Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the conference report does, however, provide the following: legal fairness for product sellers; a rule to discourage illegal use of alcohol and drugs--we cannot stop it but to discourage it, certainly not to reward it--a proconsumer statute of limitations, an enormously proconsumer statute of limitations; a statute of repose that will stimulate jobs and economic growth; alternative dispute resolution as a way of settling some of these matters. It is voluntary, which is not so thrilling to me. I wish it were not. I wish it were mandatory, but it is voluntary. At least it is there. That is the way they do things in Japan. That is why they settle everything over there, which is not to say they do not have their economic problems, but product liability is not one of their problems. Punitive damages fairness is in this bill. Opponents of the bill say we cap punitive damages. Untrue. Untrue. I will not vote for legislation which caps punitive damages, as I would not vote for legislation that caps what lawyers can make. Part of me would like to, but I do not believe that because I believe the market should make that decision. But punitive damages are not capped. We added the additional amount provision, originally called the judge additur provision, a suggestion which was endorsed by a number of high- up folks at the White House and then the whole idea for making sure that it was more constitutional came from the Department of Justice, which I presume to be the executive branch of Government. So there are no caps on punitive damages, and I will assert there could not be because I was a part of this bill. I was not going to go along with a bill that would allow such a thing. There is several liability for noneconomic loss; workers compensation subrogation; biomaterials access assurance. These, Mr. President, are some of the highlights. Now, in winding up here, I should like to take a moment to comment on where we stand in the legislative process. I wish to be hopeful; I try to be hopeful; I am hopeful; I will insist on being hopeful; I will be everlastingly hopeful that the President will reconsider his decision to veto this product liability conference report and that in fact he will sign it. I firmly believe that the President can sign this bill, even recognizing that he will not support each of its provisions. There are some provisions that I think ought to be in this. There are some provisions which I think ought to be changed, some. Nobody gets everything they want. There are 535 people in the Congress. Even though the President might not support each of its provisions, when the product liability conference report is considered in its totality, in balance with the need for this reform, I remain hopeful that the President will still seize this opportunity to participate in product liability reform which will benefit in fact the American people and the American economy. From my point of view, I stand ready to work with the President to achieve what I believe is our common goal, his goal, my goal, our goal, of fairly balancing what needs to be fixed in our broken product liability system, which he surely must recognize, while preserving important rights for consumers. This is not business versus consumers. We are trying to achieve a balance where each business and consumer gets certain improvements, and providing business with the predictability that they need to compete in today's economy. In conclusion, because I do not know how much time is remaining--and I am not interested--I wish to thank a few people. First of all, I again wish to thank Senator Gorton, Senator Slade Gorton from the State of Washington, G-o-r-t-o-n. That is his name. He has been absolutely incredible over the years and continues to be in this process-- remarkable, calm, intellectual, unflappable, fair, flexible. It is just a stunning privilege to be able to work with Slade Gorton and with his staff, Jeanne Bumpus, Trent Erickson; Commerce Committee staff, Lance Bultena. We spend a lot of time together. When you do these things, you get real close. I thank all of the Democratic supporters, not that that is a convention full of people, but I thank each and every one of them and all of their staff. And, obviously and particularly, I want to thank my own staff: Jim Gottlieb, a superb lawyer--inventive, flexible, calm, tough, a great negotiator and a marvelous human being; Ellen Doneski, who is just indefatigable. She is just like some kind of a rolling army--cannot be stopped. She has a tremendous sense of humor, is relaxed, adamant, just puts her mind to this or other things. She is actually part of my health care staff, but she is so smart and so flexible she can get this mastered. She is not a lawyer, but do not tell anybody that because everybody thinks she is. Then I want to thank another person who is not here because her fiance has been through, and is still going through, a terrible, terrible crisis, and that is Tamera Stanton, who is kind of here in spirit. When we were having this debate last year, she sat next to me. She is my legislative director, an extraordinary, brilliant, wonderful person who is now going through a very, very tough--but also encouraging--experience in terms of the health of her fiance, as they hope and plan to get married in June. So, I am mindful of these people, grateful to these people, and I thank my colleagues for their forbearance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that numerous fact sheets, and a list and letter from small business organizations, be printed in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I am very happy that we are here this morning with this remaining part of the debate. Already, a variety of charges have been made, which have no basis in fact, as they relate to the product liability reform. But I think rather than to try to go into that, it would be better to focus on what this law is trying to do and why it is a good conference report. In a matter of a couple of hours, we are going to pass this conference report. It will pass. The House and the Senate, for the first time, I believe, in recent history will have passed product liability tort reform. So it is an interesting and, I think, a rather noteworthy point of history. We have had really a couple of decades of hearings, markups, and arguments. I remember one time a number of years ago we actually had 60 votes on cloture, and the majority leader at that time--it was still legal to do so--stopped the vote, actually stopped the vote. The Presiding Officer was not here in this body yet. For 45 minutes we waited, and all of a sudden, two ``yes'' votes became two ``no'' votes. I retain in a desk drawer in my office the sheet which is held at the Democratic desk, which shows how the numbers go up, and they went up to 57, 58, 59, and got to 60, and then it went from 60 to 59 to 58. So there is a lot of history on this. Of course, there is a lot of emotion. A lot of that emotion is justified. Some of it is not. But history, there is. I expect the House to approve this report in short order and send it on to the President, who has a chance, I think, to do something remarkable and significant for this country, if he should choose to sign what will then be the legislation. I regret that yesterday's debate demonstrated--and already this morning some, too--there are some very fundamental misunderstandings. I think some of the misunderstandings are very deliberate. They are deliberately put forward to obscure and obfuscate. I think the reason for that is understandable. Product liability tort reform law is not everybody's first choice of the day when they get up in the morning. They do not say, ``How can I get deeper into product liability tort reform law?'' Those of us who are not even lawyers understand best what I am talking about. Therefore, it becomes easy to mislead. I suppose it is easy for the proponents, as well as for the opponents of this legislation, to mislead. But I think that the proponents have really tried not to mislead, to stick to what is in the legislation. The opponents have been vigorous in their work, which is part of the legislative process. I want to emphasize that this conference report is only, Mr. President, about something called product liability reform. That is all it is. It does not pretend to be more. It does not pretend to solve the crisis in Bosnia or hunger in Rwanda, nor anything else. It is just about product liability reform. It establishes some uniformity for consumers and businesses in our product liability system. That is what we attempted to do. That is it. Product liability reform. This is not broad civil justice reform. This is not an overreaching House contract item. This is not a bill that protects drug traffickers, or gun users, or those who sell drugs or guns. This is not an extreme bill. This is a limited bill. The Senator from the State of Washington, who has been credible throughout this process, has been extraordinary, I think, in helping to discipline and to make sure that we sculpted this bill and then kept this bill basically in the form --virtually, with the main exception of the statute of repose--as the Senate passed it last May, which is almost a year ago. One of the reasons for this long, long period of time is that it took a long time for the House to accept that we really meant it, and that when we said we were going to stick with the Senate bill, we really meant it, and that in fact we had to, in any event because it was a matter of mathematics. Yesterday we did not get 58 votes, we got 60 votes. Finally that was understood. So what this bill does is establish a fair and a balanced commonsense rule which benefits both consumers and business persons, and it will create jobs. The Senator from Washington has discussed the aviation liability reform. I think it will improve product safety because it will allow manufacturers to make improvements. Now, manufacturers often decline to make improvements to their product because they are afraid that if they make an improvement, it will infer somehow that their previous iteration of the same product was deficient or unsafe. So rather than take that chance they do not make the improvement. That does not help consumers. I think it will encourage innovation. I know it is going to encourage innovation. And I think it will stimulate economic growth just as the aviation bill did. I have to say once again that there are all kinds of ways of protecting the consumer. We can do it through being sure that there are punitive damages available. That is the reason for the additional amount that was added, and that is also the reason that at the suggestion of the Department of Justice we clarify, the additional amount to make it a stronger case should there be a constitutional challenge against it--because we are determined that there will be no cap on punitive damages except whatever the jury decides. I am forced just by definition of the world that we live in to look at, once again, at our competition. You know that when people lose jobs in our country or do not gain jobs that they might gain, that is one of the worst things you can do to them. It is injuring them in a very severe way. It is depriving them of family and economic justice. In the case where it puts people on Medicaid, that is very obviously the consequence of that. Not having a job is a way to hurt somebody deep and hard. In the European Economic Community, which has, I think, 350 million consumers--Europe is one of our huge competitors--there are 13 countries in that community. Those countries presumably have provinces, or whatever they call them. It does not make any difference. They overrun all of that, and they have one uniform product liability law for all of those countries because they want to be able to minimize transactional costs, maximize research and development, maximize jobs, and maximize their competition against the United States of America, which is their principal competitor. So they have banded together to do this because they know that, if they do that, they will have a leg up on us in terms of the creation of jobs. Japan, which I think very few would argue is not a competitor to the United States economically, has just this year done the same thing. So they have a single uniform liability law for their entire nation. They do not sue a whole lot anyway. I think there are 13,000 lawyers in Japan, and there are 600,000 or 700,000 in the United States. Nevertheless, they are ready. So they understand that the system that America has has very, very high transaction costs, and they understand that the high transaction costs exceed the compensation that is ultimately paid to the victims of defective products. That is great for lawyers--both for trial lawyers and defense lawyers. They are both equally guilty. But they get the money, not the victim. They get the majority of it. It used to be that in the Wild West people carried six-shooters, and they would just shoot. We have a different, more modern way of doing it now, and we destroy ourselves in other kinds of ways. So these transaction costs, of course, are then real costs, and they have to be passed on to the consumers through higher priced products. People say when you pay more for a product that, ``Well, that is the kind of argument people make.'' It is true. We pay more. The Senator from Washington is prepared to give all kinds of statistics about that. He did yesterday. We pay more. Consumers pay more so that the trial lawyers and the defense lawyers can make more. In a sense, I am not blaming them because that is the system of law that they live under, as do we. That is why we are trying to change the law--so as to bring some more common sense into this process. The system's unpredictability and inefficiency are big items. Unpredictability is a bad thing. It is a bad thing. It is a lack of uniformity, a lack of predictability. It is harmful. It stifles innovation. It stifles research and development. What is the very first thing that happens in this country? I have heard many times the distinguished Senator from South Carolina say this. When a company gets in trouble, or a company is up against a lawsuit, or a company is whatever for whatever reason in trouble, what is the first thing they do? They cut out research and development. That is the first thing they cut, which is, in fact in many instances, one of the last things they should cut. It is just like a hospital. When a hospital gets in trouble financially, what is the first thing they do? They close the emergency room because it is the most expensive, which is often the last thing they should do in terms of the community they serve. But they act as they believe they have to act, and we have to understand that. So, stifling innovation and keeping beneficial products off the market has handicapped American firms as they try to compete in a global marketplace. The current system is simply unfair, therefore, again to consumers and to businesses alike, and that is why we are projecting this conference report forward. Of course, many of the States have fully recognized the inequities of the current system, as has been pointed out by a number on the other side of this argument. The States are very aggressive on this, and they have moved ahead to enact product liability reform. Thirty States have made major changes in joint and several, for example, and in most cases--virtually all cases--it is limiting joint and several. But by doing so, while solving some issues, they have inadvertently created other kinds of problems. Only through Federal product liability reform can we, in this Senator's judgment, resolve the problems caused by the current State- by-State product liability system. State legislatures can be very helpful in this area, but it is virtually impossible for them to be uniform because they are all different. We have 134 legislators in our State of West Virginia in the senate and house. They