Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I honor Tommy L. Harbour, a fellow West Virginian from Milton. He is a shining example of the self sacrifice and willingness to serve that is an important part of the culture of West Virginia. I am privileged to represent him and share his story with you today. Tommy Harbour proudly served his country during World War II. He joined the Coast Guard on July 5, 1943, where he was assigned to the USS Bayfield and served on the landing craft PA33-4. During the invasion of Normandy, Mr. Harbour's landing craft first helped reinforce Omaha Beach with soldiers before making several more landings on Utah Beach under constant gunfire from several fortified German positions. After the European campaign was over, Tommy continued to serve in the Pacific Theater. He and his fellow soldiers played crucial roles in the invasion of Iwo Jima and the invasion of Okinawa in 1945. Following the war, Tommy Harbour was honorably discharged on May 27, 1946, when he returned home to Milton, WV. Tommy went on to once again answer the call of duty, serving as the mayor of Milton for 17 years. During his time as mayor, Tommy showed strong commitment to helping those he served. Mr. Harbour had a reputation for thoroughly examining the issues before him and ensuring the best possible course of action was taken. As mayor, Tommy was approachable and always willing to listen to people's thoughts and concerns. The enhancements he helped orchestrate, such as flood protection and improving the police department, will be attributes to Milton for years to come. Tommy Harbour is an outstanding American and a true West Virginian. He is a perfect model of the impact one man can have. Mr. Harbour has lived a life of service, always giving and never asking for anything in return. This story of his bravery and willingness to serve his community is a great example of the accomplishments we are all capable of and I hope it has inspired my fellow colleagues and individuals nationwide.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I honor the love and commitment exhibited by two of my fellow West Virginians, Jeff and Amy Dunford of Spanishburg, my 2008 nominees as West Virginia's Angels in Adoption. I have participated in this program by the Congressional Caucus on Adoption since its inception, and I am proud to talk about this year's West Virginia family. In 2003, Jeff and Amy made the wonderful decision to become foster parents. They, like many caring West Virginia families, opened up their home and created a loving environment for children in need of such a place. The Dunfords started with a sibling group, and by the spring of 2005, the Dunfords have successfully adopted three children, all the while continuing to provide both a short-term and long-term home for additional foster children. In fact, it was not long after the adoption process was completed that another sibling group was placed in the Dunford home. These three boys, all under the age of 3, would also be adopted by the Dunfords. Being a foster and adoptive family always has its challenges, as well as its unique rewards. Taking care of young children often means sleepless nights, unexpected emergency room visits, and countless parent-teacher conferences. They were also faced with situations unique to foster families, including biological parent visits and counseling sessions. Through it all, the Dunfords faced these challenges with love and determination and now six children have a permanent and loving home. Today, the Dunford family consists of Jeff and Amy, Jeremy, Walter, Holly, Richard, Greg, and Christopher. Jeff and Amy continue to be active in the foster care system, providing assistance with recruitment and training. Jeff and Amy are a testament to the wonderful men and women involved in foster care and adoption services. Throughout my Senate career and as a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I have worked hard in a bipartisan manner to expand and support adoptive and foster parents. Over the years, progress has been made, and since the 1997 Adoption and Safe Family Act which I fought for, adoptions for foster care have doubled--a true sign of success. But with over 100,000 children still in foster care and waiting to be adopted, there is more to do. This year, I am working with a bipartisan coalition to expand the adoption incentives program, improve adoption assistance and on programs enhancing foster care. As important as policy can be, the true heroes are the parents like the Dunfords, who have selflessly opened up their home to vulnerable children. I hope their story, and the stories of all this year's Angels in Adoption, will inspire my colleagues and families nationwide to promote adoption and other supports for vulnerable children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wanted to affirm my support of the Higher Education Act, which will help many young Americans realize their dream of a college education. As president of West Virginia Wesleyan years ago, I saw firsthand that given the opportunity, student will perform to the highest degree. Our goal as legislators should be to provide quality, affordable education for every American. While we have done a good job giving high school students the opportunity to attend higher education, the time has come to do more to make it affordable. Tuition rates have steadily increased over the last few years while our Nation's financial aid programs have failed to keep up, causing college students to graduate with higher amounts of debt than ever before. In West Virginia alone, the cost of college education has increased at least 30 percent since the 2000-2001 school year, while the median family income of most West Virginians has increased only 13 percent. Additionally, the percentage of higher education that is paid for with grants has decreased significantly, from 77 percent in 1975- 1976 to just 20 percent in 2004-2005. The Higher Education Act before us today will modernize the financial aid system. The act will revitalize title IV loans, including Pell grants. Pell grants help over 35,000 West Virginia students attend college, a value of $92 million annually. An increase in assistance is needed to help students cope with the rising cost of tuition. The bill will invest $20 billion to improve Pell grants. The loan amount will increase approximately $500 next year, and in 2012, the maximum Pell grant should be $5,400. These improvements will allow more low-income students to have the opportunity to pursue higher education that before would have been out of their reach. An important provision in the act will protect students by giving them greater access to information about their loans by requiring student loan providers to be up front about terms and rates. This new law will reduce interest rates on Federal student loans, allowing students to graduate college with less debt and on a stable financial foundation. The law even addresses the real concern about the rising costs of textbooks with balanced provisions to disclose prices. The act would also increase TRIO funding and provide better tools to encourage high school students to apply for college. Every year, I meet with TRIO leaders and students from across the state of West Virginia about the importance of this program. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act allows our dedicated TRIO counselors to focus on tutoring, college exam preparation, and assisting students with application and financial aid applications. West Virginia has 30 TRIO programs which will benefit by the increase in the grant duration and funding. This increased support, will better enable the 8,000 plus West Virginian TRIO students to reach their potential in high school, and achieve their goal of pursuing higher education. Another vital part of this legislation is the emphasis it places on sciences and mathematics. The greater assistance and grant money going to students who study science and mathematics, will ensure that our Nation has a group of educated individuals who are ready to handle future challenges. To support our troops and their families, this legislation allows service members to defer payments on loans, and stop interest on Federal direct loans while they are on active duty. It will ensure that military benefits do not count against service members' eligibility for Federal grants and loans they need to pay for college. It will provide for easy reenrollment for service members when they return from duty and go back to school. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act will provide opportunity to students in West Virginia and throughout the country. This bill also encourages public service and puts a new emphasis on science and math, causes that I have long promoted. This is an important bill and I commend my colleagues and the leadership for forging bipartisan consensus to enact this legislation that should inspire students to pursue their dreams of a higher education.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Future Fuels Act of 2008. Put simply, I think coal--especially clean coal--is a critical part of the solution to America's energy independence and to our national security. The bill I will describe this morning presents several technological options that will help put us on a path toward achieving greater energy independence, while also tackling the grave threat to human health, property, and the world's economy that is global climate change. I know that there are some, in this chamber and around the country, who would demonize coal. But the reality is that coal is what we have-- in abundance. We just can't ignore this resource or the incredible potential that it has not just to generate electricity, but as a potential transportation fuel source. The challenges that we face today--and they are challenges which I firmly believe can be overcome with the right combination of resources and American know-how--is how to use coal to produce energy in cleaner ways than we do now, and to accelerate development of carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, technologies to see to it that we don't make our current climate problems worse. In addition to the bill I am introducing today, in West Virginia we have been working with major companies and our coal industry to promote some exciting next generation projects that will produce a range of value-added products out of coal--electricity, chemical feedstocks, fertilizer, diesel and aviation fuels. If we can pull off what we are trying to do, it will be, in a word, transformational. My colleagues know that from Maine to California, West Virginia to Washington State, our constituents are paying more at the gasoline pump, in the supermarket aisles, and for virtually everything else. American families are being crushed by the weight of the rising cost of living--especially our seniors, veterans, and low-income families, who often live on fixed incomes. They are looking for solutions, not lengthy and circular debates on how this energy crisis came about and who is to blame for not fixing it. They are looking for the people they sent to Washington to examine all the options, work together for the common good, and to stop playing partisan or parochial games. As a Senator from West Virginia, I can tell you that the people of my State know a thing or two about coal. They know that from small towns to major cities, from the Capitol building to the Vegas strip, coal generates nearly 50 percent of the Nation's electricity. It lights our homes, schools, and workplaces, and while the summer sun beats down, coal-burning power plants keep us cool. West Virginians, like so many others in this country who have considered our energy options, understand that coal also has the potential to run our cars and trucks and keep our planes flying. West Virginians--like the relatively few of us who are proud to call ourselves Coal State Senators--understand that the only thing keeping us from turning this promise into a reality is a laser-focused commitment from our government and the Nation's industries to unleash good old American ingenuity. The Future Fuels Act can be the foundation for our efforts. In a way not seen since the Manhattan Project helped us win World War II, and at least not since we fulfilled President Kennedy's promise to put a man on the Moon and bring him safely back to Earth, the Future Fuels Act would bring together the best minds in government and the private sector to figure out commercially viable solutions to carbon capture and sequestration. In achieving what is undoubtedly the greatest environmental challenge of this century, the best minds throughout the world, working together, will renew the promise of a better standard of living that coal showed the world at the dawn of the industrial age. For Americans blessed with abundant reserves of this resource, the Future Fuels Act can allow coal to be the source of most of the clean energy we must have in the coming decades. I understand there are those who believe that coal can never be part of the solution, because its detractors have made it such a poster child of the problem. Let's be honest. No energy policy choice can be made that does not have an environmental consequence. Oil drilling obviously does--and mining coal does, as well. But it is not just the use of fossil fuels that has consequences. Wind power probably has more than its fair share of detractors, due to perceived threats to migratory birds and bats, and what some consider an unacceptable disruption of scenic vistas. Ethanol has been blamed for rising food prices and for the minimal value of the energy it produces relative to its production costs. Nuclear energy is touted by its proponents as a carbon-free option that should have its share of the nation's electricity generation expanded. Yet we have never figured out what to do about the permanent storage of, and human health and safety concerns regarding, highly radioactive waste with a half-life measured in tens of thousands of years. It is clear to me, at least, that the fundamentally flawed Yucca Mountain plan is not the answer. Natural gas-powered plants emit somewhat less than coal-fired plants, but are still not clean. In any event, installing new gas pipelines or trying to open a liquefied natural gas terminal inevitably runs utilities into the classic problem of ``not in my backyard,'' or NIMBY. The point is we need to find energy alternatives that are accessible, can be used wisely, preserve our standard of living, and make positive strides to heal our broken world. Anyone who has watched the nightly news lately or who has read a newsmagazine in the last several years knows that global climate change is no longer cloaked in uncertainty or shrouded in doubt. The sheer repetition of major meteorological calamities renders discussion of ``storms of the century'' mute. Meanwhile, all too frequently floods, hurricanes, and typhoons are characterized as ``500-year events.'' We've watched the floodwaters rise in the heartland of America, forest fires rage out West, and both our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines battered by more common storms. The permafrost in the Arctic Tundra is thawing and releasing methane, and the polar ice caps are melting. Growing seasons are changing, and temperate zones are shifting. The damaging effects of global climate change are not suffered only by humanity; an increasing number of plant and animal species are facing extinction. Whether you believe that climate change is happening or not; whether you accept the science of it all, or not, is beside the point. One thing is clear--we can't afford to be wrong, and doing nothing is not an option any longer. Our national policy can not be to merely clean up after more and more terrible weather affects more and more parts of the country--we'll go steadily more bankrupt if we do. We need to start addressing the root cause of it all--and that means fundamental changes in the ways we harness the immense power of fossil fuels, like coal, and permanent solutions for the carbon produced. To do this, my legislation will expand incentives for clean coal technologies, establish an incentive to capture a potent greenhouse gas currently being vented into the atmosphere, create a low-cost program to promote responsible conversion of coal to transportation fuels, help develop new pipeline networks connecting the coalfields to the gas pump, and devote substantial resources to enable government and private sector scientists to turn the corner on commercially viable CCS. The United States has more than a 250-year supply of coal stored beneath the hills of Appalachia and in several places around the country. To use this abundance in a responsible and environmentally appropriate way, the Future Fuels Act will do the following: It will expand tax incentive and clean coal energy bond programs in current law designed to defray costs incurred by investor-owned utilities and public power providers when they choose advanced clean coal technologies to replace and supplement our current fleet of electricity generating plants. We have provided money for this purpose over the last decade, but given the scope of the challenge, we have up until now provided pennies on the dollar. The Future Fuels Act will provide $10.3 billion--$8.3 billion in