Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Five or six minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator and I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Of course.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the extremely distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Conrad, and Senator Nickles. Last year we had a very interesting scene on this floor in which 75 Senators, working with Senator Collins, Senator Nelson from Nebraska, and Senator Smith from Oregon and I, and others, passed a $20 billion fiscal relief bill for the States. Half of that was devoted to Medicaid. It became an extraordinarily important part of what States did to be able to survive. We are once again in a dire fiscal situation. States face the prospect of having to cut benefits to kids, particularly poor kids, needy families, and seniors in nursing homes, something which 75 Senators voted not to do last year. It passed the House. The President signed it. Forty-two States last year were in a budget deficit situation with respect to Medicaid. It was and is their largest problem. Sluggish job growth continues to add to that problem. Last month our economy gained 21,000 new jobs. There are 8 million people out of work, so that is only one job for every 380 unemployed workers. The majority of Americans get their health care through their job, particularly manufacturing jobs, so employment is tremendously important. Manufacturing has been going down, as the Presiding Officer knows. Even more depressing, about 400,000 Americans have dropped out of the workforce altogether, which to me is the saddest thing that can happen, where people just kind of give up. The Presiding Officer and I have seen that in our States and across America. But instead of working to further ease the budgetary strain on States, Congress has actually made life tougher for States fiscally. The new Medicare law includes at least $1.2 billion in net costs to States in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. We should be providing States the resources they need to work with Medicare, not enacting legislation that assumes cuts. My amendment, which I will not offer formally, would allow Congress to enact legislation simply to extend the enhanced Medicaid match we passed last year beyond June 30 of this year. It is not a prescriptive policy, but rather a placeholder that will allow us to help an awful lot of people down the road. Some in this body will argue we did this just to be temporary. The economic situation has not stabilized. To the extent we can say the problem is there and there is something we can do to help States, it will make an enormous difference to lots of people. It is interesting and sad that 30 States are projecting budget deficits for the fiscal year coming up. Estimates indicate those deficits could total as much as $41 billion. In eight States--and I won't name them--the budget shortfalls are so large for Medicaid that they exceed 10 percent of the entire budget of the State. I put this concept, which I believe is tremendously important, before the Senate. It simply allows fiscal relief beyond June 30. It allows an extension of what we passed by an enormous amount last year. I hope my colleagues will look upon it favorably.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from Massachusetts is precisely correct. The fact is there is not a nickel's increase from what it was we passed so unanimously a year ago, not a nickel's increase.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced today that will reinstate a moratorium on State and local taxation of access to the Internet. Senators Alexander and Carper have worked very hard to craft legislation that will protect Americans from being taxed for using the Internet, while still respecting the States' need to raise revenue from traditional telecommunications taxes. As a fellow former Governor, I have been pleased to join them in this effort and hope that all of my colleagues who have supported a moratorium on taxation of Internet access will support this bill. Until last fall, there was a moratorium in place prohibiting taxation of Internet access. Unfortunately, that lapsed before Congress was able to craft an extension. One of the reasons that extending the moratorium has been difficult is that we want to apply the lessons learned over the last few years. For example, the previous moratorium was not technology-neutral. That is, people who accessed the Internet using a DSL connection were not always treated the same as those who used dial- up service or a cable modem. This was clearly an unintended consequence of the way that the previous legislation was drafted. In addition, over the last few years, we have seen many States struggle with enormous budget deficits. Recognizing that a downturn in the economy can compromise a state's ability to provide vital services, including schools, firefighters, and police officers, we do not want to undermine any state's revenue base. With these lessons in mind, Senators Alexander, Carper and others have crafted an extension of the previous moratorium that would ensure that no States impose new taxes on Internet access. The legislation specifically requires that all technologies be treated equally. And because the moratorium is limited to 2 years, it ensures that Congress will revisit the issue periodically as technologies develop and circumstances change. As a former Governor, I do not take lightly any Federal action that limits the options available to local and State elected officials I recognize how hard it is to balance a State budget and am only willing to support a moratorium on Internet access taxes because I believe that we are dealing with a unique new service. The Internet has the power to connect Americans as the radio, telephone, and television did for previous generations. By sending e-mails, telecommuting, or banking online, Americans are communicating in a new way that makes our economy more productive and enhances our quality of life. If sparing Internet access from taxation increasing the ability of low and moderate income Americans to join the technology revolution, then it is certainly a worthy public policy goal. Now, Senators Allen and Wyden have offered an alternative approach. They have proposed legislation that would permanently bar States ad cities from taxing Internet access, and they have defined the service broadly that many experts believe it will undermine some telecommunications taxes on which States currently depend. I am not interested in providing enormous tax breaks to the telecommunications industry, and so I oppose their approach. Taxes that businesses currently pay to access the Internet backbone are reasonable costs of doing business. I hope that my colleagues will not be intimidated by claims that those of us who oppose tax breaks for telecommuncations companies actually want to tax people's e-mails. That is a false argument, and anyone who resorts to it is surely trying to avoid the difficult issues that are addressed by the bill introduced today by Senators Alexander and Carper. I would like to make one final point to my colleagues, and that is about fallibility. Every day we get fresh evidence that things are not always as they seemed and that we do not, in fact, know everything we thought we knew. If fallibility is part of being human, then surely it is part of any legislative body. If the moratorium that Congress had imposed 5 years ago had been permanent, then we would have had a difficult time reopening the issue to address the fact that certain technologies were not protected under the act. We ought not make that mistake now by thinking that we can accurately foresee the exciting technological developments on the horizon. It is appropriate for Congress to revisit this issue in two years, as the Alexander-Carper proposal allows. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in support of a new temporary moratorium on Internet access taxes. Enacting this legislation quickly will ensure that Americans are not hit with any taxes when they try to log on.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced today that will reinstate a moratorium on State and local taxation of access to the Internet. Senators Alexander and Carper have worked very hard to craft legislation that will protect Americans from being taxed for using the Internet, while still respecting the States' need to raise revenue from traditional telecommunications taxes. As a fellow former Governor, I have been pleased to join them in this effort and hope that all of my colleagues who have supported a moratorium on taxation of Internet access will support this bill. Until last fall, there was a moratorium in place prohibiting taxation of Internet access. Unfortunately, that lapsed before Congress was able to craft an extension. One of the reasons that extending the moratorium has been difficult is that we want to apply the lessons learned over the last few years. For example, the previous moratorium was not technology-neutral. That is, people who accessed the Internet using a DSL connection were not always treated the same as those who used dial- up service or a cable modem. This was clearly an unintended consequence of the way that the previous legislation was drafted. In addition, over the last few years, we have seen many States struggle with enormous budget deficits. Recognizing that a downturn in the economy can compromise a state's ability to provide vital services, including schools, firefighters, and police officers, we do not want to undermine any state's revenue base. With these lessons in mind, Senators Alexander, Carper and others have crafted an extension of the previous moratorium that would ensure that no States impose new taxes on Internet access. The legislation specifically requires that all technologies be treated equally. And because the moratorium is limited to 2 years, it ensures that Congress will revisit the issue periodically as technologies develop and circumstances change. As a former Governor, I do not take lightly any Federal action that limits the options available to local and State elected officials I recognize how hard it is to balance a State budget and am only willing to support a moratorium on Internet access taxes because I believe that we are dealing with a unique new service. The Internet has the power to connect Americans as the radio, telephone, and television did for previous generations. By sending e-mails, telecommuting, or banking online, Americans are communicating in a new way that makes our economy more productive and enhances our quality of life. If sparing Internet access from taxation increasing the ability of low and moderate income Americans to join the technology revolution, then it is certainly a worthy public policy goal. Now, Senators Allen and Wyden have offered an alternative approach. They have proposed legislation that would permanently bar States ad cities from taxing Internet access, and they have defined the service broadly that many experts believe it will undermine some telecommunications taxes on which States currently depend. I am not interested in providing enormous tax breaks to the telecommunications industry, and so I oppose their approach. Taxes that businesses currently pay to access the Internet backbone are reasonable costs of doing business. I hope that my colleagues will not be intimidated by claims that those of us who oppose tax breaks for telecommuncations companies actually want to tax people's e-mails. That is a false argument, and anyone who resorts to it is surely trying to avoid the difficult issues that are addressed by the bill introduced today by Senators Alexander and Carper. I would like to make one final point to my colleagues, and that is about fallibility. Every day we get fresh evidence that things are not always as they seemed and that we do not, in fact, know everything we thought we knew. If fallibility is part of being human, then surely it is part of any legislative body. If the moratorium that Congress had imposed 5 years ago had been permanent, then we would have had a difficult time reopening the issue to address the fact that certain technologies were not protected under the act. We ought not make that mistake now by thinking that we can accurately foresee the exciting technological developments on the horizon. It is appropriate for Congress to revisit this issue in two years, as the Alexander-Carper proposal allows. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in support of a new temporary moratorium on Internet access taxes. Enacting this legislation quickly will ensure that Americans are not hit with any taxes when they try to log on.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senators Cantwell and Kennedy's amendment to reinstate and extend the Federal unemployment insurance program. This measure would provide 6 additional months of financial assistance to thousands of West Virginians and millions of Americans who have exhausted their regular state-funded benefits. This support is desperately needed and deserves immediate attention. The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program expired on December 31, 2003. In response to a slowdown in the American economy, Congress created this program in March 2002 to provide federally-funded unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed who want to work, and who are looking for work, but are unable to find employment in the current economic climate. As all of my colleagues are aware, Congress extended the program twice, in January and May of 2003 respectively, because jobs remained scarce and new ones were not being created. Now, with millions of our constituents still looking for work and with 90,000 workers exhausting their State-funded benefits each week millions of Americans need our help once again. Over the past two years our economy has suffered through a difficult recession. Recently, however, according to some economic indicators, it does appear to be turning the corner. At least the data indicates we are poised to return to better and improved economic output from years past. This is some encouraging news, but it is long overdue. Despite strong economic growth over the last two quarters of 2003 and a surge in the financial markets, jobs continue to be hard to find. At this time, there is merely one job opening for every three out of work Americans. This is totally unacceptable. We cannot merely continue to muddle through a ``jobless recovery''--we must get the unemployed the relief they need. Those who oppose extending emergency unemployment insurance have also argued that recent improvements in the economy and the labor market demonstrate that the program is no longer needed. How can the administration tout upward trends as a major economic turnaround when so many Americans are still struggling so hard just to make ends meet? The White House claims that jobs are one of the administration's primary concerns. Yet, I am troubled that the White House has been conspicuously silent about unemployment insurance, which has been proven to boost economic output. It has been reported that continuing the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program would be the single best mechanism to boost the economy, giving the economy a $1.73 jolt for each $1 of Federal benefits. Unemployment insurance benefits are excellent stimulus because they aid people who are likely to spend additional resources immediately. Opponents to the extension cite a drop in the national unemployment rate, among other improvements in the economy, to justify phasing out this program that serves as the final safety net for workers across the country. It is true that the Nation's unemployment rate has dropped, albeit minimally, over the past few months. But it is clear that these numbers are misleading. A closer look at the numbers reveals that thousands of Americans are so frustrated they actually gave up looking for work altogether and dropped out of the labor market. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work and the number of long-term unemployed remains enormously high, at almost 2 million. Constituents in my home State of West Virginia have been particularly vocal about the seriousness of this situation. In January, nearly 1,200 West Virginians exhausted their State-funded benefits. That number will jump to nearly 7,000 over the next 6 months. If we pass this amendment, more than 8,000 of my constituents would get the help they need and deserve. My offices are taking calls from West Virginians who need such help. One example is a woman who lost her job due to company layoffs. She decided to return to school so that she could learn new skills and reenter the workforce better prepared for an uncertain future. My constituent was depending on the TUEC benefit to help finance her education. Without extending these benefits, how will she make ends meet until she finishes her training? I believe that it's a matter of this administration's priorities. And I very much worry we do not have our priorities straight. Lack of jobs is the primary culprit. But what is equally troubling is that there is a clear shift of jobs from high-paying industries to lower-paying sectors. This fundamental change in the job market was precipitated by a variety of factors. But simply replacing a good, secure, and well-paying position that includes health insurance and pension benefits with a minimum wage job just doesn't cut it. And sadly, it appears as if this administration is content to tout the creation of new low-paying jobs as stimulus, comparable to the 2.6 million manufacturing jobs that were lost since this President took office. West Virginia alone has lost about 9,800 manufacturing jobs over the last few years. Congress must recognize the urgency of this problem. We must move quickly to reinstate this program, not only to assist the unemployed, but also because in doing so we will provide our home states with additional resources that will immediately infuse economies across the country with more spending power. We can afford to help our fellow Americans. Every worker contributes to the Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds so that in times of need benefits are available. Failure to act would send a very negative message to the large number of Americans struggling to make their way in this difficult job climate. Not extending benefits is harsh on the unemployed and their families.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has just passed the Pension Stability Act by an overwhelming margin. I spoke yesterday on behalf of the legislation, because I understand how important these changes are to the employers who offer defined benefit pension plans and to the employees who are counting on those pension benefits. I would like to just add a few words today to encourage the House of Representatives to quickly approve the bill, as amended by the Senate, and get this legislation to President Bush at the earliest possible date. The pension reforms provided in this bill are urgently needed. Many large companies have contacted me to stress how important it is that Congress act to update the interest rate used in calculating pension liabilities. Continuing to require employers to use the outdated 30- year Treasury rate would jeopardize pension plans for millions of workers. I have also met with several executives from our Nation's airlines. The temporary relief from deficit reduction contributions provided by this bill is critically important to our struggling airline industry. As a result of both September 11 and the slow economy during the last few years, our Nation's airlines have dealt with extremely difficult business conditions. The industry has already laid off more than 200,000 people, and many airlines are struggling either to emerge from bankruptcy or to avoid having to file for bankruptcy. By providing airlines some breathing room when it comes to pension payments, we can protect workers' benefits that might otherwise be cancelled and protect workers' jobs that might otherwise be cut. Ultimately, this bill is an effort to do what we can to take care of workers who have already seen involuntary furloughs, seen their wages reduced, and seen their pensions cut. In my judgment, preserving the benefits and rights of workers who make our industries strong is crucial to strengthening our economy. This bill will help employers to honor their commitments to their employees, many of whom have already sacrificed so much for their companies. I am very pleased that by a vote of 86 to 9, my Senate colleagues approved this bill. I hope that the House will listen to the clear message that we sent today. For the sake of employers and their employees, Congress and the President must enact these pension reforms now. (At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana is otherwise occupied for the moment, so we are going to turn our attention, through myself and Senator Kyl, to the legislation we are considering, which is critically important and which has to do with pension plans and offering predictable solutions. There are many people who I would like to thank, but I will not do that because I only have 7\1/2\ minutes. The legislation we are considering enacts critical reforms that will shore up defined benefit pension plans upon which so many Americans depend. Today, we are updating the interest rate that companies must use when they calculate the liabilities of their pension plans. An index of long-term corporate bond rates is surely more accurate as a measurement of expected investment return than the now entirely defunct 30-year Treasury rate. This bill also provides a grace period for pension plans, including multiemployer plans, which have experienced extraordinary losses in the recent stock market declines. Make no mistake, if companies are not accorded reasonable flexibility in funding their plans, then they will not be able to maintain or afford plans for their workers, and their workers will hurt. I know of that because I live in a State where that surrounds me. I hope today's action is only the first step in a thoughtful and careful process to provide meaningful reforms for the defined benefit pension plan system. Congress ought to do all it can to encourage employers to provide retirement security through such plans. Today, only 35,000 companies provide defined benefit pension plans, which is less than a quarter of the plans available 20 years ago. That is a big loss. Given the volatility we have seen in the stock market over the last few years, more employees would benefit from having the opportunity to earn secure, predictable pension benefits. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to address the other important issues facing companies that are interested in providing defined benefit pension plans. For example, Congress ought to reconsider the funding rules to ensure that companies are able to invest appropriately in their pension plans when business is good and profits are strong. We also need to consider ways to strengthen the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation which, to say the very least, is stretched dangerously thin. I hope my colleagues will work with me on important reforms such as these so we can improve retirement security for millions of Americans. As I ask my colleagues to do exactly that, I remind them of the people who are dependent upon us. I have met with many West Virginians who have worked hard all of their lives--as they say, played by the rules-- and earned pension benefits from their employers, only to have the rug pulled out from under them in retirement. It is a painful, painful sight. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, Weirton Steel, Kaiser Aluminum, and Special Metals--and I am talking about companies in West Virginia--have been taken over by the PBGC in recent years. Retirees who dedicated their working years to those companies have told me how scared they are. Many have also lost their health insurance. Without their full pension benefits, they have no way to provide for their health care needs. Some people--and I am talking about seniors who are 60 or 65 years old--have told me they are looking for work. Part of their so-called retirement will be spent on the job because the pension benefits they were promised--the benefits they did earn--have been taken away. The legislation we are considering today will not solve all problems. More comprehensive pension reform is needed. But I am pleased this bill will help companies maintain pension plans that otherwise might have been canceled. Amendment No. 2234 I would also like to take a moment to address the amendment that has been offered by my colleague from Arizona. On behalf of the steelworkers of my State and the steelworkers of the State of the Presiding Officer, and on behalf of steelworkers across this country and many other hundreds of thousands of working people, I want to oppose the amendment that the Senator has offered. The legislation that Congress is considering today is designed to help companies maintain critical pensions on which workers are depending. We are doing so to protect workers from losing benefits that they have been promised. We understand some companies, faced with particularly hard times, are unable to immediately make up the investment losses recently suffered by pension plans. If companies cannot afford to meet strict deficit reduction contribution requirements, they might be compelled to abandon pension plans and leave workers without secure retirement benefits. Having said this, the Kyl amendment would dramatically decrease the security of hard-earned retirement benefits. The amendment fundamentally undermines the guarantee provided by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation which insures the defined benefit retirement plans. Let me be very clear about that because the PBGC is, unfortunately, something that we know a great deal about in the part of the country I come from. I repeat, the Senator's amendment would dramatically decrease the security of hard-earned retirement benefits. It undermines the guaranteed portion of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If Congress is going to change the guarantee provided by the PBGC, we must look for ways to improve the guaranteed benefit, not undermine it. Hundreds of thousands of Americans currently depend on PBGC for their retirement security. These are people who toiled away for years, often in very dangerous occupations, in all kinds of them. It is absolutely essential that we do not erode the already inadequate guarantee that protects these workers in their old age. Retirees depend upon PBGC payments to pay for food, housing, and, increasingly, to cover health care costs when retiree health benefits have been reduced or eliminated, as is so often the case. It would be unconscionable for Congress to provide relief to cash-strapped companies to help them maintain the pension plans they offer, only to punish the employees of those companies by denying them the benefits they have earned. I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for workers and defeat this amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I voted against cloture and against the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report because it does not fund West Virginia's priorities--short changing veteran's healthcare by about $700 million and education by $6 billion, as well as many other essential programs. I was also very concerned that provisions were added to the legislation at the insistence of the White House and over the will of both Houses of Congress to cut overtime pay for 8 million workers. Not long ago, the Senate and the House rejected this administration's Department of Labor regulation that would reduce the overtime pay of workers, and yet this bill includes just such a change. The process that produced this bill was unfair and does not give Congress its due opportunity to protect the priorities of the citizens of our states. This kind of process means West Virginia loses its right to be properly represented. Additionally, the will of Congress to implement stronger food safety provisions to require country-of-origin labeling for meat products has been ignored. This legislation delays action on such labeling for another two years; a troubling result given the concerns about mad cow disease. In previous action, the House and Senate conferees agreed to provide basic protections for Federal employees targeted for privatization by the administration, yet this legislation guts such protection placing 400,000 Federal workers in jeopardy without protections. What's more, this legislation included an across-the-board cut in all programs, and that is not a responsible budget practice. Such a cut means that 24,000 fewer children will be served by title I in their schools, 26,500 fewer veterans will get health care, and $170 million will be lost for needed highway construction. Under the process imposed in this must pass legislation, Senators have no chance to offer amendments or make changes. This is simply not right, and therefore, I vote no in protest. I vote no, to taking away the rights of West Virginians. I understand that the votes are there to pass the underlying legislation to keep the government functioning and provide support to West Virginia projects. I agree that VA healthcare funding needs to be increased, but this bill falls far short. I agree with the $1 billion increase for the Title 1 education program, but I also must point out that we are still $6 billion short of the amount promised for the No Child Left Behind Act. Again, my vote is a protest vote against the effort to rob West Virginia of its representation in the appropriations process and in opposition to the egregious provisions inserted into this legislation without bipartisan support, or full and fair discussion. I am pleased that after over 4 months, Federal funding is decided, but the process must be changed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, over the last several years as the economy came down from the high of the 1990s, we have seen how devastating it can be for workers when their companies declare bankruptcy. From the enormous Enron bankruptcy at the end of 2001 to the bankruptcies of Wheeling-Pitt and then Weirton Steel in my own home State, every bankruptcy has brought heartache for workers who had dedicated themselves to their employers. In many cases, employees and retirees have very limited ability to recover the wages, severance, or benefits they are due when their companies seek protection from creditors. Workers deserve better. So today I am introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act to strengthen workers' rights in bankruptcy and to provide greater authority to bankruptcy courts