Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor legislation to authorize the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen. The Tuskegee Airmen overcame enormous obstacles, including blatant discrimination and racism, to become the first black airmen. Their success paved the way for reform and, ultimately, integration of the United States' Armed Services.

These men stepped forward to defend our Nation against the horrors of Nazi Germany, while continuing to battle racist treatment by their own countrymen. They fought through this unjust treatment because their sense of duty to their country was greater than the obstacles in their path. The recognition of their persistence, courage and allegiance is long overdue.

Of the 1,000 Tuskegee Airmen, 450 served in combat, 66 died in combat, and another 33 were shot down and captured as prisoners of war. The pilots were credited with destroying 261 aircraft, damaging 148 aircraft, and flying 15,553 combat sorties and 1,578 missions over Italy and North Africa. They destroyed or damaged over 950 units of ground transportation and escorted more than 200 bombing missions.

As a result of their heroic actions, members of the Tuskegee Airmen have been awarded three Presidential Unit Citations and 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses and Legions of Merit, in addition to The Red Star of Yugoslavia, 9 Purple Hearts, 14 Bronze Stars and more than 700 air medals and clusters.

I am proud to say that 16 of these airmen were from the State of West Virginia. Several attended West Virginia State University, a university which has graduated more military generals than any other non-military college in the Nation. The 16 West Virginians are listed below.

Alston, William R.

Carter, John

Eagleson, Wilson V.

Gamble, Howard C.

Gray, George E.

Hill, William L.

Johnson, Langdon E.

Jones, Hubert L.

Killard, James M., Jr.

Kydd, George H., III

Prewitt, Mexion O.

Roberts, George S.,

Robinson, Robert L., Jr.

Thompson, Floyd A.

Watkins, Edward Wilson

Whitehead, John L., Jr.

The Tuskegee Airmen have proven their valor and dedication to our country, and they have earned the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is time that they receive this honor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today know as the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2005. This bill is designed to enhance child well-being in every State by collecting data on a State-by-State basis to provide information to advocates and policy-makers

about the well-being of children. Developing a set of indicators and measuring progress of child well-being deserves to be a priority.

My hope is to incorporate this important research initiative into the welfare reform reauthorization package. I believe that the Senate should reauthorize our welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, and we should do it this year. Chairman Grassley's interest in a bipartisan process is very encouraging.

In 1996, Congress passed bold legislation to dramatically change our welfare system, and I supported it. The driving force behind this reform was to promote work and self-sufficiency for families and to provide flexibility to States to achieve these goals. States have used this flexibility to design different programs that work better for families who rely on them.

Nine years later, it is obvious that we need State-by-State data on child well-being to measure the results. The current Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is used to evaluate the progress of welfare, and it has been an important national longitudinal study designed to provide rich, detailed data; the kinds of data most useful to academic researchers. It does not, however, provide States with good, timely data to help them more effectively accomplish the goals set forth in welfare reform. This is why is makes sense to invest in both types of surveys, the SIPP and this bill. As social policy and flexibility shifts to the States, the data measuring its effects should be specific.

This bill, the State Child Well Being Research Act of 2005, is intended to fill this information gap by collecting timely, State- specific data that can be used by policy-makers, researchers, and child advocates to assess the well being of children. It would require that a survey examine the physical and emotional health of children, adequately represent the experiences of families in individual States, be consistent across States, be collected annually, articulate results in easy to understand terms, and focus on low-income children and families.

The proposed legislation will provide data for all States, including small rural States that cannot be covered under SIPP because the sample size is too small. A modest investment in this bill would offer State data for the twenty-three rural states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Moreover, data from a cross-sectional survey would be available to State policy-makers on a far more timely basis than those of a national longitudinal study, a matter of months instead of years.

Further, this bill avoids some of the other problems that plague the current system by making data files easier to use and more readily available. As a result, the information will be more useful for policy- makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and families.

This legislation also offers the potential for the Health and Human Service Department to partner with several private charitable foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, and McKnight foundations, who are interested in forming a partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the data collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public- private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children and families and increases the study's impact. Given the tight budget we face, partnerships make sense.

I hope my colleagues will support this effort to learn about the well-being of our children in rural States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today know as the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2005. This bill is designed to enhance child well-being in every State by collecting data on a State-by-State basis to provide information to advocates and policy-makers

about the well-being of children. Developing a set of indicators and measuring progress of child well-being deserves to be a priority.

My hope is to incorporate this important research initiative into the welfare reform reauthorization package. I believe that the Senate should reauthorize our welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, and we should do it this year. Chairman Grassley's interest in a bipartisan process is very encouraging.

In 1996, Congress passed bold legislation to dramatically change our welfare system, and I supported it. The driving force behind this reform was to promote work and self-sufficiency for families and to provide flexibility to States to achieve these goals. States have used this flexibility to design different programs that work better for families who rely on them.

Nine years later, it is obvious that we need State-by-State data on child well-being to measure the results. The current Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is used to evaluate the progress of welfare, and it has been an important national longitudinal study designed to provide rich, detailed data; the kinds of data most useful to academic researchers. It does not, however, provide States with good, timely data to help them more effectively accomplish the goals set forth in welfare reform. This is why is makes sense to invest in both types of surveys, the SIPP and this bill. As social policy and flexibility shifts to the States, the data measuring its effects should be specific.

This bill, the State Child Well Being Research Act of 2005, is intended to fill this information gap by collecting timely, State- specific data that can be used by policy-makers, researchers, and child advocates to assess the well being of children. It would require that a survey examine the physical and emotional health of children, adequately represent the experiences of families in individual States, be consistent across States, be collected annually, articulate results in easy to understand terms, and focus on low-income children and families.

The proposed legislation will provide data for all States, including small rural States that cannot be covered under SIPP because the sample size is too small. A modest investment in this bill would offer State data for the twenty-three rural states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Moreover, data from a cross-sectional survey would be available to State policy-makers on a far more timely basis than those of a national longitudinal study, a matter of months instead of years.

Further, this bill avoids some of the other problems that plague the current system by making data files easier to use and more readily available. As a result, the information will be more useful for policy- makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and families.

