Floor Statements

Mr. President, within the conference report on the interior appropriations bill is an essential provision to provide $1.5 billion to address the current shortfall in funding for VA health care. The Interior appropriations conference report was selected as the quickest legislative vehicle to address this immediate and compelling lack of funding for VA.

With our country in combat in various regions around the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is greatly disturbing that the VA is facing such a severe shortfall. I am proud that the Senate prevailed in securing the $1.5 billion needed to respond to urgent health care needs of veterans now--both veterans returning from current conflicts and aging veterans needing long-term care. While we are addressing this compelling need today, this crisis could have--and should have--been averted. The administration should have proposed a better budget for VA in February of 2005. The administration could have supported Senator Murray's amendment to the Iraq supplemental in April of 2005 to add $1.97 billion for VA health care. Neither happened, and it is troubling that VA blames use of old models and early estimates on VA health care needs beginning in 2002. Our heroic service men and women have been serving in Iraq since 2003, and the VA budget officials should have known to rework and review the VA health care budgets. It is a sad excuse for VA officials to tell Congress in April that VA health care funding is adequate and fine, and then have VA officials come to Congress at the end of June of 2005 to suggest a shortfall of at least $1.5 billion in the VA health care programs. We simply must have a better budget process at the VA to measure and adjust any estimates over time so that our veterans get the health care they have earned with their brave service.

Military personnel--Active Duty members and especially members of the National Guard and Reserves--respond to the call of duty. They risk their lives in service to our Nation, and they, and their families, endure enormous sacrifices due to their service. A new survey from the Army suggest that as many as 30 percent of those military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will face mental health concerns, like post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, at the time of their return due to the violence and experiences they face. I have hosted private roundtables throughout West Virginia to meet with returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe that they have compelling needs for mental health care due to the overwhelming stress of serving in such a challenging combat situation. Even service personnel who are supposedly not in combat zones face attacks from car bombs and suicide bombers. It is sad and tragic, and of course it affects our troops. The stories from West Virginia veterans about their service have convinced me that we must invest in more resources for mental health care, counseling, and our vet centers.

Knowing this, and knowing this for several years, we simply must ensure that VA health care get the funding it needs to serve all our veterans, Active Duty as well as National Guard and Reserves. But caring for our new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be at the expense of serving veterans of other eras, Vietnam, Korea, and World War II and all the times in between.

Our aging veterans have huge long-term care concerns, and VA has an obligation to serve them. Part of our current shortfall was a lack of long-term care funding. While we did not know about the Iraq war in 2002, surely we should have been aware of the demographics of the VA population and the looming need for health care. This issue will not go away, and VA must serve all of our veterans.

Since coming to the Senate in 1985, I have been proud to serve on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and I treasure this opportunity to work on behalf of veterans in West Virginia and throughout our country. Today's passage of the $1.5 billion provision for VA health care in the Interior appropriations package is an important step to address the VA health care shortfall. But honestly, this is merely a downpayment, and much more must be done to strengthen the process and the funding for VA health care. This Senator is fully committed to finding a real solution to the chronic problems of insufficient funding for VA health care. Our dedicated veterans deserve no less.

Mr. President, on July 25 and 26, 2005, I was absent from the Senate because I was taking care of an important family matter. During those days, I missed the following six rollcall votes.

Rollcall vote No. 206, taken on July 26, 2005, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Rollcall vote No. 205, taken on July 26, 2005, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1042, National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.

Rollcall vote No. 204, taken on July 26, 2005, on the Frist amendment No. 1342, as modified, ``to support certain youth organizations, including the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America, and for other purposes.''

Rollcall vote No. 203, taken on July 26, 2005, on the Lautenberg amendment No. 1351, ``to stop corporations from financing terrorism.''

Rollcall vote No. 202, taken on July 26, 2005, on the Collins amendment No. 1377, as modified, ``to ensure that certain persons do not evade or avoid the prohibitions imposed under the International Emergency Powers Act, and for other purposes.''

Rollcall vote No. 201, taken on July 25, 2005, on S. Res. 207, ``a resolution recognizing and honoring the 15th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.''

Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to publicly recognize the 175th anniversary of the First Christian Church in Weirton, WV. The church has ministered to the Ohio Valley since West Virginia was recognized as our country's 35th state.

The Christian Church, which is also known as the Disciples of Christ, is a Protestant denomination of approximately 800,000 members in the United States and Canada. It is one of the largest faith groups founded on American soil. The founders of the Christian Church were Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander Campbell. Both of these men and other distinguished leaders of the Disciples of Christ ministered at the First Christian Church in Weirton.

Members of the church have been faithful in serving their country. One of the church's original members, in fact, received a Congressional Medal of Honor in 1898. Mr. Uriah Brown received the award for his heroism in the Civil War, especially at the siege of Vicksburg.

Weirton is very much a city that reflects the struggles of the steel industry in our Nation. The city was once a booming steel town, employing up to 20,000 people. Unfortunately, the steel industry has had a very tough time recovering from the massive dumping of steel by our foreign competition in the late 1990s, and the church has had to adapt its ministries to meet the needs of the city's now dwindling population. The challenges that First Christian Church has faced reflect the difficulties faced by the city.

