Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer an amendment with my colleagues: Senator Isakson and Senator Lott. Our amendment provides important pension relief to the airline industry, which has struggled financially as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks and dramatically higher fuel costs. In the last few years, we have seen United Airlines and US Airways terminate their pension plans and turn over their liabilities to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Our amendment is designed to avoid this unhappy outcome for airlines that are still struggling with large pension debts.

Throughout the work on this legislation, my goal has been to protect the employees and retirees who have worked hard to earn retirement benefits. Whenever underfunded pension plans are dumped on the PBGC, everyone loses. Employees and retirees lose benefits that they deserve. Companies struggle with sour employee relations. And the PBGC and ultimately, perhaps someday the taxpayers--gets stuck with a bill for the portion of the pensions that is guaranteed but not funded.

I am very appreciative of the cooperation that we have had from the bipartisan leadership of both the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee. The legislation we are considering today would allow struggling airlines to pay off old pension debts over a 14-year period using reasonable interest rate assumptions. Unfortunately, given the rising fuel costs and the need to attract bankruptcy financing, the relief provided in this bill is insufficient to help Delta Airlines. That is why the Isakson-Rockefeller-Lott amendment, which extends the repayment period to 20 years is so important. The amendment would also allow airlines, such as American and Continental, to benefit from relief without terminating their pension plans, as long as any new obligations were fully funded.

I am very pleased that this amendment has the support of Delta, Northwest, Continental, and American airlines. This amendment does not pick winners or losers within the airline industry. Rather, it focuses on maintaining defined benefit pension promises, and any airline that offers defined benefit plans would be able to benefit from this relief.

I understand the skepticism of Senators who are concerned that in spite of any relief Congress provides, airlines may still terminate their pension plans. I cannot say that this is an unreasonable fear.

However, the amendment we are offering would make it more difficult for airlines to dump their plans. Without sufficient funding relief, airlines may convince a bankruptcy court that the plans must be turned over to PBGC in order for the airline to emerge from bankruptcy. However, if the law requires reasonable-sized payments, stretched out over 20 years, an airline's argument that it cannot make such payments loses credibility.

As a West Virginian, I have seen the tragic consequences of underfunded plans. I am not interested in letting employers off the hook for pension promises they made to workers.

The point of this amendment is to make sure that employers fulfill their obligations. In light of the current financial situation of several airlines, it is unrealistic to expect them to maintain their pension plans under normal funding rules. The reality of the situation calls for reasonable funding relief in order to make sure that the companies continue to make substantial payments to their plans. Providing a 20-year period for airlines to repay their pension debts is the best way to protect workers' benefits and reduce unfunded liabilities covered by the PBGC.

For the sake of the airline employees who have earned a secure retirement and for the sake of the millions of workers who depend on a strong PBGC, I ask my colleagues to support the Isakson-Rockefeller- Lott amendment.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is finally taking action on much needed pension reforms. As the Senate does its work today, there are more than 44 million Americans working hard to earn traditional pension benefits. Steelworkers, coal miners, flight attendants, autoworkers, carpenters, grocery store employees-- workers of every description are putting in long hours, in part, because they have been promised that when they retire, they will continue to receive some income from their employers.

Traditional, defined benefit pension plans have been an important part of workers' compensation for generations. Guaranteed retirement income protects workers from the risks of the stock market. And with a steady monthly check, retirees know they cannot outlive their income. We owe it to all of those workers to be sure that the pension benefits they are earning today will be there for them in the future.

Unfortunately, our pension system has failed too many people already. And in West Virginia, sadly, we understand all too well what happens when pension benefits are not paid as promised. Last year, more than 11,000 West Virginians received a pension check from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, because their employer had terminated their pension plan.

There are another 313,000 West Virginians still participating in traditional pension plans. We have an obligation to fix the pension system so that those workers and retirees will receive what they have been promised. Companies must be encouraged to continue to promise these valuable benefits, but we cannot accept empty promises. Companies must adequately fund the retirement benefits workers earn.

I believe that, on balance, the bill before the Senate today strengthens the retirement system. This legislation requires companies to better fund pension benefits. It provides workers more information about the status of their retirement plan, and it improves the financial position of the PBGC, which

will continue to play an important role as Federal safety net for failed pension plans.

The bill also makes some important improvements to the defined contribution pension system. As Enron collapsed, many employees lost all of their retirement savings because they had heavily invested in their company's stock. I am pleased that Congress is finally acting to better protect employees by giving them more information about their investment options and more rights to diversify those investments.

I am also pleased that the legislation includes a provision to enable the UMWA's Construction Workers Pension Plan to excess assets to cover health care costs for retirees, just as many single-employer private pension plans already do. The Construction Workers Pension Plan currently has more than twice the assets needed to cover pension benefits, while retirees have been forced to pay large premiums for health coverage. With this change, the resources set aside to benefit retired construction workers can be used to best advantage--including helping to cover health care costs.

Yet while I believe there are many positive provisions in this bill, it is not a perfect bill. The bill calls for very difficult compromises. Companies are concerned that the funding rules will be difficult to live by. Workers are concerned that benefits may be limited if employers do not adequately fund the pension plans. I appreciate these concerns. And I am interested in improving this bill.

I had hoped to have the opportunity to support an amendment by Senators DeWine and Mikulski to ease some of the funding requirements imposed on struggling employers. Without fundamentally upsetting the balance struck in this bill, the amendment would have made pension plans easier to maintain. Because a company's credit rating is an imperfect indicator of whether the pension plan is sound, I do not believe that we should impose strict new funding requirements on companies with lower credit ratings. I believe that the managers of this legislation have already crafted so many important improvements to the funding rules that the payments associated with low credit ratings are not necessary to guarantee appropriate pension contributions. Rather, the credit ratings rules may limit employers' willingness to offer such benefits.

The reforms contained in this legislation will dramatically improve the health of the Nation's pension system. Improved pension funding rules are necessary to protect the many workers who have been promised pension benefits, and to shore up the Federal pension insurer. As the final legislation is worked out with the House, I will be working with my colleagues to improve this bill even further.