This legislation also offers the potential for the Health and Human Service Department to partner with several private charitable foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, and McKnight foundations, who are interested in forming a partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the data collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public- private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children and families and increases the study's impact. Given the tight budget we face, partnerships make sense.

I hope my colleagues will support this effort to learn about the well-being of our children in rural States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the last several years as the economy came down from the high of the 1990s, we have seen how devastating it can be for workers when their companies declare bankruptcy. From the enormous Enron bankruptcy at the end of 2001 to the bankruptcies of Wheeling-Pitt and then Weirton Steel in my own home State, every bankruptcy has brought heartache for workers who had dedicated themselves to their employers. In many cases, employees and retirees have very limited ability to recover the wages, severance, or benefits they are due when their companies seek protection from creditors.

Workers deserve better. So today I am introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act to strengthen workers' rights in bankruptcy and to provide greater authority to bankruptcy courts to ensure a fair distribution of assets. I am very pleased that Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is an original cosponsor of this bill.

Specifically, the bill will do three things. It will ensure that retirees whose promised health insurance is taken away receive at least some compensation for their lost benefits. Second, my legislation would allow employees to recover more of the back-pay or other compensation that is owed to them at the time of the bankruptcy. And lastly, it would provide bankruptcy courts the authority to recover company assets in cases where company managers flagrantly paid excessive compensation to favored employees just before declaring bankruptcy.

I first introduced this legislation in the 108th Congress. I am reintroducing

it because this issue is as important in West Virginia today as it has ever been. I am hopeful that as Congress considers any changes to bankruptcy law we will debate how we can better protect workers whose companies file for bankruptcy. I do not pretend to have all the answers. But I do know that we must do a better job of easing the burden that bankruptcy imposes on employees and retirees. And I believe that we can do so in creative ways that do not make it more difficult for companies to successfully reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy. I look forward to the ideas and suggestions of my colleagues.

In the simplest economic terms, employees sell their labor to their companies. They toil away in offices, plants, factories, mills, and mines, because they are promised that at the end of the day they will receive certain compensation. One of the most important types 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 in addition to their weekly paychecks. Yet, sadly we have seen many companies in the last few years abandon these promises when they declare bankruptcy.

More and more we see companies taking the easy road to profitability by abandoning commitments that they made to workers. For retirees who have planned for their golden years based on the benefits they have earned, losing health insurance can be a devastating blow. 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 legislation would still allow companies in some circumstances to alter the health coverage offered to retirees. However, it would require that the company pay a minimum level of compensation to retirees. Under this bill, 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 make alternative plans, and it will discourage companies from thinking that terminating retiree health coverage is an easy solution. 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 the broken promises.

Many active workers, too, have a difficult time recovering what is owed to them by their employer when the company files bankruptcy. Under current law, employees are entitled to a priority claim of up to $4,925. But that figure is usually not enough to cover the back-wages, vacation time, severance pay, or benefit payments that 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. The Bankruptcy Fairness Act would establish a priority claim for the first $15,000 of compensation owed to an employee.

In most cases, employees have been working their hardest to help the company avoid the nightmare of bankruptcy, only to find that they will not be compensated for their services as promised. As we saw so clearly with the Enron case, employees are often left holding the bag when their company declares bankruptcy. In that case, employees were owed an average of $35,000 in back-wages, severance, and other promised compensation. They deserved to recover more than a mere $4,925 of what was owed them. Let me be clear, this bill does not establish any new obligation for a company to pay severance or other compensation to employees caught up in a company's bankruptcy. It merely ensures that employees can recover more of what is already owed to them through the bankruptcy process.

I understand that many creditors or investors are not able to recover what is rightfully owed to them in bankruptcy, but employees deserve protection that recognizes the unique nature of their dependence on their 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. This is not the case with workers. They cannot diversify away the risk of working for a bankrupt company, and the financial hardship a bankruptcy brings is more devastating to the average worker than the average creditor or supplier.

Now, I know that some of my colleagues listening to this may be worrying that this legislation is insensitive to the needs of companies that are trying to reorganize in order to emerge from bankruptcy and go forward as successful businesses. I am fully aware that sometimes, too often in the real world, the bankruptcy process can help companies stay open and maintain jobs by restructuring obligations to creditors. Too many companies in West Virginia have had to go through the painful process of Chapter 11 reorganization. I completely understand the need to keep the factories open. And I have always worked side by side with companies to help them recover.

I will continue that important work, and I have included a provision in this bill to help bankrupt companies that are struggling to survive to recover assets that have been pilfered from the corporate coffers. In too many cases, company executives reward themselves even as their companies careen toward bankruptcy. The most egregious recent example is at Enron in 2001. In the days and weeks leading up to the bankruptcy filing, executives granted large bonuses to themselves and their favored employees. Millions of dollars were paid to a select group of employees just before the company declared bankruptcy. It is unconscionable that executives would grant themselves undeserved bonuses and then weeks later claim that the company did not have the resources to pay its rank and file employees.

My legislation provides bankruptcy courts greater authority to recover excessive compensation that was paid just prior to the bankruptcy filing. If the court finds that compensation was out of the ordinary course of business or was unjust enrichment, the court can recover those assets for the bankrupt company, ensuring that more creditors, employees, and retirees can receive what is rightfully owed to them by the company.

The reforms I have outlined are modest. They 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 business partners. But the Bankruptcy Fairness Act I am introducing today would make progress toward ensuring that bankruptcies are more fair to the workers who gave their time and energy and sweat to the company in exchange for certain promised compensation. And by helping a company recover assets that should not have been paid out as undeserved bonuses just before bankruptcy the bill ensures that more of a company's assets are paid to the employees, retirees, and creditors who are rightfully owed.

It is my hope that this legislation will receive serious consideration from my colleagues, and that this can open an important debate about how workers and retirees can be better protected from the ugly side of prolonged economic downturns. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the last several years as the economy came down from the high of the 1990s, we have seen how devastating it can be for workers when their companies declare bankruptcy. From the enormous Enron bankruptcy at the end of 2001 to the bankruptcies of Wheeling-Pitt and then Weirton Steel in my own home State, every bankruptcy has brought heartache for workers who had dedicated themselves to their employers. In many cases, employees and retirees have very limited ability to recover the wages, severance, or benefits they are due when their companies seek protection from creditors.