The church helped to create Weirton's Christians Helping Arrange New Growth Enterprises, or the CHANGE program, which encourages the integration of services, the building of partnerships, and the pooling of resources to empower families toward self-sufficiency. As Governor, I saw first-hand the work of the First Christian Church in helping establish Weirton Steel's Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or ESOP, in 1983. When the ESOP was in its beginning stages, First Christian Church provided financial support to the employees as they pulled together to prevent the city's primary business from closing. The church also provided food for those who were in need and assisted members of the congregation who were unemployed throughout this period.

As the church enters it 176th year, it remains an important part of the community, directly addressing the many needs of an aging steel town. Among the several ministries of the church, one includes the church's Food Cupboard, which provides financial and food aid for laid- off steel workers and their families living in the Upper Ohio Valley. The church also has a food relief fund, and it works with the Salvation Army.

The church has not only been influential in Weirton and the Ohio Valley but also in the world. It is a leader in the denomination's Reconciliations Ministry, which is a ministry designed to specifically fight racial prejudice. First Christian Church has been one of the top five financial givers to the Reconciliations Ministry. In addition, they work closely with St. Peter's AME

Church, which has an African American congregation. Even though St. Peter's is not the same denomination as the First Christian Church, the church considers it a sister church.

Since 1830, the First Christian Church has provided a place of hope, faith, shelter, and witness for the people of West Virginia. I join with them in celebrating its good works and wishing it all the best as it prepares for another century of service.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Clarence Wanzer, a resident of Coal Branch Heights, Charleston, WV, who has devoted his life to leadership and service in his community.

Mr. Wanzer, who will turn 95 on September 4, was born in Charleston, WV. In 1919, Mr. Wanzer joined Simpson Church but soon moved to Columbus, OH to be raised by his grandmother. Mr. Wanzer did not return to Charleston until the 1930s.

After Mr. Wanzer returned to his birthplace, he took a job with the U.S. Postal Service. Later, he purchased a piece of property in Coal Branch Heights, a residential community in Charleston. The community received its first glimpse of Mr. Wanzer's personal determination and conviction when he began construction on his home. Without outside help and during his spare time, Mr. Wanzer hand-dug the basement and completed construction on his block house.

Since the 1930s, Mr. Wanzer, working tirelessly to better his community, has participated in numerous community organizations. These activities have benefited the residents of Charleston and West Virginia as a whole.

In 1950, Mr. Wanzer's life forever changed. He assisted Rev. Ernest Smith, a local pastor, by polling the residents of Coal Branch Heights as to which Christian denomination they would like to belong. The residents chose the Methodist faith, and a developer donated land to the Methodist Conference for the construction of a new Methodist church.

Although Mr. Wanzer helped to build St. Stephens Methodist Church, the Methodist district superintendent refused him the right to worship within the building's walls. At that time, half of Coal Branch Heights' population was Black and the other half was White. Mr. Wanzer, an African American, was not permitted to worship with St. Stephens' all- White congregation. In response to this injustice, Mr. Wanzer purchased a small parcel of land, and he courageously constructed a second building in which all people of color could worship.

In 1965, the Methodist district superintendent invited Coal Branch Heights' Black families, the same families he had once turned away, to join the St. Stephens' parish. Mr. Wanzer's family joined St. Stephens in 1965, and he was able to enjoy the fruits of his decade-old labor.

Since 1965, Mr. Wanzer has touched the lives of those around him by holding a variety of leadership offices as well as inspiring other community members to become activists of the Christian faith. Today, he continues to serve his community. He recently, in his early 90s, undertook the task of seeking funds to fix a large sinkhole on Twilight Street.

I thank Mr. Wanzer for his unswerving loyalty and dedication to his community. Additionally, I wish him good health as he continues to serve the people of West Virginia. He serves as an inspiration to all of us as he continues to rely on his faith to do good works.

Mr. President, on July 30, 1965, with one stroke of the pen, President Lyndon Baines Johnson created two Federal programs that gave America's poor and elderly access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Having grown up in the Hill Country of Texas, President Johnson knew first hand of the lack of health care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. He had witnessed the bitter consequences of men, women, and children denied access to meaningful and affordable health care.

While President Johnson's signing of the Medicare and Medicaid programs into law was historic, it would be inaccurate to bestow the sole credit for the creation of these vital programs on one person alone. The Social Security Amendments of 1965 represented the decades long work of both Democrats and Republicans who shared a commitment to improving the health of our nation. The amendments were a compromise between those who wanted a social insurance program solely for the elderly and those who believed we needed a similar program for the poor.