to ensure a fair distribution of assets. Specifically, my bill will do three things. It will ensure that retirees whose promised health insurance is taken away receive at least some compensation for their lost benefits. Second, my legislation would allow employees to recover more of the back-pay or other compensation that is owed to them at the time of the bankruptcy. And lastly, I would provide bankruptcy courts the authority to recover company assets in cases where company managers flagrantly paid excessive compensation to favored employees just before declaring bankruptcy. I am proposing this legislation as a way to start a dialogue about how we can better protect workers whose companies file for bankruptcy. I do not pretend to have all the answers. But I do know that we must do a better job of easing the burden that bankruptcy imposes on employees and retirees. And I believe that we can do so in creative ways that do not make it more difficult for companies to successfully reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy. I look forward to the ideas and suggestions of my colleagues. In the simplest economic terms, employees sell their labor to their companies. They toil away in offices, plants, factories, mills, and mines, because they are promised that at the end of the day they will receive certain compensation. One of the most important types of compensation that workers earn is the right to enjoy certain benefits when they retire. Pensions, life insurance, or health care coverage are earned by workers in addition to their weekly paychecks. Yet, sadly we have seen many companies in the last few years abandon these promises when they declare bankruptcy. More and more we see companies taking the easy road to profitability by abandoning commitments that they made to workers. For retirees who have planned for their golden years based on the benefits they have earned, losing health insurance can be a devastating blow. Retirees must have the right to reasonable compensation if the company seeks to break its promise to provide health insurance. Under current law, these retirees receive what is called a general unsecured claim for the value of the benefits they lost. As any creditor will tell you, a general unsecured claim is essentially worthless in most bankruptcies. It means you are at the end of the line, and there are not enough assets to go around. This law allows companies to essentially rescind compensation that retirees have earned with virtually no cost to the company. Of course that is a great deal for the company, but it is spectacularly unfair to the retirees. Recognizing that so-called legacy costs are often an impossible burden for a company that is trying to emerge from bankruptcy, my legislation would still allow companies in some circumstances to alter the health coverage offered to retirees. However, it would require that the company pay a minimum level of compensation to retirees. Under this bill, each retiree would be entitled to a payment equal to the cost of purchasing comparable health insurance for a period of 18 months. Of course, 18 months of health insurance coverage is a lot less than many of these retirees are losing, but it can ease the transition as retirees make alternative plans, and it will discourage companies from thinking that terminating retiree health coverage is an easy solution. The retirees would still be entitled to a general unsecured claim for the value of the benefits lost in excess of this one time payment. This change would ensure that retirees, while still not being made whole on lost benefits, will at least receive some compensation for the broken promises. Many active workers, too, have a difficult time recovering what is owed to them by their employer when the company files bankruptcy. Under current law, employees are entitled to a priority claim of up to $4,650. But that figure is usually not enough to cover the back-wages, vacation time, severance pay, or benefit payments that the employees are owed for work done prior to the bankruptcy. Congress needs to update the amount of the priority claim to ensure that more workers are able to receive what is rightfully theirs. The Bankruptcy Fairness Act would establish a priority claim for the first $15,000 of compensation owed to an employee. In most cases, employees have been working their hardest to help the company avoid the nightmare of bankruptcy, only to find that they will not be compensated for their services as promised. As we saw so clearly with the Enron case, employees are often left holding the bag when their company declares bankruptcy. In that case, employees were owed an average of $35,000 in back-wages, severance, and other promised compensation. They deserved to recover more than a mere $4,650 of what was owed them. Let me be clear, this bill does not establish any new obligation for a company to pay severance or other compensation to employees caught up in a company's bankruptcy. It merely ensures that employees can recover more of what is already owed to them through the bankruptcy process. I understand that many creditors or investors are not able to recover what is rightfully owed to them in bankruptcy, but employees deserve protection that recognizes the unique nature of their dependence on their employer. Any smart investor diversifies his or her portfolio so that a bankruptcy at one company does not bankrupt the investor. Likewise, suppliers and creditors that do business with a company typically have many other clients. This is not the case with workers. They cannot diversify away from the risk of working for a bankrupt company, and the financial hardship a bankruptcy brings is more devastating to the average worker than the average creditor or supplier. Now, I know that some of my colleagues listening to this may be worrying that this legislation is insensitive to the needs of companies that are trying to reorganize in order to emerge from bankruptcy and go forward as successful businesses. I am fully aware that sometimes, too often in the real world, the bankruptcy process can help companies stay open and maintain jobs by restructuring obligations to creditors. Too many companies in West Virginia have had to go through the painful process of Chapter 11 reorganization. I completely understand the need to keep the factories open. And I have always worked side by side with companies to help them recover. I will continue that important work, and I have included a provision in this bill to help bankrupt companies that are struggling to survive to recover assets that have been pilfered from the corporate coffers. In too many cases, company executives reward themselves even as their companies careen toward bankruptcy. The most egregious recent example is at Enron in 2001. In the days and weeks leading up to the bankruptcy filing, executives granted large bonuses to themselves and their favored employees. Millions of dollars were paid to a select group of employees just before the company declared bankruptcy. It is unconscionable that executives would grant themselves undeserved bonuses and then weeks later claim that the company did not have the resources to pay its rank and file employees. My legislation provides bankruptcy courts greater authority to recover excessive compensation that was paid just prior to the bankruptcy filing. If the court finds that compensation was out of the ordinary course of business or was unjust enrichment, the court can recover those assets for the bankrupt company, ensuring that more creditors, employees, and retirees can receive what is rightfully owed to them by the company. The reforms I have outlined are modest. They will not take the sting out of bankruptcy. By definition a bankruptcy is a failure, and it is painful for the company's employees, retirees, and business partners. But the Bankruptcy Fairness Act I am introducing today would make progress toward ensuring that bankruptcies are more fair to the workers who gave their time and energy and sweat to the company in exchange for certain promised compensation. And by helping a company recover assets that should not have been paid out as undeserved bonuses just before bankruptcy the bill ensures that more of a company's assets are paid to the employees, retirees, and creditors who are rightfully owed. It is my hope that this legislation will receive serious consideration from my colleagues, and that this can open an important debate about how workers and retirees can be better protected from the ugly side of prolonged economic downturns.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, over the last several years as the economy came down from the high of the 1990s, we have seen how devastating it can be for workers when their companies declare bankruptcy. From the enormous Enron bankruptcy at the end of 2001 to the bankruptcies of Wheeling-Pitt and then Weirton Steel in my own home State, every bankruptcy has brought heartache for workers who had dedicated themselves to their employers. In many cases, employees and retirees have very limited ability to recover the wages, severance, or benefits they are due when their companies seek protection from creditors. Workers deserve better. So today I am introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act to strengthen workers' rights in bankruptcy and to provide greater authority to bankruptcy courts to ensure a fair distribution of assets. Specifically, my bill will do three things. It will ensure that retirees whose promised health insurance is taken away receive at least some compensation for their lost benefits. Second, my legislation would allow employees to recover more of the back-pay or other compensation that is owed to them at the time of the bankruptcy. And lastly, I would provide bankruptcy courts the authority to recover company assets in cases where company managers flagrantly paid excessive compensation to favored employees just before declaring bankruptcy. I am proposing this legislation as a way to start a dialogue about how we can better protect workers whose companies file for bankruptcy. I do not pretend to have all the answers. But I do know that we must do a better job of easing the burden that bankruptcy imposes on employees and retirees. And I believe that we can do so in creative ways that do not make it more difficult for companies to successfully reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy. I look forward to the ideas and suggestions of my colleagues. In the simplest economic terms, employees sell their labor to their companies. They toil away in offices, plants, factories, mills, and mines, because they are promised that at the end of the day they will receive certain compensation. One of the most important types of compensation that workers earn is the right to enjoy certain benefits when they retire. Pensions, life insurance, or health care coverage are earned by workers in addition to their weekly paychecks. Yet, sadly we have seen many companies in the last few years abandon these promises when they declare bankruptcy. More and more we see companies taking the easy road to profitability by abandoning commitments that they made to workers. For retirees who have planned for their golden years based on the benefits they have earned, losing health insurance can be a devastating blow. Retirees must have the right to reasonable compensation if the company seeks to break its promise to provide health insurance. Under current law, these retirees receive what is called a general unsecured claim for the value of the benefits they lost. As any creditor will tell you, a general unsecured claim is essentially worthless in most bankruptcies. It means you are at the end of the line, and there are not enough assets to go around. This law allows companies to essentially rescind compensation that retirees have earned with virtually no cost to the company. Of course that is a great deal for the company, but it is spectacularly unfair to the retirees. Recognizing that so-called legacy costs are often an impossible burden for a company that is trying to emerge from bankruptcy, my legislation would still allow companies in some circumstances to alter the health coverage offered to retirees. However, it would require that the company pay a minimum level of compensation to retirees. Under this bill, each retiree would be entitled to a payment equal to the cost of purchasing comparable health insurance for a period of 18 months. Of course, 18 months of health insurance coverage is a lot less than many of these retirees are losing, but it can ease the transition as retirees make alternative plans, and it will discourage companies from thinking that terminating retiree health coverage is an easy solution. The retirees would still be entitled to a general unsecured claim for the value of the benefits lost in excess of this one time payment. This change would ensure that retirees, while still not being made whole on lost benefits, will at least receive some compensation for the broken promises. Many active workers, too, have a difficult time recovering what is owed to them by their employer when the company files bankruptcy. Under current law, employees are entitled to a priority claim of up to $4,650. But that figure is usually not enough to cover the back-wages, vacation time, severance pay, or benefit payments that the employees are owed for work done prior to the bankruptcy. Congress needs to update the amount of the priority claim to ensure that more workers are able to receive what is rightfully theirs. The Bankruptcy Fairness Act would establish a priority claim for the first $15,000 of compensation owed to an employee. In most cases, employees have been working their hardest to help the company avoid the nightmare of bankruptcy, only to find that they will not be compensated for their services as promised. As we saw so clearly with the Enron case, employees are often left holding the bag when their company declares bankruptcy. In that case, employees were owed an average of $35,000 in back-wages, severance, and other promised compensation. They deserved to recover more than a mere $4,650 of what was owed them. Let me be clear, this bill does not establish any new obligation for a company to pay severance or other compensation to employees caught up in a company's bankruptcy. It merely ensures that employees can recover more of what is already owed to them through the bankruptcy process. I understand that many creditors or investors are not able to recover what is rightfully owed to them in bankruptcy, but employees deserve protection that recognizes the unique nature of their dependence on their employer. Any smart investor diversifies his or her portfolio so that a bankruptcy at one company does not bankrupt the investor. Likewise, suppliers and creditors that do business with a company typically have many other clients. This is not the case with workers. They cannot diversify away from the risk of working for a bankrupt company, and the financial hardship a bankruptcy brings is more devastating to the average worker than the average creditor or supplier. Now, I know that some of my colleagues listening to this may be worrying that this legislation is insensitive to the needs of companies that are trying to reorganize in order to emerge from bankruptcy and go forward as successful businesses. I am fully aware that sometimes, too often in the real world, the bankruptcy process can