Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help America's manufacturers compete on even terms with foreign manufacturers. For generations, American manufacturing has been a tremendous source of pride and a ladder to the middle class. Unfortunately, over the last several years, the manufacturing sector of our economy has suffered disproportionately and millions of good jobs have been lost. In my home State of West Virginia, well over 10,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001. Workers and manufacturers in all of our States have found it increasingly difficult to compete in today's global markets, when the odds are stacked against them because of unfair trading practices. American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it's a fair fight. Our domestic and international trade laws were set up to establish a level playing field, but unfortunately some of our trading partners have repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws in order to gain an unfair advantage in trade with the United States. This has led to our record-breaking--and still growing--trade deficits, which threaten the long-term health of our economy, and have contributed to the migration of manufacturing jobs to factories overseas. This is an enormous problem that the United States must face and conquer. A large part of the problem in recent years is that the Bush Administration has not been an aggressive enforcer of U.S. domestic trade laws. It has also failed to successfully advocate for U.S. interests in the multilateral dispute settlement setting. The bill I introduce today, the Strengthening America's Trade Law Act of 2007, will improve our ability to correct deficiencies in four areas of U.S. trade policy: first, it will address problems in the U.S. approach to the WTO Dispute Settlement process; second, it will strengthen antidumping remedies, third, it will expand the reach of countervailing duties, and fourth, it will remove the President's discretion to disregard the recommendations of the International Trade Commission in certain circumstances. The steel industry is perhaps the best-known example of how our trade laws can help or hurt domestic industry when it is injured by unfair foreign trade practices, but industries from timber to chinaware to candlemaking are all too familiar with this point. This bill contains a number of provisions that would provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law. The United States would remain fully compliant with its obligations in the World Trade Organization under this legislation. Let me briefly describe what this bill will do to level the playing field for American manufacturers. Title I of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act bolsters the United States' position in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. The dispute settlement system set up in 1994 upon the creation of the WTO was intended to establish a rules-based system of enforcing trade agreements. However, recent cases involving U.S. application of its laws regarding import surges, anti-dumping and countervailing duties have raised concerns about the fairness of the system. To address these concerns, Title I allows the direct participation in WTO dispute settlement proceedings of the U.S. business and trade associations that are directly affected by these proceedings, which would improve the prospects of zealous advocacy on behalf of U.S. interests at stake. It also creates a Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement that would analyze WTO decisions that are adverse to the United States, report to Congress on the propriety of the decisions and provide guidance for how the Congress might proceed in responding to adverse decisions. Title I also requires Congressional approval of all measures taken by the U.S. government to comply with adverse decisions. In most cases, compliance with an adverse WTO decision calls for legislative changes, but in some cases such as the recent case involving ``zeroing'' on dumping determinations, the Bush Administration has determined that the United States can comply with the adverse decision through regulatory changes such as altering the methodology through which the Commerce Department calculates the dumping margin. This provision of my trade bill would prevent the Administration from side-stepping Congress in determining how to respond to an adverse decision in the WTO. Congressional oversight is an important element of our trade policy, and these provisions would help restore it. Title II of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act tightens the rules in anti-dumping cases in favor of the petitioning domestic industry and makes it harder for dumping countries and businesses to circumvent the rules. Additionally, it applies a stricter methodology for determining the market value of goods from countries designated as ``nonmarket economies'' (NMEs). These countries presently include small former Soviet republics such as Turkmenistan and Georgia, and also large U.S. trading partners such as China. These NME designations are an important element of U.S. trade policy, and Title II gives Congress the ability to approve or disapprove any change in a country's NME status. Title II also overrules the recent decision by the Federal Circuit in the Bratsk case, which inappropriately added a new requirement not presently included in our anti-dumping laws, namely that ITC anti- dumping investigations must include evaluating the role of imports that are not actually subject to the investigation. This speculative element is not part of the investigation process that Congress mandated the ITC to follow in anti-dumping cases, and my bill would remove this judicially-added requirement that was never a part of our trade remedy law. Title III of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act expands the reach of countervailing duties (CVDs) in order to address two significant sources of unfair trade: China's artificially undervalued currency, and the disparate treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners. Unlike anti-dumping duties, CVDs have not been applied against imports from NME countries like China, leaving a huge hole in the trade remedies available to U.S. manufacturers who are competing against subsidized imports from China. This bill explicitly makes CVDs applicable to NME countries, and it and provides a methodology for determining subsidy levels in NMEs that is similar to the methodology for determining fair market value in anti-dumping investigations regarding NME countries. Next, Title III designates currency exchange rate manipulation as a subsidy that can be addressed by application of CVDs. It is well known that China's government pegs its currency's value to the value of a ``basket'' of currencies including the dollar rather than allowing the value to be determined freely in currency exchange markets. This practice keeps China's currency artificially low, boosting Chinese exports and protecting Chinese domestic industry from imports. In December, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called this practice what it is, an ``effective subsidy.'' This provision of Title III would allow the U.S. government to apply our CVD law to this subsidy. Title III also contains a vital provision that would lead to the possible future use of CVDs as a remedy for the differential treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners. WTO rules provide that rebates on ``direct'' taxes such as income, employment, and real estate taxes constitute subsidies, whereas rebates on ``indirect taxes'' such as sales and VAT taxes are not subsidies. This puts U.S. producers at a significant disadvantage to producers in countries that use value-added tax (VAT) systems. Over 135 U.S. trading partners use VAT taxes for a significant amount of their revenue, and when U.S. exports enter a VAT tax country, they are subject to the importing country's VAT tax, whereas U.S. imports from a VAT tax country are not subject to the producing country's VAT tax. This unfair tax treatment constitutes both a hidden import duty for U.S. exports and a hidden export subsidy for VAT tax country products entering the United States. This provision of Title III would push the USTR to negotiate this issue to a satisfactory conclusion within the next two years. Failing such negotiations, it would designate this differential treatment a countervailable subsidy which would then be subject to CVDs. Finally, Title IV of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act would remove Presidential discretion to ignore the recommendations of the ITC in safeguard cases regarding China, or so-called ``Section 421'' cases. Section 421 of the legislation that provided for China's accession to the WTO is a ``safeguard'' provision that provides for temporary relief from surges of imports that have caused injury to domestic industry. There are a number