expanded clean coal tax incentives and an additional $2 billion for municipal and cooperative energy providers in clean coal energy bonds. It will establish a new incentive available to companies that mine coal underground to capture and sequester methane. Methane is more than 20 times as potent a heat-trapping greenhouse gas as an equal volume of carbon dioxide. It is liberated as a natural byproduct of the excavation of coal, and is currently vented to prevent explosions and to purify the air coal miners breathe. This incentive would allow coal companies that voluntarily capture methane and prevent it from being released into the atmosphere to offset some of the costs of that capture. It will create a ``stand-by'' loan program for development of environmentally responsible coal conversion facilities. Coal-based fuel developers would receive no Federal funds to build or operate their facilities, but would be able to tap into a loan program with strict repayment terms when the world price of oil drops below a figure to be set in statute. As a frustrating summer of high gasoline prices and airlines teetering on the edge of collapse because of high jet fuel costs makes clear, we need a new set of solutions to meet our energy demand. The Future Fuels Act will move us toward a time when we can run our cars, trucks, planes, and trains with domestic coal-derived fuel. It will establish a tax incentive for the construction of pipeline infrastructure to bring coal-based fuels to the marketplace. Because our current network of oil and gas pipelines serves, naturally, where oil and gas is found, it may not be adequate or geographically able to serve new sources of fuels in the coalfields of Appalachia and other regions of the country where coal conversion facilities might be built. This incentive would encourage pipeline companies to build out to new locations with untapped potential in coal reserves. But the Future Fuels Act is not just about using coal. It is about meeting the challenge of using coal in the carbon-constrained future we know is coming. The Future Fuels Act does this by harnessing the wisdom, scientific knowledge, and creativity of both government scientists and their private sector counterparts. First, it would put into motion the kind of massive research, development, demonstration, and technology deployment program we should have seen from the current Administration, which had promised to be a friend to coal, only to walk away from ongoing coal initiatives in our Federal laboratories. Instead of doing the work that would establish a sustainable future for coal, the Administration first denied climate change was a problem, and then cut the fossil fuel R&D. Consequently, we have lost eight years' worth of serious efforts to develop commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, options. This is utterly inexcusable, but by increasing the size and investment in government CCS R&D, my legislation attempts to make up for that lost time. Our national labs have done groundbreaking work, especially West Virginia, but they have not been given the resources they need to truly accelerate their research and make it commercially available. In contrast, this legislation would authorize $650 million over the next 5 fiscal years to develop commercial-scale carbon sequestration demonstrations in multiple geological and terrestrial formations, with the goal of storing 1 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. Finally, my bill would create the Future Fuels Corporation, FFC, a publicly funded but privately operated institution with two primary goals. First, the FFC accelerate research--and more importantly, commercial deployment--of CCS technologies. Without the combination of brainpower and private sector dedication to deadlines and results we may never get CCS technologies off the drawing board and on to power plants and other industrial emitting facilities. Second, the FFC will work to create new technologies and new production processes to enable the production of coal-based transportation fuels that are not only cleaner than petroleum-based fuels in use today, but which are made in plants that are cleaner, and which cause less environmental disruption than drilling for oil. Like so many of the other legislative responses to the current energy and economic crisis, my legislation is not a ``silver bullet.'' It is, however, a sincere attempt to offer American solutions to what is both an American and a global problem. We can never be truly energy ``independent,'' but we must resolve to be more energy ``resilient.'' We can do that when we tap into coal's still unbound potential. Likewise, we cannot expect the serious problem of global climate change to fix itself. The combination of our abundant coal and the innovative potential of the greatest scientists, technicians, and researchers in American business, academia, and government can make the energy resources of Saudi Arabia seem like a drop in the bucket. We need to foster policies to unleash these brilliant men and women to find and prove a range of carbon storage solutions, and then watch a waiting world beat a path to our doorstep. Known American coal reserves can produce electricity at current rates--and be converted to transportation fuels in sufficient amounts to supplant more than the petroleum we import from the Persian Gulf and elsewhere--for two centuries or more. No American president will have to call up the Guard and Reserve to secure the coalfields, and no American parent will have trouble falling asleep because they're concerned about the safety of their son or daughter in uniform because the people who own the energy don't much like the American presence near the energy. That is why the Future Fuels Act is so important, and why I commend it to my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Future Fuels Act of 2008. Put simply, I think coal--especially clean coal--is a critical part of the solution to America's energy independence and to our national security. The bill I will describe this morning presents several technological options that will help put us on a path toward achieving greater energy independence, while also tackling the grave threat to human health, property, and the world's economy that is global climate change. I know that there are some, in this chamber and around the country, who would demonize coal. But the reality is that coal is what we have-- in abundance. We just can't ignore this resource or the incredible potential that it has not just to generate electricity, but as a potential transportation fuel source. The challenges that we face today--and they are challenges which I firmly believe can be overcome with the right combination of resources and American know-how--is how to use coal to produce energy in cleaner ways than we do now, and to accelerate development of carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, technologies to see to it that we don't make our current climate problems worse. In addition to the bill I am introducing today, in West Virginia we have been working with major companies and our coal industry to promote some exciting next generation projects that will produce a range of value-added products out of coal--electricity, chemical feedstocks, fertilizer, diesel and aviation fuels. If we can pull off what we are trying to do, it will be, in a word, transformational. My colleagues know that from Maine to California, West Virginia to Washington State, our constituents are paying more at the gasoline pump, in the supermarket aisles, and for virtually everything else. American families are being crushed by the weight of the rising cost of living--especially our seniors, veterans, and low-income families, who often live on fixed incomes. They are looking for solutions, not lengthy and circular debates on how this energy crisis came about and who is to blame for not fixing it. They are looking for the people they sent to Washington to examine all the options, work together for the common good, and to stop playing partisan or parochial games. As a Senator from West Virginia, I can tell you that the people of my State know a thing or two about coal. They know that from small towns to major cities, from the Capitol building to the Vegas strip, coal generates nearly 50 percent of the Nation's electricity. It lights our homes, schools, and workplaces, and while the summer sun beats down, coal-burning power plants keep us cool. West Virginians, like so many others in this country who have considered our energy options, understand that coal also has the potential to run our cars and trucks and keep our planes flying. West Virginians--like the relatively few of