Workers deserve better. So today I am introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act to strengthen workers' rights in bankruptcy and to provide greater authority to bankruptcy courts to ensure a fair distribution of assets. I am very pleased that Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is an original cosponsor of this bill.

Specifically, the bill will do three things. It will ensure that retirees whose promised health insurance is taken away receive at least some compensation for their lost benefits. Second, my legislation would allow employees to recover more of the back-pay or other compensation that is owed to them at the time of the bankruptcy. And lastly, it would provide bankruptcy courts the authority to recover company assets in cases where company managers flagrantly paid excessive compensation to favored employees just before declaring bankruptcy.

I first introduced this legislation in the 108th Congress. I am reintroducing

it because this issue is as important in West Virginia today as it has ever been. I am hopeful that as Congress considers any changes to bankruptcy law we will debate how we can better protect workers whose companies file for bankruptcy. I do not pretend to have all the answers. But I do know that we must do a better job of easing the burden that bankruptcy imposes on employees and retirees. And I believe that we can do so in creative ways that do not make it more difficult for companies to successfully reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy. I look forward to the ideas and suggestions of my colleagues.

In the simplest economic terms, employees sell their labor to their companies. They toil away in offices, plants, factories, mills, and mines, because they are promised that at the end of the day they will receive certain compensation. One of the most important types 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 in addition to their weekly paychecks. Yet, sadly we have seen many companies in the last few years abandon these promises when they declare bankruptcy.

More and more we see companies taking the easy road to profitability by abandoning commitments that they made to workers. For retirees who have planned for their golden years based on the benefits they have earned, losing health insurance can be a devastating blow. 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 legislation would still allow companies in some circumstances to alter the health coverage offered to retirees. However, it would require that the company pay a minimum level of compensation to retirees. Under this bill, 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 make alternative plans, and it will discourage companies from thinking that terminating retiree health coverage is an easy solution. 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 the broken promises.

Many active workers, too, have a difficult time recovering what is owed to them by their employer when the company files bankruptcy. Under current law, employees are entitled to a priority claim of up to $4,925. But that figure is usually not enough to cover the back-wages, vacation time, severance pay, or benefit payments that 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. The Bankruptcy Fairness Act would establish a priority claim for the first $15,000 of compensation owed to an employee.

In most cases, employees have been working their hardest to help the company avoid the nightmare of bankruptcy, only to find that they will not be compensated for their services as promised. As we saw so clearly with the Enron case, employees are often left holding the bag when their company declares bankruptcy. In that case, employees were owed an average of $35,000 in back-wages, severance, and other promised compensation. They deserved to recover more than a mere $4,925 of what was owed them. Let me be clear, this bill does not establish any new obligation for a company to pay severance or other compensation to employees caught up in a company's bankruptcy. It merely ensures that employees can recover more of what is already owed to them through the bankruptcy process.

I understand that many creditors or investors are not able to recover what is rightfully owed to them in bankruptcy, but employees deserve protection that recognizes the unique nature of their dependence on their 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. This is not the case with workers. They cannot diversify away the risk of working for a bankrupt company, and the financial hardship a bankruptcy brings is more devastating to the average worker than the average creditor or supplier.

Now, I know that some of my colleagues listening to this may be worrying that this legislation is insensitive to the needs of companies that are trying to reorganize in order to emerge from bankruptcy and go forward as successful businesses. I am fully aware that sometimes, too often in the real world, the bankruptcy process can help companies stay open and maintain jobs by restructuring obligations to creditors. Too many companies in West Virginia have had to go through the painful process of Chapter 11 reorganization. I completely understand the need to keep the factories open. And I have always worked side by side with companies to help them recover.

I will continue that important work, and I have included a provision in this bill to help bankrupt companies that are struggling to survive to recover assets that have been pilfered from the corporate coffers. In too many cases, company executives reward themselves even as their companies careen toward bankruptcy. The most egregious recent example is at Enron in 2001. In the days and weeks leading up to the bankruptcy filing, executives granted large bonuses to themselves and their favored employees. Millions of dollars were paid to a select group of employees just before the company declared bankruptcy. It is unconscionable that executives would grant themselves undeserved bonuses and then weeks later claim that the company did not have the resources to pay its rank and file employees.

My legislation provides bankruptcy courts greater authority to recover excessive compensation that was paid just prior to the bankruptcy filing. If the court finds that compensation was out of the ordinary course of business or was unjust enrichment, the court can recover those assets for the bankrupt company, ensuring that more creditors, employees, and retirees can receive what is rightfully owed to them by the company.

The reforms I have outlined are modest. They 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 business partners. But the Bankruptcy Fairness Act I am introducing today would make progress toward ensuring that bankruptcies are more fair to the workers who gave their time and energy and sweat to the company in exchange for certain promised compensation. And by helping a company recover assets that should not have been paid out as undeserved bonuses just before bankruptcy the bill ensures that more of a company's assets are paid to the employees, retirees, and creditors who are rightfully owed.

It is my hope that this legislation will receive serious consideration from my colleagues, and that this can open an important debate about how workers and retirees can be better protected from the ugly side of prolonged economic downturns. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have followed closely both the confirmation hearing of Dr. Rice before the Foreign Relations Committee and the floor debate on her nomination. After considerable reflection, I have decided to vote in favor of Dr. Rice's confirmation, although I must state for the record that I do so with some reservations.

I intend to support her nomination primarily because I believe the foreign policy of the United States must reflect a spirit of bipartisanship. Amidst the complex challenges that we face in the war on terrorism, this country cannot afford enduring divisions on international issues. We must return to common ground, not least so that the rest of the world recognizes our single purpose and our resolve. I should note, parenthetically, that restoring that lost unity depends equally upon the majority party, as upon my party.

