Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to support the legislation before the Senate today. As often happens at the end of a Congress, the leadership has negotiated a large and complicated bill to tie up many loose ends. And I believe that on balance this is a very good bill. While I am disappointed in some aspects of this agreement, I understand that, when legislating, hard compromises sometimes have to be made. I recognize how difficult it was for us to get this far.

I want to thank the leadership, and especially Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus, our ranking member and incoming chairman, for working so hard and so long to protect the Senate's interests in very difficult and often frustrating negotiations. They were fierce negotiators, and they made sure that we would be voting on a bill that a substantial majority in the Senate can support. It was no easy feat given the circumstances and sometimes bitter disagreements between the two Houses, and at times, between

Members. The leaders of the Finance Committee deserve enormous credit.

This bill includes a critical Coal Act and AML reform provision. And I would like to take just a few minutes to explain to my colleagues what this provision is all about. It is about protecting the health benefits of tens of thousands of retired coalminers and their widows who were promised lifetime health benefits by their companies and by their Government. It is about keeping a promise to the men and women who have sacrificed themselves to fuel our Nation's economic growth and continued prosperity.

Historically, coal miners have bargained for their health benefits at the expense of other pension benefits and salaries because they have long known the grave toll that coal mining takes on a person's health and safety. This year's tragic and record string of mine deaths shows that remains true today. More than 50,000 coal miner retirees and their aged widows, average age of nearly 80, are counting on the health benefits that are protected in the Coal Act and AML reform provision. These coal miner retirees live in nearly every State of the Union, and they still believe that the promise of their health benefits will and should be kept. So do I.

This reform will stabilize the coal miners' health funds and give retired miners some peace of mind that they will not face cuts in the health benefits on which they depend. That means the world to me. And Dixie Woolum, and the thousands and thousands of other retired miners and widows in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana--all across this Nation--deserve that peace of mind. They have had to bear so much in the coalfields, for so long. They deserve this peace of mind. They earned it.

Specifically, the coal miners' health funds--the combined benefit fund, the 92 fund and the 93 fund--will receive annual transfers of monies from the interest on the AML trust fund, paid for by the coal companies. I think that is only fair. Before these changes, only the combined benefit and 92 fund could receive AML interest money to help compensate for its shortfalls--and the administration wrongly interpreted the original Coal Act to cap that amount. That misinterpretation of the original Coal Act provision has been fixed in this bill. The new provisions helping the 92 fund and the 93 fund are phased in over time, but the CBF will get a needed infusion of money next year.

The AML/Coal Act provision is also about protecting the environment and health of communities where mining has left environmental scars-- many of which continue to pose significant health risks. This proposal reauthorizes the AML program for 15 more years, at a slightly reduced rate, and gives States back their unappropriated balances while more fairly distributing funding for historic coal production States like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The AML program was part of the bargain when we reformed surface mining back in the late 1970s. We created a trust fund that is paid into by the coal companies that mine the land to ensure there would be money available to reclaim old mine sites. Hundreds of these sites remain unreclaimed. States have waited patiently for Federal dollars that have been parceled too slowly in the past. This provision will deal with the outstanding problem of AML reform at the same time it helps miners whose blood and sweat built up the AML trust fund in the first place.

Today marks the culmination of a long, long fight--14 years now--to make sure that Congress lives up to its responsibilities to retired miners and their families. And I won't recap all of the ups and downs of the past 10-plus years, but I do need to personally thank a few people who finally made this possible.

I am grateful to my distinguished leader and dear friend Senator Reid. As the son of a hardrock miner, Senator Reid appreciates what miners go through to bring us the natural resources that make our economy and standard of living possible. He has worked tirelessly to get these provisions passed. He is a trusted friend and an inspirational leader.

I also need to thank the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have an excellent relationship, built on working together and keeping their word. I know that they had to fight very hard to protect the AML provision, and they did so because they gave their word. That means a great deal to me. A great deal. I am very grateful for their efforts. I know that the same spirit of bipartisan respect and cooperation will continue under Senator Baucus' able leadership next year. I look forward to his tenure. I will not mention each of the superb Finance Committee staff members by name, but I must at least thank them as a whole. They are extraordinarily bright and hard working, and I know that today's victory would not have been possible without their absolute dedication.

I also want to thank my friend and colleague on the HELP Committee, Chairman Enzi, who seized this issue when tax extenders were debated in the pension conference which he chaired. He has never given up on getting this done in this Congress, even when procedural tactics by some put it in dire jeopardy. He just never gives up when it comes to fighting for his State. I admire that very much. I am indebted to him for his work on this measure, as I have been for his efforts on mine safety. He is tireless and yet with a demeanor that never rankles. I cannot fail to mention the support of my longtime, dear friend Senator Kennedy. He was always on my side on this issue as well--as he is always on the side of our Nation's working men and women, whether our Nation's coal miners or anyone who puts in a hard day and struggles to meet the challenges of raising a family. He was there to help make this happen. This has been a true bipartisan effort. The way legislation should be done.

I also need to thank my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. He has been my constant partner on West Virginia mining issues. As a leader of the Appropriations Committee, he has saved the day for many years, by appropriating funds to prevent benefit cuts to retired miners and their families.

Finally, I cannot go without thanking the Senators from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Specter. From the beginning they have worked with me to make today's victory a reality. Senator Santorum reintroduced this proposal early this year, and even after a very difficult and hard-fought election, Senator Santorum continued to work hard for his constituents and pushed to make sure that his leadership did not give up on this provision. I know that our Nation's coal-mining families appreciate their hard work and dedication as much as I do.

Now, obviously, this bill contains many more items than just the AML provision. Many of these provisions I have voted for several times already, and I am very happy to see that they will finally be enacted into law--the tax deductions for tuition expenses or teachers' classroom expenses, the research and development tax credit, the welfare-to-work tax incentives. These provisions should never have been allowed to expire, and I am pleased that Congress is done using them as a political football and will finally extend them as we should have done last year.

This bill will also create new tax incentives to promote investment in mine safety equipment and the training of rescue teams that can help trapped miners. There is some work that remains to be done to make those incentives work as they should in the coalfields, and you can be sure I will be back to finish the job. Also, after years of inequity, this bill finally provides capital gains tax relief to members of the intelligence community who serve their country away from home. Both of these provisions are very important to me even though both need a little more work.

For the record, I also need to point out that this bill has some serious shortcomings. Most notably, I am concerned about the potential consequences of some of the health savings account provisions that were included in this bill. In general, I believe that HSAs will make the problems with our health care system worse, not better. They do not increase access to health care for our large uninsured population, and worse, they threaten to undermine the risk-sharing on which our current system depends. I hope that the 110th Congress will take a serious look at how to really increase access to health care. I intend to push very hard on that front.

But as I said at the beginning, Mr. President, I believe that on balance, this is a good bill. I am grateful to my colleagues who have been relentless in negotiating this bill, and I am pleased to support it.

Mr. President, as the 109th Congress wraps up its final session, I want to note my disappointment that the current leadership decided not to work on all 10 of the appropriations bills that remain undone. Congress is adjourning and walking away with much of our work incomplete.

