Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I was not able to make the roll call vote on this resolution commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I had a family commitment that I had to keep, and I knew that this resolution would pass overwhelmingly, and I needed to be with my family. I did want to take time to hail this special occasion and I want to reaffirm my strong support for the Americans with Disability Act. This historic legislation has helped to ensure that people with disabilities can have access to a wide range of programs and policies to help them fully participate in public life and culture. Over the years, I am proud of the progress our country has made in including people with disabilities in public places and events. This sweeping legislation is perhaps one of the most significant pieces of legislation since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under this bold law, people with disabilities were ensured nondiscrimination in employment and public accommodations, including transportation and telecommunications. Implementation has not been easy, and it is still ongoing. While meaningful progress has been made, there is still a great deal of work to do to achieve the bold goal of the Americans with Disability Act. We must continue to push hard to end discrimination and fully embrace inclusion, but today we should also celebrate the strides made since 1990 on behalf of people with disabilities.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, earlier today I had to miss a rollcall vote on the Landrieu-Craig amendment because of a family commitment. I would have voted for the sense-of-the-Senate amendment to urge USAID to follow the principles of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Senators Landrieu and Craig have been extraordinary leaders on the issue of adoption, and their work on the Congressional Adoption Caucus has been very important in our country and throughout the world in promoting the fundamental concept that every child deserves a safe, permanent home. This is a basic goal that we should strive for at every opportunity.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I strongly support the Reid amendment. Senator Reid is addressing a problem that has become endemic in recent years. It is something of which I have become acutely aware since I was appointed to that position 4\1/2\ years ago, the leaking of classified information. Barely a day goes by, frankly, when you don't read or watch press reports that contain classified information. The country is the lesser for it. I tell my colleagues, these leaks do real damage to our national security. When individuals with access to our Nation's secrets disclose those secrets to the public, they are telling our enemies about our intelligence capabilities and potentially how to defeat them. When intelligence sources and methods are exposed, we lose the ability to collect the information that will keep America safe. Good intelligence is the foundation of national security. We know that. It guides our foreign policy, it helps us determine what weapons systems to build, and how to shape and deploy our military forces. It is critical to our efforts to stop terrorists before they attack. Intelligence that is compromised, therefore, makes America less secure. There is no excuse when individuals entrusted with these secrets leak them. It is not just careless or unfortunate, it is dangerous. Among the secrets we guard the most closely are the identity of our spies. Revealing the identity of a covert agent not only ends the effectiveness of that individual, it puts that person in grave personal danger, and such disclosure also puts at risk all of the agent's colleagues and the people the agent has recruited around the world over the years. In other words, when you expose the name of a covert agent, people can die. The consequences of such exposure are so severe that in 1982 the Congress passed the Identities Protection Act, to criminalize this behavior. But apparently that is not enough. Last year, someone with access to classified information told members of the press the identity of a covert CIA operative. They did this not to expose some wrongdoing, but because they wanted to embarrass her husband. Someone calculated that our national security was less important than scoring points in the press for the administration's policy regarding Iraq. The act was deplorable. Over the past 2 years the special prosecutor appointed to investigate this crime has pursued it aggressively. He may now be making headway, we don't know, but it is unclear whether he will ever accumulate enough evidence to bring the guilty party or parties to justice. If he is unsuccessful, we should not let that be the end of this sorry episode. We can and should make it clear that people entrusted with classified information cannot carelessly disclose that information without consequence. Federal employees are bound to protect classified information. If they do not, the very least sanction they should face is to lose the privilege of holding a security clearance. We have to make clear to those in the Federal workforce entrusted with protecting highly sensitive information that there are consequences for these disclosures. The amendment by Senator Reid does exactly that. It is straightforward and is common sense. If you disclose classified information to somebody not authorized to receive it, you are no longer allowed to hold a security clearance. The FBI and the Justice Department may not be able to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute leakers, but the Director of National Intelligence should be able to use this administrative tool to help stem the tide of unauthorized disclosures. We need to get serious about this problem and this is a good place to start. The Frist amendment attempts to equate the unauthorized disclosure of classified information with unclassified remarks regarding an FBI report that some object to on political grounds. There is nothing inherently improper or illegal about making ``reference'' to an FBI report, or making a ``statement'' based on some unidentified FBI agent's comments. The law is clear about the importance of protecting highly sensitive national security secrets, including the identity of a covert agent. The Frist amendment makes a mockery of the gravity associated with leaking classified information by suggesting that any unclassified reference to any FBI report anyone believes is being used as propaganda is somehow as serious an offense. Under the twisted logic contained in the Frist amendment, the remarks of FBI Director Mueller himself, if used by a purported terrorist group to discredit the United States, would cause the Director to lose access to classified information. It is absurd. This is absurd. The Frist amendment seeks to rewrite the freedom of speech clause of the Constitution and should be dismissed by this body out of hand. The Reid amendment, on the other hand, is clear and measured. If you disclose classified information without authorization, your security clearance should be revoked. I end by asking my colleagues, what is wrong with this? I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Smith in introducing the Video Choice Act of 2005. We believe that our bill will increase competition in the video marketplace and spur the deployment of advanced broadband networks. Cable and telephone companies are competing to offer a bundle of Internet, video and telephone service to consumers. Cable companies are now offering telephone services. Cable companies offer both traditional telephone services over the public switched telephone network and recently have begun a major expansion into offering voice services over the internet. Congress, in an effort to spur entry into the voice market, decided to minimally regulate or deregulate cable companies' entry in these voice services. As cable enters the voice market, it is driving prices down and creating innovative new voice services and products. At present, cable companies control nearly 70 percent of the multi-channel video market and are not subject to effective price competition for video services. The Senate Commerce Committee, of which Senator Smith and I are both members, spent much of the last Congress examining options to address the ever escalating price of cable television. I recognize that the cable industry has invested heavily in its networks and programming costs continue to rise, but I am hearing from some of my constituents that they feel captive to the pricing decisions of their local cable company. I believe the government should encourage facilities-based video competition. The Government Accountability Office has reported that in areas where cable faces competition from a facilities-based competitor, cable television prices are, on average, 15 percent less and as much as 41 percent less than in areas without effective competition. To compete with cable, traditional telephone companies are slowly entering the video marketplace. Instead of offering video services over cable, the telephone companies will offer it over their high capacity fiber networks. Fiber-optic cables consist of bundles of hair-thin glass strands. Laser-generated pulses of light transmit voice, data, and video signals via the fiber at speeds and capacities far exceeding today's copper-cable systems. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited capacity, as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest high-speed data connections. Even more importantly, our bill would speed the deployment of super fast broadband networks. To offer video services, telephone companies will have to either lay fiber optic cables or develop other networks that have enough capacity to transmit hundreds of television channels. These networks will also be able to offer consumers the ability to receive and send vast amounts of data. Our Nation continues a precipitous decline in the world's broadband deployment rate. As Asian countries develop broadband networks capable of delivering consumers 30 to 100 megabits of data, the United States falls further behind in deployment of next generation broadband technologies. The deployment of fiber optic or technologically equivalent networks would spur economic development as well as consumer choice in the cable television market. I have worked for almost eight years on legislation to provide incentives to promote the deployment of next generation broadband technology and services. The Senate has adopted this measure numerous times, but because of opposition in the House of Representatives, it has never been enacted into law. We must examine other policies if we are to achieve universal broadband penetration. I believe that our legislation will serve as a catalyst for the deployment of next generation broadband networks that will bring enormous economic benefits to Americans, especially rural Americans. I know that many local governments are concerned about changing the existing regulatory framework for video regulation. I recognize that municipal governments have an important role to play in the telecommunications debate. As a former governor, I am aware of the important local revenues that cable franchise fees provide local government in West Virginia and across the Nation. I have always supported the local government's ability to collect local fees and taxes on telecommunications services, and I want to state that I will continue to do so. Our legislation states that competitive video providers, as defined by the bill, do not have to secure a local franchise agreement to offer competitive video services. However, the legislation mandates that all vital social policy obligations of current cable television operators will also have to be met by the competitive video industry. First and foremost, our bill mandates that competitive video providers pay a franchise fee to the appropriate local government. This fee would be equal to the fee the incumbent video provider pays. Our bill also requires that competitive video providers carry all existing local public, educational, and government use channels; carry all local broadcast stations; carry all noncommercial, educational channels; adhere to strict consumer privacy obligations; and comply with all statutory consumer protections and customer service requirements. The bill explicitly prohibits economic redlining in the provision of competitive video services. Finally, the legislation explicitly states that nothing in the bill affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public-rights-of-way or to enact or enforce any consumer protection law. Senator Smith and I have crafted a narrowly tailored bill to promote the entry of new competitors into the video marketplace. Our legislation balances the need to promote competition in this market with preserving the core social and policy obligations that we have always imposed on providers of video services. In addition to promoting competition in the video marketplace, this bill gives us the opportunity to foster an exponential growth in advanced broadband networks. By having advanced communications networks that are exponentially faster than our existing networks, we will unleash our economic potential, especially in places like my home State of West