are not going to do the same thing that Ohio does, or that Kentucky does, or that Virginia or Maryland do. They are just not going to. So you have, in fact, 51 different laws relating to product liability in our country. As I said yesterday, years and years ago I suppose that the majority of products made in the States were sold in those States. That is no longer true. Seventy percent of products made in the State of Ohio, and in the State of the Presiding Officer, if it is at the national average, are sold outside of Ohio. The same is true with the State of West Virginia, the State of Washington, and the State of South Carolina. So we are an interstate as well as an international economy. Therefore, we need uniformity at certain points to shape and adapt to that. For this reason, State reform legislation--because of the 70 percent being shipped outside of the State of manufactured goods, less than 30 percent effectiveness is the standard for State law. I mean, by definition, they have to be less than 30 percent effective. On the other hand, all of the State citizens who sue in the State are governed by that State's product liability statute, and thus they fall victim to an antiquated system, and the people here want to protect them. That is why the National Governors' Association recognized both the need for product liability reform and the necessity of Federal action to effectuate that reform. They did not say, well, States, you have to do a better job and do things more alike. They said, no, there have to be places where the Federal Government sets uniform standards. The Senator from South Carolina was talking yesterday about how the States always want to have more power; they want to have the power shifted to them. That is the direction in which our country is going. That is not the direction of the National Governors' Association on product liability and tort reform. They want more Federal action. That is why the American Legislative Exchange Council, not very well-known, but it is a bipartisan group of over 2,500 State legislators--that is a lot of them--representing all 50 States, three times has called upon Congress to enact product liability law which is Federal. That is why President Clinton has said that he supports the enactment of limited but meaningful product liability reform at the Federal level. He said that in a number of statements--in a letter to us, in a statement of policy to us--during the course of this debate. H.R. 956 contains that limited but meaningful product liability reform which makes common sense and which has measures which are good for ordinary consumers and businesses. Incidentally, Mr. President, I wish to make one point. People keep referring--and even there was an article this morning in the Washington Post--to big business versus trial lawyers. On the business side, it is not big business which is really at stake here. It is small business. That is the reason for the support of the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Mr. President, 98 percent of businesses in America are small. Those are the people who get put out of business most quickly. Those are the people who have the least cash reserve. Those are the people who live at the margins. Those are also places, we have long established, from where often the best ideas come. That is the overwhelming dynamic center of the American economy. So H.R. 956 contains, as I have said, what I believe is needed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list describing the major provisions of the conference report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator from Washington yield for a question about the applicability of the bill?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have been seeing a lot of paper about this conference reports' effects on so-called dram shop laws which allow victims of drunk driving crashes to seek recovery from those individuals or establishments who negligently sell, or serve, alcoholic beverages to persons who are intoxicated or to minors who subsequently kill or injure someone while driving under the influence.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I agree. I am troubled that I continue to hear opponents of product liability reform, claim that these laws will be adversely affected by the proposed legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I think we should say to our colleagues that the product seller provision's application does not mean that these cases will be affected.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. And that remains true, regardless of the fact that the applicability section of the conference report, says that the act applies to ``any product liability action brought in any State or Federal Court on any theory for harm caused by a product.'' Is that not right?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. Mr. President, I am very happy that the Senate, at long last, is taking this bill up. We have been here before; we have been here many times before. I wish we could have gotten here sooner this year. Nevertheless, I am glad we are here. I think there is a natural tendency in Congress to wait until absolutely the last minute before important decisions are made, and that is what we are doing again this time. But so be it. I am here to report to my colleagues that the Senate product liability bill has maintained the Senate's standard, which is products only. It has to be fair. It cannot include a whole lot of extra things that the Contract With America wanted, or that others wanted, or, indeed, that earlier generations within this body tried to add on to this bill. It was always my intention--and it was always the intention of the Senator from the State of Washington--to keep this bill disciplined, on products only, not to expand and include all kinds of other subjects, so that we could keep faith with our colleagues. I believe we have done that. All of this is now embodied in H.R. 956, the commonsense product liability legal reform bill. I am enormously proud of the fact that the Senate really does want to see meaningful product liability reform, to fix our broken products system. Most of those on the other side of the aisle feel that way. There is a merry band of us on our side of the aisle who feel that way, and we have for a long time. We can announce to our colleagues that we have done what we promised we would do--hold to the Senate position in virtually every respect, to preserve the balanced, reasonable Senate product liability reform provisions that will provide Federal uniformity to the hodgepodge of State laws, which deal with product liability today. This will improve the product liability system for consumers and for business alike. There is a feeling sometimes in here that the bill has to either be just for consumers or just for business, and that you are over here or you are over here. This bill is trying to reach to both sides. We do some things to help manufacturers, and we do some things to help consumers. That was the point--to make it a balanced system. The statute of limitations is one that occurs to me mightily. California, for example, has a 1-year statute of limitations, and that means, in California, I presume--and I am not a lawyer--that if you are injured and wish to sue, you have 1 year within which to do it, and after a year is passed, you cannot sue. I consider that to be anticonsumer, and I consider those who are defending the status quo to be defending an anticonsumer position, which is, in fact, virulently anticonsumer. Our bill says that one has the right to go 2 years after one discovers, first, that one is injured and, second, what the cause of the injury was, so that one knows who to sue. Now, in an era of drugs and toxics--and we are seeing this, for example, in the Persian Gulf war with the so-called mystery illness, which is no mystery to me, but what seems to be a mystery to the Department of Defense--sometimes it takes 4 or 5 years. Sometimes it takes 15 or 20 years for a toxic or a drug to show up as an injury. So then you know that you are injured. But under our bill, that is not enough. You have to know what the cause of the injury was so you know who to sue. Now, that is clearly proconsumer, and those who are defending the status quo--that is, those who oppose this legislation--wish heartily to deny consumers that window to get into the courthouse door. I find that stunning. I find that, in many ways, shocking. I am very proud that we have that in our bill. Opponents of this legislation have, I believe--and this has been true in the past--used gross distortions and out and out misstatements about this bill to try to suggest that it has been significantly changed from the Senate-passed product liability bill. We are spending our time running around taking examples, which are patently false, which have been raised as though they were patently true. That is not a distinguished aspect of Senate life on this bill. The fact is that this report is virtually identical to the Senate bill in every single respect--virtually. Senator Gorton and I, in what I thought was a rather extraordinary colloquy from the floor, delivered on our blood oath, in which we both said that if we did not deliver on this promise, we would vote against proceeding to the bill or vote against the bill; and that was that we promised to delete the provision providing a defendant with a right to a new trial under the ``additional amount'' provision. That was an issue. We pledged to remove it. We did. We also took the House timeframe on the statute of repose. That was the one change that we made, maintaining the Senate bill's limited scope, importantly, to durable goods in the workplace. Now, again, some of the distortions being used are that by reducing the statute of repose, which was the only area in which we gave the House what they wanted--we gave them the 15 years, but we did not give them what they really wanted. They wanted this to include everything, not just durable goods in the workplace. We maintained the Senate position even on that. Beyond that, no substantive changes were really made. Technical and conforming drafting changes were made, as in any report of this sort. But that is it. That is the sum of the changes from the Senate-passed bill, no matter what the opponents of the reform will assert, and will assert this day. My colleagues need to know that, and they should be reassured that this means that the product liability report is yet one more opportunity to go on record in support of moderate and beneficial reform of our product liability law. Senator Gorton has gone through, and will continue to go through, a detailed legal analysis for the minor changes that were made, conforming changes. He will also rebut--certainly better than I--the outrageous claims that are being circulated by the opponents of the reform. I heard them in the Democratic caucus yesterday, and I am sure I will hear them on the floor today. However, as coauthor of the Senate product liability bill, I would like to go on record with my own analysis of the opponents' wild claim about the report. It is not in legalese because I am not a lawyer. But it is in English. I want this Record to reflect what is actually in the bill, rather than what the other side will, as I have said, continue to misinform Members about during this crucial debate. There is a lot of confusing misinformation being circulated. Here are the facts. Fact No. 1: There is no cap on economic or noneconomic damages--no cap on economic or noneconomic damages. Claimants will continue to be able to recover whatever they are awarded in a court. Fact No. 2: The statute of repose remains limited to durable goods in the workplace only--only. Statements being made that they now cover all goods are wrong. Fact No. 3: Product sellers, lessors, or renters will not be protected from negligent liability. That is precisely why the negligent entrustment exception was moved to the product sellers' section of this bill. Fact No. 4: Dow-Corning and other companies who made, or make, breast implants will not be shielded from liability--will not be shielded from liability. We went through this last year, and groups, in particular, women's groups, gave impassioned, very emotional press conferences in which they said they would be included and that they would be shielded by this bill. It was not true last year. It is not true this year. Whether or not they supplied the silicon, they remain as liable as any other manufacturers who produce a defective product, if they do. Fact No. 5: And this is very important because this involves a subject which has struck a number of people on my side of the aisle deeply, and it has to do with a letter that Mothers Against Drunk Driving--obviously an incredibly excellent and wonderful group--have circulated. But we have been trying to reach them to get them to make a retraction because they have made a mistake. It is a mistake which has been persuasive, unfortunately, to at least two Members on our side that I can think of. I repeat, drunk drivers, gun users, et cetera, will not be protected from liability in any way. Opponents are intentionally trying to confuse harm caused by a product--that is, harm caused by a product which is covered in the bill--and harm caused by the product's use by a person, or persons, which is not covered in the bill and remains totally subject to existing State law. Specifically, for those inclined that way, section 101(15) and 101(a)(1), definition of ``product liability action,'' includes only ``harm caused by a product, not use.'' That is an enormous difference. If I have leased a car and then stopped off at several bars and become drunk and then cause damage to somebody, I, as a person, can certainly be sued, but the use of the car, if the car is not defective, is not actionable under this bill, nor should it be, because this is a products-only bill. It is the products we are talking about, not the use, or the user. Fact No. 6: In all States that permit punitive damages, they will continue to be available and the additional amount provision--we used to call that judge additur, but we now call it additional amount provision--will apply in all those States regardless of whether caps are higher or lower in that State. Fact No. 7: Tolling, this was raised in our caucus yesterday; it has been raised since. Tolling of the statute of limitations will be covered as they are now by applicable State and Federal law. For example, for those so inclined, see 11 U.S. Code 108(c), ``automatic tolling in bankruptcy cases.'' Nothing in the bill, Mr. President, or omitted from the bill, will change State law on tolling. That is a fact. Fact No. 8: State law will continue to control whether or not electricity, steam, et cetera, is considered a product or not. Fact No. 9: This is not a one-way preemption bill but a mix of State and Federal rules, as it ought to be, in a bill which is moderate. Products are in interstate commerce--we have said this over the years so many times--70 percent. There was a day when things that were manufactured in California were probably sold in California for the most part. Today, on a national average, 70 percent of all things that are manufactured are interstate and are sold outside the borders of that State and thus are in interstate commerce, and they should be subject to more uniform rules for business and consumers. Let me just say again, as I did last year, that the European Economic Community--which is close to 400 million people and an enormous competitor for the United States of America economically--all 13 countries have a single product liability law, a uniform product liability law--all 13 countries, not provinces within those countries but the whole country. Japan has just adopted a uniform product liability law, a law uniform for the country, but we have 51. We have 51 different laws. For example, in the case of punitive damages, I think about 80 percent of all punitive