It is irresponsible and wrong. We should have stayed and made the tough decisions to get the appropriations done. The Federal budget is due October 1. We missed that deadline, as we have often in recent years. The leadership adjourned for the elections, and when we returned the leadership lacked the will and determination to finish the appropriations bill. Many individuals Senators, including me, would have stayed and worked hard to get the job done. But we were overridden.

Failure to enact the appropriations in a timely manner hurts programs because administrators cannot plan and they cannot hire staff in a timely manner. This can create real problems in our VA hospitals, our Head Start agencies and the clinics funded by the Maternal and child health block grant.

This year, instead of doing our work, the congressional leaders are punting the tough budget decisions into the next year and the next Congress. On February 15, 2007, when the continuing resolution, CR, expires, agencies will have been operating for 4\1/2\ months under a CR which represents more than a third of the fiscal year. This imposes burdens and hardships on the people that our agencies of Government serve. It is failure of leadership.

The Coalition of Human Needs has done some estimates about these cuts and their effects since 2002. Their analysis highlights that over time 72 programs of direct services have been cut when inflation is considered. Inflation erodes buying power over time, and it makes a stark difference in what services needy children and families receive. The coalition reports that 35 programs were cut by 10 percent or more, including essential programs like family violence, maternal and child health block grant, and Even Start, the early education component of Head Start. Such cuts are harsh and, in my view, shortsighted. Investments in our children's health care and education are downpayments for our future.

Housing programs, economic development investments in water and sewer projects, and basic funding for local law enforcement, along with a host of other programs will be put on hold for the next 9 weeks. I wish this were not the case, but sadly it is.

My hope for the new Congress and the new leadership is that we will get the job done. I am proud to note that the leaders for the 110th Congress, which begins on January 4, 2007, have

already announced their commitment to strike a new tone and to unite the interest of the American people. I will work with our leaders to get our work done for the families in West Virginia and across our country.

Mr. President, today I join the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, CASE, and the Carnegie Foundation in honoring Dr. Norman Duffy. Dr. Duffy, a chemistry professor at Wheeling Jesuit University, has personified both the best in education and the best in West Virginia throughout his career.

After receiving his bachelor of science in chemistry from Georgetown University, where he continued his studies as a doctoral student, Dr. Duffy began his career as a graduate and research assistant. His research then took him overseas where he became a NATO postdoctoral fellow at University College in London. After receiving his Ph.D. he began his teaching career at Kent State University where he first became a full professor and then eventually chairman of the Department of Chemistry.

Upon his departure from Kent State University in 1996, Dr. Duffy joined the faculty of Wheeling Jesuit University, WJU. From 1996 to 2000 he was chairman of the Department of Biology and Chemistry and from 2000 to 2002 he was Chairman of the Department of Chemistry. He continues teaching small classes that allow him to focus on individualized education as a professor in the Department of Chemistry.

In addition to his illustrious teaching career, Dr. Duffy has done a great deal to further the general public's knowledge of chemistry and has been acknowledged for doing so. He has released 95 publications, authored 14 research grants at WJU, including three from the National Science Foundation, and has received many honors and awards including the Exemplary Teacher award from the American Association of Higher Education during their 25th anniversary celebration in 1994.

In my decades of service to the people of West Virginia in the Senate, I have become very familiar with Wheeling Jesuit University and its outstanding academic programs. For 10 consecutive years US News and World Report has ranked WJU as among the best master's universities in the South.

Wheeling Jesuit has become one of the leading universities in the country in helping to educate and prepare students for the dynamic economy of the 21st century. WJU is home to the brand new $10 million Acker Science Center, the Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center, the Erma Ora Byrd Center for Educational Technologies, and NASA's flagship educational program, The Classroom of the Future, which uses simulated space missions as a way to teach elementary and high school students about science and math.

The true legacy of a teacher is the mark that their students leave on the world, and by that measurement Dr. Duffy has certainly had a remarkable career. He has taught future Fulbright Scholars, many students who have received departmental honors, and, of course, students who have been inspired enough by his example to become teachers themselves.

As a teacher, Dr. Duffy admits his work is never finished. Whenever he is asked if he plans to retire, Dr. Duffy responds by asking, ``Does everyone in West Virginia understand chemistry?'' Dr. Duffy's dedication is obvious and inspiring.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Robert M. Gates to be the next Secretary of the Department of Defense.

I believe that the defense and security challenges that our Nation faces at this moment are greater than we have faced in decades, and the strains on our Active Duty and National Guard and Reserve forces are commensurate with those challenges.

After much careful thought, going back to this body's consideration of Dr. Gates' nomination to lead the Central Intelligence Agency in 1991, I am convinced that he will provide the Department of Defense and our uniformed service members the competent leadership that they deserve that he will approach the necessity to change course in Iraq with great urgency and that he will provide the President with the pragmatic advice that this country so desperately needs; that his stewardship of the Department of Defense will include developing a cooperative and productive relationship with Congress; and that his career in the intelligence community will benefit the Government as the reorganization of our intelligence community continues.

I have been impressed with Dr. Gates' sincerity in his comments regarding the obligation we as policymakers owe the uniformed service members who carry out the policies we make. His testimony yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee included a moving statement about his relationships with members and former members of the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M University, 12 of whom have lost their lives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like Dr. Gates, I am moved by the extraordinary sense of duty and service that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines possess and by the extraordinary sacrifices they make willingly on our behalf. We must meet the fundamental obligation to serve them as well as they serve us. They deserve thoughtful and effective policies; they deserve to be set up for success in their missions; they deserve to be properly trained and equipped; and they deserve to be ever confident that their welfare is never subject to partisan political considerations within their civilian chain of command. Anything less is unworthy of these heroes.

I am strongly hopeful that Dr. Gates' long and distinguished career in public service, particularly in critical national security roles, gives him the proper perspective on the duties we owe our men and women in uniform. I am confident he will exercise these duties with great care and concern, particularly with regard to those service members who are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also note Dr. Gates' candor and independence of thought, both in his public comments of recent years and in answering the questions of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee during the confirmation process. Prior to his nomination as the next Secretary of Defense, Dr. Gates served on two noteworthy bodies whose work is highly relevant to the challenges he will undertake at the Department of Defense. First, in 2004 he cochaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force with former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski that resulted in a report entitled, ``Iran: Time for a New Approach.'' It is my hope that ``time for a new approach'' is a phrase that characterizes Dr. Gates' overall approach to many of the issues he will encounter at the Pentagon, but I would make special note of the fact that in this report, he recommended that the United States engage in direct talks with Iran. If this recommendation of engagement and proactive diplomacy is characteristic of the advice he will provide to the President in his new position, it will be a welcome change.

Second, prior to his nomination, Dr. Gates served on the Iraq Study Group, whose recommendations for a major change in course in Iraq we heard today. Dr. Gates' service on this body shows that he recognized early on that the administration's policy in Iraq was not working and needed a change in course. Since his nomination, I have been very pleased with his comments, particularly in his written answers to the Senate Armed Services Committee questions and in his testimony yesterday, regarding the urgent need for change in our Iraq policy. Unlike the previous Secretary of Defense and unlike the President himself, Dr. Gates has acknowledged forthrightly that the number of troops we sent to Iraq for the postwar period was insufficient. He recognizes that the planning for the postwar period was both inadequate and flawed and that the result now is a status quo that is absolutely unacceptable and must be changed with great urgency.