us who are proud to call ourselves Coal State Senators--understand that the only thing keeping us from turning this promise into a reality is a laser-focused commitment from our government and the Nation's industries to unleash good old American ingenuity. The Future Fuels Act can be the foundation for our efforts. In a way not seen since the Manhattan Project helped us win World War II, and at least not since we fulfilled President Kennedy's promise to put a man on the Moon and bring him safely back to Earth, the Future Fuels Act would bring together the best minds in government and the private sector to figure out commercially viable solutions to carbon capture and sequestration. In achieving what is undoubtedly the greatest environmental challenge of this century, the best minds throughout the world, working together, will renew the promise of a better standard of living that coal showed the world at the dawn of the industrial age. For Americans blessed with abundant reserves of this resource, the Future Fuels Act can allow coal to be the source of most of the clean energy we must have in the coming decades. I understand there are those who believe that coal can never be part of the solution, because its detractors have made it such a poster child of the problem. Let's be honest. No energy policy choice can be made that does not have an environmental consequence. Oil drilling obviously does--and mining coal does, as well. But it is not just the use of fossil fuels that has consequences. Wind power probably has more than its fair share of detractors, due to perceived threats to migratory birds and bats, and what some consider an unacceptable disruption of scenic vistas. Ethanol has been blamed for rising food prices and for the minimal value of the energy it produces relative to its production costs. Nuclear energy is touted by its proponents as a carbon-free option that should have its share of the nation's electricity generation expanded. Yet we have never figured out what to do about the permanent storage of, and human health and safety concerns regarding, highly radioactive waste with a half-life measured in tens of thousands of years. It is clear to me, at least, that the fundamentally flawed Yucca Mountain plan is not the answer. Natural gas-powered plants emit somewhat less than coal-fired plants, but are still not clean. In any event, installing new gas pipelines or trying to open a liquefied natural gas terminal inevitably runs utilities into the classic problem of ``not in my backyard,'' or NIMBY. The point is we need to find energy alternatives that are accessible, can be used wisely, preserve our standard of living, and make positive strides to heal our broken world. Anyone who has watched the nightly news lately or who has read a newsmagazine in the last several years knows that global climate change is no longer cloaked in uncertainty or shrouded in doubt. The sheer repetition of major meteorological calamities renders discussion of ``storms of the century'' mute. Meanwhile, all too frequently floods, hurricanes, and typhoons are characterized as ``500-year events.'' We've watched the floodwaters rise in the heartland of America, forest fires rage out West, and both our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines battered by more common storms. The permafrost in the Arctic Tundra is thawing and releasing methane, and the polar ice caps are melting. Growing seasons are changing, and temperate zones are shifting. The damaging effects of global climate change are not suffered only by humanity; an increasing number of plant and animal species are facing extinction. Whether you believe that climate change is happening or not; whether you accept the science of it all, or not, is beside the point. One thing is clear--we can't afford to be wrong, and doing nothing is not an option any longer. Our national policy can not be to merely clean up after more and more terrible weather affects more and more parts of the country--we'll go steadily more bankrupt if we do. We need to start addressing the root cause of it all--and that means fundamental changes in the ways we harness the immense power of fossil fuels, like coal, and permanent solutions for the carbon produced. To do this, my legislation will expand incentives for clean coal technologies, establish an incentive to capture a potent greenhouse gas currently being vented into the atmosphere, create a low-cost program to promote responsible conversion of coal to transportation fuels, help develop new pipeline networks connecting the coalfields to the gas pump, and devote substantial resources to enable government and private sector scientists to turn the corner on commercially viable CCS. The United States has more than a 250-year supply of coal stored beneath the hills of Appalachia and in several places around the country. To use this abundance in a responsible and environmentally appropriate way, the Future Fuels Act will do the following: It will expand tax incentive and clean coal energy bond programs in current law designed to defray costs incurred by investor-owned utilities and public power providers when they choose advanced clean coal technologies to replace and supplement our current fleet of electricity generating plants. We have provided money for this purpose over the last decade, but given the scope of the challenge, we have up until now provided pennies on the dollar. The Future Fuels Act will provide $10.3 billion--$8.3 billion in expanded clean coal tax incentives and an additional $2 billion for municipal and cooperative energy providers in clean coal energy bonds. It will establish a new incentive available to companies that mine coal underground to capture and sequester methane. Methane is more than 20 times as potent a heat-trapping greenhouse gas as an equal volume of carbon dioxide. It is liberated as a natural byproduct of the excavation of coal, and is currently vented to prevent explosions and to purify the air coal miners breathe. This incentive would allow coal companies that voluntarily capture methane and prevent it from being released into the atmosphere to offset some of the costs of that capture. It will create a ``stand-by'' loan program for development of environmentally responsible coal conversion facilities. Coal-based fuel developers would receive no Federal funds to build or operate their facilities, but would be able to tap into a loan program with strict repayment terms when the world price of oil drops below a figure to be set in statute. As a frustrating summer of high gasoline prices and airlines teetering on the edge of collapse because of high jet fuel costs makes clear, we need a new set of solutions to meet our energy demand. The Future Fuels Act will move us toward a time when we can run our cars, trucks, planes, and trains with domestic coal-derived fuel. It will establish a tax incentive for the construction of pipeline infrastructure to bring coal-based fuels to the marketplace. Because our current network of oil and gas pipelines serves, naturally, where oil and gas is found, it may not be adequate or geographically able to serve new sources of fuels in the coalfields of Appalachia and other regions of the country where coal conversion facilities might be built. This incentive would encourage pipeline companies to build out to new locations with untapped potential in coal reserves. But the Future Fuels Act is not just about using coal. It is about meeting the challenge of using coal in the carbon-constrained future we know is coming. The Future Fuels Act does this by harnessing the wisdom, scientific knowledge, and creativity of both government scientists and their private sector counterparts. First, it would put into motion the kind of massive research, development, demonstration, and technology deployment program we should have seen from the current Administration, which had promised to be a friend to coal, only to walk away from ongoing coal initiatives in our Federal laboratories. Instead of doing the work that would establish a sustainable future for coal, the Administration first denied climate change was a problem, and then cut the fossil fuel R&D. Consequently, we have lost eight years' worth of serious efforts to develop commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, options. This is utterly inexcusable, but by increasing the size and investment in government CCS R&D, my legislation attempts to make up for that lost time. Our national labs have done groundbreaking work, especially West Virginia, but they have not been given the resources they need to truly accelerate their research and make it commercially available. In contrast, this legislation