Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for moving expeditiously to move the confirmation for John Preston Bailey to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter for reporting this nomination to the full Senate, and I commend Mr. Bailey to my colleagues as exactly the type of nominee we should all support for seats on the Federal bench. John Bailey did something somewhat unusual after he earned his degree from Dartmouth College. He came back. He defied a longstanding trend of our best and brightest young men and women leaving to seek their fortunes and not returning. He went on to earn his law degree from the School of Law at West Virginia University and then served as a law clerk for the Honorable Charles Haden II. Judge Haden was a Republican and a Ford appointee but was also a good friend to this Senator. He was a fair and decent man widely respected for his intellect and his diligent efforts to arrive at the correct outcome. I can only hope that John Bailey chooses to emulate his former mentor, Judge Haden. Knowing what I know of John Bailey, he will, and West Virginians will benefit. Lawyers in West Virginia have a great deal of respect for John Bailey. He has served the West Virginia legal community as president of the West Virginia State Bar and the West Virginia Bar Association and was a member of the Board of Governors of the West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association. Some West Virginia lawyers and judges I have known for many decades believe John Bailey will be a very capable judge because he is a great lawyer. He takes the facts as he finds them and does not come to the table with preconceived notions as to what the outcome should be. Those traits, along with a first-rate intellect and solid educational and work credentials, make up the formula for the kind of judicial nominee we all hope to see come to the Senate from Presidents of both parties. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays on the Hardiman nomination.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, one of the key components to success in our classrooms is a qualified teacher. One of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act mandates the hiring of qualified teachers by every school in every district. But what are the incentives to keep qualified teachers in the classroom? I believe we need more targeted incentives to reward teachers willing to stay in the classroom, especially in rural schools and high poverty schools. Unfortunately, without our help, America's poor and rural schools may not be able to attract the qualified teachers this legislation mandates and our children deserve. Isolated, struggling and competing against higher paying well-funded school districts for scarce classroom talent, such school faces a shortage of qualified teachers. As pressure to hire qualified teachers increases, this shortage will become a crisis, and children already at a disadvantage in relation to their more affluent and less isolated peers will be the ones who suffer most. Today, I propose a bill that will help bring dedicated and qualified teaching professionals to West Virginia's and America's poor and rural schools, and help give their students the opportunity to learn and flourish that every child deserves. The Incentives To Educate American Children Act--or ``I Teach'' Act--will provide teachers a refundable tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public schools where they are needed most. And it will give every public school teacher--whichever school they choose--a refundable tax credit for earning certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Together, these two tax credits will give economically depressed areas a better ability to recruit and retain skilled teachers. One-fourth of America's children attend public schools in rural areas, and of the 250 poorest counties in the United States, 244 are rural. West Virginia has rural schools scattered through 36 of its 55 counties, and these schools face real challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers, as well as dealing with other issues related to their rural location. Attracting teachers to these schools is difficult in large part due to the vast gap between what rural districts are able to offer and the salaries paid by more affluent school districts--as wide as $20,000 a year, according to one study. Disadvantaged schools must overcome similar difficulties. It is often a challenge for these schools to attract and keep qualified teachers. Yet according to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, every school must have qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. My ``I Teach'' Act will reward teachers willing to work in rural or high poverty schools with an annual $1,000 refundable tax credit. If a teacher obtains certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, they will receive an additional annual $1,000 refundable tax credit. Every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax credit. Every teacher who gets certified will earn a tax credit. Teachers who work in rural or disadvantaged schools and get certified will earn both. Schools that desperately need help attracting teachers will get a boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit most. In my State of West Virginia, as in over 30 other States, there is already a State fiscal incentive for teachers who earn national board certification. There are over 55,000 teachers with a national board certificate, and 290 are West Virginia teachers. West Virginia offers our national board teachers a $2500 bonus. My legislation builds upon the West Virginia program; together, they add up to a powerful tax incentive for teachers to remain in the classroom and to use their skills where they are most needed. I have spent a great deal of time in West Virginia classrooms this year, and it has become obvious to me that our education agenda suffers greatly from inadequate funding on a number of fronts. That is why I Teach is part of my education agenda. I also want to promote school construction bonds to improve our schools and renovate aging classrooms. For a decade, I have fought for the E-Rate program to provide $2.25 billion in discounts to connect our schools and libraries to modern technology. Education must be among our top national priorities, essential for every family with a child and vital for our economic and national security. I supported the bold goals and higher standards of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, but they won't be met unless our schools have the teachers and resources they need. I am committed to working closely with my Senate colleagues this year to secure as much funding as possible for our children's education. As important as school construction and technology are in the classroom, neither can replace a qualified and motivated teacher; therefore making it easier for underserved schools to attract the teachers they need remains one of my most important objectives. I hope each of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation which takes a great stride toward providing better education for every child in the United States.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, one of the key components to success in our classrooms is a qualified teacher. One of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act mandates the hiring of qualified teachers by every school in every district. But what are the incentives to keep qualified teachers in the classroom? I believe we need more targeted incentives to reward teachers willing to stay in the classroom, especially in rural schools and high poverty schools. Unfortunately, without our help, America's poor and rural schools may not be able to attract the qualified teachers this legislation mandates and our children deserve. Isolated, struggling and competing against higher paying well-funded school districts for scarce classroom talent, such school faces a shortage of qualified teachers. As pressure to hire qualified teachers increases, this shortage will become a crisis, and children already at a disadvantage in relation to their more affluent and less isolated peers will be the ones who suffer most. Today, I propose a bill that will help bring dedicated and qualified teaching professionals to West Virginia's and America's poor and rural schools, and help give their students the opportunity to learn and flourish that every child deserves. The Incentives To Educate American Children Act--or ``I Teach'' Act--will provide teachers a refundable tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public schools where they are needed most. And it will give every public school teacher--whichever school they choose--a refundable tax credit for earning certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Together, these two tax credits will give economically depressed areas a better ability to recruit and retain skilled teachers. One-fourth of America's children attend public schools in rural areas, and of the 250 poorest counties in the United States, 244 are rural. West Virginia has rural schools scattered through 36 of its 55 counties, and these schools face real challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers, as well as dealing with other issues related to their rural location. Attracting teachers to these