of recent examples of President Bush's failure to take action in cases in which the ITC has recommended ``safeguard'' relief most notably on December 30, 2005, when he denied the relief that the ITC had recommended for U.S. steel pipe and tube manufacturers in the face of a surge of imports from China. Title IV would ensure that such denials do not happen in the future by removing Presidential discretion in applying safeguard measures in cases involving imports from China and instead making the findings and recommendations of the ITC the final word on the matter. The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act will provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law and a more level playing field for U.S. workers and manufacturers in an increasingly competitive global economy. I commend it to my colleagues and urge them to join me in pushing for its swift enactment. Congress has sat on the sidelines for too long as our country's finest manufacturers have been dealt blow after blow. This bill will not solve the trade deficit alone, but it is a reasonable start. I am going to ask my leadership, in my caucus and on the Finance Committee, to work with me on this legislation, and I look forward to joining forces with my allies on the other side of the aisle to move this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help America's manufacturers compete on even terms with foreign manufacturers. For generations, American manufacturing has been a tremendous source of pride and a ladder to the middle class. Unfortunately, over the last several years, the manufacturing sector of our economy has suffered disproportionately and millions of good jobs have been lost. In my home State of West Virginia, well over 10,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001. Workers and manufacturers in all of our States have found it increasingly difficult to compete in today's global markets, when the odds are stacked against them because of unfair trading practices. American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it's a fair fight. Our domestic and international trade laws were set up to establish a level playing field, but unfortunately some of our trading partners have repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws in order to gain an unfair advantage in trade with the United States. This has led to our record-breaking--and still growing--trade deficits, which threaten the long-term health of our economy, and have contributed to the migration of manufacturing jobs to factories overseas. This is an enormous problem that the United States must face and conquer. A large part of the problem in recent years is that the Bush Administration has not been an aggressive enforcer of U.S. domestic trade laws. It has also failed to successfully advocate for U.S. interests in the multilateral dispute settlement setting. The bill I introduce today, the Strengthening America's Trade Law Act of 2007, will improve our ability to correct deficiencies in four areas of U.S. trade policy: first, it will address problems in the U.S. approach to the WTO Dispute Settlement process; second, it will strengthen antidumping remedies, third, it will expand the reach of countervailing duties, and fourth, it will remove the President's discretion to disregard the recommendations of the International Trade Commission in certain circumstances. The steel industry is perhaps the best-known example of how our trade laws can help or hurt domestic industry when it is injured by unfair foreign trade practices, but industries from timber to chinaware to candlemaking are all too familiar with this point. This bill contains a number of provisions that would provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law. The United States would remain fully compliant with its obligations in the World Trade Organization under this legislation. Let me briefly describe what this bill will do to level the playing field for American manufacturers. Title I of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act bolsters the United States' position in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. The dispute settlement system set up in 1994 upon the creation of the WTO was intended to establish a rules-based system of enforcing trade agreements. However, recent cases involving U.S. application of its laws regarding import surges, anti-dumping and countervailing duties have raised concerns about the fairness of the system. To address these concerns, Title I allows the direct participation in WTO dispute settlement proceedings of the U.S. business and trade associations that are directly affected by these proceedings, which would improve the prospects of zealous advocacy on behalf of U.S. interests at stake. It also creates a Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement that would analyze WTO decisions that are adverse to the United States, report to Congress on the propriety of the decisions and provide guidance for how the Congress might proceed in responding to adverse decisions. Title I also requires Congressional approval of all measures taken by the U.S. government to comply with adverse decisions. In most cases, compliance with an adverse WTO decision calls for legislative changes, but in some cases such as the recent case involving ``zeroing'' on dumping determinations, the Bush Administration has determined that the United States can comply with the adverse decision through regulatory changes such as altering the methodology through which the Commerce Department calculates the dumping margin. This provision of my trade bill would prevent the Administration from side-stepping Congress in determining how to respond to an adverse decision in the WTO. Congressional oversight is an important element of our trade policy, and these provisions would help restore it. Title II of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act tightens the rules in anti-dumping cases in favor of the petitioning domestic industry and makes it harder for dumping countries and businesses to circumvent the rules. Additionally, it applies a stricter methodology for determining the market value of goods from countries designated as ``nonmarket economies'' (NMEs). These countries presently include small former Soviet republics such as Turkmenistan and Georgia, and also large U.S. trading partners such as China. These NME designations are an important element of U.S. trade policy, and Title II gives Congress the ability to approve or disapprove any change in a country's NME status. Title II also overrules the recent decision by the Federal Circuit in the Bratsk case, which inappropriately added a new requirement not presently included in our anti-dumping laws, namely that ITC anti- dumping investigations must include evaluating the role of imports that are not actually subject to the investigation. This speculative element is not part of the investigation process that Congress mandated the ITC to follow in anti-dumping cases, and my bill would remove this judicially-added requirement that was never a part of our trade remedy law. Title III of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act expands the reach of countervailing duties (CVDs) in order to address two significant sources of unfair trade: China's artificially undervalued currency, and the disparate treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners. Unlike anti-dumping duties, CVDs have not been applied against imports from NME countries like China, leaving a huge hole in the trade remedies available to U.S. manufacturers who are competing against subsidized imports from China. This bill explicitly makes CVDs applicable to NME countries, and it and provides a methodology for determining subsidy levels in NMEs that is similar to the methodology for determining fair market value in anti-dumping investigations regarding NME countries. Next, Title III designates currency exchange rate manipulation as a subsidy that can be addressed by application of CVDs. It is well known that China's government pegs its currency's value to the value of a ``basket'' of currencies including the dollar rather than allowing the value to be determined freely in currency exchange markets. This practice keeps China's currency artificially low, boosting Chinese exports and protecting Chinese domestic industry from imports. In December, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called this practice what it is, an ``effective subsidy.'' This provision of Title III would allow the U.S. government to apply our CVD law to this subsidy. Title III also contains a vital provision that would lead to the possible future use of CVDs as a remedy for the differential treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners. WTO rules provide that rebates on ``direct'' taxes such as income, employment, and real estate taxes constitute subsidies, whereas rebates on ``indirect taxes'' such as sales and VAT taxes are not