Jay Rockefeller

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nuclear Terrorism: Providing Medical Care and Meeting Basic Needs in the Aftermath--the Federal Response.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Children, Strengthening Families: Reauthorizing CAPTA'' on Thursday, June 26, 2008. The hearing will commence at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``In the Red: Addressing the Nation's Financial Challenges''.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. Madam President, the Senate today--hopefully, tomorrow--returns to debating the matter of modernizing FISA and, more specifically, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. After many months of careful and often very difficult negotiations, we bring to the Senate an agreement that many believed could actually never be achieved, that is bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting the Nation's security and civil liberties, supported by the House, by the Senate, as well as both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. The bill before us reflects the fact that FISA, as it was created in 1978, has increasingly become outdated and hindered our Nation's ability to collect intelligence on foreign targets in a timely manner. It is the direct result of changing technologies, advances in technology, in telecommunications, and the need to evolve and meet today's threat facing our Nation; namely, global terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fact is, as telecommunications technology has changed, intelligence agencies have been presented with collection opportunities inside the United States against targets overseas. Yet, because of the way FISA was written in 1978, they could not take full advantage of these new opportunities. Finding a solution to this problem has not been easy. It was made more complicated by the President's decision, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, disaster, to go completely outside of the FISA rather than work with Congress to fix the situation. That decision was complicated even further by the fact that the President put telecommunication companies in a precarious position by not giving them the legal security of the FISA Court, even when they were told their efforts were legal and necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. Early last year, at the start of our tenure as the new chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond and I agreed that our top priority was going to be to modernize FISA. It had to be our top priority for the year. Even then, I don't think we understood how complex and difficult this endeavor would be or even just how important it would be to our intelligence efforts and to the war against terrorism. It is a monumental bill, and it redoes, for the first time in 30 years, proper handling of collection, which is why I am so pleased to stand before you today and say that we have succeeded. The laborious process of consultation with Members of both bodies and both parties and legal and intelligence officials in the executive branch has worked. We have produced a strong, smart policy that will meet the needs of our intelligence community and protect America's cherished civil liberties. For procedural reasons, the bill now before the Senate is a new bill which passed the House on Friday by a vote of 293 to 129. You can run that out to a 70-percent vote. While formally a new bill, it is the product of compromise between the FISA bills developed, debated, and amended in both Houses in the course of the past year. In the absence of a formal conference, there is no conference report that describes this final bill. To help fill that void, I have prepared, as manager of the bill, a section-by-section analysis which builds on the analysis in our earlier Senate report and includes the changes that have followed. I hope it will be of assistance to the Senate in consideration of this final legislation as well as to the public and all those who will have responsibility to implement the bill. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the summary of the bill's legislative history and a description of its four titles.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Before laying out where this bill improves upon the Senate-passed bill--and it does--let me first restate how proud I am of our efforts in February that laid the foundation for the final action we will soon take. Our Senate bill established the framework for a judicial review of the targeting and minimization procedures which are at the heart of the present compromise. It also established clear authority and procedures for individual judicial orders where there is probable cause for targeting Americans overseas. This may long be regarded as the single most important innovation of the act we will soon pass. Additionally, during debate on our Senate bill, we identified other needed improvements that have been addressed in this compromise, including strengthening exclusivity, something Senator Feinstein was a great advocate of, and also a shorter sunset, something Senator Cardin wanted to see happen; that is, when the bill sunsets, and it will end before the end of the next administration. The bottom line is, we started with a good product in February and, through hard work and compromise with all parties in both Houses, we have made it even stronger. And we have. We have. We are all slightly aghast at what we were able to do. So let me mention a few of the key features in this new compromise. First, the agreement makes changes in the provisions related to targeting foreigners overseas to increase protections for Americans. It requires the FISA Court to approve targeting and minimization procedures before collections begin in virtually all instances. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can move forward without a court order only in what will be extremely rare instances, if emergency circumstances exist. And there is a way that is done which is time minimized, a total of 37 days, but it doesn't happen. It preserves the definition of ``electronic surveillance.'' That is important. It doesn't sound very interesting, but it is important. It preserves that definition found in title I of FISA to ensure that there are no unintended consequences--that sounds like gobbledygook, but it isn't--relating to when a warrant must be obtained under FISA or how information obtained using FISA can be used. In other words, we leave the definition of ``telecommunications'' exactly as it is. We do not change it. If there is to be a change, then there must be legislative action to expand or make that change. But unintended consequences is when something you do in one bill affects something that happened in another bill, and you just do not know it at the time you are doing it. You have to be very careful about that. So that is why we did that. Second, the agreement contains additional measures compared to the Senate bill to improve oversight and accountability--the two greatest needs we have in the Congress and for the administration. It shortens the sunset of the legislation to December 31, 2012, to ensure the FISA modernization law we are going to pass is reviewed in the next administration. It requires a comprehensive review by multiple inspectors general of the President's warrantless surveillance program to ensure Congress has a complete set of facts about the program. We will have them. We will be informed. The public will be informed about that. Third, the agreement assures that no past or future congressional authorization for the use of military force may be used to justify the conduct of warrantless surveillance electronically, unless Congress explicitly provides that can happen. That means the President cannot ever do what he did again. No other President can ever do that. FISA rules, and only the Congress can make the change. With enactment of this agreement, 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. It is logical, and it is necessary. This is reinforced by 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 XVIII. We are prepared to do criminal, civil fines. It is in the bill. It will happen if somebody tries to do something. Finally, with respect to the liability protection provisions of title II, the new language is improved in a number of ways. The agreement makes clear that the district court has the authority to review the documents provided to the companies to determine whether the Attorney General has met the statutory requirements for the certification under the statute. In addition, the plaintiffs are given their fair day in court in our bill, as the parties to the litigation are explicitly provided the opportunity to brief the legal and constitutional issues before the court, to the court. And the district court, in deciding the question, must go beyond whether the Attorney General abused his discretion in preparing his certification to seek the dismissal of a lawsuit. Under the agreement, the district court must decide whether the Attorney General's certification is supported by ``substantial evidence.'' It is a good bar. These are important additions and clarifications, and I hope many of my colleagues will recognize how far we have come. Remember, this is a bill that the House would not even vote on a couple of months ago. They would not even vote on it. So we just went over to them, to Steny Hoyer, who deserves all praise for being an unbelievable moderator, bringer-together of opinions and people and a lot of people who are reluctant over there about doing anything, and gradually, through compromise, through extensive consultation, worked it out so they could agree on the bill. Indeed, Speaker Pelosi went to the floor of the House and spoke as to why she was going to vote for the bill--which she did. Now, before I conclude, I must say a few words about all the people-- and spare me on this, I say to the Presiding Officer--who worked together to make this happen. House