Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am delighted to join the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], in bringing the nomination of Dennis Duffy to be VA Assistant Secretary for Policy and planning before the Senate and urging his confirmation. Dennis is a career VA employee who began working for VA in the Pittsburgh regional office in 1974, 2 years after he returned from Vietnam, where he served with the American division. For most of his career, he worked on benefits matters, both in the field and in VA central office. Most recently, Dennis has been working in Congressional Affairs, where he is now the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Liaison. The White House first indicated its intention last year to nominate Dennis for this position, but his nomination was not received until after adjournment, so we were unable to take it up. I was delighted when the President again submitted this nomination early in this Congress. I think the job for which Dennis has been nominated--the VA Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning--is terribly important. This vital position has been vacant for nearly a year, and it is important that the Senate act on this nomination quickly so as to restore leadership to the office. I had a very strong interest in the role VA's Office of Policy and Planning played in health care reform during the last Congress, and I anticipate that there is an important ongoing role in that area as the Congress seeks to address eligibility reform and other health care matters. I am also very interested in many other exciting issues that the office undertakes, which I look forward to working on with Dennis in the weeks and months ahead. I am very excited that Dennis will join another VA Assistant Secretary, Mark Catlett, as the second career VA employee nominated to an advice and consent position within VA. Dennis' nomination to this position--a key position within VA--is a very positive message for career employees throughout VA. Mr. President, Dennis Duffy has a wonderful opportunity to serve the veterans of the Nation in this new office. President Clinton has shown great confidence in him, his work, and his commitment to veterans by nominating him to serve in this important position. I urge my colleagues to give their unanimous support to this nomination.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, following the approval of the Uruguay Round implementing legislation, statements have been placed in the Congressional Record providing individual interpretations of the antidumping and countervailing duty provisions contained in title II of that Act. As one who was also deeply involved in the development and passage of that legislation, I, of course, respect the right to make those statements, but I would like to offer some further clarification. Initially, it is important to emphasize that it is the statutory language that Congress enacted which must guide the implementation and interpretation of this legislation by the International Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce and their reviewing courts. To the extent that the statutory language is considered ambiguous, it is the Statement of Administrative Action, as well as the Senate and House committee reports--not the statements of individual Senators--which provide the primary sources of interpretation of H.R. 5110. Given the representations that have been made, I also believe that it is important to provide the following clarification with respect to specific aspects of the antidumping and countervailing duty provisions contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act H.R. 5110. International Trade Commission's determination of injury and threat. Several statements have addressed the Commission's implementation of H.R. 5110: Captive Production. I am the author of the Senate provision dealing with situations in which a captive production consideration should be used. Section 222 of H.R. 5110 was adopted to make clear to the Commission that, in certain captive production situations, it should consider primarily the data relating to competition in the merchant market, rather than data for the industry as a whole. Despite this language and clearly expressed legislative intent, it has been suggested that the Commission should continue to base its conclusions on an analysis of the industry as a whole, rather than of the merchant market. This suggestion is clearly contrary to the explicit language of section 222, as well as the intent expressed in the Statement of Administrative Action and the House and Senate committee reports. Statements have also been made indicating that the Commission should apply the same criteria used in evaluating the domestic like product to evaluate whether it is appropriate to focus on noncaptive imports. These statements are also inconsistent with the plain language of section 222, which contains no restriction or direction as to how the Commission should analyze imports, whether captive or not. While there may be circumstances under which captive imports should be analyzed in a similar manner as captive domestic production, this should only be done after the Commission determines that captive imports do not compete with the relevant domestic like product--as was made explicitly clear in the implementing legislation that I authored. Negligible Imports. It also has been suggested that the Commission must terminate an investigation unless import levels are found to be very close to the statutory negligibility threshold at the time of the preliminary determination and above that threshold at the time of the final determination. This suggestion is contrary to the unambiguous statutory language, which provides that the Commission may treat such imports as non-negligible in the threat context whenever it determines that there is a potential for such imports to increase to non- negligible levels. Thus, the Commission is under no obligation, and indeed would be acting contrary to the statute, to automatically terminate an investigation merely because imports are below the statutory negligibility threshold at the time of either the preliminary or final investigations. This is particularly true given that, as the Commission's practice and section 222 recognize, the filing of a petition may itself have a dampening effect on import levels. As a result, it is expected that the Commission will consider the negligibility provision carefully and that it will only find imports to be negligible in the context of threat where there is no potential for an imminent increase in imports. anticircumvention Statements have been made suggesting that section 230 of H.R. 5110 should be interpreted to limit Commerce's ability to apply the anticircumvention provisions and that, before Commerce enlarges the scope of an order, the Commission may be required to make an additional injury finding regarding that enlarged scope. These statements, however, are contrary to the statute and the Statement of Administrative Action. As explained in the Statement of Administrative Action, this amendment was adopted because the former statute failed to provide a full or adequate remedy for the circumvention occurring in the marketplace. As a result, section 230 clearly provides Commerce with broad discretion in its application of the anticircumvention provisions, so that it can address the different types of circumvention encountered. Further, neither the statute nor the Statement of Administration Action require the Commission to issue a new injury determination before Commerce enlarges the scope of an order, although the two agencies will engage in consultations before Commerce makes its final determination.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this amendment, offered by the Senator from South Carolina, deserves strong support from this body. I am a cosponsor of the amendment for a very basic reason. Our amendment will restore funding for what's called the Manufacturing Extension Partnership [MEP] Program-- a vital network of facilities dedicated to a strong manufacturing base in this country. With vision and a lot of hard work, the Senator from South Carolina has turned a very basic idea into a very powerful, invaluable reality. It seems incredibly stupid to cut funds from a program that has the track record of this one. The name says it all--manufacturing extension. That means that because of this program, the small- and medium-sized businesses where they get the latest there is to know about how to make products and turn a profit. Cut the funds, eliminate these centers, and cut off the businesses of our country from what they cannot get anywhere else. Forty-four manufacturing extension centers now operate in 32 States. The centers are sharing expertise, information, and advice to smaller- and mid-sized companies that want to manufacture products and want to stay in business. This extension network has been so successful that other States are waiting In the wings to get centers of their own, and to link hundreds and even thousands of the businesses in their State to a central repository of people and expertise steeped in the state-of- art in manufacturing and technology. Anyone who knows what the Agricultural Extension Service did in this country to help farmers learn about the latest techniques for irrigation, for farming, for keeping their costs down, understand this model now applied to manufacturing very well. These manufacturing extension centers play a role that cannot and will not be duplicated by any single part of the private sector. They play a truly public role, because their only client is the public interest. They share information and ideas among businesses. They learn what works on 1 factory floor, and help 20 more businesses avoid reinventing the wheel by learning from the first. They spread manuals, training guides, information across their States--with the latest findings and ideas on how to run and fix equipment, make products efficiently, organize and train a work force, and make profits. We all know how information and know-how spread in places like Silicon Valley and Cambridge, MA. Extension programs tie the rest of the country's small manufacturers into these and other hubs of new technology, and allow even the smallest firm to share in new ideas and equipment in a way that enables businesses across the country to prosper. In West Virginia, this is the program responsible for drawing together two facilities, the West Virginia Industrial Extension Service at West Virginia University and the Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Manufacturing at Marshall University. The program is called the West Virginia Partnership for Industrial Modernization [WVPIM]. Because of this effort, the hundreds of small businesses in my State have a place to go for help and expertise that would not be there otherwise. In Huntington, WV, there is the story of Wooten Machine Co. Because of the help that this company got from the Institute for Advanced Manufacturing, Wooten went from making parts manually to computerizing their operation. Now they are talking about hiring more people. They are not alone. Stinson Manufacturing in Alta, WV, went from a 4- person operation to one that now employs 28 people and has annual gross sales of more than $1 million, again with the help of the Robert C. Byrd Institute. This is not just about tying together the resources in just one State. Mr. President, there is a tremendous advantage in being part of a national network of centers planted in different States. With the help of this network, West Virginia firms are staying on top of the innovations and techniques that are being collected from thousands of small- and mid-sized firms throughout the country. Larger firms will always be able to keep up with modernization, they have the staff and resources to do that. But if this unique network of manufacturing centers shrinks or dies off, the losers will be the small firms in our States. Nationally, there are almost 400,000 small- and mid-sized manufacturers that employ less than 500 people apiece--these manufacturers account for over half our national manufacturing output. Nearly 12 million people, in all 50 States, work at these small- and mid-sized firms. Mr. President, in the global marketplace, firms of any size must master modern technologies, management techniques, and methods of work organization. The exciting part of progress is that you don't have to run a business in Chicago or Detroit or New Orleans to be the best maker of an auto-part, a computer chip, a machine tool. You can be in remote parts of Montana or West Virginia or South Carolina. But you do have to be linked to the information that is necessary to keep up with the advances breaking out every day. Our Nation's overall economy requires thousands of small- and mid- sized firms keeping up at breakneck pace with what works in design, production, marketing, training, and all kinds of other practices. Mr. President, the American people know what it will mean to our Nation's long-term economic survival if we do not keep making products and being the best at manufacturing. We have to build things to survive in this increasingly competitive global marketplace. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is the best, most efficient way to advance this cause. I also ask unanimous consent that a Dear Colleague distributed by myself and several colleagues on the importance of this effort be reprinted immediately after this statement.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my colleague.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my colleague, and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I try not to say I am shocked very often. I try to reserve it for when I really am. Today, I really am shocked. On Friday, we actually watched Senators, led by Majority the simple idea coming from this side of the aisle--that cutting Government spending does not mean waging an assault on education and our children. I am speaking of the amendment from the Democratic leader. With our pro-education amendment, we are asking every Senator to think very hard about what's right and where our true values should lead us. This amendment gives every Senator a chance, before it is too late, to leave politics at the door and to cast a vote for the basic principle that education and children must not be the victim of this Senate. The citizens of this country expect us to make choices. With the rescissions bill before us, we are coming up with the funds to pay off recent costs for natural disasters and other emergencies. The bill also cuts a range of Government programs to reduce the Federal deficit even more. Both are essential steps. But, Mr. President, reducing the deficit and taking care of natural disasters do not mean that this Senate has to rob the schools, the children, and the spirit of the Nation. Any fourth or fifth grade teacher would give this bill a D at best for being that dumb. The amendment offered by the Democratic leader is our chance to make this bill a lot more worthy of passage. I urge every Senator, on both sides of the aisle, to resist the urge to be too stubborn or too partisan to vote for this amendment. It is never too late to improve ourselves or our work. It is always a good idea to think about the consequences of our actions. We face one of the clearest choices imaginable between the amendment offered by the Republican leader and the one offered by the Democratic leader. The Republican choice is to cut education even more, and to kill off national service completely. The Democratic amendment says protect our schools, protect the children, keep national service alive. Vote for the Daschle amendment, and you are voting to continue supporting what Americans say over and over and over again they support, and care deeply about: Help for elementary and secondary schools trying to give the best education possible for children from hard-pressed families; the Goals 2000 effort to raise academic standards in over a thousand schools; the funding for schools to teach children and teenagers about the dangers of drugs and alcohol; Head Start, and its special role in getting children off on the right foot; the training that's taking place all over the country to help high school graduates who aren't yet planning to attend college, but need that extra boost to make it in the workplace; and last but not least, the country's new and exciting national service program, that has inspired and excited thousands and thousands of young people to serve their communities with the promise of a college scholarship to follow. Mr. President, vote against the Daschle amendment, and you are snuffing out a flame of hope for children and families in every town, city, and schoolhouse in this country. This is not rhetoric. These are not abstract numbers. We are not talking about throwing a few bureaucrats out of work or closing some government offices. We are talking about a bill that wants to yank $1.3 billion away from education and children and national service. This amendment says put the $1.3 billion back into our schools, back into drug education, back