schools is difficult in large part due to the vast gap between what rural districts are able to offer and the salaries paid by more affluent school districts--as wide as $20,000 a year, according to one study. Disadvantaged schools must overcome similar difficulties. It is often a challenge for these schools to attract and keep qualified teachers. Yet according to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, every school must have qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. My ``I Teach'' Act will reward teachers willing to work in rural or high poverty schools with an annual $1,000 refundable tax credit. If a teacher obtains certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, they will receive an additional annual $1,000 refundable tax credit. Every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax credit. Every teacher who gets certified will earn a tax credit. Teachers who work in rural or disadvantaged schools and get certified will earn both. Schools that desperately need help attracting teachers will get a boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit most. In my State of West Virginia, as in over 30 other States, there is already a State fiscal incentive for teachers who earn national board certification. There are over 55,000 teachers with a national board certificate, and 290 are West Virginia teachers. West Virginia offers our national board teachers a $2500 bonus. My legislation builds upon the West Virginia program; together, they add up to a powerful tax incentive for teachers to remain in the classroom and to use their skills where they are most needed. I have spent a great deal of time in West Virginia classrooms this year, and it has become obvious to me that our education agenda suffers greatly from inadequate funding on a number of fronts. That is why I Teach is part of my education agenda. I also want to promote school construction bonds to improve our schools and renovate aging classrooms. For a decade, I have fought for the E-Rate program to provide $2.25 billion in discounts to connect our schools and libraries to modern technology. Education must be among our top national priorities, essential for every family with a child and vital for our economic and national security. I supported the bold goals and higher standards of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, but they won't be met unless our schools have the teachers and resources they need. I am committed to working closely with my Senate colleagues this year to secure as much funding as possible for our children's education. As important as school construction and technology are in the classroom, neither can replace a qualified and motivated teacher; therefore making it easier for underserved schools to attract the teachers they need remains one of my most important objectives. I hope each of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation which takes a great stride toward providing better education for every child in the United States.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and support my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for the hard work on the Head Start reauthorization bill. I would particularly like to thank Senators Dodd and Harkin for including important language in the bill regarding childhood obesity prevention as part of Head Start. Obesity is a serious health concern, especially in West Virginia where 64 percent of adults in West Virginia are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. An even more alarming statistic, however, is that 28 percent of low-income children between the ages of 2 and 5 are already overweight. Furthermore, overweight children have a 70 percent chance of remaining overweight into their adulthood. Obesity in children is usually caused by lack of physical activity, unhealthy eating patterns, or a combination of the two. If Head Start can play a role in preventing obesity in children and families, it will be a real achievement, and I strongly believe Head Start can because of our experience in West Virginia. In December 2004, a pilot program designed by Amy Requa, Head Start health specialist, and Dr. Linda Carson, director of the West Virginia Motor Development Center, West Virginia University was initiated in Head Start Region III, which includes West Virginia. The program, known as ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning,'' is designed to prevent and reverse obesity among children enrolled in Head Start by integrating physical activity and wise nutrition choices in their daily life and promoting general good fitness habits. According to the Surgeon General, children should exercise for at least 60 minutes per day. ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' is designed to improve the quality and quantity of exercise performed by children by incorporating it into daily classroom routines. After the first year of the pilot program, results showed that Head Start participants were less sedentary and able to meet the daily exercise requirement, in addition to being able to move with more intensity over longer periods of time. The benefits of ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' do not end at the classroom. Because the risk of overweight children becoming overweight adults increases when one or more parent is obese, participants are encouraged to extend their healthy physical activity and food choices to the home. ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' is also not an isolated program; it is easily integrated with other community programs targeting childhood obesity and family wellness. Overall the results after the first year of the ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' show remarkable success. Children enrolled in the initiative showed moderate improvement in body-mass index scores, indicating that they were at healthier weights than at the start of the program. Due to its success, starting this year ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' is extending into Delaware, Pennsylvania, and California. The goal of Head Start is ``to bring about a greater degree of social competence in the young children of low-income families.'' ``I Am Moving, I Am Learning'' succeeds in complementing this by creating positive self-esteem among children by removing the depression and social discrimination associated with obesity. Adding incentives for Head Start agencies to add prevention of childhood obesity is an important improvement. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the Head Start program is reauthorized during this Congress. It was neglected in the past, and we should be sure to review and strengthen our basic programs, such as Head Start.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, let me take this opportunity to thank many people but not the particular Senator who is objecting--1 out of 100. Nevertheless, Senators Reid, Bond, myself, and others have worked very hard to move this fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill forward. All parties have been enormously supportive in this effort. It is one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body. I must express my dismay, my absolute dismay. I will hold it to that. Despite considerable efforts on the part of the chairman and Vice Chairman Bond and extensive efforts and negotiations to get agreement on this bill, there is still an objection from one Senator for its consideration. Is it just another bill? Not quite. The Senate's failure to pass this critical national security legislation for the past 2 years is remarkably shocking and inexcusable. In 2005, the Senate failed, for the first time since the establishment of the congressional intelligence committees, to pass an annual Intelligence authorization bill. That means for 27 years we passed authorization bills for the Intelligence Committee. It is not an inconsequential committee. It instructs how intelligence is to be done. There are a number of changes that have been agreed to. All of that failure was followed by a repeat failure in 2006--in 2005 and then in 2006. So from 1978 through 2004, the Senate had an unbroken 27-year record of completing its work on this critical legislation. You cannot move to appropriations until you go through authorization, particularly in a field such as intelligence authorization that has an unbelievably important role. The Intelligence authorization bill has been considered must-pass legislation for many years--until recently. Now, in the midst of the war on terror, with things going downhill in Iraq, going downhill in Afghanistan, and our continued military involvement in both places, when good intelligence is not just vital but a matter of life and death--and I emphasize the second--we have been prevented from passing that bill that provides the legislative roadmap for our intelligence programs. Similar to the Defense authorization and appropriations bills, the Intelligence authorization bill is at the core of our efforts to protect America. That is why it is simply incomprehensible, shocking, and debasing that we cannot find a way to bring up and pass this critical legislation. The result of this continued obstruction will be diminished authority for intelligence agencies to do their job in protecting America. I hope the Senator involved takes satisfaction in that. I am not sure his