majority leader Steny Hoyer is--I have down here in my text ``a near saint.'' I have decided that is in extremis. I think he is extraordinary--extraordinary. He deserves tremendous credit for his ability to bring people together with strongly divergent views and not give up until a compromise is achieved. He has everything on his plate, but he always seemed to have time for--he kept saying he was not really schooled in this, but he knew everything that was going on. Vice Chairman Bond and House Minority Whip Blunt also deserve our thanks and our praise for their hard work and unending commitment. The other leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees--Silvestre Reyes, Peter Hoekstra, John Conyers, Lamar Smith, and on our side Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter--not all of whom have or will support the final bill--also deserve thanks for their valuable contributions for making the legislation a much better product. My own leader, Harry Reid, deserves special credit for insisting that we persevere on protecting national security and civil liberties, even though at times he believed he himself could not support our ultimate compromise. I do not know what that result will be, but he has been terrific in pushing us. In addition, we would not have reached this critical juncture without the unlimited support of the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and the dedicated staff of the DNI, DOJ, and NSA counsel, in particular Ben Powell, Brett Gerry, John Demers, Vito Potenza, and Chris Thuma. I did not think I would be saying those words, but I am saying them, and I do believe them deeply. All of those individuals worked with us for months on this issue, putting in long hours, even at times when there was not light at the end of the tunnel. As we know all too well, the legislative efforts of the House and the Senate would come to a screeching halt if we were forced to operate without the seamless efforts of our staffs. I would like to thank my exceptionally talented staff: Andy Johnson, Mike Davidson, Alissa Starzak, Chris Healey, and Melvin Dubee--all of whom brought an enormous amount of expertise, creativity, and perseverance to the table. I want to single out Mike Davidson. Mike Davidson is a very smart lawyer. He has this way of when everything is collapsing all about him--it is kind of a let's come and reason together. Let's be practical. He is such a good person and so smart and so respected for what he knows that people follow his lead. It was in many ways because of him that a lot of our problems got solved. He would not quit on them, and he would keep saying: Now, let's deal with this practically. And he uses his hands just in that manner. It worked because we have a bill. I would also like to thank Mariah Sixkiller, Brian Diffel, Joe Onek, Mike Sheehy, Jeremy Bash, Wyndee Parker, Eric Greenwald, Chris Donesa, Lou DeBaca, Perry Apelbaum, Ted Kalo, and Caroline Lynch in the House of Representatives; and in the Senate, Louis Tucker, Jack Livingston, Kathleen Rice, Mary DeRosa, Zulima Espinel, Matt Solomon, Nick Rossi, Ron Weich, Serena Hoy, and Marcel Lettre for their efforts. I may have left somebody out. But I think the Presiding Officer thinks I have probably done enough. It is heartfelt, and if you have been through the process you really feel what people put into it and what they give up. Madam President, this is a very proud day for the Senate, for national security and civil liberties, and for the Congress in general. I would venture to say this may be the most important bill we will pass this year. We have proven that compromise is not a lost virtue and that good, sound policy is not only possible, it is achievable. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as a Senator from West Virginia, I wish to pay tribute to our State on the commemoration of our admittance into the Union on this day in 1863--and to honor the nearly 2 million people who are proud to call it home. When people think of West Virginia their thoughts turn to our mountains, our rolling green hills, and rivers. It is a place of immense natural beauty and scenic wonders. Still others may think of our most abundant natural resource, coal, or even our steel. Every fall, many college sports fans turn their thoughts to our incredible football teams. West Virginia, without question, is all of these things. But what truly sets us apart from other places is our people. West Virginians are the hardest working, nicest people you all ever have the chance to meet. They are the reason that so many people choose to come back again and again to our State. They are real people who possess an abundant spirit of hope, optimism, and authenticity. More than anything else, they are the heart and soul of our great State. So it seems only fitting on this West Virginia Day that we pause for a few moments and think about the lasting contributions that our coal miners, steel workers, teachers, public servants, and next door neighbors have made not just on our State, but on our Nation. West Virginia is rooted in rich culture. Our Appalachian heritage is immortalized in song and prose. It is a place where the pioneering spirit is still alive and well. Our communities are not just bound together by ZIP Codes but in sharing responsibility to care for and look out for each other. We are still a place where neighbor helping neighbor is a way of life, and our children are raised to honor their family and to love our country. West Virginia is place where values such as compassion, self- reliance, loyalty, love, unselfishness, and faith are both timely and timeless. This is the West Virginia that embraced me and later my family. These are the people who helped to give me a true sense of purpose and shape me deep into my core. This Senator is incredibly proud of our coal miners that do the hardwork of mining the coal that provides the Nation with its electricity and of our steel workers who forged the tracks for our Nation's railroads, the girders for our skyscrapers, and the bridges that span the country; I am proud of those West Virginians who are now building planes, trucks, and doing cutting-edge research into disease prevention and biometrics; of those West Virginians who have dedicated themselves to be our communities' guardians as first-responders, or in the National Guard; and of those in our State who have entered into public service--especially our teachers--and of those rural health care professionals who provide essential and life-saving services to some of our most vulnerable. And of course, our entire State is tremendously proud of those West Virginians who have earned the honored title of veteran. Emblazoned on our State flag is our motto, ``Mountaineers Are Always Free.'' It is in that spirit that West Virginians have always answered the call of duty in our country's time of need. Earlier this week, the Senate honored Frank Buckles, the last surviving solider from World War I, who now lives in Charles Town. As a teenager, he went to war to defeat the Kaiser, and he was imprisoned by the Japanese for 3\1/2\. He is truly a living legend, a touchstone to our past, and we are so proud to have him in WV. West Virginia's sons and daughters have fought on the Korean peninsula, in the jungles of Vietnam, the mountains of Afghanistan, and the desert of Iraq--and in conflicts in between. We always have a special place in our heart for our Gold Star Mothers--and for those who gave their last full measure of devotion and now rest in fields that were once made infamous by war. I could go on and say many more flattering things about our beloved State, our people, and our future, but as West Virginians we know that we are truly blessed. Perhaps that is why humility is one of our greatest virtues, because we know that no matter what challenges we face, as a State we will stand together, harness our ``can-do'' spirit, and overcome them. That is what we do. We are fighters, in every sense of the word.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the presentation of the Diane Reese Award to Marilyn J. Smith for her work as the president and cofounder of the Abused Deaf Women's Advocacy Services in Seattle, WA. The presentation took place in the Library of Congress during a major conference on domestic violence. This award is much more than recognition of an individual who has gone above and beyond to help those who have and still are suffering from the terrible domestic violence abuses happening daily. This award recognizes a way of life that has inspired and helped countless people that are in need. I would like to commend Marilyn J. Smith for her outstanding work continuing Ms. Reese's compassionate legacy. As some of you know, I got my start serving the public when I came to southern West Virginia as a VISTA volunteer. Although Ms. Reese's social justice work started long before her life moving journey to the coalfields of West Virginia, it was that journey that connected both of our lives together. I was able to witness firsthand Diane's ability to gracefully build the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Working with Sue Julian, who still is a team coordinator at the Coalition, they provided the leadership to create a strong program that has grown into a network of shelters, outreach centers, and support groups throughout West Virginia. Diane inspired many thanks to her steady, quiet but fully committed life. Sue and the rest of the coalition continue that work. Visiting the various shelters Diane helped set up in the early 1990s was a very moving opportunity that I feel very fortunate to have experienced. Working closely with Ms. Reese and the coalition, we fought together for the passage of the first Federal Violence Against Women Act and its subsequent reauthorizations. I have continued to work with the coalition and have tried to help with vital Federal grants. Diane, Sue, and the coalition have played a pivotal role in advising me about the Violence Against