Mr. President, it is my understanding, from the colloquy we had around the desk of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in order to expedite the whole process, we would lead with the Kerry amendment, and we would then proceed onward. I thought that was the agreement.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Amendment No. 2507

Mr. President, I support the objective of the underlying amendment proposed by Senator Kerry and others, those others being the minority leader and Senator Biden.

The information required by the Kerry amendment is essential if we are to ensure that the U.S. intelligence community is carrying out its intelligence collection mission against a dangerous and nefarious terrorist enemy.

In fact, earlier this year, I took to the Senate floor during the consideration of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill and offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment calling for such an investigation in the Intelligence Committee. The amendment was ruled out of order by the Chair.

The reason I raise this point is that the Intelligence Committee is the only committee in the Senate with the expertise and the jurisdictional responsibility for overseeing the Central Intelligence Agency and the other agencies comprising the U.S. intelligence community. The Kerry amendment, as amended, correctly points out that all members of the Intelligence Committee must have answers to key questions concerning alleged clandestine detention facilities. We need the information so we can ensure that the intelligence activities of this Nation are both effective and lawful. The Senate Intelligence Committee was established 30 years ago to carry out precisely this type of matter.

I wish to commend, once again, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and the cosponsors for offering this amendment. I am pleased that the second-degree amendment has been agreed to.

I thank my colleagues. I hope we can adopt this amendment on the floor because I believe it is a good piece of legislation that John Kerry has put forward.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I want to commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for taking a step forward to help our soldiers who are wounded, and removed from the combat zone for medical treatment.

Under current law, when soldiers are removed from a combat zone, even if it is for a severe wound, they lose all of their special duty pay, which for some enlisted soldiers can reduce their pay by half. It does not seem right to cut a soldier's pay at the time of an injury when that soldier and his family will face personal and financial hardships. For example, if a young soldier is sent to Walter Reed Hospital to recover, it is often important to have family nearby to assist in recovery. But that often means a young wife or husband must leave their home and job to help the

wounded soldier. They may face new temporary housing costs or added expenses just to live nearby and support in the soldier's recovery.

Thanks to action in our Armed Services Committee, there is a provision to continue some of the specialty pays for imminent danger for our wounded soldiers as long as they are in the hospital. The House Defense authorization includes a similar provision that creates a new pay provision specifically for rehabilitation from combat-related injuries.

I support such provisions, and in fact, I introduced S. 461, the Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds Compensation Act, to maintain full pay for soldiers during recovery. I was proud to have Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and Salazar as cosponsors.

My commitment to this legislation was based on hearing the plight of wounded soldiers. My West Virginia caseworkers have heard from many soldiers and families who are struggling. While everyone is tragically aware of the more than 2,000 soldiers, including 15 West Virginians, who have lost their lives, we do not hear as much about our wounded soldiers.

Current estimates are that 16,220 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 104 are West Virginians. Thanks to better medical care and better equipment, when it is available, our soldiers are surviving devastating attacks, but too often at high costs including the loss of limbs. Such soldiers face long recoveries, and they need their families nearby to support them. But there are extra costs for families at this time, and we should not be substantially reducing the pay of our wounded heroes.

As the conference committee is appointed and we begin the hard work of resolving the differences between these two bills, I hope that we will keep in mind the struggles and financial hardships of our wounded soldiers and their families. We need to provide them with adequate pay in honor of their distinguished service.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business but on the amendment before us.

I thank, as always, the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Virginia.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Levin and others for their leadership in proposing this amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the amendment based on the belief that a comprehensive, objective, and independent investigation into the collection of intelligence through the detention, interrogation, and rendition of prisoners is long overdue. While I am a strong supporter of the amendment, I regret greatly the fact that we have been forced to seek the creation of a national commission on such a critically important matter that falls squarely within the oversight responsibility of the Congress. Unfortunately, Congress's unwillingness to carry out these oversight duties in the past year has left us with no remaining alternative but to seek the creation of a national commission.

Why do I say this? The collection of intelligence through interrogation and rendition is an extremely important part of our counterterrorism effort. The interrogation of captured terrorists and insurgents is, in fact, one of the most important of intelligence tools. We must ensure that those interrogations are carried out in a proper and effective manner. This tool, as with all others, must be applied within the bounds of our laws and our own national moral framework, and it must be subject to the same scrutiny and congressional oversight as every other aspect of intelligence. This, unfortunately, has not been the case.

Despite the critical importance of interrogation-derived intelligence and the growing controversy surrounding retention, interrogation, and rendition policies and practices, the Congress has largely ignored the issue, holding a limited number of hearings that have provided limited insight.

More disturbing, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate committee charged with overseeing U.S. intelligence programs and the only one with jurisdiction to investigate all aspects of this issue, is sitting on the sidelines and effectively abdicating its oversight responsibility to media investigative reporters.

As the Intelligence Committee's vice chairman, I have been pushing for the past 10 months for a formal investigation into the legal and operational

questions at the heart of the detention interrogation controversy, as has my colleague from the State of Michigan, Senator Levin.

My proposal that the Intelligence Committee conduct an investigation into this matter was rejected. A decision was made that the Intelligence Committee, as it is charged to do, would not formally examine the legal and operational aspects of our detention and interrogation program despite compelling and disturbing evidence that serious, possibly criminal, abuses had occurred.

Now, this decision is particularly curious given the litany of investigations carried out by the Intelligence Committee in the past. In recent years, our committee has produced detailed investigative reports into prewar intelligence on Iraq, technology transfer to China, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the shooting down of the missionary plane in Peru, and on and on. In fact, on July 30, 1999, a few years before he became our current chairman, Senator Pat Roberts wrote to then-Chairman Richard Shelby and Vice Chairman Bob Kerrey requesting an investigation into the intelligence related to the downing of CDR Michael Scott Speicher's F-18 plane in the early stages of the Persian Gulf war.

