Floor Statements

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. Specifically, my 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, I 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 am proposing this legislation as a way to start a dialogue about 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 $4,650. 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 $4,650 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 from 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.

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. Specifically, my 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, I 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 am proposing this legislation as a way to start a dialogue about 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 $4,650. 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 $4,650 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 from 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.

Mr. President, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson stood with President Harry Truman and, together, they delivered the Medicare program. They proudly addressed the American people as President Johnson proclaimed, ``No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years.'' Today, those words still move me and yet, if I am to be honest, they also haunt me as we consider the Medicare reform legislation before us. I know that this legislation charts a course that will begin to undo the good works of our former Presidents and of a program that is perhaps the single most effective public initiative in our nation's history. Medicare has literally saved the lives of our seniors, keeping them from poverty and providing the peace of mind that comes with security. For this reason, I have a heavy heart and a sense of near dread about this bill. My heart is heavy because I know that this bill to reform and ``improve'' Medicare is deeply, fundamentally flawed. This is not what Presidents Johnson and Truman wanted for the millions of our parents and grandparents who made America strong, and it is not what I want, either.

For many years, we have talked about the need for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. For a brief moment, I believed we in the Senate were serious about delivering a meaningful benefit. However, I cannot support the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill because it forces seniors to choose between paying more for their own doctor or signing up with an HMO; leaves seniors to pay thousands in out of pocket costs; eliminates employer drug coverage for 2.7 million retirees; prevents efforts to keep drug costs down; and effectively prohibits seniors from importing cheaper drugs from Canada.

I recognize that this bill commits $400 billion to a Medicare prescription drug benefit and truly helps some low income seniors who are without coverage today, and I am glad that it gives a critical boost to rural hospitals and doctors. But the fine print matters and will have very dangerous consequences for how much seniors have to pay for their Medicare benefit, whether this drug benefit really serves seniors, and whether we are strengthening or weakening Medicare for the future. I have always said that a Medicare prescription drug bill must be voluntary, affordable and accessible to all Medicare beneficiaries; must truly help with the high cost of prescription drugs; and must strengthen the Medicare program for the future. This bill fails on all counts.

West Virginians and many of my colleagues know I have been working on Medicare for 20 years. I sat on the Medicare Commission for a year during which we debated the best way to improve Medicare. Before that, I chaired the U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care, which discussed ways to address the problems of the uninsured and the need for long-term care reform in this country. Today, I am the ranking member of the health subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee. I was a member of the conference committee on this bill--but in name only, not in practice. Nevertheless, my goal has always been, and continues to be, improving Medicare and the quality of health care available to all Americans. This bill does not improve this program. This bill harms this program--actually harms Medicare.

This bill is a tool to force seniors to leave the traditional Medicare program they know and trust in order to obtain the drug benefit they need and deserve. Many people have said that this plan is voluntary and, therefore, if a senior chooses to stay in traditional Medicare and get a drug benefit, he or she can do so. This legislation does not guarantee that in any way. Under this legislation, seniors will have two different options for receiving a drug benefit. The first option is to stay in traditional Medicare for their doctor and hospital services and enroll in a ``drug-only plan'' to receive their drugs. The second option is to give up traditional Medicare and enroll in a HMO or PPO for all of their health care services. You may ask: what is a drug- only plan and how does one work? The answer is that we have no idea because no such entity exists today. It is a completely new concept

which the Administrator of CMS said does not exist in nature and would probably not work in practice. The former head of the Health Insurance Association of America said that drug-only plans are like insuring against haircuts. So, it's completely uncertain whether these plans will emerge, but let's say for a moment that they do. Well, at least seniors should be assured that they can remain in traditional Medicare and get a prescription drug benefit, right? Wrong. There is no limit on what these drug-only plans can charge seniors none at all. These plans could charge seniors $100, $500, or even $1,000 per month. These premiums could be completely prohibitive. West Virginia seniors will certainly not be able to afford premiums that high. If that is the case, seniors will not really have the option to stay in traditional Medicare and get a prescription drug benefit. They will be forced to enroll in an HMO in order to get a drug benefit and that is not what our seniors want.

Again, to be fair, this bill has some provisions, including those affecting physician services and rural hospitals that will be helpful to my home State of West Virginia. I fully recognize that; in fact, I pushed for these because I understand that good care is critical to good health, and that we must adequately reimburse Medicare providers for that good care.

However, despite this, I have grave concerns about the compromise produced by the Conference Committee charged with reconciling differences between the House- and Senate-passed Medicare reform bills. I was on the conference committee. I understand the arguments on both sides. And now, more than ever, I believe that the Congress needs to pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit that gives seniors more for their money, not less. I do not want to privatize Medicare, undermine existing retiree coverage, or force seniors to flip-flop between plans. Unfortunately, this bill would do all of that and more. Today, 339,000 seniors live in West Virginia. Nearly 30,000 West Virginia seniors will lose their employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage simply because of the enactment of this bill. As health savings accounts (HSAs) created by this legislation select and cover healthier, younger seniors, employers will be left to cover sicker, older seniors. Employers will see their health care costs rise and they will be priced out of continuing to provide employees or retirees with coverage, leaving remaining retirees with a benefit that is less desirable than they had before. Meanwhile, 70,000 West Virginia seniors will fall into a $2,800 coverage gap, forcing them to bear the total cost of their drug themselves until they reach the end of that gap. In fact, the available benefit will be so stingy that many seniors will pay more for this drug plan than they will receive in actual drug benefits.

At the same time, private insurance plans will be assured even greater profits through a $12 billion ``slush fund'' created by this legislation. Proponents argue that this ``slush fund'' is necessary to bring HMOs into rural areas. The fact is that this additional funding is necessary because HMOs have overhead costs. They have to pay their investors, provide a return to their stockholders and they have to pay for good marketing materials because that's the best way to skim off the healthiest seniors. On average, private plans have administrative costs that are about 15 percent of total spending whereas Medicare's administrative costs are 2 to 3 percent of total spending. There is no way that private plans can be as efficient as Medicare. Yet I am not opposed to allowing them to compete fairly with Medicare. However, we should make them compete on a level playing field. We should make them compete by creating efficiencies. We shouldn't take money away from the highly efficient Medicare program and give it to the HMOs to help them instead of seniors. That is not the free-market at work. That is not real competition. And, while a ``premium support'' demonstration, which effectively allows a voucher system instead of a real Medicare prescription drug benefit, will take place in six metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) initially, I believe we can safely assume that this demonstration is meant to be standard at some point. This demonstration is expected to raise monthly Medicare premiums by 26 percent.

Perhaps most disturbing, 45,000 ``dual eligible'' beneficiaries will pay more for every prescription drug they receive under this legislation. Dual eligibles are seniors who qualify for Medicaid by virtue of their income. They currently receive drug coverage under Medicaid. In my State of West Virginia, these seniors pay between $0.50 and $2.00 per prescription depending on the total cost of the drug. Under this legislation, they could be required to pay twice that much. I want to be clear on this point because I was among those insisting that the dual eligibles be included under the Medicare benefit and not left in Medicaid. I believe this conference report does the right thing by including these seniors in the Medicare benefit. However, this legislation precludes States from ``wrapping around'' Medicare. In other words, States will not receive any Federal dollars for assisting dual eligible beneficiaries with the costs not covered by Medicare. This is unprecedented. For every other benefit covered by Medicaid but not by Medicare, the states receive a Federal match to provide those benefits to our poorest seniors. For example, Medicaid covers long-term care but Medicare does not. So, for those seniors who are also eligible for Medicaid, the Federal Government provides matching dollars to states to provide long-term care to dual eligibles. This conference report completely twists that concept of protecting our poorest seniors against increased costs in an unprecedented way. This arrangement represents a fundamental change in the relationship between Medicare and Medicaid. Many predict that the individuals affected will choose to forgo the prescription drugs that they need rather than try to pay what they cannot afford.

In my judgment, this bill represents the greatest threat to the Medicare program since its enactment. While numerous opportunities existed to strengthen it, they were wasted. Instead of devoting $12 billion to closing the $2,800 coverage gap, this conference report gives it to HMOs. Instead of protecting the right of our seniors to stay in traditional Medicare and get a prescription drug benefit, this bill protects the rights of the private plans to charge any premium they want. Instead of shoring up retiree coverage for the two to three million beneficiaries across the United States who will lose drug coverage as a result of this bill, this bill includes tax shelters that threaten to undermine the entire employer-based system. This bill is a give-away to special interests, compiled in the dead of night, under wraps. It is shameful. Public policy, like life, is about choices and this bill makes all the wrong choices for our seniors.

While I have painted a bleak picture, I strongly believe that we can avoid disaster. We can do so by putting this bill aside and coming back to the table with a proposal that helps seniors and protects the long- term viability of what is a truly great program. We can take into account the seniors who won't benefit from the low-income provisions in the bill. We can protect retirees, and we can implement positive reform that is productive, not destructive, confusing, or manipulative. It is not too late. It is not too late. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to immediately go back to work for the kind of Medicare drug benefit seniors deserve.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we stand here today at a historic moment in this country as we begin consideration of the Medicare prescription drug bill. This bill is a triumph not for a party or a President but for America's seniors and their families. This is an incredibly hopeful day for all Americans who long for a national government that can get things done for people.

I campaigned on a promise to get things done--deliver to the American people what they need to live better lives and what they are looking to Congress to accomplish to make America a stronger country. Prescription drugs, energy, partial-birth abortion were all at the top of the list of issues that most Americans were looking for Congress to take action. Their seemingly simple request was for us here in Washington to put politics aside and do what is right for the American public.

I am proud to say we are seeing that happen with this Medicare bill. This is a bipartisan effort that, although not

perfect, makes a good start at addressing the needs of Minnesota's seniors and health care providers as well as those across this country.

This is the largest and most comprehensive rural health care improvement package ever contemplated by this body. Last year, as I campaigned across Minnesota and spent many hours talking to our rural health care providers, it was apparent to me that most of our hospitals and doctors had given up hope for fair Medicare reimbursement.

Thanks to the strong leadership of Chairman Grassley, we have a bill before us that has $26 billion--or $2.6 billion each year for 10 years--for rural providers, something that one short year ago seemed nearly impossible.