Women Act over the years. In West Virginia, Diane Reese touched the lives of so many with her unique ability to heal and serve those in need. Throughout her years of serving the public, Diane became an adjunct faculty at Southern WV Community College and was an active member in the Mountaineer Food Bank, the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund Board, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, just to name a few. As you can see, Diane certainly went above and beyond the norm with her generosity and charity. Just last year the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence that Diane helped to create provided support to over 15,000 people, including children. As you can tell, the numbers of those touched by her life are enormous. Her community organizing efforts, spirit for social justice, and expert skills as an educator made her a good counselor and dear friend. I and all the people who knew and worked with her were saddened to lose her, and we mourn her still. But Diane has an extraordinary legacy that lives on in the work of the coalition in West Virginia and the national award that continues to inspire and acknowledge the next generation of advocates. Diane Reese pursued every obstacle she faced with knowledge, kindness, respect, expertise, and conquered each one of them with grace and optimism. Those of us lucky enough to know her personally will also remember her, and the award in her memory continues to inspire all of us. And, I know that with the great challenges that still face the victims and survivors of domestic violence, Diane would be urging us to continue the work she began and reminding us that the goal of securing peace at home for everyone is a goal upon which we must never give up.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise before you today to introduce the Keeping Families Safe Act of 2008 which seeks to keep families together when a parent is in a residential substance abuse treatment facility. Numerous studies have shown the benefits of keeping families united as a parent undergoes substance abuse treatment. In fact, one study found that 60 percent of mothers who participated in the Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Their Infants program were completely clean and sober six months after their discharge. This same study found that 88 percent of these children were still with their mothers six months after the mother was discharged. However, only 5 percent of all substances abuse treatment facilities are able to accommodate children. Congress has shown support for comprehensive family based substance abuse treatment facilities in the past. In 2006, Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which included a $40 million grant program, to promote two key goals, substance abuse services for families in the child welfare system, and regular caseworker visits. The Keeping Families Safe Act is one way to invest in children and families. This legislation would allow children, who are in foster care, to be with their parent while he or she is receiving treatment at residential comprehensive family-based substance abuse treatment centers. These facilities provide comprehensive services to both parent and child. If this family based approach is not available, these children would often be forced to claim Federal funding in the foster care system. By using these funds instead to go to the residential facility with their parent, the chances for success are much greater. Family based substance abuse treatment centers have proven to be an effective means of treating substance abuse and reuniting families. Many of the parents in treatment are there in hopes of overcoming their addiction and reuniting with their children. This bill is designed to give them that chance. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to help keep families together and provide another funding source for these important facilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise before you today to introduce the Keeping Families Safe Act of 2008 which seeks to keep families together when a parent is in a residential substance abuse treatment facility. Numerous studies have shown the benefits of keeping families united as a parent undergoes substance abuse treatment. In fact, one study found that 60 percent of mothers who participated in the Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Their Infants program were completely clean and sober six months after their discharge. This same study found that 88 percent of these children were still with their mothers six months after the mother was discharged. However, only 5 percent of all substances abuse treatment facilities are able to accommodate children. Congress has shown support for comprehensive family based substance abuse treatment facilities in the past. In 2006, Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which included a $40 million grant program, to promote two key goals, substance abuse services for families in the child welfare system, and regular caseworker visits. The Keeping Families Safe Act is one way to invest in children and families. This legislation would allow children, who are in foster care, to be with their parent while he or she is receiving treatment at residential comprehensive family-based substance abuse treatment centers. These facilities provide comprehensive services to both parent and child. If this family based approach is not available, these children would often be forced to claim Federal funding in the foster care system. By using these funds instead to go to the residential facility with their parent, the chances for success are much greater. Family based substance abuse treatment centers have proven to be an effective means of treating substance abuse and reuniting families. Many of the parents in treatment are there in hopes of overcoming their addiction and reuniting with their children. This bill is designed to give them that chance. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to help keep families together and provide another funding source for these important facilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to report to the Senate that the Senate Intelligence Committee has completed its review of prewar intelligence related to Iraq. Today the committee filed with the Senate and released to the public the two final reports of what has been called phase 2 of the review. One of these reports examines the public statements of senior policymakers prior to the war and compares those statements to the intelligence that was available to those senior policymakers at the time they made those statements. The second report looks at the intelligence activities of individuals working for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Policy. The first of these reports, report on public statements, has obviously been the most controversial aspect of the committee's work on prewar intelligence. That was inevitable. Much has been said and much has been written since the beginning of the war about how we got into it. In the end, the committee did conclude that the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact, when in reality it was unsubstantiated and often contradicted what they were saying, or even was nonexistent. The committee's July 2004 report found that the prewar assessments on intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction were clearly flawed. There was a 511-page report and it decimated the whole concept of weapons of mass destruction being there. It turned out most of them were left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Nuclear scientists were kept around, but they had nothing to do. People began to draw conclusions. They understood, at some of the highest levels, that this intelligence was there, but they ignored it. The report we are releasing today indicates that many of the public statements of the Bush administration were, in fact, accurate and substantiated by underlying intelligence, even though that intelligence itself was flawed. So we tried to be fair. No one, however, should interpret these findings as vindication of how the administration was using intelligence to sell to the American people and to the Congress the war in Iraq. This report documents significant instances in which the administration went beyond what the intelligence community knew--well beyond what the intelligence committee knew or believed, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al-Qaida had an operational relationship, a partnership, and the manipulative attempt to suggest, inaccurately, that Iraq had any complicity in the attacks of September 11--shockingly wrong statements which were made and made and made. Many of them obviously were made prior to the State of the Union Address in an attempt to prepare American public opinion. But, on the other hand, many of them continued well afterwards and even until recently. The committee also found that when administration officials were making statements related to weapons of mass destruction, they often spoke in declarative and unequivocal terms that went well beyond the confidence levels reflected in the intelligence community's intelligence assessments and products. They omitted caveats. In other words, if the Department of Energy and INR in the Department of State, their intelligence wing, disagreed-- those were omitted. Anything that didn't agree was omitted, it was ignored. Dissenting views by intelligence agencies were ignored and did not acknowledge significant gaps in what we knew. In other words, they had a message they were driving and they stopped at nothing to do that. In short, administration officials failed to accurately portray what was known, what was not known, and what was suspected about Iraq and the threat it represented to our national security. When the Nation is weighing the decision to go to war, they deserve the complete and unvarnished truth, and they did not get it in the buildup to the war