As many of my colleagues have noted, this is a fresh and candid perspective that has been sorely lacking in this administration for 6 years. It is my hope and expectation that Dr. Gates' independence of thought and bold push for necessary change will mark his tenure as our next Secretary of Defense.

In my capacity as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 110th Congress, I will be particularly interested in how Dr. Gates will handle the relationship between the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, which is still developing following the recent intelligence reforms and which I will be focusing on closely in the coming months.

This relationship is crucial to the production of accurate, unbiased intelligence, which in turn is essential for the development of sound national security policy for our country. As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have spent 3\1/2\ years reviewing prewar intelligence on Iraq. We have found inadequate intelligence, inaccurate intelligence, ignored intelligence, and distorted intelligence, the sum of which led to a disastrous decision to take this country to war. This is a situation which cannot be repeated.

One of the principal concerns throughout the Intelligence Committee's Iraq inquiry has been the question of politicization of intelligence. This is an issue well known to Dr. Gates because it was a charge leveled at him in 1991 during his confirmation to be Director of Central Intelligence. Unresolved questions about possible politicization greatly influenced my opposition to confirming him for that position, and I am even more keenly concerned about maintaining the integrity of the analytic process based on my experience with the Iraq inquiry.

Fortunately, his service as the Director of Central Intelligence and his continuing contribution to the Nation since then have allayed the concerns I had in 1991. While his tenure as DCI was short, he accomplished a great deal. In a 1992 message to the CIA workforce he wrote ``seeking truth is what we are all about as an institution, as professionals and as individuals, the possibility--even the perception--that the quest may be tainted deeply troubles us, as it long has and as it should.'' While he disputed the specific accusations of politicization, he learned from the process. He established a task force to address politicization, and he implemented changes based on the task forces recommendation. I am encouraged that he will bring that experience to this new job as one of the primary consumers of intelligence.

I also am encouraged by Dr. Gates' views on the proper role of the Defense Department in relation to the CIA. Earlier this year he wrote of his unhappiness with what he viewed as an inappropriate dominance by the Defense Department. There is plenty of work for all of our intelligence agencies, but that work needs to be properly distributed and coordinated, and I think he understands the importance of that balance. I look forward to working closely with Dr. Gates on this issue if he is confirmed.

At his confirmation hearing, Dr. Gates demonstrated several qualities that I think make him a good choice for this job. He is smart but not arrogant. He is tough-minded without being closed-minded. And he is clearly taking on this enormous responsibility out of a sense of public service. I will support his nomination, and I hope he is confirmed.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for this bill.

The proposed agreement will mark a momentous change in U.S. and global nuclear policy, in my view for the better. It will give India due recognition as a global power, and it will deepen the bilateral commercial and strategic relationship that the United States enjoys with the world's largest democracy.

Beyond these commercial and strategic benefits, this deal will bring India into the mainstream of the global nonproliferation system for the first time in its nuclear history. This bill includes a number of nonproliferation-related provisions, including a requirement that the U.S.-India agreement will not enter into force unless and until India and the International Atomic Energy Agency negotiate and conclude an inspection agreement. It also includes a requirement that the U.S.- India agreement will not enter into force unless and until India and the IAEA negotiate and conclude a safeguards agreement. Further, it requires that the U.S.-India agreement will not enter into force unless and until the Nuclear Suppliers Group reaches consensus on nuclear trade with India and bans U.S. export of uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies under any U.S.-India agreement.

This agreement will benefit the economic, strategic, and security interests of the United States, and I offer my strong support for it and congratulate my colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, for completing this important legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Leahy and Allard in introducing the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006. I am pleased that Senators Byrd, Inouye, Salazar, Snowe, Roberts, Enzi, and Ensign are original cosponsors.

I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. This bill builds upon the hard work and legislative language that Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and I originally developed. Congressman Boucher has been invaluable in making all sure that all interested parties work together to protect consumers, and I must thank him for all of his hard work on this issue.

We have introduced this legislation to protect consumers who through no fault of their own can no longer receive network television signals from DISH Network. Our constituents have lost this right because of a nationwide legal battle between DISH Network and television broadcasters. The Court found that DISH Network had violated the law and imposed a penalty. This decision impacted thousands of my constituent and I believe that Congress needed to restore the ability of these consumers to receive network signals. For many rural West Virginians, cable television is not available.

We have a looming crisis on our hands and Congress must pass our bill immediately. We have a duty to our consumers to minimize the disruption to their daily lives, and our bill allows those consumers who do not have the ability to get local television stations in their area to continue to receive distant signals.

Again, I urge quick adoption of this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Leahy and Allard in introducing the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006. I am pleased that Senators Byrd, Inouye, Salazar, Snowe, Roberts, Enzi, and Ensign are original cosponsors.

I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. This bill builds upon the hard work and legislative language that Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and I originally developed. Congressman Boucher has been invaluable in making all sure that all interested parties work together to protect consumers, and I must thank him for all of his hard work on this issue.

We have introduced this legislation to protect consumers who through no fault of their own can no longer receive network television signals from DISH Network. Our constituents have lost this right because of a nationwide legal battle between DISH Network and television broadcasters. The Court found that DISH Network had violated the law and imposed a penalty. This decision impacted thousands of my constituent and I believe that Congress needed to restore the ability of these consumers to receive network signals. For many rural West Virginians, cable television is not available.

We have a looming crisis on our hands and Congress must pass our bill immediately. We have a duty to our consumers to minimize the disruption to their daily lives, and our bill allows those consumers who do not have the ability to get local television stations in their area to continue to receive distant signals.

Again, I urge quick adoption of this legislation.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor a longtime member of my staff, Ms. Althia Harris, who has served over 30 years in the Senate. Ms. Harris has reached an incredible benchmark in her career, and I stand today to reflect on her service.

Ms. Harris began working in the Senate on April 30, 1975, for distinguished Senator Philip A. Hart of Missouri. Just a few days before the end of his term, Senator Hart lost his battle with cancer on December 26, 1976. Ms. Harris then served Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III of Illinois for 5 years. Upon Senator Stevenson's retirement, she joined the office of his successor, Senator Alan J. Dixon. I was then lucky enough to inherit a most loyal and experienced Senate employee when Ms. Harris joined my staff in 1984.

Upon joining my team, Althia initially helped with my transition from the West Virginia Governor's office to Capitol Hill. An immeasurable and invaluable aide, I am sure without Althia's able assistance the job would have taken much longer to accomplish. I know it would have been more difficult without a seasoned Senate staffer knowledgeable in how to really make things work in the Senate.

On September 12, 1986, Althia began working part time in my office so she could take on new challenges in the private sector and other areas of government. She first worked for the Advertising Council and then for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. At NASA, she continues to work as a contractor for the Office of Education. As an active member of her community, she has never abandoned her work here in the Senate.

With continual service in my office for over 20 years, Althia is someone who has helped keep my office operation running with important day-to-day tasks. She is a lover of urban gardening, a collector of African art, and a domestic and international traveler.