help companies stay open and maintain jobs by restructuring obligations to creditors. Too many companies in West Virginia have had to go through the painful process of Chapter 11 reorganization. I completely understand the need to keep the factories open. And I have always worked side by side with companies to help them recover. I will continue that important work, and I have included a provision in this bill to help bankrupt companies that are struggling to survive to recover assets that have been pilfered from the corporate coffers. In too many cases, company executives reward themselves even as their companies careen toward bankruptcy. The most egregious recent example is at Enron in 2001. In the days and weeks leading up to the bankruptcy filing, executives granted large bonuses to themselves and their favored employees. Millions of dollars were paid to a select group of employees just before the company declared bankruptcy. It is unconscionable that executives would grant themselves undeserved bonuses and then weeks later claim that the company did not have the resources to pay its rank and file employees. My legislation provides bankruptcy courts greater authority to recover excessive compensation that was paid just prior to the bankruptcy filing. If the court finds that compensation was out of the ordinary course of business or was unjust enrichment, the court can recover those assets for the bankrupt company, ensuring that more creditors, employees, and retirees can receive what is rightfully owed to them by the company. The reforms I have outlined are modest. They will not take the sting out of bankruptcy. By definition a bankruptcy is a failure, and it is painful for the company's employees, retirees, and business partners. But the Bankruptcy Fairness Act I am introducing today would make progress toward ensuring that bankruptcies are more fair to the workers who gave their time and energy and sweat to the company in exchange for certain promised compensation. And by helping a company recover assets that should not have been paid out as undeserved bonuses just before bankruptcy the bill ensures that more of a company's assets are paid to the employees, retirees, and creditors who are rightfully owed. It is my hope that this legislation will receive serious consideration from my colleagues, and that this can open an important debate about how workers and retirees can be better protected from the ugly side of prolonged economic downturns.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this past Friday I voted against the Energy bill conference report that was before the Senate. I did this despite having worked for many years on some of the bill's components that I believe will be good for West Virginia and the Nation, such as tax incentives and related research and development of clean coal technologies, incentives to increase domestic energy production through an expansion of existing credits for production from non-conventional sources, and incentives to promote greater use of alternative fuel vehicles. However, presented with the complete package under consideration, I had no qualms about voting to continue debate and to stop a vote on final passage. As a Senator from a State where coal is not merely a home state industry, but a part of the spirit of the place, I did not come to this conclusion easily. Many parts of this bill will have little or no direct impact on my State, while parts of the bill could help West Virginia. My first concern when looking at any bill is how it will affect West Virginians. Only then do I look at the broader scope of legislation. In this instance, these concerns coincide. Balancing all that is good against all that is bad in a large and complex bill, I believe this energy bill will do more harm than good to my state, especially to its coal industry, and to the nation as a whole. The failure to produce a bill the Senate could pass is especially frustrating to me because I have argued for my entire Senate career that the country desperately needs a comprehensive and responsible energy policy. Recently this need has become obvious even to the casual observer. Huge portions of the population suffer blackouts, high natural gas prices threaten our manufacturing base, and highly volatile gasoline prices hurt so many of our citizens. Factors like these compel Congress to make prudent energy policy decisions for our nation. These include developing our domestic energy resources where it can be done without harming the environment, such as is the case with natural gas exploration in the Appalachian Basin that I have promoted by working to extend tax incentives for the types of non-conventional terrain common there. It should include funding advancements in technology, as I have advocated with my support for clean coal tax incentives and related R&D, to preserve the long-term viability of our coal industry. It should include common-sense programs to protect miners and other energy industry workers who do the dangerous work that allows our economy to grow. An energy policy we can all support would do more than pay lip service to improving the reliability of our electrical grid, or to the efficiency and conservation measures that must be part of an effective national energy strategy. I am sad to say that the Energy conference report misses the mark. We would have done better to simply pass the much more balanced bill the Senate passed in 2002, and again this year. I encourage my Republican colleagues in the strongest terms possible to use that bill as a guide, and to move quickly, with active bipartisan cooperation, on this important issue early next year. This will produce a bill that will enjoy support on both sides of the aisle. I will not hesitate to oppose another flawed bill, like the one we rejected last week that I believe would hurt my State of West Virginia, no matter how many times the majority seeks to shut off debate. This is a bill I had hoped would help sustain the long-term health of the coal industry. I recognize that the bill contains some clean coal tax incentives, which I have worked hard for years to enact into law, and related research and development. Unfortunately, an Energy conference closedout to Democrats made damaging cuts of 20 percent or more to Senate provisions designed to move the utility industry toward emission-free coal-fired power plants in the foreseeable future. The R&D goal of $2 billion over 10 years was cut, and then further diluted by including earmarked loan guarantees, including one to strip clean coal technology out of an Alaska demonstration project and reconfigure it as a conventional coal plant. The tax provisions, already reduced from a level coal and utility industry experts project as necessary to truly drive technological development, were cut further. That money was shifted to allow the oil and gas industries to receive almost 49 percent of all tax incentives, while coal, which produces more than 50 percent of the nation's electricity, has to be satisfied with only about 10 percent of the benefit of the bill. What is probably most troubling for my State of West Virginia is that this bill would tilt a playing field that is far from level already dramatically in the direction of western coal. Under this legislation, companies out west that mine coal on public lands will be required to conduct much less stringent environmental analysis, and then be reimbursed by taxpayers for any costs incurred. At the same time, these companies will be able to mine this coal the taxpayers' coal--and pay lower royalties than have been required until now. Coal from the Powder River Basin is already cost-competitive in parts of the eastern United States with coal mined in Appalachia. Finally, this bill includes a completely unjustified repeal of a 4.3 cent per gallon excise tax railroads pay on diesel fuel, which will make it even cheaper for western coal companies to flood the eastern United States with their product. Further, I am simply astonished that in a bill that gives an unprecedented amount of taxpayer money to special interests, and which purports to support coal, that House conferees not from coal states demanded that a small but critical provision of mine from last year's Senate bill be removed. This provision, which would have added no additional cost to the bill, called upon the Secretary of Labor to hire, train, and deploy as many Mine Safety Inspectors as she is currently authorized to have. This was meant to overcome a decline in the number of mine inspectors, and therefore, in mine inspections, that predates this administration. This situation, where mine inspectors spend far more time on the road traveling between mines than they ever spend inspecting them for compliance with federal health and safety rules, will become untenable if the nearly 25 percent of inspectors scheduled to retire in the next three to five years actually leave the already-depleted workforce. Let me reiterate: No new authorization; no demand for additional personnel to make sure the coal mines in this country are safe for the miners producing the fuel that generates more than half our electricity. Just hire and train them now so that planned retirements do not leave our miners unprotected by qualified Mine Safety Inspectors. Secretary Chao signed off on the provision last year, and in 2003, Senator Domenici included it in his version of the bill. But it's not in the conference report. I wonder how, in an energy bill that is supposed to be about maximizing our domestic production, we can look the other way at miners' safety. I would be remiss, if I did not give credit where credit is due. I have worked for many years on incentives to promote natural gas development from non-conventional sources. These so-called section 29 credits, including incentives for the capture of coalmine methane and the production of coke, would, respectively, reinvigorate natural gas drilling in the Appalachian Basin, lower the production costs and increase the safety of coal mining, and help the struggling American steel industry get back on its feet. I have advocated for these incentives during my entire career because I understand how much they would help my State of West Virginia. I was proud, both last year and in 2003, to lead a broad bipartisan coalition in the Senate pushing for extension and expansion of section 29. With regard to these provisions I commend the conferees. Unlike many pieces of our bill that went into conference with the House, I believe the section 29 provisions in the conference report have been greatly improved. I trust that few Senators cast many votes that are decided purely on the numbers. How much something costs, or how much are we willing to give to this industry or that one play into our decisions, to be sure. But for this Senator, at least, figures tend to be obliterated by the people our actions are helping. We had a chance in this conference report to help a group of people I have taken into my heart, and for whom I probably have spent more hours working than any other. I am speaking of retired coal miners and their surviving spouses. The Coal Act was created to protect the promise of lifetime health benefits for coal miners, who fueled the nation's post World War II economic growth, and who made salary and pension concessions in exchange for those health benefits. The Coal Act fulfilled a promise first made by President Truman in his 1946 agreement with legendary UMWA President John L. Lewis. In response to a coal strike in the late 1980s and a looming crisis in the miners' health funds, the first Bush administration created the Coal Commission to find a long term solution. Those recommendations became the basis for the Coal Act, which protected the health benefits of more than 100,000 retired miners. Today, there are almost 50,000 retired miners and widows who depend on the Coal Act for their health care security--their average age is about 78. Since enactment, the Coal Act has faced many challenges, but the combination of sharply escalating drug costs and a series of negative court decisions have resulted in a serious deficit in the Funds. That deficit will mean a cut in health benefits next year if Congress does not act to stop it. We had a chance, in the Energy conference, to shore up the Combined Benefit Fund while also helping make states whole with regard to what was owed them in outstanding Abandoned Mine Land contributions. I have heard promises that both Senate and House Chairmen have made to deal with this issue next year, when the AML Fund is up for reauthorization. For the 80-year old miners' widows who are facing a benefit cut next February, they have heard promises before, but in their behalf I must say that I sincerely hope that next year is not too late. I am not happy that I must vote against this bill. I am sorry for my State of West Virginia, because it deserves better than this bill gives it. I'm sorry that our balanced bill of 2002 has been replaced with this lopsided monstrosity. I will continue to push my colleagues for a balanced and responsible energy policy for this nation, and I look forward to a time, hopefully soon, when I can vote for such a bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson stood with President Harry Truman and, together, they delivered the Medicare program. They proudly addressed the American people as President Johnson proclaimed, ``No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years.'' Today, those words still move me and yet, if I am to be honest, they also haunt me as we consider the Medicare reform legislation before us. I know that this legislation charts a course that will begin to undo the good works of our former Presidents and of a program that is perhaps the single most effective public initiative in our nation's history. Medicare has literally saved the lives of our seniors, keeping them from poverty and providing the peace of mind that comes with security. For this reason, I have a heavy heart and a sense of near dread about this bill. My heart is heavy because I know that this bill to reform and ``improve'' Medicare is deeply, fundamentally flawed. This is not what Presidents Johnson and Truman wanted for the millions of our parents and grandparents who made America strong, and it is not what I want, either. For many years, we have talked about the need for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. For a brief moment, I believed we in the Senate were serious about delivering a meaningful benefit. However, I cannot support the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill because it forces seniors to choose between paying more for their own doctor or signing up with an HMO; leaves seniors to pay thousands in out of pocket costs; eliminates employer drug coverage for 2.7 million retirees; prevents efforts to keep drug costs down; and effectively prohibits seniors from importing cheaper drugs from Canada. I recognize that this bill commits $400 billion to a Medicare prescription drug benefit and truly helps some low income seniors who are without coverage today, and I am glad that it gives a critical boost to rural hospitals and doctors. But the fine print matters and will have very dangerous consequences for how much seniors have to pay for their Medicare benefit, whether this drug benefit really serves seniors, and whether we are strengthening or weakening Medicare for the future. I have always said that a Medicare