would authorize $650 million over the next 5 fiscal years to develop commercial-scale carbon sequestration demonstrations in multiple geological and terrestrial formations, with the goal of storing 1 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. Finally, my bill would create the Future Fuels Corporation, FFC, a publicly funded but privately operated institution with two primary goals. First, the FFC accelerate research--and more importantly, commercial deployment--of CCS technologies. Without the combination of brainpower and private sector dedication to deadlines and results we may never get CCS technologies off the drawing board and on to power plants and other industrial emitting facilities. Second, the FFC will work to create new technologies and new production processes to enable the production of coal-based transportation fuels that are not only cleaner than petroleum-based fuels in use today, but which are made in plants that are cleaner, and which cause less environmental disruption than drilling for oil. Like so many of the other legislative responses to the current energy and economic crisis, my legislation is not a ``silver bullet.'' It is, however, a sincere attempt to offer American solutions to what is both an American and a global problem. We can never be truly energy ``independent,'' but we must resolve to be more energy ``resilient.'' We can do that when we tap into coal's still unbound potential. Likewise, we cannot expect the serious problem of global climate change to fix itself. The combination of our abundant coal and the innovative potential of the greatest scientists, technicians, and researchers in American business, academia, and government can make the energy resources of Saudi Arabia seem like a drop in the bucket. We need to foster policies to unleash these brilliant men and women to find and prove a range of carbon storage solutions, and then watch a waiting world beat a path to our doorstep. Known American coal reserves can produce electricity at current rates--and be converted to transportation fuels in sufficient amounts to supplant more than the petroleum we import from the Persian Gulf and elsewhere--for two centuries or more. No American president will have to call up the Guard and Reserve to secure the coalfields, and no American parent will have trouble falling asleep because they're concerned about the safety of their son or daughter in uniform because the people who own the energy don't much like the American presence near the energy. That is why the Future Fuels Act is so important, and why I commend it to my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, you and I and all of our colleagues know that the Senate could not function without the superb work of the Senate staff. These dedicated men and women work day in and day out, often logging long hours, working under pressure, and performing extremely sensitive jobs, not for high pay, but because of their dedication to their country. All of these individuals deserve our praise and our thanks. But occasionally one of them deserves to be singled out. Today I rise to pay tribute to one such individual, Mr. Don Mitchell, professional staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Don is retiring soon after 24 years of government service, 22 of them here in the Senate. In 1984, the same year I was first elected to the Senate, Don began his career as a legislative assistant for national security in the office of his home State Senator, John Glenn. In 1989, Senator Glenn moved Don to the staff of the Intelligence Committee. His association with Senator Glenn and the committee lasted until 1999 when Don left to become Director of Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council. After spending 2 years at the National Security Council, the Intelligence Committee was lucky enough to lure Don back to the committee staff. And I have been fortunate that he has stayed throughout my tenure on the committee. While on the committee, Don has worked on a wide range of issues. He has handled the budgets of the FBI, and the Departments of State, Energy and Treasury and he has been responsible for counter intelligence programs. In addition to Senator Glenn he provided liaison support to Senators Richard Bryan and Dick Durbin. For the past few years he has overseen all covert action activities, the most sensitive programs within the intelligence community. Throughout this time, Don has done his job with a professionalism that has earned the respect of his colleagues and Members on both sides of the aisle. While Don's professional accomplishments are impressive, they are far from the sum of who Don is. Don is an accomplished author, having published works on one of his political heroes, Adlai Stevenson, and most recent, a biography of his first boss, Senator Glenn. Don's true passion though is his family. His wife Grace, his son Logan, and his daughter Ella know well of his devotion to them. They also know of his dedication to his work here in the Senate, having supported him for so many years and having endured the many late nights and weekends he has sacrificed for the Senate. Don is the type of staffer who does not seek glory or recognition for himself. He does not look for ways to insert himself into issues in order to be noticed. He knows what is important and he works toward that goal. He shuns the limelight, but he has made deep and lasting contributions to the process of intelligence oversight. His steady presence, his solid advice, and his devastating wit will be missed. I wish him well in his coming endeavors and hope that our paths cross again.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I rise in solidarity with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, as well as Senator Snowe, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Menendez, and many others, to wit, 41 other people who are cosponsores, and to introduce a resolution of disapproval, that is the name on it, of the August 17 CHIP directive. The directive jeopardizes health care coverage for hundreds of thousands of children, which is reason enough to nullify the August 17 directive. But it also undermines the authority and the prerogatives of the legislative branch of Government. I would caution those who would otherwise vote against this to think about the precedence for the future and the next administration. We have not been treated well. It is not necessary that we will be treated well or with proper respect in the next administration. We need to exert our privileges where they are legitimate. It is further evidence of this administration's, in my regard, this Senator's regard, blatant disregard for the rule of law. As many of my colleagues may remember, on August 17, 2007, I referred to it as a domestic health care day of infamy, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, otherwise known as CMS, issued a ``guidance letter'' to the States, ostensibly to clarify existing policies and requirements for States seeking to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, otherwise known as CHIP, coverage to more children, which is what we are meant to be doing here. However, the practical effect of the letter will be to drastically increase the number of uninsured children, children who should rightfully be covered by CHIP and who otherwise could benefit from the program. The directive has already taken a substantial toll on State coverage initiatives for uninsured children. Since it was issued, the directive has caused a diverse array of States, including Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma, that had planned to provide affordable coverage options for uninsured children through CHIP or Medicaid, in fact, to delay or scale back, or State fund their initiatives, if they can afford to so do. As a result, tens of thousands of children have already missed out on coverage. By August, the directive will affect at least 22 States, including my own State of West Virginia. Hundreds of thousands of children, in red and blue States alike, will lose coverage immediately, if this directive goes into effect. The directive goes directly against the will of the Congress. It was an act by a Cabinet officer or one of his minions, and it is not legal. In addition to harming innocent children, the August 17 directive also undermines congressional authority. I am very sensitive about that after these last 7\1/2\ years. In 1996, Congress passed what is called the Congressional Review Act, to protect the integrity of the legislative branch from the whims of Federal agencies or midlevel bureaucrats or upper level bureaucrats. The Congressional Review Act requires Federal agencies--requires