As Senators, we are each here to represent our respective States and to work on the needs of our constituents. But the work we do is directly dependent on those who support us--our staff who are always there, always pushing behind the scenes. Each and every devoted member of my staff helps me accomplish the job I am here to do, and Althia has made a real contribution to my work for over 20 years.

I am honored to recognize Althia's devotion and service and to extend my deepest appreciation for her ongoing contributions. Althia is a true gem--the kind of person you are lucky to find and retain for what time they can give. It has been a wonderful 20 years.

Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues in the Senate the story of an awful tragedy that took place in Weirton, WV. Larry Tice, a steelworker at the former Weirton Steel now called Mittal Steel's Weirton Plant took his own life earlier this year after being overwhelmed with a misplaced feeling of failure.

Larry spent decades in Weirton Steel's hot mill before he was transitioned to the tin mill in Mittal's reorganization and shrinking of its operations in Weirton. At its height, Weirton Steel employed 14,000--nearly everyone in a town of roughly 25,000. Twenty years ago employment was approximately 7,000, and today the company employs less than 2,000 people in a town that has shrunk to fewer than 20,000 people. Weirton is a town that had been built around the plant, and the plant served as the town's economic engine for nearly 100 years. Weirton was and is known for its world-class steelmaking.

Mr. Tice was a hard-working veteran at Weirton Steel. There had never been a doubt as to where Larry would work when he was growing up. He, like so many others, had been raised to believe if they worked hard, there would always be a job that included a living wage, competitive benefits, and a guaranteed pension. Larry's father, uncles, and cousins had all worked at the mill. Larry worked there his whole life after signing up after high school graduation in 1973. Just before his death, his job was in jeopardy, many of his benefits diminished, and his pension had all but disappeared.

Mr. Tice worked at the heart of the mill, in the pit, where glowing molten steel drifted overhead in 340-ton ladles, then roared out of 3\1/2\-inch holes. He excelled in his area of work and was crew chief to six employees. Everyone says Mr. Tice enjoyed his work and took pride in what he did. It was not an easy job. The intense heat and the physical nature of the job tax workers physically and mentally, but Mr. Tice was a true steelworker, never complaining and always doing what he was asked.

After many layoffs at Weirton Steel and the closure of the hot end, Mr. Tice was relocated to the tin mill, but he happily accepted this assignment because he was one of those who would still have a job after another massive layoff. With the new job came many new stresses and worries. Mr. Tice had only 2 weeks to master the new machinery and technology; the tin mill was more technologically advanced and was a place that required new skills and processes. At age 51, this new, high-tech job posed a real challenge for Mr. Tice. The stress continued to mount and Mr. Tice began to feel inferior, as his friends report, looking back on his last few months of life.

Mr. Tice worried that the new management of Weirton would not tolerate a slow learning curve. He worried that if he didn't pick up his new craft quickly enough that he would be fired. In the end, friend and family pointed to some negative reinforcement and a general feeling of inadequacy on Mr. Tice's part. This steelworker of two-plus decades worried that if he didn't catch on quickly enough he wouldn't be able to provide for his family or allow them the opportunities they deserved--worries that anyone who cares for a family can understand. Larry Tice was a family man to his last days.

This hardship and uncertainty, along with his constant pressure and concern for his family's welfare, ultimately led to him taking his own life. Mr. Tice's widow, Mary, is now only left to wonder what was so inescapable. Mary spoke with Larry over the phone moments before his death and he told her he had `screwed up,' though he did not elaborate further. At home, Larry hung up the telephone. When Mary tried calling back, there was no answer. She then drove home, though it was too late.

I stand before you today to ask that Larry Tice's story be remembered, along with the ongoing struggle of all steelworkers. Many ask why we in steel States fight so hard for our steel jobs, and it is because of stories like Larry Tice's that touch our hearts. It is so that no more steelworkers will suffer the agony Mr. Tice endured and

which conquered him. We work to ensure that fair trade conditions exist so no more families find themselves agonizing as a loved one worries about their livelihood and ability to provide for their family. The steel industry is very important to the prosperity of our State and is something that touches many West Virginians' lives and our country. My deepest sympathy goes out to the Tice family.

I have yielded 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, if that is okay, on a separate matter.

If the situation is it is deducted from this Senator's time, I would object.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, and Senators Clinton, Wyden, Mikulski and Feingold.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, for 4 years the Central Intelligence Agency's program was kept from the full membership of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.

For 4 years the CIA imprisoned and interrogated suspected terrorists at secret black sites under a policy that prevented Congress from not only knowing about the program but from acting on it and regulating it.

For 4 years, the White House refused to brief Intelligence Committee members about the program's legal business and operations, as is required by law.

For 4 years, the members of the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, whose duty it is to authorize the funding of every CIA program, were kept in the dark by an administration which ignored the legal requirement to keep the Congress fully and currently informed on all intelligence activities.

The amendment I have offered reverses the executive branch's 4-year policy of indifference toward Congress.

My amendment corrects a serious omission in the pending bill: the need for Congress to reassert its fundamental right to understand the intelligence activities it authorizes and funds.

My amendment would subject the CIA's detention and interrogation to meaningful congressional oversight for the first time in 4 years by requiring a series of reviews and reports that will enable the Congress to evaluate the program's scope and legality, as well as its effectiveness.

The amendment establishes this absent congressional oversight in four ways. First, my amendment requires the Director of the CIA to provide a quarterly report to all members of the Intelligence Committees in both the House and the Senate detailing the detention facilities, how they are operated, and how they are used by the CIA.

It requires that the detainees held at these facilities be listed by name as well as the basis for their detention and the description of interrogation techniques used on them and the accompanying legal rationale.

This quarterly report also requires the recording of any violation or abuse under the CIA program as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of the detention and interrogation program.

This issue of the effectiveness of interrogation techniques is incredibly important and often overlooked as an aspect of the debate over the CIA program. Interrogations that coerce information can produce bad intelligence--not necessarily, but they can produce misleading intelligence--fabricated intelligence to get out of the treatment, information that can harm, not help, our efforts to locate and capture terrorists.

Second, my amendment would require the Director of the CIA to provide a quarterly report to all members of the Intelligence Committees on the disposition of each detainee transferred out of the CIA prisons, whether the detainee was transferred to the Department of Defense for prosecution before a military commissioner for further detention, whether the detainee was transferred to the custody of the Attorney General to stand trial in civilian court, or whether the detainee was rendered or otherwise transferred to the custody of another nation.

There needs to be a comprehensive and accurate accounting of detainees held by the CIA. Congress has a responsibility to know who is held by the CIA, why they are held and for how long they are held.

The CIA detention and interrogation program cannot function as a black hole into which people disappear for years on end.

We have been told by CIA leaders that the agency does not want to be--they say this constantly to us--they do not want to be the prison warden for the United States Government. The goal of the CIA program should be to obtain, through lawful means, intelligence information that can identify other terror suspects to prevent further terrorist attacks and then to bring to justice those who we believe to be criminals. This is the so-called endgame that everyone talks about.

If the CIA detention program is allowed to function as some sort of prisoner purgatory, we have then failed.

Also of concern to me is the lack of existing oversight in how the United States transports or renders detainees to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation.