The committee responded favorably to Senator Roberts' request, conducted the investigation, and produced a report. Each of the committee reports was produced as a result of formally authorized investigations, and each was a constructive contribution to understanding not just how and why intelligence failures occur but what action should be taken to avoid them in the future. Our unanimously approved first phase of our Iraq report last July, which was the weapons of mass destruction aspect, was a rather thorough and devastating critique of the collection and analytical failings of our intelligence community prior to the war that has provided, frankly, a very critical momentum to an intelligence reform movement that was already gathering steam and ended up in the passage of landmark legislation in December, which most people would have said a couple of months earlier was not possible. Yet when presented with a similar set of compelling reports on how the United States detains and interrogates prisoners, the majority on the committee has prevented us from pursuing an investigation.

Why? Well over a year has passed since the appearance of photographs graphically portraying the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. As my colleagues know, these images and other reports of abuse provided a powerful propaganda tool to our terrorist enemies. Since then we have seen a steady stream of accusations relating to the way the U.S. military and intelligence agencies treat individuals in their custody. Allegations of mistreatment have surfaced wherever the United States holds prisoners overseas--across Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Troubling new revelations have become an almost daily occurrence, with a disturbing number of these instances resulting in prisoner deaths. At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody, and the unsettling charge has been leveled against the United States that we are exporting torture through rendition practices that lack accountability.

Who can honestly say that these events and allegations are not serious enough to warrant an Intelligence Committee investigation? My good friend and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner, believed such an investigation was needed back in February of this year, and at the February 18 open Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, which we do once a year, Senator Warner remarked:

And there's an issue out here, I say to my distinguished

chairman and ranking member and colleagues on the committee,

which I think we've got to address both in my committee and

in this committee, and that is the manner in which we gain

intelligence from those that are captured, either on the

battlefield or in other areas.

My hope was that sort of congressional inquiry referenced by Senator Warner back in February would have become a reality.

The Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee with their respective oversight of the military and intelligence communities could have provided the sort of complementary reviews into troubling allegations swirling around our interrogation of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and, as I said, Guantanamo Bay. Regrettably, our efforts and those of Senator Levin to authorize and conduct such an investigation have not succeeded. We are now, therefore, left by default with the remaining option of turning over this responsibility to a national commission to carry it out.

If the Senate oversight committees are either unwilling or unable to tackle the tough but necessary questions associated with detention, interrogation, and rendition of prisoners, then we should step aside, if we have to, regrettably, and let the work be done by those unfettered by other considerations.

I am confident that this new national commission, like the 9/11 Commission, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission before it, will provide the sort of comprehensive review of U.S. policy and practices relating to the treatment of detainees that has been absent so far.

Our amendment calls for a 12-month investigation in which all aspects of all of this must be looked at. More specifically, the 10-person commission will examine and report upon the policies and practices of the United States relating to the treatment of individuals detained since September 11, 2001. The commission will also be tasked to evaluate causes and factors that have contributed to the alleged mistreatment of detainees, including an assessment of either those directly or indirectly responsible for the mistreatment.

I am worried about the legal aspects of our underpinning, and I will more or less close with this: On May 18, 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency issued a statement that ``CIA policies on interrogation have always followed legal guidance from the Department of Justice.'' That may or may not be so, but was that legal guidance supportable? That is what you have to ask. Was it supportable? Was it factual?

A lengthy legal opinion on the Department of Justice interrogation practices, which had been issued in secret, in August, 2002, was quickly repudiated by the White House when it became public in June of 2004 and was then superseded by a public Justice Department legal opinion in December of 2004.

As that episode shows, secret interpretations of the law beyond the oversight of the Congress are an invitation to potentially great error.

What supporting roles do the CIA and FBI play in the interrogation of suspects of military-run prisons and how are their activities coordinated? It has been publicly reported that the CIA requested that a number of prisoners held in Iraq not be registered and be kept from international inspection; therefore, the so-called ghost detainees.

More recently, it has come to light that FBI officials lodged strenuous complaints about what they considered to be the mistreatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. These reports and others strongly suggest that different agencies are operating under different sets of rules, or they are not coordinated. This is a recipe for disaster which will come back to haunt us one of these days.

The commission will also review policies regarding the controversial practice of the United States of rendering detainees to foreign governments for interrogation.

Our practice of contracting out to foreign governments the interrogation of detainees is, to this Senator, particularly troubling. There have been numerous reports of individuals turned over by the United States to a foreign government for interrogation allegedly being tortured.

In addition to the ethical and legal considerations associated with this practice, the veracity of the information gained from these and other detainees is called into question if these statements were made under physical coercion. Therefore, it is important that we have a thorough evaluation of the current policy guidelines and field directives for when it is appropriate to render a detainee to another country and what intelligence is gained from such a practice.

More specifically, we must examine the validity of assurances that the

United States is given when detainees are rendered to other countries that they will not be tortured.

I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I will speak for a moment about the Schumer-Rockefeller generics amendment to the budget reconciliation bill.

The amendment that Senator Schumer and I are offering today would eliminate the provision in this bill that increases the generics Medicaid rebate from 11 percent to 17 percent. Increasing the rebate for generics would jeopardize consumer access to lower-cost prescription drugs and that's why this provision needs to be stricken from this bill.

The reconciliation bill before us has a number of flaws--it cuts Medicaid by $7.5 billion despite Hurricane Katrina and the high health care costs working families continue to face. It imposes even greater premiums on Medicare beneficiaries when Part B premiums have already gone up by more than $10 per month in each of the last 2 years. And, it fails to address many of the problems we know will occur when the Medicare drug benefit is implemented on January 1, 2006. But, that's not all.

This bill also includes a provision--which was added to the Finance Committee reconciliation bill the night before the markup--that would increase the rebate amount that generic manufacturers pay to State Medicaid programs from 11 percent to 17 percent. That's an increase of 55 percent.