Virginia. Again, I would like to thank Senator Smith for all of his hard work on this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a community in West Virginia that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 12, the residents of Pratt will celebrate their community's history and founding 100 years ago. Pratt is a small town in southern West Virginia on a soft bend in the Kanawha River, with a population of 551. Pratt has some of the qualities of a typical West Virginia coal camp--it is a small community with hardworking people and a solid value base. But what separates Pratt from most small coal towns is that it has been around longer and has played an integral role in the labor movement. Despite its small size, Pratt holds an important place in West Virginia's history. Originally named Clifton, then Dego, the town adopted the last name of Charles K. Pratt at the dawning of the twentieth century. Pratt's New York company owned timber and mineral rights in the area. The town was incorporated on June 4, 1905. Stately old homes are spread throughout the town, each adding to Pratt's rich history. The town's lone church, Old Kanawha Baptist, is recognized as the oldest functioning church in the Kanawha Valley. It celebrated its 200th anniversary in 1993. In the local cemetery, gravestones date back as far as 1835. Many of Pratt's residents can trace their ancestry to the town's pre-Civil War settlers. In 1984 the town's cemetery and residential neighborhood overlooking the Kanawha River were designated a historic district and placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Mother Jones prison site received historic designation in 1992. The town of Pratt rose to national prominence during Wet Virginia's mine wars of 1912-1913. In 1912, United Mine Workers of America, UMWA, miners in nearby Paint Creek demanded wages equal to those of other area miners. They also insisted on the right to organize and an end to the practice of using mine guards. When operators rejected the wage increase, miners walked off the job, beginning one of the most violent strikes in the Nation's history. After the strike began, operators brought in mine guards to evict miners and their families from company houses. As the mine guards continued to intimidate workers, national labor leaders, including Mary Harris ``Mother'' Jones, arrived on the scene. A leader of the UMWA's efforts to organize the State, Jones was known for her blistering verbal attacks on coal operators and politician. She criticized the poor working conditions, meager safety provisions, and long hours of the mines and called for change. In 1913, Jones was placed under house arrest in Pratt for inciting a riot and was held there for 85 days. When news of her imprisonment spread across the country, Congress was forced to investigate the matter. Although the settlement of the strike failed to answer the miners' main grievances, the Paint Creek strike produced a number of labor leaders who would play prominent roles in the years to come. Following the strike, the coalfields were relatively peaceful for 6 years. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Pratt, WV, and its residents on their first 100 years and in extending our best wishes for their next 100 years and beyond. We recognize Pratt's important contributions to the labor movement. Through its challenges and triumphs, Pratt has helped to move our Nation forward in labor relations, which is one of the many reasons this fine community deserves our recognition. Pratt has a rich past and a promising future.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Lincoln Primary Care Center, which has served the people of Lincoln County, WV, since 1975. That year, the residents of Lincoln County opened a small, nonprofit health clinic in the storefront of a local grocery store. In 1977, the Lincoln County Primary Care Center became the Nation's first federally designated Rural Health Care Clinic and, by May of 1991, had been given the National Rural Healthcare Association Outstanding Rural Practice Award. Today, the Lincoln Primary Care Center serves nearly 22,000 area residents and reaches out, not only to the people of Lincoln County but also to those in parts of Cabell and Wayne Counties. The center is now housed within a 17,500 square-foot building that features 33 treatment rooms and offers a wide variety of medical services. This includes initiatives within the Wellness Center, opened in 2004 to provide members of the community with valuable information regarding the prevention of chronic disease. This also includes healthy living programs that benefit residents of all ages, the Senior Nutrition Program, which serves free lunches to anyone over the age of 55, and the exercise facility, which is used by at least 50 people each day. As I have said before, West Virginia is a rural State and, in many areas, access to quality health care is problematic. This is especially true in the case of our seniors, who comprise nearly 15 percent of our population and have significant health care needs. That is why it is good to know that the Lincoln Primary Care Center offers them high- quality, accessible care that addresses all aspects of wellness. Indeed, it is clear that the Lincoln Primary Care Center plays an important role in the community it serves, and a number of West Virginians who visit the center have conveyed to me their appreciation for it. Ms. Brenda Terry notes the great pleasure she receives from the use of the center's exercise facility, and how glad she is to see so many friends there. Also, Ms. Mary Richmond tells me that she is thankful for the paved walking track, and Ms. Donna Rush describes the pleasant atmosphere enjoyed by those who live alone. Finally, Mr. John Rush expresses his fondness for the new friendships that he has forged during his time there. With this praise in mind, I would like to commend the Lincoln Primary Care Center as it celebrates its 30th Anniversary and I would like to recognize the dedicated service it provides to its community--service that can serve as a model for rural health care delivery, now and in the future.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the floor manager, and I thank the chairman of the committee who had a lot to say and who operates the committee in a spirit which is very bipartisan and which is aimed at trying to solve problems. I say that at the beginning of every meeting and I say it here on the Senate floor. I rise to support the Murray-Byrd amendment. It responds to a VA funding shortfall that is in excess of $1 billion. I will get into that in a moment. What I have in my mind right now is about 5 days ago, I spent 2\1/2\ hours with 12 veterans, men and women who had come back from Iraq, one from Afghanistan--one several years ago, most of them within the last several months. They had sustained wounds and had healed some of those physical wounds. But what was particularly stunning to me was the degree of the psychological wounds, self-defined by them, after a period of relaxing. It takes time for veterans to open up when somebody with a dark suit and tie walks into their little circle. But they began to talk about their problems. They would not talk about what they had done because veterans do not do that. World War II veterans do not do that, Vietnam veterans do not do that, Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans do not do that. They talk about what hurts, the uncontrollable violence. They talk about deep depression. They talk about having no sense of the future. They talk about problems with their not being able to communicate with their wives--all kinds of problems. These were mostly guardsmen and reservists, but there were some regular military. They were assembled at the Beckley, WV, Vet Center. I sort of point that out because one of the secrets of treating veterans in rural areas is you have to have Vet Centers near where veterans are. They can't all be expected to make long journeys to distant major veterans hospitals. These folks at the Beckley Vet Center and other Vet Centers are about to be overwhelmed. They are going to be more overwhelmed when the other 130,000 soldiers return home whenever they do. And of course some soldiers will be returning to combat. These soldiers had a very harsh and harrowing series of experiences serving their country. Once discharged, they still faced problems. They talked about difficulties in getting reimbursed. They all talked about VA appointments being put off for a long time. As I indicated, they were reluctant to talk at all. But when they did talk, they made you very proud when they told you what they felt, not necessarily what they had been through, which they usually decline to do. When our country called upon these brave West Virginians--and that would apply to each and every State--to serve, they answered the call of duty without question. In the case of Guard and Reserve, of course, they are always ready to do that and have to make enormous sacrifices to do that, often not being able to hold on to their jobs and retain the benefits which they had. When they come back to West Virginia, they deserve the full care and support they have earned. Yet again, we just learned that our VA health care is well over $1 billion short on funding this year. This is outrageous, and it is shameful. Our veterans earned their VA health care benefits through their distinguished service. They should not be delayed or denied care because of mismanagement at VA or OMB over poor budget models. This is where I disagreed a little bit with the distinguished chairman of the committee. This is not just about the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This is not about the fact that he is new on the job. The Veterans' Administration is second only to the Pentagon in terms of the number of people who work there. If they were using a 2002 model--and at one point the Secretary said they were using the 2002 model, and then at another point he said the 2003 model--nevertheless it is a very old model. In 2002, we had not gone to war. All of these months have passed. What was the magic that did not happen where VA or OMB management said, ``gee, if we are going to go to war and we are sending all kinds of troops first to one combat zone in one nation and then to another combat zone in another nation, and plus there is the war on terrorism, what is going to happen with our returning veterans?'' We have troops deployed all around the world and, yet nobody in VA or OMB of figures there is going to be a surge in the number of veterans we have to take care of so they do not change their model. Well, I am sorry, I do not care whether the Secretary has been there for 6 years or 6 days, that does not work. It is the VA that has professionals who have worked there for years who should be able to adjust those models. That is no excuse whatsoever. Yesterday, Secretary Nicholson testified that the VA had to borrow money for current accounts to cover immediate health care needs for this year, this year being 2005. Such borrowing would create at least a $1.5 billion shortfall for next year, that being fiscal year 2006. But the $1.5 billion is really at least $1.9 billion. We are not actually going to vote on either of those numbers. I sort of wish we were because of something which is not brought out but which I am going to bring out. The VA assumes the President's VA budget, which includes at least $400 million in health fees, will be collected from the veterans--what? Wait a second. Yes, the VA Secretary is still seeking to double the co-payments for prescription drugs for veterans, and he is still supporting an enrollment fee of at least $250 for some veterans. So, yes, there is a shortfall, but then there is income VA expects but won't be collected, the shortfall will be larger. I think that requires a very sharp analysis on the part of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. This Senator opposes such fees. I do not understand how that is done. How does one take somebody who gives up their job potentially, for example a National Guard member who works for the 130th Air Guard wing in Charleston, WV, which has complete control over the evacuation of the National Capital area, and then charge them for being able to get health care after they serve in combat? That is not what Abraham Lincoln wrote over the Veterans' Administration building. So the VA budget is at least $1.9 billion short. Let that be understood by my colleagues. Our Members have not been told that amount, but that is because of the $400 million that VA assumes, but Congress never tries to charge our veterans. We should understand that. It is at least $1.9 billion if we fully respond to the health needs of returning veterans. I expect, frankly, it will be more than $1.9 billion. In fact, I would say to the good Senator from the State of Washington that we discussed higher figures in our Veterans Affairs' Committee meeting. Experts who I immediately reject, because I reject their theory on this, suggest that up to 40 percent of our veterans will have psychological wounds such as PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. I have yet to meet with a single group of veterans who would put the figure at anything less than 60 or 70 percent, and that is just post-traumatic stress