Federal agencies--to submit any rules covered by the act to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States before that rule can take affect. Both the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office have determined that the August 17 CHIP directive constitutes a rule--a rule--as defined in the Congressional Review Act. Therefore, CMS has to submit the August 17 rule to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect. We are exactly 1 month from implementation of this harmful policy, and CMS has repeatedly failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the Congressional Review Act. It is an outrage. It is embarrassing. It is pathetic policy, damaging policy to innocent children who do not start wars and only need to start off in life healthy. If CMS is so convinced that the policy is justifiable, then they should take the required steps suggested by the GAO and the CRS in their review and abide by the law. Not all my colleagues may agree with me on the substance of this issue. Some may believe that the August 17 policy CMS put forth in this guidance letter is perfectly acceptable. That is fine. That is up to them. On that we disagree. But we should all be able to agree--in fact, we have no choice but to agree, all of us--that CMS violated the proper process required by law. They did not submit to the proper agencies or to the Congress what they intended to do surreptitiously and devastatingly. If you respect Congress, as an institution, which I know all my colleagues do, then I urge you to support this formal resolution of disapproval. The health care coverage of millions of children depends on what we do on this. This is not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. This is a motion of disapproval and it will cause things to happen or to be ignored and it will have consequences. But we can reverse the August 17 decision and allow children to get health insurance as the Congress intended if we simply vote for this at the proper time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I note a number of my colleagues are on the floor to speak in favor of the resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the resolution be printed in the Record immediately following all these statements on the resolution.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Senator Bond. I completely agree with your description of the meaning of ``electronic communications service provider.'' The definition itself makes clear that the term is intended to include entities that are telecommunications carriers, providers of electronic communications service, providers of remote computing services, and any other communication service provider that has access to transmitted or stored wire or electronic communications. Significantly, the definition also includes any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee of such entities, as well as any officer, employee or agent of such entities.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. And we have improved enormously the Senate bill that we voted out last year with a veto-proof majority. The House had not reacted to this bill well, particularly the immunity part, as well as the title I part. We went at them aggressively, Vice Chairman Bond and myself, to try to get the Senate to move toward the House position. We were successful in that. As I have said, Speaker Pelosi, who didn't want anything to do with the bill at the beginning, actually went to the floor of the House before they voted on it to pass it out and said: This may not be a perfect bill, but it is a bill that I certainly am going to vote for, and that is why I am here asking you to join me in so doing. I, in my lesser role, am doing the same thing. This is a historic bill. It has the particular virtue that over the course of the next 4 years, the next President of the United States will have a chance to review the bill and see if any changes need to be made. I strongly hope, on what I consider to be a very major piece of national security and civil liberties legislation, that my colleagues will vote to support the bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have been on this bill now for in effect a year.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. What about leader time?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. And that is correct.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, might I inquire whether that was entirely necessary--or, rather, of the Parliamentarian--is that entirely necessary? The Senator does wish to speak. We are not starting votes quite yet. There does not seem to be a total limit on that, a time set for that, and the Senator has been wanting to speak for a number of days. I would be happy if he would be able to do that.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, yesterday, we heard some discussion of last week's decision in the district court in California. In that case, the court ruled that FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance activities and limits the executive branch's authority to assert the state secrets privilege. That opinion, however, is only minimally relevant to the debate before us today for three reasons. First, the decision was in a case against the U.S. Government. In contrast, title II applies only to cases against telecommunications companies, not to suits brought against the Government. The case will therefore be unaffected by title II. Furthermore, because a provider could be entitled to protection from suit under existing law even if the Government acted unconstitutionally, this decision does not resolve the question of whether telecommunications companies acted lawfully or should be entitled to immunity. Second, the decision in the case is only one step in a lawsuit that may continue in the district court and which will likely be appealed. This decision, which is a long way from being final, does not affect the need for the Congress to act on this legislation. Third, the court found that the civil liability provisions of FISA trump the state secrets privilege only to the extent that those civil liability provisions apply. This is not a broad exemption to the state secrets privilege. The opinion does not change the fact that the companies are and, unless we pass title II, will continue to be unable to assert their statutory defenses because of the Government's assertion of the state secrets privilege. The one thing that the decision shows us is that the court can consider the issue of constitutionality in those suits being brought against the Government. Congress therefore does not need to require the courts to consider that issue in suits against private companies.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, which would require the district court to assess the constitutionality of the President's program--which is not what this is about--before it could dismiss cases against any telecommunications companies which participated in it. The amendment unnecessarily puts the burden of constitutionality--a burden that lies squarely on the shoulders of the Government--on the shoulders of telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Government in good faith. This is unfair. Because the Government requires prompted cooperation from telecommunications companies, we do not ask those companies to make detailed legal assessments prior to cooperating with the Government. Their protection from suit should not be limited based upon constitutional questions they had no obligation to assess. The significant constitutional question of whether the President's program was constitutional or lawful is properly addressed in cases against Government officials who are not immune. These cases can and should continue, without regard to this legislation. I ask that people oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This Senator wanted to be clear about that because Senator Bond will be coming. I will speak shortly, and then he will come down to speak also. Mr. President, we are at quite a remarkable period now, because we are actually closing the debate on something which we have been discussing in this Chamber, in committees, around the Congress, in the press, in general, for quite a long time. It has been an amazing debate, and today we close debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments of 2008. I wish to thank all of my colleagues for engaging in this critically important debate, both on and off the Senate floor, whether for or against whatever amendments we will be voting on today. People have expressed their principles, they have been articulate, they have spoken with restraint and dignity and