The addition of Medicaid to the Social Security Amendments of 1965 was of particular significance. Far from being the afterthought that it is typically described as, the creation of Medicaid was actually a reflection of a tradition of community and mutual obligation that, if not uniquely, is at least characteristically American. It was an extension of a guiding principle of our Nation's founding--a shared responsibility for the greater good of all, despite the broader spectrum of political beliefs. President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican who embodied our Nation's commitment to the public good, was among the first to propose comprehensive health insurance for working families. Our language still bears witness to the type of Good Samaritan ideal that preceded the creation of Medicaid in local situations such as ``barn raising'' and ``quilting bees.'' And on a national level, we have always rallied in times of crisis, channeling personal and individual efforts into a pursuit of the greater good.

This type of social contract with our fellow Americans was the basis for the creation of Medicaid. The economic disasters of the Depression left many families unable to pay for health care and, therefore, at the mercy of preventable and treatable diseases. Because of the poor health outcomes that occurred during the Great Depression, the Federal Government began to give serious consideration to a health care safety net. Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress recognized our country's moral obligation to its most vulnerable citizens, and they pushed for action. And, in various ways, virtually every President from Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to John F. Kennedy helped lay the framework for the comprehensive health insurance legislation that Johnson ultimately finished.

Just as significant as the bipartisan support for the creation of Medicaid is the fact that subsequent administrations--Democratic and Republican--have reaffirmed a commitment to Medicaid because it is the fulfillment of a social contract between American citizens and their representative government.

Unfortunately, during the last decade, we have seen a misguided, darker view of Medicaid emerge, one that loses sight of the nobler efforts underlying that social contract. Medicaid had become a scapegoat for the larger ills facing our entire health care system. But, Medicaid isn't the problem. Instead, this vital program has inherited the problems of our entire health care system, and over the years has been asked to take on more and more responsibility for the health of our Nation with fewer and fewer resources. Because Medicare has never provided significant long-term care benefits, Medicaid has been left to foot the bill for individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. And, each year, more and more employers are dropping their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, which drives more working families to Medicaid. With cost shifts of this magnitude, State governments are finding themselves having to dedicate more and more of their budgets to Medicaid. As a former governor, I understand concerns about balancing budgets. However, the solution proposed by this administration--cutting billions of dollars out of Medicaid--does not fit the problem, which is our health care system as a whole.

We can and should reform our entire health care system to make it more responsive to the needs of our Nation's citizens, and there are relatively easy ways to do this. We can start by creating a Federal long-term care system to provide all Americans greater retirement security. At the same time, we can provide employers with more incentives to retain health care coverage for their employees. And, finally, the Federal Government can lower the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans by allowing reimportation and improving access to generic drugs. If we do these things, then Medicaid can continue to be a vital, stable, and efficient health care program.

I believe taking care of our most vulnerable people is a moral obligation.

And it is an obligation that we, as Americans, have fulfilled time and again because it reaffirms our fundamental belief in democracy and community. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, a record of his 19th century travels through the United States, America's ``equality of conditions'' not only characterized the new country's democratic political structure, but it reflected the community and mutual obligation that he saw as part and parcel of America's revolutionary form of government.

The social contract with America that was forged 40 years ago this week is no less valid or necessary today. According to the most recent Census data, nearly 24 million people with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line were uninsured in 2003, including approximately 18 million adults under age 65 as well as 6 million children. Those numbers are expected to rise in the years ahead. Our representative democracy has a responsibility to do for the future what we have repeatedly done in the past: protect, preserve, and strengthen Medicaid.

Mr. President, today, I rise, along with my cosponsor, Senator DeWine, to reintroduce legislation called I TEACH, Incentives to Educate America's Children Act of 2005. This legislation is an investment to support teachers in rural areas, and high poverty areas. It provides a $1,000 refundable tax credit for those teachers willing to serve in challenging schools. The bill also gives every teacher the chance to earn a refundable tax credit by offering a $1,000 refundable tax credit for every teacher who earns accreditation by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. A National Board Teacher in a rural school or high poverty school would receive a $2,000 credit which hopefully would promote retention of our best teachers.

According to the most recent survey by the American Federation of Teachers, the average teacher salary is $45,771. While teacher salaries rose an average of 3.3 percent, the health insurance benefits spiked an average 13 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The starting salary for a new teacher is estimated to be $30,496. Given the costs of college, the average student graduates with a debt of $19,400 and face loan payments of $210 a month, it is difficult for young, eager graduates to pursue careers in teaching and pay off their student debt and other living expenses.

It is sad when a dedicated young person decides that they simply cannot ``afford'' to be a teacher, but this happens. The I TEACH Act will help by providing meaningful tax credits to teachers willing to serve in rural areas or high poverty schools, and it will provide a strong financial incentive to keep quality teachers in the classrooms by rewarding teachers who earn National Board certification. Thirty States provide some type of financial incentive to National Board teachers, and this refundable tax credit will support such efforts. For example, West Virginia offers a $2,500 bonus for National Board teachers. If I TEACH is enacted, a National Board teacher in my State would receive a 9 percent bonus which is a meaningful incentive.

Our teachers are essential professionals that inspire and educate our children, who represent the next generation. Our teachers deserve our respect and real support. I urge my colleagues to work with me to enact I TEACH and reward our teachers.

Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children children who are at-risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. The foster care system is the basic safety net for such children, but common sense tells us that a safe permanent home is the best place for a child. As Congress clearly stated in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, every child deserves a safe, permanent home. Now the challenge is to reform our program to deliver on this promise.

To truly fulfill that goal, we need to improve the Federal adoption assistance program, which is why I am introducing the Adoption Equality Act today. Current law only provides adoption assistance to special needs children whose parents would have been eligible for the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as of July 1996. It is ridiculous to base a child's eligibility for assistance on the income of the abusive parents from whom they will have been taken for their own health and safety. Because of this Federal regulation, only half of special needs children get Federal assistance under current law. I firmly believe that every child with special needs who will not be adopted without assistance deserves Federal support. It is a basic investment to delivering on our commitment to help provide a safe, permanent home.

As we talk about the importance of families, shouldn't we invest in helping to create and maintain such families, especially for our most vulnerable children?

By supporting the Adoption Equality Act, we send a clear signal that every child deserves a safe, permanent home.

Mr. President, today, I rise, along with my cosponsor, Senator DeWine, to reintroduce legislation called I TEACH, Incentives to Educate America's Children Act of 2005. This legislation is an investment to support teachers in rural areas, and high poverty areas. It provides a $1,000 refundable tax credit for those teachers willing to serve in challenging schools. The bill also gives every teacher the chance to earn a refundable tax credit by offering a $1,000 refundable tax credit for every teacher who earns accreditation by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. A National Board Teacher in a rural school or high poverty school would receive a $2,000 credit which hopefully would promote retention of our best teachers.

According to the most recent survey by the American Federation of Teachers, the average teacher salary is $45,771. While teacher salaries rose an average of 3.3 percent, the health insurance benefits spiked an average 13 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The starting salary for a new teacher is estimated to be $30,496. Given the costs of college, the average student graduates with a debt of $19,400 and face loan payments of $210 a month, it is difficult for young, eager graduates to pursue careers in teaching and pay off their student debt and other living expenses.

It is sad when a dedicated young person decides that they simply cannot ``afford'' to be a teacher, but this happens. The I TEACH Act will help by providing meaningful tax credits to teachers willing to serve in rural areas or high poverty schools, and it will provide a strong financial incentive to keep quality teachers in the classrooms by rewarding teachers who earn National Board certification. Thirty States provide some type of financial incentive to National Board teachers, and this refundable tax credit will support such efforts. For example, West Virginia offers a $2,500 bonus for National Board teachers. If I TEACH is enacted, a National Board teacher in my State would receive a 9 percent bonus which is a meaningful incentive.

Our teachers are essential professionals that inspire and educate our children, who represent the next generation. Our teachers deserve our respect and real support. I urge my colleagues to work with me to enact I TEACH and reward our teachers.

Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children children who are at-risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. The foster care system is the basic safety net for such children, but common sense tells us that a safe permanent home is the best place for a child. As Congress clearly stated in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, every child deserves a safe, permanent home. Now the challenge is to reform our program to deliver on this promise.

To truly fulfill that goal, we need to improve the Federal adoption assistance program, which is why I am introducing the Adoption Equality Act today. Current law only provides adoption assistance to special needs children whose parents would have been eligible for the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as of July 1996. It is ridiculous to base a child's eligibility for assistance on the income of the abusive parents from whom they will have been taken for their own health and safety. Because of this Federal regulation, only half of special needs children get Federal assistance under current law. I firmly believe that every child with special needs who will not be adopted without assistance deserves Federal support. It is a basic investment to delivering on our commitment to help provide a safe, permanent home.

As we talk about the importance of families, shouldn't we invest in helping to create and maintain such families, especially for our most vulnerable children?

By supporting the Adoption Equality Act, we send a clear signal that every child deserves a safe, permanent home.

Mr. President, I was not able to make the roll call vote on this resolution commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I had a family commitment that I had to keep, and I knew that this resolution would pass overwhelmingly, and I needed to be with my family.

I did want to take time to hail this special occasion and I want to reaffirm my strong support for the Americans with Disability Act. This historic legislation has helped to ensure that people with disabilities can have access to a wide range of programs and policies to help them fully participate in public life and culture. Over the years, I am proud of the progress our country has made in including people with disabilities in public places and events. This sweeping legislation is perhaps one of the most significant pieces of legislation since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under this bold law, people with disabilities were ensured nondiscrimination in employment and public accommodations, including transportation and telecommunications. Implementation has not been easy, and it is still ongoing. While meaningful progress has been made, there is still a great deal of work to do to achieve the bold goal of the Americans with Disability Act.

We must continue to push hard to end discrimination and fully embrace inclusion, but today we should also celebrate the strides made since 1990 on behalf of people with disabilities.

Mr. President, earlier today I had to miss a rollcall vote on the Landrieu-Craig amendment because of a family commitment. I would have voted for the sense-of-the-Senate amendment to urge USAID to follow the principles of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.