into national service, back into getting teenagers ready for the demands of adulthood. As Chairman of the National Commission on Children, I have traveled to many of the States of my colleagues. To San Antonio, TX, where I saw a principal of a school use Head Start funds and title I funds to cause children to giggle and parents to smile as learning took place in every classroom. Vote against this amendment, and dim the lights in that school in San Antonio. We visited Kansas City, MO, where law officers and parents told us with fear and frustration about the drugs on the streets and in the schoolyards. Vote against this amendment, and start surrendering to the drug traffickers. We went to Minnesota where corporate executives told us about their desperate need to get young workers with better reading and math skills. Vote against this amendment, and tell those employers to start thinking about locating in countries were education is more valued. Then, there's my own State of West Virginia. Where families and communities face incredible odds every day. Where children are what counts, and education is the key. Where the programs covered in this amendment make the difference. Where schools depend on these funds to have a math teacher or a drug education class or a schoolwide campaign to get grades up. There are not a lot of wealthy families in West Virginia. But wealth is not supposed to determine whether a child becomes a scientist or a professor or even a Senator. Education is. That is the American promise. That is the American dream. Vote against this amendment, and start snuffing out that promise, that dream. I can hardly believe that national service is on the firing line of this bill, already mowed down by the House Republican leaders. Should the President really apologize or hide the fact that he is proud of helping to reignite the flame for national service? For the idea that we can promote rights and responsibilities? A program that is already the story of thousands of AmeriCorps members, working in housing projects, shelters, classrooms, health clinics, neighborhoods--for a minimum amount of money to live on, and a college scholarship as a reward for service. AmeriCorps is taking hold in West Virginia. Young people and older participants are helping a mobile health van to bring primary health care, like checkups and shots, to children in rural areas. they are working at domestic violence shelters where women and children seek refuge from this terrible danger in too many homes. National service is the idea that led me to West Virginia, and changed my life forever. Vote for this amendment, and national service stays alive in our communities. Vote against this amendment, and let the American people know that we are giving up on this idea once again. Let us wait another 30 years to celebrate service with college scholarships and stipends. When I joined the Senate, one of my very first bills was the one that helped create the drug education program threatened in this bill. The police officers, the teachers, and the parents of West Virginia led me to push for this special help. As a result, police officers are now in classrooms, telling children about what it is like in prison. Peer groups have developed in countless schools to make it clear that drugs are not cool, whatsoever. If we are serious about values, where is the logic in going after something as basic as drug education? What signal does that send? It makes no sense. Mr. President, I heard the Republican leader bemoan the effort from this side of the aisle to fight for kids. I am sorry if that's slowing this bill down. I am especially sorry to see it cause a cruel counterpunch in the form of a Republican-led amendment, instead of the admission that we should take a breath, and remember just how much the citizens of this country support and care about education and children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from Maryland for her leadership on this and many other issues. The Senator, as usual, raises arguments which are, substantively and institutionally, absolutely correct. Simply stated, the HUD-VA Subcommittee programs--for housing, veterans, and the environment-- should not be singled out to pay for emergencies which under law are to be considered emergency spending. As my colleagues know, the President has declared the catastrophes being funded in this supplemental appropriation as emergency in nature, and thus eligible for funding outside of the discretionary caps. Since the Appropriations Committee refused to handle this emergency funding in that normal way, the VA-HUD Subcommittee was forced to drastically reduce fiscal year 1995 funding for housing programs by more than $4.6 billion, environmental funding in excess of $1.4 billion, national service $210 million, veterans programs $100 million, and NASA by $150 million. There is no rational explanation for such large reductions in already appropriated funds solely from these accounts. As a reasonable alternative, the Senator from Maryland now seeks to impose an across-the-board cut of 1.72 percent in all discretionary funding except for veterans' medical care and a few other accounts. While I do have reservations in general about across-the-board percentage reductions and their meat-ax approach, in this case, the medicine is totally justified. The committee bill would pay for this emergency funding by reducing housing, veterans, and environmental programs. There is simply no logic to doing this and not at the same time, equally distributing the funding reductions to other accounts. We will look back on this day and regret this action. I do believe that we need to continue to attack the deficit aggressively, and so I continue to seek every reasonable opportunity to do that. At the same time, I will oppose the motion to table the Mikulski amendment because of my very strong opposition to forcing multibillion- dollar--and what must be called draconian--cuts on housing and environmental needs. This is a dangerous precedent that we set by insisting that unforeseeable, catastrophic events must be paid for solely by reductions in a very few accounts--most notably veterans, housing, the environment, NASA, and national service.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as we focus on the issues of welfare reform and child support enforcement, I am proud to join my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd, in introducing a demonstration project to explore the merits of child support assurance. This is a bipartisan idea to ensure minimum support to single parents as a way to promote work and responsibility. I first became interested in the innovative idea of child support assurance as Chairman of the bipartisan National Commission on Children which endorsed a demonstration of child support assurance in its unanimous 1991 report, ``Beyond Rhetoric, a New American Agenda for Children and Families.'' The Commission urged the Federal Government, in partnership with several States, to undertake a demonstration to design and test the effects of an assured child support plan that combines enhanced child support enforcement with a Government-insured minimum benefit for children. Under our demonstration, eligible parents would have to have a child support award in place or be fully cooperating in establishing paternity which would create a real incentive for parents to get a child support award. Once such an award is established, the Federal and State Government can aggressively seek to collect the payments from absent parents. But the minimum assured benefit will protect the innocent child from hardship and economic uncertainty when one parent is shirking his/her obligation. Such stable, consistent support is vital for children. A 1994 study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development noted that children of single-parent families are at increased risk. It notes that the single most important factor in accounting for the lower achievement of children in single-parent families is poverty and economic insecurity. Income differences account for half of the increased risk for disadvantages. The researchers noted that because income is such an important factor in the increased risk for disadvantages among children in single-parent families, policies that serve to minimize the negative economic impact on children may help reduce their difficulties. The National Child Support Assurance Consortium issued a compelling report called ``Childhood's End'' in January 1993 that outlined what happens to children when child support payments are missing, or just plain late. Let me share just a few of the report's significant findings about what Fifty-five percent of mothers reported that their children missed regular health check-ups; Thirty-six percent of mothers reported that their children did not get medical care when they became ill; and Fifty-seven percent of the mothers reported that their children lost their regular child care. The list goes and on, and it is tragic that absent parents are not living up to their financial obligations and placing their own children at risk. President Clinton estimates that 800,000 people could leave the welfare system and dependency if they were paid the child support that they are owed. It is wrong to penalize these families and push them into dependency. Rather we must aggressively move on child support enforcement and explore the benefits of providing a minimum Government benefit in cases where our State enforcement efforts fail to timely collect child support owed to children. As Chairman of the National Commission on Children, I want to put this child support assurance demonstration project into perspective. Our bipartisan commission report clearly stated that children do best in stable, two-percent families. I wish that every child could grow up in a caring home with both parents and financial security. But in reality, over 15.7 million children are living in a single- parent household and in need of child support. Demographers warn us that 1 out of every 2 children growing up today will spend some time living with only one parent; and, therefore, half of children today will depend on child support at some point. I strongly believe that both parents--mothers and fathers--have a moral obligation to financially and emotionally support their children. The Government has a role to play in ensuring that parents accept their financial obligations to support their children. This does not ignore or discount the importance of emotional support from both parents. But realistically, the Federal Government is limited in its ability to address parental involvement and emotional support. I support other legislation to encourage demonstrations projects to improve meditation and visitation issues among parents as way to respond to this other key facet. But the Federal Government can have a major effect on child support enforcement and child support assurance. It must be involved because families that do not get the child support payments they deserve, often turn to Federal assistance programs including Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] and food stamps to make ends meet. Instead of allowing families to slip into dependency, I believe it would be better to invest in systems and incentives to collect the more than $30 billion in unpaid child support. I want to emphasize that this is a bipartisan idea intended to promote work and independence. In its 1991 report, ``Moving Ahead: Initiatives for Expanding Opportunity in America,'' the House Wednesday Group recommended Federal funding for large-scale demonstrations of child support assurance and time-limited welfare. The report notes that: Child support assurance has several attractive features. First it is not welfare. The benefit would be universal; all single-parent families would be eligible for the assured benefit. For most families, the absent parent would pay more than the assured benefit; the government would then recapture its expenditure and the rest would be forwarded to the child. For families in which the absent parent did not pay at least the amount of the assured benefit, the government would pay the amount guaranteed to the child and then attempt to recoup its outlays by vigorous child support enforcement. One way to think of the assured benefit, then, is government's commitment to guarantee at least a given level of cash support to all custodial parents. The assured benefit can also be seen as a program that encourages independence . . . The assured benefit is a blanket of insulation between a single mother and dependency on welfare. Equally important, unlike welfare payments, the assured benefit may have the attractive feature of minimizing work disincentive. While noting some questions about child support assurance, the House Wednesday Group did support a demonstration project to test the potential of this innovative concept. Other groups supporting our proposal include: the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Women's Legal Defense Fund, and the Children's Defense Fund. Mr. President, as we consider dramatic reform of our welfare system, we also should focus on child support enforcement and child support assurance as promising alternatives to promote responsibility and work over welfare and dependence.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in the spirit of strengthening our commitment to provide a comprehensive package of health care benefits to veterans eligible for care in the VA health care system, I am today introducing a bill that would require VA to conduct a hospice care pilot program to determine how best to provide hospice care services to terminally ill veterans. I am proud that Senators Daschle, Graham, and Murkowski have joined with me as original cosponsors. As the number of veterans who are elderly or have terminal illnesses continues to grow, the need and demand for VA hospice care is likely to increase. We must stay ahead of the surge and explore the various ways to provide such care, so our veterans and their families will have the best choices available to them. Our legislation is derived from S. 1141, which I sponsored and which was incorporated into the committee bill, S. 1030, of the 103d Congress. Though S. 1030 passed the Senate, it did not pass the House. The bill also builds upon S. 1358 of the 102d Congress which Senator Graham introduced on June 24, 1991, and the Senate passed on October 16, 1991. Although VA has expanded and improved hospice care services over the past 4 years, it continues to fall short of the goals we envisioned. Thus we feel compelled to introduce the Veterans' Hospice Care Services Act of 1995. summary of provisions Mr. President, this legislation would expand comprehensive VA hospice care programs and promote VA research on hospice care. The bill would amend chapter 17 of title 38 to establish a new subchapter VII, the provisions of which would: First, require VA, during the period beginning on October 1, 1995, and ending on December 31, 2000, to conduct a pilot program in order to assess the desirability of furnishing hospice care services to terminally ill veterans, and determine the most effective and efficient means of furnishing such services. Second, require VA to furnish hospice care services under the pilot program to any veteran who has a life expectancy of 1 year or less, as certified by a VA physician and who is entitled to VA hospital care, eligible for and receiving VA hospital or nursing home care, eligible for and receiving care in a community nursing home under a VA contract, or eligible for and receiving care in a State veterans home for which VA is making per diem payments to offset the costs of that care. Third, specify that the hospice care services that VA must provide to veterans under the pilot program are: The services to which Medicare beneficiaries are entitled under the Medicare's hospice care benefit, and personal care services, including care or services relating to activities of daily living, such as dressing, personal hygiene, feeding, and housekeeping. care demonstration projects that would provide these services at not fewer than 15 but mote than 30 VA medical centers [VAMC's] by one of these means: A hospice operated by a VAMC, a non VA hospice under contract with a VAMC and pursuant to which the VA facility furnishes any necessary inpatient services, or a non-VA facility furnishes any necessary inpatient services. Fifth, require that each of the three means for furnishing hospice care services be used at not fewer than five VAMC's. Sixth, require the Secretary to ensure, to the maximum extent feasible, that VAMC's selected to conduct demonstration projects under the pilot program include facilities that: Are located in urban areas and rural areas, encompass the full range of affiliations between VAMC's and medical schools, operate and maintain various numbers of beds, and meet any additional criteria or standards that the Secretary may deem relevant or necessary. Seventh, provide that the amount paid by VA or a non-VA hospice under a hospice care services contract generally may not exceed the amount that would be paid to that hospice under the Medicare