wise investment in our future. This legislation will also encourage public service, a cause to which I have long been dedicated. I am proud to support this bill and hope it will become law this year to improve student aid for the high school seniors who will begin their last year of classes in just a few weeks and all the students who will follow them.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 101st anniversary of Follansbee, WV--a great community with great people and an important part of our State. Follansbee is a town whose legacy was forged in steel. Its 3,000 residents are descendants of history and carry with them a proud tradition of tenacity and pride. While Follansbee sits in the northern panhandle of West Virginia, squeezed between Ohio and Pennsylvania on the banks of the Ohio River, it plays an integral role in West Virginia's economy. Follansbee Steel was the first company to locate in this small Brooke County town, joining steel makers throughout the Ohio River Valley in firing the industrial revolution and feeding the Nation's voracious appetite for steel as it grew. Follansbee Steel's state-of-the-art roofing products also appeared in the early 19th century and played a major role in post-Civil War Reconstruction. Later, these materials became the products of choice for Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the world's most prominent architects. In fact, when brothers John and Robert Follansbee bought the steel mill near the turn of the 20th century, not only did they rename the mill, they were the catalyst for forming what is now the city of Follansbee. Before that anyone traveling north of Wellsburg along the river would refer to Mahan's Junction--the name of the owners of the large orchard formerly on the site of Follansbee. On this day, the 101st anniversary of its founding, it is appropriate to look to the future which, I am happy to note, looks bright for Follansbee, WV. As the years have passed, the tradition of Follansbee Steel remains through the town's reservoir of high-quality labor. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, a successor of Follansbee Steel, continues to run one of the busiest coke plants in the country, feeding both its blast furnace and its electric arc furnace, while Wheeling-Nisshin is now one of the largest hot-dip coating mills in the world. Wheeling Nisshin came to West Virginia in the early 1980s as our very first Japanese business. Since that time we have seen Japanese companies embrace West Virginia throughout the State. This joint venture between a Japanese steel company and Wheeling Pitt was years ahead of its time, taking advantage of the increasing globalization of the steel industry and using it to West Virginia's advantage. With its large industry and its small businesses and local professionals, Follansbee is just the type of small American town we think of and in which we take pride. It is a community with strong roots and a tremendous sense of local pride. Each summer its residents gather for Follansbee Community Days, bringing residents, their families, and former residents together from far and wide to celebrate their shared sense of community. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in marking this 101st anniversary of the founding of Follansbee. The legacy of that town is long, its history rich--but it is the service it has provided the country that will be felt for a long, long time. To mayor Tony Paesano and the people of Follansbee, may the next 101 years be as successful and peaceful as the first.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in January the Senate took an important step toward improving congressional accountability by passing the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act as part of S. 1. One of the key provisions of this legislation attempts to shine light on the process by which Members request the inclusion of specific projects in legislation--in other words, earmarks. That provision includes a requirement that each Senate committee make public all congressional earmarks included in bills reported by the committee. We normally think of earmarks as part of the appropriations process, but the requirement in S. 1 applies to all bills and makes it clear that the term ``congressional earmark'' includes language authorizing funds, not just appropriations language. The legislation includes a specific requirement to disclose earmarks contained in classified portions of reports ``to the extent practicable, consistent with the need to protect national security.'' With that in mind, I rise today to formally describe for the Senate the earmarks included in S. 1538, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, a bill reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on May 31, 2007. This information was not included specifically in the bill or report because we were wrestling with what, if anything, in the bill and classified annex met the definition of an earmark. The definition included in S. 1 is subject to some interpretation. Taking an expansive view of the definition, Vice Chairman Bond and I identified three items that seem to fit. I ask to have a list of those earmarks printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last month, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released yet another report about the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, health coverage tax credit, HCTC. The report confirms what many in Congress have been saying since the HCTC program began, the credit is not enough, the program has several barriers to enrollment, the premiums are prohibitively high for some workers because of medical underwriting, and the program is very confusing and expensive to administer. Although the GAO reported a $19 million decrease in costs of administration between 2003 and the end of fiscal year 2006, administrative costs still make up approximately 34 percent of the total spending for the HCTC. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act is up for reauthorization this year. It is long past time for Congress to focus on the problems with the TAA health coverage tax credit and reauthorization presents us with that opportunity. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will make much-needed improvements to the HCTC program. And, I am proud that the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, is joining me in introducing this important bill. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act of 2007 offers solutions to many of the problems with the HCTC identified by the GAO. This legislation will go a long way to make the TAA health care tax credit a realistic option for displaced workers and their families. When Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of jobs will not equal the loss of health care coverage. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to make good on that promise. Since we passed this bill, I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my State about how unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. And I have been very frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we were not able to make the credit more affordable and accessible for people who need it the most--laid- off workers and retirees with very limited income. We can fix these problems by including provisions from the TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act in the TAA reauthorization bill. For a good number of supporters of the Trade Act of 2002, the health insurance tax credit was the single most important factor in overcoming their concerns about giving the President fast-track authority to move trade agreements through Congress. In my own judgment, the fast-track would not have passed Congress without the health care tax credit. The TAA health credit was the trade-off to balance the President's authority. Yet, the success many of us envisioned for the health care tax credit has not been realized through implementation. The number of people who have been able to access the health care tax credit over the last 2 years is extremely disappointing. As of January 31, 2007, only 15,506 out of 252,280 who are eligible for the credit are enrolled in the program. That is just over 6 percent, which means that almost 94 percent of those eligible are not participating. In my home State of West Virginia, we have worked hard to promote the HCTC for trade-displaced workers. When Weirton Steel instituted significant layoffs, thousands of employees lost their jobs. In the aftermath, State and national officials, health plan staff, and representatives of the Independent Steelworkers Union and United Steel Workers worked collaboratively to provide continuous health care coverage for HCTC-eligible workers and retirees. The community really came together and worked around the clock to educate workers and retirees about their coverage options and to ensure they were enrolled in the HCTC. Loss of employment is absolutely devastating to workers and their families. While health care coverage alone cannot replace job loss, it does help to ease the burden on displaced workers and their dependents. West Virginia is a model example of how HCTC can work. However, with only 6 percent of those eligible for HCTC enrolled across the country, there is still much more that needs to be done. I must say to my colleagues that Congress has had a hand in these disappointing enrollment figures. We have ignored every opportunity to improve the health coverage tax credit and enhance the lives of workers displaced by trade. Members of this body have previously voted against TAA bills that would have extended Trade Adjustment Assistance to service workers and also addressed some of the problems the GAO has identified with the health coverage credit. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes long overdue improvements to the TAA health care tax credit. First, this legislation addresses the issue of affordability. In addition to the GAO, several consumer advocacy groups and research organizations, including the Commonwealth Fund, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Families USA, have cited affordability of the credit as the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is not enough. With a 65 percent credit, an eligible individual still has to pay an average of $2,104 in annual premium costs for single coverage plus additional amounts for deductibles and co-payments. This figure is particularly astounding given the fact that the average worker, while actively employed and earning a paycheck, paid just $627 annually in 2006 for single employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. In other words, if you lose your job, you have to pay more than three times as much for health insurance, even if you get the HCTC. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes the credit more affordable by increasing the subsidy amount to 95 percent. This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to separation from employment. However, States have been allowed by this Administration to create State-based coverage options in the individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from employment. Because of the Administration's interpretation of the law, there are people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one state that GAG reviewed for a previous report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost 6 times the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by clarifying that States can only designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community- rated. Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group option in every State, so that displaced workers Nationwide will have access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were used to when they were employed. Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the 3 month continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers are required to maintain 3 months of continuous health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this 3 month period to be counted as the 3 months prior to separation from employment. However, the administration has interpreted the 3 month requirement as 3 months of health insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid- off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily-provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that three months of continuous coverage means 3 months prior to separation from employment. Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to receive the health coverage tax credit. Over the last 2 years, younger spouses and dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage through their spouses or parents. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act allows younger spouses and dependent children to retain eligibility for the health coverage tax credit in the event the qualified beneficiary becomes eligible for Medicare. Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low participation include the complex nature of the HCTC program and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the up to 3 months before they begin to receive advance payments. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act improves consumer information about the HCTC by requiring that the Treasury Secretary's eligibility notice include a description of the HCTC program; specific contact information for state offices responsible for determining eligibility and providing enrollment assistance; a list of the HCTC coverage options in the sate; and a statement informing eligible individuals of the deadline to enroll in HCTC in order to avoid lapses in coverage. Additionally, our legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for advance payment to begin. As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this very difficult transition. Unfortunately, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The Government Accountability Office has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems. Now, it is up to us to fix them. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation in conjunction with reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last month, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released yet another report about the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, health coverage tax credit, HCTC. The report confirms what many in Congress have been saying since the HCTC program began, the credit is not enough, the program has several barriers to enrollment, the premiums are prohibitively high for some workers because of medical underwriting, and the program is very confusing and expensive to administer. Although the GAO reported a $19 million decrease in costs of administration between 2003 and the end of fiscal year 2006, administrative costs still make up approximately 34 percent of the total spending for the HCTC. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act is up for reauthorization this year. It is long past time for Congress to focus on the problems with the TAA health coverage tax credit and reauthorization presents us with that opportunity. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will make much-needed improvements to the HCTC program. And, I am proud that the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, is joining me in introducing this important bill. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act of 2007 offers solutions to many of the problems with the HCTC identified by the GAO. This legislation will go a long way to make the TAA health care tax credit a realistic option for displaced workers and their families. When Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of jobs will not equal the loss of health care coverage. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to make good on that promise. Since we passed this bill, I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my State about how unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. And I have been very frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we were not able to make the credit more affordable and accessible for people who need it the most--laid- off workers and retirees with very limited income. We can fix these problems by including provisions from the TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act in the TAA reauthorization bill. For a good number of supporters of the Trade Act of 2002, the health insurance tax credit was the single most important factor in overcoming their concerns about giving the President fast-track authority to move trade agreements through Congress. In my own judgment, the fast-track would not have passed Congress without the health care tax credit. The TAA health credit was the trade-off to balance the President's authority. Yet, the success many of us envisioned for the health care tax credit has not been realized through implementation. The number of people who have been able to access the health care tax credit over the last 2 years is extremely disappointing. As of January 31, 2007, only 15,506 out of 252,280 who are eligible for the credit are enrolled in the program. That is just over 6 percent, which means that almost 94 percent of those eligible are not participating. In my home State of West Virginia, we have worked hard to promote the HCTC for trade-displaced workers. When Weirton Steel instituted significant layoffs, thousands of employees lost their jobs. In the aftermath, State and national officials, health plan staff, and representatives of the Independent Steelworkers Union and United Steel Workers worked collaboratively to provide continuous health care coverage for HCTC-eligible workers and retirees. The community really came together and worked around the clock to educate workers and retirees about their coverage options and to ensure they were enrolled in the HCTC. Loss of employment is absolutely devastating to workers and their families. While health care coverage alone cannot replace job loss, it does help to ease the burden on displaced workers and their dependents. West Virginia is a model example of how HCTC can work. However, with only 6 percent of those eligible for HCTC enrolled across the country, there is still much more that needs to be done. I must say to my colleagues that Congress has had a hand in these disappointing enrollment figures. We have ignored every opportunity to improve the health coverage tax credit and enhance the lives of workers displaced by trade. Members of this body have previously voted against TAA bills that would have extended Trade Adjustment Assistance to service workers and also addressed some of the problems the GAO has identified with the health coverage credit. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes long overdue improvements to the TAA health care tax credit. First, this legislation addresses the issue of affordability. In addition to the GAO, several consumer advocacy groups and research organizations, including the Commonwealth Fund, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Families USA, have cited affordability of the credit as the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is not enough. With a 65 percent credit, an eligible individual still has to pay an average of $2,104 in annual premium costs for single coverage plus additional amounts for deductibles and co-payments. This figure is particularly astounding given the fact that the average worker, while actively employed and earning a paycheck, paid just $627 annually in 2006 for single employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. In other words, if you lose your job, you have to pay more than three times as much for health insurance, even if you get the HCTC. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes the credit more affordable by increasing the subsidy amount to 95 percent. This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to separation from employment. However, States have been allowed by this Administration to create State-based coverage options in the individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from employment. Because of the Administration's interpretation of the law, there are people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one state that GAG reviewed for a previous report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost 6 times the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by clarifying that States can only designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community- rated. Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group option in every State, so that displaced workers Nationwide will have access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were used to when they were employed. Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the 3 month continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers are required to maintain 3 months of continuous health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this 3 month period to be counted as the 3 months prior to separation from employment. However, the administration has interpreted the 3 month requirement as 3 months of health insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid- off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily-provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that three months of continuous coverage means 3 months prior to separation from employment. Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to receive the health coverage tax credit. Over the last 2 years, younger spouses and dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage through their spouses or parents. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act allows younger spouses and dependent children to retain eligibility for the health coverage tax credit in the event the qualified beneficiary becomes eligible for Medicare. Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low participation include the complex nature of the HCTC program and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the up to 3 months before they begin to receive advance payments. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act improves consumer information about the HCTC by requiring that the Treasury Secretary's eligibility notice include a description of the HCTC program; specific contact information for state offices responsible for determining eligibility and providing enrollment assistance; a list of the HCTC coverage options in the sate; and a statement informing eligible individuals of the deadline to enroll in HCTC in order to avoid lapses in coverage. Additionally, our legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for advance payment to begin. As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this very difficult transition. Unfortunately, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The Government Accountability Office has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems. Now, it is up to us to fix them. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation in conjunction with reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have before us a bill that will strengthen the historic right of workers to join together for higher wages, safer working conditions, and better benefits. The Employee Free Choice Act, which I have cosponsored for the last three Congresses, will allow workers to bolster their rights in the employment negotiation process. It will offer real deterrents for that small minority of employers who exercise undue influence over fairly and legally held elections for union representation, and as a result it will ensure workers more control of their working conditions. Passage of this bill will have an enormous effect in my State of West Virginia. It will protect the rights of working men and women in my State, allowing them to bargain for increased wages, employer-provided health care and pension benefits, as well as better working conditions. In fact, the pendulum has swung for too long solidly in favor of employers. This bill will bring us closer to equilibrium, giving employees more of a level playing field. The Employee Free Choice Act will enable a majority of employees to clearly and unambiguously make their decision known to organize. If a majority of workers want a union, then they should be able to band together and speak as one. It is simple and fair, and this right should be free from intimidation. Today, even within legal strictures in place, the current election system allows that small--group of employers to intimidate workers in the midst of a union election, which is simply unacceptable. For example, under the current regime, employers may discourage organizing activities while workers who support unions may not use the workplace as a vehicle to show their support. The current system leaves employees who want to organize in a vulnerable position. They may be threatened with the loss of their job or the closure of their plant. Among workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign, one in five is fired. In my own State, Ms. Mylinda Casey Hayes was unlawfully discharged from her job as a production line worker after she stopped wearing an antiunion button and began supporting employee efforts to organize. I could give you many other examples of hard-working West Virginians fighting for their rights as employees who face similar tactics. Frankly, the penalties for employers who use these tactics are small--a mere slap on the wrist that does nothing to deter them from improperly and illegally influencing the election. It is high time that we put an end to this practice by showing that there are consequences for ignoring workers' rights. We must strengthen the penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees. The increased penalties in the Employee Free Choice Act will restore a more level playing field for employers and employees. Now, we have the opportunity to extend democratic principles to all workers across the country. The Employee Free Choice Act will give workers the freedom to make their own choices free from intimidation and harassment. This freedom affects the wages, health care, pensions, and other benefits of our Nation's families. When America's hard working men and women are given the opportunity to improve their economic situations, we are all improved. This bill will improve wages, health care, pensions, and working conditions--in turn bolstering our economy. I strongly support this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will join me.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President. I stand today to honor my dear friend and colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd. Few of us can truly hold claim to the title of living legend--but Robert C. Byrd can. This afternoon he cast his 18,000th vote. A remarkable record that reflects his years of dedicated, passionate and heartfelt service to the people of West Virginia and the Republic he so loves. Eighteen thousand is an impressive number. But what is more impressive is the change that those votes had on America. He voted to strengthen Social Security for all Americans. He voted to turn the dream of college education into a reality for all students. He voted to ensure that those who put in an honest day's work receive an honest day's wage. He voted to protect the health and safety of coal miners. And, he voted to ensure that those who serve in uniform would get the benefits they deserve. Quite frankly, his voting record, and its impact on the fabric of our country, is immeasurable. Along the way, his votes and his voice became the conscience of the Senate. Reminding us all that change is never easy, and that following the rules matters. That we can disagree with each other, even an administration, but we can ill afford to be disagreeable with each other. It is impossible to picture the history of the last 50 years without thinking of Robert C. Byrd's impact and influence on all of our lives. I am incredibly honored to serve every day with my dear friend and colleague--he is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today is a special day: one which is special to me and the nearly 2 million residents of the State of West Virginia. On this day in 1863 West Virginia entered the Union as the 35th State. West Virginia is America. West Virginia is a place where people are proud of who they are and not what they have. It is a place where neighbor helping neighbor means something. Where community, faith, and family are not taken for granted. The area now known as West Virginia was originally settled thousands of years ago by Native Americans. The 17th and 18th centuries saw the first pioneering European settlers who came across the Appalachians looking for an expansive new homestead. The 19th century saw America's darkest hour in the Civil War. But, it was in this conflict that Western Virginia separated from Virginia standing on its own, faithful the Union, and earning statehood. From that day to today, West Virginia has been an important part of America. Our coal powers America. Our steel built America's cities from the ground up. Our timber built America's homes. Our chemical industry has improved the quality of life for all Americans. And yet today, it is another resource, West Virginia's most precious one, this is driving a new generation of West Virginians. West Virginia is home to some of the most pristine natural beauty in our Nation. Visitors from around the country--around the world--come to take in the majestic mountain vistas, explore our forests, celebrate our Appalachian heritage, fish, ski, and hit the links, and most importantly spread time with our people. So, just who are these people? They have stout hearts, courage, and an unfaltering determination. These qualities are particularly evident in West Virginia veterans like Chester Merriman, the youngest person to serve in World War I at just 14 years of age, or Hershel ``Woody'' Williams, who received a Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II for his heroism during the Battle for Iwo Jima, epitomize how West Virginians have proudly served their country no matter when--from the Civil War to today's conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, there are more than 200,000 veterans living in the State giving West Virginia the highest per capita of any State in the country. I could go on and on and say the same thing about West Virginia's coal miners, steel workers, loggers, and chemical plant