subsidies. This puts U.S. producers at a significant disadvantage to producers in countries that use value-added tax (VAT) systems. Over 135 U.S. trading partners use VAT taxes for a significant amount of their revenue, and when U.S. exports enter a VAT tax country, they are subject to the importing country's VAT tax, whereas U.S. imports from a VAT tax country are not subject to the producing country's VAT tax. This unfair tax treatment constitutes both a hidden import duty for U.S. exports and a hidden export subsidy for VAT tax country products entering the United States. This provision of Title III would push the USTR to negotiate this issue to a satisfactory conclusion within the next two years. Failing such negotiations, it would designate this differential treatment a countervailable subsidy which would then be subject to CVDs. Finally, Title IV of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act would remove Presidential discretion to ignore the recommendations of the ITC in safeguard cases regarding China, or so-called ``Section 421'' cases. Section 421 of the legislation that provided for China's accession to the WTO is a ``safeguard'' provision that provides for temporary relief from surges of imports that have caused injury to domestic industry. There are a number of recent examples of President Bush's failure to take action in cases in which the ITC has recommended ``safeguard'' relief most notably on December 30, 2005, when he denied the relief that the ITC had recommended for U.S. steel pipe and tube manufacturers in the face of a surge of imports from China. Title IV would ensure that such denials do not happen in the future by removing Presidential discretion in applying safeguard measures in cases involving imports from China and instead making the findings and recommendations of the ITC the final word on the matter. The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act will provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law and a more level playing field for U.S. workers and manufacturers in an increasingly competitive global economy. I commend it to my colleagues and urge them to join me in pushing for its swift enactment. Congress has sat on the sidelines for too long as our country's finest manufacturers have been dealt blow after blow. This bill will not solve the trade deficit alone, but it is a reasonable start. I am going to ask my leadership, in my caucus and on the Finance Committee, to work with me on this legislation, and I look forward to joining forces with my allies on the other side of the aisle to move this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the 109th Congress wraps up its final session, I want to note my disappointment that the current leadership decided not to work on all 10 of the appropriations bills that remain undone. Congress is adjourning and walking away with much of our work incomplete. It is irresponsible and wrong. We should have stayed and made the tough decisions to get the appropriations done. The Federal budget is due October 1. We missed that deadline, as we have often in recent years. The leadership adjourned for the elections, and when we returned the leadership lacked the will and determination to finish the appropriations bill. Many individuals Senators, including me, would have stayed and worked hard to get the job done. But we were overridden. Failure to enact the appropriations in a timely manner hurts programs because administrators cannot plan and they cannot hire staff in a timely manner. This can create real problems in our VA hospitals, our Head Start agencies and the clinics funded by the Maternal and child health block grant. This year, instead of doing our work, the congressional leaders are punting the tough budget decisions into the next year and the next Congress. On February 15, 2007, when the continuing resolution, CR, expires, agencies will have been operating for 4\1/2\ months under a CR which represents more than a third of the fiscal year. This imposes burdens and hardships on the people that our agencies of Government serve. It is failure of leadership. The Coalition of Human Needs has done some estimates about these cuts and their effects since 2002. Their analysis highlights that over time 72 programs of direct services have been cut when inflation is considered. Inflation erodes buying power over time, and it makes a stark difference in what services needy children and families receive. The coalition reports that 35 programs were cut by 10 percent or more, including essential programs like family violence, maternal and child health block grant, and Even Start, the early education component of Head Start. Such cuts are harsh and, in my view, shortsighted. Investments in our children's health care and education are downpayments for our future. Housing programs, economic development investments in water and sewer projects, and basic funding for local law enforcement, along with a host of other programs will be put on hold for the next 9 weeks. I wish this were not the case, but sadly it is. My hope for the new Congress and the new leadership is that we will get the job done. I am proud to note that the leaders for the 110th Congress, which begins on January 4, 2007, have already announced their commitment to strike a new tone and to unite the interest of the American people. I will work with our leaders to get our work done for the families in West Virginia and across our country.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my colleagues for their tireless efforts on behalf of children, and I look forward to working with both of them to address the remaining shortfalls early next year.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, I would like to begin by thanking you for your efforts to address the impending Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, shortfalls as part of this end-of-the-year package. As many as 17 States face the prospect of not having enough Federal CHIP dollars to cover the children currently enrolled in their programs. Estimates by the Congressional Research Service and others indicate that these shortfalls will total approximately $920 million next year and could put the health care coverage of as many as 630,000 children in jeopardy. This compromise, struck between you, Congressman Barton, and Congressman Dingell, while not 100 percent of what everybody wanted, takes a significant step toward addressing that problem.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Your comments are helpful because I think Members are concerned that accepting this CHIP shortfalls proposal means they will be giving tacit approval to other provisions in the bill that they don't really support--such as decreasing the CHIP allotment from 3 years to 2\1/2\ years, or putting restrictions on how States can use the redistributed money, for example. But what I hear both of you saying, I think, is that the CHIP provisions in this package are causing a little bit of pain for everyone, but that the benefits of getting something done now far outweigh the downsides and that nothing in this CHIP package binds us as we move to reauthorize the program next year.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to support the legislation before the Senate today. As often happens at the end of a Congress, the leadership has negotiated a large and complicated bill to tie up many loose ends. And I believe that on balance this is a very good bill. While I am disappointed in some aspects of this agreement, I understand that, when legislating, hard compromises sometimes have to be made. I recognize how difficult it was for us to get this far. I want to thank the leadership, and especially Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus, our ranking member and incoming chairman, for working so hard and so long to protect the Senate's interests in very difficult and often frustrating negotiations. They were fierce negotiators, and they made sure that we would be voting on a bill that a substantial majority in the Senate can support. It was no easy feat given the circumstances and sometimes bitter disagreements between the two Houses, and at times, between Members. The leaders of the Finance Committee deserve enormous credit. This bill includes a critical Coal Act and AML reform provision. And I would like to take just a few minutes to explain to my colleagues what this provision is all about. It is about protecting the health benefits of tens of thousands of retired coalminers and their widows who were promised lifetime health benefits by their companies and by their Government. It is about keeping a promise to the men and women who have sacrificed themselves to fuel our Nation's economic growth and continued prosperity. Historically, coal miners have bargained for their health benefits at the expense of other pension benefits and salaries because they have long known the grave toll that coal mining takes on a person's