prescription drug bill must be voluntary, affordable and accessible to all Medicare beneficiaries; must truly help with the high cost of prescription drugs; and must strengthen the Medicare program for the future. This bill fails on all counts. West Virginians and many of my colleagues know I have been working on Medicare for 20 years. I sat on the Medicare Commission for a year during which we debated the best way to improve Medicare. Before that, I chaired the U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care, which discussed ways to address the problems of the uninsured and the need for long-term care reform in this country. Today, I am the ranking member of the health subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee. I was a member of the conference committee on this bill--but in name only, not in practice. Nevertheless, my goal has always been, and continues to be, improving Medicare and the quality of health care available to all Americans. This bill does not improve this program. This bill harms this program--actually harms Medicare. This bill is a tool to force seniors to leave the traditional Medicare program they know and trust in order to obtain the drug benefit they need and deserve. Many people have said that this plan is voluntary and, therefore, if a senior chooses to stay in traditional Medicare and get a drug benefit, he or she can do so. This legislation does not guarantee that in any way. Under this legislation, seniors will have two different options for receiving a drug benefit. The first option is to stay in traditional Medicare for their doctor and hospital services and enroll in a ``drug-only plan'' to receive their drugs. The second option is to give up traditional Medicare and enroll in a HMO or PPO for all of their health care services. You may ask: what is a drug- only plan and how does one work? The answer is that we have no idea because no such entity exists today. It is a completely new concept which the Administrator of CMS said does not exist in nature and would probably not work in practice. The former head of the Health Insurance Association of America said that drug-only plans are like insuring against haircuts. So, it's completely uncertain whether these plans will emerge, but let's say for a moment that they do. Well, at least seniors should be assured that they can remain in traditional Medicare and get a prescription drug benefit, right? Wrong. There is no limit on what these drug-only plans can charge seniors none at all. These plans could charge seniors $100, $500, or even $1,000 per month. These premiums could be completely prohibitive. West Virginia seniors will certainly not be able to afford premiums that high. If that is the case, seniors will not really have the option to stay in traditional Medicare and get a prescription drug benefit. They will be forced to enroll in an HMO in order to get a drug benefit and that is not what our seniors want. Again, to be fair, this bill has some provisions, including those affecting physician services and rural hospitals that will be helpful to my home State of West Virginia. I fully recognize that; in fact, I pushed for these because I understand that good care is critical to good health, and that we must adequately reimburse Medicare providers for that good care. However, despite this, I have grave concerns about the compromise produced by the Conference Committee charged with reconciling differences between the House- and Senate-passed Medicare reform bills. I was on the conference committee. I understand the arguments on both sides. And now, more than ever, I believe that the Congress needs to pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit that gives seniors more for their money, not less. I do not want to privatize Medicare, undermine existing retiree coverage, or force seniors to flip-flop between plans. Unfortunately, this bill would do all of that and more. Today, 339,000 seniors live in West Virginia. Nearly 30,000 West Virginia seniors will lose their employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage simply because of the enactment of this bill. As health savings accounts (HSAs) created by this legislation select and cover healthier, younger seniors, employers will be left to cover sicker, older seniors. Employers will see their health care costs rise and they will be priced out of continuing to provide employees or retirees with coverage, leaving remaining retirees with a benefit that is less desirable than they had before. Meanwhile, 70,000 West Virginia seniors will fall into a $2,800 coverage gap, forcing them to bear the total cost of their drug themselves until they reach the end of that gap. In fact, the available benefit will be so stingy that many seniors will pay more for this drug plan than they will receive in actual drug benefits. At the same time, private insurance plans will be assured even greater profits through a $12 billion ``slush fund'' created by this legislation. Proponents argue that this ``slush fund'' is necessary to bring HMOs into rural areas. The fact is that this additional funding is necessary because HMOs have overhead costs. They have to pay their investors, provide a return to their stockholders and they have to pay for good marketing materials because that's the best way to skim off the healthiest seniors. On average, private plans have administrative costs that are about 15 percent of total spending whereas Medicare's administrative costs are 2 to 3 percent of total spending. There is no way that private plans can be as efficient as Medicare. Yet I am not opposed to allowing them to compete fairly with Medicare. However, we should make them compete on a level playing field. We should make them compete by creating efficiencies. We shouldn't take money away from the highly efficient Medicare program and give it to the HMOs to help them instead of seniors. That is not the free-market at work. That is not real competition. And, while a ``premium support'' demonstration, which effectively allows a voucher system instead of a real Medicare prescription drug benefit, will take place in six metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) initially, I believe we can safely assume that this demonstration is meant to be standard at some point. This demonstration is expected to raise monthly Medicare premiums by 26 percent. Perhaps most disturbing, 45,000 ``dual eligible'' beneficiaries will pay more for every prescription drug they receive under this legislation. Dual eligibles are seniors who qualify for Medicaid by virtue of their income. They currently receive drug coverage under Medicaid. In my State of West Virginia, these seniors pay between $0.50 and $2.00 per prescription depending on the total cost of the drug. Under this legislation, they could be required to pay twice that much. I want to be clear on this point because I was among those insisting that the dual eligibles be included under the Medicare benefit and not left in Medicaid. I believe this conference report does the right thing by including these seniors in the Medicare benefit. However, this legislation precludes States from ``wrapping around'' Medicare. In other words, States will not receive any Federal dollars for assisting dual eligible beneficiaries with the costs not covered by Medicare. This is unprecedented. For every other benefit covered by Medicaid but not by Medicare, the states receive a Federal match to provide those benefits to our poorest seniors. For example, Medicaid covers long-term care but Medicare does not. So, for those seniors who are also eligible for Medicaid, the Federal Government provides matching dollars to states to provide long-term care to dual eligibles. This conference report completely twists that concept of protecting our poorest seniors against increased costs in an unprecedented way. This arrangement represents a fundamental change in the relationship between Medicare and Medicaid. Many predict that the individuals affected will choose to forgo the prescription drugs that they need rather than try to pay what they cannot afford. In my judgment, this bill represents the greatest threat to the Medicare program since its enactment. While numerous opportunities existed to strengthen it, they were wasted. Instead of devoting $12 billion to closing the $2,800 coverage gap, this conference report gives it to HMOs. Instead of protecting the right of our seniors to stay in traditional Medicare and get a prescription drug benefit, this bill protects the rights of the private plans to charge any premium they want. Instead of shoring up retiree coverage for the two to three million beneficiaries across the United States who will lose drug coverage as a result of this bill, this bill includes tax shelters that threaten to undermine the entire employer-based system. This bill is a give-away to special interests, compiled in the dead of night, under wraps. It is shameful. Public policy, like life, is about choices and this bill makes all the wrong choices for our seniors. While I have painted a bleak picture, I strongly believe that we can avoid disaster. We can do so by putting this bill aside and coming back to the table with a proposal that helps seniors and protects the long- term viability of what is a truly great program. We can take into account the seniors who won't benefit from the low-income provisions in the bill. We can protect retirees, and we can implement positive reform that is productive, not destructive, confusing, or manipulative. It is not too late. It is not too late. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to immediately go back to work for the kind of Medicare drug benefit seniors deserve. Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we stand here today at a historic moment in this country as we begin consideration of the Medicare prescription drug bill. This bill is a triumph not for a party or a President but for America's seniors and their families. This is an incredibly hopeful day for all Americans who long for a national government that can get things done for people. I campaigned on a promise to get things done--deliver to the American people what they need to live better lives and what they are looking to Congress to accomplish to make America a stronger country. Prescription drugs, energy, partial-birth abortion were all at the top of the list of issues that most Americans were looking for Congress to take action. Their seemingly simple request was for us here in Washington to put politics aside and do what is right for the American public. I am proud to say we are seeing that happen with this Medicare bill. This is a bipartisan effort that, although not perfect, makes a good start at addressing the needs of Minnesota's seniors and health care providers as well as those across this country. This is the largest and most comprehensive rural health care improvement package ever contemplated by this body. Last year, as I campaigned across Minnesota and spent many hours talking to our rural health care providers, it was apparent to me that most of our hospitals and doctors had given up hope for fair Medicare reimbursement. Thanks to the strong leadership of Chairman Grassley, we have a bill before us that has $26 billion--or $2.6 billion each year for 10 years--for rural providers, something that one short year ago seemed nearly impossible. Quality rural health care is one of the foundations of our rural communities--this isn't simply about making sure our rural hospitals are adequately reimbursed. This is about preserving a way of life in America. Without rural hospitals and physicians, it is tough to raise a family and hard to attract new businesses to rural communities. Without access to health care, many of our out-state towns simply couldn't exist. This bill seeks to eliminate many of the disparities in reimbursement rates that have existed too long and crippled the rural health system. Hospitals, physicians, and ambulances, as well as all of those health professionals who work within these systems will not see Medicare reimbursement rates that better reflect the realities of the costs of providing care in rural communities. As I look back on the accomplishments of the first session of the 108th Congress, addressing the rural health care payment disparity under the Medicare program will undoubtedly be one of the most meaningful achievements to Minnesotans. Many said it couldn't be done, and today I have the great opportunity to come to the Senate floor and tell my constituents that we will be voting on a bill that takes a major step in providing equality with urban payments that will significantly improve their ability to provide quality care. Minnesota has a long tradition of providing high quality care, but many of our seniors have not had access to this care because of the lack of prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program. Again, I have the great honor coming here and announcing to the seniors back home that help is on the way. Beginning in 2006, the 677,400 Medicare beneficiaries in Minnesota will have access to drug coverage for the first time in the history of the Medicare program, and 187,356 of these people would not otherwise have access to drug coverage. That means access to new drug therapies that could never been imagined in 1965 when Medicare was created. It is time to bring this program in line with current medical practices. A 1965 Cadillac is a classic. A 1965 health care benefit is a travesty. This bill will provide prescription drug coverage for 41 million people in this country--41 million people! Is this the perfect benefit? I'm not sure what the perfect benefit realistically looks like. But I do know that the average senior's drug costs will be cut roughly in half under this proposal. That is meaningful assistance for all seniors and the bill provides even more assistance for those low-income seniors who need us to shoulder even more of the burden. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. In the words of the AARP, one of the largest senior associations, ``Millions of Americans can't afford to wait for perfect.'' And we know that drugs are most effective when used to prevent the onset of a health condition. Right now almost 93 percent of our health care dollars go to treat a person who is sick. While we have amazing screening and early detection capabilities, we have a program that waits for people to develop dangerous and costly conditions before they can receive care. It appears to me that this is a 1965 model of care, not a model that belongs in a 2003 health care system. This bill for the first time includes a ``Welcome to Medicare'' physical that will allow beneficiaries to get an assessment of their health condition and possibly detect conditions that could possibly escalate over time. It also includes cardiovascular screening, blood tests and diabetes screening that will be available without deductibles or co-pays to encourage seniors to take advantage of these benefits. I want to stop for a moment at the word ``encourage.'' It is absolutely critical for every senior to know that they don't have to take advantage of the preventive screenings, they are not required to participate in the prescription drug plan, and most importantly, no seniors under this proposal are forced into a private health plan. Every senior who chooses to remain in traditional Medicare has that equally important option under this bill. This bill is about expanding choice. Time and time again I hear from seniors who have said they want to receive the same benefits that my colleagues and I here and in the House of Representatives enjoy. This bill is about giving seniors the option to participate in a plan that looks very close to the benefits that I and most individuals in the private sector enjoy. This bill is good for our seniors, it is good for health providers, and it is good for the American public who are tired of the partisan battles that have characterized this Congress. I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus and the members of the conference committee who have crafted this bipartisan Medicare package. This is a truly historic time in this body's history. As we look toward completing our work for this first session, I am hopeful that the spirit of cooperation that has led to this bill will be extended to the many important issues we will leave unresolved this year. The Thanksgiving season is upon us. Our work in this session is nearing completion. But our work will not be done until and unless we seize this historic opportunity and bring a prescription drug benefit and hopes for a better and healthier life and make this a Thanksgiving to remember for all the right reasons for our senior citizens and their families.