Quality rural health care is one of the foundations of our rural communities--this isn't simply about making sure our rural hospitals are adequately reimbursed. This is about preserving a way of life in America.

Without rural hospitals and physicians, it is tough to raise a family and hard to attract new businesses to rural communities. Without access to health care, many of our out-state towns simply couldn't exist.

This bill seeks to eliminate many of the disparities in reimbursement rates that have existed too long and crippled the rural health system. Hospitals, physicians, and ambulances, as well as all of those health professionals who work within these systems will not see Medicare reimbursement rates that better reflect the realities of the costs of providing care in rural communities.

As I look back on the accomplishments of the first session of the 108th Congress, addressing the rural health care payment disparity under the Medicare program will undoubtedly be one of the most meaningful achievements to Minnesotans. Many said it couldn't be done, and today I have the great opportunity to come to the Senate floor and tell my constituents that we will be voting on a bill that takes a major step in providing equality with urban payments that will significantly improve their ability to provide quality care.

Minnesota has a long tradition of providing high quality care, but many of our seniors have not had access to this care because of the lack of prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program.

Again, I have the great honor coming here and announcing to the seniors back home that help is on the way.

Beginning in 2006, the 677,400 Medicare beneficiaries in Minnesota will have access to drug coverage for the first time in the history of the Medicare program, and 187,356 of these people would not otherwise have access to drug coverage.

That means access to new drug therapies that could never been imagined in 1965 when Medicare was created. It is time to bring this program in line with current medical practices. A 1965 Cadillac is a classic. A 1965 health care benefit is a travesty.

This bill will provide prescription drug coverage for 41 million people in this country--41 million people! Is this the perfect benefit? I'm not sure what the perfect benefit realistically looks like. But I do know that the average senior's drug costs will be cut roughly in half under this proposal. That is meaningful assistance for all seniors and the bill provides even more assistance for those low-income seniors who need us to shoulder even more of the burden.

Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. In the words of the AARP, one of the largest senior associations, ``Millions of Americans can't afford to wait for perfect.''

And we know that drugs are most effective when used to prevent the onset of a health condition. Right now almost 93 percent of our health care dollars go to treat a person who is sick. While we have amazing screening and early detection capabilities, we have a program that waits for people to develop dangerous and costly conditions before they can receive care.

It appears to me that this is a 1965 model of care, not a model that belongs in a 2003 health care system. This bill for the first time includes a ``Welcome to Medicare'' physical that will allow beneficiaries to get an assessment of their health condition and possibly detect conditions that could possibly escalate over time. It also includes cardiovascular screening, blood tests and diabetes screening that will be available without deductibles or co-pays to encourage seniors to take advantage of these benefits.

I want to stop for a moment at the word ``encourage.'' It is absolutely critical for every senior to know that they don't have to take advantage of the preventive screenings, they are not required to participate in the prescription drug plan, and most importantly, no seniors under this proposal are forced into a private health plan. Every senior who chooses to remain in traditional Medicare has that equally important option under this bill.

This bill is about expanding choice. Time and time again I hear from seniors who have said they want to receive the same benefits that my colleagues and I here and in the House of Representatives enjoy. This bill is about giving seniors the option to participate in a plan that looks very close to the benefits that I and most individuals in the private sector enjoy.

This bill is good for our seniors, it is good for health providers, and it is good for the American public who are tired of the partisan battles that have characterized this Congress. I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus and the members of the conference committee who have crafted this bipartisan Medicare package. This is a truly historic time in this body's history.

As we look toward completing our work for this first session, I am hopeful that the spirit of cooperation that has led to this bill will be extended to the many important issues we will leave unresolved this year.

The Thanksgiving season is upon us. Our work in this session is nearing completion. But our work will not be done until and unless we seize this historic opportunity and bring a prescription drug benefit and hopes for a better and healthier life and make this a Thanksgiving to remember for all the right reasons for our senior citizens and their families.

Mr. President, I agree with the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Kansas. There is no objection on this side. It has been cleared. There is no objection on our side. I presume the bill will be voted through.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence in recommending passage of the conference report on H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

The bill authorizes appropriations for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the intelligence components of the F.B.I. and other U.S. government agencies. It also contains a number of important provisions intended to lay the foundation for process and organizational changes in the intelligence community.

The classified nature of U.S. intelligence activities prevents us from disclosing publicly the details of our budgetary recommendations. As I described to the Senate when our bill was considered in July, 10 years ago I joined a majority of Senate colleagues in voting to express the sense of Congress that the aggregate amount requested, authorized, and spent for intelligence should be disclosed to the public in an appropriate manner. The House opposed the provision. I continue to believe that we should find a means, consistent with national security, of sharing with the American taxpayer information about the total amount, although not the details, of our intelligence spending. In holding the intelligence community accountable for performance, and the Congress and the President accountable for the resources they provide to the Intelligence Community, citizens should know the Nation's overall investment in intelligence.

The bill includes a number of provisions intended to promote innovations in information sharing, human intelligence, and counterintelligence, among other things. Many of these initiatives represent initial steps rather than solutions, but they are necessary to raise the level of awareness in Congress and the executive branch regarding a variety of urgent and complex challenges and to lay the foundation for reforms the committee will be considering next year.

Section 351 of the bill requires a report on the threat posed by espionage in an era when secrets are stored on powerful, classified U.S. computer networks rather than on paper. A single spy today can remove more information on a disk than spies of yesteryear could remove with a truck. We have already suffered losses, for example, in the Ames, Regan, and Hanssen cases, where sloppy computer security permitted traitors to exploit large quantities of highly classified information. Unfortunately, these cases provide a warning that appears to have gone largely unheeded. We still do not have a cohesive set of policies and procedures to protect our classified networks from cleared insiders who seek to betray their country, Our reliance on classified information systems for warfighting and intelligence is growing daily, yet hundreds of thousands of individuals have virtually unrestricted access to these critical networks.

All but a few Government personnel are honest and patriotic Americans, but the sad fact is that there has not been a day since WWII when we have not had spies within our Government. There have been over 80 espionage convictions in the last 25 years. They include personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, NSA, CIA, FBI, State Department, the National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It is a very real and continuing problem and there will undoubtedly be more espionage arrests in the months and years ahead. Espionage is an unfortunate fact of life, and we simply cannot afford to operate classified systems in which thousands of individuals enjoy the ability to download or upload classified information at will.

Other countries are seeking to exploit this situation to collect defense secrets, and no doubt contemplate blinding our Government and troops in time of war. We would never permit such broad access to weapons in an armory, yet these classified systems are of much greater strategic significance than M-16 rifles, tanks, or 500 pound gravity bombs. We simply must develop the policies and capabilities necessary to control input and output devices on these systems and monitor their use.

Section 352 of the bill calls for a review of our cumbersome, outmoded, and many would say ineffective personnel security system. It is a fact that almost every spy has held high-level security clearances. It is also a fact that few, if any of these individuals were identified through routine security clearance updates.

Most people who become spies join the government with no intention of betraying their country. Research by the Defense Department shows that most spies are people who develop grievances as their careers progress, at times having developed money and alcohol problems as well, and then turn to espionage as a way of feeding their egos and their bank accounts.

Yet, we give a young, single Navy recruit seeking an intelligence assignment the same scrutiny as a 30-year intelligence operative with financial troubles who routinely travels to countries of concern. Further, even when derogatory information surfaces, sometimes even very disturbing information which raises serious espionage issues, the government rarely revokes the clearances we rely on so heavily and which cost so much.

In the information age, we cannot wait 5 to10 years to identify employee problems that may be related to espionage. Too much damage can be done too quickly. We need fresh thinking and recommendations that will provide more effective security for the large sums of money the taxpayer is investing.

Section 354 of our bill calls for a review of classified information sharing policies within the Federal Government. This is an issue closely related to the foregoing provisions regarding inadequate security policies. ATM machines, for example, are a wonderfully convenient and effective means of providing access to banking resources--but they could not exist without magnetic cards, personal identification

numbers, cameras and locks. Similarly, improved security is not a barrier to more flexible information sharing, it is a fundamental ingredient. The Joint Inquiry report on the 9/11 attacks highlighted information sharing as a critical shortcoming that prevented the interception of several hijackers. To help accelerate reform, the Joint Inquiry requested an administration report by this past June 30 on progress to reduce barriers among intelligence and law enforcement agencies engaged in counterterrorism. Unfortunately, no report has been submitted.

We have the technology for improved information sharing, and significant progress is being made. A Terrorist Threat Integration Center has been established, and new guidelines regarding sharing of grand jury information have been promulgated. These are very important steps forward. But to truly break down the barriers to information sharing, rather than relying on work-arounds, we need revised policies on sharing classified information which recognize and exploit the opportunities provided by modern information technology. This is especially important as we look to bridging the gap between the Intelligence Community and organizations charged with Homeland Security.

Section 355 of the bill identifies a problem that would probably stun most taxpayers. Simply stated, notwithstanding the many billions of dollars invested in complex intelligence systems, ranging from satellites, to aircraft, to ships, and land-based collection platforms, there is no capability in the executive branch to independently and comprehensively model the performance of these systems. Consequently, new multi-billion-dollar systems are procured without the ability to rigorously evaluate potential trade-offs with other systems.

Questions such as these should be asked: Given projected satellite, aircraft and UAV constellations, what is the marginal value of adding space-based radar satellites? Are there alternative investments that can better satisfy intelligence requirements? Don't senior policymakers need the ability to systematically examine the interactions of these many systems to identify trade-offs that can be achieved?

Currently, most of the analysis of proposed collection systems is performed by the agencies seeking to justify their programs, or by senior policy officials who struggle to apply common sense and spread- sheet level analysis to systems that often have overlapping capabilities. There is no reason that a rigorous, independent and comprehensive capability cannot be developed to support the programmatic reviews of the DCI and the Defense Department. This is but one example, though an important one, of the ways in which we believe the intelligence community can improve its strategic planning and decisionmaking processes.

Section 356 of the bill raises an issue of profound strategic significance for the United States, namely the growing reliance of our country on hardware and software produced overseas. Although specific cases are classified, this is clearly a growing problem.

