Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for about 20 or 25 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has released to the public two of the five sections of our long-promised report on how intelligence was used by policymakers in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. This phase II report builds on the committee's July 2003 phase I report on the intelligence community's very substantial mistakes regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Fundamentally, these reports are about accountability. They are about identifying the mistakes that led us to war and making sure those mistakes never happen again, so far as we can do so. Let me share some important excerpts from the report which reflect both my own views and the views of all of my Democratic colleagues on the committee. The committee's investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq has revealed that the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading. Prior to the war, administration officials repeatedly characterized Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs in more conclusive and threatening terms than were substantiated by the underlying intelligence assessments. Analytical assessments of the intelligence community that were not in line with the more strident administration view on alleged Iraqi links to al-Qaida and the 9/11 plot were ignored and were denigrated by senior policymakers. Most disturbingly, the administration, in its zeal to promote public opinion in the United States before toppling Saddam Hussein, pursued a deceptive strategy prior to the war of using intelligence reporting that the intelligence community warned was uncorroborated, unreliable, and, in critical instances, fabricated. The committee has uncovered information in its investigation which shows that the administration ignored warnings prior to the war about the veracity of the intelligence trumpeted publicly to support its case that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States. Some of the false information used to support the invasion of Iraq was provided by the Iraqi National Congress, the INC, an organization which our intelligence agencies had cautioned repeatedly was penetrated by hostile intelligence services and would use its relationship with the United States to promote its own agenda to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The committee's investigation concluded that the INC attempted to influence U.S. policy on Iraq by providing false information through Iraqi defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists. The committee also found the July 2002 decision by the National Security Council directing that the renewed funding of the INC contract--the Iraqi National Congress, the Chalabi operation--be put under Pentagon management was ill advised given the counterintelligence concerns of the CIA and warnings of financial mismanagement from the State Department. Repeated prewar statements by administration officials sought to connect Iraq and al-Qaida in ways the underlying intelligence simply did not support. The administration's--this is key--the administration's repeated allegations of the past, present, and future relationship between al- Qaida and Iraq exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe, contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time, that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The administration sought and succeeded in creating the impression that al-Qaida and Iraq worked in concert and presented a single unified threat to the United States of America. The committee's investigation revealed something completely different. The committee found that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qaida strike anywhere. The committee also found that Iraq did not provide chemical or biological weapons training or any material or operational support to al-Qaida prior to the war. Furthermore, no evidence was found of any meeting between al-Qaida and the Iraq regime before the war, other than a single meeting that took place years earlier in 1995, in fact, in the Sudan. That meeting was at a fairly low level, and that meeting did not lead to any operational cooperation at all. Osama was there, but the Iraqi representative was at a low level. Key pieces of evidence used by the administration asserting links between Iraq and al-Qaida were a report of a meeting in Prague between 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer and a claim that Iraq provided chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qaida in the late 1990s. The committee report demonstrates that the prewar statements of the Vice President of the United States that the Prague meeting had been ``pretty well confirmed'' and that the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta--again the Vice President's words--``in fact'' met with Iraqi intelligence services in 2001 were not substantiated by the intelligence assessment at the time the statements were made by the Vice President. Likewise, the statement by National Security Adviser Rice that ``there are a lot of tantalizing meetings'' between Iraq and ``people who were involved in 9/11'' was clearly false based upon what was known prior to the war. The committee's investigation revealed no postwar information indicating that Iraq considered using al-Qaida or any other terrorist group to attack the United States. The committee investigation concluded that, in fact, Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime and to him personally, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or any kind of operational support. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein refused all al-Qaida overtures for material or operational support and, in fact, issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qaida. In addition, Saddam viewed al-Zarqawi, who was present in Baghdad only from May to November of 2002, as an outlaw. Saddam regarded Zarqawi as an outlaw and attempted unsuccessfully to locate him and capture him. Again, he failed. During the buildup to war, the intelligence community was placed under pressure to support the administration's position that there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. This is particularly distressing. This pressure took the form of policymakers repetitively tasking analysts to review, to reconsider, to revise their analytical judgments, or simply asking the same question again and again. Many participants involved with the preparation of prewar intelligence felt at the time that the decision had been made to go to war by the administration early on--in fact, many months before Congress was asked to authorize the use of force. The committee investigation revealed evidence that this prewar pressure to conform to administration policy demands may have led to the co-option of the intelligence community. The committee's two-phased investigation has been significantly limited, I must say, by the majority's refusal to examine issues and documents relative to our inquiry when the issues and documents came close to the White House. While a quarter of the committee's INC report is devoted to a lengthy examination of the CIA's relationship with the INC in the early and mid-1990s, the committee majority voted down requests by the minority to investigate the flow of intelligence information from the INC that circumvented the intelligence community and went directly to the White House and to Pentagon policy officials in the lead-up to the war. Finally, the committee's inquiry has been hampered by the decision to deal with five phase II tasks as separate inquiries, which they are not, and complete the report on a piecemeal basis rather than a unified whole. This has been distressing to those of us in the minority. The chairman suspended the committee investigation into the Pentagon policy office--we associate the name Doug Fife with that--over 2 years ago, rejected any investigation, oversight--whatever you will--into the Pentagon policy office despite evidence presented in the committee's phase I report that the office attempted to shape the CIA's terrorism analysis, and when it failed, prepared an alternative intelligence analysis for policy officials designed to denigrate the CIA's analysis for not embracing a link between Iraq and al-Qaida and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is my belief that the committee can complete its remaining work on phase II of its Iraq inquiry in a manner that is complete, objective, and expeditious. It should not have taken nearly 3 years to reach the point where we are now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, later this month, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption will host a gala to honor individuals from across the country that have contributed greatly to programs that strive to keep our most vulnerable children safe and healthy in permanent homes. I am proud to be a member of the Congressional Coalition and this event marks a true celebration for individuals we call Angels of Adoption. The Angel of Adoption awards recognize individuals who are dedicated to the welfare of children. It should be noted that our ``Angels'' often forgo lucrative positions in law firms and other private sector work because of their commitment to provide legal protection for thousands of children. This year I am delighted to honor Mary Ellen Griffith as our West Virginia Angel of Adoption. Mary Ellen Griffith is the founder and past director of ChildLaw Services in Princeton, WV. Ms. Griffith has earnestly provided policy and legal advocacy for West Virginia children during her tenure as a legal service lawyer. Her direct representation of children has been complimented by faculty appointments to university programs where she has lectured on topics such as family law, guardianship, and custody issues. She certainly is well prepared for her recent appointment as a family law judge. Her work on the bench will offer the court the high level knowledge, experience and sensitivity required to safeguard the well-being of children. I am well aware that the essential efforts of the courts can go unrecognized. But I maintain a very high regard for the courts because they regularly play a vital role in adoption and child protection. That is why I introduced the We Care Kids Act with Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio last year, and was proud when it was incorporated into the law earlier this year. This act now gives our local courts the necessary resources and training through Federal grants issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. Dedicated judges like Mary Ellen Griffith will play a pivotal role in prompting adoptions and working to ensure that our most vulnerable children are safe, healthy and have a permanent home.