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chairman. Is it the Chairman's understanding that section 808 only addresses international cargo and does not address the carriage of cargo which first originates in Alaska?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I have a question for the subcommittee chairman about section 808 of the conference report concerning international air cargo shipped through Alaska.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to finally be able to support the adoption of the Federal Aviation Administration conference report. The process that allowed us to get to this point has been unlike any other that I have ever experienced in my 19 years in the Senate, but we have secured a commitment from the administration that they will not move forward with contracting out any air traffic control functions, which has prevented the Senate from passing this report. I am pleased that my colleagues have confirmed this commitment. Over the last year, I have worked closely with Senators McCain, Hollings, and Lott on developing this important legislation. I thank them for all of their efforts on getting this bill done. It has not gone as easy as any of us would have liked, but the debate on privatization is important as it is fundamentally a debate on safety and security. Senator Lautenberg should be commended for his unrelenting commitment to making sure the United States has the safest and most secure air traffic control system in the world. We have secured an agreement on this issue that all parties can accept, but it does not mean that this debate is over. I know my colleagues have committed to holding hearings on this issue, and we will be closely monitoring the administration's actions in this area. The reauthorization of the FAA is a vitally important piece of legislation. It would be the first genuine economic stimulus bill that the Senate has passed this year. No question exists that since the tragedy of September 11, aviation in this country has been permanently changed. Over the last 2 years, we have seen a decrease in the demand for air travel, hundreds of thousands of aerospace and aviation employees have lost their jobs and the economic pain has rippled through the economy. We cannot have a sustained economic recovery in this country until we have a healthy and vibrant aviation industry. This bill provides the foundation for the resurgence of an essential sector of our economy. I cannot emphasize the importance of a vibrant and strong aviation industry. It is fundamental to our nation's long-term economic growth. It is also vital to the economic future of countless small and local communities that are linked to the rest of the nation and world through aviation. Just as the aviation industry is a catalyst of growth for the national economy, airports are a catalyst of growth for their local communities. In my State of West Virginia, aviation represents $3.4 billion of the state's gross domestic product and directly and indirectly employs over 51,000 people. Aviation also links our Nation's small and rural citizens and communities to the national and world marketplace. My home State of West Virginia has been able to attract firms from Asia and Europe because of reliable access to their West Virginia investments. Without access to an integrated air transportation network, small communities can not attract the investment necessary to grow or allow home grown businesses to expands. A modern and adequately funded aviation network is fundamental to making sure that all Americans can participate in the global economy. This bill makes sure the United States will continue to have the best aviation system in the world. This legislation builds upon our commitment to improving the aviation infrastructure of the nation that started with the landmark Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. I believe that this legislation meets the challenges facing the FAA and the aviation industry in the years ahead. This $60 billion bill focuses on improving our Nation's aviation safety and air service development, and aeronautical research. While my distinguished colleagues have provided an excellent overview of the bill, I would like to highlight some areas for the bill that I believe are particularly important. No higher goal exists than the safety and security of the Nation's airports and airspace. Over the past 24 months, we have worked every day to improve security in our airports and on our airplanes. However, until this bill, we had fallen short on providing funding to make sure our Nation's airports have the resources available to make the required improvements. Airports estimate that they have $3 billion in unmet security infrastructure needs. Airports have been forced to tap their expansion and development funds to pay for security. It makes no sense to raid funds for safety improvements for security improvements. The security of our Nation is a Federal responsibility and the Federal Government must pay for it. One of the most important provisions in this bill is the establishment of a $500 million fund to assist airports with capital security costs. This new fund is intended to stop the diversion of airport development funds meant for safety and capacity enhancements. We will be able to pay for new security requirements while simultaneously improving safety and expanding capacity. Even in these difficult budgetary times, we were able to modestly increase the Airport Improvement Program funding, which will provide the economy a real stimulus through direct and indirect job creation. Airport development is economic development as airports are economic development for their local communities. It is estimated that U.S. Airports are responsible for nearly $507 billion each year in total economic activity nationwide. Investment in airport infrastructure is a real economic stimulus that creates both immediate jobs and long-term economic development. In order to facilitate airport development, I am pleased that this bill includes much of the text of the legislation that Senator Hutchinson and I worked on last Congress to streamline and expedite the airport development process. This country needs to expand its airport infrastructure. Without a substantial increase in this area, aviation delays would increase resulting in billions of dollars of costs to the economy. Finally, we have authorized a significant increase in aeronautical and aviation research in order to preserve America's leadership in these industries. Today, we also meet the challenge of making sure our small and rural communities have access to the nation's air transportation network. I continue to be very concerned that air carriers are abandoning small and rural markets. We cannot let these communities go without adequate and affordable air service--their future depends upon it. I am enormously pleased that the bill extends and expands the Small Community Air Service Development Program, which I fought for in AIR 21. In West Virginia, Charleston used funding from this program to attract new service to Houston, which has been a hugh success. Parkersburg was recently awarded a grant and already working on implementing its initiatives to improve air service to new hubs. This program has proven an innovative and flexible tool for communities to address air service needs. Many of our most isolated and vulnerable communities whose only service is through the Essential Air Service Program have indicated that they would like to develop innovative and flexible programs similar to those communities who received Small Community Air Service Development grants to improve the quality of their air service. It is for this reason that I, along with Senator Lott, developed the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003. The FAA conference report incorporates the basic provisions of this legislation. The FAA Bill reauthorizes the Essential Air Service, EAS, program and creates a series of new innovative pilot programs for EAS communities to participate in to stimulate passenger demand for air service in their communities. By providing communities the ability to design their own air service proposals, a community has the ability to develop a plan that meets its locally determined needs, improves air service choices, and gives the community a greater stake in the EAS program. Small and rural communities are the first to bear the brunt of bad economic times and the last to see the benefits of good times. The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation industry have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional resources and tools for small communities to help themselves attract adequate air service. The Federal Government must make sure that our most vulnerable towns and cities are linked to the rest of nation. This legislation authorizes the tools and resources necessary to attract air service, related economic development, and most importantly expand their connections to the national and global economy. This bill meets the challenges facing our aviation system--increasing security, expanding airport safety and capacity, and making sure our smallest communities have access to the network. We can all be proud of this bill. Again, I thank Senator McCain, Senator Lott, and Senator Hollings for all their hard work to improve aviation in this country.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I agree with the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Kansas. There is no objection on this side. It has been cleared. There is no objection on our side. I presume the bill will be voted through. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence in recommending passage of the conference report on H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The bill authorizes appropriations for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the intelligence components of the F.B.I. and other U.S. government agencies. It also contains a number of important provisions intended to lay the foundation for process and organizational changes in the intelligence community. The classified nature of U.S. intelligence activities prevents us from disclosing publicly the details of our budgetary recommendations. As I described to the Senate when our bill was considered in July, 10 years ago I joined a majority of Senate colleagues in voting to express the sense of Congress that the aggregate amount requested, authorized, and spent for intelligence should be disclosed to the public in an appropriate manner. The House opposed the provision. I continue to believe that we should find a means, consistent with national security, of sharing with the American taxpayer information about the total amount, although not the details, of our intelligence spending. In holding the intelligence community accountable for performance, and the Congress and the President accountable for the resources they provide to the Intelligence Community, citizens should know the Nation's overall investment in intelligence. The bill includes a number of provisions intended to promote innovations in information sharing, human intelligence, and counterintelligence, among other things. Many of these initiatives represent initial steps rather than solutions, but they are necessary to raise the level of awareness in Congress and the executive branch regarding a variety of urgent and complex challenges and to lay the foundation for reforms the committee will be considering next year. Section 351 of the bill requires a report on the threat posed by espionage in an era when secrets are stored on powerful, classified U.S. computer networks rather than on paper. A single spy today can remove more information on a disk than spies of yesteryear could remove with a truck. We have already suffered losses, for example, in the Ames, Regan, and Hanssen cases, where sloppy computer security permitted traitors to exploit large quantities of highly classified information. Unfortunately, these cases provide a warning that appears to have gone largely unheeded. We still do not have a cohesive set of policies and procedures to protect our classified networks from cleared insiders who seek to betray their country, Our reliance on classified information systems for warfighting and intelligence is growing daily, yet hundreds of thousands of individuals have virtually unrestricted access to these critical networks. All but a few Government personnel are honest and patriotic Americans, but the sad fact is that there has not been a day since WWII when we have not had spies within our Government. There have been over 80 espionage convictions in the last 25 years. They include personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, NSA, CIA, FBI, State Department, the National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It is a very real and continuing problem and there will undoubtedly be more espionage arrests in the months and years ahead. Espionage is an unfortunate fact of life, and we simply cannot afford to operate classified systems in which thousands of individuals enjoy the ability to download or upload classified information at will. Other countries are seeking to exploit this situation to collect defense secrets, and no doubt contemplate blinding our Government and troops in time of war. We would never permit such broad access to weapons in an armory, yet these classified systems are of much greater strategic significance than M-16 rifles, tanks, or 500 pound gravity bombs. We simply must develop the policies and capabilities necessary to control input and output devices on these systems and monitor their use. Section 352 of the bill calls for a review of our cumbersome, outmoded, and many would say ineffective personnel security system. It is a fact that almost every spy has held high-level security clearances. It is also a fact that few, if any of these individuals were identified through routine security clearance updates. Most people who become spies join the government with no intention of betraying their country. Research by the Defense Department shows that most spies are people who