Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I commend Senator Levin and others for their leadership in proposing this amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the amendment based on the belief that a comprehensive, objective, and independent investigation into the collection of intelligence through the detention, interrogation, and rendition of prisoners is long overdue. While I am a strong supporter of the amendment, I regret greatly the fact that we have been forced to seek the creation of a national commission on such a critically important matter that falls squarely within the oversight responsibility of the Congress. Unfortunately, Congress's unwillingness to carry out these oversight duties in the past year has left us with no remaining alternative but to seek the creation of a national commission. Why do I say this? The collection of intelligence through interrogation and rendition is an extremely important part of our counterterrorism effort. The interrogation of captured terrorists and insurgents is, in fact, one of the most important of intelligence tools. We must ensure that those interrogations are carried out in a proper and effective manner. This tool, as with all others, must be applied within the bounds of our laws and our own national moral framework, and it must be subject to the same scrutiny and congressional oversight as every other aspect of intelligence. This, unfortunately, has not been the case. Despite the critical importance of interrogation-derived intelligence and the growing controversy surrounding retention, interrogation, and rendition policies and practices, the Congress has largely ignored the issue, holding a limited number of hearings that have provided limited insight. More disturbing, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate committee charged with overseeing U.S. intelligence programs and the only one with jurisdiction to investigate all aspects of this issue, is sitting on the sidelines and effectively abdicating its oversight responsibility to media investigative reporters. As the Intelligence Committee's vice chairman, I have been pushing for the past 10 months for a formal investigation into the legal and operational questions at the heart of the detention interrogation controversy, as has my colleague from the State of Michigan, Senator Levin. My proposal that the Intelligence Committee conduct an investigation into this matter was rejected. A decision was made that the Intelligence Committee, as it is charged to do, would not formally examine the legal and operational aspects of our detention and interrogation program despite compelling and disturbing evidence that serious, possibly criminal, abuses had occurred. Now, this decision is particularly curious given the litany of investigations carried out by the Intelligence Committee in the past. In recent years, our committee has produced detailed investigative reports into prewar intelligence on Iraq, technology transfer to China, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the shooting down of the missionary plane in Peru, and on and on. In fact, on July 30, 1999, a few years before he became our current chairman, Senator Pat Roberts wrote to then-Chairman Richard Shelby and Vice Chairman Bob Kerrey requesting an investigation into the intelligence related to the downing of CDR Michael Scott Speicher's F-18 plane in the early stages of the Persian Gulf war. The committee responded favorably to Senator Roberts' request, conducted the investigation, and produced a report. Each of the committee reports was produced as a result of formally authorized investigations, and each was a constructive contribution to understanding not just how and why intelligence failures occur but what action should be taken to avoid them in the future. Our unanimously approved first phase of our Iraq report last July, which was the weapons of mass destruction aspect, was a rather thorough and devastating critique of the collection and analytical failings of our intelligence community prior to the war that has provided, frankly, a very critical momentum to an intelligence reform movement that was already gathering steam and ended up in the passage of landmark legislation in December, which most people would have said a couple of months earlier was not possible. Yet when presented with a similar set of compelling reports on how the United States detains and interrogates prisoners, the majority on the committee has prevented us from pursuing an investigation. Why? Well over a year has passed since the appearance of photographs graphically portraying the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. As my colleagues know, these images and other reports of abuse provided a powerful propaganda tool to our terrorist enemies. Since then we have seen a steady stream of accusations relating to the way the U.S. military and intelligence agencies treat individuals in their custody. Allegations of mistreatment have surfaced wherever the United States holds prisoners overseas--across Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Troubling new revelations have become an almost daily occurrence, with a disturbing number of these instances resulting in prisoner deaths. At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody, and the unsettling charge has been leveled against the United States that we are exporting torture through rendition practices that lack accountability. Who can honestly say that these events and allegations are not serious enough to warrant an Intelligence Committee investigation? My good friend and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner, believed such an investigation was needed back in February of this year, and at the February 18 open Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, which we do once a year, Senator Warner remarked: And there's an issue out here, I say to my distinguished chairman and ranking member and colleagues on the committee, which I think we've got to address both in my committee and in this committee, and that is the manner in which we gain intelligence from those that are captured, either on the battlefield or in other areas. My hope was that sort of congressional inquiry referenced by Senator Warner back in February would have become a reality. The Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee with their respective oversight of the military and intelligence communities could have provided the sort of complementary reviews into troubling allegations swirling around our interrogation of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and, as I said, Guantanamo Bay. Regrettably, our efforts and those of Senator Levin to authorize and conduct such an investigation have not succeeded. We are now, therefore, left by default with the remaining option of turning over this responsibility to a national commission to carry it out. If the Senate oversight committees are either unwilling or unable to tackle the tough but necessary questions associated with detention, interrogation, and rendition of prisoners, then we should step aside, if we have to, regrettably, and let the work be done by those unfettered by other considerations. I am confident that this new national commission, like the 9/11 Commission, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission before it, will provide the sort of comprehensive review of U.S. policy and practices relating to the treatment of detainees that has been absent so far. Our amendment calls for a 12-month investigation in which all aspects of all of this must be looked at. More specifically, the 10-person commission will examine and report upon the policies and practices of the United States relating to the treatment of individuals detained since September 11, 2001. The commission will also be tasked to evaluate causes and factors that have contributed to the alleged mistreatment of detainees, including an assessment of either those directly or indirectly responsible for the mistreatment. I am worried about the legal aspects of our underpinning, and I will more or less close with this: On May 18, 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency issued a statement that ``CIA policies on interrogation have always followed legal guidance from the Department of Justice.'' That may or may not be so, but was that legal guidance supportable? That is what you have to ask. Was it supportable? Was it factual? A lengthy legal opinion on the Department of Justice interrogation practices, which had been issued in secret, in August, 2002, was quickly repudiated by the White House when it became public in June of 2004 and was then superseded by a public Justice Department legal opinion in December of 2004. As that episode shows, secret interpretations of the law beyond the oversight of the Congress are an invitation to potentially great error. What supporting roles do the CIA and FBI play in the interrogation of suspects of military-run prisons and how are their activities coordinated? It has been publicly reported that the CIA requested that a number of prisoners held in Iraq not be registered and be kept from international inspection; therefore, the so-called ghost detainees. More recently, it has come to light that FBI officials lodged strenuous complaints about what they considered to be the mistreatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. These reports and others strongly suggest that different agencies are operating under different sets of rules, or they are not coordinated. This is a recipe for disaster which will come back to haunt us one of these days. The commission will also review policies regarding the controversial practice of the United States of rendering detainees to foreign governments for interrogation. Our practice of contracting out to foreign governments the interrogation of detainees is, to this Senator, particularly troubling. There have been numerous reports of individuals turned over by the United States to a foreign government for interrogation allegedly being tortured. In addition to the ethical and legal considerations associated with this practice, the veracity of the information gained from these and other detainees is called into question if these statements were made under physical coercion. Therefore, it is important that we have a thorough evaluation of the current policy guidelines and field directives for when it is appropriate to render a detainee to another country and what intelligence is gained from such a practice. More specifically, we must examine the validity of assurances that the United States is given when detainees are rendered to other countries that they will not be tortured.