in Iraq. Additionally, the committee found instances where public statements selectively used intelligence information which supported a particular policy viewpoint; that is, public statements made by high officials, the highest officials, and at the same time they completely ignored contradictory information that weakened the position which they declared to be the truth. While on its face the statement might have been accurate, it nevertheless presented a slanted picture to those who were unaware of the hidden intelligence. Intelligence is complex. It is an art, not just a science. You have to establish all aspects of what goes into an intelligence product before you can make any kind of a declaration or decision. In fact, the committee's report cites several areas in which the administration's public statements were not supported by the intelligence, and I very specifically wish to state them now. No. 1, statements and implications by the President and the Secretary of State, suggesting Iraq and al-Qaida had a partnership or Iraq had provided al-Qaida with weapons training were not substantiated by the intelligence. No. 2, statements by the President and the Vice President, indicating Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. No. 3, statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political security, the economics, et cetera, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products. The results have been there for us to see. No. 4, statements by the President and Vice President, prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities, did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. No. 5, the Secretary of Defense statement that the Iraqi Government operated underground WMD--weapons of mass destruction--facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground, so deeply buried--that was not substantiated by available intelligence information. No. 6, the intelligence community did not confirm that Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001, as the Vice President has repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly claimed--and may do so again today. That is terribly important. There was all kinds of information which so totally contradicts that it should be embarrassing, but it was not, and they went ahead and used it. No connection between Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. In addition, the administration's misuse of intelligence prior to the war was aided by selective declassification of intelligence reporting. The executive branch exercises the prerogative to classify information in order to protect national security. Unlike Congress, it can declassify information unilaterally, and it can do so with great ease. The administration manipulated and exploited this declassification authority in the lead-up to the war, and disclosed intelligence at a time and in a manner of its choosing, knowing others attempting to disclose additional details that might provide balance or improved accuracy would be prevented from so doing under the threat of criminal prosecution. So they could declassify what they wanted. Nobody else could do anything. This unlevel playing field allowed senior officials to disclose and discuss sensitive intelligence reports when they supported the administration's policy objectives and keep out of the discourse information that did not support those objectives. In preparing a report on public statements, the committee concentrated on those statements that were central to the debate over the decision to go to war in 2002-2003. We identified five major policy speeches made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Colin Powell during this period as the most significant expressions of how the Bush administration communicated intelligence judgments to the American people, to the Congress, and to the international community. Additional statements made by senior administration officials during this same timeframe, containing assertions not included in the major policy speeches, were examined as well and they are part of our report. To the point: The statements we examined were made by the individuals involved in the decision to go to war and in convincing the American public to support that decision. The committee will be criticized for not examining statements made by Members of Congress. A bipartisan majority of the committee--bipartisan--agreed these statements do not carry the same weight of authority as statements made by the President and others in the executive branch. It was the President and his senior advisers who were pushing the policy of invasion, not the Congress. In addition, Members of Congress did not have--do not have--the same ready access to intelligence as the senior executive branch policymakers. We do not see raw intelligence data. We do not get PDEs. We do not receive the daily briefing and were not briefed every morning by the Nation's senior intelligence officers. It is important to note we did not receive the October NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, critical to the vote, until 3 days before the Senate was expected to vote. Was that initiated by the administration? No. It was initiated, requested and finally agreed to and then rushed up very quickly because Senator Bob Graham was chairman of the Intelligence Committee at that time, and he asked for it. As I said, the truth of how intelligence was used or misused is not black and white. Supporters from both sides will point to specific findings in this report to bolster their arguments. I consider that to be evidence that the committee's findings are fair and objective. Our job was to compare statements to intelligence and render a narrow judgment as to whether the statement was substantiated. In those instances where a statement is not substantiated by the intelligence, the committee renders no judgment as to why. All we were interested in was the facts. The second report we are releasing today deals with operations of the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. It is a very important report. A February 2007 report from the Department of Defense inspector general addresses many of the issues the committee had originally intended to examine relating to this office. That report concluded that the Policy Office of the Pentagon had inappropriately disseminated an alternative intelligence analysis, drawing a link between Iraq and al- Qaida terrorists--again what the administration wanted--who carried out the attacks on September 11. This hypothesis has been thoroughly examined by the intelligence community and no link was found. That, however, did not stop this office from concocting its own intelligence analysis and presenting it to senior policymakers. The committee first uncovered this attempt by DOD policy officials to shape and politicize intelligence in order to bolster the administration's policy in our July 2004 report and the inspector general's review. Both of these were confirmed. The committee's own investigation of the policy office's activities had been abruptly terminated by the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in July of 2004 because the inspector general's report thoroughly covered the issues of alternative analysis when the committee investigation was restarted in 2007, it focused on clandestine meetings between DOD policy officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris in 2001 and 2003. These meetings were facilitated by Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian exile and intelligence fabricator implicated in the 1986 Iran Contra scandal. During these meetings, intelligence was collected, but it was not shared with the intelligence community. It went right around the intelligence community, including the CIA. They knew nothing about it. George Tenet indicated there was no possible way he knew anything about this. The committee's findings paint a disturbing picture of Pentagon policy officials who were distrustful of the intelligence community and undertook the collection of sensitive intelligence without coordinating their activities. It was a rogue operation. It went to high levels in the administration; it went right to the National Security Council, totally bypassing all other intelligence agencies. It is infuriating and not the way intelligence should be handled at all. The actions of DOD officials to blindly disregard the red flags over the role played by Mr. Ghorbanifar in these meetings and to wall off the intelligence community from its activities and the information it obtained were improper and demonstrated a fundamental disdain for the intelligence community's role in vetting sensitive sources. The committee's 2004 report presented evidence that the DOD policy office attempted to shape the CIA's terrorism analysis in late 2002, and when it failed, prepared an alternative intelligence analysis attacking the CIA for not embracing a link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So the CIA and the intelligence community were trying to do what they could, and these people were just end-running them because that is what the White House wanted to see. And then, you know, it was a disgrace, an embarrassment to the Nation. The Department of Defense inspector general found himself that these actions were highly inappropriate. Our most recent report shows that these rogue actions of this office were not isolated. The committee's body of work on Iraq-related intelligence--a series of six reports issued over a 4-year period-- demonstrate why congressional oversight is essential in evaluating America's intelligence collection and analytical activities. During the course of its investigation, the committee found that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was based on stale, fragmentary, and speculative intelligence reports and replete with unsupported judgments. Troubling incidents were reported in which internal dissent and warnings about the veracity of intelligence on Iraq were ignored