After 1973, when the risks inherent in America's reliance on foreign oil became clear, many positive steps were taken to ameliorate our national vulnerabilities. Those steps included establishment of a strategic petroleum reserve, establishment of the Central Command, and research into alternative fuels. Unlike our dependence on foreign oil, however, our rapidly growing dependence on foreign hardware and software creates numerous opportunities for espionage and information operations that are extremely difficult to detect. Ironically, the countries identified by the FBI as most actively engaged in economic espionage against the United States are leading producers of the hardware and software we all use on a daily basis.

The plain truth is that even the Defense Department does not know where most of the hardware and software it uses originates. Moreover, the Government does not have the right to examine source code unless voluntarily supplied. Further, at the present time, there are limited capabilities for analyzing source code that is made available. This situation requires serious attention by senior policymakers, including Congress, and the report required by section 356 should help to prompt a long overdue discussion of these issues.

In concluding my remarks, I would like to look beyond our current bill to the issues the Intelligence Committee must contend with next year. Other committees share responsibility for reviewing the funding and systems needed by the intelligence community, but our committee is uniquely positioned to evaluate the intelligence community's performance--both its successes and failures--and to identify the changes required to meet the challenges of the future.

In my view, money alone is not sufficient to enable the intelligence community to reach its full potential. The current structure of the intelligence community is fundamentally unchanged from its establishment in 1947. Serious change is long overdue. I strongly believe that new structures and authorities, coupled with able and aggressive leadership, are required to dramatically improve our intelligence community's efficiency and effectiveness.

In many respects, the organizational issues confronting the intelligence community are analogous to those confronting the Defense Department prior to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The fundamental problem confronting the Department of Defense prior to Goldwater-Nichols was excessive military service control over military operations, policies and budgets. In response, Congress strengthened the weak integrating mechanisms in DoD, specifically the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commanders of the Combatant Commands. The difference in military performance before Goldwater-Nichols--e.g., Desert 1, Lebanon, and Grenada--and after--Panama, Haiti, and Iraq--is stark and clear. In fact, I am convinced that the Goldwater-Nichols Act did more to enhance U.S. national security than any weapons system ever procured by the Department of Defense.

Although the Goldwater-Nichols reorganization is not a precise template for restructuring the intelligence community, the problems are fundamentally similar: towering vertical structures--NSA, CIA, DIA, NRO, NIMA, the service intelligence components--and relatively weak integrating mechanisms--the DCI and his Community Management Staff. Any reorganization proposal needs to address this fundamental problem of inadequate integration and coordination. In that regard, I would suggest that the intelligence community's lack of responsiveness to the DCI's declaration of war on al- Qaida prior to 9/11 was in part a result of the DCI's weak community management authorities and inability to move the system. I am convinced that a strengthened DCI could more effectively manage the intelligence community, leading to performance improvements comparable to those achieved by the military in the wake of the Goldwater-Nichols Act.

A conservative, incremental approach would involve the creation of a permanent cadre to staff the DCI much as the Secretary of Defense has an OSD staff. This simple change, coupled with aggressive business process reengineering and ``year of execution budget authority'' for the DCI over NFIP programs, would significantly strengthen the DCI's ability to manage the intelligence community and respond to new threats and opportunities.

A more aggressive and far-reaching plan would have to address the fundamental changes that have occurred since the current structure was established by the National Security Act of 1947. Specifically, it would recognize that the once useful distinction between home and abroad has become not only irrelevant, but dysfunctional. This is not to suggest any need to reduce the protections afforded U.S. persons under the Constitution, merely that globalization and the development of cyberspace, combined with the rise of apocalyptic terrorists groups empowered by lethal new technologies, require a different, more agile structure that is not impeded by outmoded geographic distinctions. In that regard, we should find ways to more effectively coordinate foreign and domestic intelligence.

Achievement of any substantial reorganization will require meticulous research by the congressional oversight committees, a substantial hearing record, and sustained interest by the administration. At the end of the day,

incremental steps will be better than none, and a more aggressive reorganization require a consensus not only on the Intelligence Authorization Committees, but with the Armed Services Committees as well. As challenging as these issues are, we simply cannot fulfill our duty to the American people unless we confront these crucial issues when Congress returns next year.

In conclusion, the important steps we have taken with this measure, to include full funding of the administration's requests for intelligence activities, are the result of lengthy deliberations on matters as complex as they are vital. It is gratifying to see the work that has been done in both Chambers come together today in a bill we can send to the President. It is a useful first step, but only a first step, towards the development of an intelligence community better able to adapt to the rapidly evolving threats confronting our great nation.

Finally, I would like to thank the chairman and the Committee staff for their arduous work on this bill. I look forward to making great strides together next year.

I urge support for this measure.

Mr. President, I am pleased to finally be able to support the adoption of the Federal Aviation Administration conference report.

The process that allowed us to get to this point has been unlike any other that I have ever experienced in my 19 years in the Senate, but we have secured a commitment from the administration that they will not move forward with contracting out any air traffic control functions, which has prevented the Senate from passing this report. I am pleased that my colleagues have confirmed this commitment.

Over the last year, I have worked closely with Senators McCain, Hollings, and Lott on developing this important legislation. I thank them for all of their efforts on getting this bill done. It has not gone as easy as any of us would have liked, but the debate on privatization is important as it is fundamentally a debate on safety and security. Senator Lautenberg should be commended for his unrelenting commitment to making sure the United States has the safest and most secure air traffic control system in the world.

We have secured an agreement on this issue that all parties can accept, but it does not mean that this debate is over. I know my colleagues have committed to holding hearings on this issue, and we will be closely monitoring the administration's actions in this area.

The reauthorization of the FAA is a vitally important piece of legislation. It would be the first genuine economic stimulus bill that the Senate has passed this year.

No question exists that since the tragedy of September 11, aviation in this country has been permanently changed. Over the last 2 years, we have seen a decrease in the demand for air travel, hundreds of thousands of aerospace and aviation employees have lost their jobs and the economic pain has rippled through the economy. We cannot have a sustained economic recovery in this country until we have a healthy and vibrant aviation industry.

This bill provides the foundation for the resurgence of an essential sector of our economy.

I cannot emphasize the importance of a vibrant and strong aviation industry. It is fundamental to our nation's long-term economic growth. It is also vital to the economic future of countless small and local communities that are linked to the rest of the nation and world through aviation.

Just as the aviation industry is a catalyst of growth for the national economy, airports are a catalyst of growth for their local communities. In my State of West Virginia, aviation represents $3.4 billion of the state's gross domestic product and directly and indirectly employs over 51,000 people.

Aviation also links our Nation's small and rural citizens and communities to the national and world marketplace. My home State of West Virginia has been able to attract firms from Asia and Europe because of reliable access to their West Virginia investments.

Without access to an integrated air transportation network, small communities can not attract the investment necessary to grow or allow home grown businesses to expands. A modern and adequately funded aviation network is fundamental to making sure that all Americans can participate in the global economy. This bill makes sure the United States will continue to have the best aviation system in the world.

This legislation builds upon our commitment to improving the aviation infrastructure of the nation that started with the landmark Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. I believe that this legislation meets the challenges facing the FAA and the aviation industry in the years ahead.

This $60 billion bill focuses on improving our Nation's aviation safety and air service development, and aeronautical research. While my distinguished colleagues have provided an excellent overview of the bill, I would like to highlight some areas for the bill that I believe are particularly important.

No higher goal exists than the safety and security of the Nation's airports and airspace. Over the past 24 months, we have worked every day to improve security in our airports and on our airplanes. However, until this bill, we had fallen short on providing funding to make sure our Nation's airports have the resources available to make the required improvements.

Airports estimate that they have $3 billion in unmet security infrastructure needs. Airports have been forced to tap their expansion and development funds to pay for security. It makes no sense to raid funds for safety improvements for security improvements. The security of our Nation is a Federal responsibility and the Federal Government must pay for it.

One of the most important provisions in this bill is the establishment of a $500 million fund to assist airports with capital security costs. This new fund is intended to stop the diversion of airport development funds meant for safety and capacity enhancements. We will be able to pay for new security requirements while simultaneously improving safety and expanding capacity.

Even in these difficult budgetary times, we were able to modestly increase the Airport Improvement Program funding, which will provide the economy a real stimulus through direct and indirect job creation. Airport development is economic development as airports are economic development for their local communities. It is estimated that U.S. Airports are responsible for nearly $507 billion each year in total economic activity nationwide. Investment in airport infrastructure is a real economic stimulus that creates both immediate jobs and long-term economic development.

In order to facilitate airport development, I am pleased that this bill includes much of the text of the legislation that Senator Hutchinson and I worked on last Congress to streamline and expedite the airport development

process. This country needs to expand its airport infrastructure. Without a substantial increase in this area, aviation delays would increase resulting in billions of dollars of costs to the economy.

Finally, we have authorized a significant increase in aeronautical and aviation research in order to preserve America's leadership in these industries.

Today, we also meet the challenge of making sure our small and rural communities have access to the nation's air transportation network. I continue to be very concerned that air carriers are abandoning small and rural markets. We cannot let these communities go without adequate and affordable air service--their future depends upon it.

I am enormously pleased that the bill extends and expands the Small Community Air Service Development Program, which I fought for in AIR 21. In West Virginia, Charleston used funding from this program to attract new service to Houston, which has been a hugh success. Parkersburg was recently awarded a grant and already working on implementing its initiatives to improve air service to new hubs. This program has proven an innovative and flexible tool for communities to address air service needs.

Many of our most isolated and vulnerable communities whose only service is through the Essential Air Service Program have indicated that they would like to develop innovative and flexible programs similar to those communities who received Small Community Air Service Development grants to improve the quality of their air service.

It is for this reason that I, along with Senator Lott, developed the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003. The FAA conference report incorporates the basic provisions of this legislation. The FAA Bill reauthorizes the Essential Air Service, EAS, program and creates a series of new innovative pilot programs for EAS communities to participate in to stimulate passenger demand for air service in their communities.

By providing communities the ability to design their own air service proposals, a community has the ability to develop a plan that meets its locally determined needs, improves air service choices, and gives the community a greater stake in the EAS program.

