Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with my colleagues Senator Burns, Senator Dorgan, Senator Craig, Senator Dayton, Senator Vitter, Senator Johnson, Senator Thune, Senator Coleman, and Senator Baucus to introduce the Railroad Competition Act of 2005. This legislation encourages the competition and consumer protection in the freight railroad market that Congress intended when it partially deregulated the industry in 1980 with the passage of the Staggers Act.

Introduction of legislation in this vein is a bit of a ritual for this Senator. West Virginia industries depend on efficient and dependable rail service at fair prices to move their products to market. This is a perfectly reasonable goal. However, for shippers without competitive rail access--referred to as captive shippers--it is a cruel and impossible dream. I have tried for years, with partners from both sides of the aisle and all parts of the country, to change the status quo, and improve the economic situation for rail shippers and retail shoppers. This is the seventh time since 1985 I have sponsored legislation to address this issue, and the fifth congress in a row in which I have worked closely with my good friends Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan to help shippers and their customers. And I won't give up until I actually succeed.

Predictably, the railroads will overreact to this bill with scathing accusations of what we are doing. In truth, we intend nothing more radical than helping shippers, consumers, and the railroads themselves, reap the benefits of the basic principles of capitalism--the ability of sophisticated actors to conduct arms-length negotiations for competition, service, and fair prices. Currently, Class I railroads overcharge and underserve captive shippers with impunity, and with an antitrust exemption preventing meaningful oversight by Congress. Customers have no power. This means higher prices for electricity, food, medicine, paper products; the chemicals to protect our water supply and crops, and the basic ingredients of the plastics in many of the goods we purchase. This is crucial to protecting commerce in the United States. So far, we have been thwarted, though we remain undeterred in our efforts and confident of the validity of our objectives.

In the 1970s, Congress observed a bloated freight rail network, unprofitable railroads, and service was anything but efficient and dependable. When the Staggers Act was passed in 1980, Congress gave a green light to deregulation of the railroad industry. But, as with the deregulation of every other industry that Congress has allowed, there were to be constraints on the ability of railroads to abuse shippers left captive to just one railroad. The Staggers Act left it to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to watch over a partially deregulated industry carrying out Staggers' dual goals: Improving the financial health and viability of the railroads; and improving and maintaining service for shippers. The ICC was responsible for ensuring fair treatment and reasonable rates for those shippers made captive by mergers or business decisions allowed under Staggers.

The success of Staggers has been completely one-sided. Captive rail shippers in my state of West Virginia have told me--since before I came to the United States Senate--that service was horrible and rates being charged were too high. That is still true today. When I was first running for the Senate, the country was served by about 40 ``Class I'' railroads. After Staggers the railroad industry ``rationalized'' its routes--meaning it dropped unprofitable lines and left more and more shippers captive to just one railroad.

A virtually unimpeded string of rail mergers during the last 25 years has only compounded the problem. The number of Class I railroads has dropped to seven. Four of these--CSX and Norfolk Southern in the East and Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union Pacific in the West-- completely dominate the industry, accounting for about 90 percent of the freight rail traffic in the nation.

This is simple. Fewer market participants mean less competition, and less competition opens up the possibility of the abuse of local monopoly power. Under the misadministration of the Staggers Act, first by the ICC, and later by its successor agency the Surface Transportation Board (STB), abuse of captive shippers has not only gotten worse, but it has been unjustly bestowed a veneer of propriety by a series of unwise administrative decisions and at least one court case that gave grudging deference to an agency, the STB, that has failed to carry out the clear directions of Congress. The STB, to which shippers have looked for a solution, has become a facilitator of the problem.

The goals of the Railroad Competition Act are really quite mundane. My colleagues and I hope only to give life to a freight rail system originally envisioned by the drafters of the Staggers Act. We hope to send to the President a bill that will allow captive shippers the most basic right in business negotiations: They will be able to get the railroads that ship their products simply to quote a rate for the service.

My colleagues may be amazed to find out that the STB's current reading of the Staggers Act allows shippers no such right. Our legislation will simply require railroads to tell their customers the cost of moving a certain quantity of product from their manufacturing facility to their customer. Point A to Point B. Nothing in business is more basic, but it is a basic of business negotiations captive shippers do not currently enjoy. Additionally, our legislation also would do the following: clarifies that the STB shall promote competition among rail carriers, helping to maintain both reasonable freight rail rates and consistent and efficient rail service; creates a system of ``final offer'' arbitration for matters before the STB; authorizes the STB to remove so-called ``paper barriers'' that prevent short-line and regional railroads from providing improved service to shippers; requires STB to act in the public interest and removes required showing of railroads' anti-competitive conduct; caps filing fees for STB rate cases at the level of federal district courts (reducing filing fee from the current fee $65,000, which is to be doubled in 2005); calls for a Department of Transportation (DOT) study of rail competition; allows elected officials and state railroad regulators to petition the STB for declarations of ``areas of inadequate rail competition,'' with appropriate remedies; creates position of Rail Customer Advocate at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); and expands infrastructure modernization loan guarantee program.

In closing I would suggest that, rather than the highly charged arguments we have engaged in over the years, my colleagues encourage the railroads to take shippers' concerns seriously, and that we all work to create a freight rail marketplace made up of companies hungry, in the best capitalist sense of that word, to do business. That is the goal of the Railroad Competition Act, and I look forward to its consideration by the full Senate.

Mr. President, I join with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in what he has said. Today the Senate is considering the nomination of Ambassador John Negroponte to become the Nation's first Director of National Intelligence. Personally, I strongly support this nomination, and I will discuss the reasons why in a moment.

First, however, as the chairman did, I am going to take a few minutes to describe how critical this new position is to our country and its future, the magnitude of the challenges Ambassador Negroponte will face.

In 1947, Congress created the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of Central Intelligence. The Cold War was upon us and the Nation needed intelligence about our new adversary. The structure we put in place at that time to keep tabs on the Soviet Union grew and took on additional missions over the next 40 years. But the intelligence community stayed primarily focused on that one target of the Soviet Union.

Then in 1990, the Soviet Union dissolved. The world changed dramatically, but our intelligence organizations for the most part did not. As a consequence, we have for the past 15 years made do with an intelligence system designed to penetrate and collect information about a single static adversary. There was no one in charge to force change from within, and before September 11 of 2001, there was little impetus for change from without.

The National Security Act of 1947, the genesis of all of this, designated the DCI to serve as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, also the principal adviser to the President on intelligence matters, and the head of the U.S. intelligence community--all three of those assignments.

The Director of Central Intelligence ran the CIA, advised the President, but, frankly, never exercised the third responsibility, which is probably the most important other than advising the President, and that is managing the intelligence community itself.

Even after the events, tragic though they might have been, of 9/11, it took 3 years, two major investigations of those events, and the stunning intelligence failures prior to the Iraq war to break through the entrenched interests and to achieve reform that created the position of director of something called national intelligence, all of it.

The difficulty involved in the birth of this new office serves as a warning for the challenges that the Ambassador, if confirmed, as I hope he will be, will face. Bureaucracies are amazingly slow to change. That doesn't say anything bad about the people. That is the way the world works, whether it is corporate, private, or whatever. The bureaucracies are tenacious in defending their turf. Some of the stories are remarkable within the 15 intelligence agencies the Ambassador will have to oversee. Reform of the intelligence community will involve stepping on the turf of some of the most powerful bureaucracies in Washington. And first and foremost among those is the Department of Defense.

Eighty percent of our intelligence spending is in the DOD budget. The incoming Director of National Intelligence will have to quickly establish a close working relationship with the Secretary of Defense, but it must be a

relationship of equals, and Ambassador Negroponte must be willing to exercise the authority given him by the legislation and the President when he and the Secretary differ. In effect, the Director of National Intelligence supersedes the head of the Department of Defense.

Ambassador Negroponte also will encounter and need to manage the CIA, an organization accustomed to operating with tremendous autonomy, a world unto itself. Some of these agencies, such as the National Security Agency--they are called NSA--get acronyms, ``no such agency''--that is part of the way their world operates. That is not to denigrate them, their public service, their public commitment, their willingness to offer up their lives for their country. But bureaucracy of a huge magnitude it surely is.

Then there is the FBI, an agency which is dominated by its law enforcement history and struggling to make itself into a full partner in the intelligence community. Some question whether that can be done; my mind is still open to it. They are trying. Most people say it is working at the top but not in the middle, because if you are a lawyer, you have a yellow pad, you go arrest somebody for breaking the law. If you are an intelligence officer, you find somebody you are suspicious of, and you don't arrest that person. You surveil that person, you trail that person, maybe for weeks, months, to find out where that person takes you and what intelligence we can learn from that.