health and safety. This year's tragic and record string of mine deaths shows that remains true today. More than 50,000 coal miner retirees and their aged widows, average age of nearly 80, are counting on the health benefits that are protected in the Coal Act and AML reform provision. These coal miner retirees live in nearly every State of the Union, and they still believe that the promise of their health benefits will and should be kept. So do I. This reform will stabilize the coal miners' health funds and give retired miners some peace of mind that they will not face cuts in the health benefits on which they depend. That means the world to me. And Dixie Woolum, and the thousands and thousands of other retired miners and widows in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana--all across this Nation--deserve that peace of mind. They have had to bear so much in the coalfields, for so long. They deserve this peace of mind. They earned it. Specifically, the coal miners' health funds--the combined benefit fund, the 92 fund and the 93 fund--will receive annual transfers of monies from the interest on the AML trust fund, paid for by the coal companies. I think that is only fair. Before these changes, only the combined benefit and 92 fund could receive AML interest money to help compensate for its shortfalls--and the administration wrongly interpreted the original Coal Act to cap that amount. That misinterpretation of the original Coal Act provision has been fixed in this bill. The new provisions helping the 92 fund and the 93 fund are phased in over time, but the CBF will get a needed infusion of money next year. The AML/Coal Act provision is also about protecting the environment and health of communities where mining has left environmental scars-- many of which continue to pose significant health risks. This proposal reauthorizes the AML program for 15 more years, at a slightly reduced rate, and gives States back their unappropriated balances while more fairly distributing funding for historic coal production States like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The AML program was part of the bargain when we reformed surface mining back in the late 1970s. We created a trust fund that is paid into by the coal companies that mine the land to ensure there would be money available to reclaim old mine sites. Hundreds of these sites remain unreclaimed. States have waited patiently for Federal dollars that have been parceled too slowly in the past. This provision will deal with the outstanding problem of AML reform at the same time it helps miners whose blood and sweat built up the AML trust fund in the first place. Today marks the culmination of a long, long fight--14 years now--to make sure that Congress lives up to its responsibilities to retired miners and their families. And I won't recap all of the ups and downs of the past 10-plus years, but I do need to personally thank a few people who finally made this possible. I am grateful to my distinguished leader and dear friend Senator Reid. As the son of a hardrock miner, Senator Reid appreciates what miners go through to bring us the natural resources that make our economy and standard of living possible. He has worked tirelessly to get these provisions passed. He is a trusted friend and an inspirational leader. I also need to thank the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have an excellent relationship, built on working together and keeping their word. I know that they had to fight very hard to protect the AML provision, and they did so because they gave their word. That means a great deal to me. A great deal. I am very grateful for their efforts. I know that the same spirit of bipartisan respect and cooperation will continue under Senator Baucus' able leadership next year. I look forward to his tenure. I will not mention each of the superb Finance Committee staff members by name, but I must at least thank them as a whole. They are extraordinarily bright and hard working, and I know that today's victory would not have been possible without their absolute dedication. I also want to thank my friend and colleague on the HELP Committee, Chairman Enzi, who seized this issue when tax extenders were debated in the pension conference which he chaired. He has never given up on getting this done in this Congress, even when procedural tactics by some put it in dire jeopardy. He just never gives up when it comes to fighting for his State. I admire that very much. I am indebted to him for his work on this measure, as I have been for his efforts on mine safety. He is tireless and yet with a demeanor that never rankles. I cannot fail to mention the support of my longtime, dear friend Senator Kennedy. He was always on my side on this issue as well--as he is always on the side of our Nation's working men and women, whether our Nation's coal miners or anyone who puts in a hard day and struggles to meet the challenges of raising a family. He was there to help make this happen. This has been a true bipartisan effort. The way legislation should be done. I also need to thank my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. He has been my constant partner on West Virginia mining issues. As a leader of the Appropriations Committee, he has saved the day for many years, by appropriating funds to prevent benefit cuts to retired miners and their families. Finally, I cannot go without thanking the Senators from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Specter. From the beginning they have worked with me to make today's victory a reality. Senator Santorum reintroduced this proposal early this year, and even after a very difficult and hard-fought election, Senator Santorum continued to work hard for his constituents and pushed to make sure that his leadership did not give up on this provision. I know that our Nation's coal-mining families appreciate their hard work and dedication as much as I do. Now, obviously, this bill contains many more items than just the AML provision. Many of these provisions I have voted for several times already, and I am very happy to see that they will finally be enacted into law--the tax deductions for tuition expenses or teachers' classroom expenses, the research and development tax credit, the welfare-to-work tax incentives. These provisions should never have been allowed to expire, and I am pleased that Congress is done using them as a political football and will finally extend them as we should have done last year. This bill will also create new tax incentives to promote investment in mine safety equipment and the training of rescue teams that can help trapped miners. There is some work that remains to be done to make those incentives work as they should in the coalfields, and you can be sure I will be back to finish the job. Also, after years of inequity, this bill finally provides capital gains tax relief to members of the intelligence community who serve their country away from home. Both of these provisions are very important to me even though both need a little more work. For the record, I also need to point out that this bill has some serious shortcomings. Most notably, I am concerned about the potential consequences of some of the health savings account provisions that were included in this bill. In general, I believe that HSAs will make the problems with our health care system worse, not better. They do not increase access to health care for our large uninsured population, and worse, they threaten to undermine the risk-sharing on which our current system depends. I hope that the 110th Congress will take a serious look at how to really increase access to health care. I intend to push very hard on that front. But as I said at the beginning, Mr. President, I believe that on balance, this is a good bill. I am grateful to my colleagues who have been relentless in negotiating this bill, and I am pleased to support it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, my heart is full as I think of Mike DeWine and his service here in the Senate. I didn't know Mike when I first came here. I didn't know anything about his visits, I think 13 or 14, to Haiti, his concern for the poor. He seems to have always been motivated by a moral compass which never wavered from those who needed him, and who weren't getting help from others. It is ironic in the best sense that he and I have cooperated on so many pieces of legislation that had to do with children and families and adoption and all kinds of things. It is ironic because in a sense he followed the father, Mr. President, of our Presiding Officer, in that role. You go to Mike's office, Mike would come to this Senator's office, legislation would appear, it would pass--and almost invariably get very little attention. That was not the purpose or the interest of the Senator from Ohio. He wanted to do good. I think of his interest in children and I think that is a moral compass. If you have that in life and you are not