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will speak for a moment about the Schumer-Rockefeller generics amendment to the budget reconciliation bill. The amendment that Senator Schumer and I are offering today would eliminate the provision in this bill that increases the generics Medicaid rebate from 11 percent to 17 percent. Increasing the rebate for generics would jeopardize consumer access to lower-cost prescription drugs and that's why this provision needs to be stricken from this bill. The reconciliation bill before us has a number of flaws--it cuts Medicaid by $7.5 billion despite Hurricane Katrina and the high health care costs working families continue to face. It imposes even greater premiums on Medicare beneficiaries when Part B premiums have already gone up by more than $10 per month in each of the last 2 years. And, it fails to address many of the problems we know will occur when the Medicare drug benefit is implemented on January 1, 2006. But, that's not all. This bill also includes a provision--which was added to the Finance Committee reconciliation bill the night before the markup--that would increase the rebate amount that generic manufacturers pay to State Medicaid programs from 11 percent to 17 percent. That's an increase of 55 percent. At a time when access to generic drugs represents the greatest opportunity for prescription drug cost savings, this bill seeks to limit such access. Not only will this policy result in greater costs to Medicaid over the long term, but it could also threaten access to lower-cost drugs for all Americans. In the recent past, when Missouri and New Jersey considered implementing generic drug rebate increases for the purpose of achieving savings, they actually found they would have incurred greater costs as a result of reduced access to affordable generic drugs. New Jersey officials estimated that increasing rebates on generics used in their Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled and Senior Gold programs would have increased state costs $18 million in the first year. Missouri's SeniorRx Program estimated that increasing generic rebates would have increased state costs by $8.5 million dollars in the first year alone. According to a 1998 study by the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers approximately $8-10 billion each year. Why would we undercut access to generics when low-cost prescription drugs should be a priority? I question the merits of such a far-reaching policy that was added in the dead of night seemingly for the purpose of achieving greater budget savings. I understand the temptation to act in reconciliation to accomplish longstanding policy goals as well as to address requests from special interest groups. We should resist such temptation when we have not done our homework-- when we don't know the real rationale or effects of this policy or the interaction with other policies. We can do better. We can be more thoughtful--and we have a responsibility to be very careful when we're dealing with pocketbook issues that affect working families, our states, as well as long-term costs to the Federal Government. I thank the Chair and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Schumer-Rockefeller generic drug amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Chairman Grassley, I thank you for your willingness to work with me. This is a matter of good government. The Government Accountability Office has published several reports which indicate that the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to follow its own policy on providing opportunities for the public to learn about and comment on pending waiver requests. Congress has a responsibility to assert its oversight authority on Section 1115 waivers because Medicaid is too important a program to allow it to be waived away through secret negotiations and without input from those who will be affected or their advocates. medicaid pharmacy, reimbursement for prescriptions

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I oppose the legislation the Senate is considering today. This bill does not reflect American values. Although proponents of the bill try to claim that this is a deficit reduction bill, it is transparently not so. This bill is only the first half of their budget policy. The second half, which we will see in a couple of weeks, provides tax cuts almost double the size of these spending cuts. In the end, the policy advanced by this reconciliation process is to increase the deficit by more than $30 billion in order to provide additional tax cuts while shortchanging valuable programs. I am extremely concerned about how this legislation will affect the people in my State of West Virginia. I believe that the effect will be very painful indeed. This bill cuts $10 billion from Medicaid, on which our most vulnerable members of society depend for basic health care. I have fought very hard to improve the provisions of this bill related to Medicare and Medicaid, but I am sorry to say that in the end, this bill will deal a terrible blow to those programs. And the effects will certainly be felt by our neediest and sickest citizens. In a letter to the Congress, the National Council of Churches said of this budget bill, ``It violates all the fundamental Christian values of loving thy neighbor, caring for the poor, and showing mercy.'' In fact, they said that this proposed budget would be a ``moral disaster of monumental proportion.'' I think it is a very sad day when the Senate of the United States would vote for such legislation, especially in the context of a fiscal policy that is focused on giving additional tax cuts. In a broader sense, I am very concerned about what this bill says about the state of Congress' budget process. I am afraid that the budget reconciliation process that was originally intended to help Congress enact difficult policies to reduce deficits is being utterly abused by the majority to enact policies that not only cannot garner broad support but also do nothing to improve our nation's fiscal situation. The unique role of the Senate is undermined when the reconciliation process is used to enact policies that are not related to deficit reduction, most egregiously in this bill drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Today, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified to the Joint Economic Committee that unless reversed the nation's ``budget trends will cause severe economic disruptions.'' I agree with Mr. Greenspan, and I stand ready to work with my colleagues toward the goal of deficit reduction. However, the reconciliation process underway in Congress today, in fact, will exacerbate our runaway deficits. I vehemently oppose this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating it so that we can make real progress toward improving our Nation's budget situation in a way that is consistent with our American values, in a way that is truly compassionate toward the least fortunate of our fellow citizens. Mr. President, I also wanted to make a brief statement about the fundamental importance of providing help and support to the families devastated by Hurricane Katrina. This is an unprecedented disaster. Many families lost every thing they own and they have been displaced for months, and that sadly will continue to be the case for quite some time. For weeks, I joined Senators Grassley, Baucus and others to fight for legislation to expand health care coverage for these needy families. Today, I voted for Senator Lincoln's amendment to expand Medicaid coverage to help the evacuees of this disaster. I am disappointed that this amendment failed by a vote of 52 to 47. These families need and deserve health care. It is tragic that the Senate refused to help vulnerable Americans. On the education front, the reconciliation package included by voice vote an Enzi-Kennedy amendment to provide support to the schools that have already accepted evacuee students. The children and all the schools that accepted such students, without knowing how or when they would get funding deserve our support. I voted against the Ensign-Santorum amendment that sought to change the Enzi-Kennedy bill into a direct voucher program. It would have removed the carefully negotiated provisions designed to maintain the basic civil rights protections in the underlying education package. This legislation, in my view, merely provides a one time emergency financial grant to the schools and communities that opened their doors and classrooms to evacuee students following such an historic disaster.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--CMS, approved a comprehensive Section 1115 waiver for the State of Florida, the latest in a string of waivers that allows States to dramatically reshape the financing and entitlement guarantees established by law in the Medicaid program. These far-reaching Medicaid waivers are generally negotiated in secret without input from the very beneficiaries who would be affected by such drastic changes to the program. That is why I have filed an amendment to this budget reconciliation bill that will require CMS to post public notification on their website within 5 business days whenever a State submits a waiver concept paper for feedback or a formal waiver proposal for discussion and review.