Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, the Senator from Arizona, to bring before you S. 824, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, which reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its programs for the next 3 years. The reauthorization of the FAA is a vitally important piece of legislation that the Senate must pass this year. It is the first real economic stimulus bill that the Senate has considered this year. I cannot emphasize the importance of a vibrant and strong aviation industry. It is critical to our Nation's long-term economic growth. It is also vitally important to the economic future of countless small and local communities that are linked to the rest of the nation and world through aviation. The significance of aviation to our economy cannot be overstated. Over 10 million people are employed directly in the aviation industry. For every job in the aviation industry, 15 related jobs are produced. The aviation industry accounts for over $800 billion of our gross domestic product. The growth of the modern aviation system has created vast economic efficiencies such as just in time delivery, allowed the air cargo industry to grow exponentially, and has opened up the world to millions of Americans. Just as the aviation industry is a catalyst of growth for the national economy, airports are a catalyst of growth for their local communities. Airports create over $500 billion in economic activity and directly employ 1.9 million people. Almost 2 million people and 38,000 tons of cargo pass through our nation's airports each day. In my State of West Virginia, aviation represents $3.4 billion of the State's gross domestic product and directly and indirectly employs over 51,000 people. Aviation also links our Nation's small and rural citizens and communities to the national and world marketplace. My home State of West Virginia has been able to attract firms from Asia and Europe because of reliable access to their West Virginia investments. Without access to an integrated air transportation network, small communities can not attract the investment necessary to grow or allow home grown businesses to expand. A modern and adequately funded network is fundamental to making sure that all Americans can participate in the economy. No question exists that since the tragedy of September 11, aviation in this country has been permanently changed. When the Senate debated the last FAA reauthorization bill, capacity and competition issues were at the forefront of that debate. We have seen a decrease in the demand for air travel, hundreds of thousand of aerospace and aviation employees have lost their jobs and the economic pain has rippled through the economy. We will not have an economic recovery in this country until we have a recovery in the aviation industry. Even though these issues seem less important today, they will again become serious challenges for the industry. In the drive to expand our aviation infrastructure to meet future needs, the resources for aviation security will also have to increase. More passenger and cargo will add strains to aviation security. Now is the time to make the investments in air traffic modernization and airport development and research. Aviation security must be ready to handle the future growth that will occur. We must also continue to develop new aviation security processes and technologies to meet future challenges. The legislation before us builds upon our commitment to improving the aviation infrastructure of the nation that started with the landmark Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. I believe that this legislation meets the challenges facing the FAA and the aviation industry in the years ahead. This bill focuses on improving our nation's aviation safety and security, airport and air service development, and aeronautical research. While my distinguished colleague has provided an excellent overview of the bill, I would like to highlight some areas of the bill that I believe are particularly important. In this bill, we have created a stable stream of funding for security upgrades at our Nation's airports. Not only will these funds allow airports to improve security they will allow airports to improve the efficiency of these security measures. In addition, the legislation provides for increases in funding for airport safety and capacity projects, which are a true economic stimulus. I am very proud that the bill expands upon our commitment to making sure small and rural communities have access to air transportation services. Finally, we have authorized a significant increase in aeronautical and aviation research in order to preserve America's leadership in these industries. No higher goal exists than the safety and security of the Nation's airports and airspace. Over the past 18 months, we have worked every day to improve security in our airports and on our airplanes. However, until this bill, we have fallen short on providing funding to make sure our Nation's airports have the resources available to make the required improvements. Airports estimate that they have $3 billion in unmet security infrastructure needs. The administration's Homeland Security proposal did not include any provisions to address this huge need. Airports have been forced to tap their expansion and development funds to pay for security. It makes no sense to raid funds for safety improvements for security improvements. The security of our Nation is a Federal responsibility and the Federal Government must pay for it. One of the most important provisions in this bill is the creation of a $500 million fund, financed by security fees established by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to assist airports with capital security costs. This new fund will also stop the diversion of airport development funds meant for safety and capacity enhancements. We will be able to pay for new security requirements while simultaneously improving safety and expanding capacity. Even in these difficult budgetary times, we were able to modestly increase the Airport Improvement Program funding, which will provide the economy a real stimulus through direct and indirect job creation. Airport development is economic development as airports are economic development for their local communities. It is estimated that U.S. Airports are responsible for nearly $507 billion each year in total economic activity nationwide. Investment in airport infrastructure is a real economic stimulus that creates both immediate jobs and long-term economic development. In order to facilitate airport development, I am pleased that this bill includes much of the text of the legislation that Senator Hutchison and I worked on last Congress to streamline and expedite the airport development process. This country needs to expand its airport infrastructure. Without a substantial increase in this area, aviation delays would increase resulting in billions of dollars of costs to the economy. Today, we also meet the challenge of making sure our small and rural communities have access to the nation's air transportation network. I am very concerned that air carriers have abandoned small and rural markets disproportionately when reducing their service levels. We cannot let these communities go without adequate and affordable air service--their future depends upon it. I am enormously pleased that the bill extends and expands the Small Community Air Service Development Program, which I fought for in AIR 21. One hundred forty communities applied for 40 available grants under this initiative. This program has assisted these 40 communities, including Charleston, WV, in attracting new air service. This program has proven an innovative and flexible tool for communities to address air service needs. Under our legislation, another 120 communities will be able to participate. Many of our most isolated and vulnerable communities whose only service is through the Essential Air Service Program have indicated that they would like to develop innovative and flexible programs similar to those communities who received Small Community Air Service Development grants to improve the quality of their air service. It is for this reason that I, along with Senator Lott, developed the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003, which has been included in this legislation. The legislation reauthorizes the Essential Air Service (EAS) program and creates a series of new innovative pilot programs for EAS communities to participate in to stimulate passenger demand for air service in their communities. Under the bill, communities are given the option on continuing their EAS as is or they may apply to participate in new incentive programs to help them develop new and innovative solutions to increasing local demand for air service. The EAS Marketing and Community Flexibility Programs would provide communities new resources and tools to implement locally developed plans to improve their air service. By providing communities the ability to design their own service proposals, a community has the ability to develop a plan that meets its locally determined needs, improves air service choices, and gives the community a greater stake in the EAS program. Small and rural communities are the first to bear the brunt of bad economic times and the last to see the benefits of good times. The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation industry have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional resources and tools for small communities to help themselves attract adequate air service. The Federal Government must make sure that our most vulnerable towns and cities are linked to the rest of the nation. This legislation authorizes the tools and resources necessary to attract air service, related economic development, and most importantly expand their connections to the national and global economy. This bill meets the challenges facing our aviation system--increasing security, expanding airport safety and capacity, and making sure our smallest communities have access to the network. We can all be proud of this bill. Finally, I would like to again thank Senator McCain, Senator Lott, and Senator Hollings for all their hard work and commitment to developing and securing passage of this legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I also rise in support of the managers' amendment, and particularly for dropping the provision on adding long-haul flights at National Airport. The current aviation system, as it has evolved, is an intricately connected web of hubs, spokes, and direct flights. Some airlines thrive on the hub and spoke network, and some derive the ability to operate by flying directly between communities. However, I want to make clear a point on why it is so important that we maintain this balance between National Airport and Dulles Airport that was maintained by Congress in 1987, when we leased the facilities to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. The slot rules have been in place since 1968 and should not be changed now. When the Interstate Highway System was developed in the 1950s, many communities located in the path of the new interstates suddenly prospered by being directly connected to the rest of the Nation. Communities that were once sound economic entities, but were left miles from any access to the interstate system suffered, shuttered their doors and many times just barely survived. The same is true in the aviation system. Not every community in this country can maintain an airport. Not every community can enjoy the economic benefits of a hub. But hub economics dictate that feed from small- and medium-sized communities is necessary for them to survive. National Airport is an important asset for those, like my constituents in West Virginia, who are trying to reach the capital region. Obviously, however, it can never become an international hub. The airport has only one runway and no ability to expand. National Airport serves a good and valuable purpose. My greatest concern is that by changing National Airport, Congress will hurt this area's ability to serve small- and medium-sized communities on the east coast, including my home State, West Virginia. The slot rule and perimeter rule were put in place at National Airport to maintain its important function while at the same time allowing the DC area to create a major international hub serving both Europe and South America. I would look forward to working with the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the ranking member Senator Hollings and Senators Allen and Warner to find a permanent solution to this issue. I yield back to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support Senator Lincoln's legislation to make the recent increase in the child tax credit available to more families. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for her tenacious fight on behalf of America's working families. I was disappointed that the tax cuts passed by this Congress last month left out eight million children whose parents are working everyday and struggling to make ends meet. Today we will begin to correct that injustice. In West Virginia, there are about 57,000 children whose parents earn between $10,500 and $26,625. While these parents currently receive some benefit from the child tax credit, they do not stand to get any additional benefit based on last month's tax cut. For average families, who don't make money from dividends or capital gains, the child tax credit was the most valuable provision included in the recent tax cut package. The families of 57,000 West Virginia children should not be left out. Let's be clear that these families pay taxes. Payroll tax, sales tax, excise tax, property tax--these families are struggling to make ends meet, and they are paying their fair share in tax. It seems to me that families who are working hard but earning low wages are just the sort of families we ought to be seeking to help. These parents play by the rules, but struggle to provide the same things that all parents want to provide: enough food, a good home, schoolbooks, new shoes, perhaps a soccer uniform. In addition, we know that providing additional tax relief to these families will stimulate the economy, because these families are likely to immediately spend any additional cash. During the recent tax cut debate, the Senate was right to increase the amount of the child tax credit that low-income working families could receive. But during partisan negotiations to finalize that tax bill, these families were abandoned in order to provide more tax cuts to wealthy investors. One of the reasons that I opposed the recent tax cut package was that I could not condone a deal that provided $150 billion in tax cuts to wealthy investors but dropped a provision to help our neediest working families that would cost just $3.5 billion. There are a lot of pieces of that deal that I wish we would undo. I realize that we won't. But at least today, by passing Senator Lincoln's legislation, we will take one important step toward making those tax cuts more fair for America's working families. The legislation before us today has a number of other important provisions. It will ensure that two single parents would not lose their child tax credit if they got married. The bill also simplifies the tax code, something we should seek to do with every new tax law. I am especially pleased that the bill includes a provision to offset the cost of these new tax cuts. I have serious concerns about the record deficits we face, especially in light of the enormous tax cuts recently enacted. This bill will not add a penny to our national debt. In short, this is a balanced, responsible, and fair piece of legislation. While this bill does not do everything that I would like to do to improve the child tax credit and truly make it available to all low-income working families, it is still a major improvement on the tax cuts enacted last month. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this bill and send the message to hard working families that are struggling to make ends meet that we are on their side. And I ask all of my colleagues to encourage the House of Representatives to act quickly on this bill so that the President can sign it into law as soon as possible. Refund checks for the child tax credit increase are scheduled to be mailed this summer. If we act quickly we can ensure that an additional 8 million families will receive checks.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act of 2003. For the last three decades, the Medicare program has fulfilled our promise to care for older Americans who have spent a lifetime working and contributing to our Nation's economy. Currently, 41 million seniors depend on Medicare for critical health care assistance. Those seniors have been asking Congress for many years to strengthen Medicare. This Congress, we must respond by taking action. We must enact legislation this year that fills the gaps in Medicare. When Congress and President Johnson designed the Medicare program in 1965, they could not have foreseen the health care system that exists today. New technology, advances in research and an aging population have changed both what beneficiaries need and the system that is responding to those needs. One of the unforseen implications of these changes is a growing number of Americans living with chronic conditions. In 2000, over 45 percent of Americans had a chronic condition. That number continues to grow and, by 2020, more than 48 percent or 157 million Americans, will have at least one chronic condition. Chronic conditions encompass an array of health conditions that are persistent, recurring, and cannot be cured. They include severely impairing conditions like Alzheimer's disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, depression, hypertension, and arthritis. Treating serious and disabling chronic conditions is the highest cost and fastest growing segment of health care. People with chronic conditions represent 78 percent of all health care spending. These people are the heaviest users of home health care visits, prescriptions, physician visits, and inpatient stays. As we grow older, the chances of developing a chronic condition increase. Thus, it should be no surprise that nearly 80 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have at least one chronic condition and two- thirds have two or more chronic conditions. However, the Medicare fee- for-service program does not currently cover many of the services needed to provide quality care to beneficiaries who are managing complex chronic conditions. To meet the needs of these individuals, our Medicare fee-for-service system must reflect a person-centered, system-oriented approach to care. Payers and providers who serve the same person must be empowered to work together to help people with chronic conditions prevent, delay, or minimize disease and disability progression and maximize their health and well being. That is why I am here to reintroduce a much needed solution--the Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act of 2003. This bill establishes a comprehensive plan to improve and strengthen the Medicare fee-for- service and Medicare+Choice systems by generating better health outcomes for beneficiaries with chronic conditions and increasing efficiency. This bill would achieve these results by, first, helping to prevent, delay, and minimize the progression of chronic conditions by authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expand coverage of preventive health benefits. The bill permits providers to waive deductibles and co-payments for preventive and wellness services currently covered by Medicare and streamlines the process of approving new preventive benefits. Second, this bill provides a person-centered, system-oriented approach to care for this extremely vulnerable segment of our population by expanding Medicare coverage to include assessment, care- coordination, self-management services, and patient and family caregiver education and counseling. For more detail, I am also entering a section-by-section bill summary into the Congressional Record following this statement. The Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act provides a comprehensive solution to improving the quality of life and health for millions of Americans who are struggling with serious and disabling chronic conditions. Not only that, it has the potential to save the Medicare program money, by better managing and treating chronic conditions before costly complications result. That is good for seniors and good for Medicare--a win-win situation. It is time to step up to the plate and fulfill our obligation to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Improving Medicare is the right thing to do, but only if we do it the right way. I believe that this bill is a critical component of the right recipe for strengthening the Medicare program for today and tomorrow's beneficiaries. Unlike the administration's Medicare reform plan, the Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act gives beneficiaries better care while maintaining consumer choice and improving the program's efficiency. Because these are the results that West Virginians want, I will fight to include the provisions of this bill in any Medicare reform package that moves through the Finance Committee or the Senate floor. I would like the record to reflect that the following groups publically support this legislation: Alzheimer's Association; American Geriatrics Society; Center for Medicare Advocacy; Families USA; and Medicare Rights Center. National Chronic Care Consortium, representing such organizations as: Aging and Disability Services Administration, State of Washington (Olympia, WA); Aging in America, Inc (Bronx, NY); Albert Einstein Healthcare Network (Philadelphia, PA); Area Agency on Aging 10B Inc. (Akron, OH); Baylor Health Care System (Dallas, TX); Benjamin Rose (Cleveland, OH); Beth Abraham Family of Health Services (Bronx, NY); Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota (Eagan, MN); Carle Foundation Hospital-Health Systems Research Center (Mahomet, IL); Catholic Health Initiatives (Parker, CO); Centura Health (Denver, CO); Community Health Partnership, Inc. (Eau Claire, WI); Fairview Health Services/Enbenezer (Minneapolis, MN); Halleland Health Consulting (Minneapolis, MN); Hebrew Home and Hospital (Hartford, CT); Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield (Pittsburgh, PA); Inglis Innovative Services (Philadelphia, PA); Lancaster General Hospital (Lancaster, PA); Masonicare (Wallingford, CT); Mercy Medical Center--North Iowa (Mason City, IA); MetroHealth System (Cleveland, OH); Metropolitan Jewish Health System (Brooklyn, NY); Minnesota Senior Health Options (MSHO) (St. Paul, MN); Motion Picture and Television Fund (Woodland Hills, CA); Northeast Health (Troy, NY); Presbyterian SeniorCare (Pittsburgh, PA); Saint Michael's Hospital (Stevens Point, WI); SCAN (Long Beach, CA); Sierra Health Services (Las Vegas, NV); Summa Health System (Akron, OH); Sutter Health (Sacramento, CA); Total Longterm Care, Inc. (Denver, CO); Upstate NY Network of the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, VISN 2 (Albany, NY); ViaHealth (Rochester, NY); Visiting Nurse Service of New York (New York, NY); Volunteers of America National Services (Eden Prairie, MN); and Wisconsin Partnership Program at Community Living Alliance (Madison, WI). I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of extending the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program. Congress created this program in March of last year to provide federally funded unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who have exhausted their regular State-funded benefits after falling victim to our weakening economy. This vital program is nearing expiration and now millions of Americans need our help. If Congress and the President do not act before May 31, 2003, nearly 4 million long-term unemployed workers will lose benefits, including almost 14,000 West Virginians. These unemployed workers and their families need and deserve an extension--every one of them. Unless immediate action is taken, American workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will be left vulnerable to economic hardship, and without a safety net. How will these families pay their mortgages and provide for their children? During these difficult economic times, how can we turn our backs on 4 million Americans? Earlier this month, the Department of Labor announced that the Nation's unemployment rate had risen to 6 percent, representing 8.79 million Americans out of work. This is the highest national unemployment rate we have witnessed in nearly a decade. When President Bush released his growth and stimulus package, he maintained that creating jobs was his No. 1 priority. Yet, despite rising unemployment--500,000 more Americans in February and March alone--and unprecedented fiscal crises in our States, the President's proposal fails to provide assistance for unemployed workers, adequate State fiscal relief, and neglects Americans who need help the most. West Virginia families will soon be faced with some very difficult choices. Choices between paying their mortgage or defaulting; between having health insurance or going without; between sending their children to college or dipping into their pensions to cover everyday living expenses while ruining their retirement. These are West Virginians who want to