hospice benefit, and authorize the Secretary to pay an amount in excess of the Medicare reimbursement rate, if the Secretary determines, on a case-by-case basis, that the Medicare rate would not adequate compensate the hospice for the costs associated with furnishing necessary care to a terminally ill veteran. Eighth, require the Secretary to designate not fewer than 10 VAMC's that would function as a control group and furnish a less comprehensive range of hospice care services to terminally ill veterans that the range that VAMC's participating in the pilot program must provide, by VA personal providing one or more hospice care services to veterans at a VAMC, or VA personal monitoring the furnishing by non-VA provider of one or more hospice care services to veterans. Ninth, require the Secretary to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that terminally ill veterans receive information regarding their eligibility, if any, for Medicare's hospice care benefit. Tenth, require the Secretary, not later than September 30, 1996, and on an annual basis thereafter, until October 1, 2001, to submit periodic written reports to the House and Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs about the pilot program. Eleventh, require the Under Secretary for Health, not later than August 1, 1999, to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs a detailed final report on the pilot program, including an assessment of the desirability of furnishing hospice care services to terminally ill veterans, an assessment of the optimal means of furnishing hospice care services to terminally ill veterans, and his recommendations, if any, for additional legislation regarding such care. Twelth, clarify that the pilot program would not preclude VA from furnishing hospice care services at VAMC's not participating in the pilot program or the control group. background Clearly, terminally ill veterans need an alternative to customary, curative care, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has made steady progress in meeting the demand. However, VA headquarters officials have given only general guidance to VAMC's regarding the types of hospice care services they must provide and the manner in which they must provide them. Not surprisingly, significant variations exist in the manner in which VAMC's provide these services. Only 39 of 171 VAMC's operate their own hospice units. These units are freestanding buildings or separate units where a homelike atmosphere is created. Other VAMC's provide hospice in units that are converted patient rooms where cure-oriented care is administered adjacent to the hospice rooms. Still other VAMC's only provide some hospice services such as caregiver counseling and pain management. Many offer only an assessment of a terminally ill veterans' needs and referral to a non-VA hospice. Neither uniformity nor marked variation in the provision of VA hospice care may be the answer. Each local area may need to tailor its programs and services to the unique needs of the veterans they serve, as well as the delivery modalities in their areas. Yet I continue to believe that there are important questions that need to be asked and answered about the ways to provide such care. For example, some claim that we can best meet terminally ill veterans' needs by integrating hospice concepts into mainstream care for terminally ill persons. Others believe that because most VAMC's are affiliated with medical schools that emphasize technology-intensive, curative interventions, veterans would be better served if VA contracted with community hospice providers. There may not be only one correct approach, and that is fine. But I do know that we must address these difficult questions if we truly care about meeting terminally ill veterans' needs. The pilot program this legislation envisions could be of great help in assessing these concerns. The bill calls for VA to establish hospice demonstration projects at 15 to 30 VAMC's that will provide a comprehensive range of hospice care services. Ten other VAMC's will constitute a control group and offer a less comprehensive range of hospice services. In essence, an experiment will be set up, whereby consistent data can be generated and valuable information extrapolated. This study will help health care providers identify veterans most likely to benefit from that program and tailor the program's services to meet their needs. This year's bill, like S. 1030 of the 103d Congress, contains a provision that explicitly states that VA can continue to provide hospice care services at any VAMC, which would guarantee that no veteran will lose access to hospice care as a result of the pilot program. We certainly do not want VA to eliminate its existing hospice programs. Rather, we seek to ensure that VA studies and learns from them. conclusion Mr. President, many terminally ill veterans do not want to spend their last days in a hospital environment receiving high technology, curative care. These veterans, who have served our country with honor and dignity, choose a different type of environment, one where pain management and emotional support are the focus. They are veterans like Tom, a West Virginian whose plight the committee learned of in 1991. The executive director of the Hospice of Huntington, WV, Charlene Farrell, told the committee that while Tom was in the hospital, suffering from cancer, this depressed veteran asked that the drapes be closed so he could sit in darkness. Eventually, his daughters decided to use their modest resources to purchase hospice care from a non-VA provider, because their father longed for the type of care and support that a hospital simply cannot offer. We owe veterans like Tom nothing less than the best hospice care our Nation can provide. The Veterans Hospice Care Services Act of 1995 will help us meet our obligation to these brave men and women. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, although the efforts of the last Congress to provide national health care reform failed, many States have already enacted reform legislation. These States have taken the first, important steps on the road to universal coverage. I applaud the efforts of these courageous legislators. They are giving their citizens health care security. These State plans provide Congress with the perfect opportunity to learn from their successes and to study the effects of reform on existing Federal medical programs, including the VA medical system. The VA medical system--the Nation's largest health care system-- cannot participate fully in health care reform efforts in specific States because current Federal law makes it impossible for VA facilities to do so. This deprives VA of the kinds of experiences and information it needs to thrive under national health care reform. If this situation continues, we will miss a valuable opportunity to study the effects of reform. At a February 9, 1994, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs' hearing on VA participation in State health care reform, then-Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Health, Elwood Headley, M.D., stated that as a public health care system, VA lacks experience in participating in a competitive environment. Mr. President, I believe VA will do well in a national plan under which costs are controlled and coverage is expanded for all Americans, because VA already operates within a fixed budget. VA must, however, have the opportunity to learn what kinds of changes are needed in the VA medical system as a whole. It is in the spirit of improving VA medical services for veterans that I am today introducing a bill that would require VA to conduct a pilot health care reform program. This VA State Health Care Reform Pilot Program would enable VA to participate in the health care reform programs of several States. I am delighted to be joined in sponsoring this bill by Committee members Bob Graham, Dan Akaka, Byron Dorgan, Frank Murkowski, and Jim Jeffords, and by Senators Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Patty Murray, and Paul Wellstone. At the committee's February 9, 1994, hearing, John Bollinger, deputy executive director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, testified that ``the pilot programs will give VA in those states the opportunity to become a full participant in the health care system. It will also provide valuable experience to draw upon when the full VA system faces the same challenges in the context of national health care reform.'' I agree wholeheartedly. summary of provisions Mr. President, this legislation would enable VA to evaluate the most appropriate means of participating in reformed State health care systems, providing invaluable information to help them prepare for national health care reform. This bill would give VA the authority to select up to five States with comprehensive health benefit plans in place, or where such plans are imminent, to participate in the pilot program for a period of 2 years. The bill would authorize VA facilities in the selected States to offer free comprehensive care to all compensable service-connected veterans and to all veterans with incomes below the current levels that apply to inpatient care. The legislation would grant the Secretary authority to waive certain laws and regulations that could interfere with the ability of VA facilities to participate in State health care reform activities. This legislation would give VA medical center directors flexibility in allocating their resources, except with respect to regional programs, such as spinal cord injury services, post-traumatic stress disorder, blind rehabilitation, and substance abuse programs, which are funded from central office. The bill would give the head of the VA in selected States--the VA health system director--the authority to contract out for medical services without prior review from VA central office. have the authority to enter into contracts below $250,000 without prior review by central office. Contracts above $250,000 would be reviewed by central office, but would automatically be approved if central office did not make a decision within 30 days. This would give local VA facilities the autonomy they need to increase their number of providers in a timely manner. This bill would also give local VA facilities more flexibility in the hiring process, by extending authority that is currently available for hiring certain title 38 personnel to the hiring of all staff. This is intended to help VA facilities hire the best possible employees in a timely manner. The bill would exempt VA facilities in the pilot program from FTE cuts. Arbitrary FTE cuts could make it impossible for VA facilities to compete under health care reform. The legislation would give the participating VA facilities the authority to carry over leftover funding from one year to the next. Again, this would help VA facilities make better use of limited funds. Finally, this legislation would give VA the authority to collect employer contributions and other third-party payments for noncore veterans who choose VA health care. These payments would enable VA facilities to provide care for all veterans who choose VA health care, not just core veterans. conclusion Mr. President, VA needs legislative relief from restrictions in current law which, although enacted for good and appropriate reasons, could prevent VA facilities from competing as providers in certain States. The major obstacle which must be overcome is that VA facilities cannot qualify as providers under some state plans because of current eligibility requirements. Under various State proposals, all citizens would be eligible to choose a provider, and all providers must offer the same basic package of services. In most States, VA could not be considered a provider for several reasons, including the restrictions which limit preventive and primary care. Mr. President, the ``VA State Health Care Reform Pilot Program'' would provide VA with invaluable experience regarding how it needs to change in order to survive and thrive under health care reform. the ``VA State Health Care Reform Pilot Program'' will help us meet our obligation to the brave men and women who served in every branch of the Armed Forces, by improving the VA medical system that serves them. Mr. President, one final note before closing. On Friday, March 17, 1995, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown submitted to our committee notice of a plan to realign the field management of the Veterans Health Administration. Pursuant to section 510(b) of title 38, United States Code, this realignment cannot go into effect for 90 days of continuous session of Congress. Should there be no action of the Congress to modify the Secretary's proposed plan--and I know of no such proposed action at this point--VA will undertake a very significant realignment of the field management structure of VHA. I mention this possibility in the context of my introduction of this measure today, because it is likely that the proposed pilot authority would have to be modified in light of the realignment. Such changes in the legislation can be discussed later in the committee's consideration of the issue, at which time we will have a better sense of the outcome of the Secretary's proposed field realignment. Mr. President, I am looking forward to working with Senator Simpson and all the members of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as well as with the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Bob Stump, and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, Tim Hutchinson. This legislation was passed by the Senate in the last Congress, and I hope that we can move forward with it in this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I want to comment on an important aspect of the debates that took place to develop the legislation approved today, and which I believe is directly related to the kind of military security, growing economy, and strong job base that Americans should be able to count on. I am referring to the work of the programs within the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, and other parts of the Federal Government that serve as partners with industry to spur advances in technology. My belief in these programs is very basic. Knowing what the investment in technology that our foreign competitors are making and the role that technology plays in expanding industries and high-wage jobs in our own country, I view these programs as an essential key to the economic security that West Virginians and the rest of the American people should expect Congress to work toward. For awhile, it appeared that this appropriations package would be used to cripple some of the most important technology programs in our public arsenal. But thanks to the efforts of many of my colleagues, and I am privileged to work closely with a group of them, we were fairly successful in reminding the Senate that a retreat from technology investments is a dangerous course in military and economic terms. In fact, I was pleased to see the Senate approve the Sense of the Senate resolution, offered by Senators Bingaman and Nunn and which I cosponsored, that expresses a continued commitment to the development of dual-use technologies to be used by both the military and the private sector. These kinds of private-public partnerships, including the Technology Reinvestment Project [TRP] and the Advanced Technology Program [ATP], chart the course we should be taking for a strong military and economic future. This concept is at the heart of the President's technology policy, and is the most cost effective way to employ the ever-shrinking Federal dollar in a way that maximizes our Federal dollars to the benefit of both the public and the private sector. To understand these kinds of partnerships, and the value of the TRP and the ATP, we need to look first at the Advanced Research Projects Agency [ARPA], which was set up nearly 40 years ago by President Eisenhower. I think we can all agree that ARPA is one of the big success stories to come out of the military-industrial complex over the years. Aside from technologies it helped develop that our armed services rely on today, things like stealth, the Global Positioning System and smart weapons, it is also one of the parents to some of the technologies that the people of America take for granted in their daily lives, things as varied as a desktop computer is from the laser in a CD player. I want to also remind my colleagues that the Internet, which is at the heart of the information super highway America is discovering, was originally known as ARPAnet. All of these technological breakthroughs were developed for the military, but have now been spun off into our daily lives. That is what the TRP, and the ATP, are about. It is about something even greater. We do not spend taxpayers' hard- earned dollars on the TRP just because of what it does for the economy. It is housed in the Department of Defense because of its direct role in military readiness and the strength of our defense. Increasingly, cutting edge technology is not being developed in the military industrial complex, it is coming out of the private sector. The TRP program, and