in the rush to get to war. The committee's investigation also revealed how administration officials applied pressure on intelligence analysts prior to the war for them to support links between Iraq and the terrorists responsible for the attacks of September 11, none of which existed. Our investigation detailed how the Iraqi National Congress and Ahmed Chalabi attempted to influence the U.S. policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States at the higher levels that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists and how this false information was embraced despite warnings and fabrication. The committee's investigation also documented for the public how the administration ignored the prewar judgments of the intelligence community that the invasion would destabilize security in Iraq and provide al-Qaida with an opportunity to exploit the situation and increase attacks against U.S. forces during and after the war. After 5 years and the loss of over 4,000 American lives, these ignored judgments were tragically prescient. Overall, the findings and conclusions of the committee's Iraq investigation were an important catalyst in bringing about subsequent legislative and administrative reforms of the intelligence community so that these mistakes will never be repeated again, hopefully. In conclusion, it has been a long, hard road for the committee to get to this point. There have been and continue to be a lot of finger- pointing and accusations of partisanship. It is important to remember that this undertaking was a unanimous decision--phase 1 and phase 2-- was a unanimous decision of the committee in February of 2004. That it took such a long time to do is another subject. It is also important to remember that the committee adopted these two reports, both reports, by a vote of 10 to 5--in other words, bipartisan. In undertaking these additional lines of inquiry, the committee acted to tell a complete story of how intelligence was not only collected and analyzed prior to the Iraq invasions but how it was publicly used in authoritative statements made by the highest officials in the Bush administration in furtherance of its policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein and more. I believe these reports will help answer some of the many lingering questions surrounding the Nation's misguided decision to launch the war in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice of love, respect, and a very deep feeling of comradeship with the good Senator from Wyoming who has died--Senator Thomas. My family has been associated with Wyoming for many years. In a sense, their Senators have been Senators whom we have related to. Senator Thomas, Senator Enzi, now a new Senator, these are people we feel very strongly about. I have particularly strong feelings about both--about Senator Enzi because of his willingness to come to a coal mine in West Virginia and actually write a bill that rewrote 30 years of our mine inspection laws, and Senator Thomas simply because as member of the Finance Committee he was always an even, steady voice--level-headed. You could trust him. He was totally a man of his word, and I will miss him greatly.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I have filed to the underlying Boxer substitute amendment to the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill. I feel very strongly that, in any responsible attempt to address the very real threat of global climate change, one of the very first orders of business must be to ensure that our economy comes out of the process as strong or stronger after the enactment of carbon constraints as beforehand. Our economy, as I have said many times since coming to the U.S. Senate, is inextricably tied to coal. Some may not appreciate it still, or may let it slip to the back of their minds until another tragedy in the coalfields, but the fact is, coal provides about half of all of our electricity. Some months a little more, and some months a little less. But in almost every scientific or economic analysis I have seen, our dependence on coal to keep our economy functioning is going to continue to increase--and this is true even under the aggressive approach of the climate change bill before us. That projected growth in the use of coal probably is a function of long-term economic growth and the relative difficulty and high cost of building generation alternatives. Coal can provide us with many decades--some experts say many centuries--of cheap, reliable, domestic energy. But as this country moves to address climate change, as I fervently believe we must, the future for coal--and I reiterate, the health of the American economy--depends on the ability of our electric utilities to use coal in a cleaner way than ever before, which includes capturing and permanently storing carbon emissions. This is why I am proposing an amendment that will dramatically increase in the size and the scope of the carbon capture and storage, CCS, programs already underway in the Department of Energy. It is my goal with this provision--which will authorize $650 million for CCS research, development, and deployment through the end of fiscal year 2014--that a program already underway, but plagued by much-lower funding that is really required, can move beyond the baby steps currently being taken, and move us closer to a day when coal can deliver on the promise those of us in West Virginia and other coal states have always understood it to have. But my CCS amendment neither begins nor ends with merely increasing funding of current R&D programs. In fact, while I have no doubts about the quality of the work being done by fossil fuel researchers at West Virginia's National Energy Technology Laboratory and their scientific collaborators at West Virginia University, Marshall University, and other fine schools around the country, I am not convinced the bureaucratic nature of DOE is the right or only environment in which to make the best use of the science to bring about the cost-effective, commercial-scale CCS, technologies we know we need. I believe that the men and women working in our National Labs can produce great results, but my grave concern is that government tends to move slowly and simply cannot afford to wait the several decades that are anticipated by the current technology roadmap. That is why I am proposing an additional-- and I believe, transformational--means at arriving at commercial-scale CCS much more rapidly. The cornerstone of this amendment is the creation of a nearly $20 billion quasigovernmental corporation, which I am calling the Future Fuels Corporation. The Future Fuels Corporation is intended to push the environmentally responsible use of coal for electricity and the production of carbon products--transportation fuels and industrial inputs--in a process called ``polygeneration,'' while also moving us further and faster toward a time when commercially viable CCS technologies make using coal, our most abundant domestic fuel source, no more environmentally worrying than deriving electricity from the wind or the sun. What separates the Future Fuels Corporation from other CCS research and demonstration projects, those underway or new programs being proposed as part or in reaction to the underlying bill, is that when the corporation comes into being it will be funded by the Federal Government, but run by an independent board of directors, each of whom is an energy expert in his or her own right. These experts will be nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, but responsible to the taxpayers for realizing the goals of the Future Fuels Corporation without the heavy hand and bureaucratic meddling that can be the unfortunate byproduct of the program administration of any government agency. The Future Fuels Corporation will have to deliver results. The scientists and researchers brought onboard the Future Fuels Corporation will carry out their activities with a ``do it right, but do it fast'' business mindset, and not the measured academic pace of traditional R&D programs that could keep important CCS developments from being realized as fast as we need to have them up and running. I am firm in my belief that the United States must do something significant to slow and ultimately reverse the carbon-induced climate change that an unimpeachable scientific consensus shows us is already happening. We must not hesitate to engage internationally, and when we do, the effort cannot be allowed to let off the hook developing nations that are fast becoming significant sources of atmospheric carbon. Our action must be scientifically justified, but must always acknowledge the economic implications for workers in carbon-intensive industries, and for the poor and middle class families who will find it even harder to pay their bills when carbon constraints raise energy prices. Similarly, we cannot exacerbate the competitive advantage enjoyed by manufacturers in foreign countries. We must aggressively enforce our own trade laws, and address the fact that many of our trade competitors do not regulate carbon. I have serious reservations about the underlying bill. The President quickly issued a veto threat. For myself, I will continue to support procedural votes to keep this debate moving forward, but let me be clear--I cannot support the bill in its current form. My amendment will improve the bill, but I believe the need for major, urgent, front- loaded CCS research, development, and deployment transcends the bill before us. I intend to bring it back on other legislation moving in the future, and we should not hesitate to act on CCS as soon as possible, regardless of the outcome of this debate.