workers all of whom are truly the hardest working, finest people you ever spend time with. I know because I have. West Virginia is my home and I am proud of that. I feel genuinely blessed to have been able to serve the people of West Virginia for as long as I have. West Virginia Day has always been a day resonating deeply inside of me and my fellow West Virginians. Happy 144th Birthday West Virginia! I ask that you, my distinguished colleagues join us in our celebration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have my letter of June 12, 2007, to Senator Reid printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when Craig Thomas passed away on Monday evening, the U.S. Senate lost more than a Member; our institution has lost a good man and I a good friend--someone who was proud to be called an American cowboy. Sharon and I extend our deepest sympathy to his wife Susan, his family, his friends, his staff, and the people of Wyoming whom he served with such complete dedication. Over the last few years, I worked closely with Senator Thomas. I came to know him well and came to respect him enormously. We both represented small, rural States with critical constituencies--his most emblematic being the farmer, mine the miner. We both maintained a deep commitment to our home States. Perhaps most importantly, we both had a history of public service. Throughout our careers, I would say that we had a very good partnership. We served together on the Senate Finance Committee and fought to make this country more independent of foreign energy, to promote the development of clean coal technologies, and to preserve the rural American lifestyle. Through it all, I greatly liked and admired Senator Thomas and appreciated him for the fine human being he was. He was a man of strong principle, one who knew the bottom line and didn't hesitate to consult his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. What I will remember most about him, however, wasn't his ability to work with his so-called foes or our tough fights in the Senate, but for his deep affinity for the beauty of this country. In fact, over the years, when I have traveled to Wyoming and looked up at that towering, earthly skyline of the Grand Tetons, I have often thought of Craig. Craig, after all, was perhaps one of the people who shared my deep love of the Grand Tetons. It was in those mountains and the Gros Ventre that we found a common bond. Together, we exchanged our marvels about the alpine lakes, the cutting glaciers, wind-swept glaciers and sparkling rivers. I will never forget his advice on enjoying the beauty of Jackson Hole or his stories about long horseback rides or camping in the cool shadows of the mountains. I will never forget his interest in the wildlife and his appreciation for the foliage. Nor will I forget how passionately he protected the autonomy of the park, and how much he cherished the culture and beauty of his home. Senator Craig Thomas held my deepest respect; and, to his family and the people of Wyoming, I offer my deepest sympathies. He was a valuable public servant, a true fighter and a friend--and, more than anything, a true American.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated May 25, 2007, to Senator Byrd be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation today along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, known as the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2007. This bill is designed to enhance child well-being by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to facilitate the collection of State-specific data based on a set of defined indicators. The well- being of children is important to both the national and State governments and data collection is a priority that should not be ignored. In 1996, Congress passed bold legislation to dramatically change our welfare system, and I supported it. The driving force behind this reform was to promote work and self-sufficiency of families and to provide flexibility to States--where most child and family legislation takes place--to achieve these goals. States have used this flexibility to design different programs that work better for families who rely on them. Other programs that serve children, ranging from the Children Health Insurance Program, CHIP, to child welfare services, can vary among States. It is obvious that in order for policy makers to evaluate child well- being, we need State-by-State data on child well-being to measure the results. Current survey methods can provide minimal data on some indicators of child well-being, but insufficient data is provided on low-income families, geographic variation, and young children. Additionally, the information is not provided in a timely manner, which impedes legislators' ability to effectively accomplish the goals set forth in welfare reform. The State Child Well Being Research Act Of 2007 is intended to fill this information gap by collecting up-to-date, State-specific data that can be used by policymakers, researchers, and child advocates to assess the well-being of children. It would require that a survey examine the physical and emotional health of children, adequately represent the experiences of families in individual States, be consistent across States, be collected annually, articulate results in easy to understand terms, and focus on low-income children and families. This legislation also establishes an advisory committee which consists of a panel of experts who specialize in survey methodology, indicators of child well- being, and application of this data to ensure that the purpose is being achieved. Further, this bill avoids some ofthe other problems in the current system by making data files easier to use and more readily available to the public. As a result, the information will be more useful for policy-makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and families. Finally, this legislation also offers the potential for the Health and Human Service Department to partner with several private charitable foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, and McKnight foundations, who are interested in forming a partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the data collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public- private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children and families and increases the study's impact. Given the tight budget we face, partnerships make sense to meet this essential need. I hope my colleagues review this legislation carefully and support it so that we and State policy makers and advocates have the information necessary to make good decisions for children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to create a 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund, and I am proud to have the bipartisan support of my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. We have a tradition of working together, especially on education and technology. This legislation is designed to support and encourage those States that are willing to accept the bold challenge of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills to teach the core subjects, but to also go beyond the basics to include 21st Century themes like global awareness and entrepreneurial literacy. The partnership's framework emphasizes skills like critical thinking, innovation and communication skills. It also promotes information and communications technology literacy, known as ICT literacy, and life and career skills such as self direction and leadership. This bold agenda needs to be woven into State education strategy at every level, including standards and