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Mercer County Drug Free Community Support Program. The course provides initiatives towards fighting substance abuse, developing links between the community and its leaders in helping to educate the public, and allow young citizens the opportunity to help their peers. They have received numerous awards for their work in helping the citizens of Mercer County deal with problems they may encounter daily, be it alcohol, prescription drugs, or illegal substances. The county has received a prestigious national award for its efforts, and deserves acknowledgment and praise for this accomplishment. Recognizing the importance that this program brings to the community is important; America's Promise, the Alliance for Youth announced that Mercer County is the winner of a national award to identify the 100 Best Communities for Young People; the award shows the true extent of the value of such programs as the Mercer County drug-free program, helping communities create better lives for the people who live in areas afflicted by substance abuse, and the problems arising from drug abuse. The 100 Best Communities for Young People celebrates outstanding, innovative efforts across the country that improve the well-being of our young citizens. Mercer County truly deserved this award for its efficient and pioneering ways of dealing with social problems and substance abuse. Mercer County has put in place community programs that help teens learn about problems arising from drug abuse, social misconduct, and other related issues. One particular project which deserves praise is the ``teen court'' in which offenders are judged by their peers. The Mercer County Teen Court was designed to provide youth with the necessary tools to demonstrate the power they have, individually and collectively, to influence others and make positive changes in their own lives and in their community. The teen court is especially effective in allowing teens the chance to see what problems have arisen from their offense, and to be given a punishment fitting to the crime handed out by their own peers. As a Vista volunteer in 1964, I realized the importance of community work in combating poverty, helping individuals and low-income neighborhoods make positive changes for themselves and their communities. The Mercer County Drug Free Community Support Program is also part of the Creating Opportunities for Youth coalition, a group of community leaders who work hard creating a strategy to address the problematic behaviors plaguing our children and youth in the community. The organization plays a vital role in helping young citizens avoid the dangers of substance abuse; government grants and awards have allowed the program to set up successful workshops that deal with educating youngsters and parents alike. It is, in effect, a leading community source for prevention and awareness of substance abuse. The program has worked closely with leaders and the citizens to bring together Mercer County and, as a result, it is a good, safe place to live, work, and raise children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, I have the same document and ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record. Mr. President, also, there was a reference in the chairman's remarks as to events that went on in the Douglas Feith matter, and he referred to ``lawyering up.'' There is a very clear, easy, simple answer to that, and I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record, also.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. For the past 30 years, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been remarkably bipartisan. It has performed a terrific oversight factor for the Senate. The resolution creating the committee mandates an oversight role. We are not there watching clouds drift by. The resolution that creates the committee mandates an oversight role of the U.S. intelligence community and a responsibility to carefully review our Nation's most sensitive national security programs. It is very broad and widespread in the handling of highly classified secrets. The committee is designed to be nonpartisan. That is why I am called a vice chairman. That is not true in any other committee. But it is meant to work. We have reached an agreement that shows what has happened today, in a somewhat abrupt manner, but nevertheless we have reached an agreement on what we will do. That is a large step forward. I congratulate all involved in that. For the most part, the history has been a good one. Over the past 2 years, I have to say, in all honesty, I am troubled by a concerted effort by this administration to use its influence to limit, to delay, to frustrate, to deny the Intelligence Committee's oversight work into the intelligence reporting and activities leading up to the invasion of Iraq. In June, 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee began a formal investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq. The primary focus of the investigation was to evaluate the intelligence reporting underlying the claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups. Although the Senate resolution establishing the Intelligence Committee intelligence clearly states in Senate resolution 400 we are to look at the ``use'' of intelligence, the majority on the committee initially rejected attempts by myself and by others to add to the investigation--that is, to add to phase I--how administration officials used or potentially misused intelligence and public statements leading up to the war which maybe helped lead up to the war. Only after considerable insistence by committee members and protracted discussions did the majority leadership of the committee agree to add to the scope of our investigation the issue of how intelligence was used prior to the Iraq war. It is a huge uncovered subject. On February 12, 2004, the Intelligence Committee unanimously agreed and publicly announced that five issues would be added to the investigation, phase II. One, whether public statements, records and testimony regarding Iraq by Government officials made between the gulf war period, end of gulf war I and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, whether those statements by Government officials were substantiated by intelligence information. Prewar intelligence is No. 2, prewar intelligence assessment about postwar Iraq. Three, any intelligence activities related to Iraq within the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, headed by one Douglas Feith. Four, the use of the intelligence community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. Five, the postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism. Remember, this was constantly being thrown at us, links to terrorism and how they compare to the prewar assessments. The committee press release explained all of that. Everyone agreed to it, and it added the resolution adopted unanimously today that illustrated the commitment to all members to a thorough review to learning the necessary lessons from our experience with Iraq and ensures that our Armed Forces and policymakers benefit from the best and most reliable intelligence that can be collected. These five areas of inquiry commonly referred to as phase II were authorized well over a year and a half ago, in February of 2004. It has been 20 months since the committee committed to all Members of the Senate and to the American public a thorough review. My colleague, the chairman of the committee, has referred to all of the things that have been done. In fact, we have had one hearing. And he referred to work that would take place next week. I didn't know about that. All of a sudden everyone will plow into phase II. I am not critical of that because I think today has helped to create that kind of momentum which I think is important. Since the committee identified these five issues as a high priority in February of last year, I and other Democrats on the committee have repeatedly urged completion of the review--we agreed to it unanimously--and had been assured by the chairman, time and time again, that the committee will fulfill this commitment. Yet, despite these repeated assurances, it is clear that only token work, at best, has been done on phase II since it was authorized. That is unacceptable. We have had only one business meeting on phase II, and no report has been written for members to review--nothing. The public pronouncement of Chairman Roberts earlier this year that phase II was ``on the back burner'' has been, unfortunately, accurate. Do I enjoy saying this? Not particularly, true. But let people know. The disturbing question is, why has the chairman relegated the phase II investigation to the back burner? Why did he do that? The fact is--and I hope folks will listen closely--that any time the Intelligence Committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us closer to the role of the White House in all of this, in the use of intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and time again. When it was reported that the Vice President's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby and the National Security Council prepared a draft speech making the intelligence case against Iraq and sent it to the CIA for Secretary of State Powell to give before the United Nations in February of 2003, my staff asked that the committee obtain the NSC, National Security Council, document as part of our ongoing review of how the Powell speech was formulated. Our requests were denied by the majority. Why? Because of this denial, I personally wrote to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Tenet, requesting the Libby/NSC input into the Powell speech--it was important to have that information--and other documents in October of 2003. Director Tenet did not respond to my letter, nor did he respond to my two subsequent letters for the NSC paper in January and March of 2003. Why? Perhaps the answer can be found in last week's National Journal article, which reports that Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff Libby overruled White House lawyers and withheld