going to let go of that in life, then that fixes you, as the Senator from Illinois indicated, in the legacy of the Senate. I also think that his interest in Haiti says more about him than words can possibly measure. What drives a man and his wife to go to that country where most of us have never been? Most of us have the image of it that the Senator from Illinois described but know not of it directly by experience. Vacations, free times, are valuable to Senators and their families. Yet the Senator from Ohio took his time and went to Haiti, year after year, and fought for their problems and said not a word to anybody. I found out about it not from the Senator from Ohio but from somebody completely different. I found out more about it and then deepened my knowledge and my respect for the Senator from Ohio. Finally, I want to say I have the privilege of serving with him on the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee is serious business. The Senator from Ohio rose to the peaks of discretion, determination, simply trying to find the truth. He wasn't out to get anybody, to punish anybody, to embarrass anybody. He wanted to get the facts and then from that make his decisions through his votes. National security on the one hand, children and all of their problems--not just education but children with all of the most complex problems of what happens when you get to be 18 and you have 3 years to get to be 21. The father of the Presiding Officer and I worked on that. Virtually every problem that can afflict children, unattended by most politicians, was taken to heart by the Senator from Ohio who had the advantage of many years of being a prosecutor. I look upon the Senator from Ohio as absolutely extraordinary, as the majority leader indicated. He is an extraordinary Senator, an extraordinarily fine person, a friend in whom I could put complete and absolute trust, who only was here to do his work for the people and causes he cared about--most of all Ohio but then special groups probably unknown except to his conscience. I wish you well, sir. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I join the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, CASE, and the Carnegie Foundation in honoring Dr. Norman Duffy. Dr. Duffy, a chemistry professor at Wheeling Jesuit University, has personified both the best in education and the best in West Virginia throughout his career. After receiving his bachelor of science in chemistry from Georgetown University, where he continued his studies as a doctoral student, Dr. Duffy began his career as a graduate and research assistant. His research then took him overseas where he became a NATO postdoctoral fellow at University College in London. After receiving his Ph.D. he began his teaching career at Kent State University where he first became a full professor and then eventually chairman of the Department of Chemistry. Upon his departure from Kent State University in 1996, Dr. Duffy joined the faculty of Wheeling Jesuit University, WJU. From 1996 to 2000 he was chairman of the Department of Biology and Chemistry and from 2000 to 2002 he was Chairman of the Department of Chemistry. He continues teaching small classes that allow him to focus on individualized education as a professor in the Department of Chemistry. In addition to his illustrious teaching career, Dr. Duffy has done a great deal to further the general public's knowledge of chemistry and has been acknowledged for doing so. He has released 95 publications, authored 14 research grants at WJU, including three from the National Science Foundation, and has received many honors and awards including the Exemplary Teacher award from the American Association of Higher Education during their 25th anniversary celebration in 1994. In my decades of service to the people of West Virginia in the Senate, I have become very familiar with Wheeling Jesuit University and its outstanding academic programs. For 10 consecutive years US News and World Report has ranked WJU as among the best master's universities in the South. Wheeling Jesuit has become one of the leading universities in the country in helping to educate and prepare students for the dynamic economy of the 21st century. WJU is home to the brand new $10 million Acker Science Center, the Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center, the Erma Ora Byrd Center for Educational Technologies, and NASA's flagship educational program, The Classroom of the Future, which uses simulated space missions as a way to teach elementary and high school students about science and math. The true legacy of a teacher is the mark that their students leave on the world, and by that measurement Dr. Duffy has certainly had a remarkable career. He has taught future Fulbright Scholars, many students who have received departmental honors, and, of course, students who have been inspired enough by his example to become teachers themselves. As a teacher, Dr. Duffy admits his work is never finished. Whenever he is asked if he plans to retire, Dr. Duffy responds by asking, ``Does everyone in West Virginia understand chemistry?'' Dr. Duffy's dedication is obvious and inspiring.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Robert M. Gates to be the next Secretary of the Department of Defense. I believe that the defense and security challenges that our Nation faces at this moment are greater than we have faced in decades, and the strains on our Active Duty and National Guard and Reserve forces are commensurate with those challenges. After much careful thought, going back to this body's consideration of Dr. Gates' nomination to lead the Central Intelligence Agency in 1991, I am convinced that he will provide the Department of Defense and our uniformed service members the competent leadership that they deserve that he will approach the necessity to change course in Iraq with great urgency and that he will provide the President with the pragmatic advice that this country so desperately needs; that his stewardship of the Department of Defense will include developing a cooperative and productive relationship with Congress; and that his career in the intelligence community will benefit the Government as the reorganization of our intelligence community continues. I have been impressed with Dr. Gates' sincerity in his comments regarding the obligation we as policymakers owe the uniformed service members who carry out the policies we make. His testimony yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee included a moving statement about his relationships with members and former members of the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M University, 12 of whom have lost their lives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Dr. Gates, I am moved by the extraordinary sense of duty and service that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines possess and by the extraordinary sacrifices they make willingly on our behalf. We must meet the fundamental obligation to serve them as well as they serve us. They deserve thoughtful and effective policies; they deserve to be set up for success in their missions; they deserve to be properly trained and equipped; and they deserve to be ever confident that their welfare is never subject to partisan political considerations within their civilian chain of command. Anything less is unworthy of these heroes. I am strongly hopeful that Dr. Gates' long and distinguished career in public service, particularly in critical national security roles, gives him the proper perspective on the duties we owe our men and women in uniform. I am confident he will exercise these duties with great care and concern, particularly with regard to those service members who are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also note Dr. Gates' candor and independence of thought, both in his public comments of recent years and in answering the questions of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee during the confirmation process. Prior to his nomination as the next Secretary of Defense, Dr. Gates served on two noteworthy bodies whose work is highly relevant to the challenges he will undertake at the Department of Defense. First, in 2004 he cochaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force with former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski that resulted in a report entitled, ``Iran: Time for a New Approach.'' It is my hope that ``time for a new approach'' is a phrase that characterizes Dr. Gates' overall approach to many of the issues he will encounter at the Pentagon, but I would make special note of the fact that in this report, he recommended that the United States engage in direct talks with Iran. If this recommendation of engagement and proactive diplomacy is characteristic of the advice he will provide to the President in his new position, it will be a welcome change. Second, prior to his nomination, Dr. Gates served on the Iraq Study