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we all know that college can be a wonderful, eventful, and sometimes overwhelming time in the life of a young person. With new doors opening and a plethora of choices ahead, the years that young people devote to their college education shape the person they grow to be. We should all hope that when our loved ones set out on this journey that they encounter role models and mentors like Dr. Jerry Beasley. He has steered Concord University since 1985, in which time he has had an immeasurable impact on the institution and its students. In the time I have been allotted, I cannot do justice to the great service Dr. Beasley has dedicated to Concord University, but through the examples I can provide I hope to at least honor these selected accomplishments. From the beginning of his career at Concord, Dr. Beasley has embodied the university's mission of learning and service. Traditionally, university presidents hold elegant ceremonies and inauguration parties in order to celebrate themselves and their achievements before beginning work. Dr. Beasley is not one of these presidents. He preferred to donate the funds usually allocated for such ceremonies to the support of student scholarships, setting a precedent of selflessness he continued throughout his tenure. He taught his students that giving and service were the foundation of citizenship, and renewing Concord's commitment to social responsibility. As many of you know, access to technology is an issue of particular importance to me. I have committed myself to the enhancement of technology resources for students in West Virginia, a commitment which Dr. Beasley and I share. During his tenure as president and thanks, in part, to his oversight, the $13.9 million Rahall Technology Center is now complete and open for student use. Its 24-hour facilities provide students with access to technology ranging from high-speed internet to computer science courses. Our society today is becoming increasingly dependent on technology. As we become integrated into a global marketplace, the values of knowledge and service have become even more important. The expansion of our resources and influence demands that we all develop a greater understanding of the world we live in and the people we share it with. Under Dr. Beasley's leadership, Concord University has met these challenges headon. The student body has grown significantly reaching an all-time peak enrollment of 3,055 students in the fall of 2001. The student body has also become incredibly diverse, with representatives from 27 States, 22 countries, and the District of Columbia. The diversity of faces and backgrounds at Concord is also complemented by a diverse range of study abroad opportunities, with scholarships available for study in Europe, South America, and around the world. Dr. Beasley not only enhanced the diversity of the Concord student body, but also broadened the resources available on campus. Since the early 1930s, a goal of an interfaith chapel has been kept alive on the Concord campus, but, for many years, the project was left unfinished. Dr. Beasley has shepherded the project, which is now nearing completion. The building will mark not only the campus's concern for multicultural understanding, but also of Dr. Beasley's ambition to this end. Concord University students can now enjoy a wealth of opportunities without fearing the exorbitant financial burdens of education. Financial aid and scholarships are now more available than ever with more than 90 percent of Concord's students receiving some form of educational assistance. Dr. Beasley was instrumental in the effort to bring programs such as the Bonner Scholars program to campus. What I admire the most about Dr. Beasley, though, is his personal commitment to public service, and the inspirational example he has set for his children, his students, and all of us. He has dedicated his career to improving education, and for that we owe him our sincerest thanks. Dr. Beasley, I am very grateful for your contributions to Concord University, and I wish you well in a peaceful retirement.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 6, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Holocaust era insurance restitution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. select committee on intelligence

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the nomination of Michael E. Leiter to be Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 6, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Seizing the New Opportunity for Health Reform''.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Policing Lenders and Protecting Homeowners: Is Misconduct in Bankruptcy Fueling the Foreclosure Crisis?'' on Tuesday, May 6, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD- 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would ask the Senator to modify his request and include an amendment which includes all of the provisions of my pending amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is an interesting situation in which we find ourselves today. I guess I have to say last week was the most frustrating week I have spent in the Senate in my 24 years here. We are discussing an aviation bill which has highway provisions. We are discussing, for example, in the Presiding Officer's State, the need for essential air service, shown by its loss of Frontier Airlines, and my State there is a similar situation and other States are in similar situations. We are also talking about the fact that airlines are not being run in a safe enough manner. We are talking about the fact that we are just behind Mongolia in terms of our air traffic control system, in terms of its relevance to the modern age. It is a very scary situation. Last week, we did not hold a single vote. We were on the aviation bill all week, but we did not have a single vote on aviation. I find that interesting, and I find it profoundly depressing, and, to a certain extent, it defines what the American people find so inadequate about Congress or, in this case, the Senate. We have ideas, people work very hard, they work long hours, staff works particularly long hours, we negotiate, Members negotiate, we come to what we think is an agreement, and then days go by and nothing happens. I repeat, I have never been through a situation where we have been on a bill which is this important and where 1 billion passengers are going to be using this air traffic system in 2015 and they are going to be using it on basically a ``Polaroid camera'' technology system. We have not had crashes. We did have one in Kentucky, but it is a little bit similar to post-9/11: Unless you have crashes that attract lots of cameras, people begin to lose interest. If there is anything not to lose interest in, it is not only the war on terror, but it is also aviation safety. I repeat, we had all last week devoted to the aviation bill. We had one vote over the course of 5 days. That vote was a procedural vote-- not the kind of thing that raises you out of your seat with excitement. Other than that, we did not vote on one aviation issue for the entire week. When Senator Lott and I began this process a long time ago, we operated in a completely bipartisan manner. Senator Hutchison and myself were doing the same thing. We wanted to work together. We had worked together before on the aviation subcommittee. We had operated in a bipartisan manner. Senator Reid wanted to bring the FAA reauthorization bill to the floor. It was timely. It was important. I worked very hard, from my point of view, to compromise. I have a very large problem with the fact that high-end corporate jets and personal jets that may have one or two people on them, plus stacks of sandwiches and goodies, take the same amount of time for the air traffic controllers to navigate through the skies as some airplane that have 300 people aboard. A plane which is headed somewhere in America with people who have all kinds of work they have to do. Some are on vacation, because we are at that time of year, but most people are traveling because they have to travel--they have to go to a meeting, they have to be somewhere, they have to visit somebody sick in their family. What is interesting is the general aviation community is paying for about 3 percent of the entire cost of the air traffic control system--3 percent, which means the commercial airlines are paying 97 percent. Yet the general aviation community dominates the skies at any given moment. There are an average of 36,000 planes in the skies during the day, and two-thirds of them are likely to be general aviation. Of course, as soon as I said that, every Senator got 1,500 telephone calls from high-end jet users. I was on the Commerce Committee. We had to work this out with the Finance Committee. I worked with the Finance Committee, and we came up with a system that didn't put that kind of burden on the general aviation system. My provision, which they said was really quite a horrendous thing to consider, was when a 737 or GV or GVIII takes off, they have to pay a $25 fee. If they flew to Bonn, which has this system already, obviously--all of Europe does--if they returned, they would have to pay another $25 fee. That would be a total of $50. They began to talk about the end of general aviation as we know it. I stood back, aghast, at the sense of perspective in all of this. What they very well know is in general aviation we excluded 90 percent of all general aviation aircraft from this provision--crop dusters in Montana up to King Airs, everything was excluded; everything. Single- engine planes that doctors and lawyers fly to calm their nerves and get their heads in order--all those are excluded. Only the high-end jets-- rich people, big corporations, big planes getting the full attention of the air traffic control system would have had to pay the fee in my provision. I negotiated this provision with Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee. He had a different perspective on this issue. Because he has superb staff and he himself is very good, I understood I was not going to get anywhere with my approach--which is a very small, little item in all of this. So I backed off from my approach and I eliminated this horrendous, Draconian, Attila the Hun-type $25 