this information--withheld these documents--from us, and other documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee. When, during the committee's Iraq investigation, my staff requested that the committee interview the White House speechwriter who wrote the President's 2003 State of the Union Address to better understand how the debunked claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger made it into the President's speech--how it got in there, when the same claim was removed, at the CIA's insistence, a few months earlier in Cincinnati--our request was denied by the majority. Why? When we requested that the committee obtain a copy of the one-page summary of the Intelligence Community's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that was prepared for the President in October 2002, our request was denied by the majority. Why? And why has the committee's phase II investigation been moribund since February of 2004? When the committee told the American people it would conduct a thorough review, was the promise a hollow one? What other conclusion? Could it be that the administration has made it clear it does not want the Congress to examine whether intelligence was accurately presented to the American people in the rush to war? Could it be that the administration has made it clear it does not want Congress to examine the role that Pentagon policy officials under Douglas Feith played in circumventing the intelligence community and preparing an alternative analysis to the White House that drew a link between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11 that the intelligence did not support? Could it be the administration has made it clear it does not want Congress to examine the claim that the Iraqi National Congress made to the Senate Appropriations Committee in June of 2002 that it was providing intelligence information directly to the Vice President's office--to Mr. Hadley, I believe--and the Office of the Secretary of Defense? Chalabi passed all intelligence agencies in our Government directly into the White House. The administration's ability to head off any line of inquiry into matters of appropriate congressional oversight is not limited to the Intelligence Committee's Iraq investigation. Despite repeated attempts by me and other Intelligence Committee members to initiate a detailed review of fundamental legal and operational questions surrounding the detention, interrogation, and rendition of suspected terrorists held in U.S. custody--important national security measures that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee--the committee's majority has refused to conduct such an investigation. What are we to do? The Intelligence Committee's obligation under Senate Resolution 400-- ``to provide vigilant oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States''--requires us to not only answer questions related to cases of detainee abuse, but to examine the effectiveness of the methods used in interrogations. But, again, it is apparent to me that the White House has sent down the edict to the majority--and I could say more--that the Congress is not to carry out its oversight responsibilities in detention, interrogation, and rendition matters, or some of the previous matters I discussed, as it would bring uncomfortable attention to the legal decisions and opinions coming from the White House and the Justice Department in the operation of various programs. Finally, the delay in completing the remaining portion of the Intelligence Committee's Iraq review is inexcusable. Sadly, the committee's delinquency in completing an investigation that it unanimously voted to undertake over 20 months ago has diminished the committee's credibility as an effective overseer of the intelligence community. But what disturbs me the most is that the majority has been willing, in this Senator's judgment, to take orders from this administration when it comes to limiting the scope of appropriate, authorized, and necessary oversight investigations. This is a very strong statement. The very independence of the Congress as a separate and coequal branch of Government has been called into question. We need to not only complete the second phase of the Intelligence Committee's investigation, we need to reopen the first part of the Iraq report we released in July of last year, to find out what role the White House played in denying the committee documents it needed to carry out its investigation. That is not a part of the agreement, I fully and freely admit. It is time the Senate, as a body, own up to our oversight responsibilities and provide the American people the answers we promised we would give them over 20 months ago. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the many years of service Norman ``Norm'' L. Kirkham has provided to the people of southern West Virginia. For the last 19 years, Mr. Kirkham has held the position of executive director of the West Virginia Region I Planning and Development Council and worked tirelessly on various projects during the 10 years prior to that. This organization is a nonprofit public agency that coordinates with the Federal, State, and local governments to provide comprehensive planning for the coalfields of southern West Virginia. After numerous years of working with the citizens of McDowell, Mercer, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers, and Wyoming Counties to improve their quality of life and develop the regional economy, Norm is retiring effective October 31, 2005. Many of Norm's colleagues praise him for his active role as the driving force behind the scenes, turning proposed plans and ideas into economic realities for southern West Virginia. One such example is a project to bring a new Federal prison to McDowell County, West Virginia. Over the last decade, I have worked alongside Norm to help develop a site for the prison and secure approval for the prison. As a result of his relentless hard work and determination, the new Federal prison will create 350 high-paying jobs in an area that desperately needs them. I am enormously proud to have worked with Norm on this and so many projects. During his tenure as executive director, Norm has helped to secure funds to provide flood relief to the flood-prone valleys and riverbanks of southern West Virginia, enhanced the water systems in towns such as Princeton, Welch, and Union, and lobbied for grant money to support senior citizen centers. In addition to advancing specific economic development projects, Norm has helped ease access to technology, sewage, and other forms of infrastructure throughout southern West Virginia. Without a doubt, Norm has contributed a great deal to his agency and to the people of southern West Virginia. His contributions are even more impressive when one considers the dire need for economic development in the southern West Virginia coalfields. Traditionally, the economy of southern West Virginia has relied heavily on the coal industry. Through coordination and planning, Norm and his agency have helped diversify the region's economy and tremendously enhance the infrastructural needs that are vital to development in southern West Virginia. Many successful economic development sites can be attributed to Norm's dedication to promoting and developing economic prosperity for every person and family in his region. Public servants in his line of work normally do not receive the recognition they deserve. Our State needs more people like Norm who dedicate their entire professional careers to ensure that people have adequate employment, roads, water, sewage, and other services and infrastructural needs commonly taken for granted. Always modest and never in the limelight, Norm is firmly rooted in rural Summers County where he inherited the values that make southern West Virginia a unique and wonderful area--service to community and nation and dedication to family and neighbors. Through his hard work and integrity, Norm has earned the respect of every local official in southern West Virginia; Federal and State officials; Governors, past and present; and the Members of the congressional delegation. In retirement, Norm can more fully devote himself to what he cherishes most in life--his family, his Summers County farm and his community. He will surely be missed at Region I and throughout all of West Virginia, but he leaves a career of good work that will last generations. I will sincerely miss working with Norm but I suspect even in retirement, some very worthwhile community projects are going to find themselves in need of a seasoned volunteer just like him. Regardless, I wish him the very best.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today too honor and commend the service of a true West Virginia hero. LCPL James R. Sargent of the United States Marine Corps was one of many West Virginians who courageously fought in the Vietnam War. Lance Corporal Sargent's service was a testament to West Virginia's long storied patriotic tradition. A tradition that can be traced back to the days of George Washington, and one that is very much alive today. In the spirit of West Virginia patriotism, I praise Lance Corporal Sargent for his honorable service and contribution to our country. On October 7, 2005, after having been declared Missing in Action for over 37 years, LCPL James R. Sargent will finally be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Lance Corporal Sargent was listed as missing on May 10, 1968, as his platoon provided artillery support in defense of the Civilian Irregular Defense Group camp known as Ngok Tavak. The Marine detachment was attacked by a prepared and well- equipped Viet Cong and North Vietnamese battalion of troops. For their bravery in battle, Lance Corporal Sargent's platoon received the Meritorious Unit Commendation from then Secretary of the Navy L.F. Chapman, Jr. Lance Corporal Sargent was a native West Virginian from Anawalt in McDowell County. Like so many West Virginians, past and present, Lance Corporal Sargent heeded the Nation's call for service, and they deserve our gratitude and deep respect. I am honored to be able to pay respects to this brave West Virginian and his family and friends. After many years full of questions and grief, I hope that Lance Corporal Sargent's loved ones may finally have much deserved closure and peace of mind. His surviving family, friends, and fellow veterans should all be proud of his service, patriotism, and commitment to his country and its defense. For that matter, all Americans should be proud. I ask that we all take a moment to remember all of the American soldiers who gave their lives in service to their country.