Small and rural communities are the first to bear the brunt of bad economic times and the last to see the benefits of good times. The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation industry have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional resources and tools for small communities to help themselves attract adequate air service. The Federal Government must make sure that our most vulnerable towns and cities are linked to the rest of nation. This legislation authorizes the tools and resources necessary to attract air service, related economic development, and most importantly expand their connections to the national and global economy.

This bill meets the challenges facing our aviation system--increasing security, expanding airport safety and capacity, and making sure our smallest communities have access to the network. We can all be proud of this bill.

Again, I thank Senator McCain, Senator Lott, and Senator Hollings for all their hard work to improve aviation in this country.

I have a question for the subcommittee chairman about section 808 of the conference report concerning international air cargo shipped through Alaska.

I thank the Chairman. Is it the Chairman's understanding that section 808 only addresses international cargo and does not address the carriage of cargo which first originates in Alaska?

Mr. President, this is all odd, perplexing.

I am grateful to my colleague from New Jersey for that. But I am still perplexed. This is all kind of odd to me.

We could, I think, pass this whole thing, the entire authorization bill. The chairman of the full committee and Senator Hollings and Senator Lott, both of whom have spoken here, myself, the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, and Byron Dorgan--we wrote to FAA Administrator Blakey and made a reasonable request, asking for an extension on a certain part of this for a period of a year. We might get that in the next 7 or 8. We might very well get it. The language didn't appear to be quite proper at the time.

We do have the President's statement. As the Senator from New Jersey pointed out, he specifically deleted ``an inherently governmental function'' when it referred to air traffic performance-based organizations.

I want to support the FAA conference report. I think virtually everybody in the Senate would want to do it. It includes a lot of things that are very important to me for West Virginia. West Virginia is not at the center. We are not exactly a hub of jet aviation, but we are served by many good airlines that do their best to help us. We all know the issue of privatizing the air traffic control system has held this whole thing up for months. It is perplexing, because it does not seem to me to be that big an issue. Yet if we are simply to accede to it, in language which is potentially very vague, we have no idea what might happen.

That is why we sent this letter--my good friend and chairman, and I, and the chairman of the full committee--to try to get this extended for a year so we could look at it and go ahead and pass the rest of all this.

But we have not gotten the letter. We still have 7\1/2\ minutes, if I read the clock correctly. It could come in. Then we could all vote for the entire conference report. But short of getting that letter and that commitment, which we all signed on a bipartisan basis, then I think we have to vote against cloture because it is entirely a matter of employees being accountable to the public who maintain the airplanes, who are the service stations that send them from one place to another. That is accountability to the public. It is not accountability to the bottom line. It is not a matter of contracting out. This is fundamental safety.

If you ever go out to Herndon, VA, as I have, and you see the latest technology and you see all the airplanes in the air at any given moment in the United States of America, you can hardly see the country. There are airplanes everywhere and they are all traveling. They have to be guided. A lot of them are general aviation. Some of them are not, obviously.

The inability of Congress to resolve this issue has created a very significant uncertainty for our airports in particular. These are hard times for aviation. I don't think it is the right time to add more trouble in their life, more uncertainty in their life, less predictability in their life, and the worry about less safety in their life.

Last week we did attempt to resolve the main issue that held this up. As I indicated, Senators McCain, Hollings, Lott, Dorgan, and myself did send the FAA Administrator a very straightforward, honest letter and we requested the FAA impose a 1-year moratorium on the actual contracting out of any air traffic control functions, including flight service stations, which provide enormously important information to pilots. You can't do without them.

I have a little community in my State called Elkins, WV, which is currently not served by commercial aviation, but it does have a critically important flight service station that handles traffic for a significant part of the Washington, DC metropolitan area that is at risk of being contracted out--and will be.

Flight service stations such as these are absolutely vital security links in our Nation's air traffic control system and they have to be protected from privatization.

I come from a private enterprise background, and that has been pointed out to me humorously, or not, but you just can't fool around with public safety. You can't do it. Police officers are not contracted out. I guess they are in Iraq, but they are not in this country. They are public servants. Or you hire a private guard if you want to, something of that sort, but basically, protection of public life and public passage is in the hands of the Federal Government. And it should be. It has always been there. People trust it. If you took it away, or parts of it away, people would be stunned. I think they would be stunned.

This Senator can only support cloture if the administration has made a strong commitment to hold off any changes to the management of the air traffic control system for a year. And we have still 4 minutes to get that letter. Then we will vote for the conference report and I will happily do so because I agree with the Senator from Mississippi, there are lots of good things in it. But safety, unfortunately, is one of those things you cannot compromise.

The Senator from Arizona spoke about Air Force One and Air Force Two. I have never had any doubt they are well cared for. But there is a lot of other general aviation that may not be quite as well tended to, and we have to worry about that.

I don't think the conference report is going to pass the Senate if this letter doesn't arrive. It is not just a case of where the perfect is the enemy of the good but, rather, it is a fundamental debate over the future of aviation and security. It is a huge subject. Aviation is an enormous employer, creating enormous economic activity in our country.

This is not the process we should have to use for the FAA conference report. I would be the first to say that. It grieves me. This legislation has always enjoyed bipartisan support.

I want to set the record straight for 1 second and then I will be finished, on how this came about. When the Senate debated, as has been said by the Senator from New Jersey, we debated this important bipartisan bill. We had a bipartisan majority of Senators express serious concerns over the executive branch's future plans for the safety management of the air traffic control system as a whole. As the Senator indicated, we voted 56 to 41 to impose restrictions on the administration's proposal precisely to avoid the very outcome of the conference report we are now facing, which is allowing the administration to privatize functions of the air traffic control system.

I will not get into the House of Representatives. They also had voted to impose these safety restrictions. In the end, the majority of conferees--we were never invited to be a part of, I was never invited be a part of, but I have become accustomed to that because I was part of the Medicare conference and I wasn't part of that, so my threshold of expectations was low. But we had the will of both Chambers being expressed. Unfortunately, the conferees bent to the desire of the administration.

Congress has clearly spoken on its concerns over air traffic control privatization. Let us use next year to develop policies and make the system more secure, more safe, and more efficient. I urge my colleagues to reject cloture unless we get a letter in the next minute and a half which commits to this protection which I think we all want.

This is an enormous subject. I deeply regret we have come to this point. There is no reason we should have, but we have. Assuming that letter will not come, I will have to ask my colleagues to vote against cloture.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I recognize my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to use this debate time to focus on the employment status of four people, all of whom are employed. I would like to talk about a different subject, and that is the millions of people who are not working. I think we owe it to the American people to discuss the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs under the economic plans of the sitting President.

In particular, I would like to focus on the millions of Americans who have lost good manufacturing jobs, and that is the subject of my discourse. I ask the Presiding Officer to cut me off in precisely 15 minutes if I have not finished. Since I will be back at 9 o'clock, I will finish at that point.

Let me draw your attention to a few very troubling statistics. Manufacturing employment in the United States has now fallen to the lowest level in 41 years. In the last 5 years, we have lost 16 percent of all of our factory jobs. In the last 2 years alone, we have lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. In my own State of West Virginia, we have lost 14,000 factory jobs since January 2001.

To me, these are frightening statistics. They ought to jolt every Member of the Senate and prompt an urgent call for action. A vibrant manufacturing base, in this Senator's opinion, is essential to our standard of living. For generations, factory jobs have been the path to the middle class, providing good wages, health insurance, and pension benefits. Advances in manufacturing technology account for most of our economy's increased productivity. Every dollar we spend on a finished manufactured good is estimated to produce about $2.43 increased economic activity.

Simply put, we cannot become a service-only economy, in the judgment of this Senator, and at the same time expect to maintain our high standard of living. We ought to act swiftly to ensure Americans will produce steel and computers and cars and pharmaceuticals and many of the other products which we generally refer to as manufacturing.

We ought not to be timid in the face of the devastating statistics I have cited. We can do something about them. In the Senate, that is what we are meant to be doing. And we certainly should not ignore these statistics and focus, instead, on the jobs of four judges who already have work. We would better serve Americans if we used our time today to debate ways to revive the manufacturing sector of our economy, and I am going to talk about it. People may not want to hear about it, but I am going to talk about it because it affects all the people of the country, and my people in West Virginia very much.

At the end of September, I introduced legislation to provide some relief for American manufacturers on several fronts. I am disappointed the Senate has not yet debated that legislation. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. The bill I introduced is called the SAFE Act, which stands for Securing America's Factory Employment.

I wish that topic were all we were discussing this morning, today, this week, this month. Saving our Nation's factory jobs is crucial. I will take a moment to discuss what my legislation does.

The SAFE Act would offer relief to American manufacturers in several ways.

First, the legislation would provide a tax deduction to any company that has manufacturing jobs in the United States.

Second, this bill would help companies cover the cost of providing health care for retirees--a huge subject. It is a crippling obligation for many of our once-proud industries.

Third, I propose we strengthen our trade laws to ensure they offer the protections that in fact our domestic industries deserve from unfair and illegal trade practices practiced by others.

Let me take a moment to explain in greater detail how these proposals can help our domestic manufacturing base. Congress is compelled to repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation Extraterritorial Income provisions of the U.S. Tax Code in order to avoid $4 billion in trade sanctions authorized by something called the World Trade Organization. Regardless of my opinion of the WTO decision in this matter, I recognize that to protect our economy from a trade war, we may need to update our Tax Code. We can do so and still encourage manufacturing by reducing the overall effective corporate income tax rate on domestic manufacturing.

The SAFE Act provides a 9 percent deduction for profits derived from the manufacturing activities in the United States. This is the equivalent, I would say, of lowering the corporate income tax rate from the current 35 percent to 32 percent of the portion of profits that can be directly linked to U.S. factories; also mining operations and the like.

This is a very straightforward tax break. It will lower the cost of doing business in the United States and will help companies that employ Americans to compete in the global marketplace.

In addition, my bill includes a tax credit to employers to encourage them to retain their retiree health insurance coverage--a huge problem nationwide. As my colleagues well know, employers know their health plan sponsors continue to restructure how they provide health care benefits for both workers and retirees. The economy is in a tough situation and it makes it difficult for them.