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska. It is late, and I understand that. I rise to address something which is very important to me, and that is the Defense appropriations bill that may appear to many to be insignificant boilerplate language, when, in fact, is not that at all. Unfortunately, the provision has an enlarged significance in this Congress as a result of the inexplicable and unpardonable failure of the Senate to do something that it has never done before, and that is to fail to pass intelligence authorizations for either fiscal year 2006 or fiscal year 2007. Section 8086 of the Defense appropriations bill waives section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007. What does that mean? Section 504 provides, with limited exceptions, that no appropriated funds available may be obligated or expended for an intelligence activity unless those funds were specifically authorized by Congress; therefore, by the two Intelligence Committees. This waiver is a standard part of the Defense appropriations bill. Until this Congress, it has served the acceptable function of allowing intelligence communities to begin spending money if the authorization bill is not completed before the beginning of the fiscal year. Under this waiver, as soon as the intelligence authorizations for any given year are enacted, that authorization language would control. In this Congress, however, the boilerplate language has become the substitute for legislative authorization of intelligence activities because the majority leader, to be honest, has refused to bring the intelligence authorization bill to the floor for the past 2 years--for the past 2 years. The Senate's failure to pass this critical national security legislation is unprecedented. Last year was the first time since the establishment of the congressional Intelligence Committees that the Senate failed to pass an annual authorization bill. From 1978 through 2004, the Senate had an unbroken, 27-year record of completing its work on this critical legislation. The intelligence authorization bill has been rightly considered, always, must-pass legislation. Regardless of who controlled the Senate, regardless of who controlled the White House, there was an understanding that the programs authorized by this bill were too important to not have the input of the Congress through the Intelligence Committees. Unfortunately, because of an anonymous objection by a Republican Senator, the majority leader decided to let this important national security legislation die on the vine last year, for the first time, and he appears intent on doing so this year again. The result of this decision by the majority leader will be diminished authority for intelligence agencies to do their jobs of protecting Americans. It also will result in less effective oversight, which was essentially the 9/11 Commission's No. 1 call, and all of this at a time when the intelligence community is undergoing the biggest restructuring in its 50-year history. The annual intelligence authorization is the primary mechanism which the Congress, through the Intelligence Committees, uses to provide guidance and support to America's intelligence agencies, the heart of our effort to protect America's national security. At a time when our security depends so heavily on good intelligence, when our national security has been endangered by not depending sufficiently on good intelligence--or maybe the intelligence wasn't good when it should have been--and we are in the midst of reforming and modernizing our intelligence community, the Senate's failure to act on this legislation is absolutely inexplicable to this Senator and to virtually all the Members of the Intelligence Committees. In reporting the resolution to establish the Intelligence Committee in May 1976, since the first chairman on our side was the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, the Committee on Government Operations back then wrote the following: An essential part of the new committee's jurisdiction will be authorization authority over the intelligence activities of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Without this authority, the new committee would not be assured the practical ability to monitor the activities of these agencies. They wrote that back then--and that is: . . . to obtain full access to information which the committees must have to exercise control over the budgets of agencies in order to reduce waste and inefficiency, and to impose changes in agency practices. That is what they said. The failure of the Senate to pass intelligence authorization for 2 years threatens to erode the ability of the Intelligence Committee to carry out the mission assigned to it by the Senate. This failure has consequences both immediate and long term. Our intelligence agencies can continue executing the funding made available through the various appropriations bills but without any guidance as to what they should do from the Intelligence Committees. I do not understand this. The Appropriations Committee does an excellent job at providing resources for the intelligence agencies, what they need to operate on. But the roadmap for how the Congress expects those sources to be executed comes from the authorization bill--which seems to no longer exist. The sensitivity and importance of our Nation's intelligence programs makes congressional direction essential every single year. But the creation of an Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004, and the ongoing development of that office, makes the guidance even more important now. The fiscal year 2006 authorization bill contains 17 separate provisions enhancing or clarifying the authority of the DNI. Those provisions included additional authority to promote information sharing, clarifying the DNI's role in managing human intelligence--all of these, easy to say and difficult to do--providing flexibility in the financing of national intelligence centers, how those centers were to be set up, and elevating the DNI Inspector General to a statutory position. Those important provisions are now included in this fiscal year 2007 bill, and we should act on them as soon as possible. I do not think we are going to, but we should. In the longer term, the Senate's inability to debate and act on this critical legislation will have a more lasting effect on congressional oversight. Both the 9/11 and the Robb-Silberman commission on weapons of mass destruction highlighted the importance of improving oversight as a necessary component of reforming our intelligence capabilities. Oversight. The 9/11 Commission wrote: Of all our recommendations, strengthening Congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and most important. In December 2004, the Senate took steps to strengthen the Senate Intelligence Committee by eliminating member term limits. That had been a long time coming. People were limited to 8 years. They just began to get up to speed and then they were off. Now that has changed. It is at the discretion of the majority leader and the minority leader. We increased our staff and strengthened other procedures. But these improvements were in a sense a hollow victory. Since enactment of the reforms, the majority leader has emasculated the Intelligence Committee by denying it the central tool to carry out oversight, and that is the annual authorization bill which is called for under the law. The majority leader's unwillingness to consider these bills is even more puzzling because of the bipartisan effort that has gone into their development on both sides of this House. Both the fiscal 2006 and 2007 bills passed the Intelligence Committee unanimously. Both were referred to the Armed Services Committee where they were again approved unanimously. Last year, the bill was also referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which suggested changes that would have been included had we been discussing the bill along with suggestions from the administration in a managers' amendment. Last year's bill and this year's bill contain legislation focused on four important areas about which I am going to talk briefly. I have already mentioned the numerous provisions relating to the authority and the operation of the Office of the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence. The bill also contains additional provisions to foster and improve information sharing and information access. Easy words, hard to do. Section 310 establishes a pilot program giving the Intelligence Committee access to databases of other nonintelligence agencies for the purpose of collecting intelligence on counterterrorism or weapons of mass destruction. While this bill sits on the calendar, that information is now outside the reach of the intelligence community. Many of my colleagues have decried the seemingly endless stream of leaks of classified information. I join them in denouncing the leaks of sensitive material. The authorization bill includes provisions strengthening the authority of the DNI and the Director of the CIA to protect intelligence sources and methods. It also includes a provision, authored by Senator Wyden and adopted by the committee unanimously, to increase the penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of a covert agent. Finally, the authorization bill contains numerous provisions intended to improve oversight of the intelligence community, both from within and from the Congress itself. Section 408 is interesting. Section 408 of the bill proposes the establishment of a statutory inspector general for the intelligence community. I have said that. The Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 took a first step toward that end by authorizing