constituents--if it is a he--would. Yes, I am angry. The authorization bill contains 16 separate provisions enhancing or clarifying the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The bill includes major improvements in the way we approach and manage human intelligence, information sharing, protection of sources and methods, and even the nominations process for key intelligence community leaders. I came to the floor several times last year to explain those provisions in detail. Today, I reiterate how important this legislation is to the war on terrorism and to every other aspect of our national security, including the ongoing fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. This should have happened years ago. Somebody objects and, of course, it cannot happen; the rules of the Senate prevail. There is no reason the Senate cannot pass this bill quickly, so that we can confer with the House before the committee is required to turn its attention to drafting and reporting out what will be another experiment, the 2008 authorization, which we should already be halfway toward completing. If there is objection to passing this bill by unanimous consent, we have been--the vice chairman and I, who worked very well together--more than willing to negotiate a time agreement and quickly debate and pass this long-overdue national security bill. It is essential we assist the men and women of the intelligence agencies to continue their vital work on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan and something called the war on terror.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I conclude by simply saying we need this bill. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, there is a procedural process that is missing. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Coleman, Senator Feingold, and Senator Vitter, to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. If enacted, this bill would close an incomprehensible legal loophole that has allowed our Nation's freight railroads the unfettered ability to act in anti-competitive ways for too many years. Since before I came to the United States Senate I have been quite stunned at the ability of railroad companies, by virtue of an exemption from our antitrust laws, to ignore the legitimate complaints of their customers, to sidestep the appropriate concerns of elected officials and leaders in the private sector alike, and to consolidate operations and power to the detriment of the consumer. The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act would benefit businesses, employees, and consumers by providing meaningful government oversight where none exists currently. It will give our Nation's shippers--long captive to monopoly abuses courts were powerless to check, the Surface Transportation Board was unwilling to acknowledge--remedies that will make for a more open and competitive freight rail marketplace. In my home State of West Virginia and in towns all across the country, companies and consumers are negatively impacted by lack of competitive rail transportation options--a phenomenon often referred as a shipper being ``captive'' to one railroad. Because the antitrust exemptions in place allowed railroads to ignore the rules by which virtually all other American corporations are required to operate, railroads have refused to negotiate in good faith with their customers over the costs of shipping important rail-dependent commodities such as coal, bulk chemicals, and grains and other agricultural products. Manufacturers have been left at the mercy of the railroads and are forced to pay exorbitant transportation rates to ship their goods. Many manufacturers struggle to be competitive with competitors here and abroad because they simply do not have real transportation choices. The bottom line, which should come as no surprise to my colleagues, is that if industrial inputs and the fuel used to produce half of our electricity are artificially high in price, consumers are left paying higher prices for just about everything they buy. This continues to have an overwhelmingly negative affect on West Virginia's economy, as industries served by only one carrier face pressures to cut production in the state, or to leave it altogether. How has this been allowed to come to pass? It will probably come as a shock to members of the Senate, but the railroad industry is exempt from the Nation's antitrust laws related to mergers, acquisitions, and pooling arrangements approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). They are also exempt from antitrust laws that would otherwise influence ratemaking. Under the current exemptions, private parties cannot file antitrust suits against railroad companies to halt what in would be for every other industry illegal practices. Under current law, railroads are allowed to continue a wide range of anti-competitive practices that severely inhibit the ability of our Nation's businesses from shipping their goods at reasonable rates. What this Nation has experienced in the more than 25 years since the Staggers Act partially deregulated the freight rail market are not efforts by railroads to modernize their systems, improve efficiency, and upgrade service. Rather, rail carriers have manipulated the system to charge their so- called ``captive'' customers as much as they chose to charge, not what the market would normally bear. Specifically, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will alter exemptions in current law to allow for the following: Permit the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review mergers under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, and allow them to bring legal action to block anti-anticompetitive railroad mergers. Remove antitrust exemptions that have allowed railroads to merge, acquire new properties, set rates collectively, and otherwise coordinate policies across the entire freight rail market. Allow State Attorneys-General and other private parties to sue for treble damages for violations of antitrust laws, including for collusive activity leading to excessive and unreasonable rates. Allow State Attorneys General and private parties to sue for court orders to halt anticompetitive conduct. Expand the jurisdiction of the FTC to allow it to enforce antitrust law in the railroad industry. By granting consumers and shippers long-denied access to the protections of our antitrust laws with regard to the freight rail industry, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act may make strides toward creating the competitive freight rail marketplace envisioned by Congress when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. I hope so. However, because I believe rail customers and retail consumers need greater protection still, along with some of my cosponsors today and others, later this month I will be introducing additional, broader rail policy legislation to declare the rights shippers were meant to have, and the responsibilities railroads were meant to have, when Congress passed the Staggers Act. For the system to work, there must be a meaningful way to seek redress of grievances and punish wrongdoing. The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will go a long way toward correcting some of the glaring problems those of us who pay attention to the rail marketplace have known about for a long time. It will not fix all the problems in the system, but perhaps its provisions will encourage railroads to negotiate with their customers in good faith. The lack of fairness in the current system is devastating to businesses in my state of West Virginia, and to companies and consumers in every part of the country. I again express my support for the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This is a problem that affects rural America and urban America, the Grain Belt and the Coalfields, and all points on the compass. Indeed, no American consumer is unaffected by this problem, and all American consumers should take heart: If we enact this bill, help will be on the way.