But these are powerful organizations with very proud histories. They are populated by dedicated and talented public servants who have contributed to our security for decades. But our needs are now different. All of these agencies now must change the way they do business.

Ambassador Negroponte takes charge at a time when the intelligence community is reeling from criticism for the lapses prior to 9/11 and the significant failures related to prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The chairman and I worry about that because it affects morale. One doesn't want to affect morale. But on the other hand, intelligence agencies have to reflect the current needs of this country and act accordingly.

The loose amalgam of 15 intelligence agencies needs a leader who can change not simply the boxes on an organizational chart but the way we do intelligence. The different agencies traditionally have collected intelligence from their sources, analyzed it, put it into their databases, and then shared it as they deemed appropriate. The chairman and I are very fond--both of us--of saying the word ``share'' is now outmoded. There is a need-to-know basis from time to time. But if you share something, that means you own it and that you make the decision you will share it with somebody. We prefer the modern word for intelligence which is going to have to be ``access,'' that anybody in that business has access to that intelligence automatically by definition unless there is a particular need-to-know restriction.

The Director of National Intelligence has to create a new culture where the process of producing intelligence is coordinated across agencies from the beginning. The collection strategies for various targets need to be unified, and the intelligence collected needs to be available to everyone with the proper clearance and the need to know that information.

That is the concept of jointness in operation that the Presiding Officer knows well because he is on the Armed Services Committee, as is my colleague, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Jointness is a concept the military has used and made work very effectively. It goes back to the Goldwater-Nichols Act almost 20 years ago, and it is something the Intelligence Committee is going to have to learn how to do. Making fundamental changes is absolutely essential in order to make sure our intelligence is timely, objective, and independent of political consideration.

The credibility of the intelligence community--and, by extension, the credibility of the United States--has suffered when key intelligence reports such as the prewar intelligence report on Iraq failed the test of being timely, objective, and independent as required by law. It is not something they just ought to be doing; it is required by the 1947 National Security Act.

Making major changes in the way the community operates and produces intelligence will be the first step for Ambassador Negroponte. He also must instill a sense of accountability. On this many of us feel strongly. The joint inquiry conducted by the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees into the events of 9/11 called for accountability for the mistakes made prior to the attack where thousands lost their lives. The WMD commission, which finished its work, also highlighted this issue.

But despite these findings and despite what one would think the country would assume and expect, no one has been held accountable for the numerous failures to share critical intelligence and act on intelligence warnings in the year and a half prior to the 9/11 attacks. Likewise there has been a lack of accountability over the failings in the collection, analysis, and use of intelligence prior to the Iraq war itself.

Accountability means people get fired or people get demoted or people get scolded or, concurrently, people are patted on the back, rewarded, encouraged, motivated further, held up before their colleagues as exemplary because they have done something particularly well.

So the Ambassador is not only going to have to deal with problems from the past, but he will have to face immediately the growing scandal surrounding the collection of intelligence through the detention, interrogation, and rendition of suspected terrorists and insurgents. We have been subjected to an almost daily deluge of accusations of abuse stemming from these operations.

The intelligence we gain through these interrogations is, frankly, too important to allow shortcomings in this program to continue, and the Director of National Intelligence will be the official responsible for ensuring we have a comprehensive, consistent, legal, and operational policy on the detention and interrogation of prisoners because there is enormous flux in that whole area right now. The lack of clarity in these areas has led to confusion and likely contributed to the abuse we have witnessed.

Dealing with the many challenges is a tall order. But if anybody can succeed in the position of DNI, Director of National Intelligence, an entirely new position in the U.S. Government, one of the three or four toughest jobs in Washington, that person is Ambassador Negroponte. He has a 40-year career of public service, as has been indicated, in some of most difficult and critical posts in the Foreign Service: Vietnam, the Paris peace talks, South and Central America, the U.N., and most recently in Baghdad.

He has been doing this for 40 years. One of the things I have appreciated particularly about him is that he is not a military person, not a political person, not an intelligence person. He is a diplomat. He is somebody who, through his entire career, has engaged in understanding the nuances of the cultures we have to deal with in the intelligence world and what follows intelligence across the world. But he also knows a great deal about intelligence and the military operations and the political aspects of life simply because you cannot be an ambassador and avoid those things.

He is a diplomat, a manager, a negotiator, which is crucial to bringing these agencies together and to go back and forth with the President and the Congress. He has extensive knowledge of the workings of the Government. That is a very prosaic statement, until one takes it at face value. Most people don't. They have extensive knowledge about certain parts of Government. He covers the ballfield. He has the temperament, standing, and self-confidence, frankly, to deal with the Washington bureaucracy. He has a great deal of confidence in himself, and he ought to--he has the backing of somebody called the President of the United States of America.

The Intelligence Reform Act provides the Director of National Intelligence with considerable authority. But in Washington, DC, the support of the President is invaluable in exercising authority. To put it another way, a person loses their stature pretty quickly if the President is not backing that

person in high-profile decisions, particularly in those instances when decisions meet resistance from the heads of other departments and other agencies which have full call on the President and his attention. The President's support will be absolutely critical to Ambassador Negroponte's success--and succeed he must, Mr. President.

The United States faces a period of enormous uncertainty and threat. The problems of international terrorism will be with us for many decades, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a danger at this minute for the entire world and will for decades to come.

These are difficult targets for the intelligence community, but these are the things that threaten our security every moment. These are the issues the intelligence community must master. They are our front line of defense. The warfighter has not yet engaged properly until the intelligence has been collected and disseminated and policy is made from that. Ambassador Negroponte must lead all of us into a new era on intelligence. I think he is very well suited for the task, and I look forward to his swift confirmation.

In closing, I also hope the Senate moves very quickly to confirm the President's nominee to be Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and that is LTG Michael Hayden. This is a tandem made in Heaven. General Hayden understands the military, the lifelong service of it. He understands intelligence. He is Director of the National Security Agency. He has a profound, intuitive, knowledge-based understanding of what is under the rocks and what is plainly in sight, what is plainly good or wrong about the intelligence profession. He has led the National Security Agency for the last 6 years. It is an interesting fact that in the National Security Agency, under their roof, is the largest collection of mathematicians in this world. That may be known or not; I suspect it is. But these people do incredibly important things. He has led them now, having been reappointed three times. Together, Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden make a powerful team. I am very pleased to support them both.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Of course.

If my friend will yield, I further say that the President made an enormous contribution, which was sort of generally overlooked--not by those of us who work in this field of intelligence-- when he made it very clear and made an executive decision that 80 percent of the budget that goes to the military, minus a few very specific tactical areas, and necessarily so, would be under the Director of National Intelligence. That was the President declaring that whoever is in that position will control the funding. Complications can arise, but the President has been clear about who is going to run this operation, and that is very important.

Will the Senator allow me to yield to her such time as she may desire?

Mr. President, how much time remains on this side of the aisle?

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume, which will be less than that.

Mr. President, I am going to use this opportunity to speak on an unrelated issue, not entirely but somewhat, but one that is of critical importance to the intelligence community and the American people.

Last week, I filed an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Unfortunately, I was not able to bring the amendment before the Senate because it was not germane under postcloture rules. This amendment is important enough, however, that I will take just a few minutes to explain it.

My amendment was, and is, simple and straightforward. It expresses the sense of the Senate. It is not directive. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence should conduct an investigation into matters related to the collection of intelligence through the detention, interrogation, and rendition of prisoners. That is its purpose.

The amendment, as I indicated, does not direct the committee to undertake this much needed and long overdue congressional review. Rather, it is a statement by the Senate that the committee should carry out its oversight duties and carefully, thoroughly, and constructively evaluate the interrogation practices of the U.S. Intelligence Community.

A year has passed since the appearance of photographs graphically portraying the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Since then, we have

seen a steady stream of accusations relating to the way 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, in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay.

Troubling new revelations have become almost a daily occurrence-- literally a daily occurrence--with a disturbing number of these incidents resulting in prisoner deaths.

At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody. The disturbing charge has been leveled against the United States that we are exporting torture through rendition practices that lack accountability.

Who can honestly say these events and allegations are not serious enough to warrant an Intelligence Committee investigation?

The collection of intelligence through interrogation and rendition is an extremely important part of our counterterrorism effort and one of our most important intelligence tools.