The limited information the administration has shared with the Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA's rendition program does not by any means assure, at least this Senator, that the intelligence community has a program in place, so to speak, to assert what happens to these individuals when they are transferred to foreign custody, such as how they are treated, how they are interrogated, whether they divulge intelligence information of value, and whether this information is then provided to the CIA.

The CIA's rendition program deserves far greater scrutiny and congressional oversight than it has been given to date.

The third way in which this amendment establishes a meaningful oversight of the CIA detention and interrogation program is to require the CIA Inspector General and the CIA general counsel each separately review the program on an annual basis to report their findings to the Intelligence Committees. These independent Agency reviews would assess the CIA's compliance with any applicable law or regulation and the conduct of detention, interrogation and rendition activities as well as to report to Congress any violations of law or other abuse on the part of personnel involved in the program.

The annual reviews of the Inspector General and the general counsel also would evaluate the effectiveness of the detention and interrogation program; effectiveness at obtaining valuable and reliable intelligence.

Finally, my amendment requires the Attorney General to submit to Congress an unclassified certification whether or not each interrogation technique approved for use by the CIA complies with the United States Constitution and all applicable treaties, statutes and regulations. I believe this is a very important certification.

All Americans, not just the Congress, need an ironclad assurance from our Nation's top enforcement officer that the CIA program and the interrogation techniques it employs are lawful in all respects. The CIA officers in the field, I might say, above all, need this assurance.

I do not believe there is anything particularly controversial about this amendment, and I hope that Democrats and Republicans alike can embrace the need for restoring respect for the oversight role of the Intelligence Committees of the Congress over intelligence.

Only through reports that will be provided under this amendment will the Congress have the information it lawfully deserves to understand the CIA's detention and interrogation program and determine whether the program is producing the unique intelligence mission that justifies its continued operation.

Only when the President works with the Congress are we able to craft intelligence programs that are legally sound and operationally effective. Only when the President works with the Congress can America stand strong in its fight against terrorism.

Intelligence gathering through interrogation is one of the most important tools we have in the war on terrorism. My amendment would provide the congressional oversight necessary to assure that our intelligence officers in the field have clear guidelines for effective and legal interrogation.

Before yielding the floor, I will address two other matters very briefly.

Those who have taken the time to read through the bill we are debating will find the word ``coercion'' repeatedly in the text of the legislation. Coercion is a fitting word when considering how the Senate finds itself rushed into voting on a bill with far-reaching legal and national security implications.

The final text of the underlying bill was negotiated by a handful of Republican Senators, many of whom I respect, and the White House. Democrats were not consulted. I was not consulted. This Senator was not consulted. Senator Levin was not consulted. We were kept out of these closed-door sessions.

I say that because the Senate Intelligence Committee is the only Senate committee responsible for authorizing CIA activities and the only committee briefed on classified details of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. We were denied an opportunity to consider this bill, in fact, on sequential referral, which is our due.

In the mad dash to pass this bill before the Senate recesses, Senators are being given only five opportunities, I believe, to amend the bill, effectively preventing the Senate from trying to produce the best bill possible on the most important subject possible with respect to the gathering of intelligence. It does not have to be this way.

Finally, I am troubled by what I view as misleading statements about the current state of the CIA detention and interrogation program made by President Bush and senior administration officials. I say this for the record, and strongly.

The President and others have stated in recent weeks that the CIA program was halted as a result of the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision on June 29, 2006. This assertion is false.

Significant aspects of this program were halted following the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees, well before the Supreme Court decision.

The President has also been very forceful in his public statements asserting that the post-Hamdan application of Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 has created legal uncertainties about the CIA interrogation procedures that the Congress must resolve through legislation--only us--in order for the CIA program to continue. This assertion is misleading, and it is false as well.

Concerns over the legal exposure of CIA officers have existed since the program's inception and did not begin with the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision. These mischaracterizations illustrate to me why it is important for Congress to understand all facts about the CIA program.

Congress cannot and should not sit on the sidelines blithely ignorant about the details of a critical intelligence program that has been operating without meaningful congressional scrutiny for years.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware, when he talks about delaying implementation of this program, that there are no CIA detainees? What are we holding up?

That is simply not true.

Mr. President, if I might speak for 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. President I have a one-page summary. Some of the arguments I have heard are absolutely incredible. The fact of the matter is there isn't any reporting done. For 4 years this has gone on. People say: Just call them in; call in the head of the CIA, whoever it is, before the committee. That doesn't yield information. We have so many requests for information from the CIA that have not been responded to. They are not responsive to the committee because they don't want to be responsive to the committee, because they are directed not

to be responsive to the committee, I am assuming, by the Director of the National Intelligence Office.

We don't have oversight on these programs we are talking about. Anybody who suggests otherwise is wrong. I heard the opposition to the amendment say it is going to slow down the passage of the bill. Now, that is brilliant. We could have started this in a timely fashion, and all the House has to do is accept the Senate amendment, if one were to pass. In a heartbeat, it is done. So what is in that argument?

The Senator from Missouri has stated--and this is very important for my colleagues to hear--that the amendment would require public disclosure of the CIA's interrogation techniques. That is categorically false--wrong. It is a dangerous thing to say. It is an irresponsible thing to say on the floor of the Senate. The reports on the CIA program would be classified and they would be sent to the congressional Intelligence Committees and them alone. So we need to get that straight right now.

The information that is provided in the reports is made to sound like we are rewriting the Constitution 17 times in a hot summer's several months. This is information which has not been provided to us for 4 years, what these reports would be asked to do, and then they could taper off if we found a responsive intelligence community. But we have not been provided these in 4 years. Am I meant to be worried about that? Is it the job of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House to do oversight? Yes, it is, and we can't because they won't give us the information. The chairman can say that he and I are briefed, but that is seldom and on very discrete matters that don't cover this bill.

So the Senator from Virginia, whom I obviously greatly respect, suggests this amendment is a substitute for oversight. This amendment, to the contrary, is going to allow us to do oversight, and that is my point. It is our responsibility under the law to do it. We cannot do it. We are not allowed to do it. We are systematically prevented from getting information from the people who are required by law to give it to us. That is called not being transparent, and that is called us not knowing what is going on and thus not being able to help with the war on terror.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

The Senator from Michigan heard that correctly.

I would, with the exception of 1 minute to summarize just before we vote on it, so you can have the balance of the time.

Mr. President, without objecting, does any unanimous consent request allow me to close on my amendment for 2 minutes?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, my amendment would require, as I explained this morning, the CIA to provide the Congressional Intelligence Committees, which are required by law to be informed of what is going on in the intelligence world, fully the most basic and fundamental information it needs to oversee the CIA detention and interrogation program.

Frankly, for the past 4 years we have not had that information. The administration has withheld this information from us. I am not saying that in partisan fashion. It is a fact.

It has been very frustrating as a member of the Intelligence Committee, much less as a Member of the Senate. We have made repeated requests and the Intelligence Committee has been prevented from carefully reviewing the program. The program has operated, as a result, without any meaningful congressional oversight whatsoever, and that is our responsibility under the law.

All of my colleagues should be troubled by this fact. We cannot assure ourselves, we cannot assure the American people, and we cannot assure our agents overseas that the CIA program is both legally sound and effective, without the basic information required under my amendment.