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Coleman, Senator Feingold, and Senator Vitter, to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. If enacted, this bill would close an incomprehensible legal loophole that has allowed our Nation's freight railroads the unfettered ability to act in anti-competitive ways for too many years. Since before I came to the United States Senate I have been quite stunned at the ability of railroad companies, by virtue of an exemption from our antitrust laws, to ignore the legitimate complaints of their customers, to sidestep the appropriate concerns of elected officials and leaders in the private sector alike, and to consolidate operations and power to the detriment of the consumer. The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act would benefit businesses, employees, and consumers by providing meaningful government oversight where none exists currently. It will give our Nation's shippers--long captive to monopoly abuses courts were powerless to check, the Surface Transportation Board was unwilling to acknowledge--remedies that will make for a more open and competitive freight rail marketplace. In my home State of West Virginia and in towns all across the country, companies and consumers are negatively impacted by lack of competitive rail transportation options--a phenomenon often referred as a shipper being ``captive'' to one railroad. Because the antitrust exemptions in place allowed railroads to ignore the rules by which virtually all other American corporations are required to operate, railroads have refused to negotiate in good faith with their customers over the costs of shipping important rail-dependent commodities such as coal, bulk chemicals, and grains and other agricultural products. Manufacturers have been left at the mercy of the railroads and are forced to pay exorbitant transportation rates to ship their goods. Many manufacturers struggle to be competitive with competitors here and abroad because they simply do not have real transportation choices. The bottom line, which should come as no surprise to my colleagues, is that if industrial inputs and the fuel used to produce half of our electricity are artificially high in price, consumers are left paying higher prices for just about everything they buy. This continues to have an overwhelmingly negative affect on West Virginia's economy, as industries served by only one carrier face pressures to cut production in the state, or to leave it altogether. How has this been allowed to come to pass? It will probably come as a shock to members of the Senate, but the railroad industry is exempt from the Nation's antitrust laws related to mergers, acquisitions, and pooling arrangements approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). They are also exempt from antitrust laws that would otherwise influence ratemaking. Under the current exemptions, private parties cannot file antitrust suits against railroad companies to halt what in would be for every other industry illegal practices. Under current law, railroads are allowed to continue a wide range of anti-competitive practices that severely inhibit the ability of our Nation's businesses from shipping their goods at reasonable rates. What this Nation has experienced in the more than 25 years since the Staggers Act partially deregulated the freight rail market are not efforts by railroads to modernize their systems, improve efficiency, and upgrade service. Rather, rail carriers have manipulated the system to charge their so- called ``captive'' customers as much as they chose to charge, not what the market would normally bear. Specifically, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will alter exemptions in current law to allow for the following: Permit the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review mergers under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, and allow them to bring legal action to block anti-anticompetitive railroad mergers. Remove antitrust exemptions that have allowed railroads to merge, acquire new properties, set rates collectively, and otherwise coordinate policies across the entire freight rail market. Allow State Attorneys-General and other private parties to sue for treble damages for violations of antitrust laws, including for collusive activity leading to excessive and unreasonable rates. Allow State Attorneys General and private parties to sue for court orders to halt anticompetitive conduct. Expand the jurisdiction of the FTC to allow it to enforce antitrust law in the railroad industry. By granting consumers and shippers long-denied access to the protections of our antitrust laws with regard to the freight rail industry, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act may make strides toward creating the competitive freight rail marketplace envisioned by Congress when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. I hope so. However, because I believe rail customers and retail consumers need greater protection still, along with some of my cosponsors today and others, later this month I will be introducing additional, broader rail policy legislation to declare the rights shippers were meant to have, and the responsibilities railroads were meant to have, when Congress passed the Staggers Act. For the system to work, there must be a meaningful way to seek redress of grievances and punish wrongdoing. The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will go a long way toward correcting some of the glaring problems those of us who pay attention to the rail marketplace have known about for a long time. It will not fix all the problems in the system, but perhaps its provisions will encourage railroads to negotiate with their customers in good faith. The lack of fairness in the current system is devastating to businesses in my state of West Virginia, and to companies and consumers in every part of the country. I again express my support for the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This is a problem that affects rural America and urban America, the Grain Belt and the Coalfields, and all points on the compass. Indeed, no American consumer is unaffected by this problem, and all American consumers should take heart: If we enact this bill, help will be on the way.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I introduce the EPSCoR Research and Competitive Act of 2007, and I am proud to have the bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Reed, Hagel, Baucus, Roberts, and Cochran. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, is part of the National Science Foundation and is intended to assist smaller States competing for research grants that historically have not received as much funding from the NSF as larger States. Twenty-six States, representing 20 percent of our Nation's population and 25 percent of our doctoral and research institutions are currently eligible for the EPSCoR program yet receive only 10 percent of the total NSF research funding. EPSCoR funding provides valuable research opportunities in States with unique scientific features. States such as West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana and New Mexico all stand to gain from EPSCoR funding, and our country will gain from the scientists and innovations made in our States. EPSCoR has the additional bonus of having a proven track record. Over 50 percent of researchers supported by EPSCoR funds have successfully competed for non-EPSCoR funding. EPSCoR is also helping drive the economy in active States by providing cutting edge job opportunities. Seventy-five percent of new technology companies started by university research are based in the States where the original research was done. In order for our Nation to remain competitive in the global marketplace, EPSCoR will play an important role in promoting science nationwide. This legislation provides some specifics to meet that goal. First off, this bill proposes that the Research Infrastructure Improvements Grant increase to $75 million beginning in fiscal year 2009 and remain at that level through 2012. Secondly, it seeks 20 percent of the EPSCoR budget for the cofunding program, an innovative initiative to help encourage each of the NSF directorates to collaborate and fund meritorious projects from the EPSCoR States. Thirdly, it encourages the NSF Director to develop creative ways to ensure that the EPSCoR States are part of the new major initiatives of the foundation, including cyberinfrastructure and major research instrumentation. The citizens of West Virginia have benefited tremendously as a result of this program. Competitive Federal research has increased 68 percent in West Virginia since 2001. In 2005 alone, research created more than $147 million in economic activity and supported 4,432 jobs. Much like other States involved, EPSCoR has been a tremendous boon to our flagship higher institutions with West Virginia University and Marshall University having worked together through this program to come up with innovate solutions like never before. To help ensure that EPSCoR States remain competitive, this legislation suggests that EPSCoR grow proportionately with the foundation. To achieve our competitiveness goals and to increase the numbers of engineers and scientists, every State needs to play a role. It is encouraging to note that the administration's budget request for this year seeks a $7 million increase in EPSCoR. Ensuring the economic well-being of all our States is an essential part of keeping our entire Nation competitive and EPSCoR is an important step in that direction. EPSCoR States are the home for 25 percent of the doctoral and research universities, and our States train nearly 20 percent of our science and engineering graduate students. This legislation will help encourage and promote competitiveness.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I introduce the EPSCoR Research and Competitive Act of 2007, and I am proud to have the bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Reed, Hagel, Baucus, Roberts, and Cochran. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, is part of the National Science Foundation and is intended to assist smaller States competing for research grants that historically have not received as much funding from the NSF as larger States. Twenty-six States, representing 20 percent of our Nation's population and 25 percent of our doctoral and research institutions are currently eligible for the EPSCoR program yet receive only 10 percent of the total NSF research funding. EPSCoR funding provides valuable research opportunities in States with unique scientific features. States such as West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana and New Mexico all stand to gain from EPSCoR funding, and our country will gain from the scientists and innovations made in our States. EPSCoR has the additional bonus of having a proven track record. Over 50 percent of researchers supported by EPSCoR funds have successfully competed for non-EPSCoR funding. EPSCoR is also helping drive the economy in active States by providing cutting edge job opportunities. Seventy-five percent of new technology companies started by university research are based in the States where the original research was done. In order for our Nation to remain competitive in the global marketplace, EPSCoR will play an important role in promoting science nationwide. This legislation provides some specifics to meet that goal. First off, this bill proposes that the Research Infrastructure Improvements Grant increase to $75 million beginning in fiscal year 2009 and remain at that level through 2012. Secondly, it seeks 20 percent of the EPSCoR budget for the cofunding program, an innovative initiative to help encourage each of the NSF directorates to collaborate and fund meritorious projects from the EPSCoR States. Thirdly, it encourages the NSF Director to develop creative ways to ensure that the EPSCoR States are part of the new major initiatives of the foundation, including cyberinfrastructure and major research instrumentation. The citizens of West Virginia have benefited tremendously as a result of this program. Competitive Federal research has increased 68 percent in West Virginia since 2001. In 2005 alone, research created more than $147 million in economic activity and supported 4,432 jobs. Much like other States involved, EPSCoR has been a tremendous boon to our flagship higher institutions with West Virginia University and Marshall University having worked together through this program to come up with innovate solutions like never before. To help ensure that EPSCoR States remain competitive, this legislation suggests that EPSCoR grow proportionately with the foundation. To achieve our competitiveness goals and to increase the numbers of engineers and scientists, every State needs to play a role. It is encouraging to note that the administration's budget request for this year seeks a $7 million increase in EPSCoR. Ensuring the economic well-being of all our States is an essential part of keeping our entire Nation competitive and EPSCoR is an important step in that direction. EPSCoR States are the home for 25 percent of the doctoral and research universities, and our States train nearly 20 percent of our science and engineering graduate students. This legislation will help encourage and promote competitiveness.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record pursuant to paragraph 2 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator Olympia Snowe and Vice-Chairman Ted Stevens, to re-introduce the Antideficiency Act to protect the Universal Service Program. This is a bipartisan effort to ensure that all of the fundamental universal service program can continue to operate smoothly and effectively. Last year, this legislation garnered the support of 55 members, and I hope that it will gain additional support in the 110th Congress. It is also important to note that the House also has a similar bipartisan legislation. For many years, I have fought hard for universal service, including the E-Rate. It is essential for all of the universal service programs to operate in a timely manner. The Universal Service Fund is accomplishing its mission. Our country has a strong telecommunications network, and rural customers are getting service at affordable rates. Lifeline and Linkup programs help the poorest of customers keep basic telephone access which is essential in our modern world. Rural health care is helping connect our rural clinics to modern medicine and specialists. Over the past decade, the E-Rate discounts have helped to connect our classrooms and our libraries to the Internet and modern technology. In 1996, when the Telecommunications Act passed, only 14 percent of classrooms were connected, and just 5 percent of the poorest classrooms were connected. The latest data is encouraging with 93 percent of all classrooms connected and 89 percent of the poorest classrooms connected. Since 1998, West Virginia schools and libraries have received over $70 million in E-Rate discounts. While this is extraordinary success, the need for E-Rate discounts remains because schools and libraries face monthly telecommunication costs and Internet access fees. Every school and library will periodically need to upgrade its internal connections. This legislation gives the Universal Service Fund a permanent exemption from the Antideficiency Act. Over the last few years, we have done one year exemptions. It makes good sense to enact a long term solution for the Universal Service Fund.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to change an unfair administrative decision that hurts aging, retired VA nurses. This bill is designed to correct a problem from legislation enacted in 2001, to help VA nurses' retirement. That legislation improved nurses' pensions, and Congress intended it to be retroactive. Unfortunately, administrative officials took a very narrow view of that law. Currently VA nurses, who retired between 1986 and 2002, do not get the full pension benefits as current retirees do. In the 1980s, VA aggressively recruited nurses to fill a huge need at VA medical centers by promising full retirement for part-time work. At the time, nurses joined the VA, and they believed in the promise. Sadly, the VA and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will not fulfill that promise. This legislation would explicitly require the Federal Government to honor its commitment to our retired VA nurses. Pension benefits are a vital promise. It is disturbing when we do not fulfill our obligations, and we simply must correct this error. Nurses play a critical role in our health care system, including the VA. Recruiting and retaining nurses is important, and this pension shortfall does not help. It is time to deliver full pension benefits to the retired nurses who cared for our veterans, but sadly retired in the wrong years, between 1986 and 2002.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator Olympia Snowe and Vice-Chairman Ted Stevens, to re-introduce the Antideficiency Act to protect the Universal Service Program. This is a bipartisan effort to ensure that all of the fundamental universal service program can continue to operate smoothly and effectively. Last year, this legislation garnered the support of 55 members, and I hope that it will gain additional support in the 110th Congress. It is also important to note that the House also has a similar bipartisan legislation. For many years, I have fought hard for universal service, including the E-Rate. It is essential for all of the universal service programs to operate in a timely manner. The Universal Service Fund is accomplishing its mission. Our country has a strong telecommunications network, and rural customers are getting service at affordable rates. Lifeline and Linkup programs help the poorest of customers keep basic telephone access which is essential in our modern world. Rural health care is helping connect our rural clinics to modern medicine and specialists. Over the past decade, the E-Rate discounts have helped to connect our classrooms and our libraries to the Internet and modern technology. In 1996, when the Telecommunications Act passed, only 14 percent of classrooms were connected, and just 5 percent of the poorest classrooms were connected. The latest data is encouraging with 93 percent of all classrooms connected and 89 percent of the poorest classrooms connected. Since 1998, West Virginia schools and libraries have received over $70 million in E-Rate discounts. While this is extraordinary success, the need for E-Rate discounts remains because schools and libraries face monthly telecommunication costs and Internet access fees. Every school and library will periodically need to upgrade its internal connections. This legislation gives the Universal Service Fund a permanent exemption from the Antideficiency Act. Over the last few years, we have done one year exemptions. It makes good sense to enact a long term solution for the Universal Service Fund.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to change an unfair administrative decision that hurts aging, retired VA nurses. This bill is designed to correct a problem from legislation enacted in 2001, to help VA nurses' retirement. That legislation improved nurses' pensions, and Congress intended it to be retroactive. Unfortunately, administrative officials took a very narrow view of that law. Currently VA nurses, who retired between 1986 and 2002, do not get the full pension benefits as current retirees do. In the 1980s, VA aggressively recruited nurses to fill a huge need at VA medical centers by promising full retirement for part-time work. At the time, nurses joined the VA, and they believed in the promise. Sadly, the VA and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will not fulfill that promise. This legislation would explicitly require the Federal Government to honor its commitment to our retired VA nurses. Pension benefits are a vital promise. It is disturbing when we do not fulfill our obligations, and we simply must correct this error. Nurses play a critical role in our health care system, including the VA. Recruiting and retaining nurses is important, and this pension shortfall does not help. It is time to deliver full pension benefits to the retired nurses who cared for our veterans, but sadly retired in the wrong years, between 1986 and 2002.