But this tool, as with all others, must be applied within the bounds of our laws and our own moral framework. It must be subject to the same scrutiny and congressional oversight as every other aspect of intelligence collection. This, unfortunately, has not been the case.

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

More disturbingly, in this Senator's judgment, the Senate Intelligence Committee--the committee charged with overseeing intelligence programs, and the only committee with the jurisdiction to investigate all aspects of this issue--is, in this Senator's judgment, sitting on the sidelines and effectively abdicating its oversight responsibility to media investigative reporters who go at it very aggressively and on a daily basis.

As the Intelligence Committee's vice chairman, I have been pushing, for the past 3 months, for an investigation into the legal and operational questions at the heart of the detention and interrogation controversy.

My requests, and those of other committee members, have been rebuffed, based upon the argument that we have been fully informed on the particulars of our detention and interrogation program, and the Intelligence Committee need only monitor these operations.

The point has also been made that the Intelligence Committee should not undertake an investigation into these issues because the CIA Inspector General is conducting his own investigation. I reject this notion that the Senate should cede to the executive branch its oversight responsibilities. Carrying out oversight is why the Senate Intelligence Committee exists.

Effective congressional oversight is not achieved passively waiting for and accepting the parameters of internal executive branch reviews. We are separate in our responsibilities, executive and legislative. While it is true that the CIA inspector general is investigating specific allegations of abuse involving intelligence personnel, those specific cases represent a small portion of what the Intelligence Committee should be examining. Many fundamental legal and operational issues are outside the inspector general's very limited focus and deserve the Intelligence Committee's immediate attention.

We have a duty to not simply monitor but to actively inquire about the conduct of congressionally funded activities--that is our job-- especially activities such as prisoner interrogation that can have life or death implications. Down the road, if we don't set these rules straight, that can come back to haunt our soldiers and their safety.

Up to this point, the Intelligence Committee oversight that I am speaking of has been, in the judgment of this Senator, abdicated to the press over the past year. Here is a sampling, which I will go through quickly, of headlines from articles that have been published in recent weeks: ``Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee Who Died''; ``White House Has Tightly Restricted Oversight of CIA Detentions''; ``FBI Report Questions Guantanamo Tactics''; ``Questions Are Left by C.I.A. Chief on the Use of Torture''; ``CIA's Assurances on Transferred Subjects Doubted--Prisoners Say Countries Break No-Torture Pledges''; ``Europeans Investigate CIA Role in Abductions''; ``Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail''; ``Prisoners at Abu Ghraib Said to Include Children''; ``Army, CIA Agreed on `Ghost' Prisoners''; ``Lack of Oversight Led to the Abuse of Detainees, Investigator Says''; ``Ex-CIA Lawyer Calls for Law on Rendition''; ``CIA Avoids Scrutiny of Detainee Treatment''; ``Files Show New Abuse Cases in Afghan and Iraqi Prisons''; ``CIA Is Seeking New Role on Detainees''; ``FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay''; ``CIA Was Wary of U.S. Interrogation Methods in Iraq.''

I think the Presiding Officer gets the drift.

I ask my colleagues to consider the finding made by General Fay in his recent report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. General Fay found that CIA practices ``led to a loss of accountability, abuse . . . and the unhealthy mystique that further poisoned the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib.''

General Fay was unable to fully investigate the CIA's role at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. The Senate Intelligence Committee, however, is not unable to do that. That is our job.

These and other reports highlight the need for the sort of strong congressional oversight that in my judgment is now absent. There are many legal and operational questions that we should be investigating to ensure that this vitally important intelligence collection program is not continually hampered by vague and confusing legal and operational directives.

For example, on March 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 be so, but was that legal guidance supportable? A lengthy legal opinion of the Department of Justice on 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 superseded by a public Justice Department legal opinion in December of 2004. As that episode indicates, secret law is an invitation to great error.

The Intelligence Committee, which includes members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, must conduct a complete examination of the legal guidance that CIA and Defense Department interrogators have been given. What supporting roles do the CIA and FBI play in the interrogation of suspects at military-run institutions? And how are their activities coordinated, if they are?

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--so-called ghost detainees--and that FBI officials lodged strenuous complaints about the mistreatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. I cannot emphasize how strongly those FBI objections were. These reports and others strongly suggest that different agencies are operating by different sets of interrogation and detention rules, which is a recipe for disaster.

The Congress should evaluate the general policy guidelines for which it is appropriate to render a detainee to another country, and what intelligence is gained from such 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. The Congress should undertake, with the intelligence community, case studies of interrogations, including the methods used and, importantly, the reliability of the information obtained. As with other intelligence tools, we should consider on the basis of facts, rather than surmise, what works, what does not work, to obtain reliable information that actually contributes to our national security. The Congress should examine plans for the long-term detention or prosecution of persons detained or rendered for interrogation purposes.

Should the United States, for example, hold detainees without trial for years or decades to come? Is it acceptable to do that for the reason that the

detainees' acknowledgment of their actions came during interrogations that would neither meet the standards of a U.S. court or U.S. military commission?

The reality may be that if Congress continues to default in its oversight and legislative responsibilities, that the courts, in fact, themselves will end up filling that vacuum. The threat of terrorism is going to be with us for many years, if not decades. The intelligence we gain through interrogations will be crucial in protecting Americans themselves against future attacks. If we are to optimize those counterterrorism efforts, we need to have a plan, not an ad hoc policy, for how to deal with people in our custody.

America is not a nation that uses or condones torture. We are party to international agreements that prohibit these acts, and we demand humane treatment for our citizens when they are arrested abroad and for our soldiers when they are captured on the battlefield. We must uphold the same high standards for individuals in our custody or we will rightly be branded as hypocrites, and we will put our soldiers and our citizens in danger. I cannot emphasize that enough.

Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The committee was created in the crucible of an extensive bipartisan investigation in 1975, led by Senators Frank Church and John Tower, into allegations of abuse by U.S. intelligence agencies. One conclusion, as described by Howard Baker--somebody I admire enormously--was that the congressional oversight system had provided ``infrequent and ineffectual review'' and that ``many of the abuses revealed might have been prevented had Congress been doing its job.''

Accordingly, the resolution establishing the Intelligence Committee charged it to ``provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and the laws of the United States.''

It is time for the Senate Intelligence Committee to carry out the vigilant legislative oversight that is our duty and which a number are calling for us to do. We should launch a comprehensive and constructive investigation into the detention, interrogation, and rendition practices of the intelligence community because it is long overdue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record several editorials that have appeared around the country calling for congressional action. They include editorials from many newspapers, including the Washington Times and newspapers from Tennessee, Oregon, Florida, Maryland, New York, and California.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Needless to say, all of us on the Intelligence Committee do all of this for the protection of the American people and protection of the American troops. That goes without saying.

I have to say that all of the investigations to which my friend and distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee referred in his remarks were all about the military. None of them were authorized to get into or had access to information about the Central Intelligence Agency and its role. We do not investigate the military in particular; the Armed Services Committee does. We investigate the Central Intelligence Agency and any other intelligence efforts with respect to detention, interrogation, and rendition.

So there are lots of studies that have been done, but there are precious few, if any, that have been done with respect to the intelligence community.

I have put forward this amendment because I think it must be done. I do not consider it irrational. I do not consider it against our troops. I think I made the point it is in part to protect our troops because we are going to be facing these kinds of situations for years and years to come.

I look forward to and I have some confidence that the chairman and myself and members of the committee can come to an agreement on how we approach this in a way which works, gives us the information we need, and we can proceed forward to protect our soldiers.

Mr. President, if there is no other Member on our side who wishes to speak, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the U.S. airline industry continues to teeter on the brink of financial collapse. The industry lost over $9 billion in 2004 and the airlines are expected to lose another $1.9 billion in 2005. Our Nation cannot afford to let this vital part of our economy collapse. Our economic prosperity is tied to a healthy and growing aviation industry.

As we saw after the events of September 11, 2001, the shutdown of our aviation systems caused a massive disruption to the flow of people and goods throughout the world. Without a healthy airline industry, our economy will not grow. I do not believe the significance of aviation to our economy can be overstated. I do not think many in Congress and across the country realize that over 10 million people are employed directly in the aviation industry. For every job in the aviation industry, 15 related jobs are produced. In my State of West Virginia, aviation represents $3.4 billion of the State's gross domestic product and directly and indirectly employs 51,000 people.