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In Judge Roberts the Nation is presented with a nominee who possesses an extraordinary intellect, a modest temperament, and a steady hand. I see in him the will and the ability to seek common ground among the Justices of the Court on important national issues. And I believe he possesses sufficient humility, as a man and as a judge, to be mindful of the powerful impact of his actions on the lives of average Americans. Four days of intensive hearings allowed all of us, and much of America, to come to know something of John Roberts and to observe and assess what we don't know. None of us can fully fathom the matters that will be determined, and the people who will be affected, by a judge with lifetime tenure on the highest Court of the land. John Roberts today very likely becomes the Chief Justice of a generation. It is not surprising that this President would select a nominee with whom I disagree on some important issues, particularly as articulated in his early policy work. But it is reassuring, and ultimately determinative, that the President has selected a nominee who asserts with conviction, supported by the record, that he is not an ideologue, that he takes precedent as established law and people and cases as they come before him. I take him at his word, and trust that in interpreting and applying the law he will be his own man. Yet once a nominee's high credentials and unimpeachable integrity have been established, the selection of a Supreme Court justice further demands of us a leap of faith. And it is in that leap of faith that we must attempt to know more: Who is he as a person? What is his understanding of the human condition? Does he take seriously our fundamental responsibility to people as well as to legal concepts? Judge Roberts and I had the opportunity to meet in recent days to discuss his nomination. We had a good, long talk about West Virginia and our country and the people who make America great. In talking with Judge Roberts I looked for assurance that when he tackles the grave questions that will come before his Court, he will consider fully the lives of average people, the lives of those in need and those whose voices often are not heard, the lives of working men and women, children, the elderly, our veterans. Judge Roberts listened. He is a careful and attentive listener. And, I want my fellow West Virginians to know, Judge Roberts shared that his grandfather was a coal miner and his father worked in the steel mills, and that he is, in fact, mindful of the awesome responsibility he faces toward all Americans, from all walks of life, equally and unequivocally deserving of the rights and protections of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the important role the polymer industry plays in my State of West Virginia. As part of Polymer Appreciation Week in the State, Governor Joe Manchin and I have invited a small group of international polymer executives to West Virginia to showcase investment opportunities available to their companies. West Virginia's polymer industry plays an important and vital role in West Virginia's economy. World renowned companies such as GE Plastics, DuPont, Sunoco, and M&G Polymers have chosen to locate here. West Virginia's excellent infrastructure, broad range of raw materials, highly skilled workforce, and close proximity to 62 percent of the United States industrial market, makes West Virginia a key player in the global market. The Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia--PAZ--is the site of the highest concentration of production of high technology, speciality and engineering polymers in the world. The Mid-Ohio Valley has a long history in the production of industrial chemicals, petrochemicals, and polymers dating back to the 1940s. The region has a proud manufacturing heritage, and today, that expertise and dedication has gained the Polymer Alliance Zone national recognition. The mission of the Polymer Alliance Zone is to create the most favorable business climate in the world for the plastics industry through a unique partnership among business, education, and government. Since its inception in 1996, the focus of the organization has been the support of both new and existing polymer industries. According to recent calculations by the West Virginia Development office, PAZ has partnered with local, State and private industry to complete 33 projects that have generated more than $529 million of investments. The Polymer Alliance Zone offers great opportunities for companies looking to locate in West Virginia. The Mid-Ohio Valley location offers easy access to an increasingly global market, and the State's abundant resources provide companies with affordable, reliable energy. In addition, West Virginia's favorable business climate welcomes and supports polymer companies through a number of valuable assistance programs. More importantly, it is the people of West Virginia who make the Polymer Alliance Zone what it is--a vibrant economy, a growing community, and an opportunity that national polymer companies should not miss. Over the last 9 years, the Polymer Alliance Zone has assisted the West Virginia Development Office and our county development authorities in creating and retaining over 1,000 jobs in the region. This is a large achievement, and in return my State recognizes 9 years of service that PAZ has provided to both the polymer industry and to the State of West Virginia by celebrating Polymer Appreciation Week.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, tonight is the annual gala of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute to honor individuals from across the country that have helped promote the basic but crucial goal of ensuring that every child is safe, healthy and has a permanent home. I am proud to be a member of this group, and I am proud of the leadership shown by our Chairs, Senator Landrieu and Senator Craig. Thanks to their leadership and the importance of public awareness, this event has grown into a true celebration and recognition of the individuals who have earned their award, as an Angel of Adoption. This year, I am delighted to honor Chris Wood, executive director of Mission West Virginia, a faith-based organization in my State. Chris and his group have undertaken the initiative known as One Church, One Child. This program which has branches in about 30 States was started in my State in December 2001, thanks to the leadership of Chris Wood and Mission West Virginia. Its goal is to raise awareness and interest in adoptions from foster care throughout the community, but particularly focusing on faith communities. Since its inception, hundreds of West Virginians have inquired about potential adoptions. About 40 adults have been registered and certified as foster and/or adoptive parents. But the best news is that 25 children have been adopted into safe, permanent homes. Others are still in the process. This is real progress, and it is changing the lives of children and families. This is a remarkable program. I am also pleased to note that my West Virginia colleague has nominated Drew Ornbaun as her Angel in Adoption. Drew is a teenager who was adopted from foster care, and he has become a compassionate spokesperson for this initiative and its vital goal--a safe, permanent home for every child. Chris Wood, executive director of Mission West Virginia, is doing important work on behalf of children and families through the One Church, One Child program.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Senator Mike DeWine in introducing new legislation to promote better cooperation and collaboration between the courts and State agencies serving abused and neglected children. Our bill also seeks to improve the process for children to be adopted between two States, and gain a safe, permanent home that is one of the priorities established in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Our bill is named Working to Enhance Courts for At-Risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005, WE CARE, Kids. Senator DeWine and I have worked for years in bipartisan coalition to improve services and policies for our most vulnerable children, nearly 500,000 children who are in the foster care system. These children deserve our attention and our compassion. Through no fault of their own, such children are placed in foster care for their safety. They need to be safe, but they also need prompt and good decisions made for their long-term future and stability. Whenever possible, we should invest to help restore the family and reunite the children with their families if we know that they will be safe. In some cases, legal guardianship or adoption are the best options for the child. It is essential to make good decisions in a timely manner for such children. The social services agencies and the courts truly must work together on such cases. Recently the bipartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care issued a thoughtful report with recommendations on how to strengthen the courts serving children in foster care. The Commission was led by former Congressman Bill Frenzel and co-chaired by former Congressman Bill Gray. It includes a wide range of leaders and experts. The commission did a careful review of the role of the courts in serving children in foster care, and it issued a series of recommendations. We are grateful for this report and relied on many of their recommendations in crafting this legislation. As always, we hope to forge bipartisan consensus on ways to move this bill forward. The legislation also includes a provision to promote inter-state adoptions. With modern technology, caring families from one State may learn of a child in a foster care system in another State who is seeking adoption. When this happens, we need to be careful and thorough in accessing information to ensure the right placement. But we also must be sure that bureaucratic paperwork does not unnecessarily delay an adoption. In West Virginia, there are about 80 children in our State foster care system ready for adoption; nationwide 118,000 children are in foster care and waiting for a safe permanent home. The wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Meth Epidemic in regions of our country, tragically could make these numbers increase. We must improve our system to do the best we can for these vulnerable children. Passing the WE CARE, Kids Act could be an important step forward.