At a time when access to generic drugs represents the greatest opportunity for prescription drug cost savings, this bill seeks to limit such access. Not only will this policy result in greater costs to Medicaid over the long term, but it could also threaten access to lower-cost drugs for all Americans.

In the recent past, when Missouri and New Jersey considered implementing generic drug rebate increases for the purpose of achieving savings, they actually found they would have incurred greater costs as a result of reduced access to affordable generic drugs.

New Jersey officials estimated that increasing rebates on generics used in their Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled and Senior Gold programs would have increased state costs $18 million in the first year. Missouri's SeniorRx Program estimated that increasing generic rebates would have increased state costs by $8.5 million dollars in the first year alone.

According to a 1998 study by the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers approximately $8-10 billion each year. Why would we undercut access to generics when low-cost prescription drugs should be a priority?

I question the merits of such a far-reaching policy that was added in the dead of night seemingly for the purpose of achieving greater budget savings. I understand the temptation to act in reconciliation to accomplish longstanding policy goals as well as to address requests from special interest groups.

We should resist such temptation when we have not done our homework-- when we don't know the real rationale or effects of this policy or the interaction with other policies. We can do better.

We can be more thoughtful--and we have a responsibility to be very careful when we're dealing with pocketbook issues that affect working families, our states, as well as long-term costs to the Federal Government.

I thank the Chair and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Schumer-Rockefeller generic drug amendment.

Last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--CMS, approved a comprehensive Section 1115 waiver for the State of Florida, the latest in a string of waivers that allows States to dramatically reshape the financing and entitlement guarantees established by law in the Medicaid program. These far-reaching Medicaid waivers are generally negotiated in secret without input from the very beneficiaries who would be affected by such drastic changes to the program. That is why I have filed an amendment to this budget reconciliation bill that will require CMS to post public notification on their website within 5 business days whenever a State submits a waiver concept paper for feedback or a formal waiver proposal for discussion and review.

Chairman Grassley, I thank you for your willingness to work with me. This is a matter of good government. The Government Accountability Office has published several reports which indicate that the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to follow its own policy on providing opportunities for the public to learn about and comment on pending waiver requests. Congress has a responsibility to assert its oversight authority on Section 1115 waivers because Medicaid is too important a program to allow it to be waived

away through secret negotiations and without input from those who will be affected or their advocates.

medicaid pharmacy, reimbursement for prescriptions

Mr. President, I oppose the legislation the Senate is considering today. This bill does not reflect American values. Although proponents of the bill try to claim that this is a deficit reduction bill, it is transparently not so. This bill is only the first half of their budget policy. The second half, which we will see in a couple of weeks, provides tax cuts almost double the size of these spending cuts. In the end, the policy advanced by this reconciliation process is to increase the deficit by more than $30 billion in order to provide additional tax cuts while shortchanging valuable programs.

I am extremely concerned about how this legislation will affect the people in my State of West Virginia. I believe that the effect will be very painful indeed. This bill cuts $10 billion from Medicaid, on which our most vulnerable members of society depend for basic health care. I have fought very hard to improve the provisions of this bill related to Medicare and Medicaid, but I am sorry to say that in the end, this bill will deal a terrible blow to those programs. And the effects will certainly be felt by our neediest and sickest citizens.

In a letter to the Congress, the National Council of Churches said of this budget bill, ``It violates all the fundamental Christian values of loving thy neighbor, caring for the poor, and showing mercy.'' In fact, they said that this proposed budget would be a ``moral disaster of monumental proportion.'' I think it is a very sad day when the Senate of the United States would vote for such legislation, especially in the context of a fiscal policy that is focused on giving additional tax cuts.

In a broader sense, I am very concerned about what this bill says about the state of Congress' budget process. I am afraid that the budget reconciliation process that was originally intended to help Congress enact difficult policies to reduce deficits is being utterly abused by the majority to enact policies that not only cannot garner broad support but also do nothing to improve our nation's fiscal situation. The unique role of the Senate is undermined when the reconciliation process is used to enact policies that are not related to deficit reduction, most egregiously in this bill drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Today, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified to the Joint Economic Committee that unless reversed the nation's ``budget trends will cause severe economic disruptions.'' I agree with Mr. Greenspan, and I stand ready to work with my colleagues toward the goal of deficit reduction. However, the reconciliation process underway in Congress today, in fact, will exacerbate our runaway deficits.

I vehemently oppose this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating it so that we can make real progress toward improving our Nation's budget situation in a way that is consistent with our American values, in a way that is truly compassionate toward the least fortunate of our fellow citizens.

Mr. President, I also wanted to make a brief statement about the fundamental importance of providing help and support to the families devastated by Hurricane Katrina. This is an unprecedented disaster. Many families lost every thing they own and they have been displaced for months, and that sadly will continue to be the case for quite some time.

For weeks, I joined Senators Grassley, Baucus and others to fight for legislation to expand health care coverage for these needy families. Today, I voted for Senator Lincoln's amendment to expand Medicaid coverage to help the evacuees of this disaster. I am disappointed that this amendment failed by a vote of 52 to 47. These families need and deserve health care. It is tragic that the Senate refused to help vulnerable Americans.

On the education front, the reconciliation package included by voice vote an Enzi-Kennedy amendment to provide support to the schools that have

already accepted evacuee students. The children and all the schools that accepted such students, without knowing how or when they would get funding deserve our support.

I voted against the Ensign-Santorum amendment that sought to change the Enzi-Kennedy bill into a direct voucher program. It would have removed the carefully negotiated provisions designed to maintain the basic civil rights protections in the underlying education package. This legislation, in my view, merely provides a one time emergency financial grant to the schools and communities that opened their doors and classrooms to evacuee students following such an historic disaster.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. For the past 30 years, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been remarkably bipartisan. It has performed a terrific oversight factor for the Senate. The resolution creating the committee mandates an oversight role. We are not there watching clouds drift by. The resolution that creates the committee mandates an oversight role of the U.S. intelligence community and a responsibility to carefully review our Nation's most sensitive national security programs. It is very broad and widespread in the handling of highly classified secrets. The committee is designed to be nonpartisan. That is why I am called a vice chairman. That is not true in any other committee. But it is meant to work.