work--who are trying to work--but simply cannot find a job in the current economy. I urge my colleagues to act swiftly so that American families aren't forced to make these kinds of decisions so this dire situation is not further exacerbated. I feel strongly about this issue because of the very real impact inaction could have on my constituents. Just recently, I was contacted by Janice Walters from Mercer County in my home state of West Virginia. She called my office searching for help. Ms. Walters truly epitomizes the American worker that we must help. In September of last year, Ms. Walters was laid off from a communications company. As a 49-year-old single mother of two with many cost-of-living expenses, she now has no income and no health insurance coverage, forcing her to face some of the stark choices I discussed earlier. To support her family, she began collecting unemployment insurance. In addition, she took a part-time job and began taking classes in computer sciences at a local college to learn new skills that she could apply to a new career. Unfortunately, she will not exhaust her State benefits until the week after the current TEUC program expires, leaving her ineligible for TEUC benefits. If the TEUC program is permitted to expire, Ms. Walters, and millions like her, will be left unemployed and unassisted. Fortunately, such a tragedy is preventable. If we act on an extension today, Ms. Walters will get an extension and she will receive benefits. This is progress. It is good to pass an extension for 2.5 million workers, including about 9,000 West Virginians. This is good news for families in need. One particular extension leaves out and leaves behind the long-term unemployed families. A simple extension, which is all that the majority will consider, excludes 1.1 million unemployed workers, and 3,900 of those people live in West Virginia. They face real hardship, and they too deserve help. Throughout this debate, I have supported the efforts of Senator Kennedy and others to provide comprehensive unemployment benefits to all 3.6 million unemployed workers. If we can enact a huge tax cut targeted to the wealthiest Americans, shouldn't we also help every unemployed worker? Providing unemployment benefits helps the unemployed, and it also helps our economy as a stimulus. History tells us that unemployment benefits are spent quickly, and every $1 of such benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity. This is a real and an immediate stimulus for local economies. There is no certainty about how changes in corporate dividends will affect the economy. This administration should recognize the urgent needs of all unemployed workers. I am pleased that we are taking action to help many unemployed workers, like Ms. Walters. I also believe we should help the 1.1 million long-term unemployed. This is the definition of real economic stimulus and real compassion.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate Senator and Mrs. Robert C. Byrd on their 66th anniversary, which they will celebrate on May 29. What a wonderful occasion this is--a truly joyous celebration. Senator and Mrs. Byrd's devotion to one another is truly powerful. In a world that is far from old-fashioned, they have shown that old- fashioned dedication and commitment can go a long way. The Byrds have risen from humble beginnings, and proven to our State and country that honesty and devotion comes first. Senator Byrd said earlier this year on the Senate floor, ``There are only two duties that will exceed my duties in the Senate. One is my duty to God and the second is duty to my family. I think my duty is to my wife.'' Many of us heard this speech and were struck by that line. We know that with Erma's recent illness, Senator Byrd on occasion had to request an absence from the Senate to be by the side of his lifelong sweetheart. The devotion he has shown to Erma is plain, and these last few weeks have simply been an extension of 60-plus years of love between these two people. This couple is a real gift to the State of West Virginia. We are more than lucky to have them as leaders of our State. I have had the honor of serving in the Senate with Senator Byrd for the last 18 years, and in that time I have had the pleasure of getting to know Erma as well. Erma is a positively delightful woman. Senator and Mrs. Byrd's dedication to one another is genuine and should be inspiring to us all. They have been devoted to one another from an early age. In recalling his high school days when he got a candy from a classmate to give to his sweetheart Erma, Senator Byrd said, ``I never chewed the gum; I never ate the candy. But when the classes changed, I found Erma in the hall and gave her that candy and chewing gum. I never told her someone had given it to me, but that's the way you court a girl--with another boy's bubble gum.'' Erma and their family has been the top priority in the Senator's life from the start. When the valedictorian of Mark Train High School married his sweetheart, Erma Ora James, in May of 1937, no one knew that the coal miner's daughter and adopted young boy would together become one of the most influential couples in the history of West Virginia. Even though Senator Byrd could not afford to go to college, he persisted as a young West Virginian working for his family--pumping gas, working as a produce salesman, and serving his country as a shipbuilder and welder. Mrs. Byrd became the head of the family's finances, and the glue that held their household together as she remains today. Starting as a family of two, the couple worked together to succeed. While Senator Byrd was spending endless hours at the Capitol building serving his State and country, Mrs. Byrd raised their two lovely daughters, Mona and Marjorie. To this day, Mrs. Byrd continues to remain the stronghold in her family, proudly helping to raise their six grandchildren, and three great-granddaughters. Mrs. Byrd quietly stays out of the spotlight , and instead focuses on her responsibilities as a wife, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. Senator Byrd once said, ``She [Erma] has been my anchor all of these years. I don't know what I would have amounted to if it wasn't for her steadfastness, her integrity, her strength,'' It is evident that the Senator and Mrs. Byrd have so much respect for one another, and enjoy their lives together every day. Senator and Mrs. Byrd have devoted their lives to better their family and fellow West Virginians. They have proven that working together as a team, husband and wife, can accomplish so much. It is positively refreshing to see such an amazing couple recognized for their leadership and because of their caring. They truly exemplify a loving and happy marriage. The Byrds are both leaders, grandparents, and great-grandparents, and compassionate and honorable West Virginians. Senator and Mrs. Byrd have set a great standard. Please join me in congratulating this wonderful couple on their 66th year together.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I have said from the beginning of this debate that my guiding principle would be the best interests of the people of West Virginia. I cannot support the deal that has been reached because it is so clearly designed to benefit the elite members of our society at the expense of average taxpayers in West Virginia and across the Nation. Proposals that could have stimulated the economy and helped working families got short-changed to make room for enormous tax cuts for wealthy investors. I have little hope that this bill will stimulate economic growth; on the other hand, our national debt will be guaranteed to grow if we pass the bill. I would also like to comment briefly on the process that has brought us to this point. I am extremely disappointed that this deal was struck behind closed doors in an entirely partisan manner. Since it adds hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt, it affects every American now and for the next generation. Whenever we are considering something of such tremendous importance, the process ought to be bipartisan and inclusive. This is not how Americans expect us to conduct business. For 2 years, I have fought to ensure adequate fiscal relief to States that are struggling with crippling budget deficits. I am pleased that this bill provides $20 billion in State aid. Our most vulnerable citizens are at risk when States cut Medicaid and other services. And any effort that we make to stimulate economic growth would be futile if States are forced to cut spending and increase taxes. Yet this legislation still falls well short of what 80 Senators voted for during debate on the budget resolution earlier this year. I am disappointed that we did not fulfill our commitment to $30 billion in State aid. If we were truly interested in stimulating economic growth and creating jobs we would have not only provided more aid to States, we would have focused tax relief on working families who are the most likely to immediately spend any tax cut. But tax cuts that help working families got squeezed to make room for more tax cuts for wealthy investors. The proponents of this bill may talk a lot about the acceleration of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. But all of these provisions are set to expire after next year, and they pale in comparison to the new tax breaks provided to millionaire stockholders. I fought to expand the child tax credit to serve more families, and to provide a greater benefit to those families who currently qualify for only a partial credit. I am disappointed that no such provisions are included in this final bill. While I am pleased that the size of the child tax credit increases from $600 to $1,000, albeit for only the next 2 years, I am still worried about the 130,000 children in West Virginia who will see no benefit from this increase. We should be doing more to help our neediest families. I am also disappointed that we are spending $35 billion, 10 percent of the cost of the bill, to reduce the highest marginal income tax rate. Only Americans with more than $312,000 of annual income are affected by the highest rate. That is less than 2 percent of our taxpayers nationwide, and in my State of West Virginia it is less than 1 percent of taxpayers. The income tax cut that had the most potential to help hard-working people in my State is the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. But this provision, like so many other good ideas, was reduced in order to make room for other things. The expansion of the 10 percent bracket expires after next year, while the income tax cuts for the wealthiest few stay in place much longer. I cannot condone such misplaced priorities. The most expensive part of this bill is the tax cuts for investors, estimated to cost more than $150 billion. These tax cuts are the least likely to help average Americans. While many Americans today are invested in the stock market, they typically hold these assets in retirement accounts that already enjoy preferential tax treatment. Only one-quarter of America's taxpayers will get any benefit from tax reductions on dividends or capital gains. And for the vast majority, the benefit will be very small. So why then does it cost so much? Because the wealthy few will receive enormous tax cuts. More than 40 percent of all dividend income is claimed by the top 2 percent of taxpayers. Capital gains are even more concentrated among wealthy Americans. I cannot justify huge cuts in dividends and capital gains taxes when the benefits to average Americans are so small. Too many important proposals have been completely left out of this package. Despite the fact that more than 8 million Americans are currently out of work, many of them for extended periods of time, this bill provides no assistance for the unemployed. Incentives for investment in the construction of new schools or the deployment of broadband services--proposals that could have created new jobs immediately--are completely absent. For a bill euphemistically referred to as a ``Jobs and Growth Package'' there is very little here that will create jobs or growth. Finally, this bill cannot be justified in the contest of our Government's current fiscal situation. Later today, Congress will be asked to increase the debt limit by almost $1 trillion, an unprecedented increase. Yet we are about to approve a tax package that will increase the deficit by $350 billion over the next 10 years--more when interest expenses are included. If this legislation really had the potential to help working families and reinvigorate our economy, we could justify increasing deficits. But instead we have short-changed the most important provisions to make room for $150 billion in tax cuts to investors. It is unconscionable to ask the next generation of Americans to foot the bill for this legislation. I cannot support it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The average public school in this country is 42 years old. Last week, I visited two in West Virginia; one was 88 years old, and the other was built the year the Titanic was sunk. It is a disgrace. This amendment will provide $25 billion which, because of interest- free payments, would actually only cost the Federal Treasury less than $8 billion over a period of 2 years and create 500,000 jobs, build new schools, and create opportunities for our young people. I hope my amendment will pass. I ask for a vote on my amendment. A voice vote is acceptable.