damages come from three States--California, Texas, and Alabama. Why is that? Probably because of something called forum shopping. Because we have so many different laws--51 different laws-- people can simply try to find the place which is most effective for their particular case, and there they go. So this is not a one-way preemption. Fact No. 10: On joint and several liability--there has been a lot of talk about that and this is an extremely important issue--30 States have modified joint and several liability at this point. The Federal proposal follows the California law affecting only noneconomic damages. It is interesting on this point; the States clearly recognize that there are things they want to change in joint and several liability. Twelve States have eliminated joint liability altogether. Two States have eliminated joint liability for noneconomic damages. That is California and Nebraska. Ten States have otherwise limited the availability of joint liability as to noneconomic damages or damages generally, with the result being it is significantly less likely that noneconomic damages would be subject to joint liability. Three States have eliminated joint liability in cases in which the plaintiff is negligent and five States have capped awards of noneconomic damages. In all, 30 States have done this, and these include 8 of the 9 largest States in the Nation. For the remainder of my time I wish to remind my colleagues and whoever else might be listening why some of us have wanted so much to act on this legislation and to outline the opportunity that this reform in fact holds for this country and for our people as consumers and as human beings. Product liability reform has a very long history in the Congress. Members in both Houses and on both sides of the aisle have been trying to reform the product liability rules for over a decade, in fact for substantially longer than that, and we have done it for the most part by working together, Republicans and Democrats. No matter what anyone says to try and hone this issue as truly partisan or divisive, the idea of product liability reform is a legislative idea with a complete, thorough, aboveboard, open, and honest history of hearings, of markups, of floor debate, of cloture votes, and everything and anything else that one could call the way to legislate. Yes, we have been persistent, those of us who want to see this law enacted. We have been dogged. We have been focused because we think this country and its people need the change. The status quo is hurting American workers, American business, American consumers, and American competitiveness. When products by definition cross State lines--at least 70 percent of them--it makes no sense, absolutely no sense for product liability rules to be different in all 50 States, which they are--50 different sets of rules. It breeds unpredictability, delay, confusion, and unfairness that hurts everybody, not just businesses being sued but people, too. Senator Gorton and I introduced a bill last year, once again to reform product liability. And I have to say I have enjoyed enormously a true partnership in spearheading this effort with Senator Gorton. Because I said everything good I could think of last year and ran out of the English language, I can simply thank him once again for his legal acumen, extraordinary integrity, and extraordinary sincerity in trying to enact reform. Different legislation was passed in the House earlier in the year, as people know, and fortunately one part of it was product liability reform. In the discussions, many of my colleagues in the House and some in the Senate deeply wanted to pursue nonproduct liability legal reforms--nonproduct liability legal reforms, all kinds of ideas--making it available to all civil torts, putting it on medical malpractice, which I personally favor but which has no place in a products bill. This is a products bill. The problem was that the Senate did not have companion legislation to consider or to conference on the House's ideas for malpractice reforms or legal reforms beyond product liability. While I am not opposed to looking at other kinds of legal reforms, I believe I owe it to my colleagues to whom I and Senator Gorton and others have made this pledge and to the legislative process to have the Senate first take up legislation through the relevant committees and the regular process. The history of product liability reform legislation makes it obvious that it is still a very contentious subject, and I always say to my good friend, Senator Hollings, that I do not like disagreeing with him on anything, on anything, but I think there is an immensely compelling, urgent, and clear-cut case for product liability reform. Senator Gorton and I introduced a bill that is bipartisan, moderate, balanced, and focused as a way to begin fixing the problems in the product liability system. The report is in essence the same bill with improvements suggested by the administration--I repeat, with improvements suggested by the administration--and others interested in getting responsible product liability enacted into law. Even the National Governors' Association, usually the most insistent that the job should be left to the States, which we have seen in Medicaid and welfare reform and many other things, even in these last 10 months, has said in formal resolutions that ``uniform standards'' are needed in product liability. They have so said. One of those resolutions was passed. In fact, the original task force on product liability--one of the members was then Governor Bill Clinton, and he was the leading force at NGA--had a unanimous report in favor of uniform standards and twice the President of the United States voted to support that position. Last August, the Economic Strategy Institute, the organization headed by Clyde Pressler, with whom I believe the Senator from South Carolina generally agrees, and a voice for tough action on trade and other areas, issued a report called--and this is not what I would call the best title I have ever read in my life, but it is called ``Tortuous Road to Product Liability Reform.'' To paraphrase, when the institute issued the findings of its recent research, it said that America's unique approach to product liability has brought enormous and growing costs to the resolution of disputes, and the costs are borne by consumers and U.S. business alike. It goes on to say that costs are eating up money that could be spent on wages, on research and development, on training and other investments to be competitive with the rest of the world where our principal economic opponents have adopted uniform product liability standards. The institute's report underscores that product liability reform would significantly benefit consumers and business. I think everybody knows that I obviously am disappointed by the President's recent statements indicating that he intends to veto this report, particularly when the administration issued a statement by the President on May 4, when the Senate was debating amendments to expand our product liability reform bill, that concluded with the final paragraph which I think shows how much consensus we have managed to develop over the years on the point that action on product liability is needed. It said in that statement, ``The administration supports the enactment of limited but meaningful product liability reform at the Federal level. Any legislation must fairly balance the interests of consumers with those of manufacturers and sellers.'' It was this President who just 2 years ago signed legislation providing the American aviation industry and its consumers with provisions very much like what is in the current report for product liability reform. That bill, the general aviation bill, thoroughly described by Senator Gorton, has helped the small plane industry make a major comeback since its enactment, and the President when he signed it said he felt that this would create many, many jobs for Americans. The President was correct then in arguing for reform, and I hope, hope and hope and pray, that he will seize the opportunity of moderate, balanced reform that our conference report presents to him now. Mr. President, I believe this conference report is the legislation the President was calling for last May. I truly believe that it is. I consulted with the administration every step of the way during this long process to meet its parameters and those of many of my Democratic colleagues. I felt an obligation to so do. I think and believe that my colleagues know how hard I have fought to stay within these parameters. Now we are voting on the conference report that produces the product liability reform the Democrats and Republicans in both Houses have toiled in the vineyards to achieve these many years. At a time when America clearly faces threats to our jobs and economic growth across the world, where they do not have the same maze of conflicting laws, we should do everything we can to suit up, not surrender. Consumers should not have to bear the costs of ridiculous delays or be denied the breakthrough drugs or other innovations that the current system scares off. So I think this conference report, in concluding, Mr. President, has earned the votes of those who support meaningful product liability reform in good faith, those who sincerely mean it. The final decision, of course, is the President's. He said he is going to veto it. Having so said, obviously, he has a chance to hear this debate, to rethink his position, and to change his position itself and, in fact, to sign the bill. He could still do that. As I have said, I hope he will take that time and see this vote as a reason to reconsider his position. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the State of Washington. Mr. President, we are about now to vote on what I think is an enormously important bill in terms of human beings and in terms of the prospects for a better growing economy. However, I will be specific in my closing remarks. There has been so much confusion about what is and what is not covered under product liability in the conference report, and I think that is because there has been a very deliberate attempt to mislead people during the course of this debate and prior to it. There is one example I hope will enlighten my colleagues. Yesterday I received a letter from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which incorrectly quoted the legislation and, from that, concluded that drunk driving cases would be protected. That is totally wrong. Drunk driving cases will not be covered by this bill. Here is what MADD said. The bill covers ``harm caused by a product or product use''. Here is the correct quote, Mr. President. The bill covers ``harm caused by a product.'' It is product liability that we are talking about--not product use but product. There is a huge difference. Mr. President, many other well-meaning workers and people have been totally mislead about what this bill covers. The issue of what is covered and what is not covered is this: Is it the product that causes harm? If yes, then it is covered in the bill. However, if the person using the product that causes harm--such as the driver of a car--the case is not covered by this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I strongly endorse the Hollings- Daschle-Kerrey-Lieberman-Bingaman-Rockefeller-Kerry Amendment to H.R. 3019 that was debated last night, and to praise Senator Hollings for offering this amendment that I cosponsored. This amendment would have restored funds for three key Department of Commerce programs: the Advanced Technology Program, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program, and Technology Administration as well as funding for Educational and Environmental Technologies. Restoring these funds is essential to making progress in generating more jobs for Americans, a better education system, protecting the environment, and maintaining our Nation's ability to compete and excel in research. As a nation, we have used the best mix of individual innovation and national cooperative efforts to develop the most advanced and most productive economy in the world. Cooperative government and industry investments have brought us computers, the Internet, new treatments for disease, a better environment, and the moon. And these investments have brought us new industries; high-quality, high-paying jobs; and an improved standard of living. But today, Americans understand that the ground underneath them is shifting--they have seen their work and workplaces transformed by new technologies and global competition. These changes and their consequences are as profound as the economic shifts that moved us from farms to factories more than a century ago. Now, as then, there is no way to reverse the tide. Now, as then, the fortunes of working people are uncertain as the landscape around them is remade. Working Americans have reason to be worried, reasons, even, to be angry. They are working harder than ever, but their jobs are less secure, their wages are stagnant, and their benefits and pensions are shrinking. All this when company profits and CEO salaries are rising. Parents are putting in more hours at the office. Precious time taken from Little League games and PTA meetings and family dinners. And the strain--on families, schools, neighborhoods, on what makes a civil society--is all too apparent. At the same time, Mr. President, ``Reaganomics'' can't seem to disappear for good, no matter how clear the evidence is from the 1980's that this is a dangerous course and bad economic policy. The Reagan manifesto might have been written for a Warren G. Harding campaign speech. Big tax breaks for top-income earners and corporations--a trickle from the top will grow jobs and wages. Drop safety standards and environmental safeguards--an invisible hand will protect workers and consumers. Push the disabled, elderly, and poor children off the wagon. In a trance, Congress cooperated in the eighties when Reagan told them to cut taxes on the rich and corporations. In the last decade tax rates for top-income brackets were lowered from 70 percent to 40 percent. And, the share of the tax burden that corporations pay has been reduced from 15 percent to 10 percent over the last decade. The minimum wage was stunted. And, domestic spending was cut from nearly 5 percent of the Federal budget to about 3\1/2\ percent since 1980. To what end? Some people benefitted--some a whole lot. Since 1980, more than $800 billion was added to household incomes--but 98 percent of that money went to the richest 20 percent. That means all the rest, 80 percent of American households, shared just 2 percent of the gains. In fact, the average American family is now getting by on less than they had in 1980. For a fortunate handful of Americans, the transformation from an industrial to an information economy offers unlimited opportunity and fantastic profit. But for most, right now, this new economy demands more and offers less--it demands more education, more skills, more flexibility, more time; but offers less pay, less benefits, and less security. Working families are running faster and losing ground--a raw deal that undermines the crucial link between work and personal progress, and breeds the anger and cynicism that are poisoning our society and our political debate. I believe there are clear, common-sense, approaches that must be followed to enable all Americans to gain the fruits of our success. Our trade and monetary policies must work for working people. We need trade agreements based on only giving access when we get exactly that for our products. We have to say no to agreements that push our jobs across our borders. Let's live in the real world, and demand other countries to live up to environmental and labor standards they avoid to get the upper hand. The Fed should be as aggressive in promoting growth to benefit workers as they are with managing inflation to benefit bondholders. And we must have investments in