Dr. Rice has the credentials to be Secretary of State. As National Security Adviser, she has proven an eloquent advocate for the administration's policies. At her confirmation hearing, she made clear our need for effective diplomatic engagement worldwide. I welcomed that emphasis. Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Rice has the President's utmost confidence--this will, I am certain, be an asset in her dealings with other nations, as well as in working with other agencies in our own Government.

My reservations about Dr. Rice stem not from doubts about her abilities, but rather from my concerns about her role in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq and in characterizing the threats posed by Iraq prior to the conflict. I have concluded that many of the administration's statements on Iraqi weapons, including those of Dr. Rice, were simply not underpinned by the intelligence available. That is troubling, as was Dr. Rice's failure, during the confirmation hearing, to acknowledge that mistakes were made, not only in the conduct of the war and its aftermath, but in the policies that led us into it.

This goes directly to the question of accuracy and accountability-- whether this administration will take responsibility for its decisions and learn from the past, so as not to repeat the same errors in future. I believe that the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong. Nevertheless, despite great skepticism among the American people about Iraq, President Bush was reelected. We must now go forward together to achieve stability in Iraq, to bring our forces home, and to restore American credibility at home and abroad.

The dubious decisions, not the nominee, concern me; however, I will not oppose Dr. Rice because I disagree with the administration's policies. That would not be conducive to the bipartisan foreign policy that I believe is crucial. Rather, I look forward to working with Dr. Rice to forge consensus on a more balanced approach to national security issues.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make very clear that Congress fully protected the health insurance benefits of miners and their families when we passed the Coal Act in 1992. This legislation is identical to S. 3004 which I introduced in the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, it is necessary, because we have recently seen bankruptcy courts disregard the Coal Act and absolve companies of their obligations to provide health benefits for workers and retirees. This is unacceptable. And the bill I am introducing today reiterates that the bankruptcy code does not supersede the Coal Act.

Last fall, another company abandoned promises it made to workers and retirees in West Virginia. Horizon Natural Resources sought and received a court ruling that released it from its contracts with union miners and allowed it to avoid honoring health care benefit obligations for over 2,300 retired miners. This is a morally bankrupt corporate strategy, and is inconsistent with the Coal Act passed by Congress in 1992.

The Coal Act was needed in 1992 to prevent some companies from walking away from their clear contractual obligations and agreements with their workers. One of the provisions of that bill was written especially with the intent of not allowing companies to simply reorganize as a way to get out of their obligations to their workers. Unfortunately, too many companies are increasingly using bankruptcy courts to achieve the same results.

It should not be necessary for me to introduce this bill today. Congress has already spoken on this subject. The law is clear: Coal Act retirees are entitled to full benefits provided under the statute. No judge should rewrite the law to take those benefits away. However, because judges are legislating from the bench, it will be helpful for Congress to reiterate our intention to protect the health benefits of coal miners and their families.

This issue is extremely important to all of those who are being victimized by the bankruptcy courts. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort to protect the miners, retired miners, and families who are simply seeking the benefits they were promised in exchange for years of hard work.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make very clear that Congress fully protected the health insurance benefits of miners and their families when we passed the Coal Act in 1992. This legislation is identical to S. 3004 which I introduced in the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, it is necessary, because we have recently seen bankruptcy courts disregard the Coal Act and absolve companies of their obligations to provide health benefits for workers and retirees. This is unacceptable. And the bill I am introducing today reiterates that the bankruptcy code does not supersede the Coal Act.

Last fall, another company abandoned promises it made to workers and retirees in West Virginia. Horizon Natural Resources sought and received a court ruling that released it from its contracts with union miners and allowed it to avoid honoring health care benefit obligations for over 2,300 retired miners. This is a morally bankrupt corporate strategy, and is inconsistent with the Coal Act passed by Congress in 1992.

The Coal Act was needed in 1992 to prevent some companies from walking away from their clear contractual obligations and agreements with their workers. One of the provisions of that bill was written especially with the intent of not allowing companies to simply reorganize as a way to get out of their obligations to their workers. Unfortunately, too many companies are increasingly using bankruptcy courts to achieve the same results.

It should not be necessary for me to introduce this bill today. Congress has already spoken on this subject. The law is clear: Coal Act retirees are entitled to full benefits provided under the statute. No judge should rewrite the law to take those benefits away. However, because judges are legislating from the bench, it will be helpful for Congress to reiterate our intention to protect the health benefits of coal miners and their families.

This issue is extremely important to all of those who are being victimized by the bankruptcy courts. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort to protect the miners, retired miners, and families who are simply seeking the benefits they were promised in exchange for years of hard work.

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

Madam President, I will spend a minute on separate intelligence-related matter before speaking about the bill currently before the Senate. In the time I have been vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have worked hard to try to make sure that funds are channeled to where they ought to be in intelligence. For this reason, and with a great deal of reluctance, I am going to oppose the fiscal year 2005 intelligence authorization conference report, which the Senate will consider later today.

My decision to take this somewhat unprecedented action is based solely on my strenuous objection--shared by many in our committee--to a particular major funding acquisition program that I believe is totally unjustified and very wasteful and dangerous to national security.

Because of the highly classified nature of the programs contained in the national intelligence budget, I cannot talk about them on the floor. But the Senate has voted for the past 2 years to terminate the program of which I speak, only to be overruled in the appropriations conference. The intelligence authorization conference report that I expect to be before the Senate later today fully authorizes funding for this unjustified and stunningly expensive acquisition. I simply cannot overlook that.

My decision is shared by a number of my colleagues. Speaking for myself, if we are asked to fund this particular program next year, I will seriously consider and probably will ask the Senate to go into closed session so the Senators can understand, fully debate, become informed upon, and then vote on termination of this very wasteful acquisition program.

Madam President, I now turn to the business currently pending before the Senate, the National Security Intelligence Reform Act. I am pleased to be here at long last to speak in support of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act. After 5 months of endless work, led by Chairman Collins and Senator Lieberman, we are poised to achieve what people thought was impossible. Some have criticized this legislation for being too hastily conceived or rushed to completion. To the contrary, this reform has been 50 years in the making and the issues have been the subject of 46 different commission reports. Most of them have suggested the same kinds of things we are doing here.