disorder. We are also talking about depression. We are talking about schizophrenia. We are talking about uncontrollable violence. We are talking about rage. We are talking about nightmares. We are talking about people waking up sweating and screaming. This goes all the way back to World War I, the science now proves. These West Virginia veterans who typify veterans from around the country return from Baghdad and Afghanistan, and they describe the experiences of their colleagues, and I truly fear that VA mental health care is going to cost a whole lot more than the two amendments that we will both be voting on and voting for, I hope, this afternoon. My view is that whatever the needs of our returning veterans are, they must be met, particular right now during a time of war. Finally, I am personally stunned by the fact that the administration's budget experts and managers use these old models, and did not warn or advise Congress until now. I will go right back to that, their models did not fully estimate the effect of the war on VA health care spending. Again, blaming a poor old model from 2002 or 2003 does not cut it in anybody's book. It is unsustainable as an argument. As I say, the VA is second only to the Pentagon in the number of people it has. A lot of those folks work on budgets. They know what models are. They can come up with new models. They did not come up with new models, and that is the point. Each time this year, VA officials have testified they were confident of sufficient VA funding. That is what they told the committee in February, in March and in April. They were dead wrong. It is stunning. It is sad. So we asked over and over whether they were prepared for the returning troops, and we were told mission accomplished; they had everything under control. Again, they were wrong. Our soldiers are returning home and expecting the VA health care they were promised. They are not going to be able to get it. The budget shortfall is unconscionable, and our troops deserve better. We must pass this amendment or any other amendments which raise this amendment. It will still not be enough money, and it will only take care of the present situation that we are in. We must ensure that such a significant shortfall never--and I rarely say never''--happens again. I am committed to fighting for our veterans. I believe that is the duty of the Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my friends and colleagues--Senators Reed, Lautenberg, Corzine, Sarbanes, and Kerry--to introduce an important piece of legislation, the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005. This legislation will provide health insurance for every child in the United States by 2012, regardless of family income. My long-time friend from California, Congressman Stark, is introducing a companion bill in the House. He has worked tirelessly to improve access to health care for all Americans, and I am pleased to be joining him once again to advocate on behalf of America's children. We have introduced this legislation in each of the last three Congresses because we know how vital health insurance is to a child. Children with untreated illnesses are less likely to learn and therefore less likely to move out of poverty. Such children have an inherent disadvantage when it comes to being productive members of society. We can have a positive impact on our children's lives today as well as tomorrow by guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all. Children are inexpensive to insure, but the rewards for providing them with health care during their early education and development years are enormous. Despite the well-documented benefits of providing health insurance coverage for children, there are still over 8 million uninsured children in America. We can and must do better. Our children are our future. No child in this country should ever be without access to health care. This is why I am proud to reintroduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005. This legislation is a clear investment in our future--our children. Every child would be automatically enrolled at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2007. The benefits would be tailored to meet the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children through the Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Families below 150 percent of poverty would have no premiums or co-payments, and there would be no cost sharing for preventive or well-child visits for any child. MediKids children would remain enrolled in the program throughout childhood. When families move to another state, Medikids would be available until parents can enroll their children in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises, Medikids would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to our Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, MediKids would fill in the gaps until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. Ultimately, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage. Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population over its 40-year history. At the time we created Medicare, seniors were more likely to be living in poverty than any other age group. Most were unable to afford needed medical services and unable to find health insurance in the market even if they could afford it. Today, it is our Nation's children who shoulder the burden of poverty. Children in America are nearly twice as vulnerable to poverty as adults. It's time we make a significant investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life. Congress cannot rest on the success we achieved by expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Although each was a remarkable step toward reducing the ranks of the uninsured, particularly uninsured children, we still have a long way to go. Even with perfect enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance. What's more troubling is the fact that both Medicaid and CHIP are in serious jeopardy because of the budget cuts being proposed by the current Administration. It's long past time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill we are introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country. I urge my colleagues to move beyond partisan politics and to support this critical step toward universal coverage. 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 friends and colleagues--Senators Reed, Lautenberg, Corzine, Sarbanes, and Kerry--to introduce an important piece of legislation, the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005. This legislation will provide health insurance for every child in the United States by 2012, regardless of family income. My long-time friend from California, Congressman Stark, is introducing a companion bill in the House. He has worked tirelessly to improve access to health care for all Americans, and I am pleased to be joining him once again to advocate on behalf of America's children. We have introduced this legislation in each of the last three Congresses because we know how vital health insurance is to a child. Children with untreated illnesses are less likely to learn and therefore less likely to move out of poverty. Such children have an inherent disadvantage when it comes to being productive members of society. We can have a positive impact on our children's lives today as well as tomorrow by guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all. Children are inexpensive to insure, but the rewards for providing them with health care during their early education and development years are enormous. Despite the well-documented benefits of providing health insurance coverage for children, there are still over 8 million uninsured children in America. We can and must do better. Our children are our future. No child in this country should ever be without access to health care. This is why I am proud to reintroduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005. This legislation is a clear investment in our future--our children. Every child would be automatically enrolled at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2007. The benefits would be tailored to meet the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children through the Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Families below 150 percent of poverty would have no premiums or co-payments, and there would be no cost sharing for preventive or well-child visits for any child. MediKids children would remain enrolled in the program throughout childhood. When families move to another state, Medikids would be available until parents can enroll their children in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises, Medikids would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to our Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, MediKids would fill in the gaps until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. Ultimately, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage. Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population over its 40-year history. At the time we created Medicare, seniors were more likely to be living in poverty than any other age group. Most were unable to afford needed medical services and unable to find health insurance in the market even if they could afford it. Today, it is our Nation's children who shoulder the burden of poverty. Children in America are nearly twice as vulnerable to poverty as adults. It's time we make a significant investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life. Congress cannot rest on the success we achieved by expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Although each was a remarkable step toward reducing the ranks of the uninsured, particularly uninsured children, we still have a long way to go. Even with perfect enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance. What's more troubling is the fact that both Medicaid and CHIP are in serious jeopardy because of the budget cuts being proposed by the current Administration. It's long past time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill we are introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country. I urge my colleagues to move beyond partisan politics and to support this critical step toward universal coverage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I commemorate 142 years of statehood for my State of West Virginia. In doing so, I believe that it is important to note my State's motto, ``Mountaineers Are Always Free.'' This phrase, as relevant today as it was 142 years ago, truly embodies a people who have done so much to contribute to our great Nation and a State so abundant in natural beauty. Historically, West Virginia's magnificent landscape has nurtured and inspired her inhabitants, endowing willing adventurers the freedom to explore, experience, and utilize her natural wonders. Native Americans came to West Virginia over 9,000 years ago and established the State's first permanent settlement in present-day St. Albans. Their ancient artifacts and impressive monuments, such as the Grave Creek Burial Mound, in Moundsville, serve as lasting tributes to the land's eternal contributions to mankind. Today, the people of West Virginia remain free to explore and enjoy the State's unspoiled, majestic terrain. Mountainous views extend for miles in every direction, and blend seamlessly with glades of rhododendron and deep river valleys. Hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, such as the Monongahela National Forest, blanket our State with lush plant life. West Virginia has over 50 State and national parks that protect our natural habitat and provide recreation to millions of visitors each year. Nearly 20 different species of endangered or threatened animals, including the bald eagle, have found refuge within our ecosystem. Pocahontas County's pristine rivers and streams provide some of the best trout fishing in the State, and offer those who visit countless opportunities to escape into the serenity of the Appalachian Mountains. The county is known as the ``Birthplace of Rivers'' because 8 different rivers have headwaters there, with their only source of water being the fresh mountain rain. In addition to the freedoms provided by West Virginia's natural environment, the citizens of West Virginia have fostered a social climate of acceptance, where all are free to express their thoughts and beliefs and take advantage of the benefits of a good education. Booker T. Washington, following President Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, sought refuge in West Virginia and was raised in a small mining town called Malden. It was there that he was encouraged to follow his dream of education, and there that he developed the skills to become one of our country's foremost educators and leaders. Another location, the Sumner School in Parkersburg, became the Nation's first free school for African-American children below the Mason-Dixon. It was operated until school segregation ended in 1954 and currently houses the Sumnerite African-American History Museum. In addition to these advances to freedom and education made within our home State, West Virginians have consistently and overwhelmingly devoted their lives to protect the ideals on which this Nation was founded--liberty and equality. Five hundred thousand West Virginians, since the time of the Civil War, have fought to protect our country in battles and conflicts all over the world. There are currently 200,000 veterans in West Virginia, giving my State the highest per capita ratio of veterans in the Nation. Such an impeccable record of devotion to freedom is not surprising from a State with origins like West Virginia. It was born out of the Civil War in 1863 and became the ultimate manifestation of a State's loyalty to our young country. For 142 years West Virginians have been selfless in our love for this Nation, and our contributions to this country are best reflected in President Abraham Lincoln's own words. As our great President Lincoln said: We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in this struggle . . . Her brave and good men regard her admission into the Union as a matter of life and death. They have been true to the Union under very severe trials. The meaning of these words, and the contributions of my State in the development of this country's freedom, continue to hold immense importance with West Virginians today. I am proud to be a West Virginian. So, today, as we celebrate West Virginia's 142nd birthday, we remember our history, celebrate our present, and look with hope toward the future of our truly wonderful State.