education, training, infrastructure, and technology that produce dividends for working people here at home. Investments in people are every bit as important as investment in equipment. But unless that's better known and understood, human investments will keep shriveling through the budget cuts already being made. Behind the banner of a balanced budget, we are in danger of surrendering what really spreads opportunity in America--the chance to learn, to train, and to excel. Investments in science and technology are a key part of the solution. As the President's Council of Economic Advisors recently reported, investments in innovation have been responsible for almost one-half of the Nation's economic growth. This Nation has had a 50-year consensus on investments in science in technology. We have made these investments to expand the basic store of knowledge both because of our exploring, inquisitive nature and because we know the benefits are unpredictable. We have invested in biological research that improves our ability to feed our people and attack disease. And we have invested in new technologies in support of Federal missions, technologies that created new industries and jobs in aviation, electronics, software, and communications. But those very programs that are key to our technological progress are now under threat. If it had passed, our Hollings-Daschle-Kerry Amendment would have lessened that threat by restoring funds for technology programs that invest in new innovations with broad benefits for the Nation. Recently, we have realized that with fierce global competition, this Nation must invest in innovation to advance economic growth. We are investing in the Advanced Technology Program with bipartisan support. President Bush's science advisor, D. Allan Bromley, realized that we can support key technologies without intervening in the market's selection of winners and losers. The Advanced Technology Program was first funded in 1991 under President George Bush. This program is important because it invests in precompetitive or generic technologies, in the neglected zone between pure research and product development. These technologies are essential to technological progress for several industries or companies and are too risky for individual companies to fund on their own. The ATP will help to develop new technologies and new industries before other countries do. We must keep investing in the Department of Commerce Technology Administration. This is the one office in the Federal Government that is dedicated to advancing national investments in technology in support of economic growth. TA works to develop policies and partnerships that assist industrial innovation. And the office is supporting cooperative technology ventures between United States and Israeli companies that will be a win-win effort for both nations. This commitment is especially crucial now, as Israel reels from a string of devastating terrorist attacks. We must keep investing in educational technologies, technologies that will improve classroom learning and increase our student's chance to excel and succeed. And we must invest in connecting schools, libraries, and hospitals to the world of the Internet. Funding grants from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program [TIIAP] will enable these institutions to develop new applications that will increase students skills, improve health care, and extend telephone service in rural areas. This is particularly important to my home State of West Virginia, a heavily rural State. A TIIAP grant to the State library system will give citizens of West Virginia access to information around the globe. We must keep investing in new, innovative environmental technologies, that will result in higher levels of environmental protection at lower costs for industry. These new technologies offer U.S. companies opportunities for increased exports and more jobs here at home. These programs are essential investments to our Nation's economic future. They mean new industries and high-quality, high-wage jobs. They mean an improved environment. They mean a better education and greater opportunities for students and workers. Our Nation must act--if we do not, our competitors are ready to take advantage. While we are considering cutting our investments in nondefense R&D by 30 percent by 2002, Japan is about to double its Government's investments. We cannot go back and we should not go back--old policies need to change to meet new needs. But we should hold on to what we learned in that earlier era, and carry those lessons into the 1990's and the 21st century. Lessons of hard work and fair play, of balance between business and worker, of investment in people and technology should guide us as we meet the challenges of today and the future. With the continued leadership of Senator Hollings for America's economic strength and jobs, I will persist as well in pressing the case for the investments that our amendment attempted to rescue. We will not give up, because jobs for our people and the American dream are at stake.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am delighted to join today with the chairman of the committee, Senator Simpson, in introducing legislation that would reform eligibility for VA health care. We are doing so at the request of the four veterans service organizations--AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars--that develop the so-called independent budget [IB]. While it was my policy, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to introduce legislation proposed by the administration so that my colleagues and others with an interest would have specific bills to which they might direct their attention and comments, I have not done that for entities other than the administration. Senator Simpson has followed a similar policy in his two terms as the committee's chairman. However, in this instance, we have agreed to introduce this legislation so that it might be before the committee later in this session when we take up the issue of the reform of the current eligibility criteria for VA health care. In introducing administration-requested legislation, we always reserved the right to support the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, such by-request legislation. Obviously, that same policy applies to the bill we are introducing today. While I have been working with representatives of the IB group for many months in an effort to translate the group's narrative description of proposed eligibility reform into legislative language, I have done so without in any way endorsing the result. I intend to wait to support any specific eligibility reform legislation until after the committee has held hearings and the many issues connected with this subject have been explored in some depth and detail.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is now considering legislation to improve the transfer of technology from Federal laboratories to the private sector. Two related bills are now before the Senate: First, S. 1164, which I introduced and have been joined as a cosponsor by the distinguished Science Subcommittee chairman, Senator Burns, and second, the House-passed companion bill, H.R. 2196, introduced by the distinguished chairwoman of the House Technology Subcommittee, Representative Connie Morella. House cosponsors include Science Committee chairman, Bob Walker, Science Committee ranking member, George Brown, and Technology Subcommittee ranking, member, John Tanner. We also have consulted closely with the administration on this bill. It is my hope that the Senate will now pass H.R. 2196 with small perfecting and clarification amendments worked out in consultation with interested Senators. We have worked with the House on these perfecting amendments, and I hope that the House can pass the amended H.R. 2196 without further changes, clearing the bill for transmittal to the President. The title of the House-passed bill is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. The Senate title is similar: the Technology Transfer Improvements Act. The two bills are based on earlier legislation that Representative Morella and I introduced in the last Congress and which has been thoroughly checked with all interested parties. The current legislation makes valuable amendments in existing law but contains no authorizations or controversial spending proposals. It has bipartisan support here in Congress, and has the support of the administration. The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 1164 without objection on November 3 of last year. H.R. 2196 passed the House by voice vote on December 12. Mr. President, this is a constructive bill that has earned the bipartisan support now evident. The legislation has three main parts. First, the heart of both bills is legislation that Mrs. Morella and I authored to help improve the transfer of technology from Federal laboratories to the private sector. The Federal Government spends some $20 billion a year on its laboratories. They employ some of the finest scientists and engineers in the world, have some of the best facilities and new technologies. This bill will cut the time and redtape involved in creating joint research projects between companies and these Federal laboratories. And that, Mr. President, will help companies in West Virginia and all across the country. The country or countries that can develop and use new technologies most quickly and efficiently will win the markets of the future. This bill will help speed joint research projects, and increase their number, leading to new technologies that companies can use to produce new products, revitalize existing ones, and build markets. And that means more jobs and a more competitive America. Second, the bill contains important amendments to the Fastener Quality Act of 1990, a law which regulates the manufacture and sale of high-strength bolts and other fasteners used in safety-related applications such as motor vehicles, aircraft, and buildings. These amendments have been championed here in the Senate by Senator Burns, and they will reduce the burden of the law on private industry while maintaining public safety. Third, the House version of the bill now before us contains several nonspending measures regarding technical agencies and the use of private-sector technical standards. background on the technology transfer provisions Mr. President, the heart of the legislation, in both the Senate and House versions, is section 4, which will improve the transfer of technology from Federal laboratories by giving both laboratories and industrial partners clearer guidelines on the distribution of intellectual property rights from inventions resulting from cooperative research projects. Specifically, the bill amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act, which since 1986 has allowed Federal laboratories to enter into cooperative research and development agreements [CRADA's] with industry and other collaborating parties. The laboratories can contribute people, facilities, equipment, and ideas, but not funding, and the companies contribute people and funding. As I pointed out when I introduced S. 1164 on August 10, even under the current law the CRADA provision has been a success. Hundreds of these agreements have been signed and carried out in recent years, making expertise and technology that the Federal Government has already paid for through its mission-related work available to the wider economy. But we also have seen a problem. Currently, the law provides little guidance on what intellectual property rights a collaborating partner should receive from a CRADA. The current law gives agencies very broad discretion on this matter, which provides flexibility but also means that both companies and laboratory executives must laboriously negotiate patent rights each time they discuss a new CRADA. Neither side has much guidance as to what constitutes an appropriate agreement regarding intellectual property developed under the CRADA. Options range from assigning full patent title to the company all the way to providing the firm with only a nonexclusive license for a narrow field of use. In conversations with company executives, we learned that this uncertainty--and the time and effort involved in negotiating intellectual property from scratch in each CRADA--was often a barrier to working with some laboratories. Companies are reluctant to enter into a CRADA, or, equally important, to commit additional resources to commercialize a CRADA invention, unless they have some assurance they will control important patent rights. In 1993, I began working with Congresswoman Morella on possible ways to reduce the uncertainty and negotiating burden facing companies, while still ensuring that the Government interest remains protected. To begin legislative discussion on this matter, I introduced S. 1537 on October 7, 1993, for myself and Senator DeConcini, then chairman of the Senate Patent Subcommittee. That bill would have directed Federal laboratories to assign to the collaborating party--the company--title to any intellectual property arising from a CRADA, in exchange for reasonable compensation to the laboratory and certain patent safeguards. S. 1537 also contained a second provision--an additional incentive for Federal scientists to report and develop inventions that might have commercial as well as government value. The General Accounting Office [GAO] had recommended that Federal inventors receive more of the royalties received by laboratories as government compensation under CRADA's. My bill incorporated that recommendation. Soon after Senator DeConcini and I introduced our bill, Congresswoman Morella introduced the companion House bill, H.R. 3590. In subsequent House and Senate hearings, the bill received strong support from industry, professional societies, trade associations, and the administration. At that point, we also began working closely with Commerce Department Under Secretary for Technology Mary Good and her staff, who helped us obtain detailed technical suggestions from executive branch agencies and other patent experts. We made major progress during the 103d Congress, but in 1994 ran out of time to complete action on the legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his interest in this matter, and I respect his judgment on these issues. To answer his question, it is this Senator's intent that, prior to any equipment being leased or loaned under this provision, a Federal agency shall issue guidance which clearly states the steps a lab director or agency head shall take in order to clearly define the Federal Government's liability and responsibility with respect to the leased or loaned property. Such guidance should address issues like: The ongoing Federal obligation to maintain or upgrade the leased equipment; the necessary steps to adequately train the recipient in the safe and proper use of the equipment; the appropriate inventory controls needed to track the equipment which both the lab and the recipient institution should have in place; and whether any financial issues, such as equipment depreciation, should be considered in the lease-loan agreement.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to give its unanimous support to the pending measure, H.R. 2353. This legislation is the final compromise on legislation reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on September 20, 1995, and originally passed by the Senate on January 5, 1996. The debate on the original Senate passage begins on page S102 of the Record for January 5. The House passed this compromise on January 25, 1996. This legislation would extend a variety of veterans programs and authorities that have expired. The proposed extensions are relatively short-term ones--1 or 2 years--to ensure that the program or authority remains in place while the committee takes the opportunity to review the various issues in more detail. Mr. President, I regret the delay in the final action on this legislation--first in the Senate, and now at final passage, when the House, rather than passing the bill as passed by the Senate, returned it to us after a delay so that certain very minor provisions--which I will describe in a moment--could be added to this measure. This is a simple extender bill, and it should have been passed months ago. We should not be in the situation of allowing Government benefits and programs to expire. We must do better. Mr. President, there is no objection as far as I know to any of the provisions in the bill as it comes before the Senate today. I urge its swift enactment so that it can reach the President as soon as possible for his signature.