Now, under the extraordinary leadership coming from Senator Susan Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman, our Nation will soon have a Director of National Intelligence who can begin to effectively coordinate our intelligence agencies for the first time since the creation of the National Security Act of 1947.

This critical reform was first suggested during the Nixon administration and was the central recommendation not only of the 9/11 Commission, but also the joint inquiry--not so well known in this body--that was conducted by both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, working together over a period of 2 years ago.

The intelligence reform bill also establishes a National Counterterrorism Center where our analytical and operational efforts to combat terrorism, here and abroad, can be brought together in a coordinated way. This builds on the effort to centralize Counterterrorism analysis begun with the creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center.

But unlike TTIC, the new center will coordinate much more than just intelligence analysis. The NCTC, National counterterrorism Center, will be responsible for the strategic planning of all Counterterrorism operations across the Government. It will provide a unity of effort that we have been lacking for all of these years.

The final legislation is, I believe, a monumental achievement. I am proud to support it. But I am also very honest, as was the previous speaker, Senator Levin from Michigan, that it does not address all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That is somewhat natural in the process of a conference. But it is important to point out what we don't yet have and what we need to continue working for.

I am disappointed that a number of important provisions in this bill were dropped or weakened--in some cases necessarily--in order to get this agreement. The agreement had to be reached. The intransigence of the House conferees forced the Senate conferees to give up more than I would have hoped. A couple of examples are the DNI's ability to transfer funding and personnel. It is a basic part of what the President is asking for, what the commission was asking for. It is significantly weakened from the Senate bill, which passed 96 to 2.

The comptroller established to execute the National Intelligence Program funding has been dropped, requiring intelligence spending to still be channeled through the Pentagon comptroller.

The creation of the inspector general in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is discretionary, not statutorily mandated. It is not going to be any good unless there is a person there doing their job.

Many provisions in the Senate bill designed to ensure the objectivity of intelligence and improve congressional oversight were modified or were dropped, including the provisions of the bill authored by Senator Carl Levin--many excellent suggestions that would have improved congressional access to information and unvarnished intelligence reporting.

Similarly, the Senate conferees were forced to modify other important provisions on the civil liberties, privacy, and declassification boards in order to overcome House objections.

Even with these shortcomings and others, the agreement reached is still a

very good one, one that I can support and one on which I hope we can build in the future in our intelligence authorization bills.

While several provisions from the Senate bill were weakened or dropped, the final agreement still includes many very important provisions--as I would say, the beginning of the turning of the battleship--that will make meaningful improvements to the operation of the intelligence community in all areas, not just counterterrorism.

We had a press conference yesterday, and I pointed out that in 1998, George Tenet announced and declared that there was a war against al- Qaida. Nobody listened. Nobody had to listen, I guess, and they did not. Under this new setup, if the Director of National Intelligence so declares and has the authority to follow through, that will be absolutely enormous.

Some of the good provisions are: Language directing the DNI to create an ombudsman to ensure the objectivity and independence of intelligence analysis. That is so important because it means that people can come to an ombudsman within an intelligence agency and air their grievances, saying they are being pressured to do analysis a certain way, whatever. But having an ombudsman is very important in big and sensitive organizations.

The establishment of a intelligence community reserve corps is, I think, a really good idea. It is in the bill. It helps relieve the burden during periods of increased deployments, such as we are going through right now.

And the establishment of an alternative analysis or ``red teaming'' capability--which is simply the act and the art of taking the collection of intelligence and then the analysis that comes from that collection and having people who are there to say: But did you ask this question? What about that? In other words, they bring a contrarian point of view, thus disciplining intelligence at the collection, development, and production phase into a more worked product.

These reforms address problems uncovered in the Senate Intelligence Committee inquiry into the prewar intelligence on Iraq, some of the ones I just mentioned. When we put them to those two heroic Americans, Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, they supported them strongly. They are very critical to this reform effort.

The creation of a Senate-confirmed Director of National Intelligence presents the President with the opportunity and the challenge to select an individual with strong national security and management credentials and who will be viewed by all as a nonpartisan leader of the intelligence community. That goes without saying. That is absolutely basic.

Now, more than ever, we need an individual who will not only effectively manage the intelligence community for the first time ever, but who can also be an objective adviser to the President, somebody immune to the influence of political pressure.

In order to carry out the enormous responsibilities created in this bill, the new Director cannot be seen as pursuing a political agenda of any kind or forcing the intelligence community to support a particular administration policy. That would apply, obviously, to both Democratic and Republican Presidents and their administrations.

We need a Director who will speak truth to power, as we say, and present what the intelligence community knows, does not know, or believes in a timely and objective way.

I urge the President to nominate an individual to serve as the first Director of National Intelligence who embodies these qualifications.

In conclusion, I again thank Senators Collins and Lieberman for leading us through this extraordinary process, watching the process seem to disintegrate, and then, through the absolute persistence of both of them--even to the extent, I understand it, of BlackBerrying each other from the office to the Kennedy Center--and I will not say which Senator was at which place. But all of this helped bring the deal together.

They were extraordinary in what they did. I have never seen anything like it in the 20 years I have been here. I am really proud of both of them. They never gave up their fight. They never took their eyes off the prize. They overcame institutional resistance to change, and, in the end, they overcame House efforts to undermine and emasculate the bipartisan mandate for intelligence reform, but did so in a way which drew an enormously positive vote from the House last night. They are skillful, and we honor them.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend Ms. Vee Burke for her years of public service as a member of the Congressional Research Service, CRS. She has demonstrated an enormous capacity for public service and tremendous insight on social policy. In over 30 years working for the CRS, Vee has proven herself to be a true expert in the field of public welfare.

Through her hard work and dedication, Vee has provided background reports and thoughtful analysis of low-income programs, especially welfare reform. Members need timely and clear information in order to make informed policy decisions. Vee has provided such information for many years. Her ability to immerse herself in the specific details of each program assured the completeness of her reports, and her consistent presence from one year to the next was essential in maintaining an overview of the larger welfare system that the individual programs collectively represent.