the Director of National Intelligence to appoint an inspector general within the Office of the Director. The DNI has done that, and I applaud him for doing so. But the bill will strengthen that position and make it more accountable to the Congress. Section 434 of the bill strengthens accountability further and oversight of the technical agencies by providing that the heads of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are to be appointed by the President with the Senate's advice and consent. This is in the authorization bill, and if we were to pass it, this would become effective. I think it actually comes as a surprise to many of my colleagues that the head of an agency with as central a role in the intelligence community as the National Security Agency is not appointed with Senate confirmation. In fact, heads of the National Security Agency have customarily only gone through confirmation in connection with their military rank but not for their appointment to the position of the Director of NSA. That is not considered. Section 107 of the bill, sponsored in committee by Senators Levin and Hagel, seeks to improve the timely flow of information to the congressional Intelligence Committees. Similar language was included in the intelligence reform legislation that passed in the Senate in 2004 but did not survive the conference. I applaud Senators Levin and Hagel for their efforts with respect to this issue. There are other provisions requiring specific information, including a report on the implementation of the Detainee Treatment Act and a separate report on the possibility of existence of clandestine detention facilities. I am at a loss to understand what the objection to this legislation is. Maybe somebody does not like the enhancement of oversight. That is our job. That is why the committees were formed. Maybe somebody doesn't want the DNI to have more authority or maybe somebody thinks the Congress should not be getting timely access to information about intelligence programs that are so important. But let me remind all my colleagues that the authorization bill passed the Intelligence Committee unanimously. If somebody has a problem with a provision, bring up the bill, offer an amendment, debate, and vote. That is the way the Senate works. Amendment No. 4906 Because of the importance of getting the authorization bill enacted and because I and all the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been totally unable to make any headway on this at all now for 2 years, and because I have concluded that it will once again be ignored by the majority leader, I send an amendment to the desk to strike section 8086 of the pending legislation, the fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, striking section 8086 would mean the following: that none of the funds in this bill could be spent for intelligence activities without an authorization bill. I do not know how else to do it. I am reluctant to take this step because I do not want our intelligence agencies to be caught without funding. But I see no other way to force the Senate to bring into the consciousness, the cerebral cortexes of the various Senators, that it is important to take up and pass authorization bills. This legislation is too important to be allowed to languish in legislative limbo. I am at a loss to understand why the Senate cannot complete action. It would be in no one's interest to not complete this, not the Senate, not the Congress, not the intelligence community, nor would it be in the national security interest of the United States. Democrats are more than willing to quickly debate and pass much needed national security legislation. Democrats know that it is essential that we permit the men and women of the intelligence agencies to continue their critical work on the front lines of the war in Iraq and the war on terror. In the meantime, to the men and women of the intelligence agencies, I say that we stand with you. We are proud of your bravery and your patriotism, and we thank you for your sacrifice, working in silence, and in the shadows, against the threat that America faces. (At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, to introduce the Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2006. This legislation would require a 2-year moratorium on the imaging cuts enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, pending the outcome of a comprehensive study of Medicare imaging utilization and payment by the Government Accountability Office, GAO. Each year, millions of Medicare patients receive medical imaging services, including x-rays, CT-scans, MRIs, and PET scans, to name just a few. Imaging devices allow doctors to more accurately diagnose and treat a wide range of human conditions, and patients who receive imaging services enjoy the peace of mind that comes from more precise diagnoses of disease. It would not be an overstatement to say that medical imaging has revolutionized the manner in which physicians practice medicine and the manner in which patients receive health care. The widespread use of digital imaging equipment allows providers to easily exchange images across the Internet, facilitating greater and more timely physician consultation and, most people believe, improving the quality of care received by the patient. This same technology allows greater access to radiology professionals across the country for individuals living in rural and other medically underserved areas, which is a big deal in West Virginia. Consider, if you will, Braxton Memorial Hospital in the small town of Gassaway in central West Virginia. Braxton Memorial is a remote, critical access hospital without the services of a radiologist. Because of imaging technology, trained medical staff at Braxton Memorial can take a digital x-ray and, within minutes, send a precise copy to a major medical facility in Charleston. There, it is read by a radiologist, who then returns a written report by e-mail. A few years back this was still science fiction, but now it happens every hour of every day across the country. As incredible as these services may seem and as important as they are to the practice of effective clinical medicine, there is a perception that imaging services also come with an increased cost. Over the past few years, the use of imaging services by Medicare beneficiaries has increased significantly. In fact, MedPAC reported in March 2005 that imaging grew at twice the rate of all other physician fee schedule services between 1999 and 2003. During that time, MRI and CT procedures increased by 15 percent to 20 percent per year on their own. In addition to rising costs, MedPAC further reinforced ongoing concerns about potential overuse of imaging services and the sudden increase of outpatient-based imaging in primary care settings. Citing a lack of training and implementation of imaging guidelines, MedPAC called upon Congress to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to define and execute such standards. Given the MedPAC report, imaging reimbursement became an easy budget target during the reconciliation debate last year. I am concerned, however, that the $8 billion in imaging cuts were prematurely added to the Deficit Reduction Act. I believe these cuts were arbitrarily determined in order to meet a budget target and were not based on sound public policy. I am also very concerned about the impact these cuts will have on the imaging profession and on Medicare beneficiaries' access to imaging services. We should not put the health of our seniors at risk in order to achieve an arbitrary budget target. So today I join Senators Smith, Bingaman, Isakson, Stabenow, DeWine, Menendez, and Burr in calling for a 2-year delay of these cuts so that a comprehensive GAO study can be completed. A thorough GAO analysis of Medicare reimbursement for imaging services will provide greater insight into this important field of medical practice and help inform our decisions going forward. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this timely legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, to introduce the Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2006. This legislation would require a 2-year moratorium on the imaging cuts enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, pending the outcome of a comprehensive study of Medicare imaging utilization and payment by the Government Accountability Office, GAO. Each year, millions of Medicare patients receive medical imaging services, including x-rays, CT-scans, MRIs, and PET scans, to name just a few. Imaging devices allow doctors to more accurately diagnose and treat a wide range of human conditions, and patients who receive imaging services enjoy the peace of mind that comes from more precise diagnoses of disease. It would not be an overstatement to say that medical imaging has revolutionized the manner in which physicians practice medicine and the manner in which patients receive health care. The widespread use of digital imaging equipment allows providers to easily exchange images across the Internet, facilitating greater and more timely physician consultation and, most people believe, improving the quality of care received by the patient. This same technology allows greater access to radiology professionals across the country for individuals living in rural and other medically underserved areas, which is a big deal in West Virginia. Consider, if you will, Braxton Memorial Hospital in the small town of Gassaway in central West Virginia. Braxton Memorial is a remote, critical access hospital without the services of a radiologist. Because of imaging technology, trained medical staff at Braxton Memorial can take a digital x-ray and, within minutes, send a precise copy to a major medical facility in Charleston. There, it is read by a radiologist, who then returns a written report by e-mail. A few years back this was still science fiction, but now it happens every hour of every day across the country. As incredible as these services may seem and as important as they are to the practice of effective clinical medicine, there is a perception that imaging services also come with an increased cost. Over the past few years, the use of imaging services by Medicare beneficiaries has increased