Jay Rockefeller

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.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2003. I am proud to have a bipartisan group of cosponsors including Senators DeWine, Landrieu, Collins, Levin and Johnson. Work on this legislation is based on the bipartisan work of the Senate coalition that supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, an historic effort to ensure that a child's safety and health are paramount, and that every child should have a permanent home. The Adoption and Safe Families Act was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, and since its enactment, adoptions from our foster care system have nearly doubled. In my State of West Virginia, adoptions have nearly tripled. Those adopted children now have a permanent home. But there are still 131,000 in foster care nationwide who have the goal of adoption but are still waiting. In West Virginia, we have 520 children in foster care waiting for adoption, but only 343 children might qualify for support. I believe each child with special needs who is waiting for adoption deserves help but under current law only some do. They are the innocent ones who were victims of abuse and neglect. Clearly we must do more for those children. Throughout the process of developing the Adoption Act we heard about the challenging circumstances facing children described as having ``special needs''. These include children who are the most difficult to place into permanent homes, often due to their age, disability or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together. One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. Parents willing to adopt such children were promised health care coverage in 1997 which is essential. While all special needs children that are adopted maintain health care coverage, only half are eligible for adoption assistance payments. Current law provides for the payment of federal adoption subsidies to families who adopt only those special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits under the old 1996 AFDC standards. Federal adoption subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these special children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children. Federal adoption subsidies are a vital link in securing adoptive homes for special needs children who by definition would not be adopted without support. Under current law, a child's eligibility for these important benefits is dependent on the income of his or her biological parents even though these parents' legal rights to the child have been terminated, and these are the parents who either abused or neglected the child. This is, simply, wrong. The Adoption Equality Act will eliminate this anomaly in Federal law by making all special needs children eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. The Adoption Equality Act is the next logical step to streamline and promote adoptions from foster care. The bill is designed to ``level the playing field'' by ensuring that all children with special needs, and the loving families who adopt them, have the support they need to grow and develop. First, the bill removes the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, whom the child is leaving, thereby allowing Federal adoption subsidy to be paid to all families who adopt children who meet the definition of special needs. Second, the bill continues to give states flexibility to determine the definition of a child with special needs, but it is clear that adoption subsidies should only be provided if the child could not be adopted without such assistance. Third, the bill requires that States reinvest the monies they save as a result of this bill back into their state child abuse and neglect programs which should help promote prevention and family support. When we talk about how to help abused and neglected children in this country, many complex questions are raised about what constitutes best policy, and how Federal tax dollars should be spent. Yet, at the heart of all the questions are vulnerable children who desperately want a safe, permanent home. The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving and permanent home. Federal adoption subsidies are designed to encourage adoption of children with special needs--those children who have the hardest time finding permanent, adoptive families. It is an absurd policy to discriminate against thousands of children with special needs based upon the income of their biological, and often abusive, parents. It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. The Adoption Equality Act will treat every special needs child the same. It is designed to encourage adoption and support those admirable parents willing to help a child with special needs and a history of abuse or neglect. Such children may have physical disabilities, or other may have emotional challenges due to past abuse and neglect. Such children and families often need special counseling or support services, and that is why the adoption assistance payments are key. If we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home, this is a wise investment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing two key education initiatives designed to promote quality education across our country and respond to the compelling needs in our schools. When I meet with teachers and parents, and even business leaders in West Virginia, everyone is concerned about the condition of our school buildings and the importance of qualified committed teachers working in those classrooms. To address these clear and compelling needs, I am introducing two education bills. The first initiative, America's Better Classroom Act of 2003, is a school construction initiative to respond to the overwhelming needs for school construction. The Department of Education reports that the average public school building is 42 years old. In 1995, GAO estimated that we needed $112 billion for school construction and renovations. A more recent survey in 2001 in the Journal of Education Finance indicates that the need is increasing, and the unmet need for school infrastructure over the next decade is over $200 billion. My State of West Virginia will need as much as $2 billion for school construction and renovations. America's Better Classroom Act provides the financial tools to help build and renovate our schools. It will continue the Qualified Zone Academy Bonding, QZAB, Program that has helped economically disadvantaged communities. This provision would provide $2.8 billion to continue and expand the successful QZAB Program. In recent years, this program has provided $4.2 million for support school construction and renovations in disadvantaged communities. Effective programs have earned continued support. But the truth is that many schools districts need help with school construction and renovations, which is why the America's Better Classroom Act creates a $22 billion Qualified School Bonding Program. Funding will be allocated to the states based on the Title 1 formula so it is targeted, but the states will have flexibility in allocating support among school districts. Last summer, I toured two schools in Berkeley County, WV--Martinsburg High School and South Middle School. The high school was built in 1928, but it had been renovated. The middle school was built in 1954, and needed serious work. The cafeteria had to serve as a part-time classroom, and they used portable trailers. These schools are in our eastern panhandle which is the region of the greatest population growth, so Berkeley County predicts that it will need to build or renovate nine schools over the next 10 years. Given the current state fiscal crisis, states and communities need the America's Better Classroom Act so that we can make needed investments. Also school construction can play a positive role in helping to stimulate our economy and create needed jobs. School construction is a more reliable economic stimulus, and an important investment in our children's education. I am proud to have Senators Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, and Tim Johnson as cosponsors of this important initiative. Senator Harkin has been a true leader on education issues throughout this career, including school construction and renovations. The next initiative to improve education is a bipartisan bill, known as Incentives to Educate American Children Act, or I TEACH. I am proud to have Senators DeWine, Landrieu, and Cochran as cosponsors. Under No Child Left Behind, every classroom should have a qualified teacher. Studies suggest that an estimated 2 million new teachers will be needed in our classrooms over the next decade. It will be important to ensure that we recruit and retain good teachers in every classroom, including our most disadvantaged schools and our rural schools, which often have more trouble recruiting and keeping teachers. Unfortunately, without our help, America's disadvantaged and rural schools may not be able to attract the qualified teachers required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Isolated and