fee that it would actually take should the Presiding Officer own a G-8, that he wouldn't have to pay that. He simply would not have to pay that. He could just go right off and fly to Bonn and not pay that $25. So I backed off on that. Then everything began to come together, and I was really encouraged that the full Senate could reach an agreement once the Commerce and Finance Committee bills were reconciled, and this appeared to be happening. But, on the other hand, there were other issues, so I got together with Senator Hutchison, and our staffs got together. Actually, it was Leader Reid who came up with a very smart idea. The idea, Senator Hutchison told me, was of interest to her. She said that sounds pretty good. It was the following: All aviation taxes, keep them but raise nothing on commercial airlines. Why? Because you have to hold them harmless because they are broke--some are in chapter 11, some in chapter 7--whatever it is they are in a mess. Keep the highway funding provisions. There are those who believe it is pretty important. It creates a lot of jobs. But strike the tax increases to pay for the highway funding, to use general funds--revenues to pay for highway spending. Keep the bonds for New York. Keep railroad bonds. Strike tax increases to pay for bonds. We take sort of the extraneous financial parts of the aviation bill, which do not deal directly with aviation--and therefore you could say: What are we doing this for? You know you want money in the highway trust fund. I do. We do in West Virginia. The Presiding Officer's people do in Montana. We agreed to say, as we did with the alternative minimum tax--the Republicans voting along with that--that we would do these things, but we would not pay for them. That warmed my heart because it struck me that we were approaching a deal. Then we agreed--that is, between Senator Hutchison and myself--to strike the pension provision, which affected American Airlines and a couple of others, on the basis that it was already settled law. It had been settled last year. It was the law of the land, and you don't just remove it. Then there was kind of a return offer. It started out with no New York bonds. The New York bonds are in the President's budget. They are part of the commitment the U.S. Government and the President of the United States made to the State of New York after the 9/11 attacks. So that seemed to be something that could be done. But a lot of people, evidently, don't like New York--it would appear to be that way--so they said we have to get rid of those New York things. They also wanted to change the railroad bonds from tax credit bonds to tax-exempt bonds. That is cheaper. Maybe we can live with that. Working with Finance, we could likely work out a deal on railroad bonds, though railroads are not aviation, but they are a serious matter. That would probably be worked out. However, New York bonds we were told are simply off the table. That will affect rather deeply one New York Senator I can think of, who has a way of expressing himself quite strongly on this issue. But other than that, it seemed to me that everything could get pretty well worked out. The problem was I had not heard from Senator Hutchison, and none of my staff had. We didn't really know, therefore, what she was thinking. She had said: That seems like a pretty good idea. Then we get back this other proposal, which complicates things. Now I understand that Senator Hutchison, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, are in conversation. I pray--I earnestly pray that they are in conversation right now about what to do about this because I really don't want to spend the next week not voting, and I really don't want to come to a cloture vote this afternoon which cannot possibly pass because, in more or less uniform fashion, the other party votes against it. That is my sense of where we are at the moment. A number of people have come down and spoken about the bill. They have spoken usefully. But the important thing was that we chose not to act. We simply chose not to act. I reiterated that our aviation system is on the brink of collapse. Our air traffic system cannot handle the burdens of today, much less tomorrow. I repeat my oft-used example of landing at Washington National Airport the other day and it was just wall-to-wall people, from one end of the airport to the other. I really couldn't figure that out what it would look like in about 5 more years and when we were soon going to have 300 or 400 million more people using this airport. What would it look like? How could it expand? What do air traffic control people do? In the meantime, the commercial airline industry is losing billions of dollars, and the increasing cost of fuel could force additional bankruptcies, and that means even more widespread job losses. If we do not pass this bill, essential air service disappears. Airport improvement development programs, which all rural States depend on with every fiber in their body, will disappear. And our constituents whom, the last I heard, we represent, we would be saying to them: You go ahead and wait for 9 hours or 2 days, a lot of cancellations, and that is really OK because we can't agree as between the two sides. I am boggled by the concept of us ignoring a problem so huge for so long--just in the past week, much less in the last 10 to 15 years. Compromise is the essence of the Senate. I had hoped and I truly believed that we could make the necessary compromises to move this bill. I still hope that. I am always optimistic. I compromised, as I said, on what are to me a number of really basic core issues in order to move this important legislation forward. Senator Baucus and I had a number of serious policy differences over how to fund the modernization of our air traffic control system, but because of the urgency of the legislation and our good working relationship, we reached agreement. Why? Because we had to. I only wish our colleagues shared this sense of urgency. People sometimes have their particular parts of a bill which they raise to sort of a sainted status. They are called amendments. And if you are a floor manager of a bill, you are trying to pass a bill. On the other hand, if you are an individual Member of the Senate and you have a particular issue that you care about and you put it up as an amendment, and it becomes your bill. Actually, it is an amendment, but if that amendment passes and it is not agreeable to others, then the whole bill fails. That is not the way democracy is meant to work. Now, I have very high regard for Senator Hutchison, and I really do believe we can work out all of the aviation-related amendments to this bill in a bipartisan fashion. I will not give up on that. I never give up on anything. We cannot work out the disagreements over nonaviation issues but, then again, maybe we can. As I have indicated, I will come back to this bill at a moment's notice. It should not take a crisis or a major accident, a bankruptcy that strands tens of thousands of passengers, or a long hot summer for this bill to be considered. I will say also that Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens want to continue this as soon as we can. So I do urge my colleagues to take the long view. At the appropriate time I will urge them to vote for cloture. In the mean time, I stand here as manager of the bill without much going on. And I have gotten accustomed to that, but I have not gotten to like it any more. There are no amusing aspects to it nor, most importantly, for the airlines and the people who travel on them. So since I am here alone, and not challenged by any others, I will continue to make some other remarks, and I will talk about aviation safety because I haven't sufficiently had an opportunity to discuss this. It is a speech that I would either give this afternoon or this morning. So why not give it this morning when I am sure I can give it all. Aviation safety provisions are obviously at the core of our legislation to reauthorize the FAA and are fundamental to the public's faith in our aviation system. The FAA is responsible for overseeing the largest and most complex aviation system in the entire world. I am proud to say our country is a global leader in aviation safety. But as I have cautioned before over the last months, that reputation has come under serious doubt and there are always numbers to be looked at underneath--you know, a number of accidents, and the FAA's lax oversight of Southwest Airlines has cast a serious pall over the agency's ability to execute its core mission. Around that is the safety of the Nation's aviation system. Unfortunately, the agency's casual oversight of Southwest does not appear to be an isolated incident, despite the agency's claims to the contrary. Just the other day the front pages of our Nation's newspapers described another potential FAA coverup, this time on runway safety violations. And nobody has thought about that very much. That simply is airplanes taxiing on runways either to get to the terminal, or to get away from the terminal, and to get into the air. So air traffic controllers do not just look up in the sky, they have to look down on the runways. I know the FAA states it is working to address each new problem that becomes public. But with each new story, we have more questions than answers about the agency's commitment to the ability to address pressing safety issues. At an aviation subcommittee hearing several weeks ago on this issue, I called for the Secretary of Transportation and the White House to engage on this issue. And I would actually make a point here. I am not aware of any White House involvement on any of these issues about aviation at any point. I have not talked to anybody from the White House nor has any staff. They are just watching it happen. There is a pattern to this, but the pattern in this case is a cruel one because it is sort of deliberately condemning. I think it is fairly well understood that much of what happens on the Senate floor