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleague Mr. Smith in the introduction of the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act. Two years ago, we first introduced this legislation to help provide businesses with an important tax incentive to install lifesaving sprinkler systems, believing that the legislation would be one way to keep our Nation's citizens, and the firefighters who dedicate their lives to fire safety, free from unnecessary fire-related injury. At that time, I could not imagine that in 2007 West Virginia would suffer one of the worst fire-related tragedies in many years. In January of this year, a fire at the Emmons Junior Apartment Building in Huntington, WV, took the lives of nine individuals, including three teenagers who were all siblings and another unrelated child who was only seven years old. My heart goes out to those families and to a devastated community. We later learned that the complex was built in 1924 and was not equipped with a sprinkler system. I cannot help thinking that if the tax incentives provided by this legislation were already in effect, many businesses including those operating apartment complexes might have had enough financial incentive to allow them to make the decision to install life-saving sprinkler systems. Fire safety is a national problem. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) indicates that in 2005 there were over 1.6 million fires reported in the United States, which caused 3,675 civilian deaths, 17,925 civilian injuries, and $10.7 billion in property damage. As a result, 80,100 firefighters were injured and another 87 died responding to these fires in an effort to protect the lives of their fellow citizens. High-rise buildings and other living facilities that were built under older codes often lack adequate fire safety protection and leave vulnerable those citizens who cannot as easily save themselves from a fire, such as older adults, young children, and people with disabilities. There were 511,000 structure fires in 2005, and 381,000 of those occurred in family home structures including dwellings, duplexes, manufactured homes, apartments, townhouses, rowhouses, and condominiums. These home structure fires accounted for 82 percent of civilian fire-related fatalities and $6.7 billion in direct property damage. Protecting our citizens and first-responders from these fire-related injuries and fatalities is of the utmost importance, and a real way to improve fire safety exists in the use of automatic sprinkler systems. These devices react quickly and save lives by dramatically reducing the heat, flames and smoke produced in a fire. The NFPA reports that when sprinklers are present, the chances of dying in a fire are reduced by between 50 and 75 percent and average property loss is cut by one-half to two-thirds. The NFPA also has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a building where a sprinkler system was properly installed and fully operational. The benefits of fire sprinkler systems are overwhelming, even for business owners, but one thing that inhibits their implementation is cost. Under current law, installations in residential rental property and non-residential real property must be deducted over a 27.5- or 39- year period, respectively. The financial cost of upgrading existing structures with fire safety measures is prohibitive for most property owners, and under our present straight-line method of depreciation, there is disincentive for building safety improvements due to an extremely low rate of return on investment. This legislation, by amending the internal revenue code to classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as depreciable over a 5-year period, would mitigate the expense of retrofitting older buildings with costly automated sprinkler systems. It helps businesses make the choice to take advantage of fire safety systems that have been proven to have life-saving results. I again express my support for the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act as a way to promote the use of fire sprinkler systems that are now an invaluable asset in our efforts to protect citizens and firefighters from fire-related death and injury. This proposal has been endorsed by firefighters, the insurance industry, and general contractors, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today the Senate has confirmed the nomination of VADM Mike McConnell to be the next Director of National Intelligence. It is hard for me to imagine a better choice than Admiral McConnell. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence received Admiral McConnell's nomination to replace John Negroponte on January 22, 2007. He completed all the requisite paperwork and the committee held a hearing with Admiral McConnell on February 1. The committee met on February 6, and voted unanimously to report the nomination to the Senate with a favorable recommendation. I am pleased that the Senate has moved quickly to act on this recommendation. I think this swift consideration of the nomination is recognition of both the importance of this position and of the qualifications of Admiral McConnell. As my colleagues know, the position of Director of National Intelligence was created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004. That legislation drew on recommendations from the congressional and commission reports on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq prewar intelligence, the Report of the Joint Inquiry by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into the events of 9/11, and the recommendations of numerous other commissions and reviews going back 50 years. The creation of the DNI was an important step. We now have, for the first time, an individual whose primary job is to run the intelligence community as a whole. Until the creation of the DNI, the old Director of Central Intelligence wore two hats--as the head of the Intelligence Community and as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. But this structural change, while important, was only the first step to reforming intelligence. The DNI must make the 16 agencies of the intelligence community work as one toward a common goal. Director Negroponte has started the community down that path. It is going to be up to Admiral McConnell to move us further along. A quick review of his resume will show even the casual observer that Admiral McConnell is incredibly well qualified for this critical position. He retired from the Navy as Vice Admiral after 29 years of service. Most of his service during this distinguished career was as an intelligence officer. While on active duty he served as Director of Intelligence on the Joint Staff during the Persian Gulf War. This made him the principal intelligence advisor to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, GEN Colin Powell. He went on to become the Director of the National Security Agency, our Nation's largest intelligence agency. Upon retiring from the Navy, Admiral McConnell went to work for Booz Allen Hamilton where he has been a senior vice president for intelligence and national security. He also is currently chairman and chief executive officer of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an industry group that works with the Government looking for ways to solve some of our complex intelligence problems. He has the requisite Government experience supplemented by a decade in the private sector. In his appearance before the Intelligence Committee last week I think it is fair to say that he impressed all members of the committee with his knowledge of the issues and the difficulty of the task ahead. But I was particularly encouraged by his answers to questions about the relationship with Congress. It is no secret that I have not always been happy with the level of access the intelligence committee has had to materials it needs to do its job. On some of the most important and sensitive programs in the Intelligence Community, we have been frustrated in our attempts to do oversight because we have not been able to get documents and other information critical to understanding and therefore evaluating these programs. In other cases the administration has placed burdensome and unwarranted limits on access by Senators and staff. Vice Chairman Bond and I are making a concerted bipartisan effort to deal with these questions. And we are making headway. One issue that we both raised with Admiral McConnell at his hearing has now been resolved. We also have seen movement, if not complete satisfaction, in other areas. Admiral McConnell's answers convinced me that he will be an ally in this area. It is my view that the intelligence community needs to view Congress as a partner in supporting intelligence activities that protect America and I think he will do that. I thank all of my colleagues for supporting support the confirmation of Admiral McConnell and I look forward to working with him in his new role as Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, death