We have reached an agreement that shows what has happened today, in a somewhat abrupt manner, but nevertheless we have reached an agreement on what we will do. That is a large step forward. I congratulate all involved in that.

For the most part, the history has been a good one. Over the past 2 years, I have to say, in all honesty, I am troubled by a concerted effort by this administration to use its influence to limit, to delay, to frustrate, to deny the Intelligence Committee's oversight work into the intelligence reporting and activities leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

In June, 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee began a formal investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq. The primary focus of the investigation was to evaluate the intelligence reporting underlying the claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups. Although the Senate resolution establishing the Intelligence Committee intelligence clearly states in Senate resolution 400 we are to look at the ``use'' of intelligence, the majority on the committee initially rejected attempts by myself and by others to add to the investigation--that is, to add to phase I--how administration officials used or potentially misused intelligence and public statements leading up to the war which maybe helped lead up to the war. Only after considerable insistence by committee members and protracted discussions did the majority leadership of the committee agree to add to the scope of our investigation the issue of how intelligence was used prior to the Iraq war. It is a huge uncovered subject.

On February 12, 2004, the Intelligence Committee unanimously agreed and publicly announced that five issues would be added to the investigation, phase II. One, whether public statements, records and testimony regarding Iraq by Government officials made between the gulf war period, end of gulf war I and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, whether those statements by Government officials were substantiated by intelligence information.

Prewar intelligence is No. 2, prewar intelligence assessment about postwar Iraq.

Three, any intelligence activities related to Iraq within the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, headed by one Douglas Feith.

Four, the use of the intelligence community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

Five, the postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism.

Remember, this was constantly being thrown at us, links to terrorism and how they compare to the prewar assessments.

The committee press release explained all of that. Everyone agreed to it, and it added the resolution adopted unanimously today that illustrated the commitment to all members to a thorough review to learning the necessary lessons from our experience with Iraq and ensures that our Armed Forces and policymakers benefit from the best and most reliable intelligence that can be collected.

These five areas of inquiry commonly referred to as phase II were authorized well over a year and a half ago, in February of 2004. It has been 20 months since the committee committed to all Members of the Senate and to the American public a thorough review.

My colleague, the chairman of the committee, has referred to all of the things that have been done. In fact, we have had one hearing. And he referred to work that would take place next week. I didn't know about that. All of a sudden everyone will plow into phase II. I am not critical of that because I think today has helped to create that kind of momentum which I think is important.

Since the committee identified these five issues as a high priority in February of last year, I and other Democrats on the committee have repeatedly urged completion of the review--we agreed to it unanimously--and had been assured by the chairman, time and time again, that the committee will fulfill this commitment.

Yet, despite these repeated assurances, it is clear that only token work, at best, has been done on phase II since it was authorized. That is unacceptable. We have had only one business meeting on phase II, and no report has been written for members to review--nothing.

The public pronouncement of Chairman Roberts earlier this year that phase II was ``on the back burner'' has been, unfortunately, accurate. Do I enjoy saying this? Not particularly, true. But let people know.

The disturbing question is, why has the chairman relegated the phase II investigation to the back burner? Why did he do that?

The fact is--and I hope folks will listen closely--that any time the Intelligence Committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us closer to the role of the White House in all of this, in the use of intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and time again.

When it was reported that the Vice President's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby and the National Security Council prepared a draft speech making the intelligence case against Iraq and sent it to the CIA for Secretary of State Powell to give before the United Nations in February of 2003, my staff asked that the committee obtain the NSC, National Security Council, document as part of our ongoing review of how the Powell speech was formulated. Our requests were denied by the majority. Why?

Because of this denial, I personally wrote to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Tenet, requesting the Libby/NSC input into the Powell speech--it was important to have that information--and other documents in October of 2003. Director Tenet did not respond to my letter, nor did he respond to my two subsequent letters for the NSC paper in January and March of 2003. Why?

Perhaps the answer can be found in last week's National Journal article, which reports that Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff Libby overruled White House lawyers and withheld this information--withheld these documents--from us, and other documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

When, during the committee's Iraq investigation, my staff requested that the committee interview the White House speechwriter who wrote the President's 2003 State of the Union Address to better understand how the debunked claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger made it into the President's speech--how it got in there, when the same claim was removed, at the CIA's insistence, a few months earlier in Cincinnati--our request was denied by the majority. Why?

When we requested that the committee obtain a copy of the one-page summary of the Intelligence Community's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that was prepared for the President in October 2002, our request was denied by the majority. Why?

And why has the committee's phase II investigation been moribund since February of 2004? When the committee told the American people it would conduct a thorough review, was the promise a hollow one? What other conclusion?

Could it be that the administration has made it clear it does not want the Congress to examine whether intelligence was accurately presented to the American people in the rush to war?

Could it be that the administration has made it clear it does not want Congress to examine the role that Pentagon policy officials under Douglas Feith played in circumventing the intelligence community and preparing an alternative analysis to the White House that drew a link between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11 that the intelligence did not support?

Could it be the administration has made it clear it does not want Congress to examine the claim that the Iraqi National Congress made to the Senate Appropriations Committee in June of 2002 that it was providing intelligence information directly to the Vice President's office--to Mr. Hadley, I believe--and the Office of the Secretary of Defense? Chalabi passed all intelligence agencies in our Government directly into the White House.

The administration's ability to head off any line of inquiry into matters of appropriate congressional oversight is not limited to the Intelligence Committee's Iraq investigation. Despite repeated attempts by me and other Intelligence Committee members to initiate a detailed review of fundamental legal and operational questions surrounding the detention, interrogation, and rendition of suspected terrorists held in U.S. custody--important national security measures that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee--the committee's majority has refused to conduct such an investigation. What are we to do?