significantly. In fact, MedPAC reported in March 2005 that imaging grew at twice the rate of all other physician fee schedule services between 1999 and 2003. During that time, MRI and CT procedures increased by 15 percent to 20 percent per year on their own. In addition to rising costs, MedPAC further reinforced ongoing concerns about potential overuse of imaging services and the sudden increase of outpatient-based imaging in primary care settings. Citing a lack of training and implementation of imaging guidelines, MedPAC called upon Congress to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to define and execute such standards. Given the MedPAC report, imaging reimbursement became an easy budget target during the reconciliation debate last year. I am concerned, however, that the $8 billion in imaging cuts were prematurely added to the Deficit Reduction Act. I believe these cuts were arbitrarily determined in order to meet a budget target and were not based on sound public policy. I am also very concerned about the impact these cuts will have on the imaging profession and on Medicare beneficiaries' access to imaging services. We should not put the health of our seniors at risk in order to achieve an arbitrary budget target. So today I join Senators Smith, Bingaman, Isakson, Stabenow, DeWine, Menendez, and Burr in calling for a 2-year delay of these cuts so that a comprehensive GAO study can be completed. A thorough GAO analysis of Medicare reimbursement for imaging services will provide greater insight into this important field of medical practice and help inform our decisions going forward. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this timely legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in 2004, 45.8 million Americans were without health insurance. That is 15.7 percent of our population, an increase of over 800,000 people in just one year. Yet this number doesn't even reflect the true extent of the problem, as at least another 16 million adults and children are underinsured. This means that even though they have insurance, they are not able to access quality health care when they need it because of high deductibles, soaring co-payments, and unreasonable health benefit restrictions. As I have said many times before, it is unacceptable that a world superpower such as ours has so many people that are uninsured. Lacking or having inadequate health insurance has been shown over and over to be associated with poorer health and quality of life. The uninsured are over 40 percent more likely to be diagnosed with late stage breast and prostate cancers and more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with late stage melanoma. They are hospitalized more often for avoidable conditions such as pneumonia and uncontrolled diabetes. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 people die every year because they lack health coverage. Thousands more suffer unnecessary pain and disability because they can't get the health care they need when they need it. We cannot allow so many of our fellow citizens to just fall through the cracks of a deficient health care system. We can and must do better. I have introduced several bills to this Congress to provide greater access to health insurance coverage in this country. These bills include the MediKids Health Insurance Act to improve coverage for kids, the TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act to offer insurance options to trade displaced workers, and the Small Employers Health Benefits Plan Act to offer more affordable health care to small business owners and their employees. Today, I join Senators Kerry, Kennedy, and Sarbanes in introducing yet another key piece of legislation to reduce the number of uninsured Americans--the Medicare Early Access Act of 2006. The Medicare Early Access Act of 2006, which has also been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Pete Stark, provides a new coverage option for our Nation's near elderly. This legislation would allow people aged 55 through 64, who are not otherwise eligible for coverage under a group health plan or Federal health insurance program, to buy into Medicare. It also provides a 75 percent tax credit for Medicare early access premiums to make coverage more affordable for the broadest range of near elderly individuals. Insurance coverage for the near-elderly, the 29 million people between the ages of 55 and 64, is particularly critical. The near elderly are the fastest growing group of uninsured Americans--almost one in seven are uninsured. And, we know the risk of serious illness for adults increases with age, requiring more frequent contact with the health care system and the related financial obligations. Over 50 percent of near-elderly Americans have at least one serious health problem, including diabetes, cancer, chronic lung disease, heart problems, or stroke. Without adequate access to health care, these individuals typically delay care until more serious complications develop that could require high-cost hospital care or even lead to premature death. With job layoffs, early retirement, and the dwindling number of employers offering health insurance, the near-elderly now face greater hurdles to maintaining adequate health care coverage. In March of this year, a major American automotive company offered 113,000 of its employees up to $140,000 to leave the company with no claims to future benefits. It is predicted that more large employers will follow suit in the near future, while other companies continue to seek bankruptcy court approval to set aside long-standing benefit programs. The greatest impact of these types of buyouts and benefit restrictions will be on the near-elderly age group, who do not yet have the safety net of Medicare. Some of my colleagues might argue that Medicare buy-in legislation is unnecessary because the near elderly can get coverage in the individual market. I would say to my colleagues that the near elderly have an extremely difficult time buying insurance in the individual market. Because this group tends to have pre-existing chronic illnesses, private insurers often deny them coverage or offer them coverage at unaffordable rates. So the individual market actually fails to be an option for most near elderly individuals and they bear the risk of forgoing coverage altogether. Lack of insurance and gaps in coverage affect us all, not just the uninsured person in need of care. When an uninsured person goes to a hospital, clinic, or emergency room and cannot pay for the cost of his or her care, the unpaid balances are passed on to those who have insurance or other means to pay. Insurance rates go up as do our taxes to support public programs. Whether through higher insurance premiums or taxes supporting our public insurance programs, we all pay, one way or another, for not doing more to address the problem of the uninsured. Failure to achieve a solution now to this burgeoning problem will surely cost us more if we wait, both in human life and in dollars. The Medicare Early Access Act of 2006 may not be the total solution to solving America's crisis of the uninsured, but it is an earnest attempt to address the problem of the health care access for one of the most vulnerable segments of our population-the near elderly. These individuals often have the greatest need and the least choice when it comes to affordable health insurance coverage. By offering the near- elderly access to comprehensive health benefits through Medicare, we can hopefully reduce the long-term costs to our health care system. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this important step toward making health insurance and personal dignity a reality for all Americans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in 2004, 45.8 million Americans were without health insurance. That is 15.7 percent of our population, an increase of over 800,000 people in just one year. Yet this number doesn't even reflect the true extent of the problem, as at least another 16 million adults and children are underinsured. This means that even though they have insurance, they are not able to access quality health care when they need it because of high deductibles, soaring co-payments, and unreasonable health benefit restrictions. As I have said many times before, it is unacceptable that a world superpower such as ours has so many people that are uninsured. Lacking or having inadequate health insurance has been shown over and over to be associated with poorer health and quality of life. The uninsured are over 40 percent more likely to be diagnosed with late stage breast and prostate cancers and more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with late stage melanoma. They are hospitalized more often for avoidable conditions such as pneumonia and uncontrolled diabetes. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 people die every year because they lack health coverage. Thousands more suffer unnecessary pain and disability because they can't get the health care they need when they need it. We cannot allow so many of our fellow citizens to just fall through the cracks of a deficient health care system. We can and must do better. I have introduced several bills to this Congress to provide greater access to health insurance coverage in this country. These bills include the MediKids Health Insurance Act to improve coverage for kids, the TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act to offer insurance options to trade displaced workers, and the Small Employers Health Benefits Plan Act to offer more affordable health care to small business owners and their employees. Today, I join Senators Kerry, Kennedy, and Sarbanes in introducing yet another key piece of legislation to reduce the number of uninsured Americans--the Medicare Early Access Act of 2006. The Medicare Early Access Act of 2006, which has also been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Pete Stark, provides a new coverage option for our Nation's near elderly. This legislation would allow people aged 55 through 64, who are not otherwise eligible for coverage under a group health plan or Federal health insurance program, to buy into Medicare. It also provides a 75 percent tax credit for Medicare early access premiums to make coverage more affordable for the broadest range of near elderly individuals. Insurance coverage for the near-elderly, the 29 million people between the ages of 55 and 64, is particularly critical. The near elderly are the fastest growing group of uninsured Americans--almost one in seven are uninsured. And, we know the risk of serious illness for adults increases with age, requiring more frequent contact with the health care system and the related financial obligations. Over 50 percent of near-elderly Americans have at least one serious health problem, including diabetes, cancer, chronic lung disease, heart problems, or stroke. Without adequate access to health care, these individuals typically delay care until more serious complications develop that could require high-cost hospital care or even lead to premature death. With job layoffs, early retirement, and the dwindling number of employers offering health insurance, the near-elderly now face greater hurdles to maintaining adequate health care coverage. In March of this year, a major American automotive company offered 113,000 of its employees up to $140,000 to leave the company with no claims to future benefits. It is predicted that more large employers will follow suit in the near future, while other companies continue to seek bankruptcy court approval to set aside long-standing benefit programs. The greatest impact of these types of buyouts and benefit restrictions will be on the near-elderly age group, who do not yet have the safety net of Medicare. Some of my colleagues might argue that Medicare buy-in legislation is unnecessary because the near elderly can get coverage in the individual market. I would say to my colleagues that the near elderly have an extremely difficult time buying insurance in the individual market. Because this group tends to have pre-existing chronic illnesses, private insurers often deny them coverage or offer them coverage at unaffordable rates. So the individual market actually fails to be an option for most near elderly individuals and they bear the risk of forgoing coverage altogether. Lack of insurance and gaps in coverage affect us all, not just the uninsured person in need of care. When an uninsured person goes to a hospital, clinic, or emergency room and cannot pay for the cost of his or her care, the unpaid balances are passed on to those who have insurance or other means to pay. Insurance rates go up as do our taxes to support public programs. Whether through higher insurance premiums or taxes supporting our public insurance programs, we all pay, one way or another, for not doing more to address the problem of the uninsured. Failure to achieve a solution now to this burgeoning problem will surely cost us more if we wait, both in human life and in dollars. The Medicare Early Access Act of 2006 may not be the total solution to solving America's crisis of the uninsured, but it is an earnest attempt to address the problem of the health care access for one of the most vulnerable segments of our population-the near elderly. These individuals often have the greatest need and the least choice when it comes to affordable health insurance coverage. By offering the near- elderly access to comprehensive health benefits through Medicare, we can hopefully reduce the long-term costs to our health care system. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this important step toward making health insurance and personal dignity a reality for all Americans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues from Georgia, Mr. Isakson and Mr. Chambliss, to congratulate Spelman College on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. Spelman College, then known as ``Atlanta Baptist Female Seminary,'' was established in 1881 in Atlanta, GA, by Sophia B. Packard and Harriet E. Giles, schoolteachers and Baptist missionaries, who created the school for the purpose of educating African-American women and girls. The institution kindly thanked my great-grandparents John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and Laura Spelman Rockefeller after their donation to the school by changing the school's name to ``Spelman Seminary'' in honor of the Spelman family in 1924. I am enormously proud that my family has been associated with this school for the last 80-plus years and of the achievements by the school and especially its alumnae. Today, my daughter, Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, serves on the board of trustees and she continues our family's proud connection to this important institution. The school grew to include high school and college classes and bestowed its first high school diplomas in 1887 and its first college degrees in 1901. The school expanded to become a leading undergraduate institution for African- American women. In the 2005 edition of U.S. News and World Report, Spelman College was ranked among the top 75 best liberal arts colleges. The Association of Medical Colleges ranks Spelman College fifth among undergraduate programs for Black students accepted to medical school and Spelman is one of six institutions designated by the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as a Model Institution for Excellence in undergraduate science and math education. We commend Spelman's ninth president, Beverly Daniel Tatum, who has initiated a strategic plan for Spelman titled ``Spelman ALIVE'' that includes five goals: academic excellence, leadership development, improving the infrastructure, visibility of accomplishments of the campus community, and exemplary customer service, all designed to create a vision for Spelman of ``Nothing Less than the Best.'' For 125 years, Spelman has been at the forefront of education in our Nation, and with this plan I am confident it will continue to grow and thrive. Spelman College has prepared more than six generations of African- American women to reach the highest levels of academic, community, and professional achievement. My cosponsors Mr. Isakson and Mr. Chambliss and I also thank the administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumnae of the college for their outstanding achievements and contribution to African-American education, history, and culture.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I introduce the EPSCoR Research and Competitive Act of 2006, and I am proud to have the bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Inouye, Cochran and Johnson. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, at the National Science Foundation, NSF, is designed to help states that historically do not receive much NSF funding to compete more effectively for grants. NSF maintains it high standards, but it also provides help to States to meet such standards. Such an investment is fundamental to help promote our country's competitiveness nationwide. Twenty-six States are eligible for the EPSCoR program, and these States represent 20 percent of our population, 25 percent of our doctoral and research universities, and 18 percent of our academic scientists and engineers. The EPSCoR states also represent unique environments for scientific research with Hawaii and Alaska having unique features. Montana is a major area for paleontology. Six of the top ten energy producing States are EPSCoR States. It is common sense to invest in building research capacity in our EPSCoR States. We also know that EPSCoR works. More than one-half of the researchers supported by NSF's EPSCoR program during the first 10 years later were successful in competing for non-EPSCoR funding. Also, 75 percent of new technology companies started by university research are based in the States where the original research was done. To strengthen our research and enhance competitiveness EPSCoR is a smart investment. Within the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006, is a provision authorizing the EPSCoR program at $125 million, and stating that EPSCoR funding should increase in proportion with the overall NSF budget. This package was marked up by the Senate Commerce Committee on May 18, 2006 with bipartisan support. Clearly, there is agreement that EPSCoR needs to be part of our national strategy for competitiveness. This legislation adds some specifics to that goal. The bill proposes that the Research Infrastructure Improvements Grant increase to $75 million. It seeks 20 percent of the EPSCoR budget for the co-funding program, an innovative initiative to help encourage each of the NSF directorates to collaborate and fund meritorious projects from the EPSCoR States. It encourages the NSF Director to develop creative ways to ensure that the EPSCoR States are part of the new major initiatives of the foundation, including cyber-infrastructure and major research instrumentation. West Virginia has truly benefited from the EPSCoR program. Since 2001, competitive Federal research in West Virginia has risen from $35.8 million to $60.1 million which is a 68 percent increase. In 2005 alone, research created more than $147 million in economic activity and supported 4,432 jobs. EPSCoR has also been the catalyst for enhanced cooperation between West Virginia's leading universities, West Virginia University and Marshall University. This legislation will add to the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act's goal of promoting competitiveness in the EPSCoR States which helps our entire country.