other public-private partnership give the Federal Government, and in the case of the TRP, the Department of Defense, access to the brain power and resources of our best civilian technologists. It is becoming less an issue of spin-offs and more an issue of spin-ons. We all know that great advances in computing came as spin-offs from DOD programs, but today the leading minds, the human and material resources, are in the private sector. Programs like the TRP give the military the chance to work with those minds and develop software and applications in conjunction with the private sector, where most of the innovation is happening. Then we can spin those technologies invented in partnership with the private sector on to military applications. And let me be clear, this is not about industrial policy; picking winners and losers. The private sector, in conjunction with the Department of Defense, are picking the winners. Where a program only has defense applications, such as a submarine, the private sector will not be interested in participating in a joint R&D project with the DOD. But when we are developing something that will have commercial and military applications, then the TRP can and should play a part. It is a ridiculous waste of our country's private and public capital to duplicate our investments in research and development where the military needs something that the private sector may be developing on their own. Frankly, we cannot afford it on either end. If last month's balanced budget debate illuminated anything for the American people, it is that we are going to have to squeeze every last dollar we can out of the Federal budget. I support the deficit reduction portion of this bill. I do not like every line-item in the rescissions package, but overall, it is something we simply have to do. Likewise, the government cannot afford to do all the research and development on leading edge technologies that they will need to maintain the kind of fighting force we all envision. But if we pool our Federal resources with the private sector's, then we all benefit. the usefulness of the TRP to both the armed services and America's consumers. Right now, DOD, in conjunction with private industry is developing something called multi-chip module [MCM] technology. This will allow electronic systems to work faster and more reliably while using less power. DOD needs MCM's for things like precision-guidance of advanced weapons and real-time signaling for intelligence activities. Likewise, the private sector is itching to put MCM's to use in a variety of consumer products, from cars to digital signals in audio and video telecommunications. Certainly we can fund this out of our defense budget, but when there is a clear private sector interest in doing this jointly, why go it alone? And this should not be a political issue. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have supported technology programs such as this in the past. As has been noted by others, the basis of this sense- of-the-Senate amendment is former Senator Rudman's task force report of 1992, which was endorsed by many of my current distinguished colleagues, Senators Stevens, McCain, Warner, and Thurmond among them. I should note, that the defense supplemental portion of this package is breaking new ground here. This bill was submitted to the Congress for emergency consideration. That is because the costs that we are trying to cover were unforseen. They were unplanned activities that were undertaken in our national interest. Madam President, we must be fiscally responsible. But we should resist the fool's game of trying to outfox or out-cut one another. We were elected to set priorities, to deal with current national needs and plan for the future. Because of the size of the Federal deficit, that must include an intense effort to get our books in order. But it should not be a political contest or done blindly. If we abandon the programs and investments designed to maintain a military and economic foundation for all Americans, we will see the pain from a crumbling manufacturing base and defenses after it is too late. We cannot compromise our future, be it in technology, education, or child nutrition, for the sake of today's political brinkmanship. We must fight for what we know must be national priorities, and I will fight for West Virginia's. The winners will be our soldiers in the field, our children and their ability to learn, the workforce needed to keep this country strong. And in the case of the technology programs discussed in this statement, we want to make sure the winners include our indusries--and our workers--who are on the frontline of the global economic battlefield.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to explain why I believe the Senate should reject the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas to cancel funding for wind tunnels. Before getting into the arguments for proceeding with this program, I want to remind my colleagues of some essential facts about the bill before us. This bill, labeled the Defense supplemental and rescissions appropriations, will cut the Federal deficit. Its first goal is to replenish critical parts of the Defense Department's budget, and it does that by transferring funds from other areas. That means we are not asking the American taxpayers to borrow. And because this is an opportunity to shave the Federal budget, this bill also contains $1.5 billion of cuts in Government spending for the sole purpose of reducing the deficit. Here is more proof that one does not need to amend the Constitution to shrink the deficit. But the Federal budget is always an exercise in setting priorities. Certain needs, from the country's military security to our social fabric, have to guide how we make choices about Government spending. And I would argue that we need to keep planning for the future, especially to invest in opportunities to sustain the country's economic strength and jobs. That is why I question and oppose the amendment by my friend from Arkansas. Yes, it is tempting to give up on the effort involved in NASA's plan for exploring the potential for building wind tunnels in the United States. But it is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. It would be a retreat from the future, and another blow to this country's ability to maintain a prosperous commercial aircraft industry. Since 1915, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] and its predecessor agency have worked closely with the country's aircraft industry, providing one another with technical support. And, in turn, that technical support and the entrepreneurship of our airplane manufacturers have made the aircraft industry one of America's great economic successes. America is the world's leader, and the industry generates not only billions of dollars in export sales but also supports tens of thousands of jobs across our country. NASA's aeronautics research program is a proven investment in jobs--good jobs for Americans. And it is particularly important at time when foreign competitors, particularly Airbus, receive major help from their governments. The subject before us, wind tunnels, are a key part of the NASA Aeronautics Program, and may be a vital tool for keeping our aircraft industry the world's leader. these tunnels are the facilities in which companies test and refine their new designs. New designs can be largely analyzed through computer simulations but in the final analysis companies must test physical models in advanced wind tunnels. Wind tunnels are also precisely the kind of investment in which a government role is both appropriate and necessary--valuable national facilities that help a range of companies but which are so expensive that no one company or even group of companies can readily fund by themselves. I want to note that our Government has operated wind tunnels for decades, serving both commercial and defense needs. But there's a very big catch. The tunnels in the United States are mostly 40 years old. In stark contrast, Europe has wind tunnels that are much more modern. Our companies can test its designs on the other side of the ocean, in foreign countries therefore. That leads to an extremely serious dilemma for American aircraft manufactures--either test their new aircraft designs in less sophisticated facilities here in the United States, or test in Europe where data on the best new American designs would undoubtedly end up in the hands of foreign competitors. I want to emphasize one important point here: NASA wind tunnels directly support a major U.S. industry--an industry which in turn generates sales, jobs, and I hasten to add, considerable tax revenue. And West Virginia is one of the States with the right conditions to build the wind tunnels. We have the most inexpensive and abundant supply of electricity in the Nation. And along are a state brimming with talented people ready to forge ahead building and operating this leading edge technology. Pulling the rug out from this initiative, aimed directly at improving this country's economic situation, seems reckless. The amendment from the Senator of Arkansas would cancel a decision made by Congress last year to devote $400 million to planning just how to overcome this serious gap between America's wind tunnels and those in foreign countries. Because of the high economic stakes involved for our Nation, Congress appropriated the money to begin developing a new pair of state-of-the-art American wind tunnels. Congress also conditioned that funding on an expectation that the administration would lay out a clearer plan on how to proceed with this effort and how to obtain the necessary commitments from the private sector. NASA is now finishing its assessment of future wind tunnel needs and how much industry is willing to share the costs of new facilities. The administration is asking this body to preserve the money until that study is completed and a full assessment can be made. Again, in light of the stakes--involving jobs and the future of a critical industry--I really think it's more than reasonable to reserve these funds if we are fully convinced they'll be a worthwhile investment. The Senate should await the results of that assessment before we take rash action today that would bring an end to this initiative and its potential for the country. We should wait for the full facts, and not take precipitous action that risks jeopardizing a vital export industry. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995 with my esteemed colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton. Senator Gorton and I have joined together to introduce this much needed legislation to improve our Nation's product liability laws with a bipartisan group of our colleagues, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Exon, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Chafee. We believe the time has come to reform our current system so that injured people are more likely to be compensated and so that businesses are not crushed by the costs of nonmeritorious inappropriate lawsuits. Senator Gorton and I have worked diligently over recent months to hone this product liability reform legislation in order to insure that it strikes the right balance between the interests of both consumers and business, and recognizing that under our current system, legal professionals are most often the biggest and often sole winners in product liability cases. Adjustments were made to reflect substantive and other concerns which we concluded were obstacles to the enactment of this necessary legislation. We believe we have significantly improved the legislation from earlier drafts and been responsive to the issues which prevented earlier enactment of this legislation. Before I review the reasons why I believe reform of this system is imperative and what has motivated me to work so hard to refine this bill, year after year, I want to take a moment to express my deep admiration for the work of the Senator from Washington and that of his staff. I have great respect for Senator Gorton's intellect and insight, and want to acknowledge his contribution to the improvement in this legislation--and the role he will play in pushing it to final enactment. It is a privilege to work with the distinguished new chairman of the Commerce Committee in crafting this year's bill. Our bill will encourage alternative dispute resolution as a way of getting parties to have their cases heard without going through the time and expense of a court trial. It will apply different responsibilities to a product seller as opposed to a manufacturer to avoid the kind of lawsuits that cast a wide net in the hopes of catching a cash cow. Our bill will give consumers more time to pursue legal action and it will allow consumers greater awards for punitive damages. This effort is nothing new for me. For years I have called for legal reforms to make the system more efficient, less costly, and fairer to consumers and business alike. I am tired of West Virginia businesspeople and workers and consumers paying the price for this inequitable, ineffective legal tangle. Paying higher costs for things or being denied new products because manufacturers are scared to assume the exposure that comes with it. And then, when a problem does arise, being forced to spend ridiculous amounts of money and invest years in the hopes of maybe getting some satisfaction. The product liability system is broken, and it is hurting the people of West Virginia, and Washington, and every State in between. The Rockefeller-Gorton bill aims to reform the laws so product liability is not an anchor around the American economy. Our approach is bipartisan and balanced and, I think, far-removed from the extreme bill in the House that is long on special interest needs and short on public interest fairness. If today's product liability laws achieve one thing, it is that it is an equal opportunity victimizer. Injured consumers oftentimes find it impossible to get a just and prompt resolution, and just as frequently, blameless manufacturers are forced to spend thousands of dollars on baseless lawsuits. The system frequently allows negligent companies to avoid penalties and even rewards undeserving plaintiffs. Product liability law should deter wasteful suits and discipline culpable practices but not foster hours of waste and endless litigation. Under the patchwork system we now have, depending on which of the 51 different jurisdictions you are in, product liability is not more reliable than a roll of the dice. Today a consumer, seeking fair compensation for harm done by a manufacturer must brace for a legal ordeal, often tilted in favor of business. Consumers generally recover just one-third of their actual damages. And that is when they can recover damages at all after fighting their way through statutes of limitation and corporate shell games that make assigning true liability ofttimes impossible. If a consumer can plow through this maze, they must be able to endure years of litigation that wrack up legal fees faster than a taxi meter in rush-hour traffic. biggest manufacturers can ride out costly litigation with less financial drain than consumers, but businessowners face a dizzying number of lawsuits too often without merit. The result? Manufacturers abandon research and development on new products that could invite future lawsuits, and prices on products are inflated to compensate for liability insurance or huge legal retainers. Price inflation passed on to consumers who are now doubly squeezed by the liability labyrinth. The Product Liability Fairness Act aims to correct this. Today, Senator Gorton and I introduce our bipartisan bill, with an impressive group of Senate cosponsors, and expect to begin hearings in his Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs in about a month. Just the other day, the Washington Post quoted a business executive who said, basically, that American businesses can be lumped into two groups: those that have been sued and those that will be sued. That is no way for American industry to operate and it results in pitting consumers against business to the detriment of both. The Rockefeller- Gorton bill is a step at easing this tension and restoring some common sense to the American legal system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for a number of years, I have been active--both through legislation and oversight activity--in seeking to improve VA's response to women veterans. While there has been some progress, much remains to be done. During the last Congress, we were poised to make some significant improvements, particularly in defining which services VA must furnish to women veterans. Unfortunately, that legislation, along with other vital measures, died in the closing hours of the Congress. While those issues may still be brought into play on legislation later on this year, one element of our prior effort can clearly be separated out at this time and dealt with on its own merits--and that's what the bill I am introducing today will do. background Mr. President, the bill I am introducing, which is cosponsored by Senators Akaka, Jeffords, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, and Murkowski, would