assessments, curriculum, professional development, and learning environments. Every State willing to accept and work to implement such a progressive model and agenda deserves encouragement and support. That is why this bill would create a 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund to provide Federal matching dollars for new State investments and foundation donations to 21st Century Skills. There would also be a Federal tax incentive for corporate donations. The Federal Government won't put up a dime until a state's plan is approved by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a nonprofit organization of leading technology companies and education leaders. But the Federal Government will offer matching grants to help States that are willing to make an investment in such quality education. This is an important investment, and the next step to enhance education and prepare our students for the new, competitive workforce. This initiative also will emphasize global awareness, civic literacy and life skills so young people understand our place in the world and are ready to take on greater responsibilities in understanding and improving their own communities. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills Partnership has introduced a new model for education. It represents a bold and important new direction for the future of education in this country. This legislation is designed to help the Federal Government become a partner and play a positive role in preparing our students for their future.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to create a 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund, and I am proud to have the bipartisan support of my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. We have a tradition of working together, especially on education and technology. This legislation is designed to support and encourage those States that are willing to accept the bold challenge of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills to teach the core subjects, but to also go beyond the basics to include 21st Century themes like global awareness and entrepreneurial literacy. The partnership's framework emphasizes skills like critical thinking, innovation and communication skills. It also promotes information and communications technology literacy, known as ICT literacy, and life and career skills such as self direction and leadership. This bold agenda needs to be woven into State education strategy at every level, including standards and assessments, curriculum, professional development, and learning environments. Every State willing to accept and work to implement such a progressive model and agenda deserves encouragement and support. That is why this bill would create a 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund to provide Federal matching dollars for new State investments and foundation donations to 21st Century Skills. There would also be a Federal tax incentive for corporate donations. The Federal Government won't put up a dime until a state's plan is approved by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a nonprofit organization of leading technology companies and education leaders. But the Federal Government will offer matching grants to help States that are willing to make an investment in such quality education. This is an important investment, and the next step to enhance education and prepare our students for the new, competitive workforce. This initiative also will emphasize global awareness, civic literacy and life skills so young people understand our place in the world and are ready to take on greater responsibilities in understanding and improving their own communities. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills Partnership has introduced a new model for education. It represents a bold and important new direction for the future of education in this country. This legislation is designed to help the Federal Government become a partner and play a positive role in preparing our students for their future.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation today along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, known as the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2007. This bill is designed to enhance child well-being by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to facilitate the collection of State-specific data based on a set of defined indicators. The well- being of children is important to both the national and State governments and data collection is a priority that should not be ignored. In 1996, Congress passed bold legislation to dramatically change our welfare system, and I supported it. The driving force behind this reform was to promote work and self-sufficiency of families and to provide flexibility to States--where most child and family legislation takes place--to achieve these goals. States have used this flexibility to design different programs that work better for families who rely on them. Other programs that serve children, ranging from the Children Health Insurance Program, CHIP, to child welfare services, can vary among States. It is obvious that in order for policy makers to evaluate child well- being, we need State-by-State data on child well-being to measure the results. Current survey methods can provide minimal data on some indicators of child well-being, but insufficient data is provided on low-income families, geographic variation, and young children. Additionally, the information is not provided in a timely manner, which impedes legislators' ability to effectively accomplish the goals set forth in welfare reform. The State Child Well Being Research Act Of 2007 is intended to fill this information gap by collecting up-to-date, State-specific data that can be used by policymakers, researchers, and child advocates to assess the well-being of children. It would require that a survey examine the physical and emotional health of children, adequately represent the experiences of families in individual States, be consistent across States, be collected annually, articulate results in easy to understand terms, and focus on low-income children and families. This legislation also establishes an advisory committee which consists of a panel of experts who specialize in survey methodology, indicators of child well- being, and application of this data to ensure that the purpose is being achieved. Further, this bill avoids some ofthe other problems in the current system by making data files easier to use and more readily available to the public. As a result, the information will be more useful for policy-makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and families. Finally, this legislation also offers the potential for the Health and Human Service Department to partner with several private charitable foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, and McKnight foundations, who are interested in forming a partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the data collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public- private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children and families and increases the study's impact. Given the tight budget we face, partnerships make sense to meet this essential need. I hope my colleagues review this legislation carefully and support it so that we and State policy makers and advocates have the information necessary to make good decisions for children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I honor the life of Frank Woodruff Buckles, a devoted American, who served this country in World War I. Mr. Buckles, born in 1901 