impoverished, competing against higher paying and well-funded school districts for scarce classroom talent, they are already facing a desperate shortage of qualified teachers. As pressure to hire increases, that shortage could become a crisis, and children already at a disadvantage in relation to their more affluent and less isolated peers will be the ones who suffer most. Principals in West Virginia already are reporting shortages of trained teachers. To help bring dedicated and qualified teaching professionals into our schools, the I TEACH Act will provide teachers a $1000 refundable tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public schools where they are needed most. In addition to this incentive for disadvantage and rural schools, every public school teacher has the ability to earn a $1000 refundable tax credit if a teacher achieves the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. Under the bill, every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax credit. Every teacher who gets Board certification will earn a tax credit. Teachers who work in rural or poor schools and get certified will have both credits, worth $2000. Schools who desperately need help attracting teachers will get a boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit most. One-fourth of America's children attend public schools in rural areas, and of the 250 poorest counties in the United States, 244 are rural. West Virginia has rural schools scattered throughout 36 of its 55 counties, and these schools face real challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers, as well as dealing with other issues related to their rural location. Attracting teachers to these schools is difficult in large part due to the vast gap between what rural districts are able to offer and the salaries paid by more affluent school districts--as wide as $20,000 a year, according to one study. Poor urban schools must overcome similar difficulties. It is often a challenge for these schools to attract and keep qualified teachers. Yet, according to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, every school must have qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. In my State of West Virginia, as in over 30 other States, there is already a state fiscal incentive for teachers who earn National Board certification. My legislation builds upon the West Virginia program; together, they add up to a powerful tax incentive for teachers to remain in the classroom and to use their skills where they are most needed. Education should be among our top national priorities, essential for every family with a child and vital for our economic and national security. I supported the bold goals and higher standards of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, but they won't be met unless we invest in quality schools and good teachers. I am committed to working closely with my Senate colleagues this fall to secure as much funding as possible for our children's education.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2003. I am proud to have a bipartisan group of cosponsors including Senators DeWine, Landrieu, Collins, Levin and Johnson. Work on this legislation is based on the bipartisan work of the Senate coalition that supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, an historic effort to ensure that a child's safety and health are paramount, and that every child should have a permanent home. The Adoption and Safe Families Act was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, and since its enactment, adoptions from our foster care system have nearly doubled. In my State of West Virginia, adoptions have nearly tripled. Those adopted children now have a permanent home. But there are still 131,000 in foster care nationwide who have the goal of adoption but are still waiting. In West Virginia, we have 520 children in foster care waiting for adoption, but only 343 children might qualify for support. I believe each child with special needs who is waiting for adoption deserves help but under current law only some do. They are the innocent ones who were victims of abuse and neglect. Clearly we must do more for those children. Throughout the process of developing the Adoption Act we heard about the challenging circumstances facing children described as having ``special needs''. These include children who are the most difficult to place into permanent homes, often due to their age, disability or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together. One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. Parents willing to adopt such children were promised health care coverage in 1997 which is essential. While all special needs children that are adopted maintain health care coverage, only half are eligible for adoption assistance payments. Current law provides for the payment of federal adoption subsidies to families who adopt only those special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits under the old 1996 AFDC standards. Federal adoption subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these special children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children. Federal adoption subsidies are a vital link in securing adoptive homes for special needs children who by definition would not be adopted without support. Under current law, a child's eligibility for these important benefits is dependent on the income of his or her biological parents even though these parents' legal rights to the child have been terminated, and these are the parents who either abused or neglected the child. This is, simply, wrong. The Adoption Equality Act will eliminate this anomaly in Federal law by making all special needs children eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. The Adoption Equality Act is the next logical step to streamline and promote adoptions from foster care. The bill is designed to ``level the playing field'' by ensuring that all children with special needs, and the loving families who adopt them, have the support they need to grow and develop. First, the bill removes the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, whom the child is leaving, thereby allowing Federal adoption subsidy to be paid to all families who adopt children who meet the definition of special needs. Second, the bill continues to give states flexibility to determine the definition of a child with special needs, but it is clear that adoption subsidies should only be provided if the child could not be adopted without such assistance. Third, the bill requires that States reinvest the monies they save as a result of this bill back into their state child abuse and neglect programs which should help promote prevention and family support. When we talk about how to help abused and neglected children in this country, many complex questions are raised about what constitutes best policy, and how Federal tax dollars should be spent. Yet, at the heart of all the questions are vulnerable children who desperately want a safe, permanent home. The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving and permanent home. Federal adoption subsidies are designed to encourage adoption of children with special needs--those children who have the hardest time finding permanent, adoptive families. It is an absurd policy to discriminate against thousands of children with special needs based upon the income of their biological, and often abusive, parents. It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. The Adoption Equality Act will treat every special needs child the same. It is designed to encourage adoption and support those admirable parents willing to help a child with special needs and a history of abuse or neglect. Such children may have physical disabilities, or other may have emotional challenges due to past abuse and neglect. Such children and families often need special counseling or support services, and that is why the adoption assistance payments are key. If we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home, this is a wise investment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing two key education initiatives designed to promote quality education across our country and respond to the compelling needs in our schools. When I meet with teachers and parents, and even business leaders in West Virginia, everyone is concerned about the condition of our school buildings and the importance of qualified committed teachers working in those classrooms. To address these clear and compelling needs, I am introducing two education bills. The first initiative, America's Better Classroom Act of 2003, is a school construction initiative to respond to the overwhelming needs for school construction. The Department of Education reports that the average public school building is 42 years old. In 1995, GAO estimated that we needed $112 billion for school construction and renovations. A more recent survey in 2001 in the Journal of Education Finance indicates that the need is increasing, and the unmet need for school infrastructure over the next decade is over $200 