ensure that women veterans will receive safe and accurate mammograms. Under this measure, VA facilities that furnish mammography would be required to meet quality assurance and quality control standards that are no less stringent than those to which other mammography providers are subject under the Mammography Quality Standards Act. VA facilities that contract with non-VA facilities would be required to contract only with facilities that comply with that act. I will now highlight briefly the provisions contained in this legislation. summary of provisions Mr. President, this legislation would establish quality standards for mammography services furnished by VA which would: First, require that all VA facilities that furnish mammography be accredited by a private nonprofit organization designated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Second, require the Secretary to designate only an accrediting body that meets the standards for accrediting bodies issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for purposes of accrediting mammography facilities subject to the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992-- Public Law 102-539. Third, require the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to issue quality assurance and quality control standards for mammography services furnished in VA facilities that would be no less stringent than the Department mammography providers are subject under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. Fourth, require the Secretary to issue such regulations not later than 120 days after enactment of this legislation. Fifth, require the Secretary to inspect mammography equipment operated by VA facilities on an annual basis in a manner consistent with requirements contained in the Mammography Quality Standards Act concerning annual inspections of mammography equipment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, except that the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs would not have the authority to delegate inspection responsibilities to a State agency. Sixth, require VA health care facilities that provide mammography through contracts with non-VA providers to contract only with mammography providers that comply with the Department of Health and Human Services' quality assurance and quality control regulations. Seventh, require the Secretary, not later than 180 days after the Secretary prescribes the mammography quality assurance and quality control regulations, to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on the implementation of those regulations. conclusion Mr. President, in closing, I emphasize just how vital improving VA health services for women veterans is to VA's future. Regardless of the outcome of national health care reform efforts, progress on health care reform at the State level dictates that VA must compete directly with non-VA providers. In addition, the State plans probably will provide veterans entitled to VA care, many of whom are presently uninsured, a wider range of health care choices. Under this scenario, VA would have to furnish a full continuum of health services, including quality mammography, in order to compete successfully for women veteran patients. This bill would hold VA to the mammography standards required of other providers. Anything less would deny the great debt we owe to the courageous women who have sacrificed themselves in service to our Nation. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Simpson, the cosponsors of this bill, and the other members of the committee to gain prompt action on it in our committee and the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I just listened, as I always do, very closely to my friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and not only identify myself with what he says but the compassion with which he says it, and the persistence. He never quits. There is no Senator in this body or in the recent history of this body who ever fought so hard for so many things so constantly, whatever the hour, the day or the night, than the senior Senator from Massachusetts. He has been talking a lot because not enough of us have come down to the floor to help him. You can hear the hoarseness in his voice. I have heard cracks in his voice, and they have been when he has spoken at the funerals of, most recently, his mother, and to mourn the death of his two brothers, Robert and John. I heard cracks in his voice then. He did his best to prevent that, and then, at the end, could not quite avoid it. And I think we all sort of wanted that to happen so we could share in his grief. But if you hear cracks in his voice now it is because he is fighting just for what they would fight for. But he is tired. His voice is tired, but his spirit is not. I respect him. There is a fellow sitting next to him by the name of Nick Littlefield who ought to be a Senator in this body from somewhere. He is Senator Kennedy's chief of staff and he is everywhere where he needs to be. His optimism and his fighting spirit is matched, obviously, by the man with whom he works. But there is not any good cause or battle that Nick Littlefield will stay away from. So with the two of them on this floor all by themselves except for the junior Senator from West Virginia, I am proud to be down here this afternoon. That is not to say I do not have a great deal of respect for the Presiding Officer who, I expect if he wanted to mix it up, would do pretty well, too. Although I suspect we might be on different sides on this particular issue. Mr. President, everything he said is true, I might say to the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I hope that come next Sunday he will see 1,000 children bused in from all over this country, being fed by Members of the Congress--dinner, lunch--and then joining hands with Members of Congress, literally surrounding the Capitol. Literally hands around the Capitol--little children and children not so young--but all children who are about to have their hot lunches taken away or their breakfasts taken away or something else taken away from them by the zeal that exists around here to cut back on what is necessary for some people in our country to survive and to live while finding ways to increase the wealth of some of us who, frankly, do not need a whole lot more. It is all very perplexing to me. I grew up in one party, the Republican Party. I became a Democrat at the time that President John F. Kennedy was President because I worked in the Peace Corps. Then I worked for the State Department, then VISTA. But over these past couple of months, this period of time alone has made me understand--not that I had to--why I did what I did and became a Democrat. Because we are talking about lives at stake in the matter of this Kassebaum amendment. We are talking about situations where I myself have seen families torn apart. Probably one of the most famous examples of strikers being replaced-- at least in the recent years, and maybe not the most famous, but the most famous to me--took place in West Virginia, at a place called Ravenswood Aluminum. It lasted a year and a half. It was terribly bitter. It was terribly dangerous. It was so dangerous that people wanted to stay away from the area. The Ravenswood story is about people of West Virginia who are not necessarily born with a silver spoon when they are born. They have to work. So when Ravenswood locked out its own workers, and replaced them with something called permanent replacements, we literally saw situations in families with a striker-replacer brother and a striking brother; or brother/sister, in the same household. Husband/wife; brother/sister; uncle/nephew. Those scars still exist, and the anger and what it did to that community have not yet fully healed. I gave a speech there not long ago. That community has not yet recovered. That is what they still talk about and the crisis was several years ago. So I associate myself with what my friend from Massachusetts has said. I also want to note the irony, which I think he perhaps raised before but I did not hear it, and that is the irony that the Kassebaum amendment is holding up a package before us to reduce the deficit and supplement the Defense Department. Let me start by emphasizing that this question posed by Senator Kassebaum's amendment is clearly stalling the passage of a bill which has enormously broad support for very obvious reasons. The Kassebaum amendment has slowed down a bill that would cut the Federal deficit by $1.5 billion as soon as it is signed into law. I do not know how long it takes to print up a bill and send it over to the White House, but I expect it could be by Monday or Tuesday. The President would sign it and the deficit would go down $1.5 billion as a result. We have been here for the last several weeks and month or more debating deficit reduction. How to do it, by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Or by human endeavor? The Kassebaum amendment has slowed down a bill that will make our military forces more capable of dealing with national security emergencies or dangers, which is something not only folks on this side of the aisle talk about, but almost to a person the folks on that side talk about constantly. This will not happen for as long as this amendment prevents it from happening. So let us be very sure that the American people understand what is in fact going on, on this floor. A week and 1 day ago, 28 Senators put together this bill, to both replenish critical parts of the budget for the Defense Department and cut Government spending in order to reduce the deficit. We could have passed that bill yesterday. Everybody was here. It is hard to do that today because very few people are here. We could have appointed Senate negotiators to work out the final details with the House. They could have met over the weekend. I expect they would have met over the weekend. They would have been meeting today. They probably could have reached an agreement today--and seen the Federal deficit come down as a result, after the President's pen struck the bill and signed his name. But instead we have an effort to strengthen our military forces and to cut Government spending being held up by this amendment that has absolutely nothing to do with either of these critical objectives. I find that ironic, I have to say. I just find that ironic. It is incredible to me to see this impasse over a deficit reduction bill after every single Senator on the other side of the aisle, except for one lone voice, who some want to drive from his party, spent more than a amendment because they felt so clearly that there could be no other way to reduce the deficit. The fervor on the other side of the aisle over the balanced budget debate was remarkable. There was an awesome display of unity and singlemindedness. Once again, we are seeing proof that the balanced budget amendment is a very different matter than actually cutting Government waste. It is one thing to talk about it. It is another thing to do it--it's another thing to actually take tangible, real steps to cut that budget deficit. We are ready to do it. So if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so determined to really deal with the deficit, then why are they throwing up roadblocks to this amendment, which is an Executive order of substantial simplicity, which I will get into in a moment? The Senate, although I suspect we could convince very few Americans of it, particularly when we do things like this, is not a political convention. It is supposed to be the place where we use our powers, our brains, our judgment, our convictions to get important work done. I thought we had agreed on the need for this bill before us. In fact, 28 Senators last week, by a unanimous vote in the Appropriations Committee, did agree on that. That is where I understand 28 Senators to be--Republicans and Democrats--unanimous in their support for this bill. All the Senators who voted for this bill agreed that military readiness and deficit reduction should take priority over everything else that could take place during the course of this week. Nothing transcended that in importance, a proper judgment by both political parties. But I guess that is not the case with some of our colleagues. I guess I am wrong. Instead, we have to burn up time talking about an amendment that tries to stop the President from doing something that is quite simple, that deserves support from both business and working families. The President's Executive order, which this amendment attacks and seeks to defeat, is an effort to impose a basic condition on Federal contracts that by definition are financed by American taxpayers. We are not even talking about totally private arrangements. The condition in the Executive order says that businesses that want Federal contracts-- and there is no law saying that a business has to seek Federal contracts--should not be ones that deal with valid, legal labor disputes by hiring workers to permanently replace their own employees. The President's Executive order does not take away a business' ability to hire temporary replacements when dealing with a dispute. I repeat: If there is a labor dispute or a strike, a business can hire temporary workers for the duration of the dispute or the strike. And, therefore, this order does not expect a business to stop production. This order does not expect to close one iota of anybody's operations down or do anything to lose one dime of business. It simply upholds the principle that when the law--that is, the Federal law--gives workers a right to collectively bargain, or the right to protest conditions or practices, then employers do not have the right to punish those workers by eliminating their jobs for good. That is not very complicated. I do not think that is particularly difficult to swallow. In fact, it was something that was fairly broadly accepted in the business community until all of a sudden it suddenly became an issue because some people wanted to make it one, and it has been one ever since. So we have these votes more or less on an annual basis. We have a Federal law that gives workers the right to collectively bargain. That is established fact in this country. Some people like that. Some people do not like that. But that is the law. And it is available to anyone who collectively bargains. They have the right to protest conditions. Well, I work in a State, and so do the rest of us, where conditions are not what they ought to be in a few places. Since all of us here in the collective body politic tend to get around our States a great deal, visiting plants and facilities, we see situations like this unless we close our eyes. We see situations like this. It is not very often, but we do see them and we do know that in our hearts. We know that. So if workers lawfully and legitimately protest unsafe conditions or practices, then employers do not have the right to punish those workers by permanently eliminating their jobs. Replace the workers while the dispute is going on, that is permissible. Operations do not cease. Profits do not cease. If you come to West Virginia and you have 100 job offers--at a Rite- Aid Drugstore or somewhere else--you will get 1,000 to 1,500 applicants, Mr. President. I suspect in some parts of the State of the Presiding Officer, that is true, too. It is uplifting in one way. It is just incredibly sad in another. People are so hungry to work that 1,500 people turn out for 50 jobs, jobs that often do not offer any health benefits. But they are jobs and they are better than not having jobs, and people want to work in both the State of Pennsylvania and the State of West Virginia. So people turn up. This Executive order does not and cannot prohibit permanent replacements in all labor disputes. It simply says to businesses that, if you want to benefit from Federal contracts paid for by the taxpayers, you need to uphold certain standards, standards long established, long followed, long not disputed, accepted until all of a sudden they became an issue. The American people are constantly telling us they want Congress to get their money's worth when taxes are spent on Government programs and contracts and benefits. Mr. President, I would argue that the Executive order is designed to do exactly that. Look at the research. It is a fact. Strikes involving permanent replacements last seven times longer than strikes that do not involve permanent replacements. So that is seven times more grief and economic and personal and family and community agony that need not be. Those are the facts. If there are permanent replacements, the strikes, the worker disputes, the worker-management disputes will go on seven times longer. Strikes involving permanent replacement workers tend to be much more hostile, much more painful for both sides, and often turn what could be a fairly brief period of disagreement and negotiation into a much longer and often, I am sorry to say, violent impasse: gunshots, attacks on the roads, baseball bats, intimidation from both sides. Permanently replacing striking employees can mean trading in experienced, skilled workers for inexperienced men and women. It does not have to mean that. It does not always