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation that would accelerate the deployment of advanced broadband internet access technologies in rural and underserved regions. This bipartisan legislation is very similar to bills that I have introduced in the last several Congresses. I want to thank Senators Snowe, Baucus, Burns, Schumer, Cantwell, and Bunning for co-sponsoring this bill. The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and forever changed the way Americans live and work. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others share information through computer networks. We shop online. Some of us work at home, or in other locations, using networked computers to interact with our colleagues and associates. Distance learning and telemedicine provide important services in remote locations. In our personal lives we look to our networked computers for entertainment and to communicate with family and friends. These trends are accelerating dramatically. A decade ago, telephone-based low-bandwidth services met most of our limited data communications needs. Today this technology is obsolete. Most businesses and many individuals find that they require the ability to transmit information much faster, using what is commonly known as broadband communications. Several technologies compete to provide customers with broadband communications. Among the most prominent are optical fiber, wireless, digital-subscriber lines, cable modems, power line transmission, and satellites. Indeed, as the need for faster services compounds, the technologies must be improved and even the definition of broadband communications must be revised and updated. The now-obsolete telephone-based systems transmit data at up to 56 thousand bits per second. Today, internet service providers commonly install first generation broadband systems that transmit data at rates between 256 thousand bits per second and 4 million bits per second. But we can now see clearly that these current- generation systems will be superseded by second-generation systems, already being installed in a few areas, which operate at data rates of up to 30 million bits per second. In other countries, services that transmit and receive data at 100 million bits per second are already available to individuals. Some industry experts predict that within 5 to 10 years there will be a substantial demand for systems that operate at 1 billion bits per second. Despite the industry downturn over the past few years, America's telecommunications providers are working to make higher speed communications more widely available. Progress is fastest, and the business case for investment is most attractive, in affluent urban and suburban areas, especially newly developing areas. Rural areas are less fortunate. Low population densities, rugged terrain, and other factors make these areas difficult and expensive to serve. Similarly, the business case for providers to invest in underserved areas, mostly low income areas, is generally weak. As was the case with electric power and telephone systems in the 20th century, financial incentives will be necessary to assure the extension of broadband communications infrastructure into rural and underserved regions. These incentives will also provide a substantial benefit to the American economy. In the same way that extending electric power systems into rural areas stimulated a new demand for electric appliances and other products, the wider availability of broadband communications will stimulate electronic commerce and new commercial services. For my State of West Virginia, and other rural and low income States, the availability of advanced communications systems will allow residents to participate in the 21st century economy and have access to the economic and cultural benefits of urban living while retaining their cherished rural values and lifestyles. The consequences of failing to act are serious. Businesses in infrastructure-rich regions will prosper at the expense of those in rural and underserved regions. New businesses will locate where the information infrastructure is strong. The migration of jobs to urban and affluent areas will accelerate and tax revenue in rural and underserved areas will continue to decline. Residents of West Virginia and other rural states will continue to be at an economic and educational disadvantage. The ``digital divide'' will widen and the gap between ``have'' and ``have-not'' regions will expand. Decisions on how this country chooses to deploy information technology have the power to fundamentally transform the future of rural America. I firmly believe, and I am sure this view is shared by many of my colleagues, that rural communities deserve the same opportunities as their wealthier urban and suburban counterparts. We must make a commitment to them now, while there is still time, that their communications infrastructure will not always be a generation or more behind that of urban and suburban areas. My bill would provide incentives for broadband deployment by allowing providers, under certain conditions, to treat their investments in broadband technologies as current-tax-year expenses. Under my legislation, the incentives provided by this bill would be differentiated to favor investments in technologies that will continue to meet communications needs further into the future. Half of investments in systems that permit data to be received at rates of 1.0 million bits per second and transmitted at rates of 128 thousand bits per second would qualify. This is a substantial incentive to provide residents of rural and underserved areas the capabilities already enjoyed by individuals and businesses in urban and suburban areas. Investments in systems that permit data to be received at 22 million bits per second and transmitted at 5 million bits per second would fully qualify. This more powerful incentive challenges internet service providers to provide the capabilities that they have already begun to introduce in urban and suburban areas. Forward-looking providers will use this opportunity to invest in technologies that can be upgraded further as the demand grows. Americans believe strongly in equal opportunity. This bill is just one part of an effort to make sure that all Americans have equal access to modern communications systems and the opportunities that those systems are bringing in the 21st century. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation that would accelerate the deployment of advanced broadband internet access technologies in rural and underserved regions. This bipartisan legislation is very similar to bills that I have introduced in the last several Congresses. I want to thank Senators Snowe, Baucus, Burns, Schumer, Cantwell, and Bunning for co-sponsoring this bill. The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and forever changed the way Americans live and work. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others share information through computer networks. We shop online. Some of us work at home, or in other locations, using networked computers to interact with our colleagues and associates. Distance learning and telemedicine provide important services in remote locations. In our personal lives we look to our networked computers for entertainment and to communicate with family and friends. These trends are accelerating dramatically. A decade ago, telephone-based low-bandwidth services met most of our limited data communications needs. Today this technology is obsolete. Most businesses and many individuals find that they require the ability to transmit information much faster, using what is commonly known as broadband communications. Several technologies compete to provide customers with broadband communications. Among the most prominent are optical fiber, wireless, digital-subscriber lines, cable modems, power line transmission, and satellites. Indeed, as the need for faster services compounds, the technologies must be improved and even the definition of broadband communications must be revised and updated. The now-obsolete telephone-based systems transmit data at up to 56 thousand bits per second. Today, internet service providers commonly install first generation broadband systems that transmit data at rates between 256 thousand bits per second and 4 million bits per second. But we can now see clearly that these current- generation systems will be superseded by second-generation systems, already being installed in a few areas, which operate at data rates of up to 30 million bits per second. In other countries, services that transmit and receive data at 100 million bits per second are already available to individuals. Some industry experts predict that within 5 to 10 years there will be a substantial demand for systems that operate at 1 billion bits per second. Despite the industry downturn over the past few years, America's telecommunications providers are working to make higher speed communications more widely available. Progress is fastest, and the business case for investment is most attractive, in affluent urban and suburban areas, especially newly developing areas. Rural areas are less fortunate. Low population densities, rugged terrain, and other factors make these areas difficult and expensive to serve. Similarly, the business case for providers to invest in underserved areas, mostly low income areas, is generally weak. As was the case with electric power and telephone systems in the 20th century, financial incentives will be necessary to assure the extension of broadband communications infrastructure into rural and underserved regions. These incentives will also provide a substantial benefit to the American economy. In the same way that extending electric power systems into rural areas stimulated a new demand for electric appliances and other products, the wider availability of broadband communications will stimulate electronic commerce and new commercial services. For my State of West Virginia, and other rural and low income States, the availability of advanced communications systems will allow residents to participate in the 21st century economy and have access to the economic and cultural benefits of urban living while retaining their cherished rural values and lifestyles. The consequences of failing to act are serious. Businesses in infrastructure-rich regions will prosper at the expense of those in rural and underserved regions. New businesses will locate where the information infrastructure is strong. The migration of jobs to urban and affluent areas will accelerate and tax revenue in rural and underserved areas will continue to decline. Residents of West Virginia and other rural states will continue to be at an economic and educational disadvantage. The ``digital divide'' will widen and the gap between ``have'' and ``have-not'' regions will expand. Decisions on how this country chooses to deploy information technology have the power to fundamentally transform the future of rural America. I firmly believe, and I am sure this view is shared by many of my colleagues, that rural communities deserve the same opportunities as their wealthier urban and suburban counterparts. We must make a commitment to them now, while there is still time, that their communications infrastructure will not always be a generation or more behind that of urban and suburban areas. My bill would provide incentives for broadband deployment by allowing providers, under certain conditions, to treat their investments in broadband technologies as current-tax-year expenses. Under my legislation, the incentives provided by this bill would be differentiated to favor investments in technologies that will continue to meet communications needs further into the future. Half of investments in systems that permit data to be received at rates of 1.0 million bits per second and transmitted at rates of 128 thousand bits per second would qualify. This is a substantial incentive to provide residents of rural and underserved areas the capabilities already enjoyed by individuals and businesses in urban and suburban areas. Investments in systems that permit data to be received at 22 million bits per second and transmitted at 5 million bits per second would fully qualify. This more powerful incentive challenges internet service providers to provide the capabilities that they have already begun to introduce in urban and suburban areas. Forward-looking providers will use this opportunity to invest in technologies that can be upgraded further as the demand grows. Americans believe strongly in equal opportunity. This bill is just one part of an effort to make sure that all Americans have equal access to modern communications systems and the opportunities that those systems are bringing in the 21st century. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from Connecticut it is not only appropriate, but it is necessary. The Senator from Connecticut described the very condition of its sensitivity and its importance and therefore the importance of its place in this nomination consideration. The fact that only Senator Roberts and myself were briefed for a long period of time is part of the way the administration either shares very sensitive information which they do not want other committee members to have--which, of course, makes other committee members furious, as it would me, but they cannot take chances--but what that emphasizes is the importance and the confidentiality and the high degree of sensitivity of the information. When you are putting somebody potentially into the United Nations to effect policy, to reflect the views of the President more directly than the President can do on a daily basis, to reflect the views of the rest of the world toward the United States, this kind of thing must be available to Senator Roberts and myself and, just as importantly, to Senator Lugar as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for Heavens' sake, and Senator Joe Biden, the ranking member.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No, it was not available and it is part of this pattern. We have to decide if there are two branches of Government or one.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I speak as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I oppose the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I purposely highlight that position on the Intelligence Committee because it is Mr. Bolton's pattern of attempting to distort and to misuse intelligence that is primary as a reason for my opposing his nomination. I have many reasons to oppose his nomination, but I will restrict myself to my work on the Intelligence Committee. Senator Biden and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee have walked through some of these facts, although perhaps not all of them yet, related to Mr. Bolton. So I will not go into all of the details. I do intend to provide some background and expand on at least one critical issue. I want to explain why this issue should matter to my colleagues and why Mr. Bolton's actions should disqualify him from this position. As my colleagues know, beginning in June of 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee undertook an exhaustive inquiry into the intelligence concerning Iraq prior to the war. After more than a year, the committee unanimously approved a scathing 511 page report describing the intelligence community's systematic failures, particularly on issues related to weapons of mass destruction. One of the central issues to the committee's review was the question of ``whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone to shape their analysis to support policy objectives.'' It was a question so important, in fact, and so fundamental to our committee's oversight role that answering it was one of the four specific tasks laid out by Chairman Roberts and me at the beginning of this inquiry. The issue of maintaining objectivity goes to the very heart of intelligence and intelligence oversight. Our intelligence agencies are charged with gathering information around the world and then objectively analyzing the information and providing it to the rest of the Government. Intelligence consumers, then, rely on that intelligence for a variety of activities. Often, that information forms the foundation of the very national security policies we depend upon to keep our country safe. It is absolutely essential that our intelligence is objective, independent, and accurate. If it is not, then the system does not work, we waste billions of dollars each year, and we end up making a critical national security decision or a series of them based upon flawed assumptions. In the extreme, intelligence that is manipulated or shaped to fit preconceived conditions could lead the country into a war that we should not be fighting. This, of course, was the concern that many of us had when we began our investigation of prewar intelligence. It was a central point of the committee's review--a central point. It was something we pursued aggressively. In that case, the committee did not find evidence that the administration officials as a whole attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to specifically change their judgments--specifically change their judgments--relating to Iraq's WMD. I supported that finding, although in my additional views I described what I thought was a more pervasive environment of pressure, created prior to the war, to reach conclusions that supported the administration's policies. I describe this effort now, however, not to revisit these issues that we investigated but to impress upon my colleagues and the public how serious it is when policymakers are accused of attempting to manipulate the intelligence process. This is behavior we cannot tolerate, and this is the pattern of behavior Mr. Bolton has exhibited during his tenure as Under Secretary of State. As I said, Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, and others have done a superb job in describing the specific incidents. Let me add a few points to provide context for these episodes. First, I want everyone to understand that the Intelligence Committee was aware of these allegations long before Mr. Bolton was nominated to this job. These are not incidents dredged up after he had been nominated. The committee's Iraq report briefly mentions the case of an INR analyst--that is, the State Department intelligence analyst--who had the courage to stand up in a committee hearing and acknowledge what he described as political pressure. When the committee staff interviewed this analyst, they discovered that the instance involved Cuba and not Iraq. That being the case, the committee did not pursue a review because we were doing Iraq, not Cuba. Unfortunately, the committee's final report described and commented on this incident without conducting a complete investigation of the facts. It is now clear from the record developed by the Foreign Relations Committee in their excellent work that Under Secretary Bolton attempted to exact retribution against this intelligence analyst because his analysis did not support Mr. Bolton's views. As with the case of the INR analyst, the State Department analyst, the committee previously was aware of the allegations of politicization related to the former National Intelligence Officer for Latin America. We knew about it. In the course of a briefing to the committee staff in November of 2004, this individual described an effort to have him removed because his analysis was at odds with the views of certain policymakers, including Secretary Bolton. Unfortunately, the committee did not follow up on these allegations until March, when the minority staff on the committee began scheduling interviews. I speak now of the Intelligence Committee, not the Foreign Relations Committee. It is clear from these interviews that the minority staff on the Intelligence Committee did and from the much more extensive work done by the Foreign Relations Committee that Under Secretary Bolton and others, particularly Otto Reich, who was Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, sought to have the National Intelligence Officer reassigned because his analysis did not support their policies. These two episodes, in my mind, are enough to disqualify Mr. Bolton from this position. But there is more to this pattern of abusing the intelligence process. During the course of the nomination process, we learned that on at least 10 occasions, Mr. Bolton had sought to learn the identity of 19 U.S. persons--this has been discussed on the Senate floor, but I am going to add something--19 U.S. persons mentioned in intelligence reports. There has been a great deal of speculation as to why he wanted these names, whether it was proper to seek this information. To answer these questions, Chairman Lugar asked Chairman Roberts and me to solicit information from the appropriate agencies. Eventually-- eventually--eventually, the new Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, GEN Michael Hayden, briefed Senator Roberts and myself. He did not brief Senator Lugar and Senator Biden--Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Biden. That is a mystery to me. I don't understand that. But he briefed us on the content of the intelligence in question. Let me be clear. We did not receive the names, the very names provided to Under Secretary Bolton--which is an extraordinary sense of control of one branch of Government over another. We did not receive those names. We read everything associated with those names but not the names themselves. They were not given to us. Based on my limited review, I noted from the rest of the context nothing improper about the request. That, however, was not the end of the story. As part of our effort to respond to Chairman Lugar's request for information, the committee staff interviewed several individuals with knowledge of Under Secretary Bolton's request for these names. During one of those interviews, a senior member of his staff described actions Under Secretary Bolton took after he received one of those names. According to this individual, upon receiving the name from the National Security Agency, the NSA, Under Secretary Bolton shared that information with another State Department official. The reasons for this action are not clear, but it seems inconsistent with the stated reasons for obtaining the name. Let me explain. I must take a moment to describe the information we are talking about and put Mr. Bolton's action in some context. When a U.S. intelligence agency--in this case, the National Security Agency-- receives a report that includes information concerning a U.S. person, that information is, so to speak, minimized--that is the technical term--for privacy reasons, meaning that the U.S. name is replaced with a generic designation such as ``named U.S. Government official,'' or ``named U.S. citizen,'' but that is all. Remember, this is information that is already classified at the highest levels, or it would not receive this treatment--classified at the highest levels and shared with a very limited number of people in order to protect the source of that information. The U.S. name is even more closely guarded and not provided unless an appropriately cleared official reading that intelligence report makes a specific request for it in order to better understand the foreign intelligence, and it is only intelligence that that person can be concerned with. The rules for dealing with this kind of comprehensive information are very strict. It is only provided on a case-by-case basis at the request of a specific individual. The National Security Agency has a formal and very well established procedure for processing such requests and for providing the names to the requester. When a decision is made to release the name, it is transmitted with a cover sheet with the following admonition: Request no further action be taken on this information without prior approval of the National Security Agency. Probably that would not have to be there because anybody at that level understands that already, but nevertheless it is there, front and center. This language is clear. This language is unambiguous. But Mr. Bolton apparently disregarded it. Neither the NSA, the National Security Agency, nor the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research has a record of him seeking the necessary approval to further disseminate the name. Now his defenders say he never saw that restriction. I don't know if that is accurate, but I do know that it is entirely irrelevant because he knew about that. Anybody who is experienced to receive intelligence at that level has to know that. He knew the classification of the intercepts. He knew the sensitivity of information referencing U.S. persons. He knew the special procedures he had to go through to get that name. He knew the requirement to closely guard this information, even if he had not seen the specific language on the transmittal letter. Any attempt to place blame for his action on others is thinly veiled, sad, and wrong. I still have questions about this episode, but it appears to me on its face that he violated the restrictions placed on this information by the National Security Agency. Even if we discover his actions were technically not a security violation, if by a 1 in 1,000 percent chance it turned out to be true, it emphasizes something even worse, and that is a cavalier attitude to be, therefore, projected into the future in dealing with extremely sensitive intelligence information. This is part of a pattern which shows a blatant disregard for the importance of the intelligence process which is the spear tip of this Nation's internal security and security around the world and the sensitivity of the information contained in intelligence products. When viewed collectively, these actions demonstrate Mr. Bolton's unfitness for this position. I thereby urge my colleagues to oppose his confirmation. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct. And that is not available.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to mandate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) extend the offering of war risk insurance through August 31, 2007, to our Nation's air carriers. I am very pleased that Senator Burns, the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, has agreed to co-sponsor this legislation. Prior to September 11, 2001, war risk insurance was generally attainable and affordable for U.S. airlines. But, as we know, that day changed everything for America. No industry was more dramatically and fundamentally changed than the U.S. aviation industry. Recognizing that the commercial insurance market was not willing to provide war risk insurance to the airline industry in the immediate aftermath of September 11, Congress required the FAA provide war risk insurance to U.S. air carriers. We expected that in time U.S. air carriers would be able to obtain commercial war risk insurance. Unfortunately, the commercial war risk insurance market has priced its products beyond the means of our air carriers. According to the Air Transport Association, a return to the commercial market to obtain war risk insurance could cost U.S. airlines $600 million to $700 million a year, up from the current $140 million. Because of the lack of a vibrant competitive commercial market, last year, Congress extended its mandate that the FAA provide this insurance. In a report to Congress, the FAA noted that even though war risk insurance is available in the private market, it is offered on terms that the industry just cannot afford. My bill would mandate the continuation of this vital program through August 31, 2008. In time, we should expect the private market to offer this coverage, but the reality is that the insurance industry continues to seek exorbitant rates for this coverage. The market has failed and it is the government's responsibility to provide this insurance as we have done in previous times of war. The financial conditions faced by domestic airlines have seen little, if any, improvement. This legislation is supported by the low-cost carriers who are the healthiest companies in the industry, as they know that their profitability would be at risk if they were forced to go to commercial market for this insurance at this time. The current commercial market is simply unable to provide adequate war-risk coverage without unreasonable cost to airlines. For airlines, private coverage would mean annual payment increases of millions of dollars. Even with FAA insurance coverage, airlines are projected to lose $5.5 billion this year. This legislation will help the airlines weather their current financial crisis. If U.S. airlines were forced to go to the commercial market for this insurance, we would likely see more airlines in bankruptcy or cease to exist at all. I believe that airlines remain a prime targets for terrorist acts. It is because of this threat that the commercial insurance market is unaffordable for the airlines. My legislation seeks to address a pressing problem facing one of the most critical industries in the country. My bill is one small but important measure that Congress can take to make sure our nation has a vibrant and financially secure airline industry. 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 to introduce legislation to mandate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) extend the offering of war risk insurance through August 31, 2007, to our Nation's air carriers. I am very pleased that Senator Burns, the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, has agreed to co-sponsor this legislation. Prior to September 11, 2001, war risk insurance was generally attainable and affordable for U.S. airlines. But, as we know, that day changed everything for America. No industry was more dramatically and fundamentally changed than the U.S. aviation industry. Recognizing that the commercial insurance market was not willing to provide war risk insurance to the airline industry in the immediate aftermath of September 11, Congress required the FAA provide war risk insurance to U.S. air carriers. We expected that in time U.S. air carriers would be able to obtain commercial war risk insurance. Unfortunately, the commercial war risk insurance market has priced its products beyond the means of our air carriers. According to the Air Transport Association, a return to the commercial market to obtain war risk insurance could cost U.S. airlines $600 million to $700 million a year, up from the current $140 million. Because of the lack of a vibrant competitive commercial market, last year, Congress extended its mandate that the FAA provide this insurance. In a report to Congress, the FAA noted that even though war risk insurance is available in the private market, it is offered on terms that the industry just cannot afford. My bill would mandate the continuation of this vital program through August 31, 2008. In time, we should expect the private market to offer this coverage, but the reality is that the insurance industry continues to seek exorbitant rates for this coverage. The market has failed and it is the government's responsibility to provide this insurance as we have done in previous times of war. The financial conditions faced by domestic airlines have seen little, if any, improvement. This legislation is supported by the low-cost carriers who are the healthiest companies in the industry, as they know that their profitability would be at risk if they were forced to go to commercial market for this insurance at this time. The current commercial market is simply unable to provide adequate war-risk coverage without unreasonable cost to airlines. For airlines, private coverage would mean annual payment increases of millions of dollars. Even with FAA insurance coverage, airlines are projected to lose $5.5 billion this year. This legislation will help the airlines weather their current financial crisis. If U.S. airlines were forced to go to the commercial market for this insurance, we would likely see more airlines in bankruptcy or cease to exist at all. I believe that airlines remain a prime targets for terrorist acts. It is because of this threat that the commercial insurance market is unaffordable for the airlines. My legislation seeks to address a pressing problem facing one of the most critical industries in the country. My bill is one small but important measure that Congress can take to make sure our nation has a vibrant and financially secure airline industry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my honor today to join the distinguished cochairmen of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye, along with our colleagues Senators Byron Dorgan, Frank Lautenberg, Mark Pryor, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, to introduce the Transportation Security Improvements Act of 2005. This is a vitally important contribution to the security of all Americans, and I commend it to my colleagues for their consideration. The Transportation Security Improvements Act will increase authorizations for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, by more than $19 billion through fiscal year 2008, and will forthrightly address continuing vulnerabilities in the security of our various transportation modes that Congress and the administration have as yet virtually ignored. Americans were shocked to learn just how lax our aviation security was on September 11. Even those terrorists on official Government watch lists, who should have been barred from entering the United States, were able to board planes that they then turned into weapons without any significant interference from airport security staffs. As a wounded Nation tried to overcome the horrors of that day, Congress immediately went about fixing what was so obviously wrong with our aviation security. Now, as we approach the fourth anniversary of that fateful day, Americans are regaining their confidence about aviation security. There is still work to be done, and my colleagues and I endeavor in this bill to further secure air travel. Still, we have done much to improve domestic aviation security by improving the security procedures we demand of airlines and airport personnel both here and abroad. We need to remain vigilant and avoid the inexcusable error of believing we have done all that needs to be done. We must act with the knowledge that our enemies will continue to probe the system they so successfully breached in 2001 to find new and additional opportunities to kill and terrorize Americans. What my colleagues and I also have realized for some time is that in devoting our energy and resources to aviation security we have been, in a manner of speaking, ``fighting the last war.'' While the aviation sector is prepared for today's threats, congressional action regarding the level of security of our other transportation modes is not much changed from the blissfully naive standards of September 10. To be fair, industries in the other transportation modes have worked hard to improve the security of their respective sectors. The relatively little money Congress and the administration have dedicated to improving transportation security has been put to good use. Industry and Government working together, even given the overwhelming scope of the threat, have improved transportation security and protected the lives and property of Americans. We just have not done enough. The Transportation Security Improvements Act seeks to make overdue improvements to the overall security of this Nation's vast transportation infrastructure. Our bill addresses the security practices and requirements of our Nation's freight and passenger rail network, as well as those of our ocean-going and inland ports, the trucking industry, intercity buses, and the special risks of hazardous materials transportation, regardless of the mode of transportation. It makes the TSA responsible for coordinating international and domestic cargo security. It calls on TSA to work cooperatively with stakeholders in the various transportation modes on preparedness and incident response, and establishes new maritime and land security command procedures. Perhaps most importantly, we acknowledge the need of TSA management to deploy such human resources as it sees fit to protect Americans' lives and property, and it removes the current statutory cap on the agency of 45,000 full-time employees. To continue the TSA's efforts to improve aviation security, our bill authorizes $15.75 billion over the next 3 fiscal years to fully fund key security programs to defend our Nation's air transportation system. In lieu of recent reports regarding the performance of the airport screening workforce, our bill could not be more timely. We have included provisions to provide TSA greater flexibility in meeting the staffing needs of screening checkpoints through elimination of an arbitrary staffing cap that was put in place shortly after the agency was created, while also requiring TSA to review the adequacy of recurrent training for these employees. With the difficult economic environment currently faced by the airline industry, the bill takes steps to relieve the carriers of some of the burden that they face through collection of these fees. We would prohibit increasing aviation security fees without Congressional review and approval, while requiring TSA to consider alternative means of collecting such fees. Finally, the bill prohibits the certification of any foreign repair stations until TSA and FAA strengthen the oversight of such facilities by reviewing, auditing and developing regulations to ensure an adequate level of safety and security. To dramatically improve maritime and land security, we increase funding by $1.099 billion to develop and implement cargo screening and inspection standards, with special attention given to high-risk cargoes. We authorize 10 additional Joint Operation Command Centers to supplement the current positive interagency and public-private cooperation at our ports. We streamline procedures for foreign vessels and those with Coast Guard-certified security plans, require funding for port security technology improvements, and impose a January 2006 deadline for development of a comprehensive Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing Program. We assist our railroads and hazardous materials shippers in maintaining and improving security along the Nation's nearly 150,000 miles of freight and passenger rail infrastructure. We increase rail security funding by nearly $800 million over 3 years, and with those funds require the TSA to conduct a comprehensive security threat assessment that I first advocated in