At the end of this month, Vee will be retiring from CRS. While she will be

missed, she has certainly earned the right to move on to the next phase of her life. The legacy she leaves behind will be difficult to match. Having been honored for her outstanding performance numerous times, it is clear that Ms. Burke has earned the respect of her colleagues within CRS, congressional Members and staff, and the larger research and policy community as a whole. Though many of them will never know her name, her knowledge and commitment to public service has affected the lives of millions of Americans. It is with the deepest respect and admiration that I thank Ms. Burke here today and wish her the best in all of her future ventures.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make very clear that Congress fully protected the health insurance benefits

of miners and their families when we passed the Coal Act in 1992. Unfortunately, we have recently seen bankruptcy courts disregard the Coal Act and absolve companies of their obligations to provide health benefits for workers and retirees. This is unacceptable. And the bill I am introducing today reiterates that the bankruptcy code does not supercede the Coal Act.

This year another company has abandon promises it made to workers and retirees in West Virginia. Horizon Natural Resources sought and received a court ruling that releases it from its contracts with union miners and allows it to avoid honoring health care benefit obligations for over 2,300 retired miners. This is a morally bankrupt corporate strategy, and is inconsistent with the Coal Act passed by Congress in 1992.

The Coal Act was needed in 1992 to prevent some companies from walking away from their clear contractual obligations and agreements with their workers. One of the provisions of that bill was written especially with the intent of not allowing companies to simply reorganize as a way to get out of their obligations to their workers. Unfortunately, too many companies are increasingly using bankruptcy courts to achieve the same results.

It should not be necessary for me to introduce this bill today. Congress has already spoken on this subject. The law is clear: Coal Act retirees are entitled to full benefits provided under the statute. No judge should rewrite the law to take those benefits away. However, because judges are legislating from the bench, it will be helpful for Congress to reiterate our intention to protect the health benefits of coal miners and their families.

I recognize that the 108th Congress is coming to a close. But I am introducing this legislation today because this issue is extremely important to all of those who are being victimized by the bankruptcy courts. I hope that early next year my colleagues will join me in this effort to protect the miners, retired miners, and families who are simply seeking the benefits they were promised in exchange for years of hard work.

Mr. President, on behalf of all hard working West Virginians who are worried about keeping their jobs, I must oppose the corporate tax bill the Senate is considering today. For more than a year, I have been working with my colleagues to craft legislation that would address the needs of our manufacturing industry, and I was proud to vote for a Senate bill earlier this year that promised real relief for our economy. However, the legislation before us bears only a faint resemblance to the bipartisan Senate bill, and I believe it would do more harm than good. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. We can do better than this, and we owe it to American workers.

Last September, I introduced legislation that would offer help to our struggling manufacturing sector. My bill would repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income tax provisions to ensure that European tariffs against American exports are lifted. It would create a new tax deduction for domestic manufacturers to essentially lower their corporate income taxes by 3 percent. In addition, my legislation calls for a tax credit to make health care for older workers more affordable. Finally, my legislation would strengthen our trade protections.

On May 11, 2004, the Senate voted 92 to 5 to support the Jumpstart Our Business Strengths, JOBS, Act, which contained the core manufacturing deduction I support. This Senate bill was the product of constructive, bipartisan negotiations. While I did not like every last provision in the bill, it represented a balanced set of tax incentives that would help our factories compete globally.

Having worked so hard to craft the good legislation produced by the Senate, I am extremely disappointed to be faced with such a bad conference report. This conference report is riddled with problematic provisions. But the most fundamental flaw is that this bill actually does more to reward companies for moving jobs overseas than it does to help companies who are struggling to keep their American factories open.

Right now workers in my state are worried about being laid off. Nationwide, we have lost almost 3 million manufacturing jobs in four years. American companies are struggling to succeed in a tough global marketplace. Yet, this Congress is considering legislation that provides tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for American companies with factories abroad, but includes very little for American factories that are struggling to stay open at home. Many factories are simply not profitable enough to benefit from the deduction provided in this bill.

I supported two key provisions in the Senate-passed version of this bill that would provide relief to struggling companies. The net operating loss carry-back provision would allow unprofitable companies to reclaim some of the taxes they had paid on previous earnings. And a provision to allow companies to use alternative minimum tax credits in lieu of favorable depreciation rules would have provided a real incentive for factories to invest in America. But both of these provisions have been excluded from the final bill. By contrast, this bill does include a new 30 percent tax break for companies that moved factories overseas and then kept the profits offshore to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Rewarding companies for offshoring is just one of the ways that this bill makes American workers less secure. In spite of Senate support for a provision to prevent the federal government from outsourcing its contracts to foreign workers, this legislation includes no such restriction. The conference committee also dropped a provision to protect the overtime pay of millions of workers across the country.

Instead of protecting workers, this legislation is rife with giveaways to corporate interests. For just one example, the legislation repeals a 4.3-cent excise tax on railroads diesel fuel. By providing no corresponding relief to captive shippers, the bill ensures that consumers will have to pay more for many goods shipped on the Nation's railways.

In another effort to appease corporate interests, the conference committee actually protected many abusive tax shelters. To ensure that every company and individual pays a fair share of taxes, and to mitigate this bill's effect on our spiraling national debt, the Senate supported a number of strict provisions to close tax loopholes. Unfortunately, $40 billion worth of tax shelters will remain available even if this legislation passes. I will put my colleagues on notice right now that I intend to continue the fight to shut down those abusive tax schemes.

Among the corporate interests that are best protected by this bill are tobacco companies that peddle their deadly products to our Nation's children. The House of Representatives ignored a bipartisan Senate compromise to link a buyout for tobacco farmers with regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration. As a result, more children will take up the awful habit of smoking.

And while I am on the subject of America's young people, let me mention the bill they can expect from the legislation we are considering today. The Senate insisted that the legislation be revenue neutral, that is, it must not add to the debt. However, as we have seen time and time again from this Congress, this goal was met using gimmicks. Many of the tax breaks in this bill are either phased in slowly or sunset after a few years. If expiring provisions are extended, as there will certainly be great pressure to do, the net cost of the bill over the next 10 years would be almost $100 billion.

