Jay Rockefeller

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.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I had hoped to be in Sutton, WV to fully celebrate Veterans Day with West Virginia veterans and their families. Since the Senate is in session, I must be in Washington, but I do want to recognize some of our Nation's finest men and women who have served to protect that which we hold most dear, our very freedom. Last weekend, I was in West Virginia and I had the chance to talk with Army Sergeant Jared Welker of Putnam County. Sergeant Welker is a tank gunner who saw considerable action in Iraq, and who has just recently returned home. I had the privilege to spend a few hours with this young soldier. Hearing about the war in Iraq from his point of view, a young man serving in a tank division entering Baghdad, made me very proud of the men and women serving in the military--where ever they are stationed. Sergeant Welker's description of his days in Iraq will stay with me. His courage and his commitment to duty are truly inspiring. And it is also a sobering reminder of the obligations that we in Congress have to fully support our troops in the field, and at home, and as veterans later in their lives. On Veterans Day, we should take time to pay our respect to those who put their lives on the line and sacrificed in our defense. We have a duty to honor all veterans in both word and deed. We honor them by remembering their courage, their loyalty, and their love of country. My State has one of the strongest traditions of military service, and I could not be more proud of that. When the call has come to defend this Nation, West Virginians have answered in great numbers. In a State as patriotic as our Mountain State, reminders of our veterans, heroes and heroines, are everywhere. They stand as a reminder of the battles fought defending the principles of democracy. Understanding the sense of patriotism of the people of West Virginia is what caused me to seek a seat on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs the day I arrived in the Senate 19 years ago. Joining the committee was one of the best decisions I ever made. These last few weeks in Congress have been extremely important ones for our Nation=s veterans. One of the most important issues of concern today is the President's budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2004. Everything provided by VA will be a direct result of the proposed budget now before Congress. Regrettably, the President's budget request for VA health care for fiscal year 2004 will barely cover the cost of inflation at our VA Medical Centers, but there is still time to fix those misplaced priorities. Full funding is needed for a health care system that is besieged with responsibilities. I am fighting, along with a number of my Senate colleagues, to get an additional $1.8 billion appropriated for VA health care before Congress recesses this year. In addition to our veterans who depend upon VA for their health care and prescription drugs today, current law allows members of the military, who serve during an armed conflict, to use VA upon their return. This includes currently deployed Reservists and National Guardsmen, who are such a big part of West Virginia's contribution to our war effort. The system must be adequately funded for all these veterans. Another critical issue of concern continues to be long-term care for veterans. As our veteran population grows older, VA must make sure that it can meet the need for long-term care. A bill I introduced earlier this year extending, for five years, the congressional mandate requiring VA to provide long-term care for veterans through both nursing homes and community-based options still has potential to be enacted this year. This is extremely important legislation, and I will continue to push until this become law. If I cannot convince my colleagues to act this year, I will be right back next year fighting for it until it is done. I was thrilled to be in Clarksburg last month for the ground breaking of our new State veterans' home, which will be built adjacent to the Clarksburg VA Medical Center. I have worked closely with both State and Federal officials on this project over the last several years, and I am very proud of everyone who has been involved in making this much needed nursing home a reality. It is time that West Virginia had a State veterans' nursing home. In closing, I would like to read a paragraph from a letter found in the gear of a 20-year-old boy from Beckley serving during World War II. I think it is appropriate on this Veterans Day. Private First Class Walter Walker was killed in battle in 1944 and he had written a letter to be delivered to his parents in case of his death. He wrote: Frankly I think I will come back, but you never can tell what little accident will happen. I am doing this for my country and people I love. So that little children may grow up to be free and not have to take orders from devils like Hitler and Tojo. I will gladly give my life to keep you and dad free as long as you may live. Private Walker was a hero of WWII. Sergeant Welker, and the more than 100,000 brave men and women serving today, are the heroes of Iraq. Today, we honor all our young men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, and all those who have served in our military. We need to remember to stand proud when we see the American flag waving high in the air, and nod our heads in respect when we pass by a veterans' cemetery. We need to remember that behind each of these symbols of America are the people who have made them so remarkable--our Nation's veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment to be offered by my friends and fellow former Governors, Senators Graham, Alexander, Carper, and Voinovich. The amendment is a very simple one. Every Senator who is aware of the fiscal crisis faced by States across the Nation, which I think at this point is virtually all States, ought to support this amendment, in my judgment. The amendment simply says we ought to continue the current moratorium on Internet taxes for another 2 years, giving the industry additional time to reach out to new customers and ensuring that we do not undercut States' long-term ability to balance their budgets, because there is an enormous relationship between Internet taxes and State budgets. In fact, this amendment improves on the previous moratorium by ensuring that consumers' access to the Internet is tax-free. Regardless of the technology they prefer, be that DSL, cable modem, wireless phone, traditional dial-up access, they would all be treated the same under this amendment. I know many of my colleagues are interested in providing a permanent moratorium on the taxation of Internet access, but I ask them to take a moment to consider the potential harm of the bill we are debating today. Governors, State legislators, and mayors from across this country have called my office, and I would think the offices of most Senators, to implore us not to pass the legislation. I understand the moratorium envisioned in this other amendment applies only to taxes imposed on access to the Internet. However, our good intentions are not enough to ensure that this legislation is properly applied and that the States are able to collect taxes on other telecommunications services. Technology, as you well know, is still developing. In the near future, the providers of Internet services may offer telecommunications services as part of a premium package of technology products. Digital content presents additional challenges. I believe somebody purchasing a new movie should be taxed on that, whether they download the movie from the Internet provider or they purchase it from Amazon.com or they walk over to Blockbuster and buy it off the shelf. As technology develops and more and more options are available to consumers, Congress will obviously need to revisit this issue of what exactly falls within this moratorium since the technology changes so often. This amendment would protect States' rights to impose fair and equitable taxes on products other than Internet access. As a former Governor, I remember very well the difficulty of financing critical State services. I was Governor some 20 years ago, but we were having those troubles then. They are much worse now. I worked hard with the State legislature to achieve the right balance of taxes and spending. That was hard. I needed the maximum flexibility. It has been some time now, as I indicated, since I was Governor, but over the last few years we have witnessed again how States often struggle to balance their budgets and how, in fact, virtually every single State is going through that process. It seems somewhat arrogant and unfair for us as Federal legislators to permanently limit the options available to States. I feel very strongly about that. I in no way want to disadvantage development of the Internet, but I want to respect the rights of other elected officials in West Virginia and in other States, and I believe in that strongly. I believe a 2-year extension of the moratorium is the best of all solutions. It protects Internet access from State and local taxes for a while longer, as more Americans get access to the benefits of the Internet. It preserves for the future the flexibility that State and local governments need as they try to balance their budgets while providing for good education, improved infrastructure, adequate police and firefighting forces--all these things in this new age of terrorism. And it gives Congress the responsibility and the opportunity to revisit the issue, which is absolutely key, in 2 years, as the technology evolves. Let me be clear. I strongly supported the previous moratorium on Internet access taxes because I recognized the value of expanding Internet use to more Americans. I believe Congress ought to do what it can to ensure the Internet becomes like the radio and the telephone and the television before it--technology that connects with all Americans and connects all Americans to each other. In my home State of West Virginia, we are still working hard to ensure that all our citizens will have access to the latest broadband technology, so I am eager to support efforts that can make the Internet more affordable and more available, including extending the current moratorium for 2 years. However, I cannot ignore my concerns with the permanent moratorium we are asked to consider today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment which a number of other former Governors and I have put forward. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There have been statements made on the floor today-- which I was not here to listen to because I was in a Commerce Committee meeting--expressing concern, outrage, et cetera, about what is happening with the Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry into the prewar Iraqi intelligence. We have heard charges that a draft memo taken from the Intelligence Committee spaces and provided to the media somehow represents a plan to discredit what the Intelligence Committee is doing and to politicize the inquiry. These charges are inaccurate and unfortunate. I wish to speak to them as vice chairman of that committee. I would suggest to my colleagues that there is in fact reason for concern today, but it is not because of the content of this draft staff memo--a memo which, for the record, was not approved by me, was not given to any other member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, nor to any other staff person, my own staff on the Intelligence Committee, nor to any other member of the Senate, nor anybody else. It was an internal draft memo. It happens all the time in the Senate. At some point very soon the committee and the Senate are going to have to explore the chain of events surrounding this draft memo since it raises serious questions about whether the majority is obtaining unauthorized access to private internal materials of the minority, and who made the decision in this case to leak the draft of an unofficial memo to the press. It is disturbing that individuals are seeking, perhaps or perhaps not, to score political points with a draft paper describing the rights of the minority to push for a full and fair review of the issues of the committee and that the memo is being so grossly mischaracterized to try to deflect attention from the real issue. More importantly, the concern this body should feel today is that the Intelligence Committee is not conducting a thorough and in-depth inquiry into all aspects of the intelligence process leading up to the war in Iraq. This body should be disturbed that 5 months after we started asking questions, we are still going, in essence, hat in hand to the administration to try to get the documents we need to conduct this review. I most sincerely regret the impression that the draft memo has apparently given to some of my Republican colleagues, but it clearly reflects staff frustration that the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation has not tackled all of the tough issues, and frustration with the difficulties we have had in obtaining information from the administration. It should come as no surprise to anyone that there is tension on the committee. I have said publicly for months that the committee must review not only the accuracy of prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism but also the use or misuse of that intelligence by senior policymakers in this administration. This is fundamental to answering the questions the American people have about how we got into this war. But at every turn, the chairman has made it clear that the inquiry will be limited to reviewing the prewar intelligence against the low threshold of a standard called reasonableness. We have a basic disagreement. These kinds of things happen in the Senate. I was pleased last week ended with the chairman and myself standing side by side, as we should, insisting on the committee's need for evidence wherever it might be located. But the information we have requested to date is only part of our work. It should be obvious to all that our committee still has much to do to assure that our inquiry into prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism fulfills our responsibilities to the Senate and to the American public. I want to take a minute--it is important for me to do so--to describe these responsibilities because I am not sure all of our colleagues know. The committee's responsibilities come to us from the Senate. We don't make them up. The Senate created the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1976. The measure that established it, S. Res. 400 of the 95th Congress, remains the Senate's charter to us as a committee. It is very specific. S. Res. 400 was not a casual measure. It was the product of years of interest in improving oversight of intelligence, a major investigation chaired by Senator Church, reports of several standing committees, about eight or nine, and extensive floor consideration. It is not up to the 17 of us who happen now to be on that committee to make up the boundaries of our responsibility. They are given to us and written out very clearly. S. Res. 400 begins by stating its purpose: To create a Senate select committee ``to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government.'' The Senate did not leave the term ``intelligence activities'', the object of oversight, to the imagination of generations of members of the Intelligence Committee. Instead, the Senate carefully defined the term ``intelligence activities'' in section 14 of the resolution to include ``the collection, analysis, production, dissemination, or use of the information.'' The five elements of intelligence activity--that is collection, analysis, production, dissemination, and use--represent the full cycle with which the committee must be concerned. That is our charter. If we examine analysis of information without considering the collection of it, we fail in our responsibility. If we examine both of them but not the production of reports and the dissemination of information, we fail in our responsibility. If we stop at dissemination and do not examine the use of intelligence, we will equally fail in our responsibility. That examination is what I have been pushing for and it is what I will continue seeking. I have heard it said that policy is the responsibility of other committees. Of course, other committees have responsibilities relating to national security policies. But so do we. Our mandate from the Senate is clear. S. Res. 400 also says the information which is subject to the committee's oversight includes information relating to foreign countries and to ``the defense, the foreign policy, the national security, or related policies of the United States.'' It is broad. It is thorough. We should be committed as a committee to developing a full record. The joint letters the chairman and I wrote last week insisting the administration provide us with the necessary documents and interviews are a step in the right direction which I very much appreciate. But there is a lot more to be done. Even if we might disagree about the evaluation of evidence, we should put the full weight of the committee behind obtaining all the facts our members believe to be necessary for a complete inquiry. For me, that means all communications, not just a limited list, about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and terrorism intelligence between the Intelligence Committee and policymakers, including the White House. Without those, our record will not be complete. We cannot assess, for example, whether intelligence agencies were pressured to conform to the views of policymakers unless we know what policymakers were asking of these agencies. This is a key objective of this inquiry, and we are in danger of completely missing it. Albeit in strong language, what staff suggests in the draft memo-- which, again, nobody on the committee saw and nobody else had seen it until it was leaked, and then everybody has it--is that the minority work with the majority to get as far as we can in this effort. That was our purpose--to work as far as we can and be as successful as we can in this effort, and if the majority continued to refuse, then the minority should be prepared to point out shortcomings consistent with the rules. It is misleading to suggest this possible approach comes as a surprise to anyone in this body. I have been clear with the chairman for months that there is growing interest among many members of the committee in pursuing a separate investigation. It is not a course I choose to follow. Many Senate Democrats are on record in support of an independent commission. We voted it down the other day. I voted against it, but many Members did not; they voted for it. I am on record opposing that approach and I continue to oppose it. But, it is an option that cannot be ruled out. Exploring or asserting the rights of the minority under the Intelligence Committee rules in no way amounts to politicizing intelligence. A substantive disagreement is not grounds for charges of partisan politics; it is a difference of approach, a difference of opinion. I have worked for months within the committee to try to get these critical questions answered. It was not until the committee Democrats, in fact, exercised their rights under the rules and forced a meeting in June that the committee first discussed the parameters of a