The airline industry has been hard hit in recent years by high oil prices, weak revenue, and low fare competition. Since 2001, the airline industry has lost more than $30 billion collectively, and while aviation analysts expect 2005 will be a significant improvement over recent years, most estimates assume oil prices drop significantly from current levels--a matter that increasingly remains in doubt.

Many airlines have aggressively cut costs through a number of means, most notably by reducing labor expenditures and through decreasing capacity by cutting flight frequencies, using smaller aircraft, or eliminating service to some communities.

Despite the airlines' efforts, they have not been able to return to financial stability. The Federal Government is faced with serious and difficult choices in how to ensure both the short-term and long-term viability of the Nation's aviation industry. The one choice we do not have is the choice not to act. Although Congress cannot restore profitability to the airline industry with a law, we can create the atmosphere for the industry to succeed, grow, and bring people back to work. If we fail to act, tens of thousands of employees will lose their jobs on top of the 200,000 that have already lost their jobs, small communities will lose their

air service, and the United States will lose its global leadership in aviation.

One of the greatest threats to the future financial viability of the airlines is pension funding. Congress needs to reform the pension rules to provide the tools airlines need to maintain their pension plans. As a step in the right direction, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with Senator Isakson that protects the retirement plans airline employees depend on.

The Employee Pension Preservation Act of 2005 provides critical pension funding relief to the commercial airline industry by allowing the airlines to fund their pension obligations over a 25-year time horizon. Last year, recognizing that the airlines were facing extraordinary circumstances, Congress provided airlines a temporary reprieve from deficit reduction contributions.

However, when that temporary relief expires at the end of the year, airlines will face immediate and crushing pension bills. Congress needs to provide permanent, appropriate remedies that enable airlines to maintain their pension plans. If we do not provide any flexibility in paying the pension obligations, then certainly more airlines will be forced to terminate their plans altogether. The legislation that Senator Isakson and I are offering enables airlines to meet all of their pension obligations on a reasonable schedule.

Some people may worry that by granting airlines an extended payment period we are increasing the risks to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures the airlines' defined benefit plans. However, I am hopeful that by making the funding rules more flexible this bill will actually decrease the likelihood that pension plans will be terminated and the PBGC saddled with unfunded obligations. Let me be clear, this legislation requires airlines to fully fund all of their past and future pension promises. It merely provides a more reasonable schedule for recovering from the recent downturn that hurt many pension plans.

Moreover, the bill includes provisions to limit the liability potentially faced by the Government insurance agency. In contrast to the status quo, any pension plans that take advantage of the funding relief offered by our legislation would accrue no additional PBGC obligation. To the extent that any additional pension benefits are earned by employees, the benefits would have to be immediately and fully funded by the employer.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been working for years to improve our defined benefit pension system. I recognize that there are few easy answers or quick fixes. And I do not suggest that the legislation we are introducing today is a silver bullet for the airlines' defined benefit plans. Still, I am pleased to support this bill because it is a responsible compromise agreed to by both the labor and management representatives in the airline industry. That is very important to me, because this legislation will require some difficult sacrifices especially on the part of workers who may no longer accrue guaranteed benefits. While I have reservations about any agreement to limit the PBGC guarantee of pensions, I have been assured that in this particular case employees support this compromise and see it as the best opportunity to save their hard earned retirement benefits.

I hope that my colleagues will carefully examine this proposal and join Senator Isakson and me in a debate about how we can better secure the pensions of airline employees. I appreciate that our legislation is not likely to pass the Congress without negotiation and compromise. Indeed, I welcome opportunities to improve this legislation. But I do not believe that we can ignore the plight that the airlines face, and I will work to enact prudent reforms as soon as possible.

Mr. President, the U.S. airline industry continues to teeter on the brink of financial collapse. The industry lost over $9 billion in 2004 and the airlines are expected to lose another $1.9 billion in 2005. Our Nation cannot afford to let this vital part of our economy collapse. Our economic prosperity is tied to a healthy and growing aviation industry.

As we saw after the events of September 11, 2001, the shutdown of our aviation systems caused a massive disruption to the flow of people and goods throughout the world. Without a healthy airline industry, our economy will not grow. I do not believe the significance of aviation to our economy can be overstated. I do not think many in Congress and across the country realize that over 10 million people are employed directly in the aviation industry. For every job in the aviation industry, 15 related jobs are produced. In my State of West Virginia, aviation represents $3.4 billion of the State's gross domestic product and directly and indirectly employs 51,000 people.

The airline industry has been hard hit in recent years by high oil prices, weak revenue, and low fare competition. Since 2001, the airline industry has lost more than $30 billion collectively, and while aviation analysts expect 2005 will be a significant improvement over recent years, most estimates assume oil prices drop significantly from current levels--a matter that increasingly remains in doubt.

Many airlines have aggressively cut costs through a number of means, most notably by reducing labor expenditures and through decreasing capacity by cutting flight frequencies, using smaller aircraft, or eliminating service to some communities.

Despite the airlines' efforts, they have not been able to return to financial stability. The Federal Government is faced with serious and difficult choices in how to ensure both the short-term and long-term viability of the Nation's aviation industry. The one choice we do not have is the choice not to act. Although Congress cannot restore profitability to the airline industry with a law, we can create the atmosphere for the industry to succeed, grow, and bring people back to work. If we fail to act, tens of thousands of employees will lose their jobs on top of the 200,000 that have already lost their jobs, small communities will lose their

air service, and the United States will lose its global leadership in aviation.

One of the greatest threats to the future financial viability of the airlines is pension funding. Congress needs to reform the pension rules to provide the tools airlines need to maintain their pension plans. As a step in the right direction, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with Senator Isakson that protects the retirement plans airline employees depend on.

The Employee Pension Preservation Act of 2005 provides critical pension funding relief to the commercial airline industry by allowing the airlines to fund their pension obligations over a 25-year time horizon. Last year, recognizing that the airlines were facing extraordinary circumstances, Congress provided airlines a temporary reprieve from deficit reduction contributions.

However, when that temporary relief expires at the end of the year, airlines will face immediate and crushing pension bills. Congress needs to provide permanent, appropriate remedies that enable airlines to maintain their pension plans. If we do not provide any flexibility in paying the pension obligations, then certainly more airlines will be forced to terminate their plans altogether. The legislation that Senator Isakson and I are offering enables airlines to meet all of their pension obligations on a reasonable schedule.

Some people may worry that by granting airlines an extended payment period we are increasing the risks to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures the airlines' defined benefit plans. However, I am hopeful that by making the funding rules more flexible this bill will actually decrease the likelihood that pension plans will be terminated and the PBGC saddled with unfunded obligations. Let me be clear, this legislation requires airlines to fully fund all of their past and future pension promises. It merely provides a more reasonable schedule for recovering from the recent downturn that hurt many pension plans.

Moreover, the bill includes provisions to limit the liability potentially faced by the Government insurance agency. In contrast to the status quo, any pension plans that take advantage of the funding relief offered by our legislation would accrue no additional PBGC obligation. To the extent that any additional pension benefits are earned by employees, the benefits would have to be immediately and fully funded by the employer.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been working for years to improve our defined benefit pension system. I recognize that there are few easy answers or quick fixes. And I do not suggest that the legislation we are introducing today is a silver bullet for the airlines' defined benefit plans. Still, I am pleased to support this bill because it is a responsible compromise agreed to by both the labor and management representatives in the airline industry. That is very important to me, because this legislation will require some difficult sacrifices especially on the part of workers who may no longer accrue guaranteed benefits. While I have reservations about any agreement to limit the PBGC guarantee of pensions, I have been assured that in this particular case employees support this compromise and see it as the best opportunity to save their hard earned retirement benefits.

I hope that my colleagues will carefully examine this proposal and join Senator Isakson and me in a debate about how we can better secure the pensions of airline employees. I appreciate that our legislation is not likely to pass the Congress without negotiation and compromise. Indeed, I welcome opportunities to improve this legislation. But I do not believe that we can ignore the plight that the airlines face, and I will work to enact prudent reforms as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Medicaid, a program that is very important to my home State of West Virginia. Over the past few days I have listened to my colleagues characterize the $15 billion in Medicaid cuts contained in this budget as marginal, minor, and not a big deal. I want to remind my colleagues that this budget isn't simply about numbers. It is about the policies behind the numbers that have an impact on real people who would not have access to health care in the absence of Medicaid.

Medicaid is the absolute bedrock of our nation's health care system. It is the fulfillment of the promise the Federal Government has made to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens that they will have access to affordable health care when times get tough.