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Senator Mike DeWine in introducing new legislation to promote better cooperation and collaboration between the courts and State agencies serving abused and neglected children. Our bill also seeks to improve the process for children to be adopted between two States, and gain a safe, permanent home that is one of the priorities established in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Our bill is named Working to Enhance Courts for At-Risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005, WE CARE, Kids. Senator DeWine and I have worked for years in bipartisan coalition to improve services and policies for our most vulnerable children, nearly 500,000 children who are in the foster care system. These children deserve our attention and our compassion. Through no fault of their own, such children are placed in foster care for their safety. They need to be safe, but they also need prompt and good decisions made for their long-term future and stability. Whenever possible, we should invest to help restore the family and reunite the children with their families if we know that they will be safe. In some cases, legal guardianship or adoption are the best options for the child. It is essential to make good decisions in a timely manner for such children. The social services agencies and the courts truly must work together on such cases. Recently the bipartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care issued a thoughtful report with recommendations on how to strengthen the courts serving children in foster care. The Commission was led by former Congressman Bill Frenzel and co-chaired by former Congressman Bill Gray. It includes a wide range of leaders and experts. The commission did a careful review of the role of the courts in serving children in foster care, and it issued a series of recommendations. We are grateful for this report and relied on many of their recommendations in crafting this legislation. As always, we hope to forge bipartisan consensus on ways to move this bill forward. The legislation also includes a provision to promote inter-state adoptions. With modern technology, caring families from one State may learn of a child in a foster care system in another State who is seeking adoption. When this happens, we need to be careful and thorough in accessing information to ensure the right placement. But we also must be sure that bureaucratic paperwork does not unnecessarily delay an adoption. In West Virginia, there are about 80 children in our State foster care system ready for adoption; nationwide 118,000 children are in foster care and waiting for a safe permanent home. The wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Meth Epidemic in regions of our country, tragically could make these numbers increase. We must improve our system to do the best we can for these vulnerable children. Passing the WE CARE, Kids Act could be an important step forward.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Clarence Wanzer, a resident of Coal Branch Heights, Charleston, WV, who has devoted his life to leadership and service in his community. Mr. Wanzer, who will turn 95 on September 4, was born in Charleston, WV. In 1919, Mr. Wanzer joined Simpson Church but soon moved to Columbus, OH to be raised by his grandmother. Mr. Wanzer did not return to Charleston until the 1930s. After Mr. Wanzer returned to his birthplace, he took a job with the U.S. Postal Service. Later, he purchased a piece of property in Coal Branch Heights, a residential community in Charleston. The community received its first glimpse of Mr. Wanzer's personal determination and conviction when he began construction on his home. Without outside help and during his spare time, Mr. Wanzer hand-dug the basement and completed construction on his block house. Since the 1930s, Mr. Wanzer, working tirelessly to better his community, has participated in numerous community organizations. These activities have benefited the residents of Charleston and West Virginia as a whole. In 1950, Mr. Wanzer's life forever changed. He assisted Rev. Ernest Smith, a local pastor, by polling the residents of Coal Branch Heights as to which Christian denomination they would like to belong. The residents chose the Methodist faith, and a developer donated land to the Methodist Conference for the construction of a new Methodist church. Although Mr. Wanzer helped to build St. Stephens Methodist Church, the Methodist district superintendent refused him the right to worship within the building's walls. At that time, half of Coal Branch Heights' population was Black and the other half was White. Mr. Wanzer, an African American, was not permitted to worship with St. Stephens' all- White congregation. In response to this injustice, Mr. Wanzer purchased a small parcel of land, and he courageously constructed a second building in which all people of color could worship. In 1965, the Methodist district superintendent invited Coal Branch Heights' Black families, the same families he had once turned away, to join the St. Stephens' parish. Mr. Wanzer's family joined St. Stephens in 1965, and he was able to enjoy the fruits of his decade-old labor. Since 1965, Mr. Wanzer has touched the lives of those around him by holding a variety of leadership offices as well as inspiring other community members to become activists of the Christian faith. Today, he continues to serve his community. He recently, in his early 90s, undertook the task of seeking funds to fix a large sinkhole on Twilight Street. I thank Mr. Wanzer for his unswerving loyalty and dedication to his community. Additionally, I wish him good health as he continues to serve the people of West Virginia. He serves as an inspiration to all of us as he continues to rely on his faith to do good works.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on July 30, 1965, with one stroke of the pen, President Lyndon Baines Johnson created two Federal programs that gave America's poor and elderly access to high-quality comprehensive health care. Having grown up in the Hill Country of Texas, President Johnson knew first hand of the lack of health care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. He had witnessed the bitter consequences of men, women, and children denied access to meaningful and affordable health care. While President Johnson's signing of the Medicare and Medicaid programs into law was historic, it would be inaccurate to bestow the sole credit for the creation of these vital programs on one person alone. The Social Security Amendments of 1965 represented the decades long work of both Democrats and Republicans who shared a commitment to improving the health of our nation. The amendments were a compromise between those who wanted a social insurance program solely for the elderly and those who believed we needed a similar program for the poor. The addition of Medicaid to the Social Security Amendments of 1965 was of particular significance. Far from being the afterthought that it is typically described as, the creation of Medicaid was actually a reflection of a tradition of community and mutual obligation that, if not uniquely, is at least characteristically American. It was an extension of a guiding principle of our Nation's founding--a shared responsibility for the greater good of all, despite the broader spectrum of political beliefs. President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican who embodied our Nation's commitment to the public good, was among the first to propose comprehensive health insurance for working families. Our language still bears witness to the type of Good Samaritan ideal that preceded the creation of Medicaid in local situations such as ``barn raising'' and ``quilting bees.'' And on a national level, we have always rallied in times of crisis, channeling personal and individual efforts into a pursuit of the greater good. This type of social contract with our fellow Americans was the basis for the creation of Medicaid. The economic disasters of the Depression left many families unable to pay for health care and, therefore, at the mercy of preventable and treatable diseases. Because of the poor health outcomes that occurred during the Great Depression, the Federal Government began to give serious consideration to a health care safety net. Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress recognized our country's moral obligation to its most vulnerable citizens, and they pushed for action. And, in various ways, virtually every President from Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to John F. Kennedy helped lay the framework for the comprehensive health insurance legislation that Johnson ultimately finished. Just as significant as the bipartisan support for the creation of Medicaid is the fact that subsequent administrations--Democratic and Republican--have reaffirmed a commitment to Medicaid because it is the fulfillment of a social contract between American citizens and their representative government. Unfortunately, during the last decade, we have seen a misguided, darker view of Medicaid emerge, one that loses sight of the nobler efforts underlying that social contract. Medicaid had become a scapegoat for the larger ills facing our entire health care system. But, Medicaid isn't the problem. Instead, this vital program has inherited the problems of our entire health care system, and over the years has been asked to take on more and more responsibility for the health of our Nation with fewer and fewer resources. Because Medicare has never provided significant long-term care benefits, Medicaid has been left to foot the bill for individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. And, each year, more and more employers are dropping their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, which drives more working families to Medicaid. With cost shifts of this magnitude, State governments are finding themselves having to dedicate more and more of their budgets to Medicaid. As a former governor, I understand concerns about balancing budgets. However, the solution proposed by this administration--cutting billions of dollars out of Medicaid--does not fit the problem, which is our health care system as a whole. We can and should reform our entire health care system to make it more responsive to the needs of our Nation's citizens, and there are relatively easy ways to do this. We can start by creating a Federal long-term care system to provide all Americans greater retirement security. At the same time, we can provide employers with more incentives to retain health care coverage for their employees. And, finally, the Federal Government can lower the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans by allowing reimportation and improving access to generic drugs. If we do these things, then Medicaid can continue to be a vital, stable, and efficient health care program. I believe taking care of our most vulnerable people is a moral obligation. And it is an obligation that we, as Americans, have fulfilled time and again because it reaffirms our fundamental belief in democracy and community. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, a record of his 19th century travels through the United States, America's ``equality of conditions'' not only characterized the new country's democratic political structure, but it reflected the community and mutual obligation that he saw as part and parcel of America's revolutionary form of government. The social contract with America that was forged 40 years ago this week is no less valid or necessary today. According to the most recent Census data, nearly 24 million people with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line were uninsured in 2003, including approximately 18 million adults under age 65 as well as 6 million children. Those numbers are expected to rise in the years ahead. Our representative democracy has a responsibility to do for the future what we have repeatedly done in the past: protect, preserve, and strengthen Medicaid.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to publicly recognize the 175th anniversary of the First Christian Church in Weirton, WV. The church has ministered to the Ohio Valley since West Virginia was recognized as our country's 35th state. The Christian Church, which is also known as the Disciples of Christ, is a Protestant denomination of approximately 800,000 members in the United States and Canada. It is one of the largest faith groups founded on American soil. The founders of the Christian Church were Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander Campbell. Both of these men and other distinguished leaders of the Disciples of Christ ministered at the First Christian Church in Weirton. Members of the church have been faithful in serving their country. One of the church's original members, in fact, received a Congressional Medal of Honor in 1898. Mr. Uriah Brown received the award for his heroism in the Civil War, especially at the siege of Vicksburg. Weirton is very much a city that reflects the struggles of the steel industry in our Nation. The city was once a booming steel town, employing up to 20,000 people. Unfortunately, the steel industry has had a very tough time recovering from the massive dumping of steel by our foreign competition in the late 1990s, and the church has had to adapt its ministries to meet the needs of the city's now dwindling population. The challenges that First Christian Church has faced reflect the difficulties faced by the city. The church helped to create Weirton's Christians Helping Arrange New Growth Enterprises, or the CHANGE program, which encourages the integration of services, the building of partnerships, and the pooling of resources to empower families toward self-sufficiency. As Governor, I saw first-hand the work of the First Christian Church in helping establish Weirton Steel's Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or ESOP, in 1983. When the ESOP was in its beginning stages, First Christian Church provided financial support to the employees as they pulled together to prevent the city's primary business from closing. The church also provided food for those who were in need and assisted members of the congregation who were unemployed throughout this period. As the church enters it 176th year, it remains an important part of the community, directly addressing the many needs of an aging steel town. Among the several ministries of the church, one includes the church's Food Cupboard, which provides financial and food aid for laid- off steel workers and their families living in the Upper Ohio Valley. The church also has a food relief fund, and it works with the Salvation Army. The church has not only been influential in Weirton and the Ohio Valley but also in the world. It is a leader in the denomination's Reconciliations Ministry, which is a ministry designed to specifically fight racial prejudice. First Christian Church has been one of the top five financial givers to the Reconciliations Ministry. In addition, they work closely with St. Peter's AME Church, which has an African American congregation. Even though St. Peter's is not the same denomination as the First Christian Church, the church considers it a sister church. Since 1830, the First Christian Church has provided a place of hope, faith, shelter, and witness for the people of West Virginia. I join with them in celebrating its good works and wishing it all the best as it prepares for another century of service.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, within the conference report on the interior appropriations bill is an essential provision to provide $1.5 billion to address the current shortfall in funding for VA health care. The Interior appropriations conference report was selected as the quickest legislative vehicle to address this immediate and compelling lack of funding for VA. With our country in combat in various regions around the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is greatly disturbing that the VA is facing such a severe shortfall. I am proud that the Senate prevailed in securing the $1.5 billion needed to respond to urgent health care needs of veterans now--both veterans returning from current conflicts and aging veterans needing long-term care. While we are addressing this compelling need today, this crisis could have--and should have--been averted. The administration should have proposed a better budget for VA in February of 2005. The administration could have supported Senator Murray's amendment to the Iraq supplemental in April of 2005 to add $1.97 billion for VA health care. Neither happened, and it is troubling that VA blames use of old models and early estimates on VA health care needs beginning in 2002. Our heroic service men and women have been serving in Iraq since 2003, and the VA budget officials should have known to rework and review the VA health care budgets. It is a sad excuse for VA officials to tell Congress in April that VA health care funding is adequate and fine, and then have VA officials come to Congress at the end of June of 2005 to suggest a shortfall of at least $1.5 billion in the VA health care programs. We simply must have a better budget process at the VA to measure and adjust any estimates over time so that our veterans get the health care they have earned with their brave service. Military personnel--Active Duty members and especially members of the National Guard and Reserves--respond to the call of duty. They risk their lives in service to our Nation, and they, and their families, endure enormous sacrifices due to their service. A new survey from the Army suggest that as many as 30 percent of those military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will face mental health concerns, like post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, at the time of their return due to the violence and experiences they face. I have hosted private roundtables throughout West Virginia to meet with returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe that they have compelling needs for mental health care due to the overwhelming stress of serving in such a challenging combat situation. Even service personnel who are supposedly not in combat zones face attacks from car bombs and suicide bombers. It is sad and tragic, and of course it affects our troops. The stories from West Virginia veterans about their service have convinced me that we must invest in more resources for mental health care, counseling, and our vet centers. Knowing this, and knowing this for several years, we simply must ensure that VA health care get the funding it needs to serve all our veterans, Active Duty as well as National Guard and Reserves. But caring for our new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be at the expense of serving veterans of other eras, Vietnam, Korea, and World War II and all the times in between. Our aging veterans have huge long-term care concerns, and VA has an obligation to serve them. Part of our current shortfall was a lack of long-term care funding. While we did not know about the Iraq war in 2002, surely we should have been aware of the demographics of the VA population and the looming need for health care. This issue will not go away, and VA must serve all of our veterans. Since coming to the Senate in 1985, I have been proud to serve on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and I treasure this opportunity to work on behalf of veterans in West Virginia and throughout our country. Today's passage of the $1.5 billion provision for VA health care in the Interior appropriations package is an important step to address the VA health care shortfall. But honestly, this is merely a downpayment, and much more must be done to strengthen the process and the funding for VA health care. This Senator is fully committed to finding a real solution to the chronic problems of insufficient funding for VA health care. Our dedicated veterans deserve no less.