Interestingly, the percentage of employers who offer retiree health benefits has declined substantially over the past 15 years, to wit: Two-thirds of all firms with 200 or more workers sponsored retiree coverage 15 years ago. According to the most recent data, a little bit more than one-third do that today. Despite these reductions, the employer-sponsored health system is the largest source of health care coverage in the country today, even with that diminution of the percentage.

The SAFE Act would provide employers with a tax credit to cover 75 percent of the costs associated with providing health care coverage to their retirees in order to protect existing coverage and reverse the current trend.

Finally, my legislation would strengthen our trade protections, our antidumping and countervailing duties. So-called AD/CVD trade laws are often the first and last line of defense for U.S. industries injured by unfair labor or illegally traded imports.

These laws are absolutely essential for the survival of our manufacturing sector in an increasingly global market. But some of these provisions have become antiquated by recent changes in our global economy and the new structure of international trade. The American steel crisis has made it very clear that these trade laws need to be strengthened. Companies, workers, families, and communities rely heavily on fair trade laws to prevent the ill-effects of unfair trade. Antidumping and countervailing duty laws need to be updated and amended so they work both as intended and as permitted under the rules of international trade.

For example, the SAFE Act includes a provision that allows us to consider whether or not an industry is vulnerable to the effects of imports in making antidumping and countervailing duty determinations. Another provision of this bill will make it tough for our trading partners to circumvent antidumping or countervailing duties. I have a variety of examples I could give of that, but I will not for the moment.

They could do so by clarifying that such orders include products that have been changed in only a very minor respect. What do I mean by that? Sometimes companies will make a product in another country, send it to a third country, and they will adjust a little tiny piece of something. Then that third country will export it into the United States and it will count as an export from the third country--not from the first country or the second country which actually produced the greatest mass of it--thus allowing them to have their trade surplus increased.

This will help prevent foreign nations from making slight alterations to products they are exporting to us in order to skirt existing antidumping or countervailing duty orders.

Another clear problem under our current trade law is that foreign producers and exporters of such merchandise may avoid AD/CVD duties by using complex schemes that mask payment of countervailing duties resulting in the underpayment of duty rates.

My legislation would restrict such practices by requiring the importer, if affiliated with the foreign producers or exporters, to demonstrate that the importer was in no way reimbursed for any AC/CVD duties that were paid.

There are certainly other changes we should consider to update our trade remedy laws. These provisions are by no means an exhaustive list, but we do need to get the debate started. I have offered this bill as a way to reenergize the debate. I have 15 minutes and I am using it to discuss something I think is useful.

Steel is a prime example of the need for strong trade laws, strong enforcement of the laws on the books, and strong considerations to toughen existing statutes.

As the Presiding Officer well knows, I have long been involved in the fight for the American steel industry. Currently, the industry, its workers, and steel communities around the country await a decision from the President of the United States on section 20 tariffs he imposed on steel imports in the face of an unprecedented flood of steel imports from foreign countries below price and below the cost of production in the home country.

Some of our foreign trading partners are lobbying the White House very hard to lift these tariffs. In fact, the European Union was in town just last week making irresponsible and illegal trade threats to try to sway the President's decision. I hope they fail. The administration has a very clear choice between preserving good-paying and hard-earned American jobs or caving in to the threats of our foreign trading partners.

All of the arguments made prior to the imposition of the tariffs about the potential damage and consequences of the 201 tariffs have been debunked.

This is important. We have something called the International Trade Commission. It is a nonpartisan quasi-judicial body. They found that the tariffs have done what they were meant to do--the tariffs on steel: give the American steel industry breathing room it needs to restructure. The International Trade Commission also found that the tariffs have not significantly impacted the U.S. economy in any other way.

If this administration is truly committed to the steel industry and, importantly, the communities built around it, the President will leave the tariffs just as they are and fulfill his promise to American workers. If not, we are facing very hard times indeed, and it may be the death knell for steel manufacturing in America--something I don't think we want to see.

I am extremely disappointed that rather than engaging in a serious debate, we are spending 30 hours talking about judicial nominees because some Senators believe it is an effective way to do whatever.

Instead of scoring political points, the SAFE Act addresses several very dire needs of our manufacturing companies. It improves our trade laws, helps with the burden of retiree health care costs, and effectively lowers the corporate tax rate on manufacturing activities. This package of reforms is an effective plan to stem the flow of manufacturing goods from overseas.

I will conclude by simply saying this: The fact that almost 9 million Americans are out of work, that is urgent; the fact that employment insurance is set to run out for many Americans who have been unemployed for a long time, that is very urgent; the fact that 43.6 million Americans lack health insurance and manufacturers and other employees are dropping health coverage to make ends meet, that is urgent; the fact that America has lost more than 3 million private sector jobs since our current President took office, that is urgent; the fact that the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 3 million in 2 years, that is urgent; and the fact that 4.5 million Americans work part time because they cannot find full-time jobs, that is urgent.

I would simply like to suggest that the Senate return to the urgent business facing our Nation. We have appropriations bills to consider and pass. We have a comprehensive Energy bill to pass. We have a highway bill to pass. We have much to do.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The Senator from West Virginia will not do that.

Mr. President, I am extremely frustrated that the Senate continues this debate, or whatever it is. It is already more than a day. We are dealing with the nominations of a handful of judges. That is not trivial. I understand that. As a Senate, we have a responsibility to address the most urgent issues facing our Nation. Unemployment insurance for those who are unemployed, I think, happens to be one of them. Today we are, embarrassingly, failing to live up to that responsibility.

This morning I talked at some length about the crisis facing our Nation's manufacturing sector. I will not relent on that subject. As factories close down, people across this country are losing jobs, losing health care benefits and retirement benefits. As a country, we are losing the industrial base that is responsible for the greatness of this Nation.

Some of the statistics I mentioned this morning I am going to repeat.

Manufacturing employment is at a 41-year low, and more than 2\1/2\ million

manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last couple of years.

This morning I described legislation I introduced to address this manufacturing crisis. I happen to feel very strongly about that legislation. As I explained, the bill I crafted would offer relief to American manufacturers in three ways:

First, by lowering the effective corporate income tax rate by about 3 percent; second, by providing employers tax credit up to 75 percent to help cover the cost of health care coverage for retirees who had worked for that company; and, third, by strengthening our trade protection laws. There is a plan I laid out to help stem the terrible flow of manufacturing jobs from the United States overseas. I recognize other Senators have different ideas about the best way to help our Nation's manufacturing companies compete. I welcome the vigorous debate. I believe we ought to leave no stone unturned when looking for a solution to this crisis which is so vital to so many of our people. That is why, frankly, I am so frustrated and disappointed we are going through this 30-hour charade.

On the 1st of October, the Senate Finance Committee, on which I am proud to serve, approved legislation known as the JOBS Act. That stands for ``Jumpstart Our Business Strengths.'' The legislation enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Senate Finance Committee and passed out of it. But 6 weeks later it is still awaiting action by the full Senate.

I do not necessarily agree with every provision of that bill, but that did not happen to be important to me because it represents a serious effort to help America's factories and the people who work in those factories. I care about those people. I represent those people and I will fight for those people.

The more important provision of the bill reduces the corporate tax rate, much the same as my own legislation would do. Unfortunately no debate has been scheduled for this important legislation. Some seem to believe we will not have time to consider the legislation before adjourning this year. That is tragic for the people who are not working. This Presiding Officer faces that in his own State, the State of Illinois.

I cannot understand that thinking. How can we possibly have 30 hours to air our grievances about judicial nominees when we all know exactly what the result is going to be? There is no time to debate a way to protect American factory jobs. I could pick on many other subjects and would be happy to do so, but I pick one subject tonight.

I believe if the Senate took up the JOBS Act, we could have a thoughtful, constructive debate and we could pass it. In fact, as I look about the Senate floor, I see the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Maine, and the Senator from West Virginia, and the last time we were on the floor together, we passed a bill which spread out to the States $16 billion of Medicaid assistance which they desperately needed--two Democrats and a Republican. It could have been two Republicans and one Democrat. It makes no difference. We got the job done. The bill passed, and the States benefited from it.

But what are we doing now? We are talking. We could pass legislation on all kinds of things. I would ask all of my colleagues to think for a minute about the Americans who right now as we speak are hard at work on the evening shift in factories around the country. They are making everything from cars to contact lenses. Many of these factory jobs are exhausting. They require concentration and heavy lifting. They cause injuries. They require concentration. When Americans are toiling away in our factories right now, we cannot help but be inspired ourselves to concentrate and to do some heavy lifting of our own. We must work hard and do our jobs. It is our job as Senators to look at the serious policies that make our country work or work less well. People having a job and putting food on the table is a very major part of that.

Much to my dismay, we are not engaged today in serious debate about ways to create and maintain jobs in America. That is the subject of discussion in my State. We are not a wealthy State. We are a good State. Our people are as good or better than anybody in any other State. I fight for then. But they need work. Instead, our factories continue to struggle and are forced to shut down. Millions of Americans are out of work. Because so many of our factories are leaving the country, it is more and more difficult for Americans to find new jobs.

People always think when you lose a job, you can get another job. There was a day when that was true. That is no longer true. Indeed, economic experts have concluded the vast majority of job losses suffered in the last few years are permanent, are not replaceable. Factories are closed and will not reopen.

Let me take a moment to discuss the economic situation in my own State of West Virginia. Our steel industry has been struggling to recover from years of unfair and illegal competition against steel that was dumped on our markets and sold in America at below the cost that it cost to produce it in the country it came from--dumped steel, illegal steel, breaking our national law.

What was once our State's largest employer, Weirton Steel, recently announced it will cut an additional 800 jobs. I can remember when 13,000 people worked at that company. If President Bush backs down on the steel tariffs, of course, it will hurt the industry just as it is poised to recover. Ending the tariffs early will cost many more Americans jobs and at a time we know that new factories are not being opened in steel. We have to protect those steel jobs we have. I mean ``protect'' in the best sense of the word by using the American law and by being faithful to our own conscience.