Senators Landrieu and Craig have been extraordinary leaders on the issue of adoption, and their work on the Congressional Adoption Caucus has been very important in our country and throughout the world in promoting the fundamental concept that every child deserves a safe, permanent home. This is a basic goal that we should strive for at every opportunity.

Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I strongly support the Reid amendment. Senator Reid is addressing a problem that has become endemic in recent years. It is something of which I have become acutely aware since I was appointed to that position 4\1/2\ years ago, the leaking of classified information.

Barely a day goes by, frankly, when you don't read or watch press reports that contain classified information. The country is the lesser for it. I tell my colleagues, these leaks do real damage to our national security. When individuals with access to our Nation's secrets disclose those secrets to the public, they are telling our enemies about our intelligence capabilities and potentially how to defeat them. When intelligence sources and methods are exposed, we lose the ability to collect the information that will keep America safe. Good intelligence is the foundation of national security. We know that. It guides our foreign policy, it helps us determine what weapons systems to build, and how to shape and deploy our military forces. It is critical to our efforts to stop terrorists before they attack.

Intelligence that is compromised, therefore, makes America less secure. There is no excuse when individuals entrusted with these secrets leak them. It is not just careless or unfortunate, it is dangerous. Among the secrets we guard the most closely are the identity of our spies. Revealing the identity of a covert agent not only ends the effectiveness of that individual, it puts that person in grave personal danger, and such disclosure also puts at risk all of the agent's colleagues and the people the agent has recruited around the world over the years. In other words, when you expose the name of a covert agent, people can die.

The consequences of such exposure are so severe that in 1982 the Congress passed the Identities Protection Act, to criminalize this behavior. But apparently that is not enough. Last year, someone with access to classified information told members of the press the identity of a covert CIA operative. They did this not to expose some wrongdoing, but because they wanted to embarrass her husband. Someone calculated that our national security was less important than scoring points in the press for the administration's policy regarding Iraq. The act was deplorable.

Over the past 2 years the special prosecutor appointed to investigate this crime has pursued it aggressively. He may now be making headway, we don't know, but it is unclear whether he will ever accumulate enough evidence to bring the guilty party or parties to justice. If he is unsuccessful, we should not let that be the end of this sorry episode. We can and should make it clear that people entrusted with classified information cannot carelessly disclose that information without consequence.

Federal employees are bound to protect classified information. If they do not, the very least sanction they should face is to lose the privilege of holding a security clearance. We have to make clear to those in the Federal workforce entrusted with protecting highly sensitive information that there are consequences for these disclosures.

The amendment by Senator Reid does exactly that. It is straightforward and is common sense. If you disclose classified information to somebody not authorized to receive it, you are no longer allowed to hold a security clearance. The FBI and the Justice Department may not be able to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute leakers, but the Director of National Intelligence should be able to use this administrative tool to help stem the tide of unauthorized disclosures. We need to get serious about this problem and this is a good place to start.

The Frist amendment attempts to equate the unauthorized disclosure of classified information with unclassified remarks regarding an FBI report that some object to on political grounds. There is nothing inherently improper or illegal about making ``reference'' to an FBI report, or making a ``statement'' based on some unidentified FBI agent's comments. The law is clear about the importance of protecting highly sensitive national security secrets, including the identity of a covert agent. The Frist amendment makes a mockery of the gravity associated with leaking classified information by suggesting that any unclassified reference to any FBI report anyone believes is being used as propaganda is somehow as serious an offense.

Under the twisted logic contained in the Frist amendment, the remarks of FBI Director Mueller himself, if used by a purported terrorist group to discredit the United States, would cause the Director to lose access to classified information. It is absurd. This is absurd. The Frist amendment seeks to rewrite the freedom of speech clause of the Constitution and should be dismissed by this body out of hand.

The Reid amendment, on the other hand, is clear and measured. If you disclose classified information without authorization, your security clearance should be revoked.

I end by asking my colleagues, what is wrong with this?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a community in West Virginia that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 12, the residents of Pratt will celebrate their community's history and founding 100 years ago.

Pratt is a small town in southern West Virginia on a soft bend in the Kanawha River, with a population of 551. Pratt has some of the qualities of a typical West Virginia coal camp--it is a small community with hardworking people and a solid value base. But what separates Pratt from most small coal towns is that it has been around longer and has played an integral role in the labor movement.

Despite its small size, Pratt holds an important place in West Virginia's history. Originally named Clifton, then Dego, the town adopted the last name of Charles K. Pratt at the dawning of the twentieth century. Pratt's New York company owned timber and mineral rights in the area. The town was incorporated on June 4, 1905.

Stately old homes are spread throughout the town, each adding to Pratt's rich history. The town's lone church, Old Kanawha Baptist, is recognized as the oldest functioning church in the Kanawha Valley. It celebrated its 200th anniversary in 1993. In the local cemetery, gravestones date back as far as 1835. Many of Pratt's residents can trace their ancestry to the town's pre-Civil War settlers.