October 2001. We authorize grants to Amtrak and our freight railroads for overall security improvements, and establish a revamped security training program for railroad employees. Our legislation would allow Amtrak to make specific and long-overdue security improvements along its well-traveled Northeast corridor, and it authorizes development of baggage, passenger, and cargo screening programs, as well as reviews of procedures used by foreign railroads and research into additional improvements. We seek in this legislation to improve the security of the highway system that is the envy of the world. Our bill makes it a priority to better protect and address the unique security vulnerabilities of intercity buses and their passengers. This is a topic first brought to the attention of Congress by our former colleague Max Cleland, and which I hope we can now see enacted into law as a rightful part of his legacy of service to this country. We further seek to improve highway security by imposing the same level of background checks on foreign drivers transporting hazardous materials as we already require of American drivers. We require vehicles carrying hazardous materials to be equipped with wireless communications equipment, and that their drivers have established plans for the use of alternate routes. We provide funding for the TSA to conduct security inspections of our pipeline network, to develop a pipeline incident response plan, and to analyze the security plans in place for hazmat carriers. We create a public sector response center, and provide for the distribution of emergency wireless communications equipment to first responders, hazmat carriers, and TSA personnel. Our constituents have sent us here, first and foremost, to protect them. The ruthless attacks of September 11, 2001, exposed inexcusable gaps in our efforts in that regard. At a time when the air in this city is acrid with accusation and acrimony, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation a priority for quick passage, and an example of the good work this institution can do when we remember why Americans elected us. I ask my colleagues to join us in this effort, and I ask the majority leader to find time on the Senate Calendar for its expeditious consideration by the full Senate.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my honor today to join the distinguished cochairmen of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye, along with our colleagues Senators Byron Dorgan, Frank Lautenberg, Mark Pryor, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, to introduce the Transportation Security Improvements Act of 2005. This is a vitally important contribution to the security of all Americans, and I commend it to my colleagues for their consideration. The Transportation Security Improvements Act will increase authorizations for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, by more than $19 billion through fiscal year 2008, and will forthrightly address continuing vulnerabilities in the security of our various transportation modes that Congress and the administration have as yet virtually ignored. Americans were shocked to learn just how lax our aviation security was on September 11. Even those terrorists on official Government watch lists, who should have been barred from entering the United States, were able to board planes that they then turned into weapons without any significant interference from airport security staffs. As a wounded Nation tried to overcome the horrors of that day, Congress immediately went about fixing what was so obviously wrong with our aviation security. Now, as we approach the fourth anniversary of that fateful day, Americans are regaining their confidence about aviation security. There is still work to be done, and my colleagues and I endeavor in this bill to further secure air travel. Still, we have done much to improve domestic aviation security by improving the security procedures we demand of airlines and airport personnel both here and abroad. We need to remain vigilant and avoid the inexcusable error of believing we have done all that needs to be done. We must act with the knowledge that our enemies will continue to probe the system they so successfully breached in 2001 to find new and additional opportunities to kill and terrorize Americans. What my colleagues and I also have realized for some time is that in devoting our energy and resources to aviation security we have been, in a manner of speaking, ``fighting the last war.'' While the aviation sector is prepared for today's threats, congressional action regarding the level of security of our other transportation modes is not much changed from the blissfully naive standards of September 10. To be fair, industries in the other transportation modes have worked hard to improve the security of their respective sectors. The relatively little money Congress and the administration have dedicated to improving transportation security has been put to good use. Industry and Government working together, even given the overwhelming scope of the threat, have improved transportation security and protected the lives and property of Americans. We just have not done enough. The Transportation Security Improvements Act seeks to make overdue improvements to the overall security of this Nation's vast transportation infrastructure. Our bill addresses the security practices and requirements of our Nation's freight and passenger rail network, as well as those of our ocean-going and inland ports, the trucking industry, intercity buses, and the special risks of hazardous materials transportation, regardless of the mode of transportation. It makes the TSA responsible for coordinating international and domestic cargo security. It calls on TSA to work cooperatively with stakeholders in the various transportation modes on preparedness and incident response, and establishes new maritime and land security command procedures. Perhaps most importantly, we acknowledge the need of TSA management to deploy such human resources as it sees fit to protect Americans' lives and property, and it removes the current statutory cap on the agency of 45,000 full-time employees. To continue the TSA's efforts to improve aviation security, our bill authorizes $15.75 billion over the next 3 fiscal years to fully fund key security programs to defend our Nation's air transportation system. In lieu of recent reports regarding the performance of the airport screening workforce, our bill could not be more timely. We have included provisions to provide TSA greater flexibility in meeting the staffing needs of screening checkpoints through elimination of an arbitrary staffing cap that was put in place shortly after the agency was created, while also requiring TSA to review the adequacy of recurrent training for these employees. With the difficult economic environment currently faced by the airline industry, the bill takes steps to relieve the carriers of some of the burden that they face through collection of these fees. We would prohibit increasing aviation security fees without Congressional review and approval, while requiring TSA to consider alternative means of collecting such fees. Finally, the bill prohibits the certification of any foreign repair stations until TSA and FAA strengthen the oversight of such facilities by reviewing, auditing and developing regulations to ensure an adequate level of safety and security. To dramatically improve maritime and land security, we increase funding by $1.099 billion to develop and implement cargo screening and inspection standards, with special attention given to high-risk cargoes. We authorize 10 additional Joint Operation Command Centers to supplement the current positive interagency and public-private cooperation at our ports. We streamline procedures for foreign vessels and those with Coast Guard-certified security plans, require funding for port security technology improvements, and impose a January 2006 deadline for development of a comprehensive Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing Program. We assist our railroads and hazardous materials shippers in maintaining and improving security along the Nation's nearly 150,000 miles of freight and passenger rail infrastructure. We increase rail security funding by nearly $800 million over 3 years, and with those funds require the TSA to conduct a comprehensive security threat assessment that I first advocated in October 2001. We authorize grants to Amtrak and our freight railroads for overall security improvements, and establish a revamped security training program for railroad employees. Our legislation would allow Amtrak to make specific and long-overdue security improvements along its well-traveled Northeast corridor, and it authorizes development of baggage, passenger, and cargo screening programs, as well as reviews of procedures used by foreign railroads and research into additional improvements. We seek in this legislation to improve the security of the highway system that is the envy of the world. Our bill makes it a priority to better protect and address the unique security vulnerabilities of intercity buses and their passengers. This is a topic first brought to the attention of Congress by our former colleague Max Cleland, and which I hope we can now see enacted into law as a rightful part of his legacy of service to this country. We further seek to improve highway security by imposing the same level of background checks on foreign drivers transporting hazardous materials as we already require of American drivers. We require vehicles carrying hazardous materials to be equipped with wireless communications equipment, and that their drivers have established plans for the use of alternate routes. We provide funding for the TSA to conduct security inspections of our pipeline network, to develop a pipeline incident response plan, and to analyze the security plans in place for hazmat carriers. We create a public sector response center, and provide for the distribution of emergency wireless communications equipment to first responders, hazmat carriers, and TSA personnel. Our constituents have sent us here, first and foremost, to protect them. The ruthless attacks of September 11, 2001, exposed inexcusable gaps in our efforts in that regard. At a time when the air in this city is acrid with accusation and acrimony, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation a priority for quick passage, and an example of the good work this institution can do when we remember why Americans elected us. I ask my colleagues to join us in this effort, and I ask the majority leader to find time on the Senate Calendar for its expeditious consideration by the full Senate.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, our annual budget should be a blueprint of our Nation's priorities. It should be a statement of our collective values and contain positive initiatives for growing our economy and preparing a better future for our children. Unfortunately, this budget does not achieve any of these objectives. This budget makes the Federal deficit worse than if we had done nothing, which means we will pass on an even greater burden of debt to our children and grandchildren. This blueprint also reflects a misguided set of priorities that sends a clear message to the least among us--our poor children, our disabled, and our elderly--that they are not as important as our wealthy. It is unacceptable--and truly stunning--that Congress is being confronted with a budget resolution that contains $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid, a health care program for our most vulnerable citizens, while simultaneously offering an additional $106 billion in tax breaks, much of which is designated for our Nation's wealthiest citizens. Where is the justice in these numbers? Last month, a bipartisan majority in the Senate rejected any cuts to Medicaid. Members on both sides of the aisle said no. But the Republican leadership ignored the result. On Tuesday, an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority in the House voted 348 to 72 to strike the Medicaid cuts from the budget. Again, the Republican leadership ignored the result, ignored what a majority of Members said. Now we are being asked once again to vote for these arbitrary cuts, even though we have already made our wishes and those of our constituencies known. Because of the budget resolution before us, West Virginia could lose more than $84 million in Federal Medicaid funds over the next 5 years. This would put over 350,000 West Virginians who depend on Medicaid at significant risk for benefit reductions, increased cost-sharing, or the loss of health care coverage altogether. These cuts are on top of the numerous unfunded mandates that the Federal Government has passed down in recent years. Twenty-nine States, including West Virginia, are facing a drop in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, next year because of a change in the statutory formula used to compute FMAP. This budget means that West Virginia will see a loss of approximately $17 million next year on top of the $36 million in Federal funds the State is already slated to lose under current law. I have said it before, and I will say it again--the hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and clinics in my State simply cannot afford to absorb cuts of this magnitude. How can we suggest cutting $10 billion from such basic support for vulnerable individuals in the same legislation that is seeking over $100 billion in tax cuts? This budget reflects the wrong priorities, the wrong principles, and the wrong decisions. These are priorities that I cannot--and refuse to--vote for. Our most vulnerable citizens should not be a target for budget cuts, especially when we are offering $106 billion in tax breaks in the very same budget, a significant portion of which are directed to wealthy individuals who have been treated to large tax cuts since 2001. This resolution is wrong for West Virginia and it is wrong for our country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today with Senator Biden and several of our colleagues to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) program, which has been so vitally important to my State of West Virginia. The bill authorizes $1.15 billion to fund operations of the U.S. Department of Justice's COPS Office and to put 50,000 new police officers on the streets of the United States through 2011. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I understood how important this program could be when we passed it originally as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime bill, because I've seen how important it is to my State of West Virginia, and because I know that there are few government programs that have done more to make the whole country safer and more secure. President Clinton had a goal of placing 100,000 new police officers on our streets. As hard as it is to believe, there are opponents of the COPS program. In an attempt to defend their desire to end the program, they are quick to point out that the goal has been met, and even exceeded. They would have you believe that the Federal Government should get out of the business of helping local law enforcement do their jobs. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when police departments have taken on seemingly innumerable crucial responsibilities in addition to their roles in fighting crime, plans to close out this program have been included in the President's budget each year since he took office. For the Fiscal Year 2006 budget, funding for hiring new officers was zeroed out, and funds for ongoing projects were slashed by varying degrees. There is simply no justification for not continuing the successes of this program. The COPS program has allowed State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in all 50 States and the District of Columbia to hire 118,000 new officers since 1994. The violent crime rate has dropped 30 percent in the same period. Recently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made the connection himself, commenting that these officers were put on the street and crime is at a thirty-year low. The COPS program has sent more than $40 million to my home State of West Virginia, allowing 166 jurisdictions to hire nearly 700 officers. There is no way that the citizens of my State could afford to hire and train this many officers in this amount of time, and no feasible way to replace the benefits the COPS program produces. Many of these towns had never had their own police officers before this, and I can tell you that the presence of those officers has changed lives for the better throughout my State. West Virginia has also benefited from some specialized programs administered by the COPS Office. Our schools, which were once refuges from crime and danger, now have safety and security concerns best handled by trained law enforcement professionals. The COPS in Schools (CIS) program has provided $2 million to hire 20 school resource officers (SROs). In 2004 alone we received more than $457,000 to hire four SROs. Law enforcement agencies in my State have also received $4.7 million in COPS technology grants, and were making headway on a burgeoning crisis in methamphetamine production with the COPS METH grant program. This assistance has allowed police in my State to tap into crime-fighting and data-sharing technologies, and helped protect my constituents from a drug problem spreading through rural America like wildfire. I look forward to enactment of this legislation, and the new assistance it will bring to state and local law enforcement agencies throughout West Virginia. Specifically, this legislation will provide: $600 million per year through 2011 for 50,000 more cops across the country; $350 million per year for law enforcement technologies, including interoperable communications equipment, state-of-the-art DNA analysis, and computer crime mapping; and $200 million annually to hire new prosecutors, to finish the job our new officers have started. I commend Senator Biden for his tireless work on behalf of law enforcement and I pledge to do all that I can to see this bill enacted for the good of the people of West Virginia and for all Americans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and several of our colleagues in sponsoring the CLEAR ACT, a package of initiatives intended simultaneously to lessen this Nation's dependence on foreign oil and to promote a cleaner environment. Throughout my time in the Senate, and indeed going back to my time as Governor of West Virginia, I have believed that the United States needed to have a comprehensive and responsible national energy policy, and that a vital part of that policy should be promoting technologies and domestic resources to loosen the grip foreign suppliers of energy have on our economy. Alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) that use them must be part of our energy policy. As a Senator, I have been very interested in expanding the availability of alternative fuels and have worked with a number of my colleagues and experts in industry, academia, and in the environmental movement on several initiatives to accelerate their use and availability. The current high price of gasoline drives home the point that we must diversity our fuel supply. This issue is particularly important in West Virginia. Like many rural States, West Virginia has little public transportation, and most people must drive, often considerable distances, to work, to school, and to seek medical care. With every trip to the gas station and nearly every evening news report, West Virginians are reminded that our country is in the midst of an energy crisis. According to the American Automobile Association, the average price of gasoline has risen 23 percent in the past year. These increases have a serious impact on family budgets and on the economy in general. Today, more than 60 percent of the petroleum we consume is imported. This adds to our economic problems and raises additional concerns about national security. We must work to reduce the consumption, or at least the growth in consumption, of petroleum-based fuels in the United States. Emissions from gasoline-powered automobiles are a major source of air pollution and of carbon dioxide, which is the major contributor to global climate change. While I believe our energy policy should work in concert with a transportation policy that encourages the use of mass transit, it is unlikely in the short-term that many West Virginians, or a significant number of other Americans, will be able to greatly reduce the amount they drive. The CLEAR ACT will help our Nation lessen its dependence on foreign oil and, because the amount Americans drive is likely to increase, contribute to an overall cleaner environment by substituting cleaner-burning alternatives to gasoline and diesel. In the development of alternative fuels and AFVs, our Nation has been caught in what I've always thought of as the classic ``chicken and egg'' problem. Both alternative fuels and AFVs must be commercially available if the potential impact is to be achieved. Without the fueling infrastructure, wide commercial appeal of non-gasoline vehicles will top out before the market has reached its potential. The popularity of gasoline-electric hybrids demonstrates the public's hunger for alternatives to the rapidly rising price of gasoline and increasingly hazardous automobile emission. Appropriate tax incentives can address the equally important challenges of vehicle availability and infrastructure deployment. If consumers routinely see alternative fuels at reasonable prices at their local service stations, while also seeing reasonably-priced vehicles at dealerships, we know they will respond. The CLEAR ACT provides the tax incentives that we need, and which I believe must be included in the comprehensive energy policy the Senate will soon consider. In closing, let me thank my friends Senator Hatch and Senator Jeffords, with whom I've worked on this for many years. I am pleased as well to see that a growing number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are joining us in this effort to improve our Nation's energy, transportation, and environmental policy. I commend this bill to the remainder of the Senate, and look forward to its inclusion in the Energy bill we will take up later in the year.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today with Senator Biden and several of our colleagues to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) program, which has been so vitally important to my State of West Virginia. The bill authorizes $1.15 billion to fund operations of the U.S. Department of Justice's COPS Office and to put 50,000 new police officers on the streets of the United States through 2011. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I understood how important this program could be when we passed it originally as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime bill, because I've seen how important it is to my State of West Virginia, and because I know that there are few government programs that have done more to make the whole country safer and more secure. President Clinton had a goal of placing 100,000 new police officers on our streets. As hard as it is to believe, there are opponents of the COPS program. In an attempt to defend their desire to end the program, they are quick to point out that the goal has been met, and even exceeded. They would have you believe that the Federal Government should get out of the business of helping local law enforcement do their jobs. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when police departments have taken on seemingly innumerable crucial responsibilities in addition to their roles in fighting crime, plans to close out this program have been included in the President's budget each year since he took office. For the Fiscal Year 2006 budget, funding for hiring new officers was zeroed out, and funds for ongoing projects were slashed by varying degrees. There is simply no justification for not continuing the successes of this program. The COPS program has allowed State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in all 50 States and the District of Columbia to hire 118,000 new officers since 1994. The violent crime rate has dropped 30 percent in the same period. Recently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made the connection himself, commenting that these officers were put on the street and crime is at a thirty-year low. The COPS program has sent more than $40 million to my home State of West Virginia, allowing 166 jurisdictions to hire nearly 700 officers. There is no way that the citizens of my State could afford to hire and train this many officers in this amount of time, and no feasible way to replace the benefits the COPS program produces. Many of these towns had never had their own police officers before this, and I can tell you that the presence of those officers has changed lives for the better throughout my State. West Virginia has also benefited from some specialized programs administered by the COPS Office. Our schools, which were once refuges from crime and danger, now have safety and security concerns best handled by trained law enforcement professionals. The COPS in Schools (CIS) program has provided $2 million to hire 20 school resource officers (SROs). In 2004 alone we received more than $457,000 to hire four SROs. Law enforcement agencies in my State have also received $4.7 million in COPS technology grants, and were making headway on a burgeoning crisis in methamphetamine production with the COPS METH grant program. This assistance has allowed police in my State to tap into crime-fighting and data-sharing technologies, and helped protect my constituents from a drug problem spreading through rural America like wildfire. I look forward to enactment of this legislation, and the new assistance it will bring to state and local law enforcement agencies throughout West Virginia. Specifically, this legislation will provide: $600 million per year through 2011 for 50,000 more cops across the country; $350 million per year for law enforcement technologies, including interoperable communications equipment, state-of-the-art DNA analysis, and computer crime mapping; and $200 million annually to hire new prosecutors, to finish the job our new officers have started. I commend Senator Biden for his tireless work on behalf of law enforcement and I pledge to do all that I can to see this bill enacted for the good of the people of West Virginia and for all Americans.