in Harrison County, MO, is still going strong today in West Virginia. At the age of 106, he resides in Charles Town, where he manages his 330-acre farm. Mr. Buckles was only 16 years old when his country entered World War I. After unsuccessful attempts to join the Marines and the Navy, Mr. Buckles contacted the Army. He claimed that birth certificates had not been issued in Missouri at the time of his birth and started his training at Fort Riley, KS, where many soldiers were ill with influenza. With an irrepressible desire to serve his country, Mr. Buckles joined the Army Ambulance Service and went overseas, first to England and France. Later, Mr. Buckles became an escort for German prisoners of war. Upon his return from Europe, Mr. Buckles held various jobs. He accepted a position with White Star Line Steamship Company, which took him to Toronto, Canada. In 1921, he put his business education to use at Bankers Trust Company in New York City. Mr. Buckles eventually realized that he cared most for the steamship industry. While he was employed by Grace Line, he traveled along the western coast of South America. In 1940, the American President Lines had a task for him in Manila--Mr. Buckles found himself trapped in the Philippines when the Japanese invaded in December of the following year. He spent 3\1/2\ years in Japanese prison camps, until on February 23, 1945, a subsection of the 11th Airborne Division freed Mr. Buckles and 2,147 other prisoners in a daring raid on the Los Banes prison camp. After his liberation from Los Banes, Mr. Buckles returned to the United States. He married Audrey Mayo, a young lady, whom he had known before the war and in 1954, they settled down on the Gap View Farm in West Virginia. On this same farm, Mr. Buckles has remained mentally sharp and physically active. Up to the age of 105, he drove cars and tractors on his farm. Nowadays, he reads from his vast book collection and enjoys the company of his daughter, Susannah Flanagan, who came to live with him after his wife passed away in 1999. Today, Mr. Buckles is one of three living World War I veterans in the United States, and his dedication and courage have not been overlooked in our Nation's Capital. In 1999, Mr. Buckles was presented with the French Legion of Honor at the French Embassy in Washington, DC. On May 28, 2007, Mr. Buckles will represent his fellow World War I veterans as a Grand Marshall at the National Memorial Day Parade. We must cherish our last links to World War I. In the same vein, we owe Mr. Buckles and all the men and women, who have served our country, a great debt of gratitude. I ask the Senate to join me today in commending Frank Buckles, an American whose service to our country deserves recognition.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple bill to try and provide some fairness to States as they struggle to try and implement the new, stringent standards of the welfare reform reauthorization imposed as part of the Deficit Reduction Act on 2007. As a former member of the West Virginia State Legislature and as a Governor, I know that implementation of such mandates can take time. Let me share the timeline that States face in coping with the new rules on welfare reform, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF. Most of the pending legislation on TANF, including President Bush's plan had a multiyear phase in proposals for tougher work requirements. But the legislation that passed was a stark change with no time for States to develop new policy and no time for State legislature to react to new policy. Additionally States could be penalized for their policy even before they get guidance from officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, that their work verification plan is approved. This is just not fair. Here is the history. In October of 2005, the House Workforce Committee passed legislation to phase-in higher work standards. In November of 2005, the Senate approved a budget reconciliation bill without new work requirements. Later that month, the House approved a reconciliation bill that phased-in higher work requirements. On December 19, 2005, the conference agreement on the Deficit Reduction Act imposed tougher work standard that will take effect on October 1, 2007. States will also face penalties if they do not meet new, unpublished work verification requirements. The President signed the bill into law in February 2006. The Department of Health and Human Services did not issue regulations to define work activities and outlining the requirements for work verification plans until June 29, 2006. States had just 3 months to develop their work verification plans based on the new regulations, and the plans are due on September 30, 2006. On October 1, 2006, the tougher work standards as measured by work verification took effect. Today, May 22, 2006, no State has received approval of their work verification plans submitted over 7 months ago. But States could be penalized for failing participation standards today before they have gotten guidance from HHS that their work verification plans are approved, and they know what is expected of them. This is just not fair. States need to know what the rules are for work, and what they can count for work before any penalties should be assessed, even if they are not due until a future date. Some of the potential penalties are harsh, including a 5 percent cut in the State's block grant in the first year, and a requirement to increase State matching funds. Such cuts could be imposed when the value of TANF block grant has shrunk by more than 20 percent since 1996. My bill is simple fairness. It states that no financial penalties can be imposed on a State until 12 months after a State gets official approval by HHS of its work verification plans. This allows each State a year to come into compliance. States are trying, but they do not yet know what officially counts as work so they should not face any penalties until after the rules are clear. Welfare reform is not supposed to be about penalties and pushing families off the caseload. Welfare reform is supposed to be about promoting responsibility and self-sufficiency. States, and the families, on the program deserve to know with certainty what it takes to ``play by the rules.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2007. This legislation is an issue of fairness. It clearly states that every special needs child who needs adoption assistance in order to gain a safe, permanent home deserves it. Throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children, children who are at- risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. While foster care is able to provide for the basic needs of these children, we must ultimately be able to provide them with a safe permanent home. Congress demonstrated their dedication to this when they passed the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, which led to the number of nationwide adoptions nearly doubling. But even with these significant gains we cannot forget over 100,000 children in foster care are waiting for adoption. In West Virginia, there are 94 children waiting for adoption. For some of these children, described as having ``special needs,'' placement in a safe permanent home is especially difficult. Special needs children face increased obstacles in adoption due to factors such as their age, disability, or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together. In an effort to offer additional support to those in foster care who have the most difficulty finding a safe and permanent home, adoption subsidies are provided to encourage the adoption of ``special