In 1984 the town's cemetery and residential neighborhood overlooking the Kanawha River were designated a historic district and placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Mother Jones prison site received historic designation in 1992.

The town of Pratt rose to national prominence during Wet Virginia's mine wars of 1912-1913. In 1912, United Mine Workers of America, UMWA, miners in nearby Paint Creek demanded wages equal to those of other area miners. They also insisted on the right to organize and an end to the practice of using mine guards. When operators rejected the wage increase, miners walked off the job, beginning one of the most violent strikes in the Nation's history.

After the strike began, operators brought in mine guards to evict miners and their families from company houses. As the mine guards continued to intimidate workers, national labor leaders, including Mary Harris ``Mother'' Jones, arrived on the scene. A leader of the UMWA's efforts to organize the State, Jones was known for her

blistering verbal attacks on coal operators and politician. She criticized the poor working conditions, meager safety provisions, and long hours of the mines and called for change.

In 1913, Jones was placed under house arrest in Pratt for inciting a riot and was held there for 85 days. When news of her imprisonment spread across the country, Congress was forced to investigate the matter.

Although the settlement of the strike failed to answer the miners' main grievances, the Paint Creek strike produced a number of labor leaders who would play prominent roles in the years to come. Following the strike, the coalfields were relatively peaceful for 6 years.

I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Pratt, WV, and its residents on their first 100 years and in extending our best wishes for their next 100 years and beyond. We recognize Pratt's important contributions to the labor movement. Through its challenges and triumphs, Pratt has helped to move our Nation forward in labor relations, which is one of the many reasons this fine community deserves our recognition.

Pratt has a rich past and a promising future.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Lincoln Primary Care Center, which has served the people of Lincoln County, WV, since 1975.

That year, the residents of Lincoln County opened a small, nonprofit health clinic in the storefront of a local grocery store. In 1977, the Lincoln County Primary Care Center became the Nation's first federally designated Rural Health Care Clinic and, by May of 1991, had been given the National Rural Healthcare Association Outstanding Rural Practice Award.

Today, the Lincoln Primary Care Center serves nearly 22,000 area residents and reaches out, not only to the people of Lincoln County but also to those in parts of Cabell and Wayne Counties. The center is now housed within a 17,500 square-foot building that features 33 treatment rooms and offers a wide variety of medical services. This includes initiatives within the Wellness Center, opened in 2004 to provide members of the community with valuable information regarding the prevention of chronic disease. This also includes healthy living programs that benefit residents of all ages, the Senior Nutrition Program, which serves free lunches to anyone over the age of 55, and the exercise facility, which is used by at least 50 people each day.

As I have said before, West Virginia is a rural State and, in many areas, access to quality health care is problematic. This is especially true in the case of our seniors, who comprise nearly 15 percent of our population and have significant health care needs. That is why it is good to know that the Lincoln Primary Care Center offers them high- quality, accessible care that addresses all aspects of wellness.

Indeed, it is clear that the Lincoln Primary Care Center plays an important role in the community it serves, and a number of West Virginians who visit the center have conveyed to me their appreciation for it. Ms. Brenda Terry notes the great pleasure she receives from the use of the center's exercise facility, and how glad she is to see so many friends there. Also, Ms. Mary Richmond tells me that she is thankful for the paved walking track, and Ms. Donna Rush describes the pleasant atmosphere enjoyed by those who live alone. Finally, Mr. John Rush expresses his fondness for the new friendships that he has forged during his time there.

With this praise in mind, I would like to commend the Lincoln Primary Care Center as it celebrates its 30th Anniversary and I would like to recognize the dedicated service it provides to its community--service that can serve as a model for rural health care delivery, now and in the future.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Smith in introducing the Video Choice Act of 2005. We believe that our bill will increase competition in the video marketplace and spur the deployment of advanced broadband networks.

Cable and telephone companies are competing to offer a bundle of Internet, video and telephone service to consumers. Cable companies are now offering telephone services. Cable companies offer both traditional telephone services over the public switched telephone network and recently have begun a major expansion into offering voice services over the internet. Congress, in an effort to spur entry into the voice market, decided to minimally regulate or deregulate cable companies' entry in these voice services.

As cable enters the voice market, it is driving prices down and creating innovative new voice services and products. At present, cable companies control nearly 70 percent of the multi-channel video market and are not subject to effective price competition for video services. The Senate Commerce Committee, of which Senator Smith and I are both members, spent much of the last Congress examining options to address the ever escalating price of cable television. I recognize that the cable industry has invested heavily in its networks and programming costs continue to rise, but I am hearing from some of my constituents that they feel

captive to the pricing decisions of their local cable company.

I believe the government should encourage facilities-based video competition. The Government Accountability Office has reported that in areas where cable faces competition from a facilities-based competitor, cable television prices are, on average, 15 percent less and as much as 41 percent less than in areas without effective competition.