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on July 25 and 26, 2005, I was absent from the Senate because I was taking care of an important family matter. During those days, I missed the following six rollcall votes. Rollcall vote No. 206, taken on July 26, 2005, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Rollcall vote No. 205, taken on July 26, 2005, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1042, National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. Rollcall vote No. 204, taken on July 26, 2005, on the Frist amendment No. 1342, as modified, ``to support certain youth organizations, including the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America, and for other purposes.'' Rollcall vote No. 203, taken on July 26, 2005, on the Lautenberg amendment No. 1351, ``to stop corporations from financing terrorism.'' Rollcall vote No. 202, taken on July 26, 2005, on the Collins amendment No. 1377, as modified, ``to ensure that certain persons do not evade or avoid the prohibitions imposed under the International Emergency Powers Act, and for other purposes.'' Rollcall vote No. 201, taken on July 25, 2005, on S. Res. 207, ``a resolution recognizing and honoring the 15th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I rise, along with my cosponsor, Senator DeWine, to reintroduce legislation called I TEACH, Incentives to Educate America's Children Act of 2005. This legislation is an investment to support teachers in rural areas, and high poverty areas. It provides a $1,000 refundable tax credit for those teachers willing to serve in challenging schools. The bill also gives every teacher the chance to earn a refundable tax credit by offering a $1,000 refundable tax credit for every teacher who earns accreditation by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. A National Board Teacher in a rural school or high poverty school would receive a $2,000 credit which hopefully would promote retention of our best teachers. According to the most recent survey by the American Federation of Teachers, the average teacher salary is $45,771. While teacher salaries rose an average of 3.3 percent, the health insurance benefits spiked an average 13 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The starting salary for a new teacher is estimated to be $30,496. Given the costs of college, the average student graduates with a debt of $19,400 and face loan payments of $210 a month, it is difficult for young, eager graduates to pursue careers in teaching and pay off their student debt and other living expenses. It is sad when a dedicated young person decides that they simply cannot ``afford'' to be a teacher, but this happens. The I TEACH Act will help by providing meaningful tax credits to teachers willing to serve in rural areas or high poverty schools, and it will provide a strong financial incentive to keep quality teachers in the classrooms by rewarding teachers who earn National Board certification. Thirty States provide some type of financial incentive to National Board teachers, and this refundable tax credit will support such efforts. For example, West Virginia offers a $2,500 bonus for National Board teachers. If I TEACH is enacted, a National Board teacher in my State would receive a 9 percent bonus which is a meaningful incentive. Our teachers are essential professionals that inspire and educate our children, who represent the next generation. Our teachers deserve our respect and real support. I urge my colleagues to work with me to enact I TEACH and reward our teachers.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children children who are at-risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. The foster care system is the basic safety net for such children, but common sense tells us that a safe permanent home is the best place for a child. As Congress clearly stated in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, every child deserves a safe, permanent home. Now the challenge is to reform our program to deliver on this promise. To truly fulfill that goal, we need to improve the Federal adoption assistance program, which is why I am introducing the Adoption Equality Act today. Current law only provides adoption assistance to special needs children whose parents would have been eligible for the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as of July 1996. It is ridiculous to base a child's eligibility for assistance on the income of the abusive parents from whom they will have been taken for their own health and safety. Because of this Federal regulation, only half of special needs children get Federal assistance under current law. I firmly believe that every child with special needs who will not be adopted without assistance deserves Federal support. It is a basic investment to delivering on our commitment to help provide a safe, permanent home. As we talk about the importance of families, shouldn't we invest in helping to create and maintain such families, especially for our most vulnerable children? By supporting the Adoption Equality Act, we send a clear signal that every child deserves a safe, permanent home.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I rise, along with my cosponsor, Senator DeWine, to reintroduce legislation called I TEACH, Incentives to Educate America's Children Act of 2005. This legislation is an investment to support teachers in rural areas, and high poverty areas. It provides a $1,000 refundable tax credit for those teachers willing to serve in challenging schools. The bill also gives every teacher the chance to earn a refundable tax credit by offering a $1,000 refundable tax credit for every teacher who earns accreditation by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. A National Board Teacher in a rural school or high poverty school would receive a $2,000 credit which hopefully would promote retention of our best teachers. According to the most recent survey by the American Federation of Teachers, the average teacher salary is $45,771. While teacher salaries rose an average of 3.3 percent, the health insurance benefits spiked an average 13 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The starting salary for a new teacher is estimated to be $30,496. Given the costs of college, the average student graduates with a debt of $19,400 and face loan payments of $210 a month, it is difficult for young, eager graduates to pursue careers in teaching and pay off their student debt and other living expenses. It is sad when a dedicated young person decides that they simply cannot ``afford'' to be a teacher, but this happens. The I TEACH Act will help by providing meaningful tax credits to teachers willing to serve in rural areas or high poverty schools, and it will provide a strong financial incentive to keep quality teachers in the classrooms by rewarding teachers who earn National Board certification. Thirty States provide some type of financial incentive to National Board teachers, and this refundable tax credit will support such efforts. For example, West Virginia offers a $2,500 bonus for National Board teachers. If I TEACH is enacted, a National Board teacher in my State would receive a 9 percent bonus which is a meaningful incentive. Our teachers are essential professionals that inspire and educate our children, who represent the next generation. Our teachers deserve our respect and real support. I urge my colleagues to work with me to enact I TEACH and reward our teachers.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children children who are at-risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. The foster care system is the basic safety net for such children, but common sense tells us that a safe permanent home is the best place for a child. As Congress clearly stated in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, every child deserves a safe, permanent home. Now the challenge is to reform our program to deliver on this promise. To truly fulfill that goal, we need to improve the Federal adoption assistance program, which is why I am introducing the Adoption Equality Act today. Current law only provides adoption assistance to special needs children whose parents would have been eligible for the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as of July 1996. It is ridiculous to base a child's eligibility for assistance on the income of the abusive parents from whom they will have been taken for their own health and safety. Because of this Federal regulation, only half of special needs children get Federal assistance under current law. I firmly believe that every child with special needs who will not be adopted without assistance deserves Federal support. It is a basic investment to delivering on our commitment to help provide a safe, permanent home. As we talk about the importance of families, shouldn't we invest in helping to create and maintain such families, especially for our most vulnerable children? By supporting the Adoption Equality Act, we send a clear signal that every child deserves a safe, permanent home.