The Intelligence Committee's obligation under Senate Resolution 400-- ``to provide vigilant oversight of the intelligence activities of the United

States''--requires us to not only answer questions related to cases of detainee abuse, but to examine the effectiveness of the methods used in interrogations.

But, again, it is apparent to me that the White House has sent down the edict to the majority--and I could say more--that the Congress is not to carry out its oversight responsibilities in detention, interrogation, and rendition matters, or some of the previous matters I discussed, as it would bring uncomfortable attention to the legal decisions and opinions coming from the White House and the Justice Department in the operation of various programs.

Finally, the delay in completing the remaining portion of the Intelligence Committee's Iraq review is inexcusable. Sadly, the committee's delinquency in completing an investigation that it unanimously voted to undertake over 20 months ago has diminished the committee's credibility as an effective overseer of the intelligence community.

But what disturbs me the most is that the majority has been willing, in this Senator's judgment, to take orders from this administration when it comes to limiting the scope of appropriate, authorized, and necessary oversight investigations. This is a very strong statement. The very independence of the Congress as a separate and coequal branch of Government has been called into question.

We need to not only complete the second phase of the Intelligence Committee's investigation, we need to reopen the first part of the Iraq report we released in July of last year, to find out what role the White House played in denying the committee documents it needed to carry out its investigation. That is not a part of the agreement, I fully and freely admit.

It is time the Senate, as a body, own up to our oversight responsibilities and provide the American people the answers we promised we would give them over 20 months ago.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, I have the same document and ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, also, there was a reference in the chairman's remarks as to events that went on in the Douglas Feith matter, and he referred to ``lawyering up.'' There is a very clear, easy, simple answer to that, and I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record, also.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Mercer County Drug Free Community Support Program. The course provides initiatives towards fighting substance abuse, developing links between the community and its leaders in helping to educate the public, and allow young citizens the opportunity to help their peers. They have received numerous awards for their work in helping the citizens of Mercer County deal with problems they may encounter daily, be it alcohol, prescription drugs, or illegal substances. The county has received a prestigious national award for its efforts, and deserves acknowledgment and praise for this accomplishment.

Recognizing the importance that this program brings to the community is important; America's Promise, the Alliance for Youth announced that Mercer County is the winner of a national award to identify the 100 Best Communities for Young People; the award shows the true extent of the value of such programs as the Mercer County drug-free program, helping communities create better lives for the people who live in areas afflicted by substance abuse, and the problems arising from drug abuse. The 100 Best Communities for Young People celebrates outstanding, innovative efforts across the country that improve the well-being of our young citizens. Mercer County truly deserved this award for its efficient and pioneering ways of dealing with social problems and substance abuse.

Mercer County has put in place community programs that help teens learn about problems arising from drug abuse, social misconduct, and other related issues. One particular project which deserves praise is the ``teen court'' in which offenders are judged by their peers. The Mercer County Teen Court was designed to provide youth with the necessary tools to demonstrate the power they have, individually and collectively, to influence others and make positive changes in their own lives and in their community. The teen court is especially effective in allowing teens the chance to see what problems have arisen from their offense, and to be given a punishment fitting to the crime handed out by their own peers.

As a Vista volunteer in 1964, I realized the importance of community work in combating poverty, helping individuals and low-income neighborhoods make positive changes for themselves and their communities. The Mercer County Drug Free Community Support Program is also part of the Creating Opportunities for Youth coalition, a group of community leaders who work hard creating a strategy to address the problematic behaviors plaguing our children and youth in the community.

The organization plays a vital role in helping young citizens avoid the dangers of substance abuse; government grants and awards have allowed the program to set up successful workshops that deal with educating youngsters and parents alike. It is, in effect, a leading community source for prevention and awareness of substance abuse. The program has worked closely with leaders and the citizens to bring together Mercer County and, as a result, it is a good, safe place to live, work, and raise children.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the many years of service Norman ``Norm'' L. Kirkham has provided to the people of southern West Virginia. For the last 19 years, Mr. Kirkham has held the position of executive director of the West Virginia Region I Planning and Development Council and worked tirelessly on various projects during the 10 years prior to that. This organization is a nonprofit public agency that coordinates with the Federal, State, and local governments to provide comprehensive planning for the coalfields of southern West Virginia. After numerous years of working with the citizens of McDowell, Mercer, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers, and Wyoming Counties to improve their quality of life and develop the regional economy, Norm is retiring effective October 31, 2005.

Many of Norm's colleagues praise him for his active role as the driving force behind the scenes, turning proposed plans and ideas into economic realities for southern West Virginia. One such example is a project to bring a new Federal prison to McDowell County, West Virginia. Over the last decade, I have worked alongside Norm to help develop a site for the prison and secure approval for the prison. As a result of his relentless hard work and determination, the new Federal prison will create 350 high-paying jobs in an area that desperately needs them. I am enormously proud to have worked with Norm on this and so many projects.

During his tenure as executive director, Norm has helped to secure funds to provide flood relief to the flood-prone valleys and riverbanks of southern West Virginia, enhanced the water systems in towns such as Princeton, Welch, and Union, and lobbied for grant money to support senior citizen centers. In addition to advancing specific economic development projects, Norm has helped ease access to technology, sewage, and other forms of infrastructure throughout southern West Virginia.

Without a doubt, Norm has contributed a great deal to his agency and to the people of southern West Virginia. His contributions are even more impressive when one considers the dire need for economic development in the southern West Virginia coalfields. Traditionally, the economy of southern West Virginia has relied heavily on the coal industry. Through coordination and planning, Norm and his agency have helped diversify the region's economy and tremendously enhance the infrastructural needs that are vital to development in southern West Virginia. Many successful economic development sites can be attributed to Norm's dedication to promoting and developing economic prosperity for every person and family in his region. Public servants in his line of work normally do not receive the recognition they deserve. Our State needs more people like Norm who dedicate their entire professional careers to ensure that people have adequate employment, roads, water, sewage, and other services and infrastructural needs commonly taken for granted.