My amendment is simply about oversight and accountability, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in the amendment would require the public disclosure of any classified document or aspect of the CIA program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I have to start off anything I say-- and I will be short--about Jim Jeffords with the word ``friendship,'' based upon his unbelievable qualities of kindness, of goodness, of steadfastness, being the same person every day under any circumstance.

We sit together. We have sat together for quite a long time on the floor of the Senate. And we talk a lot. I have the honor of talking with his staff, too, a superb staff, who adores him.

The business of friendship in the Senate is underpracticed. If you know Jim Jeffords, then you know why you should take more time to know your colleagues better. Because the fact is--although it has been more so recently--it is not your politics or your party that determines how you vote, but your conscience and your sense of a moral compass that guides you. In that practice, you have to think of Jim Jeffords.

He is an extraordinarily wonderful human being. He has got a ferocious sense of humor, which is always delivered very quietly. And yet he is deep, he is profound, he sort of looks like Vermont: chiseled; his nose is just the right shape. And, of course, he talks that way. But he is humble, not because he wants to be, just because he is. Nothing about his record is humble. But his nature is humble. He is gentle; and he really is. He listens, does not interrupt, does not insist on his point of view--except when it counts, and then he is unmovable.

All of the subjects he has concentrated on--children, the environment, many other things that have been mentioned--there is also the matter of post-traumatic stress disorder. On the Veterans Committee, which is the one committee where I do get to--not the only committee, but I get to sit with him on that committee--he has been a champion of something which Americans still do not really understand; and that is, the ferocious nature of being wounded in war these days-- an Iraqi improvised explosive device that implants shards of metal into people that will remain there for the rest of their lives; the whole question of How does somebody rehabilitate a life? and What is the VA doing about that? Jim is all over that subject.

When he switched parties to be an Independent, woe be the person who said: Switch parties from Republican to Democrat--no--Republican to Independent. And, yes, he got an enormous amount of cheering and praise based upon his moral compass. He also got a lot of death threats. Life was very hard for him for a period of time. So he understood that was going to happen. But with Jim Jeffords, the moral compass always prevails. I think it is one of the reasons all of us here respect him so, admire him so, look to him as to what the Senate ought to be.

I had never heard the word ``ANWR'' until it was explained to me by Senator Jeffords. He was there early because he was thinking, as always, of our children and grandchildren, and, as they say, their children too. We always take it one generation too far, but it is true.

Alternative fuels. Will the history books write about Jim Jeffords on alternative fuels? Yes, they will. Do people generally in the Senate or elsewhere know that he has spent a career working on that? Probably not.

Our air; they know about that. The groundwater; they probably know about that. But his work on alternative fuels is one of the most important things he's done.

The Title I, Head Start, improving the lives of children, all of that that has been talked about--Senator Harkin talked about, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--he has always been looking ahead. Does that make him a Good Samaritan? Does that mean he is a do- gooder or does it mean that he does good? It is the second. He does what is comfortable to him and what he feels is just for the people he serves, not only in Vermont but across the United States of America.

The work he has done with post-traumatic stress disorder is awesome in terms of those of us on the Veterans Committee. He is justifiably proud of the research and work done by Vermont's White River Junction Veterans' Administration Hospital to help veterans who are struggling, as they truly are, not just with the postwar physical problems of being wounded, but the psychological problems of that, as well.

He has never sought the limelight, and he does not care about the limelight. He has been elected time after time probably partly because of that. Because he is not like so many other people who run for public office who want to tick off everything they have done. He is Jim Jeffords. And with Jim Jeffords comes a certain set of principles, a certain set of commitments to people. The people of Vermont have understood that over the years. So he has not had to promote himself in ways that others have to do.

He has always done his work, in the words of Shakespeare, with the ``modest stillness and humility'' that becomes any human being. When you look back at his record, you can see this man from Shrewsbury, VT, has left his mark on virtually every single piece of legislation on education, job training, disability legislation, and on and on and on.

Jim has always had extraordinarily deep passions and convictions, but, at the same time, he has been a paragon of civility and humbleness. Jim has a gentle voice, but his resolve and commitment to stand up for vulnerable children, veterans in need, and our environment is assertive and strong.

Throughout his career, Jim has made some very tough personal decisions. Take his decision to switch parties to be an independent in the summer of 2001. Regardless which party you are a member of, I think all of us would agree that given the fact that his move fundamentally changed the governing structure of the Senate, it truly was a profile in courage. Time and time again, Jim has been willing to take risks for his beliefs, and he deserves our respect and admiration for such independence.

In terms of public service, Jim Jeffords has lived a life that many aspire to. He has spent nearly every day of his life working to make the lives of people better. In the 1950s, he served in the U.S. Navy, and until 1990 he was in the Naval Reserve, where he retired as a captain. In the 1960s, he began his political service, first as a Vermont State Senator, then as Vermont's Attorney General, and then, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, he became one of the very few Republicans elected to Congress in 1974.

Jim has been a true steward of the environment. Long before many of us knew what ANWR was, he was fighting to preserve the environment for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. He has been at the forefront of fighting to make sure our air and ground water are safe for our citizens, and he has fought for the use of alternative fuels. His efforts have truly cut a trailblazing path for many generations to come.

Over the years, Jim and I have worked on many issues together, and I am particularly proud of what we have done for our students and for our veterans. He understands how important it is to make sure that our citizens get started on the right foot. He believes that the first years of a child's life are absolutely critical in the life and future of that person, and that is why he has worked so hard to push for greater funding for Head Start and other early education programs. And that is why he has worked on Title I--to help low-performing students, who disproportionately live in the rural areas that make up much of West Virginia and Vermont, achieve the standards they must meet.

That sort of Good Samaritan principle has always guided Jim's life and career. He has been extraordinary in advocating for those whose needs are often forgotten. In fact, perhaps no American living today and certainly no American legislator--I want to echo here what Senator Harkin has said--has done more to advance the educational success of those with disabilities. Almost from his arrival in Congress. Jim took extraordinary steps because he believed that the needs of others simply could not wait. In 1975, as a House freshman, Jim co-authored what would later be known as the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. IDEA serves as a Federal commitment to give students with disabilities a better education.

It was an extraordinary legislative achievement, one that had even greater implications in terms of setting a moral baseline imperative that we must meet the needs of those who live difficult lives. Jim has worked, not for the well-heeled or the heavy-hitting lobbysist--he has tirelessly worked for the people who truly need help.

I have also been proud to serve with Jim on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. He has been an important voice in calling for compassionate care for our veterans, especially those veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

We both have States with a very high number of soldiers and veterans, and we both know how important it is for our soldiers and veterans to have the health care they have earned and deserve. The two of us have been allies in pushing for greater funding and resources to help our soldiers with PTSD, and I know that Jim is justifiably proud of the research and work by Vermont's White River Junction to help veterans struggling with PTSD.

Jim Jeffords has never sought the limelight--he has sought results. He

has always done his work in the words of Shakespeare, with the modest stillness and humility that becomes any human. But when one looks back at his record, you can see that the modest man from Shrewsbury, VT, has left his mark on virtually every piece of education, job training, and disability legislation over the past quarter century. It is difficult to determine how many people Jim's efforts have helped, but if it were possible to quantify his efforts, I know we would find that hundreds of thousands of lives have been improved because of his actions in Vermont and across the country.