mean that. But it can mean that. That is not to the advantage of anyone either, particularly if the business wants to continue to make a profit, to do well, and to compete on an international basis. Mr. President, asking businesses that want Federal contracts to resist dealing with labor-management disputes in ways that are more costly, in ways that are more contentious and contrary to the principle of collective bargaining and cooperation, is not something that should be holding up a deficit reduction and military readiness bill, in this Senator's opinion. I suggest to all of my colleagues that it is not in anybody's interest to struggle over the issue of replacement workers with so much blustering conflict amongst ourselves. Congress should be encouraging cooperation and doing everything we can. That is what all of the study groups on competitiveness tell us to do. We should encourage cooperation between both management and labor and between business and workers. We should treat the idea of collective bargaining as a friendly and, frankly, a very American concept. There is nothing wrong, Mr. President, with collective bargaining. It is the way that people improve their conditions. It has a stark pattern. I remember going to South Korea 10 years ago. They did not really have any labor unions in South Korea 10 years ago. As of about 2 or 3 years ago, they had over 3,000. What has happened? Yes, there have been some incidents, some strikes, and that is natural as a labor union and a company try to come to terms with each other. Wages have started to increase, conditions have started to improve. The national wealth of South Korea is now growing enormously. Japan went through this. I spent 3 years as a university student in Japan, at a time when labor was not higher industrial wage than the United States. The average worker makes more money there than they do here. And Japan is not particularly known as a country that is hard to do business with, if you get along with the Japanese. If you are an American company it could be harder, but amongst themselves, they do well. So we should not treat the idea of collective bargaining as some kind of bizarre concept. It is inherent to the roots of this country and, quite frankly, I do not know where we would be without it. If half of this body really wants to encourage employers to resist problem solving and dispute resolution by hiring permanent replacements, then that is encouraging more conflict in the workplace and in our communities. Again, strikes are seven times longer where permanent replacements become the issue. As I indicated before, I have great, painful knowledge about what happens in these situations. If you go to the community of Ravenswood, WV, a beautiful community in Jackson County, right by the Ohio river, employers were deciding whether to lock out their own workers, 1,700 of them--that is an enormous work force in that part of West Virginia-- with permanent replacements. They made that decision. Everybody in West Virginia, including this Senator, watched the hurt that this labor dispute caused; it was genuine hurt--this is not a political speech. It was a genuine hurt within families. Families were just torn apart because, on the one hand, the need to work, and on the other hand, the need to play fair. This tore families asunder, and it was real. Families still do not speak to each other because of this issue. We watched this for over a year and a half in West Virginia, a State that can ill afford to have 1,700 people not working because an employer had the ability to punish its workers this way, and this employer tried very hard to punish his workers that way. It was violent and it was scary, and it hurt the image of West Virginia badly. We will never know how many families might have been saved from financial ruin, if the employer would have simply dealt with the labor dispute and gotten it resolved quickly. Mr. President, I truly do not believe Republicans in the Senate need to take up the cause of businesses that want the power to punish workers with something called permanent replacements. We are talking about a relatively few number of businesses--the relatively few who, in a strike, will decide to punish in this extreme manner. Sometimes an employer will take this action during the course of the dispute and sometimes that will be the purpose of the dispute from the very beginning--to break the union, or something else. But it is the few. It is not many. But when it happens, it is awful. So we are not talking about a typical situation; we are talking about a very untypical situation. That excessive power simply is not necessary. The Executive order under attack by the Kassebaum amendment would still retain any business' lawful ability to bring in temporary workers, while a labor dispute or strike is getting resolved. But the point is that we should encourage cooperation, we should encourage resolutions to conflicts. The Presiding Officer and I both come from States where there is a lot of coal mining. I can remember the days when, in my State, there were constant things called ``temporary restraining orders'' going before judges. Every time there was a dispute at the face of a mine between a worker and management over some little issue, or some big issue, the first thing they did--and the parallel is in the tort reform bill, where I expect the Presiding Officer and I will be on the same side--the first thing they did was call a lawyer and go to court. Then, of course, everybody got hostile and anxious, and the dispute went on forever, and no coal got mined and people did not make money and people could not put food on the table. The temporary restraining order-- whatever happened in court--would be appealed. Finally, management and workers decided in the coal industry in our State to simply say this is ridiculous, we are both losing. They sat down and worked out a way of working out their disagreements, which was to say that when a dispute occurred over a working condition or some rule or something at the face of a mine, which is underground where the wall of coal is, that the worker and the foreman at that area simply talked and worked it out right there. They agreed, workers and management, that this would be the system. I may have to fault my memory on this, but I think for 8 or 10 years, we had no temporary restraining orders whatsoever. Mining employers and workers simply decided that they were going to improve labor-management relations and they wanted it to work better. They wanted to be able to export coal which meant Japan, South Korea, and Canada had to depend upon the coal coming. Therefore, there had to be dependability and consistency that was in the interest of both workers and management. So they settled their disputes. I am talking about nothing different here. But even if there is a situation where there is a labor dispute, still a company can bring in replacement workers until the dispute is resolved. The point is, we should encourage the cooperation and resolutions to conflicts. We should try to prevent painful, costly, divisive situations that break out--in Ravenswood and the other communities that have been discussed on the floor over the past day or so. Again, I cannot understand why the President of the United States should not be allowed to condition Federal contracts on practices that would make us more sure that taxpayers' money would be spent efficiently. The logic of that, again, is where you do not have permanent replacements you have much shorter labor disputes by a factor of 7 and, therefore, money is saved for the taxpayers. There is a lot of talk on this floor about playing by the rules. This Senator does some of it and a lot of Senators do some of it. Should not the President of the United States be able to suggest that businesses that want Federal contracts play by the rules as well? I mean, is that not reasonable? It is very obvious from statistics that workers and their families do not want to resort to strikes. When has there been a strike that has not been destructive of workers' interests, and especially in the short term? People, generally, in this country want to work hard and make a good income and support their families. People have no choice but to work hard. But when the rare dispute breaks out, they should not have to fear the elimination of their jobs just because of a disagreement over wages or health benefits or safety standards. And I believe that deeply. The Kassebaum amendment should be defeated on many grounds. It is a disruption to the first time this year that this body has finally been able to do something real about the Federal deficit and Government spending. The amendment is an effort to take the President's ability away to set some practical standards on how Federal contracts are given out. And this amendment will only encourage more labor-management conflict and strife, and everybody here knows that. If this amendment prevails there will be more of it which is not in anyone's interest. I urge my colleagues to put aside the divisive tactics over issues that have to do with workplace and with relations between business and workers. Ask the families in Ravenswood, WV, what happened when an employer is allowed to respond to a labor dispute with permanent replacements. The answer is pain. The answer is suffering. And it is all totally unnecessary. Everyone in the Senate should take a fresh, objective look at this issue, which is very hard for people to do. The lines are so set on it. Too many people here stopped actually thinking about this issue long ago and took positions. And in this case, I think that those who oppose this would do well to take a fresh look and not think about who is on the side of business and who is on the side of organized labor and what kind of points can we build up. That is irrelevant. All 100 of us should be on the side of cooperation. All 100 of us should be working to uphold the law that grants workers the right to collectively bargain. All 100 of us should insist that we get on with the job that the bill before us is about, which is called reducing the Federal deficit and increasing our national security. I feel a special sense of obligation, I say to the Presiding Officer, because I special sense of obligation to get about the business of deficit reduction. I mean, there will be some areas where I will disagree with the majority, but there will be many areas where I will agree. I feel an obligation. Reducing the deficit helps the people of my State, too, in terms of future generations. Just as I think it was wise not to include, hopefully not to include, Social Security in any budget balancing effort, because people have a right to retire with dignity and confidence. So I hope this amendment will be defeated. I think that is important. This issue comes up every year and I know it is treated sort of automatically by both sides. But it is not an automatic issue. It is an extremely real and personal one. It has to do with the fundamental rights of people. It is not something which happens that often. We create more havoc in taking up this fight every year than if we let the President simply go out and do what Presidents ought to be able to do in the interest of business and working people. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this has been a historic day in the U.S. Congress. This afternoon, each of us casted our vote on whether to attach an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require in the strictest possible terms a balanced Federal budget in the next 7 years. And I joined my fellow and senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who led a serious and important battle against the amendment, in voting against this idea. I voted to defend West Virginians from the flaws and dangers of this amendment, and to help ensure that our State is not forced once again to pay the costs of others' political agendas, past mistakes, and potential for reckless harm. Today's vote was another victory for the idea that promises like Social Security should be kept. That Congress should focus on making real choices and setting priorities in dealing with the Federal Government's budget, instead of using the Constitution to blindly do the job. I have no doubt this idea for a constitutional amendment will be pushed again. For that reason, I want to outline my concerns again. This proposed constitutional amendment will affect the lives of every single West Virginian, and every single American--children, parents, and grandparents; seniors, workers, and students; our large and small businesses, and all their workers; the poor and the disabled--everyone. So it is critical that we fully understand what it proposes to do and how it will work. I suggest that we all have to be able to answer a few key questions: First, can the constitutional balanced budget amendment accomplish its goal of bringing the deficit down to zero in 7 years? Second, how it will accomplish that goal? And third, what are the consequences of moving to a zero deficit over a short period of time? Who will sacrifice, what programs will be cut, what programs will be spared? In short, who wins and who loses? That's what West Virginians tell me they want to know about the balanced budget amendment. They're willing to participate in a national crusade to get the deficit down--they supported the significant downpayment we made on reducing the deficit in 1993. As always, West Virginians are willing to do their fair share--but they want to know what that share will be. They want to know up front. And so do I. Before I give you my best answers to those three key questions, I want to note why the answers to these questions are essential. West Virginia has been told to trust Washington's promises about balancing the budget and cutting taxes in the past, as recently as the early 1980's. We didn't have the say in the matter then, and we were devastated. we don't want to let that happen again. We remember very well what happens when the Federal Government claims it can reduce its own costs, and then ignores the costs it foists onto the States. I remember well because I was Governor of West Virginia, when all too similar promises were made. I watched Congress promise to balance the budget while cutting taxes. I saw what happened in living Color. West Virginia's plants shut down and threw working families into foreclosures and bankruptcies. Our kids were forced to drop out of college because tuition money had to go to their families' mortgage payments and medical expenses. Our senior citizens had to keep their thermostats at 58 degrees because they could not afford heating oil. When I say I want to see the hidden details of this balanced budget amendment, it is not a political ploy or out of intellectual curiosity. It is because I have a contract with West Virginia. This time around I am here in Congress, not working in the State House, and I insist that West Virginia be told how this is going to be done. I insist on behalf of the residents of West Virginia. West Virginians take their right to know so seriously that the West Virginia Legislature passed a bipartisan resolution on February 14, 1995, reaffirming the importance of their right to know the details of the balanced budget amendment. The West Virginia resolution urged Congress to submit: [A] Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment to the States for ratification only if Congress provides a detailed projection of what reductions will be made in the Federal budget and how these will affect the government and people of West Virginia, including, but not limited to, the effect on Social Security benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, education, highway moneys, including completion of the Appalachian corridor system, and other programs necessary to the health and well-being of the people of our State. It's that simple. If you don't tell me how reaching a balanced budget is going to be achieved so I can share that information with West Virginia, you won't have my vote. Democrats proposed just such an amendment. This amendment, the citizens' right to know amendment, would have given the States and their residents the right to know how we intend to reach a zero deficit by 2002. This improvement was offered by Senator Daschle on behalf of our Democratic Senate colleagues. It was summarily rejected, mostly on party lines, early in the debate on the balanced budget amendment. I am both shocked and disappointed that a majority of Members serving in the U.S. Senate chose to deny the people whom they represent the right-to-know what it would take to reach a balanced budget. And I am forced to conclude what a number of Republican leaders have stated publicly is the case, they believe that if the people knew what it would take to balance the budget--they might not support the constitutional amendment. The Senate also considered a proposed revision to this constitutional amendment to protect Social Security's trust funds. I voted for that idea, and watched my colleagues in support of the amendment proceed to vote to not protect Social Security. How can West Virginians--working people and seniors--trust their elected officials