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 618, which is the modification at the desk. Senators Reid, Mikulski, Bingaman, and others are cosponsoring it.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my dear friend, the very distinguished Senator from Maine. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to talk briefly about this amendment of Senator Collins, myself, Senators Nelson and Smith, and Senators, et al, as the Senator from Maine kept saying, including Senator Clinton and many others. It is something we have been working on for 2 years. It is something we have been working very hard on for 2 years. It is something the National Governors Association has worked hard for, for obvious reasons, which I will get into in a moment, although my remarks will not be long. The Senator from Maine really did cover the logic and the need in very clear terms. If those who are listening heard her, they heard the best possible argument. I just want to add a few comments. I also thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley from Iowa, for his generosity and good judgment in accepting this $20 billion package as part of the chairman's mark. Is it everything in amount and scope that the Senator from West Virginia would wish? No. Because the Senator is from West Virginia and the needs on a proportional basis across the country are greater in West Virginia than many other places. I would support $30 billion. I support $40 billion provided that one-half is used for Medicaid, and then others could be negotiated out. So I do not think the $20 billion is enough, but $20 billion is what we have, and $20 billion is more than we started out with last year. We will hope people forget that, even though 75 of them on this floor voted for it then, and then, for a $30 billion bill, 80 on this floor voted for it this year. That does not happen a lot around here. That was not a free vote. That was not a trivial vote. That was a vote people made after thinking about it. So we will prevail, and we will rejoice in that. And we will not do that just because we win an amendment; we do that because we know we are helping real people. We have almost 300,000 people in West Virginia who are on Medicaid. One of the things that always strikes me: We always talk about health care in statistics, and somehow that separates us from being able to get down to what the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, calls ``real people.'' And I am of that school, the so-called real people school. I picked up the paper this morning. I read that 60 million Americans, at some point during the year, do not have health care. That is not a Medicaid statement. That is a health care statement. That means some of them never have it, and others of them only have it on a part-time basis. But that means that all of them--60 million Americans out of 260 million, how ever many we are--worry all the time about health care. But here comes a Medicaid amendment in which we can do some good for people. The Senator from Maine mentioned 1,700,000 people are at risk if we do not. I am not sure the $10 billion will take care of all those 1,700,000 people, but it will take care of a lot of people, and it is going to take care of them with very good health care. People need to understand that Medicaid, unlike Medicare, does provide a prescription drug benefit. And Medicaid, probably known to most of my colleagues, provides 6 million elderly, poor Americans--who do not have health care otherwise and prescription drugs otherwise--it provides this to them. So it has an enormous capacity and reach. It is superb health care. It does EPSDT for children. That is early screening. It does all kinds of things that Medicare, obviously being a different area, does not do. So it is a superb program. The Senator from Maine pointed out it is very good in terms of being a stimulus to the economy. She is quite correct about that. And it is about a 3 to 1 relationship. For every $1 you spend in the State, about $3 is actually churned beyond that. So it is a stimulus program. Yes, it is actually a stimulus program. I think that is one of the reasons the chairman of the Finance Committee put it in the mark. But there is another aspect here. The Senator from Maine used the words ``safety net.'' I will use the word ``underpinning.'' Either one is the same. This is a sacred concept. This is a country, because of our original history under the British crown, in which we wanted to protect the minority, not protect the majority. The majority, we figured, were able to do that. There are protections and checks and balances in all these things, but people sometimes say: Well, if somebody is on Medicaid, that means they are not working or they don't deserve it. That is so untrue. When I go back to the way I was introduced to West Virginia--and what caused me to stay in West Virginia--when I became a Vista volunteer for 2 years, and I dealt with people, none of whom had health care, they fed me every meal I had, because I ate in some home or some mobile home or whatever it was. I depended upon them. My life was them. If it was a good day for them; it was a good day for me. If it was a bad day for them; it was a bad day for me. It changed me in every single way. But these are people who need this. There is nothing that hurts so much as to know a child cannot get screened for autism when they should be, or that a child has no dental care whatsoever. I had to deal with that. I would have to load kids from this little community into my jeep, and we would go down to the one place in Charleston, WV, which offered free dental care. And, obviously, you can't do that for 38 years. So it is a tragic situation. These are good people. These are people sometimes who cannot find work simply because they live too far out in the country, as was the case in this community, or they did not have automobiles to be able to get to work. Or if they got to work, they didn't know how to take a job exam or have a job interview, or they had never been up in an elevator and they were scared by that, or they were asked to lower a Venetian blind because the Sun was in their eyes, and they had never seen a Venetian blind before, so they would just sort of shut up and hunker down and be defeatist. Don't tell me those people are not worth keeping healthy because things did not break their way. Things broke well in my life. Things have not broken well in some people's lives in Maine and Alaska and West Virginia, and we cannot pretend that somehow these are not people and that they don't deserve help. The spirit of America is one in which you try to protect those who cannot protect themselves, as much as possible, within reason. Incidentally, this also happens to do an enormous amount for our hospitals and nursing homes. And that was the one thing that was not said by the Senator from Maine. Eighty-five percent of any hospital in West Virginia depends on Medicare and Medicaid--all of them. So by doing this--and by pouring millions of dollars into West Virginia, and $10 billion across America--for a temporary period of 18 months, we strengthen our entire health care system as well as stimulating the economy. So it helps the economy and it helps the people--and people who really do need it. The Senator pointed out that the other $10 billion--which I was less involved with because I was focused on the Medicaid relief--is spent wisely: in education, job training, transportation. She talked about it. And it is a good expenditure. Governors and local groups can decide how to spend that. I was worried it would be kind of a revenue-sharing thing. I remember back when I was Governor in 1982, we had revenuesharing, and, all of a sudden, county courthouses all over the State of West Virginia got new roofs and got refurbished, which is not exactly what I think the revenuesharing was meant to be for. So it is a serious business when you give Medicaid help to people who need it. I will conclude with this. And this really gets my goat. I have heard a lot around here the argument that you cannot give money to States. What are we, two nations? Are we 50 States, on the one hand? Is that called America? Or are we a Federal Government? Is that America? Or are we somehow bound up that we work together and that we help each other? I was not elected by a country. I was elected by a State. I am a Senator from West Virginia. That means we work together. To say the States have been irresponsible is so wrong because if you go back to the end of the Second World War or if you go back just 10 years, you will find the States have been far more discrete and responsible in their spending than has the Federal Government. Now, you can say: Well, the Federal Government has very broad responsibilities, the Department of Defense, and other endeavors. And I understand that. But the fact is, the States have been responsible. When we took in less money in 1982 than we did in 1981, I had to fire 10,000 Department of Highway workers. I had to fire them. I had to fire those people--good people who worked. So don't tell me that States don't sacrifice. West Virginia has just raised its cigarette tax to 55 cents, and all of the money is being spent by the Governor on Medicaid. And, at the same time, the State is having to cut services. This morning, I talked to the president of our very largest university, with 31,000 students, West Virginia University. His budget, and every other State public education budget at the college/university level, has been cut by 13 percent. And it will happen again next year. It is a devastating cut. Why? Because, as the Senator from Maine said, you have to balance the budget. So we are dealing with real States here, but, most importantly, we are dealing with real people who need the help in an America which was created to protect those who needed that help. I ask my colleagues to join the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Nebraska, and others who have sponsored this bill, and been working on it for a long time. I am thrilled that, at last, it has a very good chance of passing. I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my friend and leader from Montana. Amendment No. 578 Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment which was offered earlier. I am particularly proud to be cosponsoring, with Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and others, improvements to the child tax credit. I will speak on it very briefly. I think it is one of the most valuable provisions. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee--while I see he is still in the Chamber--for accepting one of Senator Lincoln's amendments on the child tax credit. It is a particularly welcome addition. I think common sense tells us that if we put money in the hands of people who will indeed spend it, and will spend it on clothes and kitchen utensils, and all kinds of other items, there is a stimulative effect. But quite apart from that, almost half of the benefits of this child tax credit go to families who make less than $50,000. In the State that I represent--this Senator represents the State of West Virginia--only 20 percent of the people make more than $50,000 a year. So this is very welcome. The bill we are looking at, what is in the package, makes very important improvements to the child tax credit. Basically, it increases the value of the credit from $600 to $1,000, which is real money, as they say, for real people, who need it and deserve it. I was happy that we did this. I was grateful that it was accepted by the Finance Committee chairman. It is going to have a big effect. I will say this: Refundability will go from 10 percent to 15 percent of earnings above $10,500. That means families can benefit from this bill more than otherwise would have been the case. On the other hand, the bill still does not do anything--and I have to say this in fairness--for 72,000 kids who do not qualify for any child tax credit in West Virginia because their parents do not have enough income to qualify on a low-income basis. But all things being equal, as they rarely are in this life, one has to take what one can work out in the democratic process. And the Finance chairman was extremely fair and helpful. Obviously, the Senator from Arkansas was outstanding in her leadership on these matters. I am proud to a be a cosponsor of the amendment that Senator Lincoln offered today that will expand the reach of the child tax credit to more of our nation's poorest families. In my own state, 27,000 more kids would qualify for the child tax credit. This amendment would increase the amount of the child tax credit that can be refunded to low income parents. Specifically a parent would qualify for a child tax credit equal to 5% of earnings between $5,000 and $13,250. These folks whom we are helping are at risk. That is important. And I am very proud this is happening. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up for a vote on tomorrow. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am happy to address that issue. The FMAP is currently calculated annually under the following formula. The FMAP is at least 50 percent and is calculated based on the ratio of a State's 3-year average of per capita income to the 3-year average of per capita income of the Nation. Given the nature of this formula, the previous year's FMAP in no way affects the calculation of future FMAPs. Basically, if the State's average per capita income is below the national per capita average, the State gets a higher FMAP. The FMAP is calculated usually 6 months to a year in advance of the start of a Federal fiscal year. The amendment would take the FMAP that has already been calculated by HHS under this formula for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 and increase it by 2.95 percentage points for a portion of those years. It does not adjust the underlying formula. Because the FMAP is calculated annually, and the calculation is still based on the current per capita income ratio, our amendment in no way increases the baseline for future FMAP calculations. I would like to add that I completely concur with the Senator from Nebraska's statement on the temporary nature of the FMAP.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Burns and a number of others. This is an amendment I have been working on for many years. At times it has had 75 cosponsors. It is one of those amendments that always comes up. Everybody knows it should get done and it never seems to. The answer to that is you keep trying. You just keep trying. For individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, there is no end to the need for this amendment. We did the E-rate. The E-rate is still being done. But we all know we have moved past that. We need much faster telecommunications now. What the Burns-Rockefeller broadband amendment does is it says to broadband providers, if you will extend your networks to hard-to-reach, underserved and/or rural areas, you will get a break on your taxes. As the distinguished Senator from Montana indicated, it also encourages a leapfrog to the next generation. It has two different categories of tax breaks depending upon what generation of broadband you are dealing with. In any event, it is going to be faster than the DSL and cable modem services most typical today. The best thing is to say that you don't obviously get a tax credit unless you make a whole lot of things happen in this amendment. There is nothing automatic about it. You have to make an investment. You have to buy new equipment. You have to pay people to install that new equipment. I am very pleased to join with my friend from Montana in what I think can very well be described as the future competitiveness of America. He mentioned South Korea and Japan. He is absolutely right. We all remember what happened with the VCR. We had it all, then all of a sudden we had none of it. We do not want this to happen in the most important form of telecommunications. I hope my colleagues will support the Burns amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small bill, but one with important consequences. My measure, the ``Access to Cancer Therapies Act,'' would provide coverage of all oral anti-cancer drugs under the Medicare program. I am pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing this measure. As my colleagues know, there is no Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit today. If there was, we would not need this legislation. There should be and there must be a meaningful and fair Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses, and they can't defer their illnesses or their costs. This legislation also reminds us of how crucial prescription drug coverage will be in the future. In 1993, Congress created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer drugs--but only if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided ``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be injected. At present, upwards of 90 percent of cancer drug therapy is covered by Medicare either in a physician office or in a reimbursed oral form. But by 2010 as much as 25 percent of cancer drug therapy will be in the form of oral drugs that are not currently covered. As cancer therapy moves more toward reliance on oral drugs, Medicare coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies, or else even the intent of this very limited policy will be meaningless and Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer therapies. And without this legislative change, beneficiaries will increasingly bear the burden of buying these drugs from their own pockets, which most seniors can ill-afford. While biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, Medicare policy is currently unable to provide reliable access to these medications for beneficiaries with cancer. This legislation is important not only to seniors surviving cancer, but to all Americans. A recent poll conducted for the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship found that 9 out of 10 Americans believe that Medicare should pay for all medically approved cancer therapies. Even if we do not succeed in enacting a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit this year, it is time to do what Americans want for cancer survivors by passing the Access to Cancer Therapies Act in the 108th Congress. This legislation gives people with cancer immediate access to life-saving drugs. This is a stop-gap provision that would be phased out when a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit is put into place that would cover oral anti-cancer drugs consistently with all other drugs. At the very least, we must ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are available to our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The act will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. In the last Congress, 57 Senators cosponsored this bill. This is an opportunity to improve our Medicare program immediately. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small bill, but one with important consequences. My measure, the ``Access to Cancer Therapies Act,'' would provide coverage of all oral anti-cancer drugs under the Medicare program. I am pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing this measure. As my colleagues know, there is no Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit today. If there was, we would not need this legislation. There should be and there must be a meaningful and fair Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses, and they can't defer their illnesses or their costs. This legislation also reminds us of how crucial prescription drug coverage will be in the future. In 1993, Congress created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer drugs--but only if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided ``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be injected. At present, upwards of 90 percent of cancer drug therapy is covered by Medicare either in a physician office or in a reimbursed oral form. But by 2010 as much as 25 percent of cancer drug therapy will be in the form of oral drugs that are not currently covered. As cancer therapy moves more toward reliance on oral drugs, Medicare coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies, or else even the intent of this very limited policy will be meaningless and Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer therapies. And without this legislative change, beneficiaries will increasingly bear the burden of buying these drugs from their own pockets, which most seniors can ill-afford. While biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, Medicare policy is currently unable to provide reliable access to these medications for beneficiaries with cancer. This legislation is important not only to seniors surviving cancer, but to all Americans. A recent poll conducted for the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship found that 9 out of 10 Americans believe that Medicare should pay for all medically approved cancer therapies. Even if we do not succeed in enacting a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit this year, it is time to do what Americans want for cancer survivors by passing the Access to Cancer Therapies Act in the 108th Congress. This legislation gives people with cancer immediate access to life-saving drugs. This is a stop-gap provision that would be phased out when a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit is put into place that would cover oral anti-cancer drugs consistently with all other drugs. At the very least, we must ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are available to our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The act will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. In the last Congress, 57 Senators cosponsored this bill. This is an opportunity to improve our Medicare program immediately. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I thank the Senator from California whose amendment to S. 113 I rise to support. I am a cosponsor of her amendment. We live in a time in which we can never feel completely safe. There are terrorists throughout the world and here at home who have sworn to kill Americans. That is what they are trained to do. That is what they want to do. That is what they plan to do. We fight a war knowing that it may increase the terrorist threat against us. We buy duct tape and plastic sheeting. We plan escape routes for our families. We make decisions about whether to go to public events or ride a subway, or do all kinds of things. Does it change our lives or not? We are not even sure of that yet. In times such as this, we in Congress have a special responsibility. We must be vigilant in our lawmaking and our oversight to make certain that the executive branch, our intelligence, and law enforcement agencies have all the legitimate tools to do their jobs in an efficient and effective way. But our responsibility does not end there. It is easy to write laws to remove obstacles to prevent the Government from obtaining information. We have done that. Our challenge is to write laws that strengthen our security without undermining privacy and liberty. This is something our Nation has never faced before in the way which it is now going to be facing for the next several years. It is our responsibility to look very closely at every piece of legislation related to fighting terrorism and ask: Do we need it? Does it make us feel safer? Yes. But do we really need it? Does it accomplish the goals we are seeking? And does it go too far? I have cosponsored the Feinstein substitute amendment to S. 113 because I believe the language of the substitute is crafted carefully-- very carefully--to accomplish our goals in the fight against terrorism without going too far. Mr. President, I would like to explain why I believe that. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was designed to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence inside the United States using electronic wiretaps. Later, physical searches were added to the law. Before FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the executive branch ran wiretaps for national security purposes without judicial review, without approval of any sort. Such wiretaps were potentially unconstitutional and, because of that, threatened the viability of espionage prosecutions and raised serious questions regarding civil liberties. The Congress enacted FISA with the recognition that our national security required the collection of foreign intelligence in the United States through intrusive means under different circumstances and using different standards than in the criminal warrant context, and the courts have upheld the constitutionality of FISA. The purpose of FISA is the collection of foreign intelligence. The standard used to distinguish between FISA collection and wiretaps related to criminal activity involves a determination that the target is a ``foreign power'' or linked to a ``foreign power.'' In the case of terrorists, the Government must show the target is an ``agent of a foreign power,'' a terrorist group operating overseas. Both S. 113 and the Feinstein substitute address and solve the following problem: What if you have a non-U.S. person in the United States who is engaging in or preparing to engage in international terrorist activities, but the Government does not have enough evidence to link him to an overseas group? Both S. 113 and the Feinstein substitute eliminate the requirement that the Government produce to the FISA court evidence showing a direct link between the target and a foreign terrorist group. So why is the Feinstein substitute better? Under S. 113, the Kyl-Schumer bill, a key principle of FISA is eliminated. Even if the Government has actual evidence that the target is not connected to a foreign terrorist group, under Kyl-Schumer, the Government can still get a FISA wiretap order. This simply goes too far, and it is not necessary, in the judgment of this Senator. If we know for certain a person really has no foreign connections, if he or she is a true ``lone wolf''--a foreign ``Unabomber,'' for example--then it is a straightforward criminal investigation. There is no foreign intelligence to be gotten at all, and that person is not a valid target under FISA. The Feinstein substitute gets the Government everything it wants without changing FISA in a way that damages its basic premise; to wit, FISA is for the collection of foreign intelligence and should not be used when the only objective at hand is the collection of criminal evidence. Mr. President, I commend the carefully crafted solution offered by the Senator from California to a very difficult problem. As the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 165, the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act. This legislation is another critical piece in our ongoing efforts to increase the security of our aviation system. I commend my colleagues, Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein, for their continued leadership on this critical issue. Over the past 18 months, we have worked every day to improve security in our airports and on our airplanes. While we set in place unprecedented improvements in aviation security, clear gaps remain. Today's legislation is aimed at filling security gaps in the vast and economically vital air cargo network by providing the Transportation Security Administration and related security agencies with the authority and resources they need to implement new air cargo security requirements. This important legislation, which passed the Senate last year as part of S. 2949, the Aviation Security Improvement Act, requires TSA to establish a system to screen, inspect, or otherwise ensure security of all cargo transported by air and to establish a system for regular inspection of airport and cargo shipping facilities. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not act on this legislation last year. Improving the security of our nation's air cargo system must be addressed this year, and I am pleased that the Senate has acted quickly to pass this vital legislation again in the 108th Congress. The Air Cargo bill would take several steps to improve the security of air cargo. The bill requires the Transportation Security Agency, TSA, to develop a strategic plan to ensure that all air cargo is screened, inspected, or otherwise made secure. TSA would also be required to develop a system for the regular inspection of air cargo shipping facilities, the establishment of a database of known shippers, companies and persons that regularly ship cargo, in order to bolster the Known Shipper Program, and review and assess the existing federal security program for freight forwarders, companies that accept and consolidate freight and tender it to an all cargo or passenger carrier for air shipment. The bill allows TSA to revoke the certificates of freight forwarders if the agency finds that they are not adhering to security laws or regulations. The legislation also mandates that TSA develop a security training program for persons who handle air cargo and all cargo carriers would be required to develop security plans that would be subject to approval by TSA. During the Commerce Committee's consideration of the legislation a number of important amendments offered by Senators Wyden, Boxer, and Bill Nelson were adopted that strengthened the bill. These provisions included requiring Secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the impact on the privacy and civil liberties of the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, requiring background checks of alien flight school applicants to include applicants for flight training of planes below 12,500 pounds, and to transfer these responsibilities from the Department of Justice to the Transportation Security Administration, and requires guidelines for verifying passenger identification. The Committee also adopted provisions to have the FAA and TSA conduct a study on blast-resistant cargo containers, allowing cargo pilots to participate in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, and requiring the Department of Homeland Security to issue a report on how best to defend passenger aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles. The Air Cargo Security Improvement Act is another important step in our efforts to improve our nation's aviation security network, but it is by no means the final step. I spend countless hours each week as part of my duties on the Intelligence Committee and we all recognize that the changing nature of threats will require continued vigilant oversight and modifications to our security network. There are no guarantees, but we can and must continue to work every day to make sure that the people who fly and the places they fly from are safe.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor all West Virginians who have served our country in the military, especially those currently overseas. Former Senator Daniel Webster once said, ``God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to defend it.'' West Virginians are known for their dedication to military service and patriotism, and to this day West Virginians continue their proud tradition of military service. Our soldiers are committed to our Nation's principles, and they are tireless in their efforts to preserve liberty. I rise today to honor these intrepid men and women whose military service and commitment is unmatched--they make me extremely proud to be a West Virginian. Only 3 States had a higher service rate than West Virginia during World War II. Thirty-six percent of West Virginia's male population-- more than one out of every three men--served during that war. Nearly 4,700 West Virginians died fighting for our freedom in that war. West Virginia had the highest service rate during the Korean War, with 16.2 percent of our men participating. During that war, tragically West Virginia also suffered the highest death rate, with about 40 war- related deaths for every 100,000 citizens, a total of over 800 deaths. West Virginia had the second-highest service in the Vietnam War, with 20.3 percent of our men serving. During that war, again West Virginia had the highest casualty rate in the Nation. More than 700 citizens from our State died in battle. Now we are engaged in a war on terror--a war that our troops are fighting heroically. Thousands of West Virginia military personnel are taking part in the war effort, from active duty troops, to brave citizens in the National Guard, to Reservists. Not long ago, the world saw a symbolic climax of this war as the imposing symbol of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was toppled. This moment could not have happened without the bravery and sacrifice of American forces and these forces would not be complete without the long-standing dedication of West Virginians. We must not forget those men and women who protected our freedom. In 1940, pilot V.A. Rosewarne remarked, ``The universe is so vast and so ageless that the life of one [person] can only be justified by the measure of his [or her] sacrifice.'' West Virginia has lost proud soldiers in Afghanistan and also in the recent war in Iraq. In any war, there are those who make the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives, and we must honor them. Let me take this opportunity to mention the sense of honor that runs so deep in a representative sample of these West Virginians. Second Lieutenant Therrel ``Shane'' Childers was born into a proud military family near West Hamlin, WV, and he always dreamed of a military career. On March 21, at 30 years of age, he became the first U.S. soldier killed in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom. His devout determination led a childhood friend of his to say, ``I can feel deep in my heart that he was doing what he was meant to do,'' and his mother to say, ``He died doing what he loved best, and that was being a Marine.'' There are countless examples of such heroes. Kenny Shadrick, from the mining town of Skin Fork, WV, was the first recorded American death in the Korean War. On July 5, 1950, he gave his life in the fight against tyranny. While it was July 5 in Korea, it was still Independence Day in the United States, and I am sure Kenny understood what he was fighting for as he bravely shot bazooka rounds at the approaching enemy tanks until his life was tragically cut short. President Truman articulated Kenny's sacrifice well when he wrote: ``He stands in the unbroken line of patriots who dared to die that freedom might live.'' West Virginia will never forget the service of people like Kenny. More recently, the world has heard the heroic story of Private Jessica Lynch, the teenager from Palestine, WV, whose rescue as a prisoner of war from Iraq was universally celebrated. As a matter of fact, approximately 400 West Virginians are surviving former prisoners of war, a further testament to the courage and patriotism present in West Virginia. Still today, Jessica is being treated for an injury to her spine and fractures to her right arm, both legs, and her right foot and ankle. She has endured so much pain, and yet her family tells me she has remained cheerful since her rescue. So much courage in such a young soldier as Jessica inspires us all, and underscores how proud I am to represent my fellow West Virginians. We all owe these soldiers and so many more from all over West Virginia and across the country, past and present, an enormous debt of gratitude. For the dead: we celebrate and remember their lives, mourn their deaths, and thank God that such people served. For the living, we must fight for them, who have fought so bravely for us. We cannot forget to honor our veterans. I will continue to fight for them as well--for the nearly 25,000 West Virginia veterans of the Persian Gulf, for the 65,000 surviving West Virginia veterans from the Vietnam era, for the more than 30,000 surviving West Virginia veterans of the Korean War, for the 36,000 aging veterans of World War II, and for the next generation of veterans coming home from the Middle East. So today, with my sincerest gratitude and pride for the services of these men and women, I pledge to always honor their sacrifices, because all West Virginians understand the sacrifices they have made and the respect they have earned. West Virginians have always felt a sense of duty toward America, and we have always answered the call for military service. West Virginians understand the importance of living in a free society, and we also understand the patriotic duty and sacrifice required to do so. West Virginia soldiers have always reminded me of General MacArthur's description of the American soldier: ``Possessed of enduring fortitude, patriotic self-denial, invincible determination . . . giving his youth and strength, love and loyalty . . . one of the world's noblest figures.'' I am honored to say that the good people of West Virginia, in particular, exemplify noble military service and proud patriotism.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation being introduced today that will dramatically improve the child tax credit. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Lincoln, for her hard work on behalf of our Nation's working families. In the 6 years since the child tax credit was first enacted, it has provided important tax relief to families across the country. Income taxes can be particularly burdensome to moderate income families who are facing increased costs for food, housing, medicine, education, and other basic needs for their children. Indeed, almost half of the benefits of this credit are enjoyed by families with taxable income under $50,000 per year. This is important in States like mine; in West Virginia, almost 80 percent of the taxpayers have annual incomes below $50,000. While the current child tax credit is excellent--it could be even better. The $600 credit, which is available only for children under the age of 17, does not truly recognize the costs that face many families raising children. Moreover, many working families do not have enough income to qualify for the credit. Make no mistake, I am talking about hard-working parents who go to their jobs every day and take their responsibilities to their children very seriously. These parents are paying payroll taxes, but cannot provide for some of the basic needs of their children. The legislation introduced today would improve the law so that a greater portion of the child tax credit could be refunded to these admirable parents. Specifically, this legislation includes two important improvements to the current child tax credit that will benefit all families who claim the credit. First, the legislation would increase the amount of the tax credit from $600 to $1,000 immediately. Second, the bill increases the age of children who are eligible for the credit from 16 to 18. We know that 17- and 18-year-old children are facing enormous educational expenses in order to attend college or technical school. We ought to help parents pay for this education by allowing them to continue to receive the child tax credit until their child is a legal adult. The bill also includes two important improvements to the eligibility criteria for the refundable credit. By lowering the income threshold for the refundable credit and increasing the percentage of income eligible for the refundable credit, we can ensure that more of the families most in need of assistance can benefit from this credit. The child tax credit is one of the most important ways that Congress can demonstrate its support for America's families. And I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation which would dramatically improve the child tax credit.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the continuing economic crisis facing the U.S. airline industry also imperils the future of hundreds of small and rural communities across our country as air carriers drastically reduce service to small and rural communities. While small and rural communities have long had to cope with limited and unreliable service, these problems have been exacerbated by the weakened financial condition of most major U.S. airlines. Faced with declining revenues brought on by the Nation's economic downturn, the events of September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq most carriers have substantially reduced or eliminated service to many communities. In the last month, United Air Lines, US Airways and Continental Airlines announced significant service cuts to West Virginia. Last month, this Congress provided $3.5 billion in direct and indirect benefits to the Nation's airlines. I strongly supported this package because our economy requires a strong and vibrant airline industry. In my own aviation relief package, I had provided resources to the airlines to continue to provide air service to small and rural communities. Even in the best of times, these communities face a difficult time maintaining and developing new air service options. Today, their challenge is preventing the complete loss of air service. In these difficult economic and uncertain times, I strongly believe that the Federal Government must continue to assist our most vulnerable communities stay connected to the Nation's aviation network--a network paid for by all Americans. The reduction or elimination of air service had a devastating effect on the economy of a community. Having adequate air service is not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of economic survival. Without access to reliable air service, no business is willing to locate their operations in these areas of the country no matter how attractive the quality of life. Airports are economic engines that attract critical new development opportunities and jobs. West Virginia has been able to attract firms from around the world because corporate executives know they can visit their operations with ease. Rural and small town America must continue to be adequately linked to the Nation's air transportation network if its people and businesses are to compete economically with larger urban areas in this country and around the world. In the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, we began to address the need to improve air service in small and rural communities. I, along with many of my colleagues, supported the creation of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program, a competitive grant program to provide communities with the resources they needed to attract new air service to their communities. The program is an enormous success. Over 180 communities applied for 40 grants in the first year funds were available. The Department of Transportation has announced the next round of funding. In West Virginia, Charleston received money under the program and has used it to successfully attract a new service connection to Houston, an important gateway to the markets of Latin America. This program gave local communities the ability and flexibility to meet local air transportation needs. The Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, cosponsored by myself and Senator Lott, reauthorizes the expands the successful Small Community Air Service Development Program. The bill authorizes the participation of 120 communities over 3 years. Many of our most isolated and vulnerable communities whose only service is through the Essential Air Service Program have indicated that they would like to develop innovative and flexible programs that communities who received Small Community Air Service Development grants to improve the quality of their air service. It is for this reason that I, along with Senator Lott, have introduced the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003. The legislation reauthorizes the Department of Transportation's Essential Air Service, EAS, program and creates a series of pilot programs for EAS communities to participate to stimulate passenger demand for air service in their communities. Under the bill, communities are given the option on continuing their EAS as is or they may apply to participate in new incentive programs to help them develop new and innovative solutions to increasing local demand for air service. The EAS Marketing and Community Flexibility Programs would provide communities new resources and tools to implement locally developed plans to improve their air service. By providing communities the ability to design their own air service proposals, a community has the ability to develop a plan that meets it locally determined needs, improves air service choices, and gives the community a greater stake in the EAS program. Specifically, these new EAS pilot programs include authorization for the use of smaller planes to decrease cost or increase frequency, communities to cost-share for service above base EAS subsidy level, alternative service at up to 3 EAS points if a community applies, an opt out of the EAS program with a one-time infusion of funding to assist in transition out of the program, and DOT to mandate multiple code-sharing arrangements for EAS providers. A pilot program added at the request of Senator Lott would allow DOT to require a cost-share for up to 10 communities within 100 miles of a hub. I have significant reservations about forcing communities to pay for a service the Federal Government promised them. In addition, the communities that participate in EAS are small and isolated and have lower than average per captia incomes than urban or suburban communities. Cash-strapped communities will have to provide anywhere between $50,000 and $120,000 in local funds to continue their EAS service. I worked with Senator Lott to make sure DOT considers a variety of relevant factors when selecting communities, to provide communities appeal rights, and to make sure they have access to all other pro-active pilot programs. I will monitor DOT's implementation of this pilot program closely. Small and rural communities are the first to bear the brunt of bad economic times and the last to see the benefits of good times. The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation industry have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional resources and tools for small communities to help themselves attract adequate air service. The Federal Government must make sure that our most vulnerable towns and cities are linked to the rest of the Nation. My legislation builds on existing programs and strengthens them. If these bills are enacted, our constituents will have the tools and resources necessary to attract air service, related economic development, and most importantly expand their connections to the national and global economy.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation being introduced today that will dramatically improve the child tax credit. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Lincoln, for her hard work on behalf of our Nation's working families. In the 6 years since the child tax credit was first enacted, it has provided important tax relief to families across the country. Income taxes can be particularly burdensome to moderate income families who are facing increased costs for food, housing, medicine, education, and other basic needs for their children. Indeed, almost half of the benefits of this credit are enjoyed by families with taxable income under $50,000 per year. This is important in States like mine; in West Virginia, almost 80 percent of the taxpayers have annual incomes below $50,000. While the current child tax credit is excellent--it could be even better. The $600 credit, which is available only for children under the age of 17, does not truly recognize the costs that face many families raising children. Moreover, many working families do not have enough income to qualify for the credit. Make no mistake, I am talking about hard-working parents who go to their jobs every day and take their responsibilities to their children very seriously. These parents are paying payroll taxes, but cannot provide for some of the basic needs of their children. The legislation introduced today would improve the law so that a greater portion of the child tax credit could be refunded to these admirable parents. Specifically, this legislation includes two important improvements to the current child tax credit that will benefit all families who claim the credit. First, the legislation would increase the amount of the tax credit from $600 to $1,000 immediately. Second, the bill increases the age of children who are eligible for the credit from 16 to 18. We know that 17- and 18-year-old children are facing enormous educational expenses in order to attend college or technical school. We ought to help parents pay for this education by allowing them to continue to receive the child tax credit until their child is a legal adult. The bill also includes two important improvements to the eligibility criteria for the refundable credit. By lowering the income threshold for the refundable credit and increasing the percentage of income eligible for the refundable credit, we can ensure that more of the families most in need of assistance can benefit from this credit. The child tax credit is one of the most important ways that Congress can demonstrate its support for America's families. And I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation which would dramatically improve the child tax credit.