The Senate this year is losing a treasure, a man who in the best tradition of the Senate has never been afraid of taking heroic, principled stand without having to make a lot of noise. Sharon and I are personally losing good friends in Jim and his wife Liz. And Americans all over the country are losing one of the most dedicated fighters for the basic rights that too many disadvantaged people are shortchanged on. I wish my friend well in his retirement.

I close with the sadness of losing in our body somebody such as Senator Jeffords. People go to him. People are comforted by his presence. People are emboldened by his nature. They see what it is he does not say to promote himself or his ideas, and somehow they are attracted to those ideas because they understand if it comes out of Jim Jeffords, it is good for the public.

So I think of his family too, I say to Senator Boxer, and I think of how proud they must be. I also think of just myself, to be honest, how sad I am going to be not being able to sit next to Jim Jeffords and share his humor and to look upon his greatness--not just his nose, but his greatness: the classic Vermonter, the classic New Englander. He has been so incredibly good for the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I support S. 3525, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act. This is a bill that will reauthorize the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, legislation that I have worked on since its creation in 1997.

I am proud to join my colleagues Senators Grassley, Baucus, Hatch and Snowe in support of this bill. Chairman Grassley deserves our deep thanks and gratitude for real leadership on this legislation and a truly bipartisan process. The Finance Committee has a strong history of bipartisanship on child welfare and foster

care. And I should note that this bipartisanship is palpable at the staff level as well and the fine staff of the Finance Committee also deserve our thanks for making this agreement possible.

The children at risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes are among our most vulnerable children. Over the years, progress has been made to promote each child's safety, health and need for a permanent, safe home. But with 518,000 in foster care, there is clearly more work to be done for our children.

The 2006 Deficit Reduction Act included an additional $40 million per year provided for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. Our legislation will target this new money to clear needs for our child welfare system. One priority will be to create new competitive grants to support regional partnership to combat methamphetamine, ``meth,'' or other drug abuses that are affecting the child welfare system. Meth is devastating areas in West Virginia and around our country. When law enforcement breaks up a home meth lab, child welfare workers are often needed on site to deal with the children as their parents are taken to jail. Such children have been exposed to toxins and are at risk of having been abused or neglected when their parents were high on meth. Substance abuse is a huge problem for families in the child welfare system, but there is hope that prevention and treatment can help. Family-based comprehensive long term treatment facilities are reporting some impressive results in helping children and families. Other innovative court projects and law enforcement programs are being developed. This bill invests real dollars to promote and evaluate the most effective programs.

The other priority of this legislation will be to make new investments to help states achieve what is considered the best practice of having monthly caseworker visits to 90 percent of the children in foster care. This standard helps improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children, and it is a worthy goal.

The bill will also reauthorize and expand the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, created in 2002 as part of the reauthorization. The expansion is a 3-year pilot program to use vouchers as a new delivery mechanism for services in the hope of helping children in rural and underserved areas. Three States, West Virginia, Vermont and Utah, do not have any Mentoring Children of Prisoners grants, but there are children living there and in rural areas who need a mentor. Under the voucher program, qualified mentoring programs in local communities could get funding to serve such children. This is worth trying as a new model.

Earlier this year, I hosted a roundtable in Beckley, WV on adoption, foster care and child welfare. I met with a judge, local officials and parents involved in our system. I heard an inspiring story of a young man who was adopted from foster care and has become a spokesperson for other children. Following this roundtable, it was very clear to me that we need to provide support and services to families in the system, and this new legislation should help.

For years, I have worked with my colleagues to try and improve our child welfare system and foster care. This bill is our next step forward. Its costs have been offset, and the priorities of combating meth and substance abuse, as well as more caseworker visits are goals that we all can rally to support. My hope is that this bill will provide the incentives and push for West Virginia and every state to do more for our most vulnerable children.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the vital health insurance coverage that millions of our Nation's children receive through the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). As I stand here today, at least 17 States face looming Federal funding shortfalls of as much as $900 million, the cost of covering more than half a million children.

Mr. Dingell, the distinguished ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and I have worked for several weeks to craft a bill that reflects the intentions of this program when it was first created nearly ten years ago: to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for children. Additionally, this legislation addresses an ongoing set of challenges associated with the program's block grant financing structure. I am pleased to report that Mr. Dingell and others will be introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today.

We are introducing the Keep Children Covered Act now because it is critically important that we consider and pass this legislation before we adjourn this year. No one can dispute the success of the CHIP program in enrolling and providing coverage for more then 6 million children nationwide. In 2005, West Virginia provided coverage for more then 38,000 children, and an expansion to reach additional children is currently underway. This is quite an accomplishment. But, the ongoing success of this program depends on adequate Federal funding for all States.

It is a sad truth that persistent barriers to health care coverage have resulted in annual increases in the total number of uninsured Americans. Today, 46 million Americans are uninsured for all or most of the year. I am particularly troubled in that, in 2005, the number of uninsured children increased for the first time since the CHIP program was implemented in 1998. The number of uninsured children now stands at 8.3 million.

This is unacceptable. We have taken a significant step back in terms of covering children, and this will only get worse if the $900 million Federal funding shortfall is not immediately addressed. Children are the least expensive group to insure, and our future depends on their good health and well-being. There is clear evidence that children with consistent access to health care services are more likely to become healthy adults and successful members of our communities. Like West Virginia, a number of States have expressed their willingness to expand the CHIP program, but we must hold up our end of the bargain and supply them with the resources necessary to make these positive changes. It would be irresponsible for us to allow additional children to go without this much needed access to care. It would also run counter to the goals Congress set out when we created CHIP in 1997.

Preserving health care coverage for children is not an objective beyond our reach. Although it represents only a temporary fix of the larger funding issues facing CHIP, the bill I am introducing today will alleviate the fiscal year 2007 shortfalls and ensure that children currently enrolled in CHIP do not lose their coverage. I congratulate my colleagues on the House side, Congressmen Deal and Norwood, who introduced similar legislation at the end of last week. They understand this is something we can come together on, pass, and enact into law before Congress recesses for the elections. It is my hope that Congress will act on a bipartisan basis to more comprehensively address the long-term financial challenges facing CHIP when the program is reauthorized next year.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to make children's health care a priority during the limited time we have left this session. Working families depend on this program in order to access the health care services--like check-ups and prescriptions--that their children need. I hope we will not let them down. We should not.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the vital health insurance coverage that millions of our Nation's children receive through the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). As I stand here today, at least 17 States face looming Federal funding shortfalls of as much as $900 million, the cost of covering more than half a million children.

Mr. Dingell, the distinguished ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and I have worked for several weeks to craft a bill that reflects the intentions of this program when it was first created nearly ten years ago: to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for children. Additionally, this legislation addresses an ongoing set of challenges associated with the program's block grant financing structure. I am pleased to report that Mr. Dingell and others will be introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today.

We are introducing the Keep Children Covered Act now because it is critically important that we consider and pass this legislation before we adjourn this year. No one can dispute the success of the CHIP program in enrolling and providing coverage for more then 6 million children nationwide. In 2005, West Virginia provided coverage for more then 38,000 children, and an expansion to reach additional children is currently underway. This is quite an accomplishment. But, the ongoing success of this program depends on adequate Federal funding for all States.