when they pay into a trust fund that's supposed to be dedicated only to Social Security, and see this rejection of the idea of keeping that promise. The failure of this constitutional amendment to protect Social Security is a reason alone to reject it. In fact, surveys of public opinion show over and over again that support for this amendment plummets to 32 percent when they learn that Social Security could be cut. I want to be clear. The constitutional amendment before the Senate today could lead to cuts in Social Security, and if it had prevailed, I am sure it would result in cuts in Social Security. Having said that, let us turn to the key questions: Can the amendment do what its exponents claim and how, and what does that mean? balanced budget by 2002? A careful reading of the actual legislative language of the balanced budget amendment makes clear the amendment alone will do nothing to balance our budget. It will not make us any smarter or wiser, or fairer when it comes time to proceed with the actual budget bills required to make tangible progress toward deficit reduction. This Congress does not need a constitutional amendment to perform its job of deficit reduction and fiscal prudence. Nothing in this provides Congress with any new authority to reduce the deficit, make tough budget cuts, or increase revenues. What the amendment says is that the Constitution requires Congress to balance the budget--and little more. Provisions are included which permit waiving the balanced budget requirements, but they have extraordinary hurdles attached to them in the form of supermajority rollcall votes. Other unprecedented provisions in this amendment would rewrite our Constitution's system of checks and balances, in addition to the provisions which upset the fundamental principles of majority rule. The amendment does not lay out explicit definitions of what should or should not be counted in tallying up the deficit, or reducing it. It doesn't protect any program, not Social Security, not Medicare, not defense, not veterans, not children's programs, not disaster aid. Congress already has the power to reduce the deficit. It doesn't need the algebra of fiscal policy written into the Constitution to do its job. And some of us in Congress, myself and my fellow West Virginian, the great Senator Byrd included, have stepped up to the plate and helped reduce the deficit. Congress has proven it can reduce the deficit on its own. We proved that in 1993 during the budget reconciliation debate--and we should all learn from that lesson. That congressional budget resolution, not a constitutional dictate, reduced the deficit. And Congress can and should reduce the deficit again. We should make our choices about how to do it prudently. We should take into consideration the benefits provided by certain Government programs and services, from Medicare to veterans benefits to public health programs to environmental protection. But continue on the path of deficit reduction we can and must. In 1993, when the Vice President had to cast the final Senate vote for the President's budget to put us over the edge and ensure we made a sizeble downpayment on the deficit, Democrats voted to streamline and cut popular Federal programs, to ask individual Americans to contribute to our national effort to reduce the deficit, and to increase Federal revenues where appropriate. That vote was about real deficit reduction--not a popular gimmick, not a quick constitutional fix that pretends to reduce the deficit, but is nothing more than a soundbyte so we can say we've resolved to get our financial house in order. Should a balanced budget amendment pass this year, the national deficit for 1995 will be exactly the same tomorrow as it is today, even if this constitutional balanced budget amendment were to pass overwhelmingly. That fact seems to have been obscured by much of the talk surrounding this amendment. The truth is that those who believe we need to start making the tough choices about how to reduce the deficit won't find any tough choices in the actual amendment. Indeed, I would argue that this amendment is an easy way out--it allows Members to declare their support for a balanced budget amendment, and lets them avoid the question of how we're going to do it. That's a copout in my book. And it is a huge step backward from the progress we made under the administration's 1993 budget that put us on the path to a reduced deficit with explicit, program-by- program cuts. A specific budget plan that details how we will achieve a balanced budget is the only real way to reduce the deficit and balance the budget--with or without this constitutional amendment. We have seen no such plan from the Republican majority during the debate of this amendment, although the new majority leader has shared his speculation about the level of some cuts which might be necessary with some news organizations. Just this week, the new chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Packwood, has speculated what kind of cuts would be necessary out of the health care programs for the elderly and disabled, and for poor children and pregnant women--$250 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid over the next 5 years, and some $400 billion over the full 7-year timeframe to reach balance. That's late breaking news from some of the Republican leaders and it raises real questions about why we have been provided with so little in terms of hard numbers to date. I know West Virginia seniors, rural hospitals, the disabled, and doctors who care for Medicare and Medicaid patients will be significantly affected by the unprecedented cuts described by Senator Packwood. But even as the new congressional leadership begins to give us real numbers about what will be required of certain programs--I have heard very little about how they are going to make those cuts--which providers' rates will be cuts, how much more seniors will pay out-of- pocket, if children can still count on receiving basic health care services, and so on. The lack of details has been astounding. Question 2--How will we achieve the goal of a balanced budget in 7 years? My answer to question 1 was that the constitutional amendment would not, of and unto itself, balance the budget. It merely says we have to do it. The only answer I can offer to question 2 is those in control of the numbers haven't told us how they will achieve the goal. They just say they will. They say ``trust us.'' That is it. Thats all the detail you get from the amendment. True, by thinking about the basic components of the Federal budget, you can start figuring out what programs will take major hits under a balanced budget amendment--the health programs, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security if Congress reneges on its ephemeral promise to protect it. Even the staff of the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici's staff, has concluded that over $664 billion in cuts will be required in non-Social Security, non-defense mandatory entitlement programs to reach a zero deficit by the year 2002. That's nearly $100 billion in cuts every year if you spread it out. But they will not tell you how. I want to take a moment to explain a couple of very important amendments to the balanced budget resolution, and my views of them. You will recall that the Democratic amendment to exempt the Social Security Program from the calculations of the constitutional balanced budget amendment was rejected by a majority of Members. I voted for that initial amendment to protect Social Security because I saw it as a way to protect Social Security--and other--people from unfair harm, from broken promises, and for the sound financial reason that Social Security has not contributed to our deficit problems. It is a trust fund. During the amendment process, I also voted for additional protections for other vital programs as well, but that approach to protecting certain populations from the ravages of the balanced budget amendment failed. Recognizing that a series of those protective amendments failed to win passage, I could not vote for the substitute balanced budget amendment offered by Senator Feinstein. The amendment has the laudable goal of, once again, attempting to protect Social Security beneficiaries as I voted to do earlier in this process, but it still would have required a balanced budget in a 7-year timeframe. This amendment would still put a straitjacket on the country's economic and budget policy, it could still cause the devastating effects that the main proposal before us poses for West Virginians and the rest of Americans. It still could turn a period of high unemployment into a recession. In protecting Social Security, but serving as the same speeding train, the Feinstein amendment might also mow down benefits for war-injured veterans, Medicare payments that rural hospitals depend on to survive, the programs that help create jobs in our communities, funds for our schools. Had the Feinstein amendment prevailed, it would have forced even more draconian cuts in services and benefits where fight as hard as anyone to protect Social Security, but slapping a balanced budget amendment onto the Constitution is not the way to do that. Many Members also claim they want to protect defense from cuts as a result of the balanced budget, but haven't made any hard promises that they will do it. Other programs like veterans compensation and health care were not protected during the amendment process either--despite my offering what I believe to be a very surgical way to protect a special category of particularly needy and deserving veterans. It failed. Veterans have no guarantees that they are safe from the balanced budget's requirements for cuts. And that leads us to question three. Question 3--What are the consequences for our families, for our businesses, and for our States, of balancing the budget in 7 years? Even if one accepts the lack of specific information regarding how we would actually reach a balanced budget, one of the things Congress is always responsible for doing is assessing the consequences of our actions. That's impossible to do without the detailed plan or road map of how we are going to get from here to there. The amendment itself has been the subject of serious debate over the last few weeks in the U.S. Senate. Much of that debate has been a direct result of the tremendous effort and careful analysis of the senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd--we all owe him a debt of gratitude for the numerous illuminations he has provided. And I thank each of my colleagues for their various contributions and commentary on a whole list of amendments which have been offered as modifications to the amendment. I would like to be able to point to a single strengthening amendment beyond the limitation of how the courts can intervene in setting our budgetary and tax policies, but cannot. But I do honestly believe that the Senate has come to understand what is decipherable from the text of the amendment, and the intent of its proponents, because of this debate--even though we have not been provided the critical road map which would show us how we would achieve the balance of the Federal budget. What we do know about how this amendment would work is troubling to me as well. It astounds me to see Senators voting for this amendment without knowing how this amendment affects their States and our citizens, how vulnerable populations like children and seniors would fare under this amendment. I believe the citizens of West Virginia deserve to know how this amendment will affect their daily lives, the safety of the water they drink, the quality of the air they breathe, the health care services they need, the student loans their children need to make college affordable, and the roads which they drive on to get to and from work every day. They deserve to know how this amendment will affect the basics of their daily lives--and because the majority voted down the right to know amendment offered by the minority leader they will not know. They cannot know because Congress does not know. All Congress knows is the amendment will constitutionally mandate us to find a way to make sure we do not spend any more than we take in every year--that's the only assurance in the entire amendment--every other provision is a maybe. The cost-shifting that the balanced budget would cause to families and businesses in my State of West Virginia and in every State is mammoth. Statistics compiled by the Treasury Department, by the respected Wharton School, and by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, among others, give us a picture of how the amendment will affect our citizens even in the absence of detailed numbers, and program by program explanations. The different analyses I have seen tell us that under the balanced budget amendment, in West Virginia, 22,000 jobs will be lost, personal income will drop, health care services will be limited, and State and local taxes will have to be increased by over 20 percent to compensate for lost Federal dollars. The studies show that the State of West Virginia would have to raise its State and local taxes 20.6 percent across the board to compensate for the funds it would lose under the balanced budget amendment; that 22,000 jobs are projected to be lost in West Virginia as a result of the balanced budget amendment (in 2003); that personal income in West Virginia is projected to drop by 8 percent as a result of the balanced budget amendment (in 2003); that the balanced budget amendment and the House contract's fiscal agenda would result in a loss of $96 million in Federal grants in 1996--which is $53 per resident. West Virginia would lose $322 million in 1998, $175 per resident of West Virginia. West Virginia would lose $841 million in 2002, $457 per person in West Virginia. West Virginia Medicare benefits would be cut by $824 million per year (by the year 2002), and total over $3 billion cumulatively. West Virginia Medicaid funding would be cut by $488 million per year (by the year 2002). Those projections provide a pretty stark picture of the consequences of this amendment. They tell me I cannot support this balanced budget amendment. And they raise a whole lot of additional questions about how this amendment will affect our national economy. How will the amendment affect West Virginia's economic recovery, and the economic future of our States? How will our most vulnerable populations fare under the amendment? How will defense be treated in the process? What kind of cuts, reforms, or increased revenues are necessary to take us from today's deficit, (which has steadily been reduced over the last 3 years for the first time since Harry Truman was President due to Democratic budget initiatives), to a zero deficit and how will we maintain that during natural disasters, recessions, or national security threats? How will we get from here to there? These are more of the kind of questions that West Virginians have called my office asking me and my staff. These are the kind of questions I want hard answers to before I vote in favor of any balanced budget amendment. Because this is such a serious matter, amending the document which enshrines our Nation's guiding principles and which is our Nation's organic law, I would like to list a series of additional concerns about the amendment which the Senate debate of recent weeks has only served to highlight. In some cases, we have had assurances from the amendments' proponents that some of these concerns will be met in implementing legislation, or because there is strong support for certain programs. But West Virginians have no guarantee of anything under this amendment. I cannot cast my vote on a constitutional amendment based on personal assurances of Members, even those from Members for whom I have the utmost regard. I have to cast my vote based on the actual language of the constitutional amendment and it remains deeply troubling to me. First, I reiterate, nothing in the balanced budget amendment makes government more efficient, less wasteful, or stops unnecessary spending. Only specific legislation, like the President's own deficit reduction initiative, which passed without a solitary Republican vote, can do that. The debate makes it sound like this amendment is a magic bullet to our perplexing budget dilemmas. Second, this amendment would result in big increases in State and local taxes. One Governor concludes that without seeing the plan for how balancing the budget will be accomplished, this amendment should be considered a vote to raise State and local taxes. He dubbed the existing amendment a ``trickle down tax increase''. Third, the balanced budget amendment is bad economic policy. Basic economics tells us the size of the deficit is directly related to the health of the economy. The deficit rises when the economy weakens--but temporary increases in the deficit act as automatic economic stabilizers. When family and business incomes decline, their tax liabilities decline more than proportionately. The resulting deficit means the government is paying out more than it takes in, counterbalancing the fall in the economy. This is true on the spending side as well. For