To compete with cable, traditional telephone companies are slowly entering the video marketplace. Instead of offering video services over cable, the telephone companies will offer it over their high capacity fiber networks. Fiber-optic cables consist of bundles of hair-thin glass strands. Laser-generated pulses of light transmit voice, data, and video signals via the fiber at speeds and capacities far exceeding today's copper-cable systems. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited capacity, as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest high-speed data connections.

Even more importantly, our bill would speed the deployment of super fast broadband networks. To offer video services, telephone companies will have to either lay fiber optic cables or develop other networks that have enough capacity to transmit hundreds of television channels. These networks will also be able to offer consumers the ability to receive and send vast amounts of data.

Our Nation continues a precipitous decline in the world's broadband deployment rate. As Asian countries develop broadband networks capable of delivering consumers 30 to 100 megabits of data, the United States falls further behind in deployment of next generation broadband technologies. The deployment of fiber optic or technologically equivalent networks would spur economic development as well as consumer choice in the cable television market.

I have worked for almost eight years on legislation to provide incentives to promote the deployment of next generation broadband technology and services. The Senate has adopted this measure numerous times, but because of opposition in the House of Representatives, it has never been enacted into law. We must examine other policies if we are to achieve universal broadband penetration. I believe that our legislation will serve as a catalyst for the deployment of next generation broadband networks that will bring enormous economic benefits to Americans, especially rural Americans.

I know that many local governments are concerned about changing the existing regulatory framework for video regulation. I recognize that municipal governments have an important role to play in the telecommunications debate. As a former governor, I am aware of the important local revenues that cable franchise fees provide local government in West Virginia and across the Nation. I have always supported the local government's ability to collect local fees and taxes on telecommunications services, and I want to state that I will continue to do so.

Our legislation states that competitive video providers, as defined by the bill, do not have to secure a local franchise agreement to offer competitive video services. However, the legislation mandates that all vital social policy obligations of current cable television operators will also have to be met by the competitive video industry. First and foremost, our bill mandates that competitive video providers pay a franchise fee to the appropriate local government. This fee would be equal to the fee the incumbent video provider pays. Our bill also requires that competitive video providers carry all existing local public, educational, and government use channels; carry all local broadcast stations; carry all noncommercial, educational channels; adhere to strict consumer privacy obligations; and comply with all statutory consumer protections and customer service requirements. The bill explicitly prohibits economic redlining in the provision of competitive video services. Finally, the legislation explicitly states that nothing in the bill affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public-rights-of-way or to enact or enforce any consumer protection law.

Senator Smith and I have crafted a narrowly tailored bill to promote the entry of new competitors into the video marketplace. Our legislation balances the need to promote competition in this market with preserving the core social and policy obligations that we have always imposed on providers of video services.

In addition to promoting competition in the video marketplace, this bill gives us the opportunity to foster an exponential growth in advanced broadband networks. By having advanced communications networks that are exponentially faster than our existing networks, we will unleash our economic potential, especially in places like my home State of West Virginia.

Again, I would like to thank Senator Smith for all of his hard work on this bill.

Mr. President, I thank the floor manager, and I thank the chairman of the committee who had a lot to say and who operates the committee in a spirit which is very bipartisan and which is aimed at trying to solve problems. I say that at the beginning of every meeting and I say it here on the Senate floor.

I rise to support the Murray-Byrd amendment. It responds to a VA funding shortfall that is in excess of $1 billion. I will get into that in a moment.

What I have in my mind right now is about 5 days ago, I spent 2\1/2\ hours with 12 veterans, men and women who had come back from Iraq, one from Afghanistan--one several years ago, most of them within the last several months. They had sustained wounds and had healed some of those physical wounds. But what was particularly stunning to me was the degree of the psychological wounds, self-defined by them, after a period of relaxing. It takes time for veterans to open up when somebody with a dark suit and tie walks into their little circle. But they began to talk about their problems. They would not talk about what they had done because veterans do not do that. World War II veterans do not do that, Vietnam veterans do not do that, Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans do not do that. They talk about what hurts, the uncontrollable violence. They talk about deep depression. They talk about having no sense of the future. They talk about problems with their not being able to communicate with their wives--all kinds of problems.

These were mostly guardsmen and reservists, but there were some regular military. They were assembled at the Beckley, WV, Vet Center. I sort of point that out because one of the secrets of treating veterans in rural areas is you have to have Vet Centers near where veterans are. They can't all be expected to make long journeys to distant major veterans hospitals.

These folks at the Beckley Vet Center and other Vet Centers are about to be overwhelmed. They are going to be more overwhelmed when the other 130,000 soldiers return home whenever they do. And of course some soldiers will be returning to combat.

These soldiers had a very harsh and harrowing series of experiences serving their country. Once discharged, they still faced problems. They talked about difficulties in getting reimbursed. They all talked about VA appointments being put off for a long time.

As I indicated, they were reluctant to talk at all. But when they did talk, they made you very proud when they told you what they felt, not necessarily what they had been through, which they usually decline to do.

When our country called upon these brave West Virginians--and that would apply to each and every State--to serve, they answered the call of duty without question. In the case of Guard and Reserve, of course, they are always ready to do that and have to make enormous sacrifices to do that, often not being able to hold on to their jobs and retain the benefits which they had.