Regrettably, as we are accumulating more debt for our children to pay off, we are not building the technological infrastructure that will be necessary to make America's economy competitive in years to come. The United States has now slipped to 11th in the world for broadband penetration, with rural areas lagging behind considerably. The Senate JOBS Act included a provision I have championed to provide tax incentives for the deployment of broadband. I am extremely disappointed that this provision, like so many others, was dropped from the final bill.

I have just gone through a laundry list of important reasons to oppose this bill, but in the end, my judgment about this legislation came down to a very simple test: Is this in the best interest of working West Virginians? I cannot support this bill because the fact is, it is not in the best interest of working West Virginians. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and work with me to pass legislation that will truly benefit American workers.

Mr. President, I would like to verify what the Senator from Illinois has said.

Senator Roberts can't be here at this particular time, but he authorized me to say he is in agreement with this. It is a sensible approach. It is bipartisan in nature. As far as we are concerned, there is agreement on both sides. What the managers decide is up to them.

Amendment No. 4036, As Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4030 at the desk and send a modification to the desk and ask that it be considered.

Mr. President, strengthening the two congressional Intelligence Committees was a fundamental part of the 9/11 Commission recommendations for improving congressional oversight. This is more of that. They made many recommendations, most of which were included in whole or in part in our resolution.

One area where the Commission did not make a specific recommendation but which is very important was the question of shared jurisdiction between the Intelligence Committee and other committees, specifically the Armed Services Committee. Under the current structure, other committees have the automatic right to receive sequential referral of any legislation reported by the Intelligence Committee if it touches on their jurisdiction. And the Intelligence Committee enjoys a reciprocal right of referral. In practice, this authority has been exercised hardly at all--very rarely, infrequently--at least by the Intelligence Committee, but it has become a bit of an annual routine for the Armed Services Committee to seek sequential referral of the intelligence authorization bill. This practice is based upon legitimate interests on the part of the Armed Services Committee. But the system has worked to the detriment of the Intelligence Committee and effective oversight. I will try to explain why.

Every year the intelligence authorization bill is referred to the Armed Services Committee for a period of not more than 30 days of legislative session. The Armed Services Committee almost always holds the bill for a full 30 days which can, in fact, work out to 2 calendar months, when you really carry that math out. This allows them to review the bill, which is important and proper, but it puts the Intelligence Committee far behind in the annual legislative process. By which I mean by the time the bill is reported, after a sequential referral by the Armed Services Committee, acted on by the Senate, and negotiated with the House, the annual appropriations bill often is already enacted into law.

For example, this year our authorization bill has not been dealt with. The appropriations bill has been passed in the Senate. This is an awkward way to do business. So we too often have been unable to provide the appropriators with the benefit of the work of the intelligence oversight committees. Timely passage of the intelligence authorization bill would become even more critical with the creation of a new appropriations subcommittee on intelligence.

In order for this new system to work, the Intelligence Committee has to be integral to the whole process. That is the whole point. We have to make changes in the way the sequential referral authority works. So Senator Evan Bayh offered an amendment to completely strike the language that provides for automatic sequential referral, and that is certainly one way to approach it. It has some downsides.

The Armed Services Committee and other committees have legitimate interests that need to be protected. Doing away with the provision also would remove the Intelligence Committee's ability to request the referral of legislation reported by other committees when that legislation relates to intelligence matters.

Finally, completely removing the referral authority would have the inevitable result--and this is sort of the soul of this institution--of alienating the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. This is something we cannot afford and must not do. The committees have to work together constantly on a wide range of issues.

To achieve what Senator Bayh and myself and others want, all of us seeking more effective intelligence oversight, we have worked out a compromise, I am very happy to report. The amendment I have offered significantly reduces the amount of time that another committee has available to review legislation reported by the Intelligence Committee and vice versa. That time goes from 30 days of legislative session down to 10.

But hold on. The amendment also makes clear that the clock does not begin until the committee receiving our bill has all the relevant classified annexes available for review which could be thousands of pages.

According to our compromise, an additional 5 days of sequential referral can be added if requested by the majority or the minority leaders. That struck people as wise and useful. So when there is a legitimate need to have more scrutiny by the Armed Services Committee, they would make that request, and it would, of course, be granted.

This is made easier under the new structure because the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee are now ex officio members of the new Intelligence Committee. We welcome their participation. I don't think it will do anything but strengthen our committee more. In fact, I think we will end up with five members of the Armed Services Committee on our Intelligence Committee, and that is good.

So I thank Senator Bayh for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate. I thank Senators Levin and Warner for their willingness and insistence on finding a middle ground. I really mean I thank them. I thank both the majority and minority leaders who were instrumental in reaching this agreement because we were back and forth all day long.

Finally, I thank, of course, my chairman, Senator Roberts, for his help in crafting this compromise. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman, the Senator from Kansas. I say to the Chair, I was downstairs and I had a wonderful opportunity to spend some time talking with Senator Byrd. We do not have that much opportunity to talk with each other--all of us--and I enjoyed it. Then I began to listen to the conversation. I began to think, I don't know of any committee in the Congress which is more specifically and more logically set up with respect to representation from other committees.

We have the Foreign Relations Committee. We have the Judiciary Committee. We have the Appropriations Committee. We have the Armed Services Committee. We have general members. We are actually going to grow somewhat smaller probably as a result of this intelligence reform. So everybody is represented.

One of the things I have also noticed is that there are a number of Senators--unfortunately not the majority of them, but a number of them--who will come in early in the morning, and they will get with my staff or Senator Roberts' staff and they will say: I want to read stuff that I can only read inside these closed facilities. It may be a National Intelligence Estimate. It may be parts of a report. But we operate openly within a very discreet and necessarily secreted space.

It does not occur to me that Foreign Relations is denied access. Everybody, by definition of being a Senator, belongs to the Intelligence Committee by way of information. It would be perfectly honest to say sometimes taking the 3 or 4 hours, as a number of Senators do, they come in and read and sometimes those are much more productive than even some of the hearings that we might have where everybody gets 5-minute questioning rounds, and Senators will take that.