billion. My State of West Virginia will need as much as $2 billion for school construction and renovations. America's Better Classroom Act provides the financial tools to help build and renovate our schools. It will continue the Qualified Zone Academy Bonding, QZAB, Program that has helped economically disadvantaged communities. This provision would provide $2.8 billion to continue and expand the successful QZAB Program. In recent years, this program has provided $4.2 million for support school construction and renovations in disadvantaged communities. Effective programs have earned continued support. But the truth is that many schools districts need help with school construction and renovations, which is why the America's Better Classroom Act creates a $22 billion Qualified School Bonding Program. Funding will be allocated to the states based on the Title 1 formula so it is targeted, but the states will have flexibility in allocating support among school districts. Last summer, I toured two schools in Berkeley County, WV--Martinsburg High School and South Middle School. The high school was built in 1928, but it had been renovated. The middle school was built in 1954, and needed serious work. The cafeteria had to serve as a part-time classroom, and they used portable trailers. These schools are in our eastern panhandle which is the region of the greatest population growth, so Berkeley County predicts that it will need to build or renovate nine schools over the next 10 years. Given the current state fiscal crisis, states and communities need the America's Better Classroom Act so that we can make needed investments. Also school construction can play a positive role in helping to stimulate our economy and create needed jobs. School construction is a more reliable economic stimulus, and an important investment in our children's education. I am proud to have Senators Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, and Tim Johnson as cosponsors of this important initiative. Senator Harkin has been a true leader on education issues throughout this career, including school construction and renovations. The next initiative to improve education is a bipartisan bill, known as Incentives to Educate American Children Act, or I TEACH. I am proud to have Senators DeWine, Landrieu, and Cochran as cosponsors. Under No Child Left Behind, every classroom should have a qualified teacher. Studies suggest that an estimated 2 million new teachers will be needed in our classrooms over the next decade. It will be important to ensure that we recruit and retain good teachers in every classroom, including our most disadvantaged schools and our rural schools, which often have more trouble recruiting and keeping teachers. Unfortunately, without our help, America's disadvantaged and rural schools may not be able to attract the qualified teachers required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Isolated and impoverished, competing against higher paying and well-funded school districts for scarce classroom talent, they are already facing a desperate shortage of qualified teachers. As pressure to hire increases, that shortage could become a crisis, and children already at a disadvantage in relation to their more affluent and less isolated peers will be the ones who suffer most. Principals in West Virginia already are reporting shortages of trained teachers. To help bring dedicated and qualified teaching professionals into our schools, the I TEACH Act will provide teachers a $1000 refundable tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public schools where they are needed most. In addition to this incentive for disadvantage and rural schools, every public school teacher has the ability to earn a $1000 refundable tax credit if a teacher achieves the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. Under the bill, every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax credit. Every teacher who gets Board certification will earn a tax credit. Teachers who work in rural or poor schools and get certified will have both credits, worth $2000. Schools who desperately need help attracting teachers will get a boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit most. One-fourth of America's children attend public schools in rural areas, and of the 250 poorest counties in the United States, 244 are rural. West Virginia has rural schools scattered throughout 36 of its 55 counties, and these schools face real challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers, as well as dealing with other issues related to their rural location. Attracting teachers to these schools is difficult in large part due to the vast gap between what rural districts are able to offer and the salaries paid by more affluent school districts--as wide as $20,000 a year, according to one study. Poor urban schools must overcome similar difficulties. It is often a challenge for these schools to attract and keep qualified teachers. Yet, according to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, every school must have qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. In my State of West Virginia, as in over 30 other States, there is already a state fiscal incentive for teachers who earn National Board certification. My legislation builds upon the West Virginia program; together, they add up to a powerful tax incentive for teachers to remain in the classroom and to use their skills where they are most needed. Education should be among our top national priorities, essential for every family with a child and vital for our economic and national security. I supported the bold goals and higher standards of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, but they won't be met unless we invest in quality schools and good teachers. I am committed to working closely with my Senate colleagues this fall to secure as much funding as possible for our children's education.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill that is enormously important to veterans in my State of West Virginia and to all veterans across this great Nation. The bill I am reintroducing will extend VA's ability to provide long-term care under two specific authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999. In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care legislation that required VA for the first time to provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of Public Law 106-117 directed VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled. In addition, VA was to have provided non-institutional care, such as respite care, adult day care, home- based primary care, homemaker/home health aide and skilled home health care to all enrolled veterans. Without extension, both authorities will expire in December, 2003. Long-term care for veterans has been, and remains, a priority for me. And the extension of these services is critically important to veterans and their families in every State across this country. Prior to the passage of the Millennium Health Care Bill, when families in West Virginia were told by VA that the long-term care services they needed were not available to them, they would turn to me in despair. I still frequently hear from families of aging, sick veterans who want desperately to keep their husbands, fathers or brothers at home, but in order to do that they need help. Many of our aging veterans are suffering from debilitating diseases, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a stroke. A large number of these veterans are WW II combat veterans, whose wives are lovingly caring for them at home with very limited resources. The noninstitutional long-term care services currently available within VA provide an array of care that can be a lifesaver for the dedicated care givers of critically ill veterans, and allow these veterans to remain at home. While the purpose of this bill is clear, let me explain the reason it is so necessary. Within three years of the enactment of Public Law 106- 117, VA was to evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both the nursing home care and non-institutional care provisions, and to make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions. These programs were given an expiration date of four years. But unfortunately, very little has happened with these long-term care programs. It was not until October, 2001, that VA addressed the requirements of the law by issuing a directive on such noninstitutional long-term care services as respite and adult day care. And even now, we find that how these services are being provided, if at all, varies widely throughout the VA health care system. The delay in implementing these programs will greatly impede our ability to adequately study their effects. Additionally, in September, 2001, two years after Congress passed the Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999, I asked the General Accounting Office to identify the long-term care services that are available at each of VA's medical centers, and the standards and criteria used by VA to determine which veterans may receive these services. GAO is expected to release their final report on VA long-term care by May 1, but their preliminary report confirms that VA has not made much progress in implementing noninstitutional long-term care services for veterans. Therefore, I believe it is critical that both long-term care authorities, due to expire in December of this year, be extended for an additional five years, until December 31, 2008, so that we can be properly evaluate the services and, if need be, make appropriate adjustments.