When they come back to West Virginia, they deserve the full care and support they have earned. Yet again, we just learned that our VA health care is well over $1 billion short on funding this year. This is outrageous, and it is shameful. Our veterans earned their VA health care benefits through their distinguished service.

They should not be delayed or denied care because of mismanagement at VA or OMB over poor budget models. This is where I disagreed a little bit with the distinguished chairman of the committee. This is not just about the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This is not about the fact that he is new on the job. The Veterans' Administration is second only to the Pentagon in terms of the number of people who work there. If they were using a 2002 model--and at one point the Secretary said they were using the 2002 model, and then at another point he said the 2003 model--nevertheless it is a very old model. In 2002, we had not gone to war.

All of these months have passed. What was the magic that did not happen where VA or OMB management said, ``gee, if we are going to go to war and we are sending all kinds of troops first to one combat zone in one nation and then to another combat zone in another nation, and plus there is the war on terrorism, what is going to happen with our returning veterans?'' We have troops deployed all around the world and, yet nobody in VA or OMB of figures there is going to be a surge in the number of veterans we have to take care of so they do not change their model.

Well, I am sorry, I do not care whether the Secretary has been there for 6 years or 6 days, that does not work. It is the VA that has professionals who have worked there for years who should be able to adjust those models. That is no excuse whatsoever.

Yesterday, Secretary Nicholson testified that the VA had to borrow money for current accounts to cover immediate health care needs for this year, this year being 2005. Such borrowing would create at least a $1.5 billion shortfall for next year, that being fiscal year 2006. But the $1.5 billion is really at least $1.9 billion. We are not actually going to vote on either of those numbers. I sort of wish we were because of something which is not brought out but which I am going to bring out. The VA assumes the President's VA budget, which includes at least $400 million in health fees, will be collected from the veterans--what? Wait a second.

Yes, the VA Secretary is still seeking to double the co-payments for prescription drugs for veterans, and he is still supporting an enrollment fee of at least $250 for some veterans. So, yes, there is a shortfall, but then there is income VA expects but won't be collected, the shortfall will be larger. I think that requires a very sharp analysis on the part of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

This Senator opposes such fees. I do not understand how that is done. How does one take somebody who gives up their job potentially, for example a National Guard member who works for the 130th Air Guard wing in Charleston, WV, which has complete control over the evacuation of the National Capital area, and then charge them for being able to get health care after they serve in combat? That is not what Abraham Lincoln wrote over the Veterans' Administration building.

So the VA budget is at least $1.9 billion short. Let that be understood by my colleagues. Our Members have not been told that amount, but that is because of the $400 million that VA assumes, but Congress never tries to charge our veterans. We should understand that. It is at least $1.9 billion if we fully respond to the health needs of returning veterans.

I expect, frankly, it will be more than $1.9 billion. In fact, I would say to the good Senator from the State of Washington that we discussed higher figures in our Veterans Affairs' Committee meeting.

Experts who I immediately reject, because I reject their theory on this,

suggest that up to 40 percent of our veterans will have psychological wounds such as PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. I have yet to meet with a single group of veterans who would put the figure at anything less than 60 or 70 percent, and that is just post-traumatic stress disorder. We are also talking about depression. We are talking about schizophrenia. We are talking about uncontrollable violence. We are talking about rage. We are talking about nightmares. We are talking about people waking up sweating and screaming. This goes all the way back to World War I, the science now proves.

These West Virginia veterans who typify veterans from around the country return from Baghdad and Afghanistan, and they describe the experiences of their colleagues, and I truly fear that VA mental health care is going to cost a whole lot more than the two amendments that we will both be voting on and voting for, I hope, this afternoon. My view is that whatever the needs of our returning veterans are, they must be met, particular right now during a time of war.

Finally, I am personally stunned by the fact that the administration's budget experts and managers use these old models, and did not warn or advise Congress until now. I will go right back to that, their models did not fully estimate the effect of the war on VA health care spending. Again, blaming a poor old model from 2002 or 2003 does not cut it in anybody's book. It is unsustainable as an argument. As I say, the VA is second only to the Pentagon in the number of people it has. A lot of those folks work on budgets. They know what models are. They can come up with new models. They did not come up with new models, and that is the point. Each time this year, VA officials have testified they were confident of sufficient VA funding. That is what they told the committee in February, in March and in April. They were dead wrong. It is stunning. It is sad.

So we asked over and over whether they were prepared for the returning troops, and we were told mission accomplished; they had everything under control. Again, they were wrong. Our soldiers are returning home and expecting the VA health care they were promised. They are not going to be able to get it. The budget shortfall is unconscionable, and our troops deserve better. We must pass this amendment or any other amendments which raise this amendment. It will still not be enough money, and it will only take care of the present situation that we are in. We must ensure that such a significant shortfall never--and I rarely say never''--happens again.

I am committed to fighting for our veterans. I believe that is the duty of the Congress.

I yield the floor.