eloquence, and I respect that very much. I think that is the essence of senatorial behavior. We have vigorously debated the appropriate controls for electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information since the disclosure was made 2\1/2\ years ago about the President's wireless surveillance program, which is a travesty--a travesty from 2001 to 2007. An absolute travesty. And because of the contributions not only of those who have supported earlier versions of this legislation but also of those who have opposed various provisions to deal with those issues, we have moved forward to craft, in this Senator's judgment, a strong bipartisan, bicameral compromise that is supported not just by the Senate but also by the House, which was unwilling to support it before at all, but also by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, both of whom are entirely relevant to what is in this bill and what is to be said about what is in this bill. This final product is critical to the Nation's security. I am aware of both our rights and our security. In my job as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have to look at both. I was brought up in a tradition, in a family which worried about rights, and I have fallen into a position where I am in a position to see what goes on in this world. In a post-9/11 situation, it is very different. It is like comparing fighting wars against the Soviets as opposed to against al- Qaida, the Taliban, or whatever it is. It is a very different world. You can't tell who anybody else is, you can't tell what their intentions are, you can't tell what is in a suitcase which might be lying anywhere in this building or anywhere else. When you walk around this Capitol, you see levels of security which you have never seen before. We frequently evacuate this building and our offices, all because of what happened on 9/11, and what had been planned well before that. So it is serious. And not that it makes any difference--it makes us no more important than any other citizen in the United States--but we do know that United Airlines 93 was headed for this building and for this complex. So there is an instinct to understand that those who oppose us and who would have us change our way of life and punish us for what they see as our sins are very serious in their work, patient in their work, and willing to wait to continue their work. The final product is, therefore, critical to the Nation's security, and it sets forth a legal framework to reflect the enormous changes in telecommunications technology over the last 30 years. The bill couples this improvement in foreign intelligence collection against foreign targets overseas with important protections for civil liberties, including the review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the targeting and minimization procedures governing these collection activities. In addition, the bill ensures that when Americans overseas are the target, that a FISA Court judge, rather than the Attorney General--in a very important change--decide that there is clear authority and probable cause for intelligence agencies to target such an individual. The bill also requires the Attorney General to develop guidelines to prevent prohibited activities, such as reverse targeting. That was put before us by Senator Feingold, who is in opposition to this bill but who made that contribution to this bill, along with others, to ensure individual FISA Court orders are obtained, when required. You can't do anything these days without a FISA Court review if you are in the Government. You can't do anything. That is only title I of the bill, not title II. There are new oversight and reporting requirements to Congress in the agreement and a sunset date that means these issues will be addressed during the next administration. And I think that is very important, because some people said: Well, let this law be permanent and forever. There were those of us who didn't want that to happen. We said: We are in new territory here. It is a post-9/11 world. It is very different. So we need to put down into law what we believe, but we also need to go back and review that, to make sure we have done it correctly. So in a period of 4\1/2\ years, during the administration of the next President, he will be able to review, along with us, what we have done and decide if we need to make any changes. I like that. I think that is fair. I think that is democratic. Certainly the most controversial aspect of this legislation has been those provisions that set standards and procedures that allow the courts to find limited immunity protection for electronic communication service providers alleged to have assisted the Government in the President's warrantless surveillance program. Under this agreement, however, these provisions are not the blanket immunity that the administration first proposed, nor are they a statement by the Congress either pro or con on the legality of the program. We have debated these liability protection provisions in great depth over the past 2 days--over the past 2 years, really. As I have said in opposition to the amendments that were offered to strike or amend the limited liability provisions, I am convinced the bill takes the right approach. We did have efforts to have substitution rather than immunity, and they were defeated. They were defeated in the Judiciary Committee, they were defeated on the floor of the Senate, and it was thought if they would be brought up again, they would have been defeated again. So we have been through this. The Senate has worked its judgment on that approach. I believe the requirement in the bill for the inspectors general to complete a comprehensive review of the President's program is much more likely to provide the American people a complete set of facts about the program on a timely basis, to the extent that classification permits, than would continuation of the pending litigation. In other words, we have improved it. And to be quite honest, we passed this 13 to 2 in committee, and then with 68, 69 votes, whatever it was in the Senate, we passed the Senate bill that came out of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but the House had not. They were not happy. They had their reasons. And so we went to them, the vice chairman, Christopher Bond, and myself and our staff, and we worked with them endlessly. We worked with the White House, to some extent; with the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General's office, extensively working through individual ways of compromising to make sure that we could protect companies that provide the intercept and the collection of communications we need to get, but to do so in a way which made it clear that the Government was the issue, not them. And we have done that. Finally, with this agreement, we settle the issue of whether past or future congressional authorizations for the use of military force that do not include a reference to surveillance may be used to justify the conduct of warrantless electronic surveillance. This was an extraordinarily important thing to do, and Senator Feinstein deserves a lot of credit for that--the exclusivity amendment. We have said you cannot conduct any of this collection outside of FISA. You have to have a warrant. You cannot go outside. You cannot use what the President likes to refer to as inherent powers to do anything he wants. You can't do that. You have to have authorization from the Congress in order to do that. That is clear--for the first time in this bill. That is huge. That restricts some of the comments we have been hearing earlier. FISA remains the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance or interception will be conducted from this point forward unless the Congress sees some reason to make it either stronger or whatever. With enactment of this bill, there will be no question that Congress intends that only an express statutory authorization for electronic surveillance or interception may constitute an additional exclusive means for that surveillance or interception. In other words, you cannot do anything more without congressional authorization. That is oversight. That is what we ought to be doing. It is what we should have done but we didn't do. The world changed. We didn't change quickly enough. But we have changed enormously in this bill. This is buttressed further with the clarification that criminal and civil penalties can be imposed for any electronic surveillance that is not conducted in accordance with FISA or specifically listed provisions of title 18. In closing, I would like to address my colleagues who would have preferred a different result than the agreement