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill that is enormously important to veterans in my State of West Virginia and to all veterans across this great Nation. The bill I am reintroducing will extend VA's ability to provide long-term care under two specific authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999. In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care legislation that required VA for the first time to provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of Public Law 106-117 directed VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled. In addition, VA was to have provided non-institutional care, such as respite care, adult day care, home- based primary care, homemaker/home health aide and skilled home health care to all enrolled veterans. Without extension, both authorities will expire in December, 2003. Long-term care for veterans has been, and remains, a priority for me. And the extension of these services is critically important to veterans and their families in every State across this country. Prior to the passage of the Millennium Health Care Bill, when families in West Virginia were told by VA that the long-term care services they needed were not available to them, they would turn to me in despair. I still frequently hear from families of aging, sick veterans who want desperately to keep their husbands, fathers or brothers at home, but in order to do that they need help. Many of our aging veterans are suffering from debilitating diseases, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a stroke. A large number of these veterans are WW II combat veterans, whose wives are lovingly caring for them at home with very limited resources. The noninstitutional long-term care services currently available within VA provide an array of care that can be a lifesaver for the dedicated care givers of critically ill veterans, and allow these veterans to remain at home. While the purpose of this bill is clear, let me explain the reason it is so necessary. Within three years of the enactment of Public Law 106- 117, VA was to evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both the nursing home care and non-institutional care provisions, and to make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions. These programs were given an expiration date of four years. But unfortunately, very little has happened with these long-term care programs. It was not until October, 2001, that VA addressed the requirements of the law by issuing a directive on such noninstitutional long-term care services as respite and adult day care. And even now, we find that how these services are being provided, if at all, varies widely throughout the VA health care system. The delay in implementing these programs will greatly impede our ability to adequately study their effects. Additionally, in September, 2001, two years after Congress passed the Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999, I asked the General Accounting Office to identify the long-term care services that are available at each of VA's medical centers, and the standards and criteria used by VA to determine which veterans may receive these services. GAO is expected to release their final report on VA long-term care by May 1, but their preliminary report confirms that VA has not made much progress in implementing noninstitutional long-term care services for veterans. Therefore, I believe it is critical that both long-term care authorities, due to expire in December of this year, be extended for an additional five years, until December 31, 2008, so that we can be properly evaluate the services and, if need be, make appropriate adjustments.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, a well-known educational program developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by Congress through the U.S. Department of Education. I am proud to announce that the class from Musselman High School will represent the State of West Virginia in this national event. These young scholars from Inwood, WV, have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating in both local and statewide competitions. As a result of their hard work, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The 3 day We the People national competition is modeled on hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curriculum and materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop the kind of participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens. Independent studies by the Educational Testing Service, ETS, revealed that students enrolled in the We the People program at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.'' Another study by Richard Brody at Stanford University discovered that students involved in the We the People program develop greater commitment to democratic principles and values than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. Researchers at the Council for Basic Education noted: [T]eachers feel excited and renewed . . . . Students are enthusiastic about what they have been able to accomplish, especially in terms of their ability to carry out a reasoned argument. They have become energized about their place as citizens of the United States. The class from Musselman High School is eager to participate in the national competition in Washington, D.C. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I believe these young West Virginians have already won a great deal through the knowledge they have gained, but I also wish them every success in the We the People competition.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, last night, an extraordinary event happened in Iraq: The extraction and rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch of West Virginia who comes from the small town of Palestine in Wirt County with a population of about 5,800. She was in a hospital in Nasiriyah, with others, where she had been held captive. Through superb coordination of the Navy SEALs, Marines, and Army Rangers, U.S. forces went in, created diversions, rescued her, and brought her to safety. She is now on a C-17 on her way to Ramstein Air Force Base where she will receive treatment. She has many broken bones and other injuries, but none of them are life threatening. She was part of the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company and was moving with the 3rd Infantry Division north toward Baghdad. It was that classic case where the group made a right turn instead of going straight ahead, and they were captured. Not all of her fellow soldiers were so lucky, but she is known to be in very good spirits. I have seen pictures of her, as I think we all have, and I have spoken with her parents to express my thoughts of her being rescued. I have to say that in a time of great stress, worry, and loss in this country, there do come high points and this is one of them. This private is 19 years old. She wants to be a teacher. She was rescued by people who showed the most extraordinary skill and heroism. What is interesting is her desire to be a teacher. Even when she went overseas, she told a kindergarten class in her hometown of Palestine, WV, that she wanted to have a pen pal relationship with them from the field. By having this communication, she believed they could get a better sense of what war was like rather than just watching TV, reading the newspapers, or listening to the radio. As my senior colleague, Senator Byrd, knows well, Palestine is a very friendly, very proud place where people struggle hard in a rural county to give the best possible life for their daughters and sons. I think Jessica Lynch has already started her role as a teacher. She has taught all of us. The Nation took her to heart because of the innocence and the beauty of her young face. The Nation prayed over her, worried over her, as we all did. She was rescued. She was delivered back to us, so to speak. So I think her career, in being inspiring to all of us, has already begun as a teacher. She has taught us enormously. Then again, so did those who rescued her teach us, because they took extraordinary skill and courage and used the proper techniques. They were under fire and brought her home safely to an ambulance. There are still others who are missing, of course, and we worry about them. I know she does, even as she hurts with her wounds. For now, for this moment, and in West Virginia for a long time to come, we can rejoice about this extraordinary miracle of Jessica Lynch. She would like to know and surely can know that all Members of the Senate join their colleagues in other bodies of Government, and Americans in general, in offering our warmest congratulations to her as a person, to her family, and to her neighbors who, in fact, became her family and always had been her family. Jessica Lynch's story has lifted our hearts, and I think her rescue is a cause for rejoicing throughout our land. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to support the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. As I speak, America's military is fighting in the dangerous and inhospitable deserts of Iraq. And when I watch the remarkable news coverage of the progress in Iraq, I am awed by the skills, dedication, and courage of our fighting forces. Passing this legislation is the least that we can do to show those brave men and women that we support them, we are proud of them, and their nation is grateful for their sacrifice. This Congress ought not to pretend that the bill we are considering is some altruistic gift to the men and women serving our country in the military. Rather, today we will pass legislation that restores basic fairness to the tax code. We demand extraordinary sacrifices of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They are often stationed far away from their families. They are frequently uprooted and forced to sell their homes on short notice. And in a military increasingly dependent on the National Guard and Reserves, we ask some of our vital troops to travel great distances at their own expense to train with their units. Often the burden of these sacrifices is increased by the inflexibility of the Tax Code. For example, a serviceman stationed in Saudi Arabia obviously cannot meet the residency requirements associated with the capital gains tax exclusion for his house in the States. It is spectacularly unfair for us to send a soldier away from his home, and then punish him with increased taxes if he decides to sell that home. The bill we will pass today rectifies this problem by suspending the residency requirements for military personnel that are away from home on active duty assignment. This bill also ensures that the full death gratuity payment made to the survivors of military personnel killed on duty will be exempt from income tax. The death benefits paid to survivors are intended to cover funeral costs and immediate expenses while the family gets back on its feet. The current death benefit is not large; it is $6,000. Inexcusably, half of that benefit is subject to income tax. This legislation excludes the full value of the death benefit from tax. To say that the survivors of those recently killed in Iraq deserve to receive the entire death benefit, tax-free, is an extraordinary understatement. One of the most important provisions of this bill is the above-the- line-deduction for overnight travel expenses for members of the National Guard and Reserves. Many of these troops travel more than 100 miles to serve with their units. They have to pay the costs of traveling to their base; and many of them also have to pay for their meals and lodging while away from home. Under current law, these expenses can be deducted from income only if the individual itemizes deductions on his or her tax return. This onerous requirement prevents many eligible individuals from taking advantage of the deduction. The bill we will pass today ensures that the expenses associated with overnight travel to attend National Guard and Reserve meetings can be deducted even if a person does not itemize deductions. This provision is expected to save National Guardsmen and reservists more than $800 million over the next 10 years. We have seen how valiantly these members of our Armed Forces are serving--leaving their homes, families, and regular jobs, to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever their Commander in Chief sends them. It is the least we can do to minimize the financial burden this service places on them and their families. I have highlighted just a few of the important provisions of this bill. Let me speak for a moment about how important this legislation will be for my own State of West Virginia. West Virginians have a proud tradition of serving in the military. Tens of thousands of West Virginians are serving on Active Duty in our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. More than 3,000 West Virginia members of the National Guard and Reserves have been activated. I am pleased to be able to support legislation that recognizes their sacrifices and rewards their service. The Senate passed legislation very similar to this bill last year. I was extremely disappointed that the House of Representatives did not act on that bill in the 107th Congress. We should waste no more time. Recently, the House passed a bill to provide tax fairness for members of our Armed Forces. However, the Senate has taken the responsible step of offsetting the costs of these changes to the tax code. The Senate bill will close loopholes that currently allow some individuals to renounce their American citizenship simply to avoid paying income taxes. I can think of no better way to finance tax relief to the brave patriots in our military than by forbidding anyone to shirk income taxes by renouncing citizenship in the United States. The tax loophole that rewards such unconscionable behavior ought to be closed and now is the time to do so. I urge the House of Representatives to approve the Senate bill. Let me close by thanking all of the members of our Armed Forces. Whether they are currently serving overseas or at home, whether they will see combat this week or provide support from far away, all these brave men and women are making America very proud. This legislation recognizes their sacrifices. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and hope that Congress will send it to the President without delay.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Senators Thomas, Burns, Durbin, Allard, Dorgan, Bayh, Voinovich, Enzi, Campbell, and Conrad, to introduce the National Coal Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 2003. This is a bill I will work very hard to see enacted, because I believe both that the Nation's economy will grind to a halt without coal, and because sustaining the indispensable role of the Nation's most abundant energy source can only be accomplished by finding environmentally sensitive ways of using it. This legislation is the byproduct of more than 5 years of effort to foster new scientific research and commercial application of clean coal technologies. This has been a collaborative effort between members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill working together with the coal and utility industries, the Department of Energy, the United Mine Workers, and academic and industrial scientists. The legislation we introduce today is substantially similar to legislation introduced in the 107th Congress, which formed the basis of the coal tax and coal R&D provisions of the comprehensive energy bill the Senate passed last year. I have a particular interest in the clean coal tax provisions. I aggressively argued for them in the Finance Committee, and I was gratified by the willingness of then-Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to work with me to include meaningful coal tax incentives in the bill this body passed by an overwhelming majority and sent to conference with the House. As a tax conferee, I again pushed hard for inclusion of the Senate-passed provisions, over the more expensive and less-inclusive House provisions. Unfortunately, the energy conference and the comprehensive energy legislation it was so close to producing were allowed to die by some who thought this Congress would be a better setting for consideration of a national energy policy. The R&D provisions, and in fact the entire package we introduce here today, have had no more fervent champion than my colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. Indeed, Senator Byrd has been a stalwart friend of coal far longer than the more than 5-year duration of this effort on clean coal technologies. I would be remiss if I did not commend Senator Byrd for his dedication and diligence in advocating for clean coal. I cannot overstate the importance of coal to our state of West Virginia. I am proud to join Senator Byrd in this effort to improve the environmental performance of coal, and to affirm its critical role in the economy of our State, and of the entire Nation. When enacted, this legislation will foster crucial, collaborative, and cutting edge scientific research by the Department of Energy and its industry partners into technologies allowing increasingly cleaner and more efficient use of our Nation's most abundant fossil fuel, coal, as a fuel to produce electricity. At the same time, this bill will create tax incentives to help coal-fired utilities defray the high cost of installation of clean coal technologies on coal-fired power plants. We have included incentives for clean coal technologies on both existing power plants and those yet to be built. Clean coal technologies used to repower existing plants will allow them to meet our