review. Democrats, some of them, wanted a formal investigation and ultimately agreed to the majority's less formal, less structured approach because the issue was too important to descend into political bickering. In August, I wrote the chairman with a list of 14 areas where I thought the committee needed to do more work. I got no response. In September, after press reports that the chairman was planning to wrap up the interim investigation by the end of September, I wrote again to express my belief that we had more work to do and set out a framework for how we should approach the task we faced. I got no response. I met with the chairman on numerous occasions and got no response. Then, 2 weeks ago, after reading press stories from the chairman describing a committee report that I had not seen and a deadline I knew we could not meet, I sat down with the chairman--again, we are good friends, and we will remain that way--to talk about where the inquiry was and what was left to do. In that meeting, I provided him with draft letters to the different agencies that owed us documents and interviews which the committee staff, under the control of the majority, had long since asked for, months ago. I cosigned a tough letter, along with the chairman, to the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, pressing him to provide materials requested by the committee staff--fundamentally one which his staff director directs. When I provided the majority with a list of nine examples of the use of intelligence we must have to understand the interplay between policymakers and the intelligence community, I was turned down. The fact is that I have approached the majority in every way I know how--in private letters, in meetings, in committee meetings, in public statements, on the Senate floor, imploring the majority to work together with us and imploring the majority to meet the committee's fundamental responsibility to investigate the potential misuse of intelligence by policymakers leading up to the war in Iraq. My entreaties have been to no avail, eliciting either no response or, worse yet, public statements by the chairman unilaterally announcing that the committee will, in fact, not pursue the critical issue of use. The majority has left the Senate minority with two choices: Either abandon what we believe is a fundamental obligation in this body to the American people as is laid out in the Senate resolution creating us, or, reluctantly, part ways and use our rights as a minority to get the job done on our own. I prefer not to do that. It is not my nature. I prefer not to do that. That calls for members working together and calls for following committee rules and following our charter. Throughout this difficult situation, I have remained committed to the committee's investigation. I have been vocal in my appreciation of the absolutely excellent job done to date by the staff on the aspects of the investigation they have been asked to perform, which is reviewing the prewar Iraqi intelligence. They have done a superb job, absolutely superb job. I still strongly believe the committee can and should do this job. I am confident that, presented with the facts, the American people can and will judge this administration fairly. For my part, I have and I will continue to support the President when I believe he is right. I had the same approach with the previous President, President Clinton. When I believed he was wrong, I went after him really hard, on steel and other things. But when he was right, I said so. On the other hand, I will also challenge and question the President and his administration when I think they are in error. That is my duty. I am an elected Senator and I represent my people. That is my job as a Senator. It is my responsibility as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I conclude by saying I am also confident that the members of the Intelligence Committee can put aside their differences and continue with the tough tasks facing members. Maybe it took this to somehow embarrass all of us enough to bring us together. I want the result to be that we do this together under the Senate resolution. I hope we can put this behind us. I suggest to the chairman that the full committee meet again this week to bring us to a point of consensus. We must pursue this inquiry to the end. These are extraordinarily important matters we are discussing, not to score political points on either side but because we must make sure we fix problems and provide our country with the best intelligence possible. That is our job. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would say 15 to 18 minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I want to honor an extraordinary person and one of my most dedicated staff who is retiring from service in the United States Senate, Charlotte Moreland. For 19 years, Charlotte has worked in my DC office, joining my team during my very first year in the Senate. And for all these years, Charlotte has always been an advocate for West Virginia. Starting in my personal office, Charlotte moved to the Veterans Committee when I became Chairman and found herself developing a voice and sense of duty for veterans in West Virginia and across our country. Over the years, she listened patiently as they expressed their concerns about a disability claim or health care. She took note as they told their stories of bravery and sacrifice. She remembered the details of their lives that made the difference in getting them the benefits they had earned. Charlotte then took those stories to help craft legislation to improve benefits for all veterans. She spoke eloquently on behalf of these veterans. As Charlotte often would tell those around her, VA is the second largest department in the United States, right behind the Department of Defense, and I have no doubt that many working for VA have heard the voice of Charlotte Moreland. Her voice was gentle, but firm, when urging VA to take a second look at a claim or to check their records for something they may have missed initially. But I have to tell you, this same voice would rise a few notches and not back down to get attention for a veteran whom she felt was being treated unfairly on a claim, unable to get medical treatment, or to ensure that a veteran got proper recognition with a headstone to pay one last respect to their service. When those times came, I often wondered how Charlotte maintained such a friendly working relationship with those at VA. She always smiled at me and said it was because they knew her heart was in the right place. For West Virginia veterans, she has been a tireless advocate. Whenever Charlotte saw a gap in services or an unmet need, she worked to fill it. Our State's four VA Medical Centers received numerous visits from Charlotte, and the facilities are better because of those visits. Over the years, West Virginia has expanded the number of veteran centers and community-based outpatient clinics so that veterans can have quality services nearby. Charlotte has made a real difference in the lives of many veterans and their families. Charlotte Moreland is retiring from my office after a distinguished career. You need look no further than the plaques and awards she has received from Veterans Service Organizations to know that she will be missed. You can hear praise in the telephone calls and the compliments in countless letters to my office to know that she will be missed. I am very proud that Charlotte Moreland has been on my staff for these many years, and I wish her all the best.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to support the Bingaman-Snowe amendment, which would bar the Department of Transportation from using any funds to implement cost-sharing requirement for communities that receive subsidized air service through the Essential Air Service Program--EAS. As ranking Democrat on the Aviation Subcommittee, I work very hard to improve air service for small and rural communities. Most recently, I worked with Senator Lott on legislation to address this important issue. We introduced the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003 to address the growing air services needs of small communities. The legislation became the basis for the small community air service provisions in Senate FAA reauthorization bill and ultimately the FAA Conference Report. The FAA Conference Report establishes a series of pilot programs to help communities improve their existing air service. I strongly believe that communities need new resources and tools to improve their air service options. The new initiatives established in the FAA Conference Report will allow communities the ability to improve their air service choices, and give a community a greater stake in the EAS program. The Federal Aviation Administration--FAA--Conference Report includes a provision that allows the DOT to select up to 10 communities within 100 miles of a hub airport to pay 10 percent of the their Essential Air Service subsidy, even though both the Senate and the House voted against imposing a cost-sharing requirement. Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003 also included a pilot program that would allow DOT to require a cost-share for up to 10 communities within 100 miles of a hub. As I expressed in my statement on the introduction of this bill, I have significant reservation about forcing communities to pay for a service the Federal Government promised them. I expressed my strong reservations throughout the development and Senate consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill in this matter. During Senate consideration of the FAA bill, Senator Bingaman and Senator Inhofe offered an amendment to strip the cost-sharing provision. Senators McCain and Lott accepted the amendment without debate as it was clear that a large majority of Senators did not support this provision. The House bill as passed by their Transportation Committee had a local match provision. The House stripped their cost-sharing provision as well on the floor so neither bill had a cost-sharing provision. Clearly, the will of Congress was that the Federal Government should provide the entire subsidy. During the conference negotiations on the FAA bill in which I was invited to participate, I argued against reinstating cost-sharing provisions, but the majority conferees insisted on this provision. The adoption of this provision will prohibit cost-sharing in the upcoming fiscal year. It is a short-term solution to a larger problem that I hope we can ultimately address by reopening the FAA conference report.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I tremendously regret the argument that took place between the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from New York, because that is exactly what we do not need around here. I thought the Senator from Alaska, as much as I respect him, should not be trying to cast political aspersions, and then I thought the Senator from New York should not be saying we are not in any sense being political, we only want the truth, and talking about weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence, because we all agree that the intelligence was wanting. We all agree that it is very different from the cold war, but what is really important that has to happen and something which only the Intelligence Committee can do, and which has to be in continuity with the work we are doing now, is after we finish investigating what went wrong is to figure out what we are going to do to make it go right. That is a whole other chapter. That is getting rid of the stovepipes and determining whether we want a director of national intelligence. It is an entirely different relationship now between intelligence and warfighting. Intelligence and warfighting used to be separate. They are now integrated. Intelligence and policy used to be separate. They are now integrated. That is what our committee is doing, but first we need to finish the investigation and then we get to that. Our problem is we are doing so much investigating we cannot get to that. It is very frustrating to me. We have not finished doing a lot of the investigating that we need to do. As the chairman has said, we will follow all trails to where they lead. There is a lot of work and it is very sensitive. It is not just a matter of creating another commission to start all over again and to do what will probably be virtually the same work with something called a fresh idea. The people on the Intelligence Committee, on both sides, are smart. They are invigorated. They are determined. There is controversy in the committee, which is good. There is no single approach to it. There is a lot of discussion going on. That process must continue and that is what the Intelligence Committee was created for. We are becoming a new Intelligence Committee because we are in an entirely different world.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas. I oppose this amendment. I oppose this amendment for a variety of reasons. I do not oppose this amendment because of the intent of trying to get to the bottom of all of the problems we face in the work we are doing in the Intelligence Committee, on which I serve as vice chair. But I oppose it because it would have the effect of undermining what we are doing, further diluting the focus on the issue of WMD prewar intelligence, all the rest of it. I do not mean to imply by that that the investigation is moving at the speed with which I would like to see it in the committee. Those issues are being addressed between the chairman and myself and members on each side of the aisle trying to work in a bipartisan fashion. This is an investigation which not only has the comparison of prewar intelligence to what we more recently discovered or may be discovering, but it also has the whole question of wherever the trail leads, which is a phrase the chairman of the committee has used. There are other aspects of this, whether you use the word dissemination of intelligence; you collect it; you analyze it, and then it gets put over to the policy people. Then they use it in one way or another. The use of that, whether there was any pressure brought to bear, all of those things are areas that we are in the process of examining right now. It is a difficult subject. There is already another commission on this subject, the Kean- Hamilton Commission, but that is covering something of a different area. If another commission is set up, another group is set up to look at prewar WMD, postwar WMD, intelligence on all of that, it just simply duplicates what we are or will shortly be doing. As the chairman knows and as my members know, if we do not reach the depth and breadth of satisfaction of investigation on this, then we will have to come back and reconsider all of this at another time. It is my judgment that because of talks and things going on now, dynamics which are internal and intense, we are making that kind of progress, and the threshold of making the kind of progress we have to make to reach a final conclusion and do a report is on the move. This would be damaging to us. I don't say that as turf because one is on this committee for 8 years and then one is off this committee. That is a whole other subject for another day. But we need to focus this. We do not need to dilute it. I understand the purpose of the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. I do not happen to support it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this amendment is not about whether or not we ought to appropriate the funds that President Bush has requested for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather, this amendment addresses the question of whether this Congress is willing to pay the bill or whether we will pass it on to future generations. I am unwilling to tell the children in West Virginia that I believe they should pay this bill when they grow up when there is a reasonable alternative. If we do not offset the $87 billion cost of this emergency supplemental request, then it will be added to our Nation's deficit. Already, without this spending, the Federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 is projected to be $480 billion. That number is staggering. Prior to this administration, the largest deficit this government ever had in a single year was $290 billion. So already, we know that our deficit will be higher than ever before, by a lot. Without this amendment, we would add another $87 billion to this deficit. Our deficit would hit $567 billion--almost twice the size of the previous record deficit. These are not just numbers. Such enormous deficits have consequences. Our children will have to pay these bills. Instead of investing in education or roads or military preparedness for their own generation, they will still be paying the bills for our generation. Already we have saddled future generations with almost $7 trillion in debt. We absolutely must not add to that debt when this amendment offers an alternative. We also know that such large deficits will have an impact for our own generation. As Federal debt increases, it will put pressure on long term interest rates, which will hurt every middle class family trying to pay their mortgage. And I am certain that in the coming weeks my colleagues will say that we have to cut spending on education, health care, infrastructure, unemployment compensation, and other critical domestic priorities in order to reduce the deficit. Make no mistake: adding to the deficit today, will increase pressure to squeeze out spending that benefits low and middle income Americans at a time when they are already struggling. Increasing the burden on low and middle income Americans would be spectacularly unfair. As I travel around West Virginia, I talk to many families who have children serving in the armed forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. Thousands of West Virginians have been called up to serve in the National Guard or Reserves. They are not millionaires. They are patriotic West Virginians with modest incomes, and they are already sacrificing things more valuable than money to make our military efforts a success. So let me discuss for a moment what sacrifice this amendment asks for. This amendment says that those with incomes greater than $311,950 should pay a top income tax rate of 38.2 percent in the years 2005 through 2010. Even with this change, the top income tax rate will be lower than it was when President Bush took office. In fact, of the $690 billion in tax cuts that this President has signed into law that are targeted at the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, $600 billion in tax cuts would still be in place. Under this amendment, a person making $1 million per year would still get a tax cut of more than $20,000 compared to what he or she would have paid in 2000, prior to this President's tax cuts taking effect. It is not asking for an undue sacrifice to ask a millionaire to settle for a $20,000 tax cut. I wish there were more people in West Virginia that would see this $20,000 tax cut, but of course, only the wealthiest fraction of taxpayers, less than 1 percent, would be affected by this amendment. I will be supporting this amendment because I cannot explain to children in West Virginia that giving a millionaire a tax cut greater than $20,000 was more important to me than their future. I hope that my colleagues will think carefully about this stark choice, and join me in supporting Senator Biden's amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Grassley and a bipartisan coalition in sponsoring the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003. This legislation will reauthorize and expand on the adoption bonuses created as part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. The Adoption and Safe Families Act stated clearly that a child's health and safety are paramount, and that every child deserves a permanent home. Key policy changes were made to promote permanency, including streamlining the process and creating incentives for adoption. Since 1997, the number of adoptions from foster care increased by 64 percent, and the number of adoptions of children with special needs increased by 63 percent. This is wonderful news for the children and families. But over 500,000 children are still in foster care, and 126,000 of those children have adoption as a goal. This legislation would reauthorize the existing adoption bonuses, and it would create a new bonus for children over the age of 9 who represent almost half of the children waiting for adoption. The Adoption Promotion Act is an important next step to improving our child welfare system. In West Virginia, over 900 children have been adopted from the foster care system since enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This is good news for the children and families, but many more children in my State and across the country are waiting for a safe, permanent home. Adoption is a wonderful event that changes a child's life and creates a special family. Today, in addition to introducing this legislation, the Congressional Adoption Caucus will celebrate its Angels in Adoption Award, including an award to a very special West Virginian, Millie Mairs, who has worked on adoption issues in my State for almost 30 years at the West Virginia Children's Home Society. Her work has helped to change many lives. This legislation is key, but it is only part of the puzzle to improving our foster care system which, according to the findings of the Child and Family Service Reviews, needs to be strengthened. As more children move into adoption, especially older children, we must become more aware and respond to the needs for post-adoption services. I hope that future action on child welfare reform will be bipartisan, like the Adoption Promotion Act. It is encouraging to know that the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care is working to develop recommendations regarding child welfare financing and the role of the courts in child welfare policy. Hopefully, these recommendations can help forge bipartisan consensus for future changes that will enhance the lives of our most vulnerable children, those in foster care.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to draw your attention to a few very troubling statistics. Manufacturing employment in the United States has now fallen to its lowest level in 41 years. In the last five years, we have lost 16 percent of all our factory jobs. In the last 2 years alone we have lost approximately 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. These are frightening statistics. They ought to jolt every Member of the Senate and prompt an urgent call for action. A vibrant manufacturing base is essential to our standard of living. For generations, factory jobs have been the path to the middle class, providing good wages, health insurance, and pension benefits. Advances in manufacturing technology accounts for most of our economy's increased productivity. And every dollar spent on finished manufactured goods is estimated to produce $2.43 of economic activity. Simply put, we cannot become a service-only economy and expect to maintain our high standard of living. We ought to act swiftly to ensure that Americans still produce steel and computers and cars and pharmaceuticals. We ought not be timid in the face of the devastating statistics I cited. Piecemeal efforts will not revitalize our industrial base. Therefore, today I am introducing the Securing America's Factory Employment (SAFE) Act. This bill will offer relief to American manufacturers on several fronts. First, my legislation would provide a tax deduction to any company that offers manufacturing jobs in the United States. Second, this bill helps companies cover the cost of providing health care for retirees, a crippling obligation for many of our once proud industries. And third, I propose that we strengthen our trade laws to ensure that they offer the protections that our domestic industries deserve from unfair and illegal trade practices. Let me take a moment to explain in greater detail how these proposals can help our domestic manufacturing base. This Congress is compelled to repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income provisions of the U.S. Tax Code in order to avoid $4 billion in trade sanctions authorized by the World Trade Organization. Regardless of my opinion of the WTO's decision in this matter, I recognize that it may be that to protect our economy from a trade war we must update our Tax Code. We can do so and still encourage manufacturing by reducing the overall effective corporate income tax rate on domestic manufacturing. The SAFE Act provides a 9-percent deduction for profits derived from manufacturing activities in the United States; this is the equivalent of lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 32 percent for the portion of profits that can be directly linked to U.S. factories, mining operations, and the like. This straightforward tax break will lower the cost of doing business in the United States and will help companies that employ Americans compete in the global marketplace. In addition, this bill includes a tax credit to employers to encourage them to retain their retiree health insurance coverage. As you know, employers and other health plan sponsors continue to restructure how they provide health care benefits for both workers and retirees. The percent of employers offering retiree health benefits has declined substantially over the past 15 years. Two-thirds of all firms with 200 or more workers sponsored retiree coverage 15 years ago. According to the most recent data, only 38 percent of such employers provide retiree benefits today. Despite these reductions, the employer- sponsored health care system is the largest source of health care coverage in this country today. The SAFE Act would provide employers with a tax credit to cover 75 percent of the costs associated with providing health care coverage to their retirees in order to protect existing coverage and reverse the current trend. Finally, my legislation would strengthen our trade protections. Our antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) trade law are often the first and last time of defense for U.S. industries injured by unfairly or illegally traded imports. These laws are absolutely essential to the survival of our manufacturing sector in an increasingly global market-- but some of their provisions have become antiquated by recent changes in our global economy and the new structure of international trade. The Americans steel crisis has made it clear that these trade laws need to be strengthened. Companies, workers, families and communities rely heavily on these laws to prevent the ill-effects of unfair trade. Our antidumping and countervailing duty laws need to be updated and amended so they work as intended, and as permitted, under the rules of international trade. For example, the SAFE Act includes a provision that allows us to consider whether or not an industry is vulnerable to the effects of imports in making antidumping and countervailing duty determinations. Another provision in this bill will make it tougher for our trading partners to circumvent antidumping or countervailing duty orders by clarifying that AD/CVD orders include products that have been changed in only very minor respects. This will help prevent foreign nations from making slight alterations to products that they are exporting to us to in order to skirt existing AD/CVD orders. Another clear problem under our current trade laws is that foreign producers and exporters of subject merchandise may avoid AD/CVD duties by using complex schemes that mask payment of countervailing duties resulting in the understatement of duty rates. My legislation would restrict such practices by requiring the importer, if affiliated with the foreign producers or exporters, to demonstrate that the importer was in no way reimbursed for any AD/CVD duties paid. There are certainly other changes we should consider to update our trade remedy laws. These provisions are by no means an exhaustive list of needed reforms. But we do need to get the debate started, and I offer this bill as a way to re-energize the debate. The SAFE Act addresses several of the most dire needs of our manufacturing companies. It improves our trade laws, helps with the burden of retiree health care costs, and effectively lowers the corporate tax rate on manufacturing activities. This package of reforms is an effective plan to stem the flow of good manufacturing jobs overseas. If we are serious about revitalizing our economy and maintaining our standard of living, we must act quickly to shore up our manufacturing base. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort. I ask that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I want to introduce legislation to direct the Census Bureau to develop a test census of Americans living abroad in 2004. The long-term goal is to develop methods to include Americans living overseas in our next decennial census in 2010. There are approximately 3 million to 6 million private American citizens living and working overseas, and many of them continue to vote and pay taxes in the United States. These citizens help increase exports of American goods, because they traditionally buy American, sell American,and create business opportunities for American companies and workers. Their role in strengthening the U.S. economy, creating jobs in the United States, and extending U.S. influence around the globe is vital to the well-being of our Nation. I believe that Americans abroad deserve to be counted, and to achieve this goal we must begin with a test census next year. For many years, I have been proud to work on policies to ensure that Americans living abroad are treated fairly.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Grassley and a bipartisan coalition in sponsoring the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003. This legislation will reauthorize and expand on the adoption bonuses created as part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. The Adoption and Safe Families Act stated clearly that a child's health and safety are paramount, and that every child deserves a permanent home. Key policy changes were made to promote permanency, including streamlining the process and creating incentives for adoption. Since 1997, the number of adoptions from foster care increased by 64 percent, and the number of adoptions of children with special needs increased by 63 percent. This is wonderful news for the children and families. But over 500,000 children are still in foster care, and 126,000 of those children have adoption as a goal. This legislation would reauthorize the existing adoption bonuses, and it would create a new bonus for children over the age of 9 who represent almost half of the children waiting for adoption. The Adoption Promotion Act is an important next step to improving our child welfare system. In West Virginia, over 900 children have been adopted from the foster care system since enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This is good news for the children and families, but many more children in my State and across the country are waiting for a safe, permanent home. Adoption is a wonderful event that changes a child's life and creates a special family. Today, in addition to introducing this legislation, the Congressional Adoption Caucus will celebrate its Angels in Adoption Award, including an award to a very special West Virginian, Millie Mairs, who has worked on adoption issues in my State for almost 30 years at the West Virginia Children's Home Society. Her work has helped to change many lives. This legislation is key, but it is only part of the puzzle to improving our foster care system which, according to the findings of the Child and Family Service Reviews, needs to be strengthened. As more children move into adoption, especially older children, we must become more aware and respond to the needs for post-adoption services. I hope that future action on child welfare reform will be bipartisan, like the Adoption Promotion Act. It is encouraging to know that the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care is working to develop recommendations regarding child welfare financing and the role of the courts in child welfare policy. Hopefully, these recommendations can help forge bipartisan consensus for future changes that will enhance the lives of our most vulnerable children, those in foster care.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to draw your attention to a few very troubling statistics. Manufacturing employment in the United States has now fallen to its lowest level in 41 years. In the last five years, we have lost 16 percent of all our factory jobs. In the last 2 years alone we have lost approximately 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. These are frightening statistics. They ought to jolt every Member of the Senate and prompt an urgent call for action. A vibrant manufacturing base is essential to our standard of living. For generations, factory jobs have been the path to the middle class, providing good wages, health insurance, and pension benefits. Advances in manufacturing technology accounts for most of our economy's increased productivity. And every dollar spent on finished manufactured goods is estimated to produce $2.43 of economic activity. Simply put, we cannot become a service-only economy and expect to maintain our high standard of living. We ought to act swiftly to ensure that Americans still produce steel and computers and cars and pharmaceuticals. We ought not be timid in the face of the devastating statistics I cited. Piecemeal efforts will not revitalize our industrial base. Therefore, today I am introducing the Securing America's Factory Employment (SAFE) Act. This bill will offer relief to American manufacturers on several fronts. First, my legislation would provide a tax deduction to any company that offers manufacturing jobs in the United States. Second, this bill helps companies cover the cost of providing health care for retirees, a crippling obligation for many of our once proud industries. And third, I propose that we strengthen our trade laws to ensure that they offer the protections that our domestic industries deserve from unfair and illegal trade practices. Let me take a moment to explain in greater detail how these proposals can help our domestic manufacturing base. This Congress is compelled to repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income provisions of the U.S. Tax Code in order to avoid $4 billion in trade sanctions authorized by the World Trade Organization. Regardless of my opinion of the WTO's decision in this matter, I recognize that it may be that to protect our economy from a trade war we must update our Tax Code. We can do so and still encourage manufacturing by reducing the overall effective corporate income tax rate on domestic manufacturing. The SAFE Act provides a 9-percent deduction for profits derived from manufacturing activities in the United States; this is the equivalent of lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 32 percent for the portion of profits that can be directly linked to U.S. factories, mining operations, and the like. This straightforward tax break will lower the cost of doing business in the United States and will help companies that employ Americans compete in the global marketplace. In addition, this bill includes a tax credit to employers to encourage them to retain their retiree health insurance coverage. As you know, employers and other health plan sponsors continue to restructure how they provide health care benefits for both workers and retirees. The percent of employers offering retiree health benefits has declined substantially over the past 15 years. Two-thirds of all firms with 200 or more workers sponsored retiree coverage 15 years ago. According to the most recent data, only 38 percent of such employers provide retiree benefits today. Despite these reductions, the employer- sponsored health care system is the largest source of health care coverage in this country today. The SAFE Act would provide employers with a tax credit to cover 75 percent of the costs associated with providing health care coverage to their retirees in order to protect existing coverage and reverse the current trend. Finally, my legislation would strengthen our trade protections. Our antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) trade law are often the first and last time of defense for U.S. industries injured by unfairly or illegally traded imports. These laws are absolutely essential to the survival of our manufacturing sector in an increasingly global market-- but some of their provisions have become antiquated by recent changes in our global economy and the new structure of international trade. The Americans steel crisis has made it clear that these trade laws need to be strengthened. Companies, workers, families and communities rely heavily on these laws to prevent the ill-effects of unfair trade. Our antidumping and countervailing duty laws need to be updated and amended so they work as intended, and as permitted, under the rules of international trade. For example, the SAFE Act includes a provision that allows us to consider whether or not an industry is vulnerable to the effects of imports in making antidumping and countervailing duty determinations. Another provision in this bill will make it tougher for our trading partners to circumvent antidumping or countervailing duty orders by clarifying that AD/CVD orders include products that have been changed in only very minor respects. This will help prevent foreign nations from making slight alterations to products that they are exporting to us to in order to skirt existing AD/CVD orders. Another clear problem under our current trade laws is that foreign producers and exporters of subject merchandise may avoid AD/CVD duties by using complex schemes that mask payment of countervailing duties resulting in the understatement of duty rates. My legislation would restrict such practices by requiring the importer, if affiliated with the foreign producers or exporters, to demonstrate that the importer was in no way reimbursed for any AD/CVD duties paid. There are certainly other changes we should consider to update our trade remedy laws. These provisions are by no means an exhaustive list of needed reforms. But we do need to get the debate started, and I offer this bill as a way to re-energize the debate. The SAFE Act addresses several of the most dire needs of our manufacturing companies. It improves our trade laws, helps with the burden of retiree health care costs, and effectively lowers the corporate tax rate on manufacturing activities. This package of reforms is an effective plan to stem the flow of good manufacturing jobs overseas. If we are serious about revitalizing our economy and maintaining our standard of living, we must act quickly to shore up our manufacturing base. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort. I ask that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am very happy to point out that the good Senator from Tennessee and I served as Governors together, and his emphasis was always education then and obviously still is. I respect him greatly. I would like to speak for a few minutes on Senator Schumer's amendment to call on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel, it having been laid aside on the basis of germaneness. I rise in support of the erstwhile amendment--maybe it will come back--calling on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations that senior Bush administration personnel-- perhaps including those working at the very highest level of the White House--may have knowingly and deliberately revealed to the press the identity of an undercover CIA agent. I speak as a Senator from West Virginia and also as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is a matter of national security. It is a matter of criminal law. It is a matter that demands the most careful, impartial, and independent investigation possible. As I will explain shortly, it is actually a matter without legal precedent. The Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, should go on record today--which we have not--to demand the Attorney General not hold this too close within the administration family, where the investigation will inevitably be questioned as raising conflicts of interest. This is going to happen. Forget the people involved. It is simply going to be an issue with the public. Rather, he should appoint a special counsel that can assure the Nation that no person in the United States, no matter where they work and what they do, are above the law in our country. Twenty-one years ago after the tragic assassination of a CIA station chief and other attacks, Congress enacted the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 to punish the naming of covert agents. The act addressed essential appalling circumstances such as a private individual or organization engages in a campaign to publicize the names of agents. Appropriately, Congress reserved the most severe consequences--including imprisonment for up to 10 years, substantial sums of money--for unfaithful U.S. Government officials who intentionally disclose the identity of any of our country's own agents. To date, that kind of betrayal is so far beyond the pale, so to speak, so incomprehensible, that as far as the Intelligence Committee has been advised, there has never been a case prosecuted under it. It is, therefore, with special sadness that our country now faces an investigation into whether the unimaginable has, in fact, happened; whether at the highest levels of our Government there has been a felony disclosure of the identity of one of our covert agents. When the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the identities protection bill in 1981, it made a number of findings which are as true now as they were then. They found that it is essential for our Nation to have intelligence information that is timely, that is accurate, and that human sources of intelligence are the key to that effort and that we need and must be ready to rely on our own covert intelligence agents to gather information from our sources. To quote our Judiciary Committee: Without effective cover for United States intelligence officers abroad and without assurance for anonymity of intelligence sources, the United States cannot collect the human intelligence which it must have to conduct an effective foreign and national defense policy. This was true in the cold war when this law was enacted, and it is certainly no less true today in the war against terror. The disclosure of our agents puts them at risk. It puts their sources at risk. And it puts our Nation, as a result, at risk. In the case at hand, there is a further danger of immediate importance: The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting an inquiry into prewar intelligence about Iraq and how that particular intelligence compares with what is being found or is not being found on the ground in Iraq. Two of the toughest questions we are asking are whether any of the intelligence was exaggerated or distorted by the policy- makers--that is, the users of the collected and analyzed intelligence--and whether any pressure was brought to bear on any U.S. intelligence analysts to shape their prewar analysis. I deeply hope the final answers to those questions is a no but the jury is still out. The House has produced a preliminary report of several pages. The Senate Intelligence Committee is hard at work on a very thorough, very profound effort. I ask my colleagues, how can we possibly expect our intelligence community to come forward to help us to get the truth in the matter if they fear that retribution will follow? One has not had to raise this question before. Since mid-July, our intelligence community officers have been reading the same press reports that we have been reading. They are reading about not just some inadvertent disclosure of a potentially covert agent but something far more insidious. If press reports are true, then the allegation at issue is that there may have been a coordinated effort to release the name of a covert agent for the specific purpose of discrediting somebody who disagreed with the administration about the fraudulent and much discredited claims of Iraqi purchases of uranium in Niger, a policy which never received virtually any credence at all. If the U.S. intelligence community and its agents believe their careers can be crushed by a phone call or by a couple of phone calls, how can they be sure their candor will be protected? Why should they produce candor? Perhaps they will be punished. They do not know. That does not happen, particularly in our world. It can happen sometimes in politics, but this is an everyday part of their world. We rely on them for accurate intelligence as they see it, as they believe it, that is then gathered, analyzed, and passed on to policymakers for judgments. How can the Congress meet our own investigation and oversight obligations, a committee in each body? How can we learn the true facts about the conduct of government officials and inform the American people? At this point, the prompt appointment of a special counsel is essential, the amendment being laid aside or not. Under the Department of Justice regulation, the Attorney General is to appoint a special counsel when investigation or prosecution of the matter would present a conflict of interest for the Department and it would be in the public interest as a further matter to appoint an outside counsel to assume responsibility for the investigation in the matter. Both tests are plainly met here. The Attorney General faces a conflict of interest when an investigation leads into the White House. And it is unquestionably in the public interest to assure confidence in such a critically important investigation. The special counsel is admittedly not quite as independent as an independent counsel--and we have had those--was under the former statute. But the special counsel is our best and most impartial mechanism for difficult circumstances such as these. The regulations provide the special counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Justice Department. If the Attorney General concludes any action sought by the special counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General is required to notify the Congress, and the Attorney General must report to the Congress if he or she wants to fire the special counsel and can only do so for good cause. In closing, since joining the Intelligence Committee, I have had the honor of meeting dozens of covert intelligence agencies working overseas in a variety of countries. These men and women make sacrifices that few Americans even come close to understanding or know anything about, which is as it should be. They live undercover, unable to tell their friends or even their family, what they do or where they are. They work tirelessly with much of the operational activity conducted in the evenings after regular working hours on other matters and on weekends when the rest of us are at home with our families. They put themselves at literal risk almost every single day. And they love what they do. If the recent allegations are true, someone in this administration has done these people a grave and lasting injustice. Our intelligence agents need to know we understand the sacrifices they make and that we will come to their defense when somebody puts them at risk. An independent investigation is the only way--and it is the only way--to restore their faith in the Government they serve. Not to do so would have a chilling effect on the recruitment of people to do this vital work, in a time when intelligence may be beginning to surpass actual war fighting in terms of its importance to something called the war on terror. I regret this amendment has been ruled out of order on this bill. I hope we will again take it up. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I want to introduce legislation to direct the Census Bureau to develop a test census of Americans living abroad in 2004. The long-term goal is to develop methods to include Americans living overseas in our next decennial census in 2010. There are approximately 3 million to 6 million private American citizens living and working overseas, and many of them continue to vote and pay taxes in the United States. These citizens help increase exports of American goods, because they traditionally buy American, sell American,and create business opportunities for American companies and workers. Their role in strengthening the U.S. economy, creating jobs in the United States, and extending U.S. influence around the globe is vital to the well-being of our Nation. I believe that Americans abroad deserve to be counted, and to achieve this goal we must begin with a test census next year. For many years, I have been proud to work on policies to ensure that Americans living abroad are treated fairly.