example, when workers lose their jobs, higher outlays the gap in family budgets, and in overall economic activity, until the economy or people's individual situations improve. If a balanced budget were required every year, that cushioning effect would not be there. A balanced budget amendment would force us to cut spending or raise taxes to eliminate increases in the deficit caused by a slowing economy. Our fiscal policies would make the natural swings in the economy more pronounced--recessions will be deeper and longer. The proposed super-majority vote that would permit a deficit to exist during times of economic weakness is ineffective. Congress would have to be more prescient than private sector forecasters in order to develop the needed consensus to waive the strict balanced budget requirement. Fourth, the amendment does not adequately address how it will be enforced--making it either unenforceable or turning over enforcement to the courts or the President. The amendment would fundamentally restructure the balance of power set forth in the Constitution and could still empower unelected judges to raise taxes or cut spending, despite a restriction placed on the courts in an amendment offered by Senator Nunn in the closing moments of this debate. If the amendment were deemed unenforceable, respect for the Constitution would be severely diminished and rule of law would be undermined. The question of who will enforce this amendment has not been adequately answered by its proponents. Will it be the courts or the President--or is it intended not to be enforceable? Placing an unenforceable amendment in our Nation's charter would result in countless constitutional violations and make all other constitutional rights, by extension, violable as well. Judicial involvement in the budgetary process would be unprecedented, even for declaratory judgments, and yet the balanced budget amendment significantly increases judicial authority. Under this amendment, judges may be the ones asked to make the hard choices about that the Congress is accountable for making today--and I strongly believe judges lack the institutional capacity to make those decisions. It's wholly inappropriate to shift that duty to them. The Constitution's decision to give the ``power of the purse'' to the legislature was not made lightly. This amendment could transfer some of that power to the courts. Fifth, rules for fiscal policy should not be written into the Constitution. The Constitution is a miraculous document precisely because it establishes transcendent national ideals and freedoms and the structure of our Government, without micromanaging its performance. It sets individual rights and creates a system of separation of powers, our checks and balances, which protect against any one branch of government becoming too powerful. Fiscal policies respond to current economic conditions and the structure of the economy--those conditions and structures are constantly changing and should not be restricted to today's needs. Fiscal policy should reflect a constantly changing economic environment, not written in stone in the Constitution. Sixth, the amendment violates the our traditionally democratic principle of majority rule. The amendment requires a three-fifths supermajority vote to pass a law that allows deficit spending or a debt increase. For more than two centuries, the Constitution has only required a supermajority vote for measures vetoed by the President. Giving a minority the power to absolutely block legislative action would be an unprecedented undermining of majority rule. The wholesale transfer of power from the majority to the minority in cases where there is a recession, need to respond to an international or natural crisis, or to extend the Treasury's ability to borrow to pay the government's bills should not be permitted. Seventh, the balanced budget amendment will create uncertainty about the reliability of government services and obligations. There is a real practical difficulty in insuring the government's budget is balanced every year. If estimates are inaccurate (as they can very well be) and mid-year revised projections show a deficit by year's end--where will the money to compensate for the deficit come from? Interest payments can't be defaulted on, cutting entitlement programs like Medicare with millions of beneficiaries count on would be extremely unpopular, especially in the circumstance that there is very little notice--which means discretionary programs would probably take the mid-year hit. Discretionary programs like student loans could be totally shut down. In sum, this constitutional amendment is the most expansive amendment to our Constitution brought to a vote in both Houses in the last 206 years. The amendment is almost as long as the entire Bill of Rights, and it would embed fiscal policy in our Constitution. It's called the balanced budget amendment but does nothing more than say we should balance the budget--the amendment is misnamed, it should be called the ``Let's Use the Constitution to Promise We Will Balance the Budget Amendment.'' When the rhetoric of the virtues of financial responsibility or balance has to be translated into action which will cut the deficit, it will mean across the board cuts in programs which millions of Americans rely on for their health care and nutritional needs, to help send their children to college, to improve their highways and bridges, and to protect our environment. It dodges the toughest questions of how we can get our national health care costs, private and public, under control-- and that is both a fundamental flaw of this amendment and a disgrace. In my judgment it will hurt West Virginians and have the harshest effect on the most vulnerable people in my State and in our country. I cannot in good conscience vote for this amendment. But I can, and will, continue my efforts to reduce the deficit, and to make government programs more responsive to those they serve, and to eliminate duplication and waste as we strive to make government leaner and more efficient, and to manage the costs of priority government programs. A lion's share of that work will be in finally dealing with health care costs and access problems that we failed to address, in part, because the importance of comprehensive health care reform to getting our national deficit under control was not sufficiently understood. I will continue to be willing to stand up and cast the tough votes if they are necessary to improve our Nation's overall economic health. But I cannot vote for this amendment because my constituents have been denied the basic information about how this amendment would affect their daily lives. In the absence of real information of its consequences, I have had to piece together the effects based on common sense assumptions of what will happen. I am dismayed that there has been a almost uniform refusal to improve this amendment to address the real concerns which have been raised. It seems appropriate to reflect upon the words of our Founders. I close with the words of Thomas Jefferson who drafted the venerable Constitution which this amendment proposes to radically alter. Thomas Jefferson said: I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion. That is a perpetual responsibility of Congress and the business we should be getting about today.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for coming to the floor and speaking the truth.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. How much time would the Senator require?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I do.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing is extremely simple and very straightforward. Should the balanced budget amendment go forward-- and it is very close--and actually become part of the Constitution, which is a result that I continue to strongly oppose, the benefits furnished by the Federal Government to those particular veterans suffering from service-connected disabilities, and to their survivors, will be protected by my amendment. Specifically, my amendment provides that the balanced budget amendment may not be implemented by impairing any benefit based upon a death or disability incurred in, or aggravated by, service in the Armed Forces--service connected. Mr. President, at the outset, I want to be clear that while my amendment is targeted on benefits and services directed to service- disabled veterans, I in fact wanted very much to be able to protect all veterans and all benefits from the kind of meat-ax cutting that I think will take place if the balanced budget amendment becomes part of our Constitution. However, I have to be realistic and I have to target--and I am forced to do that by the circumstances--in an effort to focus most directly on the most critical parts of our commitment to veterans. I have settled on those with service-connected disabilities, those with the greatest call for our protection. All who serve in the military deserve our thanks and our support. If I had my way, I repeat, they would also continue to benefit from the full range of programs that have been developed over the years. Unfortunately, those who favor deficit reduction over all else have significant support today, and no Federal expenditure is secure. Therefore, while I intend to continue my strong support for all veterans programs as long as I am in a position to do so, my amendment is crafted narrowly. Specifically, the benefits that would be protected by my amendment are the most vital benefits administered by the VA: compensation paid to service-connected veterans; dependency and indemnity compensation paid to the survivors of those who die in service or from service-connected disabilities; vocational rehabilitation provided to disabled veterans, who are disabled because of their service; health care furnished by the treatment of service- related disabilities; burial allowances paid when the veteran dies in service or from service-related causes; and certain other ancillary benefits Mr. President, these benefits are at the core of the mission of the VA. Stated simply, the principal mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs is to ensure that we, as a Nation, honor the commitments to those who have served us and protected us, often in times of need and often at enormous sacrifice to themselves, and most especially those who were injured or disabled during that service. Too often, this commitment and this obligation to those who have answered the Nation's call and suffered as a consequence, frankly, sort of gets lost, glossed over, forgotten. Sometimes issues relating to the appropriate benefits and services for these brave men and women who have served, who defended us and are now disabled by virtue of having done so, get lumped with other obligations of Government, as though all of the things the Federal Government does are kind of on an equal basis, that everything is equal. Plainly, this is not so. We must never diminish the obligation that is owed to those who have served in the armed forces, and especially to those who have suffered disability or death from that service. Taking care of those who join the military, so as to defend the general population, is a tradition that goes way, way back in our Nation's history. In the history of America, this imperative can be seen from our earliest days. One of the first American veterans benefits laws on record was enacted in 1636 by the members of the Plymouth Colony. That law provided that, in the event one who served in defense of the Colony returned ``maimed and hurt,'' the Colony would maintain the soldier ``competently'' during the soldier's life. This commitment to care for the veteran who returned disabled from service has remained strong, remained vital down through our time, and it must continue to be honored. Mr. President, if we are to amend the Constitution in the name of fiscal policy in the mindless way that is proposed in the underlying resolution, then at a minimum we must ensure that disabled veterans and their survivors are protected in that same action in the Constitution. President Lincoln would be, I suppose, the President with the greatest sense of depth and immediacy of the obligation of those who served. He spoke of this in 1864. He said: All that a man hath, will he give for his life. While all contribute of their substance, the soldier, the soldier, puts his life at stake and often yields up in his country's cause. The highest honor then is due the soldier. That was Lincoln. The terms of this obligation, which is the guiding principle of the VA, was characterized no better than when, again, President Lincoln spoke of the obligation to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan.'' That is what is written beside the front door of the VA. That was a long time ago that he said that, but these words ring no less true today. Indeed, as we enter into this new era with the cold war behind us, we should pause and recall how, in fact, we came to be where we are. We should pause and remember those who served from the world wars through Korea, Vietnam, to the Nation's most recent conflict in the Persian Gulf and reflect on what their service has gained for all of us and what they are owed by a grateful nation for that service, most especially those disabled by that service and the survivors of those who gave the last full measure. We must keep faith with those who served. It is a simple sentence, but it is a strong one. We must keep faith with those who served for that is the sort of people that we are. And on a far more pragmatic level, we must honor the commitments to those who served in the past so that those who are considering entering the service today know that the promises made to them today will be kept when their service ends. To fulfill our fundamental obligation, we as a nation have established a wide range of veterans benefits that are provided to those with service-connected disabilities, and we must remain true to those commitments. Mr. President, the Senate recently engaged in an extended debate on the relationship between Social Security and the balanced budget amendment. I agreed fully that Social Security deserves to be protected from the vagaries of the sort of mindless budget-cutting exercise that will have to take place if the Constitution is amended to require a balanced budget. I think the benefits of service-disabled veterans deserve protection just as well. There is no question that the Social Security benefits are in the nature of a contract. And it is equally appropriate to identify some Government benefits, you know, these days as mere gifts or giveaways, so as to contrast those benefits with Social Security. But that is not the nature of benefits for service-disabled veterans. The contract that relates to these benefits was one signed in blood and many, many times over. Veterans paid for these benefits with their limbs, their sight, their mobility, their mental and physical health, indeed, with their very lives. Benefits paid to veterans who are injured while in service to their country are valued perhaps more than any other in the VA. And veterans in general would agree with that. Why? Because our Nation recognizes and respects, as we should, the commitment we made to those who gave up their livelihood, left their homes, agreed to risk their lives for their country, asked no questions and suffered an injury while in the course of their service. Many never came home. Who here intends to break our contract with the disabled men and women who have served their country and risked so much? Who would do that? Cutting benefits to those who served us all and who became disabled during that service is simply not the sort of thing we should allow to happen in a country called America. I can think of no population with a greater claim on our concern and our love and our protection than those who sacrificed their well-being in our common defense. Mr. President, I will not repeat the legal analysis that was presented during the debate on Senator Reid's amendment on Social Security as to why this provision needs to be a part of the amendment itself and not a mere afterthought in other and separate legislation. It is enough to note the obvious. Since some of our colleagues believe that it is necessary to amend the Constitution in the name of fiscal policy, then surely in the same amendment they can be clear that they do not intend, for whatever mischief is to follow in the name of fiscal policy, to have an adverse impact on disabled veterans and the survivors of those veterans who gave, as I say, their all. Mr. President, I want to believe that this is the point of view of those who support the balanced budget amendment, but I must confess to having some serious worries. Being able to see the words that would provide the protection included in the amendment itself would remove any lingering doubt on my part and on the part of America's veterans. Mr. President, I have more to say about my amendment and in its defense, but at this point I notice the Senator from Maryland is on the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent to have printed a letter I referred to from the Disabled American Veterans.