Always modest and never in the limelight, Norm is firmly rooted in rural Summers County where he inherited the values that make southern West Virginia a unique and wonderful area--service to community and nation and dedication to family and neighbors. Through his hard work and integrity, Norm has earned the respect of every local official in southern West Virginia; Federal and State officials; Governors, past and present; and the Members of the congressional delegation.

In retirement, Norm can more fully devote himself to what he cherishes most in life--his family, his Summers County farm and his community. He will surely be missed at Region I and throughout all of West Virginia, but he leaves a career of good work that will last generations.

I will sincerely miss working with Norm but I suspect even in retirement, some very worthwhile community projects are going to find themselves in need of a seasoned volunteer just like him. Regardless, I wish him the very best.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today too honor and commend the service of a true West Virginia hero. LCPL James R. Sargent of the United States Marine Corps was one of many West Virginians who courageously fought in the Vietnam War. Lance Corporal Sargent's service was a testament to West Virginia's long storied patriotic tradition. A tradition that can be traced back to the days of George Washington, and one that is very much alive today. In the spirit of West Virginia patriotism, I praise Lance Corporal Sargent for his honorable service and contribution to our country.

On October 7, 2005, after having been declared Missing in Action for over 37 years, LCPL James R. Sargent will finally be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Lance Corporal Sargent was listed as missing on May 10, 1968, as his platoon provided artillery support in defense of the Civilian Irregular Defense Group camp known as Ngok Tavak. The Marine detachment was attacked by a prepared and well- equipped Viet Cong and North Vietnamese battalion of troops. For their bravery in battle, Lance Corporal Sargent's platoon received the Meritorious Unit Commendation from then Secretary of the Navy L.F. Chapman, Jr.

Lance Corporal Sargent was a native West Virginian from Anawalt in McDowell County. Like so many West Virginians, past and present, Lance Corporal Sargent heeded the Nation's call for service, and they deserve our gratitude and deep respect. I am honored to be able to pay respects to this brave West Virginian and his family and friends. After many years full of questions and grief, I hope that Lance Corporal Sargent's loved ones may finally have much deserved closure and peace of mind. His surviving family, friends, and fellow veterans should all be proud of his service, patriotism, and commitment to his country and its defense. For that matter, all Americans should be proud.

I ask that we all take a moment to remember all of the American soldiers who gave their lives in service to their country.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

In Judge Roberts the Nation is presented with a nominee who possesses an extraordinary intellect, a modest temperament, and a steady hand. I see in him the will and the ability to seek common ground among the Justices of the Court on important national issues. And I believe he possesses sufficient humility, as a man and as a judge, to be mindful of the powerful impact of his actions on the lives of average Americans.

Four days of intensive hearings allowed all of us, and much of America, to come to know something of John Roberts and to observe and assess what we don't know.

None of us can fully fathom the matters that will be determined, and the people who will be affected, by a judge with lifetime tenure on the highest Court of the land. John Roberts today very likely becomes the Chief Justice of a generation.

It is not surprising that this President would select a nominee with whom I disagree on some important issues, particularly as articulated in his early policy work. But it is reassuring, and ultimately determinative, that the President has selected a nominee who asserts with conviction, supported by the record, that he is not an ideologue, that he takes precedent as established law and people and cases as they come before him. I take him at his word, and trust that in interpreting and applying the law he will be his own man.

Yet once a nominee's high credentials and unimpeachable integrity have been established, the selection of a Supreme Court justice further demands of us a leap of faith. And it is in that leap of faith that we must attempt to know more: Who is he as a person? What is his understanding of the human condition? Does he take seriously our fundamental responsibility to people as well as to legal concepts?

Judge Roberts and I had the opportunity to meet in recent days to discuss his nomination. We had a good, long talk about West Virginia and our country and the people who make America great.

In talking with Judge Roberts I looked for assurance that when he tackles the grave questions that will come before his Court, he will consider fully the lives of average people, the lives of those in need and those whose voices often are not heard, the lives of working men and women, children, the elderly, our veterans.

Judge Roberts listened. He is a careful and attentive listener. And, I want my fellow West Virginians to know, Judge Roberts shared that his grandfather was a coal miner and his father worked in the steel mills, and that he is, in fact, mindful of the awesome responsibility he faces toward all Americans, from all walks of life, equally and unequivocally deserving of the rights and protections of our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the important role the polymer industry plays in my State of West Virginia. As part of Polymer Appreciation Week in the State, Governor Joe Manchin and I have invited a small group of international polymer executives to West Virginia to showcase investment opportunities available to their companies.

West Virginia's polymer industry plays an important and vital role in West Virginia's economy. World renowned companies such as GE Plastics, DuPont, Sunoco, and M&G Polymers have chosen to locate here. West Virginia's excellent infrastructure, broad range of raw materials, highly skilled workforce, and close proximity to 62 percent of the United States industrial market, makes West Virginia a key player in the global market.

The Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia--PAZ--is the site of the highest concentration of production of high technology, speciality and engineering polymers in the world. The Mid-Ohio Valley has a long history in the production of industrial chemicals, petrochemicals, and polymers dating back to the 1940s. The region has a proud manufacturing heritage, and today, that expertise and dedication has gained the Polymer Alliance Zone national recognition.

The mission of the Polymer Alliance Zone is to create the most favorable business climate in the world for the plastics industry through a unique partnership among business, education, and government. Since its inception in 1996, the focus of the organization has been the support of both new and existing polymer industries. According to recent calculations by the West Virginia Development office, PAZ has partnered with local, State and private industry to complete 33 projects that have generated more than $529 million of investments.

The Polymer Alliance Zone offers great opportunities for companies looking to locate in West Virginia. The Mid-Ohio Valley location offers easy access to an increasingly global market, and the State's abundant resources provide companies with affordable, reliable energy. In addition, West Virginia's favorable business climate welcomes and supports polymer companies through a number of valuable assistance programs. More importantly, it is the people of West Virginia who make the Polymer Alliance Zone what it is--a vibrant economy, a growing community, and an opportunity that national polymer companies should not miss.