Is it true we have a special relationship with the Armed Services Committee? Yes, it is true because a great deal of the Armed Services budget interacts and relates to what is going on in intelligence. This evening, we passed a very carefully crafted compromise between sequential referral because the relationship between Armed Services and Intelligence is necessarily complex and can have tension or less tension, and we want to try and keep it having less tension.

We have a very small space. Our hearing room is the smallest hearing room I have ever been in, in either the State legislature or the Senate. It seems to me the particular committees that have jurisdiction are represented. They are represented under S. Res. 400. It is very formal, it is very exacting, and just as Senator Lugar--I am so distressed to see Senator Lugar leave the committee because he was so good at it, but that was the 8-year limit, which is now hopefully going to disappear.

There is representation, I say very honestly to my friend from Delaware. There is representation. The Senator is always welcome. The Senator has as much right and access--equal and not one-quarter of 1 percent less--to what goes on in terms of the intelligence that is available to us, Chairman Roberts or myself and other members of our committee--now 17, soon to be 15--have.

I would just hope that that particular relationship of armed services would be understood. The chairman is on the Armed Services Committee and that is a conflict. It tears at him because he is chairman of one and very senior on the other, but we work it out. We simply work it out because we stay with it.

Again, I say that being on Intelligence is sort of like 100 percent of your time, and I think the quickest way to achieve that is to come in and do the reading. I am thinking of a lot of Senators, whose names are going through my head as I speak, who do that. They come in at 7 in the morning. My staff and the chairman's staff are there. They accommodate them. They say: What do you want to read? And they make it available. They sit down and read and they walk away and they have gotten an enormous amount of information.

So I think the system works pretty well.

I think the committees are accommodating, and I would hope that the Senator would be understanding of that.

Yes.

I would be happy to do my best to respond.

I say to the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, that, in fact, to get into the room space is a problem. We do not have a single place to put a single person except in the back of the room. Now, that embarrasses me to say that, but it is a fact.

Secondly, I differ with the ranking member when he says that reading does not count that much. Reading and knowing the material, whether it is WMD or whether it is predictions, or whatever it is, is the greatest part of it.

The hearings are tremendously important and they are the democratic part of it so everybody has a chance to ask questions, but I know of nothing which precludes the ranking member being able to do that. For example, to staff, it is a matter of just saying, I want to know the answers.

The Senator has the same privileges on Intelligence that this Senator does, I would say through the Chair.

On Monday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the Trade Adjustment Assistance health coverage tax credit, HCTC. The report confirms what many in Congress have been saying since the HCTC program began--the credit is not enough, the program has several barriers to enrollment, the premiums are prohibitively high for some workers because of medical underwriting, and the program is very expensive to administer.

It is long past time for Congress to focus on the problems with the TAA health coverage tax credit. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will make much-needed improvements to the HCTC program. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act of 2004 offers solutions to many of the problems with the HCTC identified by GAO. This legislation will go a long way to make the TAA health care tax credit a realistic option for displaced workers and their families.

When Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of jobs will not equal the loss of health care coverage. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to make good on that promise. For the last two years, I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my State about how unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. And I have been very frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we were not able to make the credit more affordable and accessible for people who need it the most--laid- off workers and retirees who have very limited income.

For a good number of supporters of the Trade Act of 2002, the health insurance tax credit was the single most important factor in overcoming their concerns about giving the President fast- track authority to move trade agreements through Congress. In my own judgment, the fast-track would not have passed Congress without the health care tax credit. The TAA health credit was the trade-off to balance the President's authority.

Yet, the success many of us envisioned for the health care tax credit has not been realized through implementation. The number of people who have been able to access the health care tax credit over the last two years is extremely disappointing. As of July 2004, only 13,194 out of 229,044 who are eligible for the credit are enrolled in the program. That is less than six percent, which means that over 94 percent of those eligible are not participating.

I must say to my colleagues that Congress has had a hand in these disappointing enrollment figures. We have ignored every opportunity to improve the health coverage tax credit and enhance the lives of workers displaced by trade. Most recently, the members of this body voted against the Wyden-Coleman-Rockefeller-Baucus TAA amendment to the FSC/ ETI bill. Not only would this amendment have extended Trade Adjustment Assistance to service workers, it also would have addressed some of the problems GAO has identified with the health coverage credit.

The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes long overdue improvements to the TAA health care tax credit. First, this legislation addresses the issue of affordability. In addition to GAO, several consumer advocacy groups and research organizations--including the Commonwealth Fund, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Families USA--have cited affordability of the credit as the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is not enough. With a 65 percent credit, an eligible individual still has to pay an average of $1,714 out-of-pocket per year for single coverage. This figure is particularly astounding given the fact that the average worker, while actively employed and earning a paycheck, paid just $508 in 2003 for single employer- sponsored health insurance coverage. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes the credit more affordable by increasing the subsidy amount to 95 percent.

This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who previously had a private, non- group coverage policy 30 days prior to separation from employment. However, States have been allowed by this Administration to create state-based coverage options in the individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from employment.

Because of the Administration's interpretation of the law, there are people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one State GAO reviewed for its report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost six times the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by clarifying that states can only designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community-rated.

Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) as a qualified group option in every State, so that displaced workers nationwide will have access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were used to when they were employed.

Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the three month continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers are required to maintain three months of continuous health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this 3 month period to be counted as the 3 months prior to separation from employment. However, the Administration has interpreted the 3 month requirement as 3 months of health insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid-off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that 3 months of continuous coverage means 3 months prior to separation from employment.

Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to receive the health coverage tax credit. Over the last 2 years, younger spouses and dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage through their spouses or parents. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act allows younger spouses and dependent children to retain eligibility for the health coverage tax credit in the event the qualified beneficiary becomes eligible for Medicare.

Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low participation include a complicated and fragmented enrollment process and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the 3 to 6 months they are waiting to enroll in advance payment. This legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for advance payment to begin.

As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this very difficult transition.

Unfortunately, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The Government Accountability Office has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems. Now, it is up to us to fix them. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act builds upon the Trade Act of 2002 and the lessons we have learned since in order to make the health coverage credit workable for eligible individuals and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

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