Employment in the coal fields is also affected. The coal industry has long supplied our steel industry with the finest quality coal in the world. That has continued to decline. There are not many coal miners left anymore in West Virginia. Indeed, the manufacturing base all over my State continues to shrink drastically, and, as it diminishes, so do jobs with good wages and good benefits. That is the American dream.

In the southern coal fields, two other established prominent manufacturers--EIMCO, a Norwegian company that manufacturers mining equipment, and the Dean Company, with which I spent most of my life, a maker of wood veneers--are closed; they went overseas.

The past year has brought the closing of two long-time manufacturers in north-central West Virginia, the Clarksburg Casket and Glassworks Company. In the Mid-Ohio Valley in Parkersburg, two long-time manufacturers, Johns Manvillle and Ames True Temper, closed plants. Just 3 weeks ago, it was announced another 50-year-old plant was scheduled to close in Parkersburg, putting almost 200 workers at Schott Scientific Glass out of work. Their jobs went overseas.

In the Kanawha Valley where this Senator lives, two well-established chemical companies are closing, Flexys in Nitro and FMC in South Charleston. These closings mean hundreds of jobs lost.

Where are these workers supposed to turn? Their average age may be 45 to 55. What are they meant to do? Take up computer sciences? Biochemistry, physics? They can't do that. There is no place for them to go. There are no replacement jobs. Some of them take temporary jobs where they don't get benefits and try as best as they can to work with their families.

I was extremely pleased at the recent news of the strong economic growth in the third quarter of this year in this country. This does not translate into new jobs in West Virginia. New jobs is what we look at. People do not feed their families and do not pay their mortgages with news of strong economic growth. They need paychecks. It comes from jobs.

This Congress has not done enough to protect the paychecks of hard- working Americans. We have failed to stem the flow of jobs overseas, a subject about which I could speak for 6 hours. We have not done enough to provide temporary assistance to workers who have lost their jobs. Currently, 9 million Americans are unemployed and almost 2 million Americans have been unemployed for more than 6 months. In West Virginia, almost 42,000 workers are facing the holidays without a job.

Today, the Senate ought to be addressing the needs of these workers. Therefore, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Kennedy that would extend the

unemployment compensation for those Americans of which I speak who are still struggling to find work in our so-called jobless economic recovery.

As factory after factory closes its doors, or freezes hiring, workers are unable to find new jobs. They are running out of unemployment benefits at an alarming rate. As many as 80,000 workers per week are expected to exhaust their unemployment compensation in December itself. Senator Kennedy's bill would continue Federal unemployment benefits for an additional 6 months. The legislation would also provide 33 weeks of additional Federal benefits in States with especially high unemployment rates.

This bill provides crucial assistance for long-term unemployed workers. There are more than 1 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits but have not been able to find a new job.

Let me be clear. Men and women in West Virginia and across the country would rather have a paycheck than an unemployment check. We all know that. However, the jobs are not available. The choice is not theirs. They have families to feed. The Federal Unemployment Insurance Program was specifically created to help workers when the economy suffers prolonged downturns. Workers have paid into the unemployment compensation fund and they deserve to collect benefits from the fund during such a weak jobless recovery.

Currently, the unemployment insurance trust funds have $20 billion sitting in a bank. The benefits outlined in Senator Kennedy's bill would cost $16 billion. To me it is unconscionable to leave the funds in the bank when they are needed by workers during hard times. Moreover, by making additional unemployment benefits available, Congress will also obviously be helping our economy.

I am afraid that the charade we are engaged in at the moment is a lose-lose proposition for the American people. I do not diminish the importance of judges, but I do not diminish the importance of unemployed workers whose self-esteem is destroyed and whose skills are ready to be put to work. It does nothing to help 9 million Americans who have already lost their jobs to have this debate. It does nothing to protect the jobs and factories that are currently struggling to compete to have this debate. I would also suggest that it hampers the ability of Senators to come together to address the urgent business of the Nation because of the nature of this debate.

There is certainly no shortage of important business before the Senate. We need to pass a prescription drug bill, and there are many other issues I could discuss.

I will end with simply this thought: I love America. I love my State of West Virginia. I love its people. I know they need to be well represented by judges. But I also know they have to work or else it probably doesn't make much difference to them.

What I am talking about tonight, what I talked about this morning is the ability for Americans to have jobs, to hold jobs and, if they lose them, to get unemployment insurance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate is taking bipartisan action to pass the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, which will extend and improve the adoption bonuses created as part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. For many years, the Senate has taken a bipartisan approach to adoption and child welfare policy. I am very proud to be one of the lead advocates for this legislation that rewards states which promote adoption and invest in child welfare.

Throughout this year, a bipartisan group, led by Finance Chairman Grassley met to forge consensus on extending the adoption incentives, and doing more to focus attention on the needs of older children. President Bush highlighted the need to do more to promote adoptions for children nine years old or older, and Congress agreed. The list of cosponsors, including Senators Landrieu, Bunning, Craig, Baucus, DeWine, Levin, Inhofe, Nelson, Lincoln, Clinton, and Jeffords, demonstrates the broad coalition that can be achieved when we take a bipartisan approach.

As I noted, our legislation builds on the foundation set with the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Since its passage, adoptions from foster care have nearly doubled nationwide and over 900 West Virginia children have a permanent home. By extending and expanding this law, we hope to continue to promote permanent homes, and place a new focus on older children.

Despite our success in recent years, across this nation 126,000 children are waiting to be adopted. Children over the age of 9 represent almost half of the children awaiting adoption yet these children spend the most time in the system and have a difficult time finding permanent homes. The Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 will especially help these children by offering incentives to states that successfully place older children in adoptive homes.

This bill rewards states for moving children into permanent homes from the foster care system and further rewards states for moving special needs, and older children from foster care to permanent placements. This bill is particularly important for my state. In West Virginia, over 70 percent of the children in foster care are over age 9. This act will help older children find much needed, permanent homes.

This legislation is a positive way we can strengthen our child welfare system, but we also know that more must be done to help vulnerable children. The bipartisan spirit that helped ensure this legislation passage is the same spirit needed to deal with the rest of the child welfare system as we continue to push the basic goal of a child's health and safety being paramount, and every child finding a permanent home.

Mr. President, today, I had hoped to be in Sutton, WV to fully celebrate Veterans Day with West Virginia veterans and their families. Since the Senate is in session, I must be in Washington, but I do want to recognize some of our Nation's finest men and women who have served to protect that which we hold most dear, our very freedom.

Last weekend, I was in West Virginia and I had the chance to talk with Army Sergeant Jared Welker of Putnam County. Sergeant Welker is a tank gunner who saw considerable action in Iraq, and who has just recently returned home. I had the privilege to spend a few hours with this young soldier. Hearing about the war in Iraq from his point of view, a young man serving in a tank division entering Baghdad, made me very proud of the men and women serving in the military--where ever they are stationed. Sergeant Welker's description of his days in Iraq will stay with me. His courage and his commitment to duty are truly inspiring.

And it is also a sobering reminder of the obligations that we in Congress have to fully support our troops in the field, and at home, and as veterans later in their lives.

On Veterans Day, we should take time to pay our respect to those who put their lives on the line and sacrificed in our defense. We have a duty to honor all veterans in both word and deed.

We honor them by remembering their courage, their loyalty, and their love of country. My State has one of the strongest traditions of military service, and I could not be more proud of that. When the call has come to defend this Nation, West Virginians have answered in great numbers. In a State as patriotic as our Mountain State, reminders of our veterans, heroes and heroines, are everywhere. They stand as a reminder of the battles fought defending the principles of democracy.

Understanding the sense of patriotism of the people of West Virginia is what caused me to seek a seat on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs the day I arrived in the Senate 19 years ago. Joining the committee was one of the best decisions I ever made.

These last few weeks in Congress have been extremely important ones for our Nation=s veterans. One of the most important issues of concern today

is the President's budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2004. Everything provided by VA will be a direct result of the proposed budget now before Congress. Regrettably, the President's budget request for VA health care for fiscal year 2004 will barely cover the cost of inflation at our VA Medical Centers, but there is still time to fix those misplaced priorities.

Full funding is needed for a health care system that is besieged with responsibilities. I am fighting, along with a number of my Senate colleagues, to get an additional $1.8 billion appropriated for VA health care before Congress recesses this year.

In addition to our veterans who depend upon VA for their health care and prescription drugs today, current law allows members of the military, who serve during an armed conflict, to use VA upon their return. This includes currently deployed Reservists and National Guardsmen, who are such a big part of West Virginia's contribution to our war effort. The system must be adequately funded for all these veterans.

Another critical issue of concern continues to be long-term care for veterans. As our veteran population grows older, VA must make sure that it can meet the need for long-term care. A bill I introduced earlier this year extending, for five years, the congressional mandate requiring VA to provide long-term care for veterans through both nursing homes and community-based options still has potential to be enacted this year. This is extremely important legislation, and I will continue to push until this become law. If I cannot convince my colleagues to act this year, I will be right back next year fighting for it until it is done.

I was thrilled to be in Clarksburg last month for the ground breaking of our new State veterans' home, which will be built adjacent to the Clarksburg VA Medical Center. I have worked closely with both State and Federal officials on this project over the last several years, and I am very proud of everyone who has been involved in making this much needed nursing home a reality. It is time that West Virginia had a State veterans' nursing home.

In closing, I would like to read a paragraph from a letter found in the gear of a 20-year-old boy from Beckley serving during World War II. I think it is appropriate on this Veterans Day.

Private First Class Walter Walker was killed in battle in 1944 and he had written a letter to be delivered to his parents in case of his death.

He wrote:

Frankly I think I will come back, but you never can tell

what little accident will happen. I am doing this for my

country and people I love. So that little children may grow

up to be free and not have to take orders from devils like

Hitler and Tojo. I will gladly give my life to keep you and

dad free as long as you may live.

Private Walker was a hero of WWII.

Sergeant Welker, and the more than 100,000 brave men and women serving today, are the heroes of Iraq.

Today, we honor all our young men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, and all those who have served in our military. We need to remember to stand proud when we see the American flag waving high in the air, and nod our heads in respect when we pass by a veterans' cemetery. We need to remember that behind each of these symbols of America are the people who have made them so remarkable--our Nation's veterans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment to be offered by my friends and fellow former Governors, Senators Graham, Alexander, Carper, and Voinovich.