Group, whose recommendations for a major change in course in Iraq we heard today. Dr. Gates' service on this body shows that he recognized early on that the administration's policy in Iraq was not working and needed a change in course. Since his nomination, I have been very pleased with his comments, particularly in his written answers to the Senate Armed Services Committee questions and in his testimony yesterday, regarding the urgent need for change in our Iraq policy. Unlike the previous Secretary of Defense and unlike the President himself, Dr. Gates has acknowledged forthrightly that the number of troops we sent to Iraq for the postwar period was insufficient. He recognizes that the planning for the postwar period was both inadequate and flawed and that the result now is a status quo that is absolutely unacceptable and must be changed with great urgency. As many of my colleagues have noted, this is a fresh and candid perspective that has been sorely lacking in this administration for 6 years. It is my hope and expectation that Dr. Gates' independence of thought and bold push for necessary change will mark his tenure as our next Secretary of Defense. In my capacity as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 110th Congress, I will be particularly interested in how Dr. Gates will handle the relationship between the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, which is still developing following the recent intelligence reforms and which I will be focusing on closely in the coming months. This relationship is crucial to the production of accurate, unbiased intelligence, which in turn is essential for the development of sound national security policy for our country. As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have spent 3\1/2\ years reviewing prewar intelligence on Iraq. We have found inadequate intelligence, inaccurate intelligence, ignored intelligence, and distorted intelligence, the sum of which led to a disastrous decision to take this country to war. This is a situation which cannot be repeated. One of the principal concerns throughout the Intelligence Committee's Iraq inquiry has been the question of politicization of intelligence. This is an issue well known to Dr. Gates because it was a charge leveled at him in 1991 during his confirmation to be Director of Central Intelligence. Unresolved questions about possible politicization greatly influenced my opposition to confirming him for that position, and I am even more keenly concerned about maintaining the integrity of the analytic process based on my experience with the Iraq inquiry. Fortunately, his service as the Director of Central Intelligence and his continuing contribution to the Nation since then have allayed the concerns I had in 1991. While his tenure as DCI was short, he accomplished a great deal. In a 1992 message to the CIA workforce he wrote ``seeking truth is what we are all about as an institution, as professionals and as individuals, the possibility--even the perception--that the quest may be tainted deeply troubles us, as it long has and as it should.'' While he disputed the specific accusations of politicization, he learned from the process. He established a task force to address politicization, and he implemented changes based on the task forces recommendation. I am encouraged that he will bring that experience to this new job as one of the primary consumers of intelligence. I also am encouraged by Dr. Gates' views on the proper role of the Defense Department in relation to the CIA. Earlier this year he wrote of his unhappiness with what he viewed as an inappropriate dominance by the Defense Department. There is plenty of work for all of our intelligence agencies, but that work needs to be properly distributed and coordinated, and I think he understands the importance of that balance. I look forward to working closely with Dr. Gates on this issue if he is confirmed. At his confirmation hearing, Dr. Gates demonstrated several qualities that I think make him a good choice for this job. He is smart but not arrogant. He is tough-minded without being closed-minded. And he is clearly taking on this enormous responsibility out of a sense of public service. I will support his nomination, and I hope he is confirmed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Leahy and Allard in introducing the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006. I am pleased that Senators Byrd, Inouye, Salazar, Snowe, Roberts, Enzi, and Ensign are original cosponsors. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. This bill builds upon the hard work and legislative language that Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and I originally developed. Congressman Boucher has been invaluable in making all sure that all interested parties work together to protect consumers, and I must thank him for all of his hard work on this issue. We have introduced this legislation to protect consumers who through no fault of their own can no longer receive network television signals from DISH Network. Our constituents have lost this right because of a nationwide legal battle between DISH Network and television broadcasters. The Court found that DISH Network had violated the law and imposed a penalty. This decision impacted thousands of my constituent and I believe that Congress needed to restore the ability of these consumers to receive network signals. For many rural West Virginians, cable television is not available. We have a looming crisis on our hands and Congress must pass our bill immediately. We have a duty to our consumers to minimize the disruption to their daily lives, and our bill allows those consumers who do not have the ability to get local television stations in their area to continue to receive distant signals. Again, I urge quick adoption of this legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Leahy and Allard in introducing the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006. I am pleased that Senators Byrd, Inouye, Salazar, Snowe, Roberts, Enzi, and Ensign are original cosponsors. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. This bill builds upon the hard work and legislative language that Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and I originally developed. Congressman Boucher has been invaluable in making all sure that all interested parties work together to protect consumers, and I must thank him for all of his hard work on this issue. We have introduced this legislation to protect consumers who through no fault of their own can no longer receive network television signals from DISH Network. Our constituents have lost this right because of a nationwide legal battle between DISH Network and television broadcasters. The Court found that DISH Network had violated the law and imposed a penalty. This decision impacted thousands of my constituent and I believe that Congress needed to restore the ability of these consumers to receive network signals. For many rural West Virginians, cable television is not available. We have a looming crisis on our hands and Congress must pass our bill immediately. We have a duty to our consumers to minimize the disruption to their daily lives, and our bill allows those consumers who do not have the ability to get local television stations in their area to continue to receive distant signals. Again, I urge quick adoption of this legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for this bill. The proposed agreement will mark a momentous change in U.S. and global nuclear policy, in my view for the better. It will give India due recognition as a global power, and it will deepen the bilateral commercial and strategic relationship that the United States enjoys with the world's largest democracy. Beyond these commercial and strategic benefits, this deal will bring India into the mainstream of the global nonproliferation system for the first time in its nuclear history. This bill includes a number of nonproliferation-related provisions, including a requirement that the U.S.-India agreement will not enter into force unless and until India and the International Atomic Energy Agency negotiate and conclude an inspection agreement. It also includes a requirement that the U.S.- India agreement will not enter into force unless and until India and the IAEA negotiate and conclude a safeguards agreement. Further, it requires that the U.S.-India agreement will not enter into force unless and until the Nuclear Suppliers Group reaches consensus on nuclear trade with India and bans U.S. export of uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies under any U.S.