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to place in the Record a copy of a speech about the wrenching subject of racism, written by a good friend and colleague. Mr. Jim H. Paige III is the West Virginia Secretary of Tax and Revenue, and he recently gave this speech before the 115th Annual West Virginia Council of Churches Governing Assembly. Its words struck me as most sincere, insightful, and educational. I hope it will be just as beneficial to everyone else. Despite America's proud history as the melting pot Nation, we still struggle with the signs and attitudes of racism in virtually every corner of our society. It is a problem that most Americans would say is abhorrent and unjustifiable, but also one that will not disappear without even more effort. But I believe it is not only possible to combat discrimination, it is also essential. Diversity in background, skin color, family ancestry, religion, and geography should be celebrated and viewed as the way to build a stronger nation. The more thought and study each of us give to the issues of racism and discrimination, and the more discussions we hold with others on how to spread tolerance and equality, the more we can enlighten and educate ourselves to move toward making equality for all people a reality. It is my honor to submit this compelling text by a very fine West Virginian into the Congressional Record. The text follows: Speech to the West Virginia Council of Churches Governing Assembly, October 19, 1995 (By Jim H. Paige III) It is indeed an honor to be asked to participate in your Annual Governing Assembly. I have been intrigued with the forum which has been organized here and impressed that you set aside a special time to discuss the hopes and concerns of West Virginia's spiritual community. I was asked to speak here tonight about racism. It is a topic that deserves our most intellectual thoughts and energies. Historically, as you know, in the 1860's the most divisive issue in the United States was slavery. The issue of slavery divided the nation. The industrial North had very little use for slave labor. However, the agricultural South had a great need for a large slave labor pool. At that time, slavery was based strictly on race. The Civil War was fought and the slave issue was settled, but the issue of racism was not resolved. Even after the Civil War and during the reconstruction period, our nation still struggled with the issue of racism. Because even after slavery, we had a legacy of Jim Crow laws--of segregation--and this issue of racism was based purely on color. So, although the Civil War was over, our nation was still confused about Lincoln's notion that ``Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal.'' And over 100 years later, in the 1950's and 60's, the nation was still divided by race. As a result, there was a whole movement led by the Civil Rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was basically trying to get America to live up to the Constitution. As Lincoln had noted earlier, our preamble states ``We hold these truths to be self-evident--that all men are created equal.'' From a historical perspective I think it interesting that during the 1860's there was a strong polarization based on slavery. And in the 1960's that polarization still existed--not on slavery, however, but on segregation, in an attempt to separate our races. So the Civil Rights movement resulted in legislation that was to end this segregation. Therefore, we experienced a desegregation of schools, of public facilities. We now have laws on the books that make segregation illegal. We come to an interesting stage in this brief historical perspective, because what the laws could not do were to change racial attitudes--the way people think and the way people feel about each other. Although tremendous strides have been made, even 30 years after the great Civil Rights movement, the issue of racism is still prevalent in our society today. The recent O.J. Simpson trial and verdict brought back to the surface again this cancer of racism. But the questions that still linger ``What is racism and how do we solve it?'' How do we define racism? In order to deal with a problem, we should try to define it first. I define it as an attitude people have in which they feel they are superior to another group of people, and that superiority gives them certain privileges of authority over those people. Now the result of racism is that the people who have been victimized by racism respond with bitterness and resentment toward those who exercise that authority. And, the alienation becomes even greater. So, if you think about it in a logical fashion, racism is based purely on ignorance. Because racism takes one criterion, a superficial criterion--race--and it passes judgment on an entire group of people. Utilizing folklore, tradition, and stereotypes--not facts, not any type of intellectual analysis--racism concludes that all the people in a certain classification are a certain way. I think we all could conclude that this type of deductive reasoning is unwise and unproductive. Whether it's black against white, whether it's white against black--it doesn't matter. This type of attitude is unproductive, unhealthy and undeserved in our society today. Now that we have defined the issue, how do we find solutions to address this evil? I don't believe racism is an issue that our government can solve. Because government cannot legislate morality. Government cannot tell people to think a certain way or feel a certain way. When our government attempts to legislate feelings and attitudes, it creates greater problems. In America, our great land of freedom and independence in which we live, we hold it as a high value and virtue that people can think thoughts they want to think and feel the way they want to feel--they have certain liberties and certain freedoms. And rightly so. The only danger of this is that when people have racial thoughts and racial feelings, it creates a tremendous hardship for society. So, if government cannot solve this problem, how can we address this major issue of racism in our society today? I think this is an issue that can only be resolved with a continuing dialogue, interaction and commitment. Racism is an activity that requires daily moral awakening that leads to real change. The only way we can overcome the stereotypes, the tradition, the false information we have been given about each other is through contact with the people we have learned to disdain and look down upon. There is nothing government can do about that. There is no way we can legislate that black people and white people must sit down together, and learn about each other, understand each other, and appreciate each other's differences. Integration certainly went a long way in bringing our races together. But further steps are needed to change attitudes. Because racism is not genetic--it's a learned value system, it is an attitude that is passed down from one generation to the next. It's a cancer which continues to rob our nation of its productivity. If we didn't have to deal with the barrier of racism, imagine the energy, talent and resources which could be directed toward solving problems in our society which are universal and common to all of us. Now let's examine some solutions to breaking this barrier of racism. First and foremost, I think one has to address this issue openly and honestly on an individual basis using self- analysis. Let me state I don't think there is anything wrong with cherishing your own race--your own culture and values--but the issue is whether you respect others who do the same. In order to have racial harmony in our culture today, we must respect our differences. Actually, to have harmony, we must have differences. For example, in the world of music. You could have an orchestra--which has stringed instruments, percussion instruments--each instrument has its own distinct sound but because they are playing from the same score, and they are contributing what they were designed to contribute, that creates a very harmonious sound which is very pleasing to the ear. Again, they are not competing with each other, they are complimenting each other. In like manner, we can have racial harmony by respecting the fact that we come from different cultural orientations and different historical experiences. But what we bring to the whole, creates something we could not have apart from each other. What we collectively bring together could be much stronger and could be much better than what the individual groups would have independently. Frederick Douglass once said, ``We are one, our cause is one, and we must help each other; if we are to succeed.'' And that's the real beauty of America--that we are stronger together as a nation than we are apart. The next step in addressing solutions toward the issue of racism in our society is one of education. And I feel that this educational component is the most important component because it starts in the home with parents teaching their children about respecting not only their own race but respecting other races as well, teaching them to love their neighbors as they would love themselves, teaching them to respect people who are different than themselves, teaching them to recognize that every individual has some intrinsic value and worth. For me, growing up as an African-American in a predominately white City and State, I learned at a very early age to appreciate different cultures because of my parents and my friends. Although I was raised in a culture which was not as economically affluent as others in which I was exposed, I still maintained a high degree of respect for both cultures. Because my goal as I got older was to pull from the strength of both cultures to be the best person I could possibly be. And it's important to note, that one of the severe consequences of racism is that it robs people from being the best they can possibly be, because racism does not allow people to pull from the strengths of others. Therefore, education at home and education in school is the key to opening our minds, to breaking down stereotypes, myths and folklore about other cultures. Because education is the key, I extend to you an opportunity to work with me. I have established several Learning Centers around the state with the primary focus of educating our young people about the difference education can make in their lives. I invite you to come and share your experiences with these children who come from different cultures and races. Together we can learn from each other and attack the problems which we are finding in our communities--illiteracy, juvenile delinquency, ignorance. I'm sure most of you would agree, that these young people are worth saving. And as influential leaders, as spiritual leaders, I believe that ``giving back'' to your individual communities will do more to eradicate racism than all of the marches and trials put together. Your example as a role model in your community is very influential when children are small, but it certainly does not stop there. It is very critical for a young person to have someone to turn to for guidance when they reach an age that they are making the big chioces that will influence their future, whether to stay in school or drop out, whether to stick with their gang or try to move on as an individual, whether to try to hold a job or make money some easier, more dangerous way. Someone of this age can really benefit from association with a mentor--an adult with valuable life experience who can guide a young person through some of the tough decisions that he will have to make. Some schools or churches have formal programs where individuals are paired based on common interests or goals. An adult who is a physical therapist, for example, may be paired with a young person who is interested in pursuing a career in the health field. The adult knows what it will take in practical terms for a person to achieve this goal and is, therefore, a tremendous resource for a young person to have for encouragement. If there is such a program in your area, I urge you to consider becoming involved. If there is not, keep your eyes open for ways that you can support the dreams of young people around you. Dr. William Julius Wilson, the sociologist, grew up poor. His father died when he was twelve. He was the oldest of six children. When asked how he was able to achieve under such circumstances, he said: ``I was able to get out of that situation because first of all, I always had a role model out there, my aunt Janice, who was the first person in our family to get a college education. She used to take me to museums and give me books to read, and so on. And then I served as a role model for my other brothers and sisters.'' This speaks powerfully to the tremendous influence that a role model can have on a person's life. There are countless opportunities for you to put the skills you've learned in life to use helping others make their way. And I am really convinced that this is where all real change, all real building for the future takes place--on a very personal level right around you. In the past, some communities have sunk deeper and deeper into decay, waiting for someone to come to the rescue. I say, ``We are our own rescuers. We are the ones who will save ourselves.'' We can hope for money or assistance to come from somewhere. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. But we cannot afford to sit and wait. We must do what we can, what is within our power, to make our communities sounder, our children's lives more promising. We need to take advantage of every program that is currently in operation to make our streets safer and our futures brighter. We are the ones who live in our neighborhoods. If we do not care enough to do our very best to make that place a good area in which to live, then why should we expect others to? We have the most to gain by working to improve our communities and the most to lose by sitting back and waiting. If we want better lives, then the very first step is doing what each one of us can do to make positive things happen. Start with you, with your family, your street, this church. We must first be responsible for ourselves and our activities. Then sometimes you find that changes that occur in small places often lead to dramatic changes in wider areas. You never know where your example and influence will lead. But I do know that for any of it to be successful, for any change to occur, we must Maybe you are not the mayor or a famous athlete or a wealthy contributor to charity. But you are a person who influences the quality of every life he touches in small ways and in large ways. Use that power constructively. Use the tools that God gave you to change your world for the better. And this is how I answer the question, ``How do we teach our children how to deal with racism?'' A change for our futures and our children's futures must come from me and you. Society's rules should change, and eventually I think they probably will. But think of the time wasted while we sat waiting for that miraculous day to happen. I feel we are all called to be citizens of action. Today is the day, now is the best time, to start building that new life. In closing, I commend your organization's effort here this evening, because we all know that Jesus's ministry is one of reconciliation. We will soon enter into our third century as a nation. Whether we build in that third century a civilization we can be proud of depends on whether we can arrive at a common conception of what that civilization might stand for or what it might do superbly well. It really depends on us and our children. The mantle of leadership has fallen on our shoulders. So let's make this event more than just a dinner and keynote speech, let's allow it to be the first building block in overcoming this barrier of racism. Thank you.