Over the last 9 years, the Polymer Alliance Zone has assisted the West Virginia Development Office and our county development authorities in creating and retaining over 1,000 jobs in the region. This is a large achievement, and in return my State recognizes 9 years of service that PAZ has provided to both the polymer industry and to the State of West Virginia by celebrating Polymer Appreciation Week.

Mr. President, tonight is the annual gala of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute to honor individuals from across the country that have helped promote the basic but crucial goal of ensuring that every child is safe, healthy and has a permanent home.

I am proud to be a member of this group, and I am proud of the leadership

shown by our Chairs, Senator Landrieu and Senator Craig. Thanks to their leadership and the importance of public awareness, this event has grown into a true celebration and recognition of the individuals who have earned their award, as an Angel of Adoption.

This year, I am delighted to honor Chris Wood, executive director of Mission West Virginia, a faith-based organization in my State. Chris and his group have undertaken the initiative known as One Church, One Child. This program which has branches in about 30 States was started in my State in December 2001, thanks to the leadership of Chris Wood and Mission West Virginia. Its goal is to raise awareness and interest in adoptions from foster care throughout the community, but particularly focusing on faith communities. Since its inception, hundreds of West Virginians have inquired about potential adoptions. About 40 adults have been registered and certified as foster and/or adoptive parents. But the best news is that 25 children have been adopted into safe, permanent homes. Others are still in the process. This is real progress, and it is changing the lives of children and families.

This is a remarkable program. I am also pleased to note that my West Virginia colleague has nominated Drew Ornbaun as her Angel in Adoption. Drew is a teenager who was adopted from foster care, and he has become a compassionate spokesperson for this initiative and its vital goal--a safe, permanent home for every child.

Chris Wood, executive director of Mission West Virginia, is doing important work on behalf of children and families through the One Church, One Child program.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Senator Mike DeWine in introducing new legislation to promote better cooperation and collaboration between the courts and State agencies serving abused and neglected children. Our bill also seeks to improve the process for children to be adopted between two States, and gain a safe, permanent home that is one of the priorities established in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Our bill is named Working to Enhance Courts for At-Risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005, WE CARE, Kids.

Senator DeWine and I have worked for years in bipartisan coalition to improve services and policies for our most vulnerable children, nearly 500,000 children who are in the foster care system. These children deserve our attention and our compassion. Through no fault of their own, such children are placed in foster care for their safety. They need to be safe, but they also need prompt and good decisions made for their long-term future and stability. Whenever possible, we should invest to help restore the family and reunite the children with their families if we know that they will be safe. In some cases, legal guardianship or adoption are the best options for the child. It is essential to make good decisions in a timely manner for such children. The social services agencies and the courts truly must work together on such cases.

Recently the bipartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care issued a thoughtful report with recommendations on how to strengthen the courts serving children in foster care. The Commission was led by former Congressman Bill Frenzel and co-chaired by former Congressman Bill Gray. It includes a wide range of leaders and experts. The commission did a careful review of the role of the courts in serving children in foster care, and it issued a series of recommendations. We are grateful for this report and relied on many of their recommendations in crafting this legislation. As always, we hope to forge bipartisan consensus on ways to move this bill forward.

The legislation also includes a provision to promote inter-state adoptions. With modern technology, caring families from one State may learn of a child in a foster care system in another State who is seeking adoption. When this happens, we need to be careful and thorough in accessing information to ensure the right placement. But we also must be sure that bureaucratic paperwork does not unnecessarily delay an adoption.

In West Virginia, there are about 80 children in our State foster care system ready for adoption; nationwide 118,000 children are in foster care and waiting for a safe permanent home. The wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Meth Epidemic in regions of our country, tragically could make these numbers increase. We must improve our system to do the best we can for these vulnerable children. Passing the WE CARE, Kids Act could be an important step forward.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Senator Mike DeWine in introducing new legislation to promote better cooperation and collaboration between the courts and State agencies serving abused and neglected children. Our bill also seeks to improve the process for children to be adopted between two States, and gain a safe, permanent home that is one of the priorities established in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Our bill is named Working to Enhance Courts for At-Risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005, WE CARE, Kids.

Senator DeWine and I have worked for years in bipartisan coalition to improve services and policies for our most vulnerable children, nearly 500,000 children who are in the foster care system. These children deserve our attention and our compassion. Through no fault of their own, such children are placed in foster care for their safety. They need to be safe, but they also need prompt and good decisions made for their long-term future and stability. Whenever possible, we should invest to help restore the family and reunite the children with their families if we know that they will be safe. In some cases, legal guardianship or adoption are the best options for the child. It is essential to make good decisions in a timely manner for such children. The social services agencies and the courts truly must work together on such cases.

Recently the bipartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care issued a thoughtful report with recommendations on how to strengthen the courts serving children in foster care. The Commission was led by former Congressman Bill Frenzel and co-chaired by former Congressman Bill Gray. It includes a wide range of leaders and experts. The commission did a careful review of the role of the courts in serving children in foster care, and it issued a series of recommendations. We are grateful for this report and relied on many of their recommendations in crafting this legislation. As always, we hope to forge bipartisan consensus on ways to move this bill forward.

The legislation also includes a provision to promote inter-state adoptions. With modern technology, caring families from one State may learn of a child in a foster care system in another State who is seeking adoption. When this happens, we need to be careful and thorough in accessing information to ensure the right placement. But we also must be sure that bureaucratic paperwork does not unnecessarily delay an adoption.

In West Virginia, there are about 80 children in our State foster care system ready for adoption; nationwide 118,000 children are in foster care and waiting for a safe permanent home. The wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Meth Epidemic in regions of our country, tragically could make these numbers increase. We must improve our system to do the best we can for these vulnerable children. Passing the WE CARE, Kids Act could be an important step forward.