The amendment is a very simple one. Every Senator who is aware of the fiscal crisis faced by States across the Nation, which I think at this point is virtually all States, ought to support this amendment, in my judgment.

The amendment simply says we ought to continue the current moratorium on Internet taxes for another 2 years, giving the industry additional time to reach out to new customers and ensuring that we do not undercut States' long-term ability to balance their budgets, because there is an enormous relationship between Internet taxes and State budgets. In fact, this amendment improves on the previous moratorium by ensuring that consumers' access to the Internet is tax-free. Regardless of the technology they prefer, be that DSL, cable modem, wireless phone, traditional dial-up access, they would all be treated the same under this amendment.

I know many of my colleagues are interested in providing a permanent moratorium on the taxation of Internet access, but I ask them to take a moment to consider the potential harm of the bill we are debating today.

Governors, State legislators, and mayors from across this country have called my office, and I would think the offices of most Senators, to implore us not to pass the legislation. I understand the moratorium envisioned in this other amendment applies only to taxes imposed on access to the Internet. However, our good intentions are

not enough to ensure that this legislation is properly applied and that the States are able to collect taxes on other telecommunications services.

Technology, as you well know, is still developing. In the near future, the providers of Internet services may offer telecommunications services as part of a premium package of technology products. Digital content presents additional challenges. I believe somebody purchasing a new movie should be taxed on that, whether they download the movie from the Internet provider or they purchase it from Amazon.com or they walk over to Blockbuster and buy it off the shelf. As technology develops and more and more options are available to consumers, Congress will obviously need to revisit this issue of what exactly falls within this moratorium since the technology changes so often.

This amendment would protect States' rights to impose fair and equitable taxes on products other than Internet access. As a former Governor, I remember very well the difficulty of financing critical State services. I was Governor some 20 years ago, but we were having those troubles then. They are much worse now.

I worked hard with the State legislature to achieve the right balance of taxes and spending. That was hard. I needed the maximum flexibility. It has been some time now, as I indicated, since I was Governor, but over the last few years we have witnessed again how States often struggle to balance their budgets and how, in fact, virtually every single State is going through that process.

It seems somewhat arrogant and unfair for us as Federal legislators to permanently limit the options available to States. I feel very strongly about that. I in no way want to disadvantage development of the Internet, but I want to respect the rights of other elected officials in West Virginia and in other States, and I believe in that strongly.

I believe a 2-year extension of the moratorium is the best of all solutions. It protects Internet access from State and local taxes for a while longer, as more Americans get access to the benefits of the Internet. It preserves for the future the flexibility that State and local governments need as they try to balance their budgets while providing for good education, improved infrastructure, adequate police and firefighting forces--all these things in this new age of terrorism. And it gives Congress the responsibility and the opportunity to revisit the issue, which is absolutely key, in 2 years, as the technology evolves.

Let me be clear. I strongly supported the previous moratorium on Internet access taxes because I recognized the value of expanding Internet use to more Americans. I believe Congress ought to do what it can to ensure the Internet becomes like the radio and the telephone and the television before it--technology that connects with all Americans and connects all Americans to each other.

In my home State of West Virginia, we are still working hard to ensure that all our citizens will have access to the latest broadband technology, so I am eager to support efforts that can make the Internet more affordable and more available, including extending the current moratorium for 2 years. However, I cannot ignore my concerns with the permanent moratorium we are asked to consider today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment which a number of other former Governors and I have put forward.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

I would say 15 to 18 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague.

There have been statements made on the floor today-- which I was not here to listen to because I was in a Commerce Committee meeting--expressing concern, outrage, et cetera, about what is happening with the Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry into the prewar Iraqi intelligence. We have heard charges that a draft memo taken from the Intelligence Committee spaces and provided to the media somehow represents a plan to discredit what the Intelligence Committee is doing and to politicize the inquiry. These charges are inaccurate and unfortunate. I wish to speak to them as vice chairman of that committee.

I would suggest to my colleagues that there is in fact reason for concern today, but it is not because of the content of this draft staff memo--a memo which, for the record, was not approved by me, was not given to any other member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, nor to any other staff person, my own staff on the Intelligence Committee, nor to any other member of the Senate, nor anybody else. It was an internal draft memo. It happens all the time in the Senate. At some point very soon the committee and the Senate are going to have to explore the chain of events surrounding this draft memo since it raises serious questions about whether the majority is obtaining unauthorized access to private internal materials of the minority, and who made the decision in this case to leak the draft of an unofficial memo to the press.

It is disturbing that individuals are seeking, perhaps or perhaps not, to score political points with a draft paper describing the rights of the minority to push for a full and fair review of the issues of the committee and that the memo is being so grossly mischaracterized to try to deflect attention from the real issue.

More importantly, the concern this body should feel today is that the Intelligence Committee is not conducting a thorough and in-depth inquiry into all aspects of the intelligence process leading up to the war in Iraq. This body should be disturbed that 5 months after we started asking questions, we are still going, in essence, hat in hand to the administration to try to get the documents we need to conduct this review.

I most sincerely regret the impression that the draft memo has apparently given to some of my Republican colleagues, but it clearly reflects staff frustration that the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation has not tackled all of the tough issues, and frustration with the difficulties we have had in obtaining information from the administration. It should come as no surprise to anyone that there is tension on the committee. I have said publicly for months that the committee must review not only the accuracy of prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism but also the use or misuse of that intelligence by senior policymakers in this administration. This is fundamental to answering the questions the American people have about how we got into this war. But at every turn, the chairman has made it clear that the inquiry will be limited to reviewing the prewar intelligence against the low threshold of a standard called reasonableness. We have a basic disagreement. These kinds of things happen in the Senate.

I was pleased last week ended with the chairman and myself standing side by side, as we should, insisting on the committee's need for evidence wherever it might be located. But the information we have requested to date is only part of our work. It should be obvious to all that our committee still has much to do to assure that our inquiry into prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism fulfills our responsibilities to the Senate and to the American public.

I want to take a minute--it is important for me to do so--to describe these responsibilities because I am not sure all of our colleagues know. The committee's responsibilities come to us from the Senate. We don't make them up. The Senate created the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1976. The measure that established it, S. Res. 400 of the 95th Congress, remains the Senate's charter to us as a committee. It is very specific.

S. Res. 400 was not a casual measure. It was the product of years of interest in improving oversight of intelligence, a major investigation chaired by Senator Church, reports of several standing committees, about eight or nine, and extensive floor consideration. It is not up to the 17 of us who happen now to be on that committee to make up the boundaries of our responsibility. They are given to us and written out very clearly.

S. Res. 400 begins by stating its purpose: To create a Senate select committee ``to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government.''

The Senate did not leave the term ``intelligence activities'', the object of oversight, to the imagination of generations of members of the Intelligence Committee. Instead, the Senate carefully defined the term ``intelligence activities'' in section 14 of the resolution to include ``the collection, analysis, production, dissemination, or use of the information.''

The five elements of intelligence activity--that is collection, analysis, production, dissemination, and use--represent the full cycle with which the committee must be concerned. That is our charter. If we examine analysis of information without considering the collection of it, we fail in our responsibility. If we examine both of them but not the production of reports and the dissemination of information, we fail in our responsibility. If we stop at dissemination and do not examine the use of intelligence, we will equally fail in our responsibility. That examination is what I have been pushing for and it is what I will continue seeking.

I have heard it said that policy is the responsibility of other committees. Of course, other committees have responsibilities relating to national security policies. But so do we. Our mandate from the Senate is clear. S. Res. 400 also says the information which is subject to the committee's oversight includes information relating to foreign countries and to ``the defense, the foreign policy, the national security, or related policies of the United States.'' It is broad. It is thorough.

We should be committed as a committee to developing a full record. The joint letters the chairman and I wrote last week insisting the administration provide us with the necessary documents and interviews are a step in the right direction which I very much appreciate. But there is a lot more to be done. Even if we might disagree about the evaluation of evidence, we should put the full weight of the committee behind obtaining all the facts our members believe to be necessary for a complete inquiry. For me, that means all communications, not just a limited list, about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and terrorism intelligence between the Intelligence Committee and policymakers, including the White House.

Without those, our record will not be complete. We cannot assess, for example, whether intelligence agencies were

pressured to conform to the views of policymakers unless we know what policymakers were asking of these agencies. This is a key objective of this inquiry, and we are in danger of completely missing it.

Albeit in strong language, what staff suggests in the draft memo-- which, again, nobody on the committee saw and nobody else had seen it until it was leaked, and then everybody has it--is that the minority work with the majority to get as far as we can in this effort. That was our purpose--to work as far as we can and be as successful as we can in this effort, and if the majority continued to refuse, then the minority should be prepared to point out shortcomings consistent with the rules.

It is misleading to suggest this possible approach comes as a surprise to anyone in this body. I have been clear with the chairman for months that there is growing interest among many members of the committee in pursuing a separate investigation. It is not a course I choose to follow. Many Senate Democrats are on record in support of an independent commission. We voted it down the other day. I voted against it, but many Members did not; they voted for it. I am on record opposing that approach and I continue to oppose it. But, it is an option that cannot be ruled out.

Exploring or asserting the rights of the minority under the Intelligence Committee rules in no way amounts to politicizing intelligence. A substantive disagreement is not grounds for charges of partisan politics; it is a difference of approach, a difference of opinion.

I have worked for months within the committee to try to get these critical questions answered. It was not until the committee Democrats, in fact, exercised their rights under the rules and forced a meeting in June that the committee first discussed the parameters of a review. Democrats, some of them, wanted a formal investigation and ultimately agreed to the majority's less formal, less structured approach because the issue was too important to descend into political bickering.

In August, I wrote the chairman with a list of 14 areas where I thought the committee needed to do more work. I got no response. In September, after press reports that the chairman was planning to wrap up the interim investigation by the end of September, I wrote again to express my belief that we had more work to do and set out a framework for how we should approach the task we faced. I got no response. I met with the chairman on numerous occasions and got no response.