develop grievances as their careers progress, at times having developed money and alcohol problems as well, and then turn to espionage as a way of feeding their egos and their bank accounts. Yet, we give a young, single Navy recruit seeking an intelligence assignment the same scrutiny as a 30-year intelligence operative with financial troubles who routinely travels to countries of concern. Further, even when derogatory information surfaces, sometimes even very disturbing information which raises serious espionage issues, the government rarely revokes the clearances we rely on so heavily and which cost so much. In the information age, we cannot wait 5 to10 years to identify employee problems that may be related to espionage. Too much damage can be done too quickly. We need fresh thinking and recommendations that will provide more effective security for the large sums of money the taxpayer is investing. Section 354 of our bill calls for a review of classified information sharing policies within the Federal Government. This is an issue closely related to the foregoing provisions regarding inadequate security policies. ATM machines, for example, are a wonderfully convenient and effective means of providing access to banking resources--but they could not exist without magnetic cards, personal identification numbers, cameras and locks. Similarly, improved security is not a barrier to more flexible information sharing, it is a fundamental ingredient. The Joint Inquiry report on the 9/11 attacks highlighted information sharing as a critical shortcoming that prevented the interception of several hijackers. To help accelerate reform, the Joint Inquiry requested an administration report by this past June 30 on progress to reduce barriers among intelligence and law enforcement agencies engaged in counterterrorism. Unfortunately, no report has been submitted. We have the technology for improved information sharing, and significant progress is being made. A Terrorist Threat Integration Center has been established, and new guidelines regarding sharing of grand jury information have been promulgated. These are very important steps forward. But to truly break down the barriers to information sharing, rather than relying on work-arounds, we need revised policies on sharing classified information which recognize and exploit the opportunities provided by modern information technology. This is especially important as we look to bridging the gap between the Intelligence Community and organizations charged with Homeland Security. Section 355 of the bill identifies a problem that would probably stun most taxpayers. Simply stated, notwithstanding the many billions of dollars invested in complex intelligence systems, ranging from satellites, to aircraft, to ships, and land-based collection platforms, there is no capability in the executive branch to independently and comprehensively model the performance of these systems. Consequently, new multi-billion-dollar systems are procured without the ability to rigorously evaluate potential trade-offs with other systems. Questions such as these should be asked: Given projected satellite, aircraft and UAV constellations, what is the marginal value of adding space-based radar satellites? Are there alternative investments that can better satisfy intelligence requirements? Don't senior policymakers need the ability to systematically examine the interactions of these many systems to identify trade-offs that can be achieved? Currently, most of the analysis of proposed collection systems is performed by the agencies seeking to justify their programs, or by senior policy officials who struggle to apply common sense and spread- sheet level analysis to systems that often have overlapping capabilities. There is no reason that a rigorous, independent and comprehensive capability cannot be developed to support the programmatic reviews of the DCI and the Defense Department. This is but one example, though an important one, of the ways in which we believe the intelligence community can improve its strategic planning and decisionmaking processes. Section 356 of the bill raises an issue of profound strategic significance for the United States, namely the growing reliance of our country on hardware and software produced overseas. Although specific cases are classified, this is clearly a growing problem. After 1973, when the risks inherent in America's reliance on foreign oil became clear, many positive steps were taken to ameliorate our national vulnerabilities. Those steps included establishment of a strategic petroleum reserve, establishment of the Central Command, and research into alternative fuels. Unlike our dependence on foreign oil, however, our rapidly growing dependence on foreign hardware and software creates numerous opportunities for espionage and information operations that are extremely difficult to detect. Ironically, the countries identified by the FBI as most actively engaged in economic espionage against the United States are leading producers of the hardware and software we all use on a daily basis. The plain truth is that even the Defense Department does not know where most of the hardware and software it uses originates. Moreover, the Government does not have the right to examine source code unless voluntarily supplied. Further, at the present time, there are limited capabilities for analyzing source code that is made available. This situation requires serious attention by senior policymakers, including Congress, and the report required by section 356 should help to prompt a long overdue discussion of these issues. In concluding my remarks, I would like to look beyond our current bill to the issues the Intelligence Committee must contend with next year. Other committees share responsibility for reviewing the funding and systems needed by the intelligence community, but our committee is uniquely positioned to evaluate the intelligence community's performance--both its successes and failures--and to identify the changes required to meet the challenges of the future. In my view, money alone is not sufficient to enable the intelligence community to reach its full potential. The current structure of the intelligence community is fundamentally unchanged from its establishment in 1947. Serious change is long overdue. I strongly believe that new structures and authorities, coupled with able and aggressive leadership, are required to dramatically improve our intelligence community's efficiency and effectiveness. In many respects, the organizational issues confronting the intelligence community are analogous to those confronting the Defense Department prior to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The fundamental problem confronting the Department of Defense prior to Goldwater-Nichols was excessive military service control over military operations, policies and budgets. In response, Congress strengthened the weak integrating mechanisms in DoD, specifically the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commanders of the Combatant Commands. The difference in military performance before Goldwater-Nichols--e.g., Desert 1, Lebanon, and Grenada--and after--Panama, Haiti, and Iraq--is stark and clear. In fact, I am convinced that the Goldwater-Nichols Act did more to enhance U.S. national security than any weapons system ever procured by the Department of Defense. Although the Goldwater-Nichols reorganization is not a precise template for restructuring the intelligence community, the problems are fundamentally similar: towering vertical structures--NSA, CIA, DIA, NRO, NIMA, the service intelligence components--and relatively weak integrating mechanisms--the DCI and his Community Management Staff. Any reorganization proposal needs to address this fundamental problem of inadequate integration and coordination. In that regard, I would suggest that the intelligence community's lack of responsiveness to the DCI's declaration of war on al- Qaida prior to 9/11 was in part a result of the DCI's weak community management authorities and inability to move the system. I am convinced that a strengthened DCI could more effectively manage the intelligence community, leading to performance improvements comparable to those achieved by the military in the wake of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. A conservative, incremental approach would involve the creation of a permanent cadre to staff the DCI much as the Secretary of Defense has an OSD staff. This simple change, coupled with aggressive business process reengineering and ``year of execution budget authority'' for the DCI over NFIP programs, would significantly strengthen the DCI's ability to manage the intelligence community and respond to new threats and opportunities. A more aggressive and far-reaching plan would have to address the fundamental changes that have occurred since the current structure was established by the National Security Act of 1947. Specifically, it would recognize that the once useful distinction between home and abroad has become not only irrelevant, but dysfunctional. This is not to suggest any need to reduce the protections afforded U.S. persons under the Constitution, merely that globalization and the development of cyberspace, combined with the rise of apocalyptic terrorists groups empowered by lethal new technologies, require a different, more agile structure that is not impeded by outmoded geographic distinctions. In that regard, we should find ways to more effectively coordinate foreign and domestic intelligence. Achievement of any substantial reorganization will require meticulous research by the congressional oversight committees, a substantial hearing record, and sustained interest by the administration. At the end of the day, incremental steps will be better than none, and a more aggressive reorganization require a consensus not only on the Intelligence Authorization Committees, but with the Armed Services Committees as well. As challenging as these issues are, we simply cannot fulfill our duty to the American people unless we confront these crucial issues when Congress returns next year. In conclusion, the important steps we have taken with this measure, to include full funding of the administration's requests for intelligence activities, are the result of lengthy deliberations on matters as complex as they are vital. It is gratifying to see the work that has been done in both Chambers come together today in a bill we can send to the President. It is a useful first step, but only a first step, towards the development of an intelligence community better able to adapt to the rapidly evolving threats confronting our great nation. Finally, I would like to thank the chairman and the Committee staff for their arduous work on this bill. I look forward to making great strides together next year. I urge support for this measure.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this is all odd, perplexing.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am grateful to my colleague from New Jersey for that. But I am still perplexed. This is all kind of odd to me. We could, I think, pass this whole thing, the entire authorization bill. The chairman of the full committee and Senator Hollings and Senator Lott, both of whom have spoken here, myself, the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, and Byron Dorgan--we wrote to FAA Administrator Blakey and made a reasonable request, asking for an extension on a certain part of this for a period of a year. We might get that in the next 7 or 8. We might very well get it. The language didn't appear to be quite proper at the time. We do have the President's statement. As the Senator from New Jersey pointed out, he specifically deleted ``an inherently governmental function'' when it referred to air traffic performance-based organizations. I want to support the FAA conference report. I think virtually everybody in the Senate would want to do it. It includes a lot of things that are very important to me for West Virginia. West Virginia is not at the center. We are not exactly a hub of jet aviation, but we are served by many good airlines that do their best to help us. We all know the issue of privatizing the air traffic control system has held this whole thing up for months. It is perplexing, because it does not seem to me to be that big an issue. Yet if we are simply to accede to it, in language which is potentially very vague, we have no idea what might happen. That is why we sent this letter--my good friend and chairman, and I, and the chairman of the full committee--to try to get this extended for a year so we could look at it and go ahead and pass the rest of all this. But we have not gotten the letter. We still have 7\1/2\ minutes, if I read the clock correctly. It could come in. Then we could all vote for the entire conference report. But short of getting that letter and that commitment, which we all signed on a bipartisan basis, then I think we have to vote against cloture because it is entirely a matter of employees being accountable to the public who maintain the airplanes, who are the service stations that send them from one place to another. That is accountability to the public. It is not accountability to the bottom line. It is not a matter of contracting out. This is fundamental safety. If you ever go out to Herndon, VA, as I have, and you see the latest technology and you see all the airplanes in the air at any given moment in the United States of America, you can hardly see the country. There are airplanes everywhere and they are all traveling. They have to be guided. A lot of them are general aviation. Some of them are not, obviously. The inability of Congress to resolve this issue has created a very significant uncertainty for our airports in particular. These are hard times for aviation. I don't think it is the right time to add more trouble in their life, more uncertainty in their life, less predictability in their life, and the worry about less safety in their life. Last week we did attempt to resolve the main issue that held this up. As I indicated, Senators McCain, Hollings, Lott, Dorgan, and myself did send the FAA Administrator a very straightforward, honest letter and we requested the FAA impose a 1-year moratorium on the actual contracting out of any air traffic control functions, including flight service stations, which provide enormously important information to pilots. You can't do without them. I have a little community in my State called Elkins, WV, which is currently not served by commercial aviation, but it does have a critically important flight service station that handles traffic for a significant part of the Washington, DC metropolitan area that is at risk of being contracted out--and will be. Flight service stations such as these are absolutely vital security links in our Nation's air traffic control system and they have to be protected from privatization. I come from a private enterprise background, and that has been pointed out to me humorously, or not, but you just can't fool around with public safety. You can't do it. Police officers are not contracted out. I guess they are in Iraq, but they are not in this country. They are public servants. Or you hire a private guard if you want to, something of that sort, but basically, protection of public life and public passage is in the hands of the Federal Government. And it should be. It has always been there. People trust it. If you