emanates from directions from the White House. So I call for the Secretary of Transportation and the White House to engage on the issue. The administration issued a number of statements and committed to undertaking serious review of the FAA's safety oversight. I am still not convinced it appreciates the severity of the challenges facing the FAA. I get the distinct impression the changes the FAA implemented are in response to our actions in the Congress. I still need reassurances that the senior leadership at the FAA, the DOT, and the White House itself recognize the extent of the FAA's problems and are committed to rectifying them. I do not think that is unreasonable. This is a massive national problem which people take for granted, but they cannot anymore because the system is collapsing. I know many in the FAA and the industry cite the fact that there has not been a fatal airline accident in almost 2 years, and that statistically this is the safest time in the history of aviation to fly. That is the kind of statement, as soon as I hear it, I automatically start having darker thoughts because it is much too simplistic and optimistic a statement to make under any situation. They happen to be correct, statistically. I still want to believe and be certain that the United States has the safest and best air transportation system in the world. Although the United States has not experienced a tragic accident since August 2006, the fatal crash of a commuter carrier in Lexington, KY, our aviation nevertheless has experienced a disturbing number of significant safety lapses. Any safety lapse is either inches or feet or seconds away from becoming a tragedy. Although the FAA's oversight of airline maintenance has dominated the newspapers and the question of whether their maintenance should be done offshore, without particularly rigorous oversight, the number of serious runway incursions remains unacceptably high and, as the General Accountability Office has stated, they are trending in a troubling direction. I love that phrase, ``trending in a troubling direction,'' which, out of a Government agency, means that you are approaching catastrophe. As I have said, having the safest system in the world does not mean it is safe enough. I am deeply concerned that the risk of a catastrophic accident is increasing rather than decreasing. We have all read the stories of near misses at our Nation's airports. Let's be honest. Had it not been for the quick thinking and actions of a few controllers and pilots, our Nation would have had at least one if not several major accidents claiming the lives of hundreds of people. I do not mean to be overly dramatic or to scare the public, but I am growing increasingly concerned that our aviation system is operating on borrowed time. A National Transportation Safety Board member testified before our aviation subcommittee of the Commerce Committee earlier this month, and he stated he believed the next major aviation accident would not likely be in the sky, or some plane crashing into a mountain, it would take place on a runway. That would be the next major accident. Many, including myself, have criticized the agency for being too close to the industry it regulates. Now, that is an easy statement on my part to make, and not fair in its entirety because we have some very good inspectors. We have some very good people in the industry that are trying, and then there are probably weaknesses on both sides. There certainly are weaknesses on both sides. In 1996, to stave off efforts to privatize the FAA Congress accepted at that time a provision from both Democratic and Republican administrations so they could operate the FAA more like a business. We gave the agency special authority so it could run more like a private entity. The theory was that by running it like a business, it would cost less to operate. We must recognize that the FAA is not a business; it is a Government agency paid for by the people who it may or may not be protecting. The FAA does not provide commercial services, it provides public goods, and they are called air traffic control, aircraft certification, and safety oversight. We, that is the taxpayers of the United States, pay taxes for these services. This is not a private enterprise matter. We need to start thinking about this agency very differently. That is not meant to diminish the people who work for the FAA or run the agency. This is simply a challenge for policymakers. I believe it is a challenge that this bill begins to address. The Aviation Investment Modernization Act provides the FAA with additional needed resources to do a lot of things. First and foremost, we authorize 200 more safety inspectors. I do not know if that is enough; it probably is not, but the FAA has always been overlooked. It is like the Veterans' Administration which was overlooked until somebody wrote a story in the Washington Post that took this Congress and just shook it from head to toe. We will never be the same again with respect to veterans, at least I pray that we will not. I do not believe we will. So the Appropriations Committee has already substantially increased FAA funding for inspectors for this fiscal year. And this bill will give the ability to do more in subsequent years because it is a multiyear bill. I want to take a few minutes and outline the safety provisions in the bill that I believe will strengthen the FAA's oversight of airlines. It makes sure the FAA's voluntary disclosure reporting process requires that inspectors verify that the airlines actually took the corrective actions they stated they would. That is like a teacher correcting a math test. It is one thing to take a math test; it is another thing to have it looked at and graded. You find out whether you passed. It is very sensitive. It would evaluate if the air carrier had offered a comprehensive solution before accepting the disclosure and confirms that the corrective action is completed and adequately addresses the problem disclosed. That is sensible. That is in the bill. That is in the bill on which we did not have a single vote all last week, except for one procedural one. It implements a process or second-level supervisory review of self- disclosures before they are accepted and closed. Acceptance would not rest solely with one inspector. This is an important statement. So you do not get coziness; inspectors change. It revises the FAA's postemployment guidance to require a cooling off period of 2 years before an FAA inspector is hired at an air carrier he or she had previously inspected. While we do that increasingly, I cannot think of a more important place to do it than in the FAA safety inspections. It implements a process to track field office inspectors and alert the local, regional, and headquarters offices to overdue inspections. One of the problems is people get way behind on inspections, the airlines do. The FAA does a lot of paperwork. All of the problems with an underfunded agency, which we in the Congress and administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have tended to put in a secondary category. The process must incorporate something called ATOS, the Air Transportation Oversight System, reviews to determine full compliance with air worthiness directives at a carrier over a 5-year period that incorporates physical inspection of the sample of their aircrafts. It establishes an independent review through the Government Accountability Office to review and investigate air safety issues identified by its employees. This develops a new review team under the supervision of the Department of Transportation inspector general; that is, the DOT IG who conducts periodic reviews of FAA oversight of air carriers. It requires a comprehensive review of the FAA Academy and facility training efforts to clarify responsibility and oversight of the program at the national level and establishes standards to identify the acceptable number of developmental controllers at each facility. That is not a Shakespearean paragraph, but I hope the Presiding Officer and the ranking member of the Finance Committee understand what I am saying. As a recent New York Times article said: One of the most critical challenges in aviation safety is improving safety conditions on our nation's runways. I am back at them. Over the past year, we have seen a marked increase in the number of serious misses on our Nation's increasingly crowded runways. Again, this legislation includes provisions to reduce the number of runway incursions. It does so in the following manner: First, the bill requires that the FAA develop a plan for reduction of runway incursions through a review of all commercial airports and establishes a process for tracking and investigating both runway incursions and operational errors that includes random auditing of the oversight process. That is not Shakespearean either, but it is precisely accurate, and it is what needs to be done. It directs the FAA to create a plan for the deployment of an alert system designed to reduce near misses. This alert system must notify both air traffic controllers and flight crews about potential runway incursions. The establishment of this system is one of the NTSB's highest aviation safety priorities. In addition, the bill requires a number of other safety provisions, including a provision to reduce the flammability of airplane fuel tanks. This was identified as the direct cause of the TWA 800 crash which occurred over a decade ago. I know the issue is a priority for Senator Schumer. Improving the safety of our Nation's aviation system is one of the most paramount objectives of this bill. I believe we have made substantial progress with respect to this objective. I look forward to further debate on the safety provisions, as Senators come to the floor. I welcome any input that might improve these sections of the bill, but even more importantly, that might actually get us to a point where we can vote on a bill. I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.