It finances nearly 40 percent of all births in the United States. Without it, many pregnant women would forego the prenatal visits and pregnancy-related care that are vital for a child's healthy start. Medicaid provides coverage for one in five of our Nation's children, many of whom would otherwise be uninsured. It pays for half of all nursing home care and is the largest single purchaser of long-term care services in the country.

In every State throughout our Nation, Medicaid keeps hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and clinics operating in our communities. And, more importantly, it provides our most vulnerable citizens--pregnant women, children, the elderly, and the disabled--with access to meaningful and affordable health care.

The $15 billion in Medicaid cuts being proposed by this administration matter to the more than 50 million children, pregnant women, seniors, and disabled individuals who rely on Medicaid to meet their health care needs. Some of my colleagues would have you believe that these cuts will have no impact at all on the number of kids covered by Medicaid or the number of people who can access care in nursing homes. They even argue that these cuts will lead to Medicaid expansions because Governors will have greater flexibility over the use of their dollars.

Well, these statements simply are not true. Fewer dollars do not equal

greater flexibility. Fewer dollars mean that States, medical providers, and individual beneficiaries are going to have to shoulder more of the burden of rapidly rising health care costs. Cost-shifts of this magnitude will undoubtedly lead to eligibility restrictions, benefit reductions, increased beneficiary cost-sharing, and provider payment cuts or freezes.

States are already struggling with the numerous unfunded mandates that the Federal Government has passed down in recent years. Twenty- nine states, including my home state of West Virginia, are facing a drop in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, next year because of a change in the statutory formula used to compute FMAP.

When the Medicare drug benefit starts on January 1, 2006, states will be required to finance a significant portion of the cost. This will be the first time since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 that a specific Medicare benefit will be financed in significant part by state payments. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO estimates that, at a minimum, states will pay $48 billion toward the Medicare prescription drug benefit in the first 5 years. These costs could be much greater if more dual eligibles sign up for prescription drug coverage or if States have to cover the costs of drugs for dual eligibles that private drug plans do not cover.

West Virginia is scheduled to lose $36 million in Federal Medicaid matching funds in 2006. And, it is still unclear how much implementation of the Medicare prescription drug law will cost. The additional cuts proposed by the President could result in West Virginia losing as much as $100 million in Federal Medicaid matching funds next year alone. The hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and clinics in my State cannot afford to absorb cuts of this magnitude.

This budget isn't about reducing the Federal deficit. Otherwise, we would have eliminated the $70 billion in tax cuts that are contained this budget. We would have taken an objective look at entitlement spending, and not just focused on the program that provides health benefits to the working poor. We would have reined in excessive overpayments to private plans under Medicare and found ways to lower Medicare prescription drug costs.

This budget isn't about reforming the Medicaid program for the better. Otherwise, it would have addressed the real reasons Medicaid cost are going up: significant decreases in employer-sponsored health coverage and Medicare's gaps in long-term care coverage. Otherwise, the administration would have provided specific policy proposals for strengthening Medicaid for the future, instead of vague ideas that even the Congressional Budget Office could not score. If this budget were truly about improving Medicaid, then the administration would not be attempting to shoehorn sweeping changes to the program into an arbitrary budget number. Instead, Medicaid policy would determine the budget number.

I would like to say to my colleagues that Democrats are happy to discuss strengthening the Medicaid program for the future. We are happy to work toward reforming the program for the better. However, the prescription for Medicaid must adequately address the larger problems with our health care system that have an impact on the program. This is clearly not the case with this budget.

The bottom line is that this budget is about choices, and this administration has chosen to unfairly target low-income working families. This budget robs the most vulnerable in our society, while simultaneously giving greater tax breaks to the rich. This is unacceptable. The Federal Government has a responsibility to maintain its commitment to Medicaid in order to protect access to health care for working Americans.

That is why I oppose the $15 billion in Medicaid cuts included in the budget and will vote for the Smith-Bingaman amendment to strike these cuts from the budget resolution.

Mr. President, on March 14 the National Congress of the People's Republic of China passed a bill termed the ``Anti- Secession'' law that preemptively positions China to take military action should it judge Taiwan to be moving toward formal independence. While the threat of force from Beijing is not new, legislation that refers to ``non-peaceful means,'' even described as a ``last resort'' can only be seen as counterproductive. At a minimum, it is not conducive to building confidence between Taiwan and China nor facilitating dialogue, which are key to future stability in the straits and to peace and prosperity for both sides. This is not an issue that can be successfully resolved through military means. All would lose.

The timing of this law is equally unfortunate. Since the beginning of this year, Chinese and Taiwanese officials have taken concrete, pragmatic steps to build better relations--such as direct flights, shipping links, and increased trade. There have also been gestures of personal respect and there has been a lowering of the rhetorical temperature, on both sides. These are heartening developments. I encourage both parties to seek to expand upon them. I am convinced that this is the right road for China and Taiwan, to focus on mutually beneficial programs and to continue to create opportunities for more personal contacts.

In contrast, the Anti-Secession law is awkward and unhelpful. While I recognize that it also does stress the chance for peaceful settlement of the Taiwan issue, its thrust, coupled with an ongoing Chinese military build-up, will be viewed by Taiwan as inimical. I urge the Chinese government to move beyond this legislation, and this moment, and to demonstrate its good faith intent to work toward renewed discussions and better relations. If Beijing does so, certainly I hope that Taipei will respond in kind.

Mr. President, to better protect our children and families from the increasingly indecent and violent images pervading our homes, I am introducing with Senator Hutchison the Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005. I believe this to be a crucial issue with far-reaching implications for our young people and for our country, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in seeing that this bill is enacted and sent to the President for his signature.

Each day, and for hours and hours every day, broadcast, cable, and satellite television outlets indiscriminately barrage our children and families with indecent and violent images. Our children don't differentiate between sources of their programs, and neither should the law. Not only does the pervasive nature of indecent programming coarsen our society, but also its effects are being felt in our homes, in our schools, and on our streets. I cannot tell you how many parents and educators have told me that the behavior of the children in their care is bad and getting worse, and that they blame what these kids are seeing on television for much of the problem.

The Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act is not intended to limit artistic expression, nor is it my purpose to impose the will of Congress on decisions that properly belong to parents. What I hope to do with this legislation is to give parents and broadcasters, especially local affiliates, a set of tools they can use to control the violence and lewdness being beamed into their homes and communities. To help parents determine what is appropriate programming for their children to watch, this legislation mandates meaningful labeling of violent and indecent programming to include a full-screen, 30-second warning every 30 minutes on broadcast, cable, and satellite programming. To help local broadcasters determine what appropriate programming for their communities is, the bill would allow local broadcasters to refuse to air programming that they believe violates their own community standards, and protects local broadcasters from fines levied for broadcast decisions imposed on them by national networks. I believe local broadcasters in West Virginia and across the country know what the standards of decency are in their own communities, but currently are at the mercy of the national networks. We need to give them the tools to follow community standards, and protect them when a national network forces them to air harmful programming.

The Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act will require the Federal Communication Commission to begin comprehensive review of existing technologies to protect our children from gratuitous and excessively violent programming on broadcast television. My bill would require the FCC to assess the effectiveness of both the current voluntary ratings system and the ``V-Chip'' and other content-blocking technologies. I supported both voluntary announcements and requiring television manufacturers to install the V- Chip. I believe that both can be beneficial to parents who seek to limit what their kids are seeing. But I acknowledge--as every parent in a house with a television must that kids will seek out inappropriate content, and will attempt to find a way around whatever warnings or technological fixes we put in place to control their access to that content.

This legislation calls upon the FCC to recommend improved techniques or additional technologies that will help parents protect their children from material that could harm them or incite them to harm others. Specifically, if the FCC cannot affirm that these technologies are practically effective in protecting children then 1. create a ``safe harbor'' or other mechanism to protect children from gratuitous and excessively violent programming on

broadcast television and 2. Require the least restrictive means to protect children from indecency and gratuitous and excessive violence for cable and satellite programming.

This should not be an ad hoc judgment made out of fear of the FCC on the part of broadcasters, but instead a bright line test that artists, television networks, advertisers, and cable and satellite providers and, most importantly, parents can rely on. Because programming that is excessively violent or promotes violence is every bit as damaging to our youth as is content depicting sexuality in gratuitous or prurient manner, we must address both issues.