took it away, or parts of it away, people would be stunned. I think they would be stunned. This Senator can only support cloture if the administration has made a strong commitment to hold off any changes to the management of the air traffic control system for a year. And we have still 4 minutes to get that letter. Then we will vote for the conference report and I will happily do so because I agree with the Senator from Mississippi, there are lots of good things in it. But safety, unfortunately, is one of those things you cannot compromise. The Senator from Arizona spoke about Air Force One and Air Force Two. I have never had any doubt they are well cared for. But there is a lot of other general aviation that may not be quite as well tended to, and we have to worry about that. I don't think the conference report is going to pass the Senate if this letter doesn't arrive. It is not just a case of where the perfect is the enemy of the good but, rather, it is a fundamental debate over the future of aviation and security. It is a huge subject. Aviation is an enormous employer, creating enormous economic activity in our country. This is not the process we should have to use for the FAA conference report. I would be the first to say that. It grieves me. This legislation has always enjoyed bipartisan support. I want to set the record straight for 1 second and then I will be finished, on how this came about. When the Senate debated, as has been said by the Senator from New Jersey, we debated this important bipartisan bill. We had a bipartisan majority of Senators express serious concerns over the executive branch's future plans for the safety management of the air traffic control system as a whole. As the Senator indicated, we voted 56 to 41 to impose restrictions on the administration's proposal precisely to avoid the very outcome of the conference report we are now facing, which is allowing the administration to privatize functions of the air traffic control system. I will not get into the House of Representatives. They also had voted to impose these safety restrictions. In the end, the majority of conferees--we were never invited to be a part of, I was never invited be a part of, but I have become accustomed to that because I was part of the Medicare conference and I wasn't part of that, so my threshold of expectations was low. But we had the will of both Chambers being expressed. Unfortunately, the conferees bent to the desire of the administration. Congress has clearly spoken on its concerns over air traffic control privatization. Let us use next year to develop policies and make the system more secure, more safe, and more efficient. I urge my colleagues to reject cloture unless we get a letter in the next minute and a half which commits to this protection which I think we all want. This is an enormous subject. I deeply regret we have come to this point. There is no reason we should have, but we have. Assuming that letter will not come, I will have to ask my colleagues to vote against cloture.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely frustrated that the Senate continues this debate, or whatever it is. It is already more than a day. We are dealing with the nominations of a handful of judges. That is not trivial. I understand that. As a Senate, we have a responsibility to address the most urgent issues facing our Nation. Unemployment insurance for those who are unemployed, I think, happens to be one of them. Today we are, embarrassingly, failing to live up to that responsibility. This morning I talked at some length about the crisis facing our Nation's manufacturing sector. I will not relent on that subject. As factories close down, people across this country are losing jobs, losing health care benefits and retirement benefits. As a country, we are losing the industrial base that is responsible for the greatness of this Nation. Some of the statistics I mentioned this morning I am going to repeat. Manufacturing employment is at a 41-year low, and more than 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last couple of years. This morning I described legislation I introduced to address this manufacturing crisis. I happen to feel very strongly about that legislation. As I explained, the bill I crafted would offer relief to American manufacturers in three ways: First, by lowering the effective corporate income tax rate by about 3 percent; second, by providing employers tax credit up to 75 percent to help cover the cost of health care coverage for retirees who had worked for that company; and, third, by strengthening our trade protection laws. There is a plan I laid out to help stem the terrible flow of manufacturing jobs from the United States overseas. I recognize other Senators have different ideas about the best way to help our Nation's manufacturing companies compete. I welcome the vigorous debate. I believe we ought to leave no stone unturned when looking for a solution to this crisis which is so vital to so many of our people. That is why, frankly, I am so frustrated and disappointed we are going through this 30-hour charade. On the 1st of October, the Senate Finance Committee, on which I am proud to serve, approved legislation known as the JOBS Act. That stands for ``Jumpstart Our Business Strengths.'' The legislation enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Senate Finance Committee and passed out of it. But 6 weeks later it is still awaiting action by the full Senate. I do not necessarily agree with every provision of that bill, but that did not happen to be important to me because it represents a serious effort to help America's factories and the people who work in those factories. I care about those people. I represent those people and I will fight for those people. The more important provision of the bill reduces the corporate tax rate, much the same as my own legislation would do. Unfortunately no debate has been scheduled for this important legislation. Some seem to believe we will not have time to consider the legislation before adjourning this year. That is tragic for the people who are not working. This Presiding Officer faces that in his own State, the State of Illinois. I cannot understand that thinking. How can we possibly have 30 hours to air our grievances about judicial nominees when we all know exactly what the result is going to be? There is no time to debate a way to protect American factory jobs. I could pick on many other subjects and would be happy to do so, but I pick one subject tonight. I believe if the Senate took up the JOBS Act, we could have a thoughtful, constructive debate and we could pass it. In fact, as I look about the Senate floor, I see the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Maine, and the Senator from West Virginia, and the last time we were on the floor together, we passed a bill which spread out to the States $16 billion of Medicaid assistance which they desperately needed--two Democrats and a Republican. It could have been two Republicans and one Democrat. It makes no difference. We got the job done. The bill passed, and the States benefited from it. But what are we doing now? We are talking. We could pass legislation on all kinds of things. I would ask all of my colleagues to think for a minute about the Americans who right now as we speak are hard at work on the evening shift in factories around the country. They are making everything from cars to contact lenses. Many of these factory jobs are exhausting. They require concentration and heavy lifting. They cause injuries. They require concentration. When Americans are toiling away in our factories right now, we cannot help but be inspired ourselves to concentrate and to do some heavy lifting of our own. We must work hard and do our jobs. It is our job as Senators to look at the serious policies that make our country work or work less well. People having a job and putting food on the table is a very major part of that. Much to my dismay, we are not engaged today in serious debate about ways to create and maintain jobs in America. That is the subject of discussion in my State. We are not a wealthy State. We are a good State. Our people are as good or better than anybody in any other State. I fight for then. But they need work. Instead, our factories continue to struggle and are forced to shut down. Millions of Americans are out of work. Because so many of our factories are leaving the country, it is more and more difficult for Americans to find new jobs. People always think when you lose a job, you can get another job. There was a day when that was true. That is no longer true. Indeed, economic experts have concluded the vast majority of job losses suffered in the last few years are permanent, are not replaceable. Factories are closed and will not reopen. Let me take a moment to discuss the economic situation in my own State of West Virginia. Our steel industry has been struggling to recover from years of unfair and illegal competition against steel that was dumped on our markets and sold in America at below the cost that it cost to produce it in the country it came from--dumped steel, illegal steel, breaking our national law. What was once our State's largest employer, Weirton Steel, recently announced it will cut an additional 800 jobs. I can remember when 13,000 people worked at that company. If President Bush backs down on the steel tariffs, of course, it will hurt the industry just as it is poised to recover. Ending the tariffs early will cost many more Americans jobs and at a time we know that new factories are not being opened in steel. We have to protect those steel jobs we have. I mean ``protect'' in the best sense of the word by using the American law and by being faithful to our own conscience. Employment in the coal fields is also affected. The coal industry has long supplied our steel industry with the finest quality coal in the world. That has continued to decline. There are not many coal miners left anymore in West Virginia. Indeed, the manufacturing base all over my State continues to shrink drastically, and, as it diminishes, so do jobs with good wages and good benefits. That is the American dream. In the southern coal fields, two other established prominent manufacturers--EIMCO, a Norwegian company that manufacturers mining equipment, and the Dean Company, with which I spent most of my life, a maker of wood veneers--are closed; they went overseas. The past year has brought the closing of two long-time manufacturers in north-central West Virginia, the Clarksburg Casket and Glassworks Company. In the Mid-Ohio Valley in Parkersburg, two long-time manufacturers, Johns Manvillle and Ames True Temper, closed plants. Just 3 weeks ago, it was announced another 50-year-old plant was scheduled to close in Parkersburg, putting almost 200 workers at Schott Scientific Glass out of work. Their jobs went overseas. In the Kanawha Valley where this Senator lives, two well-established chemical companies are closing, Flexys in Nitro and FMC in South Charleston. These closings mean hundreds of jobs lost. Where are these workers supposed to turn? Their average age may be 45 to 55. What are they meant to do? Take up computer sciences? Biochemistry, physics? They can't do that. There is no place for them to go. There are no replacement jobs. Some of them take temporary jobs where they don't get benefits and try as best as they can to work with their families. I was extremely pleased at the recent news of the strong economic growth in the third quarter of this year in this country. This does not translate into new jobs in West Virginia. New jobs is what we look at. People do not feed their families and do not pay their mortgages with news of strong economic growth. They need paychecks. It comes from jobs. This Congress has not done enough to protect the paychecks of hard- working Americans. We have failed to stem the flow of jobs overseas, a subject about which I could speak for 6 hours. We have not done enough to provide temporary assistance to workers who have lost their jobs. Currently, 9 million Americans are unemployed and almost 2 million Americans have been unemployed for more than 6 months. In West Virginia, almost 42,000 workers are facing the holidays without a job. Today, the Senate ought to be addressing the needs of these workers. Therefore, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Kennedy that would extend the unemployment compensation for those Americans of which I speak who are still struggling to find work in our so-called jobless economic recovery. As factory after factory closes its doors, or freezes hiring, workers are unable to find new jobs. They are running out of unemployment benefits at an alarming rate. As many as 80,000 workers per week are expected to exhaust their unemployment compensation in December itself. Senator Kennedy's bill would continue Federal unemployment benefits for an additional 6 months. The legislation would also provide 33 weeks of additional Federal benefits in States with especially high unemployment rates. This bill provides crucial assistance for long-term unemployed workers. There are more than 1 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits but have not been able to find a new job. Let me be clear. Men and women in West Virginia and across the country would rather have a paycheck than an unemployment check. We all know that. However, the jobs are not available. The choice is not theirs. They have families to feed. The Federal Unemployment Insurance Program was specifically created to help workers when the economy suffers prolonged downturns. Workers have paid into the unemployment compensation fund and they deserve to collect benefits from the fund during such a weak jobless recovery. Currently, the unemployment insurance trust funds have $20 billion sitting in a bank. The benefits outlined in Senator Kennedy's bill would cost $16 billion. To me it is unconscionable to leave the funds in the bank when they are needed by workers during hard times. Moreover, by making additional unemployment benefits available, Congress will also obviously be helping our economy. I am afraid that the charade we are engaged in at the moment is a lose-lose proposition for the American people. I do not diminish the importance of judges, but I do not diminish the importance of unemployed workers whose self-esteem is destroyed and whose skills are ready to be put to work. It does nothing to help 9 million Americans who have already lost their jobs to have this debate. It does nothing to protect the jobs and factories that are currently struggling to compete to have this debate. I would also suggest that it hampers the ability of Senators to come together to address the urgent business of the Nation because of the nature of this debate. There is certainly no shortage of important business before the Senate. We need to pass a prescription drug bill, and there are many other issues I could discuss. I will end with simply this thought: I love America. I love my State of West Virginia. I love its people. I know they need to be well represented by judges. But I also know they have to work or else it probably doesn't make much difference to them. What I am talking about tonight, what I talked about this morning is the ability for Americans to have jobs, to hold jobs and, if they lose them, to get unemployment insurance. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from West Virginia will not do that.