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Schumer and Leahy to introduce an important piece of legislation for seniors, individual with disabilities, children, and anyone who is taking a brand name prescription drug with a generic equivalent. The bill we are introducing today would outlaw the latest in a long line of loopholes that brand name manufacturers have found to limit generic drug access to the market. Our legislation would prohibit brand name manufacturers from introducing so-called ``authorized generics'' during the 180-day period that Congress intended true generics to have exclusive market rights. Some of my colleagues may be wondering what an ``authorized generic'' is. An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic in order to confuse consumers and shut true generics out of the market. This is a huge problem and one that is becoming even more prevalent as patents on some of the best-selling brand name pharmaceuticals start to expire. Pravachol, Zocor and Zoloft have patents that have expired or will expire this year. Together, these drugs account for approximately $9 billion in sales annually. In 2007, another top-selling brand name drug, Norvasc, will lose its patent protection, followed by Advair the following year. When brand name drugs lose patent rights, this opens the door for consumers, employers, third-party payers, and other purchasers to save billions--between 50 and 80 percent on the costs of prescriptions--by using generic versions of these drugs. Brand name drug companies are expected to lose as much as $75 billion over the next 5 years as some of their best sellers go off-patent and generic competition increases. So, not surprisingly, these big pharmaceutical companies are desperately trying to protect their market share and prevent consumers from cashing in on savings from generic drugs. We have addressed this issue before. In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman legislation to provide consumers greater access to lower cost generic drugs. The intent of this law was to improve generic competition, while preserving the ability of brand name manufacturers to discover and market new and innovative products. As part of this law, the first generic company on the market after challenging an expiring brand name patent is granted 180-days of exclusive market rights, which is just a fraction of the up to 20 years of exclusive market rights afforded brand companies. This 6-month incentive is crucial to maintaining the balance between encouraging brand drug companies to make new drugs and encouraging generic drug companies to make existing drugs more affordable. Challenging a brand name drug's patent takes time, money, and involves absorbing a great deal of risk. Generic drug companies rely on the added revenue provided by the l80-day exclusivity period to recoup their costs, fund new patent challenges where appropriate, and ultimately pass savings onto consumers. This latest attempt by big drug companies to protect their profits puts billions of dollars in savings for consumers in jeopardy. The bill we are introducing today eliminates the authorized generic loophole, protects the integrity of the 180 days, and improves consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the chairman of the committee and ranking member. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee and ranking member for their generosity in allowing, hopefully, 15 minutes for eulogizing Win Paul. Win Paul was my first cousin. I think people need to know, he died from a really horrible form of cancer. We knew it was going to be difficult. He went to Seattle to get a variety of bone marrow transplants, and wasn't going anywhere. So, in effect, he came back to Arkansas, his home. In many ways like his father, in some ways under the shadow of his father, but in all ways committed to the people of Arkansas. He originally came back to Arkansas at the age of 24 when his father died. He wanted to do good. When I think about him, I just think of his desire to be helpful to people. Both of my colleagues from Arkansas mentioned his relations, working with the Boy Scouts. One thing he was really proud of is that he racially integrated the Little Rock Boy Scouts, so that there were two sides. I feel a great sense of loss personally as his first cousin, who knew him very well. He had a great affinity for Arkansas, which is a State that I love because it is very much like West Virginia. He had a wonderful family, eight children. Several of them have very difficult developmental disabilities. He has, for that reason, and I think because of his general humanity, poured himself into people who do have developmental problems. Both Senators from Arkansas mentioned the Riverdale Academy, which I think tripled in size since it was founded in 2004. He was ultimately a Lieutenant Governor who wanted to be Governor to do what all Governors want to do, which is to live out their vision, make his vision for Arkansas come true. He didn't have that chance. He gracefully withdrew from the race when it became evident to him that things weren't going to be very good in terms of his health. He came back to Arkansas a very, very sick person to die, to his home and to his God. I am going to miss him. I thank my colleagues for indulging in this moment of thought about a family member to me and a political leader and friend to my two beloved colleagues from Arkansas. He will be at home in Heaven.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Schumer and Leahy to introduce an important piece of legislation for seniors, individual with disabilities, children, and anyone who is taking a brand name prescription drug with a generic equivalent. The bill we are introducing today would outlaw the latest in a long line of loopholes that brand name manufacturers have found to limit generic drug access to the market. Our legislation would prohibit brand name manufacturers from introducing so-called ``authorized generics'' during the 180-day period that Congress intended true generics to have exclusive market rights. Some of my colleagues may be wondering what an ``authorized generic'' is. An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic in order to confuse consumers and shut true generics out of the market. This is a huge problem and one that is becoming even more prevalent as patents on some of the best-selling brand name pharmaceuticals start to expire. Pravachol, Zocor and Zoloft have patents that have expired or will expire this year. Together, these drugs account for approximately $9 billion in sales annually. In 2007, another top-selling brand name drug, Norvasc, will lose its patent protection, followed by Advair the following year. When brand name drugs lose patent rights, this opens the door for consumers, employers, third-party payers, and other purchasers to save billions--between 50 and 80 percent on the costs of prescriptions--by using generic versions of these drugs. Brand name drug companies are expected to lose as much as $75 billion over the next 5 years as some of their best sellers go off-patent and generic competition increases. So, not surprisingly, these big pharmaceutical companies are desperately trying to protect their market share and prevent consumers from cashing in on savings from generic drugs. We have addressed this issue before. In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman legislation to provide consumers greater access to lower cost generic drugs. The intent of this law was to improve generic competition, while preserving the ability of brand name manufacturers to discover and market new and innovative products. As part of this law, the first generic company on the market after challenging an expiring brand name patent is granted 180-days of exclusive market rights, which is just a fraction of the up to 20 years of exclusive market rights afforded brand companies. This 6-month incentive is crucial to maintaining the balance between encouraging brand drug companies to make new drugs and encouraging generic drug companies to make existing drugs more affordable. Challenging a brand name drug's patent takes time, money, and involves absorbing a great deal of risk. Generic drug companies rely on the added revenue provided by the l80-day exclusivity period to recoup their costs, fund new patent challenges where appropriate, and ultimately pass savings onto consumers. This latest attempt by big drug companies to protect their profits puts billions of dollars in savings for consumers in jeopardy. The bill we are introducing today eliminates the authorized generic loophole, protects the integrity of the 180 days, and improves consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this month, Sharon Daly will retire from Catholic Charities USA. She has been a compassionate, committed advocate for the most vulnerable children and needy families for more than a decade. She has skillfully represented a nationwide faith-based network that serves people in every State, including West Virginia. For many years, Sharon and her grassroots network of service providers have provided information and valuable insights on the needs of children and families. I have gained facts and support on a wide range of issues, from adoption and foster care to childcare and welfare reform, thanks to Sharon Daly and Catholic Charities. She has been a clear, compelling voice for the needs of children and the poor. Her leadership has been inspiring, and her voice will be missed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senate has passed an important bill, Chairman Grassley's Improving Outcomes for Children Affected by ``Meth'' Act of 2006. This legislation will reauthorize the Safe and Stable Families Program and target $40 million in new funding to programs to help children affected by methamphetamine abuse and addiction. West Virginia, like all too many States, is facing severe problems with a methamphetamine epidemic. There is by all reports a rapid spread and growth of this pernicious addiction. SAMSHA reports that methamphetamine abuse has increased more than 420 percent for persons 12 years and older during the past decade. And according to a well- cited National Association of Counties survey, the epidemic is no longer targeting rural States like my own. Much to my dismay we are finding addicts in suburban high schools as well as urban areas. Addicts are white and blue collar workers and the unemployed who are in their twenties or thirties. Use is equally divided among males and females. The legislation offered today is part of the reauthorization for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. Our child welfare system relies on the principles and services mandated by Safe and Stable Families Programs. I have wholeheartedly worked on this program since its inception in 1993. I have continued over the years to support modifications that fit the changing needs of the children. It is essential that our most vulnerable children remain safe and that they find emergency placements and permanent homes. Programs such as Foster Care remain a foundational safeguard for children. Children find refuge in foster homes when they are