needs'' children. These subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children. Yet, the current law does not make these Federal subsidies available to all families adopting ``special needs'' children. Under this law, only a fraction of the children waiting to be adopted would qualify for support. Federal subsidies are only given to families who adopt special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits. This is, simply, wrong. A child's eligibility for these important benefits should not be dependent on the income of his or her biological parents, these are the parents whose legal rights to the child have been terminated, the parents who have abused or neglected the child. It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. The Adoption Equality Act of 2007 will do this by removing the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, thereby making all children who meet the definition of ``special needs'' eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. The bill would also give States an incentive to make additional improvements to their welfare systems by requiring that States reinvest the moneys they save as a result of this bill back into their State child abuse and neglect programs. The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving home. This bill is a wise investment if we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple bill to try and provide some fairness to States as they struggle to try and implement the new, stringent standards of the welfare reform reauthorization imposed as part of the Deficit Reduction Act on 2007. As a former member of the West Virginia State Legislature and as a Governor, I know that implementation of such mandates can take time. Let me share the timeline that States face in coping with the new rules on welfare reform, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF. Most of the pending legislation on TANF, including President Bush's plan had a multiyear phase in proposals for tougher work requirements. But the legislation that passed was a stark change with no time for States to develop new policy and no time for State legislature to react to new policy. Additionally States could be penalized for their policy even before they get guidance from officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, that their work verification plan is approved. This is just not fair. Here is the history. In October of 2005, the House Workforce Committee passed legislation to phase-in higher work standards. In November of 2005, the Senate approved a budget reconciliation bill without new work requirements. Later that month, the House approved a reconciliation bill that phased-in higher work requirements. On December 19, 2005, the conference agreement on the Deficit Reduction Act imposed tougher work standard that will take effect on October 1, 2007. States will also face penalties if they do not meet new, unpublished work verification requirements. The President signed the bill into law in February 2006. The Department of Health and Human Services did not issue regulations to define work activities and outlining the requirements for work verification plans until June 29, 2006. States had just 3 months to develop their work verification plans based on the new regulations, and the plans are due on September 30, 2006. On October 1, 2006, the tougher work standards as measured by work verification took effect. Today, May 22, 2006, no State has received approval of their work verification plans submitted over 7 months ago. But States could be penalized for failing participation standards today before they have gotten guidance from HHS that their work verification plans are approved, and they know what is expected of them. This is just not fair. States need to know what the rules are for work, and what they can count for work before any penalties should be assessed, even if they are not due until a future date. Some of the potential penalties are harsh, including a 5 percent cut in the State's block grant in the first year, and a requirement to increase State matching funds. Such cuts could be imposed when the value of TANF block grant has shrunk by more than 20 percent since 1996. My bill is simple fairness. It states that no financial penalties can be imposed on a State until 12 months after a State gets official approval by HHS of its work verification plans. This allows each State a year to come into compliance. States are trying, but they do not yet know what officially counts as work so they should not face any penalties until after the rules are clear. Welfare reform is not supposed to be about penalties and pushing families off the caseload. Welfare reform is supposed to be about promoting responsibility and self-sufficiency. States, and the families, on the program deserve to know with certainty what it takes to ``play by the rules.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2007. This legislation is an issue of fairness. It clearly states that every special needs child who needs adoption assistance in order to gain a safe, permanent home deserves it. Throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children, children who are at- risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. While foster care is able to provide for the basic needs of these children, we must ultimately be able to provide them with a safe permanent home. Congress demonstrated their dedication to this when they passed the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, which led to the number of nationwide adoptions nearly doubling. But even with these significant gains we cannot forget over 100,000 children in foster care are waiting for adoption. In West Virginia, there are 94 children waiting for adoption. For some of these children, described as having ``special needs,'' placement in a safe permanent home is especially difficult. Special needs children face increased obstacles in adoption due to factors such as their age, disability, or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together. In an effort to offer additional support to those in foster care who have the most difficulty finding a safe and permanent home, adoption subsidies are provided to encourage the adoption of ``special needs'' children. These subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children. Yet, the current law does not make these Federal subsidies available to all families adopting ``special needs'' children. Under this law, only a fraction of the children waiting to be adopted would qualify for support. Federal subsidies are only given to families who adopt special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits. This is, simply, wrong. A child's eligibility for these important benefits should not be dependent on the income of his or her biological parents, these are the parents whose legal rights to the child have been terminated, the parents who have abused or neglected the child. It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. The Adoption Equality Act of 2007 will do this by removing the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, thereby making all children who meet the definition of ``special needs'' eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. The bill would also give States an incentive to make additional improvements to their welfare systems by requiring that States reinvest the moneys they save as a result of this bill back into their State child abuse and neglect programs. The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving home. This bill is a wise investment if we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home.