The Indecent and Violent Programming Control Act would increase fines the FCC could impose on broadcasters from $27,500 to $500,000 and gives the FCC the appropriate authority to double fines bases on certain circumstances. While I believe indecent programming transmitted against national and community standards, or against the wishes of adult consumers, must be punished, I also believe that most broadcasters are responsible and are interested in providing wholesome entertainment. As a means of self-policing, I have included a Sense of Congress that broadcast television outlets, as well as cable and satellite providers, abide by the ``Television Code of National Association of Broadcasters.''

Finally, and this may be the most important part of the bill, my legislation mandates that all broadcasters, be they network, cable, or satellite, to double the amount of children's programming they are required to show each week. Whatever one believes about other parts of the legislation I am introducing here today, I would hope that my colleagues would be pleased and proud to see this provision enacted. What might surprise my colleagues, and indeed most Americans, is that broadcasters are currently only required to show three hours of children's content a week. When you consider that what passes for children's content often amounts to little more than advertisements for products aimed at children, this is a travesty.

I welcome a vigorous and healthy debate on the issue of indecent programming aimed at children. We owe it to our children, and to the nation, to take up these challenging questions, and resolve to find ways to protect kids, encourage creativity, and pay allegiance to the Constitution. I believe the Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act is a vital step toward that goal.

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

Mr. President, to better protect our children and families from the increasingly indecent and violent images pervading our homes, I am introducing with Senator Hutchison the Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005. I believe this to be a crucial issue with far-reaching implications for our young people and for our country, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in seeing that this bill is enacted and sent to the President for his signature.

Each day, and for hours and hours every day, broadcast, cable, and satellite television outlets indiscriminately barrage our children and families with indecent and violent images. Our children don't differentiate between sources of their programs, and neither should the law. Not only does the pervasive nature of indecent programming coarsen our society, but also its effects are being felt in our homes, in our schools, and on our streets. I cannot tell you how many parents and educators have told me that the behavior of the children in their care is bad and getting worse, and that they blame what these kids are seeing on television for much of the problem.

The Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act is not intended to limit artistic expression, nor is it my purpose to impose the will of Congress on decisions that properly belong to parents. What I hope to do with this legislation is to give parents and broadcasters, especially local affiliates, a set of tools they can use to control the violence and lewdness being beamed into their homes and communities. To help parents determine what is appropriate programming for their children to watch, this legislation mandates meaningful labeling of violent and indecent programming to include a full-screen, 30-second warning every 30 minutes on broadcast, cable, and satellite programming. To help local broadcasters determine what appropriate programming for their communities is, the bill would allow local broadcasters to refuse to air programming that they believe violates their own community standards, and protects local broadcasters from fines levied for broadcast decisions imposed on them by national networks. I believe local broadcasters in West Virginia and across the country know what the standards of decency are in their own communities, but currently are at the mercy of the national networks. We need to give them the tools to follow community standards, and protect them when a national network forces them to air harmful programming.

The Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act will require the Federal Communication Commission to begin comprehensive review of existing technologies to protect our children from gratuitous and excessively violent programming on broadcast television. My bill would require the FCC to assess the effectiveness of both the current voluntary ratings system and the ``V-Chip'' and other content-blocking technologies. I supported both voluntary announcements and requiring television manufacturers to install the V- Chip. I believe that both can be beneficial to parents who seek to limit what their kids are seeing. But I acknowledge--as every parent in a house with a television must that kids will seek out inappropriate content, and will attempt to find a way around whatever warnings or technological fixes we put in place to control their access to that content.

This legislation calls upon the FCC to recommend improved techniques or additional technologies that will help parents protect their children from material that could harm them or incite them to harm others. Specifically, if the FCC cannot affirm that these technologies are practically effective in protecting children then 1. create a ``safe harbor'' or other mechanism to protect children from gratuitous and excessively violent programming on

broadcast television and 2. Require the least restrictive means to protect children from indecency and gratuitous and excessive violence for cable and satellite programming.

This should not be an ad hoc judgment made out of fear of the FCC on the part of broadcasters, but instead a bright line test that artists, television networks, advertisers, and cable and satellite providers and, most importantly, parents can rely on. Because programming that is excessively violent or promotes violence is every bit as damaging to our youth as is content depicting sexuality in gratuitous or prurient manner, we must address both issues.

The Indecent and Violent Programming Control Act would increase fines the FCC could impose on broadcasters from $27,500 to $500,000 and gives the FCC the appropriate authority to double fines bases on certain circumstances. While I believe indecent programming transmitted against national and community standards, or against the wishes of adult consumers, must be punished, I also believe that most broadcasters are responsible and are interested in providing wholesome entertainment. As a means of self-policing, I have included a Sense of Congress that broadcast television outlets, as well as cable and satellite providers, abide by the ``Television Code of National Association of Broadcasters.''

Finally, and this may be the most important part of the bill, my legislation mandates that all broadcasters, be they network, cable, or satellite, to double the amount of children's programming they are required to show each week. Whatever one believes about other parts of the legislation I am introducing here today, I would hope that my colleagues would be pleased and proud to see this provision enacted. What might surprise my colleagues, and indeed most Americans, is that broadcasters are currently only required to show three hours of children's content a week. When you consider that what passes for children's content often amounts to little more than advertisements for products aimed at children, this is a travesty.

I welcome a vigorous and healthy debate on the issue of indecent programming aimed at children. We owe it to our children, and to the nation, to take up these challenging questions, and resolve to find ways to protect kids, encourage creativity, and pay allegiance to the Constitution. I believe the Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act is a vital step toward that goal.

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

Mr. President, millions of seniors and disabled Americans are facing a major disruption in their health care when the Medicare prescription drug law goes into effect on January 1, 2006. On that singular date, 6.4 million dual eligibles--individuals who are eligible for both Medicare and full Medicaid benefits--will lose their Medicaid prescription drug coverage regardless of whether they have obtained coverage through a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan and regardless of whether their Part D plan's coverage is as broad as their State's Medicaid coverage. Such a short transition period leaves no time to address the inevitable problems that will occur with a transition of this magnitude.

Dual eligibles should have as smooth a transition as possible to Medicare prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, a smooth transition is not what will happen under current law. The Medicare prescription drug law only requires a six-week transition period for dual eligibles, from November 15, 2005, to January 1, 2006. This is the largest transition of individuals from one insurance program to another, public or private, and it is unrealistic to believe that such a huge transition can take place in the span of six weeks.

Moving a large number of seniors and people with disabilities to an entirely new system for prescription drug coverage is a major undertaking. Dual eligibles will require adequate outreach, education, and time to adjust to a change of this magnitude. The stakes are extremely high for this population. Over half are limited in activities of daily living. Many live alone or in nursing homes. And, in comparison to other Medicare beneficiaries, dual eligibles are much more likely to have heart disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes, or Alzheimer's. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we get this transition right the first time.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken several steps to improve the transition of the dual eligibles from Medicaid to Medicare. However, I fear these steps do not go far enough. Automatic enrollment does not guarantee that beneficiaries will know that they have been enrolled in a new Medicare drug plan or know how to access necessary prescription drugs using that drug plan. Once beneficiaries are enrolled, they are likely to experience ongoing confusion about covered drugs, authorized pharmacies, and the Medicare appeals process.

In its June 2004 report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) suggested that even large, private employers need at least six months to transition their employees' drug coverage from one pharmacy benefit manager to another. The two large employers that MedPAC studied had 25,000 and 75,000 employees, respectively. The states and the federal government are taking on a far more complex task with 6.4 million dual eligibles, and should have at least six months to transition the duals to Medicare in order prevent major disruptions in access to prescription drugs.

I am pleased to be joined today by my distinguished colleagues in the Senate, Senators Kennedy, Corzine, and Lautenberg, as well my distinguished co-sponsor in the House of Representatives, Congressman Tom Allen of Maine, in introducing the Medicare Dual Eligible Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 2005. This important legislation would extend the dual eligible transition period to six months in order to achieve the best possible health outcomes for some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. An extended timeframe would give states enough time to carry out comprehensive education and outreach initiatives. It would also give seniors and individuals with disabilities time to explore their options and gradually transition to Medicare Part D.

Specifically, the Medicare Dual Eligible Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 2005 would extend the availability of Medicaid prescription drug coverage for six months while still allowing the Part D benefit to be implemented as scheduled. Since states would be temporarily supplementing Medicare Part D, they would be fully relieved of any ``clawback'' responsibilities during the six-month transition. This legislation would also provide dedicated resources

for education and outreach to the dual eligibles, including additional resources for State Health Insurance Assistance Programs (SHIPs). Finally, the Medicare Dual Eligible Prescription Drug Coverage Act would require CMS to share drug utilization data with state Medicaid programs so that states can appropriately coordinate non-prescription drug coverage for the duals.