before us today. I urge them not so much now--there being not much time--but I urge them in the coming days, weeks, and months to look at this legislation in its entirety; not to think about a single point here or a single point there but to look at the whole texture of it. This is what we are doing. That is why we have a sunset date, so we will again be looking at it, looking at the larger picture, seeing what the balance really is and are we keeping it properly as between safety and civil rights, individual rights. That is very important. This is a bill which provides a framework and stability within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for a collection system that will work well for national security. That is very important to this Nation. That is very important to this body and to every single American. This bill is vastly better than the Protect America Act, obviously, enacted last August, and much preferred to any additional short-term extension of that flawed statute--which was one approach. This is a bill which contains important safeguards for civil liberties and effective mechanisms for oversight. I do not think any of the committees that deal with these measures will ever be the same again, nor have they been in the last year and a half with respect to oversight. The vigor, the passion with which we sought, leveraged, coerced in some cases, the administration to make more people read into the program, to make more people a part of the discussion, make more people a part of the knowledge which they held so closely to themselves--I remember at one point I was one of 4 out of 535 people who were briefed on the program, and they kept saying on television: The Congress is briefed. And this was a joke, this was a farce. I will not go into it further but, believe me, it was. They did not do that, they did not want to do that. That is their nature. Now it is different. Now we are all over them. And we have a lot more to do before this Congress gets out with respect to the oversight factor of Congress, which is so important to us and to the Nation. Support for the agreement says to the intelligence professionals who will implement the new authority that Congress takes seriously its oversight responsibilities. Some of them do not like that fact. They do not want us to. They want to be able to do what they have always done because they could do what they always wanted to do--before the world changed. Now they cannot. Yes, we have had intelligence committees for a long time, and, yes, they have done work for a long time, but there has never been a greater need for tough oversight. Sometimes when the Director of the CIA calls me--and I don't think I am saying anything privileged here--and he wants to tell me about something good that has happened--it is a secure conversation on a secure phone--I say: Look, when I hear from you, I want to hear what you want to tell me that is good, and I also want to hear from you about something that is not working right. That is the pattern which is developing. They are a little more timid about coming up to us. We have to negotiate more to have them come before us, but we do it because we need them and they need our oversight. They are not free to do entirely what they want to do, but we have to give them the full right to keep us safe, yet balance, as I believe we do in this bill, civil liberty protections. I simply close by congratulating all people involved. I think for a subject which was meant to be understood by so few in this body, many people have expressed views on the floor and to many of us in private. It has been the subject of caucus discussions. It is a major piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the three remaining amendments, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on final passage. They will serve their Nation well. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. All time has been yielded. I ask unanimous consent, en bloc, that the vice chairman and I ask for the yeas and the nays on all of the upcoming votes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, is there a time set for the beginning of the votes?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The fact of the matter, I say to the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, is that there are 37 Members of the Senate who have been briefed on this matter--not 20 but 37. We decided to do a little bit of homework: Fifteen on the Senate Intelligence Committee, 19 on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that is 34--minus 4 crossover members; 2 leadership on each side, Senator Roberts and the Appropriations Committee chairman and, I suspect, vice chairman, plus Senator Levin and Senator McCain, who are ex officio. That is not bad.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. My point.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will just reply very briefly with three points, and when you are finished, I would like to yield to--or hopefully the vice chairman will yield to the senior Senator from Virginia. The one point is that this is not a bill we are addressing here about the Government. We are doing it about carriers, and particularly in title II. Secondly, I am interested in what the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee feels might be the result if we went the Judge Walker route regardless of its inapplicability, in my view, to this situation when it went through the appeal process. I am not a lawyer. Right now I wish I were, but I am not. Usually, I am glad I am not. But it seems to me that you would be looking at a period of appeals going right on up to the Supreme Court that might last 3 or 4 years. I am not experienced in how long these things take. But this is a matter that might take that kind of time and that causes me to raise again the question I have raised several times with the vice chairman this afternoon: The only thing that we appear to be discussing in the Senate is rights and liberties. I think I have yet to hear almost any word about the security of the Nation and what the purpose of the Intelligence Committee is, what the purpose of intelligence is, what the purpose of collection is, how the collection is done, who does it, how important is it to how we gauge our situation in the world, where we need to deploy, where we need to be watching. This is extraordinarily serious stuff but not a word does it get in the Senate, which is two-thirds made up of lawyers--and I honor every one of them. But we are picking at ``would the Constitution allow'' this or that. I am looking at something which to me is very clear. This is all about carriers, this particular bill. My name isn't Judge Walker. I haven't issued the opinion. If my name were Judge Walker, and it was an opinion, it would be about constitutionality. We are not addressing that in this bill. The Senator earlier said: Look, we are here. Why not duke it out and get all the substitutes and arrangements and compromises back on the table again. I know that does work in some fashion. But I think the vice chairman and I and our staffs could say that what was achieved over the last month or so could probably never be achieved again, which is to get the House to agree. John Conyers is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who was gracious and polite but unfriendly to this bill. There is the question of the Blue Dogs. You can say always these are questions--on farm bills, on steel bills, on automobile bills, on whatever bills. This is a particular type of emergency based upon the fact that we are still, under my definition, under attack. Not that we have not been attacked, but we have been able to interdict, because of intelligence, some of those attacks--or all of those attacks. This is a very different matter than running an ordinary piece of legislation through the Senate. If 20 or whatever Judiciary plus Intelligence is in the Senate--35, whatever that is. No, because there are some cross-memberships. Let's say 20. Understand, the others have not been read in. I have said they could have found out the information that has been available for a full year. Any Senator has the ability to go and read intelligence, if they wish to do that. It sort of implies that the Senate, as a matter of habit, comes to full agreement and full understanding that 80 out of 100, as opposed to 20 or 25 out of a 100, fully understand what is at stake in the amendments to a bill and then to the final passage of a bill. I think the Senator knows that is not the way it works. I think the Senator, although he says we should not delegate, knows we delegate all the time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.