-India agreement. This agreement will benefit the economic, strategic, and security interests of the United States, and I offer my strong support for it and congratulate my colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, for completing this important legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues in the Senate the story of an awful tragedy that took place in Weirton, WV. Larry Tice, a steelworker at the former Weirton Steel now called Mittal Steel's Weirton Plant took his own life earlier this year after being overwhelmed with a misplaced feeling of failure. Larry spent decades in Weirton Steel's hot mill before he was transitioned to the tin mill in Mittal's reorganization and shrinking of its operations in Weirton. At its height, Weirton Steel employed 14,000--nearly everyone in a town of roughly 25,000. Twenty years ago employment was approximately 7,000, and today the company employs less than 2,000 people in a town that has shrunk to fewer than 20,000 people. Weirton is a town that had been built around the plant, and the plant served as the town's economic engine for nearly 100 years. Weirton was and is known for its world-class steelmaking. Mr. Tice was a hard-working veteran at Weirton Steel. There had never been a doubt as to where Larry would work when he was growing up. He, like so many others, had been raised to believe if they worked hard, there would always be a job that included a living wage, competitive benefits, and a guaranteed pension. Larry's father, uncles, and cousins had all worked at the mill. Larry worked there his whole life after signing up after high school graduation in 1973. Just before his death, his job was in jeopardy, many of his benefits diminished, and his pension had all but disappeared. Mr. Tice worked at the heart of the mill, in the pit, where glowing molten steel drifted overhead in 340-ton ladles, then roared out of 3\1/2\-inch holes. He excelled in his area of work and was crew chief to six employees. Everyone says Mr. Tice enjoyed his work and took pride in what he did. It was not an easy job. The intense heat and the physical nature of the job tax workers physically and mentally, but Mr. Tice was a true steelworker, never complaining and always doing what he was asked. After many layoffs at Weirton Steel and the closure of the hot end, Mr. Tice was relocated to the tin mill, but he happily accepted this assignment because he was one of those who would still have a job after another massive layoff. With the new job came many new stresses and worries. Mr. Tice had only 2 weeks to master the new machinery and technology; the tin mill was more technologically advanced and was a place that required new skills and processes. At age 51, this new, high-tech job posed a real challenge for Mr. Tice. The stress continued to mount and Mr. Tice began to feel inferior, as his friends report, looking back on his last few months of life. Mr. Tice worried that the new management of Weirton would not tolerate a slow learning curve. He worried that if he didn't pick up his new craft quickly enough that he would be fired. In the end, friend and family pointed to some negative reinforcement and a general feeling of inadequacy on Mr. Tice's part. This steelworker of two-plus decades worried that if he didn't catch on quickly enough he wouldn't be able to provide for his family or allow them the opportunities they deserved--worries that anyone who cares for a family can understand. Larry Tice was a family man to his last days. This hardship and uncertainty, along with his constant pressure and concern for his family's welfare, ultimately led to him taking his own life. Mr. Tice's widow, Mary, is now only left to wonder what was so inescapable. Mary spoke with Larry over the phone moments before his death and he told her he had `screwed up,' though he did not elaborate further. At home, Larry hung up the telephone. When Mary tried calling back, there was no answer. She then drove home, though it was too late. I stand before you today to ask that Larry Tice's story be remembered, along with the ongoing struggle of all steelworkers. Many ask why we in steel States fight so hard for our steel jobs, and it is because of stories like Larry Tice's that touch our hearts. It is so that no more steelworkers will suffer the agony Mr. Tice endured and which conquered him. We work to ensure that fair trade conditions exist so no more families find themselves agonizing as a loved one worries about their livelihood and ability to provide for their family. The steel industry is very important to the prosperity of our State and is something that touches many West Virginians' lives and our country. My deepest sympathy goes out to the Tice family.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a longtime member of my staff, Ms. Althia Harris, who has served over 30 years in the Senate. Ms. Harris has reached an incredible benchmark in her career, and I stand today to reflect on her service. Ms. Harris began working in the Senate on April 30, 1975, for distinguished Senator Philip A. Hart of Missouri. Just a few days before the end of his term, Senator Hart lost his battle with cancer on December 26, 1976. Ms. Harris then served Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III of Illinois for 5 years. Upon Senator Stevenson's retirement, she joined the office of his successor, Senator Alan J. Dixon. I was then lucky enough to inherit a most loyal and experienced Senate employee when Ms. Harris joined my staff in 1984. Upon joining my team, Althia initially helped with my transition from the West Virginia Governor's office to Capitol Hill. An immeasurable and invaluable aide, I am sure without Althia's able assistance the job would have taken much longer to accomplish. I know it would have been more difficult without a seasoned Senate staffer knowledgeable in how to really make things work in the Senate. On September 12, 1986, Althia began working part time in my office so she could take on new challenges in the private sector and other areas of government. She first worked for the Advertising Council and then for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. At NASA, she continues to work as a contractor for the Office of Education. As an active member of her community, she has never abandoned her work here in the Senate. With continual service in my office for over 20 years, Althia is someone who has helped keep my office operation running with important day-to-day tasks. She is a lover of urban gardening, a collector of African art, and a domestic and international traveler. As Senators, we are each here to represent our respective States and to work on the needs of our constituents. But the work we do is directly dependent on those who support us--our staff who are always there, always pushing behind the scenes. Each and every devoted member of my staff helps me accomplish the job I am here to do, and Althia has made a real contribution to my work for over 20 years. I am honored to recognize Althia's devotion and service and to extend my deepest appreciation for her ongoing contributions. Althia is a true gem--the kind of person you are lucky to find and retain for what time they can give. It has been a wonderful 20 years.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would, with the exception of 1 minute to summarize just before we vote on it, so you can have the balance of the time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, without objecting, does any unanimous consent request allow me to close on my amendment for 2 minutes?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Is the Senator aware, when he talks about delaying implementation of this program, that there are no CIA detainees? What are we holding up?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for 4 years the Central Intelligence Agency's program was kept from the full membership of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. For 4 years the CIA imprisoned and interrogated suspected terrorists at secret black sites under a policy that prevented Congress from not only knowing about the program but from acting on it and regulating it. For 4 years, the White House refused to brief Intelligence Committee members about the program's legal business and operations, as is required by law. For 4 years, the members of the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, whose duty it is to authorize the funding of every CIA program, were kept in the dark by an administration which ignored the legal requirement to keep the Congress fully and currently informed on all intelligence activities. The amendment I have offered reverses the executive branch's 4-year policy of indifference toward Congress. My amendment corrects a serious omission in the pending bill: the need for Congress to reassert its fundamental right to understand the intelligence activities it authorizes and funds. My amendment would subject the CIA's detention and interrogation to meaningful congressional oversight for the first time in 4 years by requiring a series of reviews and reports that will enable the Congress to evaluate the program's scope and legality, as well as its effectiveness. The amendment establishes this absent congressional oversight in four ways. First, my amendment