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, education determines our future--the future of our children, our States, and our Nation. Without a good education, children in West Virginia cannot fulfill their potential. Our country must increase its commitment to education, not pare it back, in order to meet the fierce challenges of a highly competitive world and to ensure the long-term security of our citizens. While I recognize the need to enact this next continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government open, I am immensely sorry to see that the majority party still persists in cutting education and other programs that are so essential to the families of our States. The $3 billion cut in education programs, implicit in the funding levels of this bill, is exactly what Americans fear. Obviously, the continuing resolution has to pass to avoid a much larger crisis. But this education amendment I am cosponsoring will establish a clear record that some of us believe education should be treated as the priority that it is for children and families, and some do not. Education is a priority for the people of West Virginia and our country. And it has been a priority for me throughout my career in public service. Because of other, noneducation issues, the full Senate has not had its opportunity to vote on education funding this Congress, and consequently this continuing resolution endorses the House-passed education cuts, up to 25 percent. This is too harsh, and it will devastate education funding in counties across my State, potentially causing lay-offs among title 1 teachers. When the House of Representatives passed its appropriations bill that cuts education programs so severely, I wrote to West Virginia school superintendents to ask what would happen in their counties if such cuts became law. According to the Nicholas County Superintendent: . . . a reduction of federal dollars would be hard to overcome. The cuts in Title 1 would mean loss of services to our students in critical programs that would reflect in lower test scores. . .. The increasing cost of equipment and supplies for Vocational Education especially in the area of technology have doubled yearly. Our students desperately need the equipment and supplies to gain the skill necessary for productive and worthwhile lives after graduation. . .. Our country cannot be put in the position of having a second rate educational system as compared to other countries in the world. If our students are not prepared both academically and with the skills necessary to compete in a worldwide job market, our country will fall behind and eventually deteriorate. Other superintendents sent similar letters. I completely agree with William Grizzell, the Nicholas County Superintendent, and the other West Virginia educators who wrote to me. We must continue to invest in education for our children and I support the Kennedy amendment for them and for the students who need title 1, Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, vocational education, and other effective education programs. Opponents of the Kennedy amendment claim that this amendment will hurt other programs within the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. They say that it will impose harsher cuts on the National Institute of Health and other meritorious programs. Such an argument is a smoke- screen. This argument assumes that Congress and the President will ultimately accept the spending levels approved by the House of Representatives in August 1995. Since then, the President and congressional leaders have already acknowledged that funding should be increased in the key areas. We should not accept the argument of opponents and allow a short-term, 7 week spending bill dominate--and devastate--education funding for an entire year. We should not kid ourselves and pretend that we are ``helping our children in the future'' with a Federal budget that cripples education and program cuts that limit educational opportunities for children from Head Start through college. It is simply wrong. We should not accept such harsh cuts in education programs and risk our children's future. I am sorry to see the majority party pushing a continuing resolution that treats education and children so poorly. This is a big mistake, and I support this amendment to make it clear that some of us really stand by our words about the importance of educating every child to his and her potential.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly devoted teacher, mentor, and friend to the youth in my State of West Virginia, Mr. Walter Wieloh. It is heartening and inspiring, I believe, to learn about the career of Mr. Wieloh, a man who dedicated 40 years of his life to teaching. He has been a member of the faculty at Madonna Catholic High School in Weirton, WV, since 1955, teaching several generations of families in the area. In December, he was honored at a special event at the high school, and I wanted to add my public congratulations to Mr. Wieloh. His career of service to students and his commitment to education for four decades can be an example to all of us. Walter Wieloh started his teaching career when Madonna High School opened in 1955, and he has been both educator and friend to generations of high school students. To students, he has always been a presence of wisdom and of guidance, inside the classroom and out. The current principal of Madonna, Mr. Robert J. Gill, recalls fondly his days as a student, and later as a colleague, of Mr. Wieloh. He recognizes him as a force of inspiration to students and an example of professionalism to fellow teachers. Mr. President, Walter Wieloh should be an inspiration to us as well. In his 40 years of educating the youth of Weirton, WV, he represents many hardworking teachers across the country who have helped improve the lives and future of the students in their classrooms every year. Encouraging young people to learn, excel, and make the transition to adulthood is a challenge that every high school teacher faces, and Walter Wieloh has been a leader for Weirton Madonna High School. On behalf of every West Virginian, I commend Walter Wieloh. He definitely brings pride to his profession, and our State.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to give its unanimous support to the pending measure, S. 991, legislation that would extend a variety of veterans programs and authorities that have expired. The proposed extensions are relatively short-term ones--1 or 2 years--to ensure that the program or authority remains in place while the committee takes the opportunity to review the various issues in more detail. Consideration of this measure was sought late last month so that it might have been enacted before a number of the programs and authorities actually expired, but we were blocked from acting at that time by an objection unrelated to any provision in the bill. I truly regret that the Senate was delayed in considering this measure, but am pleased that we are now about to act on it. My sincere hope is that our colleagues in the House will take it up as soon as possible so as to remove any question about the programs and authorities covered by this legislation. Mr. President, this measure was ordered reported, without written report, by the Veterans' Affairs Committee on September 20, 1995, and comes before the Senate today with an amendment offered by the committee chairman, Senator Simpson. The chairman's amendment, which I support, deletes one provision from the bill as ordered reported-- relating to VA's authority to guarantee home loans involving adjustable rate mortgages--because of unanticipated costs being attributed to the enactment of that provision by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition, his amendment adds four additional extension provisions--all relating to VA's home loan guaranty program--that came to the committee's attention after the committee meeting in September. There is no objection as far as I know to any of the provisions in the bill as it will be amended, and I urge its swift enactment so that it can reach the House as soon as possible for action in that Chamber.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. In responding to the Senator from Massachusetts, it is really a matter, I think, of fundamental shock as well as distortion of truth that these ads are portraying. What we have been doing in the course of this particular year 1995 is looking at Medicare and Medicaid all by themselves without any sort of thought about comprehensive health care reform at all, which means it is like you are trying to take a gigantic system and just reorganize one part of it. What Mrs. Clinton was talking about a year or more ago in this television ad, she was in the process of leading an effort, along with the President and the rest of us, which did not succeed, to try to reform health care as a whole and to really give a chance for Medicare and Medicaid to take their proper role within a reformed total health care system in the private sector. So to the Senator from Massachusetts, I would say he is absolutely right. All of those cuts she was talking about were being plowed right back into Medicare, into senior citizens in the form of prescription drugs and long-term care. Because there were tremendous efforts being made to control costs in the private sector, there was not any of the cost-shifting involved that we are seeing in the debate this year because it was comprehensive health care, cost control within the private sector, plus the fact that you were not going to have, back then, the situation of doctors refusing to see patients, Medicare patients because perhaps the fee would not be adequate, or you certainly would not have seniors being forced into HMO's and other things. So the choosing of the doctor, the fact that the money was all being put back into Medicare really makes the perpetrators of this ad a rather shameful lot, and it is a tremendous disservice to Mrs. Clinton, who did everything that a human could possibly do to try to make health care better for all Americans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this year, I have consistently argued for reform of the welfare system. Today, I voted against legislation that misuses the label ``welfare reform'' and deserves to be soundly rejected. I am extremely disappointed that an extremist faction of Congress managed to turn a historic chance for enacting welfare reform into another way to pursue an agenda that will hurt children, weaken families, and cripple State budgets. To pursue this mean-spirited program so close to Christmas makes it all the sadder and more shameful. I am determined to press on for real welfare reform that promotes work, reduces dependency, and protects innocent children. I have personally worked to promote welfare reform for many years as Governor of West Virginia and in the U.S. Senate, and I will not give up. In 1982, as Governor, I helped establish one of the first workfare programs in the country, which continues in West Virginia today. In 1988, I was a conferee who helped forge a bipartisan agreement to promote work in the Family Support Act. This year, I have been eager to work in a bipartisan manner to promote even bolder initiatives for welfare reform that could build on the innovations started by the Family Support Act, and state-led experimentation. My fundamental principles for reform are that parents should accept personal responsibility and work, but that children must be protected, not punished. We should never forget that two-thirds of the people on welfare are children, and 70,000 of them live in my State of West Virginia. They are the innocent ones, and they should not be punished because of their birth. I was an original cosponsor of the Work First plan, sponsored by Senators Daschle, Mikulski, and Breaux, because I strongly felt that this program was the best initiative to promote work and still protect the millions of children who depend on welfare for basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. When our Democratic alternative was not adopted, I was willing to work in a bipartisan manner in the Senate to try and forge an agreement. I voted for the Dole-Daschle leadership amendment and the bipartisan Senate welfare bill. It was not perfect, and no comprehensive bill can be. It was a sincere effort to reform our welfare system and retain some fundamental safety net programs for children, especially child welfare and foster care. Unfortunately, the bipartisan approach taken in the Senate was not adopted by the conference committee. As Senator Moynihan, the ranking member of the Finance Committee said in his statement, the conferees were not consulted. In fact, one of the Senate Republican conferees did not even sign the conference report. Several Republican Senators have expressed serious concerns about disturbing policy changes tucked into the conference report that do not belong in a welfare reform bill. Having served on the conference committee in 1988 for the Family Support Act, which passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote of 96 to 1, I am disappointed that this was not the model for negotiations on this legislation. The conference committee for the Family Support Act included hard work and tough decisions, but it was a sincere, bipartisan effort and it produced modest success, and the framework for innovation that led to this debate. There are many issues involved in this debate and the conference report. Many of the cuts are in programs beyond our current general welfare program, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, [AFDC]. Personally, it is the cuts and drastic changes to the other programs that trouble me greatly. For example, this conference report eliminates assured Medicaid eligibility for poor children over 13 years old, and poor mothers. As someone who has fought to expand health care coverage for families, this is too much of a step backwards. This report cuts child nutrition in general and allows for block grants of the successful school lunch program in seven States as a demonstration. What happens in those seven States when a recession hits and more children qualify and need school lunches, but Federal funding doesn't increase? The harsher cuts in Supplemental Security Income [SSI] for disabled children and the two- tier benefit structure that reduces benefits by 25 percent for the majority of disabled children are disappointing, given the bipartisan Senate position on SSI for disabled children. Throughout this year and the general debate on welfare reform, I have focused much on my time and energy on the Federal programs for abused and neglected children--child welfare services, foster care, and adoption assistance for children with special needs. Children served by these programs are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are children at risk of abuse and neglect, often in their own homes by their parents, and I deeply believe that we have a moral obligation to protect these children. But this conference report does not adequately protect such vulnerable children, and I do not believe that it reflects the bipartisan approach to child welfare programs strongly endorsed in the Finance Committee and on the Senate floor. In this Chamber, a strong, bipartisan coalition supported retaining current law for child welfare and foster care in recognition of the special needs of these children. The conference report on child welfare and foster care falls woefully short of the needs of abused and neglected children. A broad range of child advocates and bipartisan groups oppose the block grants suggested in the conference report. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that a list of these advocates be printed in the Record. Having served as chairman of the National Commission on Children, my goal is to improve services to abused and neglected children as suggested our unanimous, bipartisan report, not work to dismantle, effective programs. For example, the conference report would eliminate the Independent Living program, a small but effective program offering an alternative to foster care of teens. The conference report would eliminate the promising Family Preservation and Family Support Program which I helped to create in 1993, and this program has received good initial reviews from the Government Accounting Office [GAO]. Additionally, the conference report would block grant and cap vital Federal funding for foster care placement services, including recruiting foster care parents and other essential services. This is the wrong direction for child welfare, and it is the wrong time to undercut these program if we are to move ahead on bold reform of general welfare, known as AFDC. For West Virginia, the stakes in this debate are high. My State is eager to promote work and has already been approved by the Clinton administration for a waiver to create the Joint Opportunities for Independence [JOIN] to encourage private employers to hire welfare recipients. Having personally met with the top officials in the Department of Human Resources, I know of their interest to reform welfare. West Virginia also has regions of high unemployment and difficult transportation issues. My State is struggling to cope for a Medicaid funding crunch and can ill afford to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in social service programs and at the same time be slapped with higher work requirements for welfare families. West Virginia wants to, and is already, moving families from welfare to work, but my State needs continuing Federal investments in child care and support services to run effective programs. Even the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], acknowledges that this conference report is $6 billion short on the funding needed to child care to move parents into work. Let me reiterate. I want to enact meaningful welfare reform that moves parents from welfare to work. Since the President has already said he will veto this bill, it is time to make a New Year's resolution for 1996 that Congress will revive the bipartisan cooperation and effort needed to accomplish the kind of welfare reform that Americans have every right to expect. Mr. President, I now ask that the aforementioned list be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I wish to comment on title I of the conference report on H.R. 2099, the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriation bill. Mr. President, I realize that this has been a very difficult year for funding actions. I also know that, when compared to other agencies covered by this bill, VA is treated relatively well. Having said that, I have to say that this appropriation conference report is bad news for VA which, in turn, means bad news for America's veterans, their dependents, and their survivors. The medical care appropriation is $16.56 billion. This is better than the level passed by the Senate, but nearly $400 million below the amount proposed by the President. That amount is what VA needs to support the current level of health care services. At the funding level in the conference report, VA will be forced to cut back on the level of services carried out in fiscal year 1995. In human terms, nearly 90,000 eligible veterans will be denied inpatient and outpatient care this year. The equivalent of three VA hospitals will have to be shut down, and 5,000 VA health care professionals will lose their jobs. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to focus on these repercussions. Too often we become numb when we just hear such numbers and we lose sight of the human element in what we are doing. These are real people that will be affected--veterans who answered our country's call in her times of need, who now need real health care. They will be turned away from care or will be made to wait an inordinate period of time to receive the care they need--the care they deserve--the care they have earned. In my State there are four VA medical centers. Each plays an important role in its community. Each furnishes vital care to veterans in the geographic region served. Funding cuts at the level contained in the conference report will lead to cuts in that service, and to a denial of service to my constituents who are veterans--some with disabilities from their service, others who managed to complete their service without injury, but who are now unable to afford health care. Such a result is wrongheaded. I deeply regret that we are about to accept and approve it. I also find it disturbing that we are cutting VA below current services at the very time that cutbacks are being proposed in Medicare and Medicaid. There is every reason to suspect that, as individuals are pushed out of those programs by the changes being contemplated, veterans who have relied on either Medicare or Medicaid will turn to VA for needed care. VA health care is at a crossroads, and many innovative and dynamic changes are happening within the system. It is possible--indeed likely--that some of the changes about to be enacted will yield some significant efficiencies in how VA furnishes health care in the years to come. I am deeply concerned, however, that these cuts in the funding needed by VA to furnish care in the coming fiscal year will actually undercut efforts that could allow VA to function more effectively in the future. This is the worst time to be making blind cuts in VA funding, with no appreciation of how such cuts can affect VA's future. I have heard the suggestion that, since the number of veterans is declining, these cutbacks in VA health care are justified. While it is true that the overall veterans population is coming down--it is now just over 26 million--demand for VA care continues to increase, a phenomenon that is easy to understand when one realizes that, as the veterans population continues to age, the demand for health care services actually is on the rise. As our veterans age, we should not be allowing the promises a grateful Nation made to be undone in our headlong rush to balance the budget. I am also deeply concerned about the cuts in the level of general operating expenses which fund the administration of the nonmedical activities of VA. While the Senate-passed level of $880 million was over $35 million below the President's request, it was significantly above the House-passed level and promised some opportunity for VA to continue to reduce the terrible backlog of claims in the Veterans Benefits Administration. Unfortunately, the level of GOE funding in the conference report, $843 million, will almost certainly mean that not only will VA fail to improve, the recent trend will be reversed and the backlog will grow. I readily acknowledge that there are many problems that cannot be corrected by a simple infusion of funding. It is also true that VA's claims backlog is the result of far more than a simple lack of resources. However, it cannot be denied that the backlog problem can only worsen when there is insufficient funding to allow VA to meet the demand for services. The funding for GOE in the conference report is clearly insufficient, and I deeply regret that result. I am very disappointed that the conference report includes onerous restrictions on overall funding and travel funding for the Office of the Secretary. I fear that this is little more than a petty assault on the person of the current secretary, Secretary Brown, and does not represent any reasoned policy decision. I think such an action in the context of an appropriations bill is unworthy of the Congress, and I deeply regret that conferees felt compelled to stoop to such a level. The conference report includes funding for some construction projects which have not been authorized by the two Veterans' Affairs Committees. These include clinics at two sites--Brevard County, Florida, and Fairfield, California--where the Administration proposed to build medical centers, but the Appropriations Committees refused to fund them. While the two medical centers were authorized, the freestanding clinics are not, and, pursuant to section 8104 of title 38, United States Code, VA cannot spend funds for these unauthorized projects. I am not clear what the intention of the conferees is on this issue, but I am confident that, without specific action by the Veterans' Affairs Committees to authorize these projects, VA will not be able to spend the funds appropriated in this bill. I also note that, during a markup in the Veterans' Affairs Committee earlier this year, I offered an amendment which would have authorized all of the construction projects proposed in the President's budget, but my amendment was defeated. I would be remiss if I failed to note one positive item in the conference report, namely, the absence of a provision passed by both Houses which would have limited compensation benefits to certain veterans disabled by mental illness. I fought very hard to have that provision dropped during Senate debate, and I am truly delighted that my goal was achieved in the conference. As I noted at the outset, this is not a good bill for veterans. I am deeply concerned about its ramifications as we move forward in this fiscal year, and I intend to monitor closely the effects of the limited funding on VA's ability to meet the needs of our Nation's veterans. I will not hesitate to seek additional funding for various VA activities as the need arises in the coming year. We have tough choices to make as we seek to balance the budget. Veterans must be accorded special attention and protection in that effort. Mr. President, in closing, I express my deepest gratitude to my esteemed colleague, Senator Mikulski, the ranking Democrat on the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee, for her continued efforts with respect to veterans' programs. I truly appreciate the extraordinary spirit of cooperation between us, during the appropriations process and throughout the year. Consistently over the years, Senator Mikulski has shown strong, unwavering support for veterans' programs. Although she was not as successful as I know she wished to be this year, her advocacy never wavered. She is a true friend and champion of veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. Mr. President, I am stunned that we still have to come to the floor to defend Medicare from the largest, most dangerous, most serious cut ever to surface since it was signed into law by President Johnson exactly 30 years ago. Yes, this nightmare is not a dream. The budget plan on the Senate floor this very minute aims its fire at Medicare for $270 billion in cuts over the 7 years. Guess what also survived the conference? A kitty of $245 billion of new tax breaks, new tax cuts, new tax relief that go to the wealthiest Americans and all kinds of corporations. That is right. To the 30 million senior citizens counting on Medicare, to the disabled citizens counting on Medicare, it is still the piggy bank for a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with Medicare and much more to do with tax breaks for the wealthy, tax increases for working families, cuts in education, and the other features of this budget plan now on the Senate for a final vote. You do not need a graduate degree in mathematics to do the basic arithmetic. Start with the proposition made by the Republican side of the aisle--that Medicare must be cut to save the program, preserve it, keep it solvent. But that is when you hit the brick wall. The trustees of the Medicare Part A Hospital Trust Fund say that $89 billion are needed to extend the Fund's solvency until the year 2006. Not $270 billion, $89 billion. That is a difference of $181 billion. Why won't the Republicans listen to Medicare's trustees, and limit Medicare cuts to $89 billion so the program is solvent for 10 full years? Because they're listening to the tune whistled on the steps of the Capitol over a year ago, when the Contract for America was unfurled and $245 billion of tax breaks were promised. Of course, none will admit that Medicare is being raided to pay for tax breaks for the rich. Who in their right [[Page S 17286]] mind would make that kind of confession? But we do not need a confession. The mountain of evidence is right here in this stack of paper that is the Republican budget plan called reconciliation. Medicare cuts of $270 billion or even more. Tax breaks of $245 billion. Case closed. This $270 billion sounds like a huge cut because it is a huge cut. You don't get $270 billion out of Medicare with a few nips here and a few tucks there. Squeezing that much money out of Medicare means increasing expenses for senior citizens, shrinking payments for hospitals and other providers, weakening Medicare's role in protecting against shoddy health care, and resorting to cheaper ways to pretend seniors will still get reliable health insurance. Make no mistake about it, $270 billion in Medicare cuts will hurt and will be noticed. In fact, let us take an up-close look at just how the Republicans came up with $270 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for tax breaks. But first, maybe I need to start by reminding some people around here just how important Medicare is to a vast portion of the American population. No wonder Americans are more likely to say about Congress they are scared to death than just angry. It is Medicare that the phrase, crown jewels, should be reserved for. The enactment of Medicare, as part of Social Security, was one of America's great triumphs. When the country said its older and disabled citizens would have health security for the first time in America's history, we took one of our greatest leaps as a nation. Before its enactment, less than half of this country's senior citizens had any kind of health insurance. An illness or accident or health problem would immediately crush someone in their 60's or 70's or 80's, or wipe out his or her children and grandchildren. That is why Medicare was created, fought over, and ultimately enacted. And it has worked. The 97 percent of America's seniors--30 million people--now can wake up every morning, knowing Medicare is there. It has lifted seniors out of the poverty that the crushing costs of health care used to bear down on them. It has given them the peace of mind that they are not an overwhelming burden to their children and grandchildren. It has given them the dignity to live the later years without the terror of what will happen to them if they fall or need surgery. Mr. President, we are talking about 30 million senior citizens whose average income is less than $17,000. We are talking about 330,115 senior citizens in West Virginia whose average income is around $10,000. We are talking about older Americans who already spend one- fifth of these meager incomes on health care expenses that are not covered by Medicare--which include Medicare premiums and deductibles, prescription drugs, eyeglasses, certain tests, home care, and the list goes on. And we are not just talking about Medicare's meaning for senior citizens in West Virginia or Massachusetts or California. It is the same for seniors in Kansas, in Texas, name your State. We are talking about people with average incomes of $24,000 pay a fifth of their incomes on health care already, who are about the only Americans that have health care protection that cannot be taken away. Until today. Until we see this incredible budget plan that still takes $270 