Then, 2 weeks ago, after reading press stories from the chairman describing a committee report that I had not seen and a deadline I knew we could not meet, I sat down with the chairman--again, we are good friends, and we will remain that way--to talk about where the inquiry was and what was left to do. In that meeting, I provided him with draft letters to the different agencies that owed us documents and interviews which the committee staff, under the control of the majority, had long since asked for, months ago. I cosigned a tough letter, along with the chairman, to the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, pressing him to provide materials requested by the committee staff--fundamentally one which his staff director directs. When I provided the majority with a list of nine examples of the use of intelligence we must have to understand the interplay between policymakers and the intelligence community, I was turned down.

The fact is that I have approached the majority in every way I know how--in private letters, in meetings, in committee meetings, in public statements, on the Senate floor, imploring the majority to work together with us and imploring the majority to meet the committee's fundamental responsibility to investigate the potential misuse of intelligence by policymakers leading up to the war in Iraq. My entreaties have been to no avail, eliciting either no response or, worse yet, public statements by the chairman unilaterally announcing that the committee will, in fact, not pursue the critical issue of use.

The majority has left the Senate minority with two choices: Either abandon what we believe is a fundamental obligation in this body to the American people as is laid out in the Senate resolution creating us, or, reluctantly, part ways and use our rights as a minority to get the job done on our own. I prefer not to do that. It is not my nature. I prefer not to do that. That calls for members working together and calls for following committee rules and following our charter.

Throughout this difficult situation, I have remained committed to the committee's investigation. I have been vocal in my appreciation of the absolutely excellent job done to date by the staff on the aspects of the investigation they have been asked to perform, which is reviewing the prewar Iraqi intelligence. They have done a superb job, absolutely superb job.

I still strongly believe the committee can and should do this job. I am confident that, presented with the facts, the American people can and will judge this administration fairly. For my part, I have and I will continue to support the President when I believe he is right. I had the same approach with the previous President, President Clinton. When I believed he was wrong, I went after him really hard, on steel and other things. But when he was right, I said so. On the other hand, I will also challenge and question the President and his administration when I think they are in error. That is my duty. I am an elected Senator and I represent my people. That is my job as a Senator. It is my responsibility as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I conclude by saying I am also confident that the members of the Intelligence Committee can put aside their differences and continue with the tough tasks facing members. Maybe it took this to somehow embarrass all of us enough to bring us together. I want the result to be that we do this together under the Senate resolution. I hope we can put this behind us.

I suggest to the chairman that the full committee meet again this week to bring us to a point of consensus. We must pursue this inquiry to the end. These are extraordinarily important matters we are discussing, not to score political points on either side but because we must make sure we fix problems and provide our country with the best intelligence possible. That is our job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I want to honor an extraordinary person and one of my most dedicated staff who is retiring from service in the United States Senate, Charlotte Moreland.

For 19 years, Charlotte has worked in my DC office, joining my team during my very first year in the Senate. And for all these years, Charlotte has always been an advocate for West Virginia. Starting in my personal office, Charlotte moved to the Veterans Committee when I became Chairman and found herself developing a voice and sense of duty for veterans in West Virginia and across our country. Over the years, she listened patiently as they expressed their concerns about a disability claim or health care. She took note as they told their stories of bravery and sacrifice. She remembered the details of their lives that made the difference in getting them the benefits they had earned. Charlotte then took those stories to help craft legislation to improve benefits for all veterans.

She spoke eloquently on behalf of these veterans. As Charlotte often would tell those around her, VA is the second largest department in the United States, right behind the Department of Defense, and I have no doubt that many working for VA have heard the voice of Charlotte Moreland. Her voice was gentle, but firm, when urging VA to take a second look at a claim or to check their records for something they may have missed initially. But I have to tell you, this same voice would rise a few notches and not back down to get attention for a veteran whom she felt was being treated unfairly on a claim, unable to get medical treatment, or to ensure that a veteran got proper recognition with a headstone to pay one last respect to their service. When those times came, I often wondered how Charlotte maintained such a friendly working relationship with those at VA. She always smiled at me and said it was because they knew her heart was in the right place.

For West Virginia veterans, she has been a tireless advocate. Whenever Charlotte saw a gap in services or an unmet need, she worked to fill it. Our State's four VA Medical Centers received numerous visits from Charlotte, and the facilities are better because of those visits. Over the years, West Virginia has expanded the number of veteran centers and community-based outpatient clinics so that veterans can have quality services nearby. Charlotte has made a real difference in the lives of many veterans and their families.

Charlotte Moreland is retiring from my office after a distinguished career. You need look no further than the plaques and awards she has received from Veterans Service Organizations to know that she will be missed. You can hear praise in the telephone calls and the compliments in countless letters to my office to know that she will be missed. I am very proud that Charlotte Moreland has been on my staff for these many years, and I wish her all the best.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Bingaman-Snowe amendment, which would bar the Department of Transportation from using any funds to implement cost-sharing requirement for communities that receive subsidized air service through the Essential Air Service Program--EAS.

As ranking Democrat on the Aviation Subcommittee, I work very hard to improve air service for small and rural communities. Most recently, I worked with Senator Lott on legislation to address this important issue. We introduced the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003 to address the growing air services needs of small communities. The legislation became the basis for the small community air service provisions in Senate FAA reauthorization bill and ultimately the FAA Conference Report. The FAA Conference Report establishes a series of pilot programs to help communities improve their existing air service. I strongly believe that communities need new resources and tools to improve their air service options. The new initiatives established in the FAA Conference Report will allow communities the ability to improve their air service choices, and give a community a greater stake in the EAS program.

The Federal Aviation Administration--FAA--Conference Report includes a provision that allows the DOT to select up to 10 communities within 100 miles of a hub airport to pay 10 percent of the their Essential Air Service subsidy, even though both the Senate and the House voted against imposing a cost-sharing requirement.

Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003 also

included a pilot program that would allow DOT to require a cost-share for up to 10 communities within 100 miles of a hub. As I expressed in my statement on the introduction of this bill, I have significant reservation about forcing communities to pay for a service the Federal Government promised them. I expressed my strong reservations throughout the development and Senate consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill in this matter.

During Senate consideration of the FAA bill, Senator Bingaman and Senator Inhofe offered an amendment to strip the cost-sharing provision. Senators McCain and Lott accepted the amendment without debate as it was clear that a large majority of Senators did not support this provision. The House bill as passed by their Transportation Committee had a local match provision. The House stripped their cost-sharing provision as well on the floor so neither bill had a cost-sharing provision. Clearly, the will of Congress was that the Federal Government should provide the entire subsidy. During the conference negotiations on the FAA bill in which I was invited to participate, I argued against reinstating cost-sharing provisions, but the majority conferees insisted on this provision.

The adoption of this provision will prohibit cost-sharing in the upcoming fiscal year. It is a short-term solution to a larger problem that I hope we can ultimately address by reopening the FAA conference report.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

I oppose this amendment. I oppose this amendment for a variety of reasons. I do not oppose this amendment because of the intent of trying to get to the bottom of all of the problems we face in the work we are doing in the Intelligence Committee, on which I serve as vice chair. But I oppose it because it would have the effect of undermining what we are doing, further diluting the focus on the issue of WMD prewar intelligence, all the rest of it.

I do not mean to imply by that that the investigation is moving at the speed with which I would like to see it in the committee. Those issues are being addressed between the chairman and myself and members on each side of the aisle trying to work in a bipartisan fashion. This is an investigation which not only has the comparison of prewar intelligence to what we more recently discovered or may be discovering, but it also has the whole question of wherever the trail leads, which is a phrase the chairman of the committee has used.

There are other aspects of this, whether you use the word dissemination of intelligence; you collect it; you analyze it, and then it gets put over to the policy people. Then they use it in one way or another. The use of that, whether there was any pressure brought to bear, all of those things are areas that we are in the process of examining right now. It is a difficult subject.

There is already another commission on this subject, the Kean- Hamilton Commission, but that is covering something of a different area. If another commission is set up, another group is set up to look at prewar WMD, postwar WMD, intelligence on all of that, it just simply duplicates what we are or will shortly be doing.

As the chairman knows and as my members know, if we do not reach the depth and breadth of satisfaction of investigation on this, then we will have to come back and reconsider all of this at another time. It is my judgment that because of talks and things going on now, dynamics which are internal and intense, we are making that kind of progress, and the threshold of making the kind of progress we have to make to reach a final conclusion and do a report is on the move.

This would be damaging to us. I don't say that as turf because one is on this committee for 8 years and then one is off this committee. That is a whole other subject for another day. But we need to focus this. We do not need to dilute it. I understand the purpose of the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. I do not happen to support it.

Mr. President, I tremendously regret the argument that took place between the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from New York, because that is exactly what we do not need around here. I thought the Senator from Alaska, as much as I respect him, should not be trying to cast political aspersions, and then I thought the Senator from New York should not be saying we are not in any sense being political, we only want the truth, and talking about weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence, because we all agree that the intelligence was wanting.

We all agree that it is very different from the cold war, but what is really important that has to happen and something which only the Intelligence Committee can do, and which has to be in continuity with the work we are doing now, is after we finish investigating what went wrong is to figure out what we are going to do to make it go right. That is a whole other chapter. That is getting rid of the stovepipes and determining whether we want a director of national intelligence.

It is an entirely different relationship now between intelligence and warfighting. Intelligence and warfighting used to be separate. They are now integrated. Intelligence and policy used to be separate. They are now integrated. That is what our committee is doing, but first we need to finish the investigation and then we get to that.

Our problem is we are doing so much investigating we cannot get to that. It is very frustrating to me. We have not finished doing a lot of the investigating that we need to do.

As the chairman has said, we will follow all trails to where they lead. There is a lot of work and it is very sensitive. It is not just a matter of creating another commission to start all over again and to do what will probably be virtually the same work with something called a fresh idea. The people on the Intelligence Committee, on both sides, are smart. They are invigorated. They are determined. There is controversy in the committee, which is good. There is no single approach to it. There is a lot of discussion going on. That process must continue and that is what the Intelligence Committee was created for. We are becoming a new Intelligence Committee because we are in an entirely different world.