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the continuing economic crisis facing the U.S. airline industry also imperils the future of hundreds of small and rural communities across our country as air carriers drastically reduce service to small and rural communities. While small and rural communities have long had to cope with limited and unreliable service, these problems have been exacerbated by the weakened financial condition of most major U.S. airlines. Faced with declining revenues brought on by the Nation's economic downturn, the events of September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq most carriers have substantially reduced or eliminated service to many communities. In the last month, United Air Lines, US Airways and Continental Airlines announced significant service cuts to West Virginia. Last month, this Congress provided $3.5 billion in direct and indirect benefits to the Nation's airlines. I strongly supported this package because our economy requires a strong and vibrant airline industry. In my own aviation relief package, I had provided resources to the airlines to continue to provide air service to small and rural communities. Even in the best of times, these communities face a difficult time maintaining and developing new air service options. Today, their challenge is preventing the complete loss of air service. In these difficult economic and uncertain times, I strongly believe that the Federal Government must continue to assist our most vulnerable communities stay connected to the Nation's aviation network--a network paid for by all Americans. The reduction or elimination of air service had a devastating effect on the economy of a community. Having adequate air service is not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of economic survival. Without access to reliable air service, no business is willing to locate their operations in these areas of the country no matter how attractive the quality of life. Airports are economic engines that attract critical new development opportunities and jobs. West Virginia has been able to attract firms from around the world because corporate executives know they can visit their operations with ease. Rural and small town America must continue to be adequately linked to the Nation's air transportation network if its people and businesses are to compete economically with larger urban areas in this country and around the world. In the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, we began to address the need to improve air service in small and rural communities. I, along with many of my colleagues, supported the creation of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program, a competitive grant program to provide communities with the resources they needed to attract new air service to their communities. The program is an enormous success. Over 180 communities applied for 40 grants in the first year funds were available. The Department of Transportation has announced the next round of funding. In West Virginia, Charleston received money under the program and has used it to successfully attract a new service connection to Houston, an important gateway to the markets of Latin America. This program gave local communities the ability and flexibility to meet local air transportation needs. The Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, cosponsored by myself and Senator Lott, reauthorizes the expands the successful Small Community Air Service Development Program. The bill authorizes the participation of 120 communities over 3 years. Many of our most isolated and vulnerable communities whose only service is through the Essential Air Service Program have indicated that they would like to develop innovative and flexible programs that communities who received Small Community Air Service Development grants to improve the quality of their air service. It is for this reason that I, along with Senator Lott, have introduced the Small Community and Rural Air Service Revitalization Act of 2003. The legislation reauthorizes the Department of Transportation's Essential Air Service, EAS, program and creates a series of pilot programs for EAS communities to participate to stimulate passenger demand for air service in their communities. Under the bill, communities are given the option on continuing their EAS as is or they may apply to participate in new incentive programs to help them develop new and innovative solutions to increasing local demand for air service. The EAS Marketing and Community Flexibility Programs would provide communities new resources and tools to implement locally developed plans to improve their air service. By providing communities the ability to design their own air service proposals, a community has the ability to develop a plan that meets it locally determined needs, improves air service choices, and gives the community a greater stake in the EAS program. Specifically, these new EAS pilot programs include authorization for the use of smaller planes to decrease cost or increase frequency, communities to cost-share for service above base EAS subsidy level, alternative service at up to 3 EAS points if a community applies, an opt out of the EAS program with a one-time infusion of funding to assist in transition out of the program, and DOT to mandate multiple code-sharing arrangements for EAS providers. A pilot program added at the request of Senator Lott would allow DOT to require a cost-share for up to 10 communities within 100 miles of a hub. I have significant reservations about forcing communities to pay for a service the Federal Government promised them. In addition, the communities that participate in EAS are small and isolated and have lower than average per captia incomes than urban or suburban communities. Cash-strapped communities will have to provide anywhere between $50,000 and $120,000 in local funds to continue their EAS service. I worked with Senator Lott to make sure DOT considers a variety of relevant factors when selecting communities, to provide communities appeal rights, and to make sure they have access to all other pro-active pilot programs. I will monitor DOT's implementation of this pilot program closely. Small and rural communities are the first to bear the brunt of bad economic times and the last to see the benefits of good times. The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation industry have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional resources and tools for small communities to help themselves attract adequate air service. The Federal Government must make sure that our most vulnerable towns and cities are linked to the rest of the Nation. My legislation builds on existing programs and strengthens them. If these bills are enacted, our constituents will have the tools and resources necessary to attract air service, related economic development, and most importantly expand their connections to the national and global economy.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003. Last year, this bill had broad bipartisan support with 65 cosponsors. Its companion legislation in the House of Representatives had 227 cosponsors. If the Senate considers an appropriately targeted and sized economic growth package, which includes investment incentives for businesses, this legislation should be a priority for inclusion in that legislation as it will help jump start a struggling sector of the economy. The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and forever changed the way America lives and works. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of advanced networked communications exponentially each year. However, where just a decade ago access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications needs, today many people, businesses and other organizations require the ability to transmit and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites. This need will only continue to grow. In the near future, access to broadband services will be as critical as having a telephone. Over the last several years, companies have built networks that meet today's broadband need as fast as they can. Even with the recent downturn in the telecommunications industry, technology companies continue to roll out the current generation of broadband facilities in urban and suburban areas. They continue to tear up streets to install fiber optics, convert cable TV facilities to broadband telecom applications and develop innovative new DSL technologies. As the economy improves, these companies will greatly expand the rate of deployment of these and other technologies for urban and suburban consumers providing them access to the cutting-edge technologies and services. Other areas of this country are not as fortunate. In rural and inner city areas access to even the current generation of broadband communications is limited. Investment continues to lag behind wealthier urban and suburban communities. This imbalance has only been exacerbated due to the telecommunications industry's recent financial troubles. In fact, only a limited number of broadband providers exist outside the prosperous areas of big cities and suburban areas nationwide. A few positive signs are occurring though. Small rural telecommunications companies are slowly expanding into providing these services. They are limited in their ability to provide these services because of the expense of installing the infrastructure. This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve, terrain is difficult and populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of our current broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office-- which is the case for most rural Americans. In inner cities, companies may believe that lower household income levels will not support a market for their services, so they choose not to invest in these communities. This is a classic situation of market failure that we must address. The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity to continue are alarming. People and businesses in well served communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban and suburban communities, will be able to build upon the inherent advantages of a networked economy. People and businesses in other areas, often in rural areas as in inner cities, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, would continue to be at an economic and educational disadvantage. We have seen how savvy businesses have crushed their competitors who failed to take advantage of technological innovations, businesses in infrastructure-rich areas that already have an advantage, ultimately could crush competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is equally true for rural and inner city students, workers trying to gain new skills, and regular individuals who want to participate in the information-based New Economy compete against their non-rural peers. The result could be devastating for Americans who live in rural areas or in our inner cities: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and business failure concentrated in their communities. Denying Americans who live in rural areas and inner cities a chance to participate in our information-based global economy is also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner city locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production environments. It is not an understatement to say that the deployment of technology could fundamentally transform the future of rural and inner city America. We have to make a decision on whether or not rural and inner city communities are going to have the same opportunities as their wealthier urban and suburban counterparts. I, along with many of my colleagues, believe they should and must. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 would address this disparity. The Act would give companies the incentive to build current generation broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very targeted tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband facilities in rural or inner city areas a tax credit equal to ten percent of their investments over the next 5 years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in technology that I just described. The credit is also restricted to investments needed for high-speed broadband telecommunications services. This means that only powerful broadband services are covered. Companies cannot claim that inferior services qualify for the credit. Only facilities that can download data at a rate of speed of 1.0 megabytes per second, and upload data at 180 kilobytes per second qualify. These speeds will allow the broadest possible number of technologies to be eligible for the credit. In addition, the bill provides a 20 percent tax credit for companies that invest in next generation broadband services. These powerful new services that can deliver data capacities of 22 megabytes per second download and 5 megabytes per second upload will be the infrastructure the economy requires as the digital economy expands. We need to reward the companies who have the foresight to invest in these next generation broadband services--they will benefit the whole country. These limited credits will provide the market the ability to affordably and profitably serve rural and inner city communities. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 is part of the solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans and Americans living in inner cities must have the chance to participate in the technological revolution that shows no signs of abating. Without access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.