This is an issue of fundamental fairness. The Medicare law provides Medicare beneficiaries who are not dually eligible for Medicaid six months to transition to Medicare prescription drug coverage. Dual eligibles should not be treated any differently. Medicare's universality is something I fought hard for during the Medicare debate. I strongly believe low-income seniors and disabled individuals should not be excluded from Medicare benefits because of their income levels. The Medicare law should not merely support the principle of universality in statute. It must also support universality in fact, and that means Medicare beneficiaries who are dually eligible for Medicaid must also be given enough time to make a smooth transition to Medicare.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I ask that the full text of this bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, millions of seniors and disabled Americans are facing a major disruption in their health care when the Medicare prescription drug law goes into effect on January 1, 2006. On that singular date, 6.4 million dual eligibles--individuals who are eligible for both Medicare and full Medicaid benefits--will lose their Medicaid prescription drug coverage regardless of whether they have obtained coverage through a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan and regardless of whether their Part D plan's coverage is as broad as their State's Medicaid coverage. Such a short transition period leaves no time to address the inevitable problems that will occur with a transition of this magnitude.

Dual eligibles should have as smooth a transition as possible to Medicare prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, a smooth transition is not what will happen under current law. The Medicare prescription drug law only requires a six-week transition period for dual eligibles, from November 15, 2005, to January 1, 2006. This is the largest transition of individuals from one insurance program to another, public or private, and it is unrealistic to believe that such a huge transition can take place in the span of six weeks.

Moving a large number of seniors and people with disabilities to an entirely new system for prescription drug coverage is a major undertaking. Dual eligibles will require adequate outreach, education, and time to adjust to a change of this magnitude. The stakes are extremely high for this population. Over half are limited in activities of daily living. Many live alone or in nursing homes. And, in comparison to other Medicare beneficiaries, dual eligibles are much more likely to have heart disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes, or Alzheimer's. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we get this transition right the first time.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken several steps to improve the transition of the dual eligibles from Medicaid to Medicare. However, I fear these steps do not go far enough. Automatic enrollment does not guarantee that beneficiaries will know that they have been enrolled in a new Medicare drug plan or know how to access necessary prescription drugs using that drug plan. Once beneficiaries are enrolled, they are likely to experience ongoing confusion about covered drugs, authorized pharmacies, and the Medicare appeals process.

In its June 2004 report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) suggested that even large, private employers need at least six months to transition their employees' drug coverage from one pharmacy benefit manager to another. The two large employers that MedPAC studied had 25,000 and 75,000 employees, respectively. The states and the federal government are taking on a far more complex task with 6.4 million dual eligibles, and should have at least six months to transition the duals to Medicare in order prevent major disruptions in access to prescription drugs.

I am pleased to be joined today by my distinguished colleagues in the Senate, Senators Kennedy, Corzine, and Lautenberg, as well my distinguished co-sponsor in the House of Representatives, Congressman Tom Allen of Maine, in introducing the Medicare Dual Eligible Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 2005. This important legislation would extend the dual eligible transition period to six months in order to achieve the best possible health outcomes for some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. An extended timeframe would give states enough time to carry out comprehensive education and outreach initiatives. It would also give seniors and individuals with disabilities time to explore their options and gradually transition to Medicare Part D.

Specifically, the Medicare Dual Eligible Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 2005 would extend the availability of Medicaid prescription drug coverage for six months while still allowing the Part D benefit to be implemented as scheduled. Since states would be temporarily supplementing Medicare Part D, they would be fully relieved of any ``clawback'' responsibilities during the six-month transition. This legislation would also provide dedicated resources

for education and outreach to the dual eligibles, including additional resources for State Health Insurance Assistance Programs (SHIPs). Finally, the Medicare Dual Eligible Prescription Drug Coverage Act would require CMS to share drug utilization data with state Medicaid programs so that states can appropriately coordinate non-prescription drug coverage for the duals.

This is an issue of fundamental fairness. The Medicare law provides Medicare beneficiaries who are not dually eligible for Medicaid six months to transition to Medicare prescription drug coverage. Dual eligibles should not be treated any differently. Medicare's universality is something I fought hard for during the Medicare debate. I strongly believe low-income seniors and disabled individuals should not be excluded from Medicare benefits because of their income levels. The Medicare law should not merely support the principle of universality in statute. It must also support universality in fact, and that means Medicare beneficiaries who are dually eligible for Medicaid must also be given enough time to make a smooth transition to Medicare.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I ask that the full text of this bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this amendment is critical to making corporate bankruptcies fairer to the people who have worked in those corporations and toiled during the course of their lives and expect, reasonably, at end of their service, to have something to show for it.

My amendment does three things.

First, it allows employees to recover up to $15,000 in backpay or other compensation that is owed them.

Second, my amendment would eliminate the accrual time period for calculation of priority claims. And, if we do not eliminate the accrual period, then increasing wage priority in the bill is meaningless.

Finally, my amendment would provide at least some compensation to retirees whose promised health insurance has been taken away.

Under my proposal, each retiree would be entitled to payment equal to the cost of purchasing comparable health insurance for a period of 18 months.

I encourage the support of my colleagues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment No. 24.

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

Mr. President, over the last years, as the economy came down from the highs of the 1990s, we have seen devastating corporate bankruptcies and how they can affect workers and their families. I have seen that in my State, and we have all seen that in our States. From the enormous Enron bankruptcy at the end of 2001 to the bankruptcies in my State, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, of Wheeling-Pitt, Weirton Steel, Horizon Natural Resources, and involving also Kentucky, every bankruptcy has brought heartache for workers who had dedicated themselves to employers, many of them for many years.

In many cases, employees and retirees have very limited ability under bankruptcy to recover their wages, to recover their severance or any benefits they are due when companies seek protection from their creditors. Workers deserve better. And as we debate changes to our Nation's bankruptcy laws, Congress must address, in this Senator's judgment, these injustices.

Today I am offering an amendment to strengthen the rights of workers and retirees in bankruptcy. I am very

pleased that Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is an original cosponsor of this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Dayton and Obama as cosponsors.

Specifically, the amendment will do two things. First, it would allow employees to recover more of the back pay or other compensation that is owed to them at the time of the bankruptcy.

Second, it will ensure that retirees whose promised health insurance is taken away receive at least some compensation for their lost benefits.

In the simplest terms, employees sell their labor to companies. They toil away in offices and plants and factories and mills and mines because they are promised that at the end of the day they will receive a certain compensation. Many workers then have a difficult time recovering what is owed to them by their employer when their company, as so often happens these days, files for bankruptcy.

Under current law, employees are entitled to a priority claim of up to $4,925. That is it. The legislation we are debating would increase that claim to $10,000, which is better. But even that figure is usually not enough to cover the back wages, vacation time, severance pay, or payment benefits the employees are owed for work done prior to the bankruptcy. Congress needs to update the amount of the priority claim to ensure that more workers are able to receive what is rightfully theirs. My amendment, thereby, would increase the priority claim to $15,000. So we are basically going from $5,000 to $15,000.

My amendment would also eliminate the accrual time period for calculation of priority claims. In too many cases, employees are not able to receive the full amount of the priority claim because the bankruptcy courts have interpreted the accrual period very strictly. Judges do not agree that promised severance pay for accrued vacation time was all earned in the last 90 or 100 days before bankruptcy, even when it might have been. Because there is no uniformity in the way these benefits are earned or paid, the location of the bankruptcy changes the way the wage priority operates and results in costly and time-consuming legislation, litigation over the accrual of benefits. Eliminating the accrual time period streamlines the application of the wage priority and allows employees to recover more of what they have earned.

Another important type of compensation that workers earn is the right to enjoy certain benefits when they retire. Pensions, life insurance, or health care coverage are earned by workers--it is part of the deal-- in addition to their weekly paychecks. They have reason to expect these things will be coming to them. We know the nature of the American economy is changing. I do not argue that. Yet sadly we have seen many companies in the past few years abandon the promises they made when they declared bankruptcy.

Sometimes bankruptcy is used as a reason to avoid promises that were made. More and more we see companies taking the easy road by abandoning commitments they made to workers. For retirees who have planned for their golden years based upon the benefits they have earned, losing health insurance could be a devastating blow. That is sort of one of the more obvious statements one can make. Retirees must have the right to reasonable compensation if the company seeks to break its promise to provide health insurance.