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Mrs. Millie Mairs, a woman who has demonstrated her enormous capacity for love by serving some of West Virginia's most vulnerable children. Through her work with the West Virginia Children's Home Society Adoption Program, Millie has touched the lives of many new families in my home state and is a cornerstone of adoption services there. Later this month, Millie will be honored alongside other ``Angels in Adoption.'' This is a special award created by the Congressional Adoption Caucus. I would like to take a moment to tell you more about the work and accomplishments of this quiet, gentle lady who has worked on behalf of children for more than twenty years at the West Virginia Children's Home Society. The West Virginia Children's Home Society was created in 1896 and has long provided care for children in need. Today, the Society offers adoptive, child protective, and emergency services through an expanded mission. Twenty-eight years ago, Millie Mairs came to the Children's Home Society Adoption Program as an adoption secretary in order to assist West Virginia families who hoped to adopt a child. Since then, Millie has served those families in a variety of roles and has maintained a strong relationship with many of them, including some of her very first clients. From administering support services to meeting with perspective parents to guiding birth mothers through appropriate after care, Millie's name has become synonymous with adoption advocacy in West Virginia. Those who know Millie best say that no one is better suited to serve as an adoption advocate than she. Her colleagues use words such as ``rare,'' ``special,'' ``kind,'' and ``considerate'' in order to describe her. Her clients depend on her as they complete necessary paperwork and interviews, and as they work through the many emotions that adoption brings. And while Millie serves as a valuable resource for those entering into the adoption system today, her knowledge of previous adoptions is priceless to those who seek even the smallest amount of information about their past. Millie has provided a comforting ear and soothing words to these individuals since her first days at the Children's Home Society and has also reunited birth mothers and their children from that time. She has always understood and has tried to convey to others that adoption is a selfless act of love from the perspective of both birth mothers and adoptive parents. As you can imagine, this has brought great comfort to children, birth mothers, and adoptive parents alike. The Angels in Adoption Award recognizes individuals like Millie who work every day to better the lives of others through the field of adoption. On September 30, Millie and other Angels will come to Washington in order to be recognized for their good works. While they will look just as any other visitors to the Capitol complex that day, I have been assured by Millie's colleagues and by others that they truly are angels in our midst. I hope that you will help me in welcoming them and honoring them. Further, I hope that you will carry their message with you: that all children deserve a safe, healthy, and permanent home and that, for some children, this is only possible through adoption. I have worked for many years in bipartisan coalitions to promote adoption and improved services for abused and neglected children. While these issues rarely command headlines, they change the lives of children and families across our country. People like Millie Mairs and programs like Angels in Adoption remind us of the importance of our adoption and child welfare programs. In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act to ensure that a child's health and safety are paramount, and to express the belief that every child deserves a permanent home. Since then, adoptions from foster care have nearly doubled. While this is wonderful news, more than 100,000 children remain in foster care. As Millie and her peers would tell us, we clearly have more work to do. I am delighted to have had this opportunity to tell you more about Millie Mairs and her work with the West Virginia Children's Home Society. I have long believed that the people of West Virginia are its greatest resource; individuals such as Millie prove this point again and again.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this legislation reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, and its core programs, including the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, through March 31, 2004. While I would like to have seen Congress pass a comprehensive multiyear bill, it is not going to be possible by the end of this fiscal year. We need to pass this noncontroversial short-term extension to allow the FAA to continue to operate its core safety and airport funding programs. The Senate produced a very good FAA reauthorization bill, and I was proud to help in developing that legislation. Unfortunately, the final product after negotiations with the House of Representatives was not as good as the Senate-passed bill. It included several dangerous provisions that I could not support, and, in fact, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have raised objections to this legislation. The most significant reason that the multiyear FAA bill is stalled is because the conference report includes language that allows as large part of the Nation's air traffic control system to be contracted out to private operators. If adopted, the conference report would allow the FAA to initiate the process of contracting out of some air traffic control functions immediately while only delaying the potential privatization for the 4-year life of the bill. The Senate during its consideration of the FAA bill voted 56 to 41 to keep all air traffic control functions as a governmental responsibility out of a deep sense that the safety of our skies is a basic governmental function. A bipartisan majority of Senators expressed serious concerns over the executive branch's future plans for the management of the air traffic control system, and we voted to impose restrictions on the Administration's proposal precisely to avoid the very outcome of the conference report. Instead of negotiating in good faith over how best to guarantee the safety of our Nation's air traffic control system, the majority acceded to the administration's demands that they be given absolute discretion over the future of aviation safety. My short-term reauthorization bill includes language that enhances the safety of our Nation's air traffic control while giving the executive branch an appropriate level of flexibility to manage the system. The United States operates the most complex aviation system in the world, and we must have in place a dynamic and responsive safety system. I, along with my colleagues, want to continue to work with the administration on making our aviation system the safest, most secure, and advanced in the world. This legislation reauthorizes funding for FAA programs and operations. Importantly, the bill reauthorizes the AIP program, which will allow the Federal Government to maintain its investment in airport infrastructure. Small airports are especially dependent on AIP funding to fund capital improvement projects. In addition, the bill includes provisions that reduce small airports share of AIP projects to 5 percent. The bill also allows small airports to maintain their eligibility for AIP entitlement funds if decreased traffic due to September 11 resulted in these airports falling below FAA-required passenger benchmarks. Congress should not hold up these critical funds over disagreements on unrelated issues. Broad consensus exists on the need for increased aviation funding. This bill will provide approximately $1.7 billion in AIP funds, which on an annualized basis would boost AIP funding by $100 million over last year's level. To make sure small communities continue to be linked to the Nation's aviation network, the bill also reauthorizes the Essential Air Service Program, EAS, and Small Community Air Service Development Program. The EAS program is a lifeline to our smallest and most isolated communities. The Small Community Air Service Development Program has helped dozens of communities across the country expands their air service options. Finally, the bill authorizes new security initiatives. Although we have made dramatic improvements in aviation security over the last 20 months, improving aviation security is a continuous process. This bill is another step in this process. The bill addresses the development and implementation of the Computer Assisted Passenger Profiling Program, CAPPS, II, which many Senators are deeply concerned infringes on civil liberties. My legislation imposes a variety of safeguards to protect citizens' privacy as CAPPS II is deployed. This bill does not have everything I worked hard to include in the Senate's multiyear FAA reauthorization. As I stated, the Senate-passed bill was the result of hard work, compromise, and a commitment to improving the Nation's aviation system. I believe with a little more time, we can find a compromise on the issues holding up the multiyear bill, but in the meantime, the Senate should adopt this short-term reauthorization to preserve the integrity of the aviation system.