requires the Director of the CIA to provide a quarterly report to all members of the Intelligence Committees in both the House and the Senate detailing the detention facilities, how they are operated, and how they are used by the CIA. It requires that the detainees held at these facilities be listed by name as well as the basis for their detention and the description of interrogation techniques used on them and the accompanying legal rationale. This quarterly report also requires the recording of any violation or abuse under the CIA program as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of the detention and interrogation program. This issue of the effectiveness of interrogation techniques is incredibly important and often overlooked as an aspect of the debate over the CIA program. Interrogations that coerce information can produce bad intelligence--not necessarily, but they can produce misleading intelligence--fabricated intelligence to get out of the treatment, information that can harm, not help, our efforts to locate and capture terrorists. Second, my amendment would require the Director of the CIA to provide a quarterly report to all members of the Intelligence Committees on the disposition of each detainee transferred out of the CIA prisons, whether the detainee was transferred to the Department of Defense for prosecution before a military commissioner for further detention, whether the detainee was transferred to the custody of the Attorney General to stand trial in civilian court, or whether the detainee was rendered or otherwise transferred to the custody of another nation. There needs to be a comprehensive and accurate accounting of detainees held by the CIA. Congress has a responsibility to know who is held by the CIA, why they are held and for how long they are held. The CIA detention and interrogation program cannot function as a black hole into which people disappear for years on end. We have been told by CIA leaders that the agency does not want to be--they say this constantly to us--they do not want to be the prison warden for the United States Government. The goal of the CIA program should be to obtain, through lawful means, intelligence information that can identify other terror suspects to prevent further terrorist attacks and then to bring to justice those who we believe to be criminals. This is the so-called endgame that everyone talks about. If the CIA detention program is allowed to function as some sort of prisoner purgatory, we have then failed. Also of concern to me is the lack of existing oversight in how the United States transports or renders detainees to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. The limited information the administration has shared with the Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA's rendition program does not by any means assure, at least this Senator, that the intelligence community has a program in place, so to speak, to assert what happens to these individuals when they are transferred to foreign custody, such as how they are treated, how they are interrogated, whether they divulge intelligence information of value, and whether this information is then provided to the CIA. The CIA's rendition program deserves far greater scrutiny and congressional oversight than it has been given to date. The third way in which this amendment establishes a meaningful oversight of the CIA detention and interrogation program is to require the CIA Inspector General and the CIA general counsel each separately review the program on an annual basis to report their findings to the Intelligence Committees. These independent Agency reviews would assess the CIA's compliance with any applicable law or regulation and the conduct of detention, interrogation and rendition activities as well as to report to Congress any violations of law or other abuse on the part of personnel involved in the program. The annual reviews of the Inspector General and the general counsel also would evaluate the effectiveness of the detention and interrogation program; effectiveness at obtaining valuable and reliable intelligence. Finally, my amendment requires the Attorney General to submit to Congress an unclassified certification whether or not each interrogation technique approved for use by the CIA complies with the United States Constitution and all applicable treaties, statutes and regulations. I believe this is a very important certification. All Americans, not just the Congress, need an ironclad assurance from our Nation's top enforcement officer that the CIA program and the interrogation techniques it employs are lawful in all respects. The CIA officers in the field, I might say, above all, need this assurance. I do not believe there is anything particularly controversial about this amendment, and I hope that Democrats and Republicans alike can embrace the need for restoring respect for the oversight role of the Intelligence Committees of the Congress over intelligence. Only through reports that will be provided under this amendment will the Congress have the information it lawfully deserves to understand the CIA's detention and interrogation program and determine whether the program is producing the unique intelligence mission that justifies its continued operation. Only when the President works with the Congress are we able to craft intelligence programs that are legally sound and operationally effective. Only when the President works with the Congress can America stand strong in its fight against terrorism. Intelligence gathering through interrogation is one of the most important tools we have in the war on terrorism. My amendment would provide the congressional oversight necessary to assure that our intelligence officers in the field have clear guidelines for effective and legal interrogation. Before yielding the floor, I will address two other matters very briefly. Those who have taken the time to read through the bill we are debating will find the word ``coercion'' repeatedly in the text of the legislation. Coercion is a fitting word when considering how the Senate finds itself rushed into voting on a bill with far-reaching legal and national security implications. The final text of the underlying bill was negotiated by a handful of Republican Senators, many of whom I respect, and the White House. Democrats were not consulted. I was not consulted. This Senator was not consulted. Senator Levin was not consulted. We were kept out of these closed-door sessions. I say that because the Senate Intelligence Committee is the only Senate committee responsible for authorizing CIA activities and the only committee briefed on classified details of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. We were denied an opportunity to consider this bill, in fact, on sequential referral, which is our due. In the mad dash to pass this bill before the Senate recesses, Senators are being given only five opportunities, I believe, to amend the bill, effectively preventing the Senate from trying to produce the best bill possible on the most important subject possible with respect to the gathering of intelligence. It does not have to be this way. Finally, I am troubled by what I view as misleading statements about the current state of the CIA detention and interrogation program made by President Bush and senior administration officials. I say this for the record, and strongly. The President and others have stated in recent weeks that the CIA program was halted as a result of the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision on June 29, 2006. This assertion is false. Significant aspects of this program were halted following the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees, well before the Supreme Court decision. The President has also been very forceful in his public statements asserting that the post-Hamdan application of Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 has created legal uncertainties about the CIA interrogation procedures that the Congress must resolve through legislation--only us--in order for the CIA program to continue. This assertion is misleading, and it is false as well. Concerns over the legal exposure of CIA officers have existed since the program's inception and did not begin with the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision. These mischaracterizations illustrate to me why it is important for Congress to understand all facts about the CIA program. Congress cannot and should not sit on the sidelines blithely ignorant about the details of a critical intelligence program that has been operating without meaningful congressional scrutiny for years. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from Michigan heard that correctly.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If the situation is it is deducted from this Senator's time, I would object.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, and Senators Clinton, Wyden, Mikulski and Feingold.