most stringent Clean Air Act standards for stationary source emissions. Installations of these technologies on existing facilities is important not only to protect the environment. Perhaps as significant for our economy, sustaining energy production from these reliable sources of electricity helps insulate consumers from the kind of extraordinary price shocks we have seen recently in the natural gas and petroleum markets. New facilities designed and built with next generation, advanced clean coal technologies will be cleaner and more reliable still. Energy experts estimate that to meet our Nation's burgeoning demand for electricity, we may see more than a thousand new electricity generating plants built in the next 20 years. Modest incentives for installation of advanced clean coal technologies will give utilities the ability to choose cheap and abundant coal as a fuel source, and still produce air emissions as clean or cleaner than those produced by natural gas plants. The two sections of this bill concentrate on different aspects of the coal picture, and will be considered by different committees in the Senate. Yet the programs and commercial development this bill will engender will work hand in hand. The advanced clean coal research and development funded by this bill, augmented by the data industry, academic, and government scientists hope to gain from the performance of the reconfigured existing plants, will hasten the deployment of a fleet of near-zero emission coal-fired plans in the coming decade or two. I represent a State that produces a lot of coal, and uses a lot of coal. Between 98 and 99 percent of the electricity in West Virginia is generated with coal. This is higher than any other State in the Nation, but West Virginia electricity consumers are by no means alone in their dependence on coal. The United States is dependent on coal to a degree that I am sure comes as a surprise to most people. Coal produces more than half of the electricity used in this country. It is the primary source of electricity in 32 States, accounting for at least 55 percent of the electricity in 25 of these. Of the remaining 18 States, coal is the second most prevalent source of electricity in six of them, and a close third in two more. So, I thank my fellow cosponsors for their work on this bill, but I say to my colleagues, this is not just important to those of us whose States produce coal. Coal will continue to be a vital economic resource for the entire country. Because of this, and because the future health of our environment depends on good decisions made today, I recommend this legislation to all of my colleagues, and ask for their support in passing it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Senators Thomas, Burns, Durbin, Allard, Dorgan, Bayh, Voinovich, Enzi, Campbell, and Conrad, to introduce the National Coal Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 2003. This is a bill I will work very hard to see enacted, because I believe both that the Nation's economy will grind to a halt without coal, and because sustaining the indispensable role of the Nation's most abundant energy source can only be accomplished by finding environmentally sensitive ways of using it. This legislation is the byproduct of more than 5 years of effort to foster new scientific research and commercial application of clean coal technologies. This has been a collaborative effort between members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill working together with the coal and utility industries, the Department of Energy, the United Mine Workers, and academic and industrial scientists. The legislation we introduce today is substantially similar to legislation introduced in the 107th Congress, which formed the basis of the coal tax and coal R&D provisions of the comprehensive energy bill the Senate passed last year. I have a particular interest in the clean coal tax provisions. I aggressively argued for them in the Finance Committee, and I was gratified by the willingness of then-Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to work with me to include meaningful coal tax incentives in the bill this body passed by an overwhelming majority and sent to conference with the House. As a tax conferee, I again pushed hard for inclusion of the Senate-passed provisions, over the more expensive and less-inclusive House provisions. Unfortunately, the energy conference and the comprehensive energy legislation it was so close to producing were allowed to die by some who thought this Congress would be a better setting for consideration of a national energy policy. The R&D provisions, and in fact the entire package we introduce here today, have had no more fervent champion than my colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. Indeed, Senator Byrd has been a stalwart friend of coal far longer than the more than 5-year duration of this effort on clean coal technologies. I would be remiss if I did not commend Senator Byrd for his dedication and diligence in advocating for clean coal. I cannot overstate the importance of coal to our state of West Virginia. I am proud to join Senator Byrd in this effort to improve the environmental performance of coal, and to affirm its critical role in the economy of our State, and of the entire Nation. When enacted, this legislation will foster crucial, collaborative, and cutting edge scientific research by the Department of Energy and its industry partners into technologies allowing increasingly cleaner and more efficient use of our Nation's most abundant fossil fuel, coal, as a fuel to produce electricity. At the same time, this bill will create tax incentives to help coal-fired utilities defray the high cost of installation of clean coal technologies on coal-fired power plants. We have included incentives for clean coal technologies on both existing power plants and those yet to be built. Clean coal technologies used to repower existing plants will allow them to meet our most stringent Clean Air Act standards for stationary source emissions. Installations of these technologies on existing facilities is important not only to protect the environment. Perhaps as significant for our economy, sustaining energy production from these reliable sources of electricity helps insulate consumers from the kind of extraordinary price shocks we have seen recently in the natural gas and petroleum markets. New facilities designed and built with next generation, advanced clean coal technologies will be cleaner and more reliable still. Energy experts estimate that to meet our Nation's burgeoning demand for electricity, we may see more than a thousand new electricity generating plants built in the next 20 years. Modest incentives for installation of advanced clean coal technologies will give utilities the ability to choose cheap and abundant coal as a fuel source, and still produce air emissions as clean or cleaner than those produced by natural gas plants. The two sections of this bill concentrate on different aspects of the coal picture, and will be considered by different committees in the Senate. Yet the programs and commercial development this bill will engender will work hand in hand. The advanced clean coal research and development funded by this bill, augmented by the data industry, academic, and government scientists hope to gain from the performance of the reconfigured existing plants, will hasten the deployment of a fleet of near-zero emission coal-fired plans in the coming decade or two. I represent a State that produces a lot of coal, and uses a lot of coal. Between 98 and 99 percent of the electricity in West Virginia is generated with coal. This is higher than any other State in the Nation, but West Virginia electricity consumers are by no means alone in their dependence on coal. The United States is dependent on coal to a degree that I am sure comes as a surprise to most people. Coal produces more than half of the electricity used in this country. It is the primary source of electricity in 32 States, accounting for at least 55 percent of the electricity in 25 of these. Of the remaining 18 States, coal is the second most prevalent source of electricity in six of them, and a close third in two more. So, I thank my fellow cosponsors for their work on this bill, but I say to my colleagues, this is not just important to those of us whose States produce coal. Coal will continue to be a vital economic resource for the entire country. Because of this, and because the future health of our environment depends on good decisions made today, I recommend this legislation to all of my colleagues, and ask for their support in passing it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Landrieu, Specter, Johnson, and Dayton as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This amendment is a simple sense-of-the-Senate amendment. That is all it is. It asks that there be no less than $30 billion over the next 18 months of which half must be for Medicaid to be given to the States for fiscal relief within the stimulus package. Our States are broke. Quite frankly, the $98 billion that States spend on Medicaid today actually turns into $280 billion of fiscal stimulus. So it is fiscal stimulus. If we don't do this, 1,700,000 more people will lose their Medicaid, lose their health care. They are our most vulnerable citizens. I ask that our colleagues support this amendment offered by Senator Collins, Senator Nelson, and myself. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The President has announced that military operations to disarm and liberate Iraq have begun. For those of us who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, entering into war is one of the most somber moments we face. When the President sends our troops to battle, the stakes are unmistakably clear: our courageous troops are preparing to risk everything so that our society can continue to live in freedom. At a time like this, our Nation should come together as one to support our troops in battle, and to support the Commander in Chief. This military action responds to the growing threat to America and our allies posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Here at home and around the world, we have debated how best to disarm Saddam. After 12 years of diplomacy, and 17 different U.N. resolutions, Saddam remains a serious threat to the peace and stability of the region, and to the safety of Americans and our allies. I, like most of my colleagues, believed we could not live with this threat to America's security. And so I voted last October to give the President authority to make one final attempt to disarm Saddam through the U.N.--to give diplomacy one last chance to work--and to resort to forcible disarmament if that failed. Five months after we passed our congressional resolution, and 4 months after the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1441, Saddam has still refused to disarm. Now the President has decided, drawing on the authority granted him by the Constitution, by the Congress, and by a series of U.N. resolutions, to send our troops into battle--to forcibly disarm Iraq, end Saddam's rule of terror, and allow the oppressed Iraqi people to have a better life. And it is our responsibility, here in America, to come together to show our troops, who are fighting to protect our freedoms, that they have all our support, and that we are praying for a quick and successful campaign. I had the opportunity to visit our troops last month in Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan, and had the privilege to meet our fine young West Virginians serving there. I am always impressed by the commitment and professionalism of our Armed Forces--the brave enlisted men and women who have dedicated their skills and energy to safeguarding America's vital national interests, the officer crops who have honed the most awesome fighting machine the world has ever seen, and the reservists and national guardsmen who willingly disrupt their civilian lives when their country needs them. To witness their dedication and skill, and their willingness to risk everything to defend the greater good of our Nation, is to be reminded, just as we learned on that fateful September 11, that heroes still walk among us. The Americans who have volunteered to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces are some of the finest individuals our society produces, and we are all in their debt. We West Virginians have always been particularly proud that while we are a small State, we contribute a significant share of America's Armed Forces. I have here a list of the West Virginia Reserve and National Guard units that have been called up for service overseas in the past 2 years. I realize I can't read the entire list, but I would like to note that it encompasses 28 units based in West Virginia and nearly 2500 servicemembers, as well as thousands of Active Duty servicemembers who hail from West Virginia. I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. A war will always involve risk and uncertainty. That is especially the case when we are dealing with a dangerous dictator like Saddam Hussein, who has used illegal; weapons before, and who knows that in this instance, war will not end until he is removed. We should never be over-confident, and must go into this knowing that our troops will face real risks. But we can take heart that never, in the history of mankind, have there been Armed Forces better prepared to meet the challenges that come their way. In skill, in technological sophistication, and in fighting spirit, our troops continue to set new benchmarks the world has never seen. Never in modern history has there been a fighting force so clearly superior to all its competitors. We now stand at an important threshold in our Nation's history, and our national security. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has altered America's security forever. Before 2001, we believed that we could only be threatened by another superpower--and the demise of the Soviet Union made us think that threats to America's homeland had more or less vanished. On September 11, we learned how wrong we were. In the coming years, the spread of weapons of mass destruction--to rogue governments, and to terrorist groups in the developing world-- will be America's most important national security challenge. And increasingly, the focus of our diplomacy and defense alliances will shift away from our traditional focus on Europe to respond to these emerging threats from developing countries in Asia, in Africa, and even in Latin America. Indeed, that is already the case today: besides Iraq, the biggest security threats currently facing America aren't major power rivalries but illegal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by states such as North Korea and Iran. This threat isn't unique to the United States--but our global leadership role makes us a particularly tempting target for the disaffected and resentful. We cannot allow foreign terrorist or rogue states to threaten our society with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorism and proliferation can be stopped, but to do so will require a concerted, sustained strategy, rather than ad hoc, relative efforts. And it will require broad international support--the kind that helped us win the cold war--rather than working alone, or begin dismissive of our allies because they haven't yet recognized the magnitude of the shared threat. War is always a tragedy. To put human lives at risk--both military and civilian--can only be considered when all other reasonable options have failed. And in that regard, the significance of this conflict is not just in disarming Iraq. While that is the primary goal, this mission also demonstrates to the world that the spread of weapons of mass destruction is such a grave threat to our security that we Americans are prepared to use the full force of our militry--our fine and brave men and women in uniform--to stop it. And we are joined in that understanding by the British, and the Australians, and the poles, and many, many allies around the world. Perhaps some other countries haven't reached that understanding yet. Or they continue to believe the diplomatic processes developed for a cold war environment must be maintained at all costs. But this new threat must be addressed. If our troops find chemicals or biological weapons in Iraq--and I am confident they will--it will demonstrate to the skeptics around the world that we were right about the threat, and that we had to take action before these illegal weapons were used. And I hold out great hope that a swift victory in Iraq will pave the way for the U.S. and our allies to come together around a strategy to deal with the spread of weapons of mass destruction elsewhere. I hope, too, that a swift victory in Iraq will provide an opportunity for the U.S. and our allies to come together to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq. As the President has said, we bear no ill-will to the Iraqi people, only to the brutal and corrupt regime that governs them. The reconstruction of Iraq will be a long, costly complicated task, but a vital one--for it will ensure that Iraqis, now and in the future, will understand that America and its allies have come as liberators, not conquerors. Those are longer-term concerns, and we will have to attend to them. For now, though, we must focus on the task at hand, which is the prompt, safe and humane execution of the military operation the President has commenced. I join my fellow West Virginians in telling our troops they have our support, our gratitude, and our prayers. They represent the best of our society, and we know they will perform in a manner that makes us all proud.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will not talk long, although this is an extraordinarily important subject particularly affecting the stimulus package and affecting a lot of people in all of our States. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment which we put before the Senate now--and it is that, a sense of the Senate--we did the same thing this past July in the form of an amendment, and it received some 75 votes. It was very bipartisan. But this is a sense of the Senate. It is not an amendment per se. What we are wanting to do is to add no less than $30 billion over the next 12 months for the State stimulus relief package that should be included in any stimulus package. In fact, I would argue it makes no sense to do this without including the amendment which will then find its way to the Finance Committee where we will work with it. It is interesting, in fact, that there are many who say the primary problem for our economy at this particular point is not the impending war with Iraq, but is, in fact, the plight of our State governments and our Federal Government--the deficits and debt, in the case of the Federal Government, and the deficits, in the case of the States. We have to address the State budget shortfalls in order for any growth package to be at all meaningful. It is not as colorful and does not have as much pizzazz, but it affects incredible numbers of people. States obviously have to balance their budgets. Senator Nelson from Nebraska will be speaking shortly. He was a Governor, as was I. Nearly every State, if not every State, faces deficits. They are likely to grow in the upcoming year. The deficits are now $70 billion to $85 billion projected for 2004. This is on top of the $50 billion in deficits that the States already have for 2003. This constitutes a real crisis for them. They cannot print money, and they cannot do what we can do in the Senate: simply go into deficit and go on. They have to take action to close the deficit. Herein is the problem that affects the stimulus package, States, and people. They have to cut programs or they have to increase revenues--neither important--but one of the difficulties and responsibilities of being a Governor is that you have to make those decisions--either raise revenues, cut programs, or you do both, which is why Governors often are not terribly popular at the end of 8 years. It is about $1 out of every $8 of expenditures in the budget that these deficits represent. So it is a very large amount of money. Some 38 States, three out of four States, either cut spending in 2002, are projecting to cut spending in 2003, or do both. That is, raise revenues and cut spending. One cannot talk about stimulating the States' economies without talking about Medicaid. Medicaid and Medicare--Medicare which we have just been discussing--between those two programs, which are both located in the same Government agency, it is a substantially greater amount of money than resides in the Department of Defense. People have to understand this, it is an enormous amount of money in Medicaid and Medicare. Families USA, which is well respected, recently did a study on the economic impact of Medicaid. I am not talking yet about people. This is the economic impact of Medicaid. One of their key findings was that in the year 2001, which was the last year their research could cover, States spent almost $98 billion on Medicaid. But that was not the whole point. The point was that the Medicaid amount that they spent generated a threefold increase in the economic impact on the 50 States to the tune of $279 billion. I submit that is called fiscal stimulus of a large magnitude, because it gets into goods and services, increased business activities, and I do not think I have to go on. I am very happy to say that West Virginia was among the 10 States with the highest rate of return for every dollar spent on Medicaid. So for the State that this Senator represents, it was very meaningful. This amendment specifies that no less than one-half of the amount; that is, $30 billion, allotted for State fiscal relief must be devoted to a temporary increase in the Federal medical assistance percentage, or FMAP. That is what we voted on in July of last year. That is what passed 75 to 24--tremendously bipartisan. This is a similar structure to the legislation that Senator Collins, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and I introduced recently involving $20 billion. It was a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate, as well as increasing funding for the Social Security block grant. As I indicated, the legislation is very bipartisan. It puts money into Medicaid, but it also puts money into the Social Security block grant, which, quite frankly, is very good because in the Finance Committee we have been discussing welfare reform. We all know there is a shortage of childcare. Governors have the discretion to take that money and spend it on local projects or on childcare or however they might wish. Obviously, there are restrictions. This is strongly supported by providers and by--well, I will not go into that, but it is strongly supported. It did get 75 votes, and the National Governors Association wants this more than anything else the Congress can provide, with the exception of homeland security. This will then go on to the Finance Committee. The stimulus that Medicaid provides to the States--aside from the stimulus, there are now 1,700,000 people who will lose their Medicaid if we do nothing about this problem, if we do not increase FMAP, the Medicaid match matter. There is nothing they can do about it. They will simply have to cut more people. I say to my colleagues, they should know that States have already cut a million people off of Medicaid. Up until this point, if we do nothing they will then cut an additional 1.7 million people off Medicaid. When one does that, one understands that there are about 47 million people on Medicaid in this country and they are people who are vulnerable. It is the second largest item in most States' budgets. It is always, therefore, a target for cuts. It cannot be otherwise, and Governors have to do that. What I need to say more than anything, and more poignantly hopefully, is that Medicaid is an extraordinary safety net which was set up years ago for our most vulnerable Americans, which includes not only our low- income children and working families but also our disabled and our elderly. This strikes me as an extraordinarily reasonable amendment. Some may argue that the Federal Government is already spending too much on Medicaid and the States need to do a better job, and I would come back vociferously and say that the States are doing a superb job. In fact, they have done as well or better than the private sector on this matter indeed, as Medicare only spends 2 to 3 percent for overhead costs in the administration of the program, in spite of all the fraud and abuse charges that are thrown at it. Costs are rising in Medicaid because of prescription drugs and long- term care costs. Those are the two fastest growing items in health care. They both reside in Medicaid at this point. Medicaid has prescription drugs. Medicare does not. And so people seek it out. In conclusion, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. No less than $30 billion of State fiscal relief should be included in anything which we call a fiscal stimulus or an economic growth package. This is the most important action we could take, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield whatever time she may consume to the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It would be natural, in the nature of this body, for people to come and say--the Senator referred to this in her remarks-- you are talking about making available $30 billion to the States; we have enough problems of our own at the Federal Government level. I pointed out in my remarks the recession we are in right now is more a matter, not of war that we are in, but the State situation and the Federal Government situation. So people would say just let the States go ahead and pay for this. If they have to make cuts, they have to make cuts. It is their fault they are in this kind of situation. I was wondering how the Senator would reply to that.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator is welcome to that.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors. Cosponsors already are myself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Smith, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Edwards, and Mrs. Clinton. I ask unanimous consent to add Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. DeWine, and the distinguished Presiding Officer, Mr. Coleman, as cosponsors.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If the Senator will further yield, she leads directly to the question I wanted to ask her. That is, that there are many who have not worked in the bowels of State government, so to speak, who think Medicaid is sort of a gift from the Federal Government to the States. They do not understand that there is a very complex formula wherein all the States have to contribute, the formula is based upon their prosperity, and things of that sort. So the concept that this is somehow the Federal Government turning over money to the States and there is no cost to them doesn't make any sense, does it?

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 275 which is already at the desk.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Maine.