It is a sad truth that persistent barriers to health care coverage have resulted in annual increases in the total number of uninsured Americans. Today, 46 million Americans are uninsured for all or most of the year. I am particularly troubled in that, in 2005, the number of uninsured children increased for the first time since the CHIP program was implemented in 1998. The number of uninsured children now stands at 8.3 million.

This is unacceptable. We have taken a significant step back in terms of covering children, and this will only get worse if the $900 million Federal funding shortfall is not immediately addressed. Children are the least expensive group to insure, and our future depends on their good health and well-being. There is clear evidence that children with consistent access to health care services are more likely to become healthy adults and successful members of our communities. Like West Virginia, a number of States have expressed their willingness to expand the CHIP program, but we must hold up our end of the bargain and supply them with the resources necessary to make these positive changes. It would be irresponsible for us to allow additional children to go without this much needed access to care. It would also run counter to the goals Congress set out when we created CHIP in 1997.

Preserving health care coverage for children is not an objective beyond our reach. Although it represents only a temporary fix of the larger funding issues facing CHIP, the bill I am introducing today will alleviate the fiscal year 2007 shortfalls and ensure that children currently enrolled in CHIP do not lose their coverage. I congratulate my colleagues on the House side, Congressmen Deal and Norwood, who introduced similar legislation at the end of last week. They understand this is something we can come together on, pass, and enact into law before Congress recesses for the elections. It is my hope that Congress will act on a bipartisan basis to more comprehensively address the long-term financial challenges facing CHIP when the program is reauthorized next year.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to make children's health care a priority during the limited time we have left this session. Working families depend on this program in order to access the health care services--like check-ups and prescriptions--that their children need. I hope we will not let them down. We should not.

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

Mr. President, first of all, I totally appreciate and totally do not deserve the kind comments of our leader from the State of Nevada, but I heard them and I won't forget them and I didn't mind them at all.

Before the Senate Intelligence Committee was able to release last week two sections of phase II that we have been working on in prewar intelligence in Iraq, we submitted the report to the intelligence community for declassification review.

Overall, the declassification process on the phase II report produced a final product that was a substantial improvement, I have to say, over past efforts, including the committee's heavily redacted July 2004 phase I report. Yet there were notable instances of overclassification in the final phase II report released September 8.

The committee, in its report, disagreed with the intelligence community's decision to classify certain portions of the report's findings and conclusions. In its decision to keep this information from the public, which is what this is about, the intelligence community was unable to demonstrate to the committee that disclosing the redacted-- that is, what is blacked-out--the redacted information in question would compromise sensitive sources and methods or otherwise harm the national security.

The committee, therefore, on a bipartisan basis, concluded in its report, which was reported out unanimously, that the intelligence community's decision to classify this information that we are talking about is without justification. Those are the words in the report, ``without justification.''

The Reid-Rockefeller-Levin amendment addresses the most egregious instance in the committee's Iraq report where the cloak of classification is being used improperly to keep critical information from the American people. Specifically, the amendment seeks to overturn the intelligence community's unjustified decision to classify it--that is what this amendment is trying to do--and not only overturn, but the unjustified decision to classify in its totality the section of the Iraq report referring to a CIA document about the alleged meeting in Prague between 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer.

As the unclassified text of the committee report states, the CIA document referenced in these redacted paragraphs expresses concerns about the alleged Prague meeting in the context of a public speech by President Bush planned for March 14, 2003.

For the information of Senators, the committee concluded in its September 8 Iraq report that the intelligence community was correct when it assessed prior to the war that there was no credible information--I repeat, no credible information--that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the United States or any other al-Qaida strike. The committee also concluded in its report, after exhaustive review of relevant intelligence reporting, that the alleged Atta meeting in Prague did not occur.

Significant portions of the redacted passage of the report concerning the alleged Atta meeting, if not the entire three paragraphs, can be declassified without revealing sources and methods--that is, without compromising in any way intelligence--or otherwise harming national security. The decision to keep from the public--the public of the Senate, the public of the United States of America--this revealing information about the use of intelligence information prior to the Iraq war represents an improper use of classification authority by the intelligence community, the effect of which is to shield the White House.

I urge my colleagues to go to the Intelligence Committee offices and read the classified portions of the Iraq report--Senators can do that; all Senators can do that, do it in those particular rooms, and they can do it freely--including the sections dealing with

the alleged Atta meeting. Senators should read the report and draw their own conclusions about whether information known prior to the war is being kept from the American people for reasons unrelated to protecting national security.

I am happy to.

That is correct.

I would say to the Senator from Illinois that he is correct, it does contradict that, and moreover this contradiction has been carried on by a number of high officials in this Government for a very long period of time in spite of intelligence which they knew which said this meeting never took place.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to not only read the information blacked out, redacted--those are pages 96, 97, and 98-- read those of the report, but also to consider it in the context of the unclassified, publicly released section on the alleged Atta meeting in Prague that precedes these pages. It sounds complicated, but it is not. Just go read it and you will understand.

I think Senators will find the information classified by the administration on these three pages does not involve intelligence sources and methods as much as it does provide insight into the warning bells that were going off all over about the alleged Atta meeting in the context of a Presidential speech a week before the Iraq war commenced. This is information on the use of prewar intelligence which the White House does not want the American public to have because it would be embarrassing.

The Senate cannot allow this misuse of classification authority to stand. I urge my colleagues to support the Reid-Rockefeller-Levin amendment.

Mr. President, I once again thank the minority leader and yield the floor.

(At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Will the chairman yield for another question?

Thank you very much. I am sure that the Senator is aware, having talked about the importance of the operational cables, the foreign service, and all these kinds of things that there are in our report--or in the report there are at least 30 specific references to operational cables. I am looking at page 31 of the prewar assessment part. CIA operational table, December 2002, the INC part. And there are two on page 68--two CIA cable references that are declassified. Is the Senator aware of that, that we have done this 30 times at least in our report?

That is correct. But there are 30 in various parts of this that are operational cables specifically referred to, which are----

What the CIA Director reportedly is saying, and the chairman of the full committee indicates, is that operational cables cannot be identified publicly. I am saying that they are identified 30 times in our two reports.

I direct my colleagues' attention to these 30 specific examples from the committee's two reports found on page 31 of the report on Post War Findings and pages 41, 43, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 86, 87, 104, and 107 of the INC report.

I say to the chairman of the full committee, is the Senator aware that on page 31, the prewar assessment part of the report, there is a reference at the bottom, as I indicated, to the CIA operational cable of December 20, 2002. The Senator indicated the substance is not included, but I will read from the report:

In addition, the Committee is examining the facts

surrounding a December 20, 2002, cable from the relevant CIA

station [this is all available to the American public today]

which transmitted comments from a letter to the DCI and a

discussion with the Chief of Station from the head of the

foreign intelligence service that handled CURVE BALL. The

cable noted that the head of the foreign intelligence service

intelligence said experts from a number of foreign

intelligence services had analyzed the CURVE BALL information

and believed ``the information was plausible''--et cetera, et

cetera.

In other words, the content is right here.