Under current law, these retirees receive what is called a general unsecured claim for the value of the benefits they lost. As any creditor will tell you, a general unsecured claim is essentially worthless in most bankruptcies. It means you are at the end of the line and there are not enough assets to go around. This law allows companies to essentially rescind compensation that retirees have earned with virtually no cost to the company. Of course, that is a great deal for the company, but it is spectacularly unfair to the retirees.

Recognizing that so-called legacy costs are often an impossible burden for a company that is trying to emerge from bankruptcy, my amendment would still allow companies in some circumstances to alter the health coverage offered to retirees. However, it would require that the company pay at least some minimum level of compensation to retirees.

Under my proposal, each retiree would be entitled to a payment equal to the cost of purchasing comparable health insurance for a period of 18 months. I will repeat that. Each retiree would be entitled to a payment equal to the cost of purchasing comparable health insurance for a period of 18 months. Of course, 18 months of health insurance coverage is a lot less than many of these retirees are losing, but it can ease the transition as retirees try to make alternative plans, and it will discourage companies from thinking that terminating retiree health coverage is an easy solution or perhaps even part of the reason for seeking bankruptcy in the first place. The retirees would still be entitled to a general unsecured claim for the value of the benefits lost in excess of this one-time payment. This change would ensure that retirees, while still not being made whole on lost benefits, will at least receive some compensation for broken promises.

Mr. President, I understand that many creditors or investors are not able to recover what is rightfully owed to them in the course of bankruptcy, but employees deserve protection that recognizes the unique nature of their dependence on the employer. Any smart investor diversifies his or her portfolio so that a bankruptcy at one company does not bankrupt the investor. Likewise, suppliers and creditors that do business with a company typically have many other clients. That is not the case, however, with workers. They cannot diversify away the risk of working for a bankrupt company. They are there all by themselves, and the financial hardship bankruptcy brings is more devastating to the average worker than the average creditor or supplier. I believe that logic is pretty clear.

The relief provided by this amendment is modest. It will not take the sting out of bankruptcy. By definition, a bankruptcy is a failure, and it is painful for the company's employees, retirees, and also for the business partners. But by this amendment we would make progress toward ensuring that bankruptcies are more fair--more fair to workers who gave their time, energy, and sweat to the company in exchange for certain promised compensation, which then did not turn out to be available.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to extend an important tax benefit to the men and women of the United States Intelligence Community. I am pleased that in keeping with the bipartisan traditions of the Intelligence Committee, every member, Republican and Democrat, is listed as an original cosponsor.

Two years ago, on Veterans Day, President Bush signed into law an important modification to our tax code to ensure that it does not punish those who serve our country in the military and in the U.S. foreign service. Unfortunately, that legislation did not extend to intelligence officers, who serve alongside their military and diplomatic colleagues all around the world and who often face the same tax issues encountered by those individuals. The legislation I am introducing today makes a common sense modification to the capital gains tax exclusion rules to ensure that when selling their homes, intelligence officers do not pay more tax than they would if they did not serve their country.

The men and women of the Intelligence Community, serve with the military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and numerous other locations where we have U.S. forces deployed. They also serve in U.S. Embassies around the world. Often times they carry an added burden because they must serve undercover. Their families and friends don't know what they do. They live their cover story by day and perform their critical intelligence work by night. They work for all fifteen of the agencies included in the intelligence community and they do a remarkable job. These people are dedicated to their mission and to this country.

These patriotic individuals sacrifice a great deal on behalf of the rest of us. They uproot and relocate their families every few years. They often live in places most of us wouldn't even visit. And they rarely have the quality of life with access to modern luxuries that the rest of us take for granted. To then say that they are going to be penalized by our tax code is unacceptable.

Since 1997, our tax code has allowed Americans to sell their homes without paying taxes on up to $250,000 of capital gains. Married couples can exclude $500,000 in capital gains from taxation. This provision is specifically intended only for principle residences, and therefore, sellers are required to have lived in the homes for at least 2 of the 5 years prior to sale.

In 2003, Congress recognized that this residency requirement was often difficult for members of the armed forces and foreign service to satisfy. If they had been stationed away from home while serving their country, they were essentially punished with higher taxes on the sales of their homes. Congress addressed this injustice by allowing service personnel and foreign service officers who were stationed away from home to suspend the residency requirement for as many as ten years. This change allows, for example, a soldier who spent the last 7 years stationed in Germany to exclude from taxes the capital gains on the sale of his former home in the U.S., as long as he had lived in it for at least 2 of the 5 years prior to his service overseas. The change is effective on all sales after 1997, when the capital gains tax exclusion for home sales was provided to all Americans.

Fairness demands that Congress apply the same rules to intelligence officers serving their country away from home. My legislation simply inserts intelligence officers into the list of those allowed to suspend the 5 year residency test period for up to 10 years while they are stationed away from home.

I intend to work with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee and the Finance Committee to ensure that this provision is enacted this year.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to extend an important tax benefit to the men and women of the United States Intelligence Community. I am pleased that in keeping with the bipartisan traditions of the Intelligence Committee, every member, Republican and Democrat, is listed as an original cosponsor.

Two years ago, on Veterans Day, President Bush signed into law an important modification to our tax code to ensure that it does not punish those who serve our country in the military and in the U.S. foreign service. Unfortunately, that legislation did not extend to intelligence officers, who serve alongside their military and diplomatic colleagues all around the world and who often face the same tax issues encountered by those individuals. The legislation I am introducing today makes a common sense modification to the capital gains tax exclusion rules to ensure that when selling their homes, intelligence officers do not pay more tax than they would if they did not serve their country.

The men and women of the Intelligence Community, serve with the military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and numerous other locations where we have U.S. forces deployed. They also serve in U.S. Embassies around the world. Often times they carry an added burden because they must serve undercover. Their families and friends don't know what they do. They live their cover story by day and perform their critical intelligence work by night. They work for all fifteen of the agencies included in the intelligence community and they do a remarkable job. These people are dedicated to their mission and to this country.

These patriotic individuals sacrifice a great deal on behalf of the rest of us. They uproot and relocate their families every few years. They often live in places most of us wouldn't even visit. And they rarely have the quality of life with access to modern luxuries that the rest of us take for granted. To then say that they are going to be penalized by our tax code is unacceptable.

Since 1997, our tax code has allowed Americans to sell their homes without paying taxes on up to $250,000 of capital gains. Married couples can exclude $500,000 in capital gains from taxation. This provision is specifically intended only for principle residences, and therefore, sellers are required to have lived in the homes for at least 2 of the 5 years prior to sale.

In 2003, Congress recognized that this residency requirement was often difficult for members of the armed forces and foreign service to satisfy. If they had been stationed away from home while serving their country, they were essentially punished with higher taxes on the sales of their homes. Congress addressed this injustice by allowing service personnel and foreign service officers who were stationed away from home to suspend the residency requirement for as many as ten years. This change allows, for example, a soldier who spent the last 7 years stationed in Germany to exclude from taxes the capital gains on the sale of his former home in the U.S., as long as he had lived in it for at least 2 of the 5 years prior to his service overseas. The change is effective on all sales after 1997, when the capital gains tax exclusion for home sales was provided to all Americans.

Fairness demands that Congress apply the same rules to intelligence officers serving their country away from home. My legislation simply inserts intelligence officers into the list of those allowed to suspend the 5 year residency test period for up to 10 years while they are stationed away from home.

I intend to work with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee and the Finance Committee to ensure that this provision is enacted this year.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, to introduce the Senate companion to the Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds Compensation Act.

This legislation is designed to help our soldiers who are returning from combat with serious wounds to maintain their pay during their recovery. Too often, young wounded soldiers are struggling to recover from wounds of combat and, simultaneously struggling financially as well.

A soldier's pay may be cut in half just as they are sent to the hospital. This adds to their stress and worries. It also can mean that family, including wives and children, cannot afford travel to the hospital to be nearby and support in the recovery.

Congressman Markey introduced this bill during the last Congress, and he has introduced it this year. This legislation will maintain the full pay that the soldier received immediately prior to their injury, until they are discharged or regain active duty status.

Over 5,700 soldiers have been seriously wounded in Iraq, and there have been others in combat areas around the globe, and sadly we must acknowledge that there will be more. Recovering soldiers and their families deserve our admiration and respect, and our full support. As they cope with the loss of a limb, or vision or mobility, they should not have to cope with bill collector or financial hardship. In my view, caring for our wounded soldiers and their families is a moral obligation and part of the cost of combat.

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