billion from Medicare, not to mention the $170 or $180 billion from Medicare. Not to save Medicare, but to come up with $245 billion in tax breaks for people with incomes far, far higher than $24,000 a year. Now it is time to talk about just exactly how this budget gets $270 billion out of Medicare. It starts with a plan the whole country got a special education in this week--because it was even attached to the bill that is only supposed to ensure the Federal Government can operate. It starts with a plan the whole country got a special education in this week--because it was even attached to the bill that is only supposed to ensure the Federal Government can operate. I am talking about a Medicare premium increase. It may have been stripped from the continuing resolution, but it is back. This budget increases Part B premiums for seniors by $11 a month--adding up to an extra $1,240 for individual seniors over the next 7 years and an extra $2,480 per couple on Medicare. That is on top of everything else they are already spending on health care. There is plenty more. Remember the BELT idea when we had the Senate reconciliation bill on the floor a few weeks ago? It is gone in name, but not in spirit. Obviously, $270 billion in cuts means a lot less money for payments to doctors, hospitals, labs, and other health care services. But what happens if the targets in this budget are missed? Well, before, the BELT was whipped out, and it was actually called that in the Senate bill. Now it has been given a more subtle name, but it's still plenty lethal. It is called the lookback--this budget tells the Secretary of Health and Human Services that he or she will have to make last-minute, extra, surprise cuts in Medicare payments if for some reason all the cuts made before didn't go deep enough. This budget has to have this kind of last-minute Medicare guillotine built in. This budget has to get $270 billion out of Medicare, no matter what, or there won't be $245 billion to dole out in tax breaks. It goes on and on, Mr. President. Changes, cuts, setbacks, weakening of standards--it is all here to cut Medicare by $270 billion. In this budget, senior citizens are supposed to fend for themselves. Before this budget, they were protected from balance billing when they brought private insurance plans. But in this Republican budget, the price gouging can start again. Before this budget, there were Federal standards to make sure tests done in the labs located in the doctors' office were accurate and reliable. But in the Republican budget, the salespitches will start exploding. Medicare vouchers for managed care will be waved around, luring seniors into managed care and locking them in for 1 year. I can hear the telemarketers and advertisers writing the scripts, the jingles, and hiding the fine print--because here we come, Medical Savings Accounts. With this Republican budget, Medical Savings Accounts will be targeted, you can count on it, at the healthier seniors, driving up costs for everyone else and for the Medicare Program, and driving doctors away from accepting seniors. Mr. President, there are consequences to $270 billion of Medicare cuts. Ask the hospitals of your State. Listen to the senior citizens whose premiums and deductibles will go up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that denounces the Republican plan.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I oppose the provisions of title 10 of the conference report--relating to veterans' programs--because they are a bad deal for veterans. These provisions were crafted behind closed doors. They must be brought out into the light of day so that the public can understand just how bad they are. First, the overall amount saved is too high. The two Veterans' Affairs chairmen accepted, with no action by either body, an increase of $300 million over the seven years in the overall savings that the Veterans' Affairs Committees generated, from $6.4 billion to $6.7 billion. There is no reason that our Committees should have done this. This increase translates directly into more cuts in veterans' benefits. I regret very much that there was a willingness to make veterans do more than their fair share. The provisions provide less than a full cost-of-living adjustment to certain widows of veterans who died in service or later from conditions related to their service. This diminished COLA is directly contrary to a promise made by the Congress in 1992 when the survivors benefit program was revised, and should not be agreed to. I oppose it strongly. It is wrongheaded and mean spirited. There were other ways to find the savings required. The package includes a 100-percent increase in the amount poor veterans are charged for a 30-day supply of prescription drugs, raising the amount to $4 from the current $2. Our Committee avoided increasing this copayment. The House Committee had voted a $1 increase, to $3. The increase in the bill is an even greater increase than originally passed the House. It is being included in this package because of the Chairmen's agreement to accept a higher overall savings target for our Committees than is set forth in the Budget Resolution. The bill expressly repeals the Secretary's existing authority to waive veterans' indebtedness in connection with receiving prescription drugs. Under current law, the Secretary can waive this and other indebtedness. However, in an action designed to generate even more savings from poor veterans, the waiver authority as to veterans who have received prescription drugs will be repealed. Frankly, I am not at all sure what is intended by this change but if I understand it, the only way to enforce the no-waiver authority will be to refuse to provide prescriptions to veterans who previously received medications but were unable to pay for them. That strikes me as a particularly unfortunate change in law and policy. The final compromise includes a provision that would repeal a protection in current law for veterans who are found by VA to owe money in connection with a home loan default, even a default that occurs years after the veteran has sold the home to a buyer who then defaults on the loan, a not uncommon event. Under current law, a veteran who is found by VA to owe money in connection with a loan default is protected from having his or her income tax offset or federal pay garnished until VA gets a court decision affirming the indebtedness. The final compromise will include a House-passed provision that substitutes simple notice to the veteran for this protection. Mr. President, I must note my deep disappointment that the House refused to consider any changes in Montgomery GI bill issues as part of our effort to find the mandated savings. The Senate package achieved savings in two ways from the MGIB--by providing for a one-half COLA over the seven years and by increasing the contribution that servicemembers make who do not opt out of the MGIB. The House's refusal to achieve savings from healthy, employed recruits and students, at the expense of widows of veterans who died [[Page S 17315]] from service-related causes, and of veterans needing prescription drugs, is simply not acceptable to me. I do not understand their priorities. Finally, Mr. President, as I noted at the outset, this compromise was crafted behind closed doors. I was denied any opportunity to participate in the conference. I asked for a public meeting of the sub- conference on a number of occasions in order to give us the opportunity to discuss the differences between the House and Senate provisions in a public forum. The only response I received was an invitation to a private meeting in Senator Simpson's office after the final agreement had been reached. That's just not good enough. The American people deserve better. America's veterans deserve better. We should conduct our business in the open, not behind closed doors. This package was developed with no input whatsoever from Senate Democrats. That is not how our Committee has functioned in the past. I regret that we are now taking that approach. Mr. President, this package is a bad deal for veterans. It cuts too deeply and in wrong areas. As the Ranking Democrat on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I see my role as looking out for our Nation's veterans, as making certain that our promises made to those who gave of themselves in our common defense are kept. This package does not do that. That is why I must oppose it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, earlier this week, I heard the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], both on the floor and elsewhere, express her view that VA has existing authority to pay veterans' benefits during this time of the shutdown of the Federal Government. In some of those statements, she indicated that she had received legal opinions, including from the Congressional Research Service, which supported this position. Because I was vitally interested in this issue, I asked Veterans' Affairs Committee staff to acquire copies of these opinions and advise me of their content. Initial inquiries found that CRS had not issued any opinion on this issue. However, today, an opinion, authored by Morton Rosenberg, Specialist in American Public Law in the American Law Division of CRS, was issued. In the most relevant passage, the opinion states-- Veterans' benefits are entitlements, but since they are entitlements that require annual appropriations, the absence of spending authority, either through an appropriations measure or a continuing resolution, appears to preclude the scheduled payments by VA or by the Treasury Department through the tapping of a trust fund. This certainly seems clear to me and should resolve any lingering confusion over VA's authority to pay benefits during this period when there is no appropriation in effect. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the opinion be printed in the Record. The material follows: [[Page S 17361]] Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, November 17, 1995. Subject: Necessity of Appropriations Legislation to Pay Compensation and Pension Benefits By The Department of Veterans' Affairs on December 1, 1995. Author: Morton Rosenberg, Specialist in American Public Law. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has advised that if a continuing resolution is not enacted into law by November 22, 1995, compensation and benefit checks scheduled to be mailed on December 1 would be delayed. Two questions are raised. First, are veterans' compensation and premium benefits entitlements? Second, if they are entitlements, isn't the government obligated to pay them on time, even if appropriations for the payments have not been passed, such as by tapping the civil service retirement fund? Veterans' benefits are entitlements, but since they are entitlements that require annual appropriations, the absence of spending authority, either through an appropriations measure or a continuing resolution, appears to preclude the scheduled payments by VA or by the Treasury Department through the tapping of a trust fund. Both the Constitution and federal statutory law place specific limits on what government entities may do in the absence of appropriated funds. The Constitution prohibits the withdrawal of any money from the Treasury ``but in Consequence of Appropriations made by the Law,'' U.S. Constit. art. I, sec. 9, cl. 7. By the terms of this clause, government entities may continue to obligate funds during a temporary lapse in appropriations, but they may not pay out any monies. This gap has been closed by the Antideficiency Act which prohibits the obligation of funds under such circumstances. Under that Act, it is a crime for an official or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia to make expenditures in excess of appropriations or involve the Government ``in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law.'' 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1) (1988). The Act also prohibits any officer from accepting ``voluntary services,'' or ``employ[ing] personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of Property''. 31 U.S.C. 1342. The exceptions clause was amended in 1990 to specifically preclude ``ongoing, regular functions of the government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.'' Id. Thus on its face the Act appears to leave little room for the continuance of most government functions in advance of appropriations. It is clear that veterans' compensation and pension benefits are ``entitlements''. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. 310. However, there are two types of entitlements: (1) Those that have permanent appropriations contained in authorizing legislation. These do not require funding through annual appropriation acts. The leading example is social security legislation and its trust funds mechanism. See 42 U.S.C. 401. (2) Also, there are those entitlements authorized in basic legislation for which funding is provided in annual appropriations acts. Veterans' compensation and pension benefits fall within this latter category. See Departments of Veterans' Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, Pub. L. 103- 327. As a consequence, the congressional failure to enact an annual appropriation act or a further continuing resolution constrains the VA's authority to spend, both with respect to the benefits themselves and the personnel necessary to administer the programs. VA therefore appears to be acting within the parameters of the Department of Justice and Office of Management and Budget guidelines for funding lapses. There are no ``no-year or multi-year or other funds available''. However, if funding legislation is passed, even after November 22, VA would then be properly authorized to issue checks and personnel necessary to issue them would be available. The coincidence of the current debt limit situation provides no additional option for payment of the benefits. Reaching the debt limit and the failure to provide appropriations are distinctly different problems that are accompanied by different consequences and solutions. By law the total amount of government debt that may be outstanding is limited to $4.9 trillion. 31 U.S.C. 3101(b). When that limit is reached, if Congress has not increased it, the government must rely on taxes and miscellaneous receipts such as loan deposits and fees to replenish its operating balances. In essence, it must go on a cash basis. The statutory debt ceiling, therefore, limits the ability of government agencies to exercise spending authority that they have received in a appropriations measure because the Treasury will, at some point, not take in sufficient receipts to pay for all appropriated actions. In contrast, a funding lapse involves the authority of agencies to spend money. Thus appropriations lapses and reaching the debt ceiling limit present distinct budgetary and legal issues for VA. The Department's decision to delay payments rests upon its lack of spending authority in the first place. There is no question of inability to pay. Indeed, in the absence of appropriations we are not aware of any legal basis for making the benefits payments by tapping, for instance, the civil service retirement fund for such and unfunded purpose. Stated differently, the lack of VA spending authority leaves Treasury without any apparent legal authority to use retirement trust fund resources or any other available monies for activities which have not been authorized ``in Consequence of Appropriations made by the Law''. What the Treasury is doing now is paying obligations that have come due either by using current revenues or by tapping the civil service retirement fund or the G fund, as authorized by statutes governing those funds. These obligations--unlike the VA entitlements--arise from activities for which appropriations have been enacted.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Might the Senator from West Virginia ask the Senator from Arkansas a question?