is by no means an easy subject to talk about; nonetheless, end-of-life care continues to be a controversial topic that must be addressed. Today, I am introducing three bills that I hope will go a long way to improve end-of-life care in this country. Senator Susan Collins and I are reintroducing our Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act, comprehensive legislation that would ensure that patients' final wishes for end-of-life care are known, respected, and complied with. This legislation has been introduced in each Congress since the 105th Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able to move it this year. I am also introducing the Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act with Senators Lugar and Bill Nelson. This important bill is based on an amendment that I introduced during the Finance Committee's consideration of the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005. It would require physician consultation regarding advance directives during the initial ``Welcome to Medicare'' physician visit. An end-of-life care consultation during a Medicare recipient's first contact with the program would emphasize the importance of advance planning and give him or her the tools necessary to understand advance directives, the Medicare hospice benefit, and other end-of-life care concerns. Having such a benefit in Medicare would undoubtedly improve patient care and quality at the end-of-life. The final bill that I would like to talk about today is the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act, legislation that I am cosponsoring with Senators Bill Nelson and Richard Lugar. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act complements both of the bills I am introducing today. It includes my language on the ``Welcome to Medicare'' doctor's visit, which I believe is critical, but it also includes two other important provisions. It improves the policies for use and portability of advance directives across state lines, and it directs the Secretary of HHS to conduct a public education campaign on the importance of end-of-life planning. I am happy to be an author of each of these bills. As we have seen recently with the well-publicized case of Terri Shiavo, end-of-life decision making can be confusing and cause added anguish to an already sorrowful situation. The delicate nature of life and love make it very difficult to create strict rules governing end-of-life care, nor should we want to. In its present form, however, end-of-life planning and care for most Americans is perplexing, disjointed, and lacking an active dialogue. We can, and must, take action to make this process as easy as possible. It is not surprising that we face this problem. Health care professionals frequently use terms that are too technical or confusing for the average person. Patients who appear too sick to participate in the discussions may be excluded from determining their own destiny. And all too often the entire conversation never happens due to the discomfort of all parties involved. As a result, patients and families, suffer needlessly during these already difficult times. A report issued by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Care at the End of Life stated that, and I quote, ``suffering arises when the aggressive use of ineffectual or intrusive interventions serves to prolong the period of dying unnecessarily or to dishonor the dying person's wishes about care. Too often, dying people and their families are either not aware of these care options, not fully apprised of the probable benefits and burdens of these various options, or are the recipients of care that is inconsistent with their wishes as expressed in written or oral directives.'' Despite these shortcomings, the evidence tells us that most people want to discuss advanced directives when they are healthy and they want their families involved in the process. According to the American Psychological Association, almost 60 percent of individuals 65 or older state that they want their family to be given choices about treatment should they become incapacitated rather than leaving the decision up to physicians. How can we allow these serious problems to persist when dealing with the lives of our family and friends? Death is hard to think about. Death is hard to talk about. And the final period of time leading up to our death is hard to plan. But we must encourage our family, our friends, and our loved ones to discuss this difficult topic in an open and effective manner in order to avoid any additional pain when a loved one passes away. We must also provide them the best tools to do so. The legislation I am introducing today accomplishes this objective by developing standards for end-of-life care, facilitating opportunities for patients to discuss end-of-life issues with a trained professional, and authorizing funds for demonstration projects on innovative approaches to end-of-life care. Death is a serious, personal, and complicated issue that is eventually relevant to each and every one of us. Americans deserve end- of-life care that is effective in fulfilling individual wishes, avoiding unnecessary disputes, and, most importantly, providing quality end-of-life care. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join us in improving end-of-life care and reducing the amount of grief that inevitably comes with losing those who we hold dear. I ask unanimous consent that the text of each of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, death is by no means an easy subject to talk about; nonetheless, end-of-life care continues to be a controversial topic that must be addressed. Today, I am introducing three bills that I hope will go a long way to improve end-of-life care in this country. Senator Susan Collins and I are reintroducing our Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act, comprehensive legislation that would ensure that patients' final wishes for end-of-life care are known, respected, and complied with. This legislation has been introduced in each Congress since the 105th Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able to move it this year. I am also introducing the Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act with Senators Lugar and Bill Nelson. This important bill is based on an amendment that I introduced during the Finance Committee's consideration of the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005. It would require physician consultation regarding advance directives during the initial ``Welcome to Medicare'' physician visit. An end-of-life care consultation during a Medicare recipient's first contact with the program would emphasize the importance of advance planning and give him or her the tools necessary to understand advance directives, the Medicare hospice benefit, and other end-of-life care concerns. Having such a benefit in Medicare would undoubtedly improve patient care and quality at the end-of-life. The final bill that I would like to talk about today is the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act, legislation that I am cosponsoring with Senators Bill Nelson and Richard Lugar. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act complements both of the bills I am introducing today. It includes my language on the ``Welcome to Medicare'' doctor's visit, which I believe is critical, but it also includes two other important provisions. It improves the policies for use and portability of advance directives across state lines, and it directs the Secretary of HHS to conduct a public education campaign on the importance of end-of-life planning. I am happy to be an author of each of these bills. As we have seen recently with the well-publicized case of Terri Shiavo, end-of-life decision making can be confusing and cause added anguish to an already sorrowful situation. The delicate nature of life and love make it very difficult to create strict rules governing end-of-life care, nor should we want to. In its present form, however, end-of-life planning and care for most Americans is perplexing, disjointed, and lacking an active dialogue. We can, and must, take action to make this process as easy as possible. It is not surprising that we face this problem. Health care professionals frequently use terms that are too technical or confusing for the average person. Patients who appear too sick to participate in the discussions may be excluded from determining their own destiny. And all too often the entire conversation never happens due to the discomfort of all parties involved. As a result, patients and families, suffer needlessly during these already difficult times. A report issued by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Care at the End of Life stated that, and I quote, ``suffering arises when the aggressive use of ineffectual or intrusive interventions serves to prolong the period of dying unnecessarily or to dishonor the dying person's wishes about care. Too often, dying people and their families are either not aware of these care options, not fully apprised of the probable benefits and burdens of these various options, or are the recipients of care that is inconsistent with their wishes as expressed in written or oral directives.'' Despite these shortcomings, the evidence tells us that most people want to discuss advanced directives when they are healthy and they want their families involved in the process. According to the American Psychological Association, almost 60 percent of individuals 65 or older state that they want their family to be given choices about treatment should they become incapacitated rather than leaving the decision up to physicians. How can we allow these serious problems to persist when dealing with the lives of our family and friends? Death is hard to think about. Death is hard to talk about. And the final period of time leading up to our death is hard to plan. But we must encourage our family, our friends, and our loved ones to discuss this difficult topic in an open and effective manner in order to avoid any additional pain when a loved one passes away. We must also provide them the best tools to do so. The legislation I am introducing today accomplishes this objective by developing standards for end-of-life care, facilitating opportunities for patients to discuss end-of-life issues with a trained professional, and authorizing funds for demonstration projects on innovative approaches to end-of-life care. Death is a serious, personal, and complicated issue that is eventually relevant to each and every one of us. Americans deserve end- of-life care that is effective in fulfilling individual wishes, avoiding unnecessary disputes, and, most importantly, providing quality end-of-life care. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join us in improving end-of-life care and reducing the amount of grief that inevitably comes with losing those who we hold dear. I ask unanimous consent that the text of each of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Schumer, Kohl and Leahy to reintroduce an important bill for all Americans. The bill that we are reintroducing today would reduce barriers to affordable prescription drugs by eliminating one of the prominent loopholes brand name drug companies use to limit access to generic drugs. Our bill, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act of 2007, would end the marketing of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the l80- day period Congress created exclusively for true generics to enter the market. I have spoken with my colleagues many times about this important issue. In an effort to balance the need for returns on research facilitated by brand name prescription drug companies with the need for more affordable prescription drug options for consumers, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman law in 1984. This law provided brand name companies with a number of incentives for investing in the research and development of new medications. These included a 20-year patent on drugs, 5 years of data exclusivity, 3 years of exclusivity for clinical trials, up to 5 years of patent extension, 6 months exclusivity for conducting pediatric testing, and a 30-month automatic stay against generic competition if the generic challenges the brand patent. Generic prescription drug manufacturers, on the other hand, received a l80-day exclusivity period, awarded to the first company to successfully challenge a brand name patent and enter the market. This 6-month exclusivity period has been crucial to encouraging generic drug companies to make existing drugs more affordable. Challenging a brand name drug's patent takes time, money, and involves absorbing a great deal of risk. Generic drug companies rely on the added revenue provided by the 180-day exclusivity period to recoup their costs, fund new patent challenges where appropriate, and ultimately pass savings onto consumers. Since 1984, there have been many attempts to exploit loopholes in the law in order to delay generic entry to the market and extend brand monopolies. The 2003 Medicare law addressed many of these loopholes. However, brand name manufacturers have found another loophole in current law, so-called ``authorized generics.'' An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic in order to confuse consumers and shut true generics out of the market. Because it is not a true generic and does not require an additional FDA approval, an authorized generic can be marketed during the federally mandated 6-month exclusivity period for generics. This discourages true generic companies from entering the market and offering lower-priced prescription drugs. As I have said many times, authorized generics are a sham. This practice of re-labeling a brand product and placing it on the market to undermine the 180-day exclusivity period will only serve to reduce generic competition and lead to longer brand monopolies and higher healthcare costs over the long-term. Brand name drug companies are expected to lose as much as $75 billion over the next 5 years as some of their best sellers go off-patent and generic competition increases. So, not surprisingly, these big pharmaceutical companies are desperately trying to protect their market share and prevent consumers from cashing in on savings from generic drugs, Today, generic medications comprise more than 56 percent of all prescriptions in this country, and yet they account for only 13 percent of our nation's drug costs. In fact, generic drugs provide 50 to 80 percent cost-savings over brand name drugs. These savings make a big difference in the lives of working families. That is why we must protect the true intent of Hatch-Waxman. The bill we are introducing today eliminates the authorized generic loophole, protects the integrity of the 180 days, and improves consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Schumer, Kohl and Leahy to reintroduce an important bill for all Americans. The bill that we are reintroducing today would reduce barriers to affordable prescription drugs by eliminating one of the prominent loopholes brand name drug companies use to limit access to generic drugs. Our bill, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act of 2007, would end the marketing of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the l80- day period Congress created exclusively for true generics to enter the market. I have spoken with my colleagues many times about this important issue. In an effort to balance the need for returns on research facilitated by brand name prescription drug companies with the need for more affordable prescription drug options for consumers, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman law in 1984. This law provided brand name companies with a number of incentives for investing in the research and development of new medications. These included a 20-year patent on drugs, 5 years of data exclusivity, 3 years of exclusivity for clinical trials, up to 5 years of patent extension, 6 months exclusivity for conducting pediatric testing, and a 30-month automatic stay against generic competition if the generic challenges the brand patent. Generic prescription drug manufacturers, on the other hand, received a l80-day exclusivity period, awarded to the first company to successfully challenge a brand name patent and enter the market. This 6-month exclusivity period has been crucial to encouraging generic drug companies to make existing drugs more affordable. Challenging a brand name drug's patent takes time, money, and involves absorbing a great deal of risk. Generic drug companies rely on the added revenue provided by the 180-day exclusivity period to recoup their costs, fund new patent challenges where appropriate, and ultimately pass savings onto consumers. Since 1984, there have been many attempts to exploit loopholes in the law in order to delay generic entry to the market and extend brand monopolies. The 2003 Medicare law addressed many of these loopholes. However, brand name manufacturers have found another loophole in current law, so-called ``authorized generics.'' An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic in order to confuse consumers and shut true generics out of the market. Because it is not a true generic and does not require an additional FDA approval, an authorized generic can be marketed during the federally mandated 6-month exclusivity period for generics. This discourages true generic companies from entering the market and offering lower-priced prescription drugs. As I have said many times, authorized generics are a sham. This practice of re-labeling a brand product and placing it on the market to undermine the 180-day exclusivity period will only serve to reduce generic competition and lead to longer brand monopolies and higher healthcare costs over the long-term. Brand name drug companies are expected to lose as much as $75 billion over the next 5 years as some of their best sellers go off-patent and generic competition increases. So, not surprisingly, these big pharmaceutical companies are desperately trying to protect their market share and prevent consumers from cashing in on savings from generic drugs, Today, generic medications comprise more than 56 percent of all prescriptions in this country, and yet they account for only 13 percent of our nation's drug costs. In fact, generic drugs provide 50 to 80 percent cost-savings over brand name drugs. These savings make a big difference in the lives of working families. That is why we must protect the true intent of Hatch-Waxman. The bill we are introducing today eliminates the authorized generic loophole, protects the integrity of the 180 days, and improves consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.