placed in harm's way due to neglect or abuse. Permanence of placement represents an enduring goal of Safe and Stable. This objective provides a child the hope of living conditions that support physical and psychological health. The Safe and Stable Programs ultimately assist with decisions about family reunification and adoption. Of course, there remains a lot more work to be done. Our foster care system is overburdened. There is all too often a lack of coordination among agencies and services that serve children and their families. And currently many programs are especially stressed by the expanding and invasive problems brought on by the next generation of illicit drugs. Right now our children need more help. The goals of Improving Outcomes for Children Affected by ``Meth'' Act are consistent with the spirit and design of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Programs. This act targets the growing problems caused by a cheaply made, easily available, lethal drug. The facts are, to say the least, extremely disturbing. The National Association of Counties survey points to the rise of out-of-home placements due to methamphetamine addiction by as much as 71 percent in California counties and 70 percent in responding Colorado counties. This year in Montana, State officials reported at least 50 percent of child abuse and neglect cases involved methamphetamine abuse. I know that in southern West Virginia alone there have been over 100 laboratory busts since October, 2005. And according to a survey by the Rebecca Project, over 10,000 children in the U.S. were either present at a lab seizure or lived where the lab was seized between 2000 and 2003. These labs produce 5 pounds of toxic waste as a result of producing 1 pound of methamphetamine. There are too many children in harm's way. This bill creates new competitive grants to support regional partnerships that provide services to children who are affected by their caretakers' methamphetamine abuses. The bill reserves $40 million to fund these grants. I know that these grants are not a cure-all, but this legislation is a firm step in the right direction in several ways. First, regional demonstration projects can further identify intervention models that are showing some good results. We also are on the mark when we encourage community health care providers, law enforcement agencies, judges, and statewide child welfare agencies to form more coherent and efficient partnerships. These grants can target innovative prevention programs that reach at-risk children before out-of-home placements are necessary. Finally the grants are available for innovative family-based programs, comprehensive long-term treatment services, and counseling for the children. It is good that the Senate has passed this legislation, and we need to work with the House to secure passage of a final bill that can be signed into law by the President this year.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I also wish to honor a leader in the automotive industry and a friend of West Virginia, Shigeji Ikenaga, as well as the team members of Diamond Electric located in Eleanor, WV. Together they have contributed to the company's global growth and economic prosperity, as well as developing West Virginia's automotive industry. President Shigeji Ikenaga has worked for Diamond Electric since 1954, dedicating an impressive 52 years of service to the automotive industry. During his extensive career, Mr. Ikenaga was instrumental in bringing Diamond Electric to the United States and tapping our workforce to help produce automotive parts. In 1987, Diamond Electric established a plant in the Detroit, MI area. Then, in 1992, Diamond Electric started manufacturing ignition coils at its headquarters in Dundee, MI. Soon thereafter, West Virginia began to benefit from operational expansions by Diamond Electric. In April, 1996, just as Toyota was beginning its work in West Virginia, ground was broken for an ignition coil plant in Eleanor, WV. Building upon Diamond Electric's success in North America, Mr. Ikenaga expanded to other continents, establishing a manufacturing plant in Esztergom, Hungary, and incorporating the company in Suzhou, China. These expansions solidified Diamond Electric's stance in the global market. As is evidenced by the various awards of excellence he and the company have received, Mr. Ikenaga's work and the work of his employees is exceptional. In 1994, Diamond Electric received the Deming Award, which recognizes medium and small companies for their outstanding total quality control program. In addition, Mr. Ikenaga was awarded the Medal with Blue Ribbon in 1997 and again honored in 2002 when he was awarded the Order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon. These awards are testament to the high quality and hard work of Diamond Electric and its employees. The Diamond Electric employees of West Virginia have also made an enormous contribution to the company's success. The plant has been awarded the Toyota Delivery and Quality Awards each year since beginning production in 1998. This allowed Diamond Electric one of their greatest achievements to date--becoming the first U.S. supplier to build an ignition coil for the Lexus SUV engine. Moreover, because of the well-earned success in West Virginia, the facility has expanded 3 times since production started in 1997, growing from a 50,000-square-foot facility and 3.4 million in capacity to a 110,000-square-foot facility and 13 million in capacity. Currently, the company employs nearly 150 West Virginians. As the company has proven numerous times throughout the years, they are a leader in the automotive industry thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Mr. Ikenaga and the workforce at the Eleanor, WV facility. Diamond Electric and its employees are pioneers, expanding to other continents and manufacturing new and innovative automotive products. Additionally, Mr. Ikenaga's actions have not only illustrated his desire for professional growth but also a desire to educate young individuals through Diamond Electric's participation in The Dictionary Project. I was very proud to learn that Diamond Electric presented every third grader in Putnam County this past year a dictionary to help them with their studies. I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Ikenaga for his confidence in West Virginia and our remarkable workforce. I also congratulate Diamond Electric's remarkable team members for playing such an important role in Putnam County's growing economy. I appreciate your hard work and commitment to the automotive industry.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to correct an unfair decision that hurts aging, retired VA nurses. This legislation is designed to correct a problem from a bill we passed in 2001, to help VA nurses. That legislation improved nurses' pensions, and Congress intended it to be retroactive. Unfortunately, administrative officials took a very narrow view of that law. Currently VA nurses who retired between 1986 and 2002, do not get the full pension benefits as current retirees do. In the 1980s, VA aggressively recruited nurses to fill a huge need at VA medical centers by promising full retirement for part-time work. Sadly, the VA and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, does not want to fulfill that promise. This legislation would explicitly require the Federal Government to honor its commitment to our retired VA nurses. Pension benefits are a vital promise. It is disturbing when we do not fulfill our obligations, and we simply must correct this error. Nurses play a critical role in our health care system, including the VA. Recruiting and retaining nurses is important, and this pension shortfall does not help. It is time to deliver full pension benefits to the nurses who cared for our veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to correct an unfair decision that hurts aging, retired VA nurses. This legislation is designed to correct a problem from a bill we passed in 2001, to help VA nurses. That legislation improved nurses' pensions, and Congress intended it to be retroactive. Unfortunately, administrative officials took a very narrow view of that law. Currently VA nurses who retired between 1986 and 2002, do not get the full pension benefits as current retirees do. In the 1980s, VA aggressively recruited nurses to fill a huge need at VA medical centers by promising full retirement for part-time work. Sadly, the VA and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, does not want to fulfill that promise. This legislation would explicitly require the Federal Government to honor its commitment to our retired VA nurses. Pension benefits are a vital promise. It is disturbing when we do not fulfill our obligations, and we simply must correct this error. Nurses play a critical role in our health care system, including the VA. Recruiting and retaining nurses is important, and this pension shortfall does not help. It is time to deliver full pension benefits to the nurses who cared for our veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Safe and Timely Placement of Children Act was passed during the wrap-up session on Friday, June 23, 2006. I have worked with Senators DeWine and Domenici on this issue for several years to help foster children to be placed with adoptive parents or family across State lines. Currently it can take twice or three times as long for a child to be placed in a home, if that home happens to be in another State. This is sad, and it needs to be fixed. The House bill, identical to our Senate legislation, will help fix this process and help these children. It provides a mix of incentives and timeframes for States to achieve the safe and timely placement of children between States. This legislation was part of the WE CARE Kids Act, and it should help to deliver on the promises made in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 which stated that geographic barriers should not delay or deny adoptions. When a child leaves foster care and goes out of State, half of the time the child is being adopted and gaining a permanent home. In about 20 percent of the cases, a child is being placed with a relative. These are good, permanent options for children, and it should not take twice as long to achieve such a placement. In my view, this complements and builds upon actions by many States to update the 1960 Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children. The purpose of this legislation is to add specific timeframes and to provide Federal incentives to achieve the goal set in 1997 of reducing and eliminating geographic barriers. As technology has vastly improved and more families seek to open their hearts and homes to children in foster care, we need improved regulations and policies to serve such families. This legislation is part of the DeWine-Rockefeller bill, called the We Care Kids Act. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Grassley, the major provisions of We Care Kids Act were included in the reconciliation package to invest in court training and data to help judges have insight and the information needed to care for the vulnerable children in foster care. But action could not be taken to improve interstate case planning within the reconciliation bill. In 2004, similar legislation passed the House of Representatives, and now it will finally become law.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am honored to celebrate the great State of West Virginia. June 20, 2006, commemorates; the 143rd birthday of the ``Wild and Wonderful'' State of West Virginia marking a milestone in both national and state history. The historical importance of West Virginia should not be underestimated. Born in 1863 out of the turmoil of the Civil War, it has become synonymous with dedication, hard work, and integrity. West Virginia emerged as a staunch supporter of individuality, freedom, and tolerance. The common experience of the Civil War forged a unique bond of fraternity and camaraderie between its citizens. The commendable citizens of our great State exemplify all of the aforementioned attributes through their unending commitments to their jobs, communities, and families. People, however, are not the sole attraction to the State. The West Virginia experience is transforming and mesmerizing. Visitors from around the world enjoy the vibrantly lush forests, clearly flowing streams, and majestic snow-capped mountains, which provide excellent outlets for recreational activity. Hiking, mountain biking, hunting, fishing, whitewater rafting, skiing, and golfing are just a few of the amenities provided in the treasure that is West Virginia. The culture of West Virginia rivals nature in beauty and intensity. Music, history, pottery, glass, and storytelling make up a patchwork quilt of extraordinary experiences. Each individual, young or old, visitor or native, is wrapped warmly into West Virginia's comforting blanket of culture and identity. The West Virginia motto, ``Mountaineers are always free,'' rings throughout the State with resounding force. Jerry West, Pearl Buck, Chuck Yeager, and Senator Robert C. Byrd are just a few of the influential people of our time from West Virginia. As of June 12, 2006, Senator Byrd has had the distinction of being the longest serving Senator in U.S. history. Clearly, West Virginia has provided and continues to provide successful and inspiring individuals to the world. Sadly, West Virginia has seen great tragedy in the last year: In four separate mining accidents, 19 miners have lost their lives. Coal production is woven into the fabric of our State. While we always knew of the risks, losing loved ones is always devastating. Following those accidents, the Nation finally focused on what West Virginia has long known--we must improve mine safety. Currently, 40,000 direct jobs are supplied by the coal industry's influence in the State. This month, the MINER Act was signed into law by President Bush. This momentous step in mine safety legislation will bring greater safety to the brave men and women who work in the mines. The important role coal plays in the culture, economy, and history of West Virginia cannot be understated. The jobs provided through the coal industry contribute to the well- being of thousands of West Virginians, they increase State development, and they enhance the economic vitality of the State. It is our responsibility to make sure that miners are safe, secure, and protected. In addition to some of the hardships our State has faced since its 142nd birthday, we also have a lot to celebrate: The Toyota Motor Manufacturing Plant located in Buffalo, WV, recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. Since its inception in 1996, the plant has expanded five times and has been the single most productive engine and transmission facility in all of North America for 4 consecutive years. In 1996, 350 jobs were provided by the Toyota plant. By 2007, it is estimated that 1,150 workers will be employed by the organization. Additionally, the West Virginia University football team won the right to participate in the 2006 Sugar Bowl in Atlanta, GA. In a stunning victory, the West Virginia University Mountaineers upset the University of Georgia Bulldogs 38 to 35. The Mountaineers finished the season ranked fifth overall in the Associated Press poll tying the highest ranking in school history. I am proud to represent West Virginia. I am proud to live in West Virginia, and I am proud to be called a West Virginian. Today, it is my great honor to celebrate and commemorate the 143rd birthday of the ``Wild and Wonderful'' State of West Virginia.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the town of Madison, WV. A celebration will take place this month, and I would like to take this opportunity to speak for a few moments about this wonderful Appalachian community. Madison was incorporated as the county seat of Boone County, which it remains today. It is also the home of a number of exemplary schools and dedicated churches. Madison has long been noted for its rich coal mining heritage, and was named for Colonel William Madison Peyton, pioneer coal operator and leader of the movement that led to the establishment of Boone County. A significant percentage of Madison residents are employed by coal mining corporations, or related businesses. That makes it fitting that the township is the home of the Bituminous Coal Heritage Foundation Museum and the location of the West Virginia Coal Festival. Each year, thousands of people travel to Madison for this festival to celebrate coal heritage. This year, the festival will include a memorial service to the 18 West Virginians who tragically lost their lives in recent months in mining accidents. In light of these events, along with State and local officials and I have been working to better ensure the safety of all West Virginia coal miners. Another important asset to the City of Madison is Boone Memorial Hospital which serves the community with personalized care and respect for all in need of medical attention. The town of Madison is the historical site of a crucial Union victory during the Civil War. The Battle of Boone County Courthouse, the name of the town before it was known as Madison, occurred early in the war on September 1, 1861, at a time when the Union army had suffered many devastating defeats. The original court house in Madison was burned by Union soldiers as a result of the skirmish. Madison's centennial celebration will take place on the grounds of the restored structure. On the grounds of that courthouse stands a memorial to soldiers who died in service of their Nation. Madison and Boone County, as all of West Virginia, have given more than its share of brave men and women to the service of our Nation. Boone countians are fiercely patriotic and dedicated to their families, their community and their God. They are resilient and determined, having suffered the ups and downs of the coal economy. They are also kind-hearted people. When I first came to West Virginia as a young man in the VISTA program over 40 years ago, it was to a community on the Boone-Kanawha county line. The people of that community taught me so much and forever changed my life. I will forever have a special place in my heart for Boone County, the town of Madison, and their residents. I certainly wish the town and its people the best for the centennial celebration and much success during the next 100 years. I hope my fellow Senators and fellow West Virginians will join me in celebrating this special occasion, the centennial of Madison, WV.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the St. Albans Fire Department for 100 years of dedicated service to its community. Their outstanding achievement has not only improved the town of St. Albans, but West Virginia as a whole. I am proud to represent such a courageous and selfless group of individuals, who serve West Virginia well every day. All first responders are enormously important to our well being and to their communities, but the longevity of this department deserves special recognition. The St. Albans Fire Department was started in 1906 as the St. Albans Salvage Corps. The small group of committed volunteers ventures to preserve property and save lives in this small Kanawha County community. Their goal created a foundation on which the St. Albans Fire Department--SAFD--was built. Today, the SAFD is a 26 person team of 19 full time and seven part time firefighters. Although the operation has grown tremendously, the firefighters still strive to protect every aspect of the community. They respond not only to fires, but also to automobile accidents, water rescue, as well as providing emergency medical service. The firefighters that represent St. Albans are highly trained and capable of handling all types of emergencies. The SAFD was presented with the Life Safety Achievement Award for the sixth time in 2005. This award is given to the departments that help reduce the number of fire related deaths each year. In 2004, St. Albans did not have any structural fire deaths. The Department was also able to improve their Insurance Safety Office rating from a Class 4 to a Class 3. The better rating will help not only the fire department, but the people they serve as well, by lowering their insurance premiums. This achievement shows the true dedication of the St. Albans Fire Department. Congratulations on such an amazing accomplishment, and let the next 100 years be as strong as the first.