Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. How much time, might I ask the Senator, does he require?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask the Senator from Maine, in the summary before the vote tomorrow, opponents will no doubt ask what is our source of funding. That is a fair question to ask, and it has a very easy answer, in this case in a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Would the Senator from Maine be willing to clear up for our colleagues how we will pay for this?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Eight, nine minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There will be, I say to the Senator from North Dakota, three Senators speaking on behalf of the amendment. Forty-five minutes would be an outside number.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator and ask if she would further yield?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to talk about the debate in the Senate this week regarding late-term abortion. I am a strong opponent of late-term abortions, and I know many Americans find them as deeply troubling as I do. As I have done in the past, I voted this week to support a comprehensive ban on late-term abortions. The comprehensive ban I supported--offered as an amendment by Senator Durbin would have put an end to all late-term post-viability abortions, unlike Senator Santorum's proposal, including but not limited to those performed using the procedure known as ``partial birth.'' The Durbin ban also would have included a very narrow exception for the rare case when a woman's life or health is threatened by a troubled pregnancy, as required by the United States Supreme Court and the Constitution. I want to end unnecessary late-term abortions, and I also agree with the Supreme Court that it is not right for a woman who faces grievous injury, or even death, to have no protection under the law. In those rare cases of a serious threat to a woman's life or health, the Durbin amendment would have allowed the woman, her family and no less than two physicians to pursue the best medical options. Except in an emergency, the two physicians--to include her attending physician and an independent non-treating physician--would have been required to certify in writing that in their medical judgment continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. Grievous injury was carefully defined as a severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused or exacerbated by the pregnancy, or an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition. I want to emphasize that if we are serious about ending the practice of late-term abortions then we must pass a law that will be upheld by our courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has been quite clear that to be deemed constitutional, any law banning late-term abortions must be narrowly focused and must include an exception for the health of the mother. Several previous bans ignored these tests and were struck down, and consequently there has been no end to this troubling practice. Senator Santorum's bill does not adequately meet the Court's requirements for constitutionality and will almost surely meet the same fate. The Durbin amendment, on the other hand, was a clear and comprehensive ban that does comply with the constitutionality tests set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. It would have ended the practice of late-term abortions, with a narrow exception for protecting a woman from grievous injury to her life or health. In those rare and extraordinarily difficult situations, the Durbin amendment would have ensured that a woman--not by the dictates of the Congress, but with the private counsel of her family, her doctors, and her clergy--makes the final decision. I deeply regret that a majority of my Senate colleagues did not recognize the Durbin amendment was a more effective ban than Senator Santorum's proposal. I continue to hope that in the end we will find a way to enact a comprehensive ban on late-term abortions that meets the demands of the U.S. Supreme Court and Constitution by protecting the life and physical health of the mother in extreme situations.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003. Congressman Stark is introducing a companion bill in the House. This legislation is, without a doubt, ambitious. It is a deliberate effort to try to ignite a national commitment to the goal of insuring all of our children. For some, that is an idealistic proposition that does not seem achievable. With this bill, I want to call on the public and my colleagues to consider once again the clear and convincing case for investing the necessary resources in the health of our children-- and therefore, in the well-being of their families and our entire country. The President and Congress continue to talk about their commitment to America's health. This bill challenges them to take action on their rhetoric. Our children are not only our future, they are also our present. What we do for them today will greatly affect what happens tomorrow. Yet even though we recognize these facts, we still have not found a way to guarantee health coverage for children. Without health insurance, many of these children go without health care all together. Children are the least expensive segment of our population to insure. They are also the least able to have control over whether or not they have health insurance. Yet we now have over 9 million uninsured children in this country. And with the downturn in the economy and the rising costs of health care, this number will continue rising. Our success in expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was a meaningful, significant start at closing the tragic gap represented by millions of uninsured children. However, Congress cannot point to these programs and declare that our work is done. We still have much more to do. The percent of children in low- income families without health insurance has not changed in recent years. Even with perfect enrollment in S-CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance. This is partially due to our increasingly mobile society, where parents frequently change jobs and families often move from State to State. When this occurs there is often a lapse in health coverage. Also, families working their way out of welfare fluctuate between eligibility and ineligibility for means-tested assistance programs. Another reason for the number of uninsured children is that the cost of health insurance continues to increase, leaving many working parents unable to afford coverage for themselves or their families. All of this adds up to the fact that many of our children do not have the consistent and regular access to health care which they need to grow up healthy. That is why I am re-introducing the MediKids Health Insurance Act. This bill would automatically enroll every child at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2004. The benefits would be tailored to the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children under Medicaid. A small monthly premium would be collected from parents at tax filing, with discounts to low-income families phasing out at 300 percent of poverty. The children would remain enrolled in MediKids throughout childhood. When they are covered by another health insurance program, their parents would be exempt from the premium. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. By the year 2020, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage. Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population. It's time we make this investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life. The MediKids Health Insurance Act would offer guaranteed, automatic health coverage for every child with the simplest of enrollment procedures and no challenging outreach, paperwork, or re-determination hoops to jump through. It would be able to follow children across state lines, or tide them over in a new location until their parents can enroll them in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises such as divorce or the death of a parent, it would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to the Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, it would provide an extra boost with health insurance for the children until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. And every child would automatically be enrolled upon birth, along with the issuance of the birth certificate or immigration card. As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Providing health care coverage to children affects much more than their health--it affects their ability to learn, their ability to thrive, and their ability to become a productive member of society. I look forward to working with my colleagues and supporting organizations for the passage of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003 to guarantee every child in America the health coverage they need to grow up healthy. I stand before you today to deliver a message. That it is time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill I am introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country. Partial solutions to America's ``uninsured crisis'' lie before Congress, and I recognize the sense of realism and care that are the basis for proposing incremental steps towards universal coverage. As someone involved in the tough battles in years past to achieve universal coverage, I will continue to do all I can to make whatever progress can be made each and every year. But I also believe it is important to not lose sight of the ideal-- and our capacity to reach that ideal--of the United States of America joining every other industrialized nation by ensuring that its citizens have basic health insurance. Until we succeed, millions of children and adults will suffer human and financial costs that are preventable. Therefore, I offer this legislation to both enlist my colleagues in an effort to insist that all of our Nation's children are insured as quickly as possible and to lay out the steps that would achieve that goal. Some may say that we cannot afford this level of commitment to America's children in a time of war and economic downturn. I strongly disagree. We can fully fund MediKids with the more than $388 billion the President's budget proposes to spend on the dividend tax cut. I believe that choice is clear between providing 100 percent of our children with health care coverage and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in our country. I hope this bill will help to build the will and momentum so desperately needed by our children for action that will change their lives and strengthen our Nation. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join as co-sponsors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003. Congressman Stark is introducing a companion bill in the House. This legislation is, without a doubt, ambitious. It is a deliberate effort to try to ignite a national commitment to the goal of insuring all of our children. For some, that is an idealistic proposition that does not seem achievable. With this bill, I want to call on the public and my colleagues to consider once again the clear and convincing case for investing the necessary resources in the health of our children-- and therefore, in the well-being of their families and our entire country. The President and Congress continue to talk about their commitment to America's health. This bill challenges them to take action on their rhetoric. Our children are not only our future, they are also our present. What we do for them today will greatly affect what happens tomorrow. Yet even though we recognize these facts, we still have not found a way to guarantee health coverage for children. Without health insurance, many of these children go without health care all together. Children are the least expensive segment of our population to insure. They are also the least able to have control over whether or not they have health insurance. Yet we now have over 9 million uninsured children in this country. And with the downturn in the economy and the rising costs of health care, this number will continue rising. Our success in expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was a meaningful, significant start at closing the tragic gap represented by millions of uninsured children. However, Congress cannot point to these programs and declare that our work is done. We still have much more to do. The percent of children in low- income families without health insurance has not changed in recent years. Even with perfect enrollment in S-CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance. This is partially due to our increasingly mobile society, where parents frequently change jobs and families often move from State to State. When this occurs there is often a lapse in health coverage. Also, families working their way out of welfare fluctuate between eligibility and ineligibility for means-tested assistance programs. Another reason for the number of uninsured children is that the cost of health insurance continues to increase, leaving many working parents unable to afford coverage for themselves or their families. All of this adds up to the fact that many of our children do not have the consistent and regular access to health care which they need to grow up healthy. That is why I am re-introducing the MediKids Health Insurance Act. This bill would automatically enroll every child at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2004. The benefits would be tailored to the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children under Medicaid. A small monthly premium would be collected from parents at tax filing, with discounts to low-income families phasing out at 300 percent of poverty. The children would remain enrolled in MediKids throughout childhood. When they are covered by another health insurance program, their parents would be exempt from the premium. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. By the year 2020, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage. Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population. It's time we make this investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life. The MediKids Health Insurance Act would offer guaranteed, automatic health coverage for every child with the simplest of enrollment procedures and no challenging outreach, paperwork, or re-determination hoops to jump through. It would be able to follow children across state lines, or tide them over in a new location until their parents can enroll them in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises such as divorce or the death of a parent, it would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to the Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, it would provide an extra boost with health insurance for the children until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. And every child would automatically be enrolled upon birth, along with the issuance of the birth certificate or immigration card. As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Providing health care coverage to children affects much more than their health--it affects their ability to learn, their ability to thrive, and their ability to become a productive member of society. I look forward to working with my colleagues and supporting organizations for the passage of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003 to guarantee every child in America the health coverage they need to grow up healthy. I stand before you today to deliver a message. That it is time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill I am introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country. Partial solutions to America's ``uninsured crisis'' lie before Congress, and I recognize the sense of realism and care that are the basis for proposing incremental steps towards universal coverage. As someone involved in the tough battles in years past to achieve universal coverage, I will continue to do all I can to make whatever progress can be made each and every year. But I also believe it is important to not lose sight of the ideal-- and our capacity to reach that ideal--of the United States of America joining every other industrialized nation by ensuring that its citizens have basic health insurance. Until we succeed, millions of children and adults will suffer human and financial costs that are preventable. Therefore, I offer this legislation to both enlist my colleagues in an effort to insist that all of our Nation's children are insured as quickly as possible and to lay out the steps that would achieve that goal. Some may say that we cannot afford this level of commitment to America's children in a time of war and economic downturn. I strongly disagree. We can fully fund MediKids with the more than $388 billion the President's budget proposes to spend on the dividend tax cut. I believe that choice is clear between providing 100 percent of our children with health care coverage and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in our country. I hope this bill will help to build the will and momentum so desperately needed by our children for action that will change their lives and strengthen our Nation. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join as co-sponsors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as a senior member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to reintroduce legislation today intended to strengthen mental health programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs a key element of caring for those who have served on the battlefield. Historically, as many as one-third of all veterans seeking care at VA have received mental health treatment, and research suggests that serious mental illnesses affect at least one-fifth of the veterans who use the VA health care system. About 450,000 of the approximately 2.3 million veterans who receive compensation from VA have service- connected psychiatric and neurological disorders. I remain concerned about the viability of some of the programs developed to care for veterans with mental health needs. I have heard testimony about a number of these programs endangered by budget constraints and a shift in focus from inpatient care to outpatient clinics. Specialized programs particularly for substance use disorders and PTSD shut down, reduced in size, or understaffed--offering little or no care to veterans suffering from these seriously debilitating disorders. Congress previously enacted a provision to designate $15 million in VA funding specifically to assist medical facilities in their efforts to improve care for veterans with substance use disorders and PTSD. This additional funding has enabled VA to develop better outpatient substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, outpatient dual-diagnosis programs, more PTSD community clinical teams, and more residential substance abuse disorder rehabilitation programs. The funds for these mental health programs, mandated by the Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of 1999, will soon revert to a general fund. The bill I am introducing today ensures that this funding will remain ``protected'' for three more years and increases the total amount of funding identified specifically for treatment of substance use disorders and PTSD from $15 million to $25 million. Another provision of the legislation I am introducing today concerns VA's Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers, called ``MIRECCs. In 1996, Congress authorized VA to establish five of these centers dedicated to mental illness research, education, and clinical activities. This provision will allow VA to establish up to ten more MIRECCs to study and treat mental illnesses. MIRECCs have encouraged research, given VA caregivers more and better tools to treat patients with mental disorders, and increased our fundamental understanding of mental illnesses. Much more can be done in this area if the program is expanded. Another critical area of VA care involves counseling and treatment for veterans who were victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault during active military service. In 1992, Congress authorized VA to provide counseling to women who experienced sexual trauma during active military service. Two years later, recognizing that sexual trauma is not limited to women, Congress expanded VA's mandate to offer counseling and treatment regardless of gender. The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 broadened VA's responsibilities toward victims of sexual trauma even further, strengthening outreach efforts and extending the programs through December 2004. The legislation I am reintroducing today would provide permanent authority to VA for counseling and treatment of veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma, so that veterans and health care professionals can depend upon these critical services. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the expansion of these enormously important mental health programs with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We owe our service men and women no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as a senior member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to reintroduce legislation today intended to strengthen mental health programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs a key element of caring for those who have served on the battlefield. Historically, as many as one-third of all veterans seeking care at VA have received mental health treatment, and research suggests that serious mental illnesses affect at least one-fifth of the veterans who use the VA health care system. About 450,000 of the approximately 2.3 million veterans who receive compensation from VA have service- connected psychiatric and neurological disorders. I remain concerned about the viability of some of the programs developed to care for veterans with mental health needs. I have heard testimony about a number of these programs endangered by budget constraints and a shift in focus from inpatient care to outpatient clinics. Specialized programs particularly for substance use disorders and PTSD shut down, reduced in size, or understaffed--offering little or no care to veterans suffering from these seriously debilitating disorders. Congress previously enacted a provision to designate $15 million in VA funding specifically to assist medical facilities in their efforts to improve care for veterans with substance use disorders and PTSD. This additional funding has enabled VA to develop better outpatient substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, outpatient dual-diagnosis programs, more PTSD community clinical teams, and more residential substance abuse disorder rehabilitation programs. The funds for these mental health programs, mandated by the Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of 1999, will soon revert to a general fund. The bill I am introducing today ensures that this funding will remain ``protected'' for three more years and increases the total amount of funding identified specifically for treatment of substance use disorders and PTSD from $15 million to $25 million. Another provision of the legislation I am introducing today concerns VA's Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers, called ``MIRECCs. In 1996, Congress authorized VA to establish five of these centers dedicated to mental illness research, education, and clinical activities. This provision will allow VA to establish up to ten more MIRECCs to study and treat mental illnesses. MIRECCs have encouraged research, given VA caregivers more and better tools to treat patients with mental disorders, and increased our fundamental understanding of mental illnesses. Much more can be done in this area if the program is expanded. Another critical area of VA care involves counseling and treatment for veterans who were victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault during active military service. In 1992, Congress authorized VA to provide counseling to women who experienced sexual trauma during active military service. Two years later, recognizing that sexual trauma is not limited to women, Congress expanded VA's mandate to offer counseling and treatment regardless of gender. The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 broadened VA's responsibilities toward victims of sexual trauma even further, strengthening outreach efforts and extending the programs through December 2004. The legislation I am reintroducing today would provide permanent authority to VA for counseling and treatment of veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma, so that veterans and health care professionals can depend upon these critical services. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the expansion of these enormously important mental health programs with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We owe our service men and women no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to re-introduce a bill that reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed in 1996. It is basically the same bill as I introduced in the last Congress and it is designed to allow States to continue the important work to promote work and personal responsibility. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow States to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved millions of Americans from welfare to work. Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare rolls have left for work. Seven years ago, we agreed that the bipartisan goal of welfare reform should be to promote work and to protect children. We stood here together, on unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we believed would help families gain independence and economic self- sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each State designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific to their populations. While the results have been mixed, I believe that encouraging progress has been made. The challenge this year will be to continue to build on our foundation, and be sensitive to the current economic situation and the fiscal crisis States face today. When we started welfare reform, we had a strong economy. Now, States are struggling and most of their reserves are gone. I believe we can continue the progress of welfare reform, but I strongly believe we must provide the key investments that help welfare parents make a successful transition from welfare to work, including increasing child care funding. In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. In 2001, I hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the well-being of their children, even as they work. Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2003. States need help to continue making progress. We should continue to build on this foundation, and not reduce state flexibility. It is essential that we continue welfare reform, not unravel it, or restructure it. This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, designed by Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and Congressman Levin of Michigan. Under this important provision, States will only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a part-time job has achieved a true accomplishment, and that deserves recognition. It is also the first step toward independence. It is an empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to incorporate their proposal into my bill, and I look forward to working with them closely throughout the welfare debates during this Congress to develop an employment credit that truly rewards work. At this point, with a soft economy, I believe it is unwise to significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher work participation rates requiring 40 hours per week of work and activities. Such changes, as suggested by the Administration, would double the work requirement for mothers with children under the age of 6, and that does not seem right. Increasing work requirement without new funding for child care, transportation, and job placement activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate. It could hinder state efforts to move parents into private sector jobs. It could undermine our progress. State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such changes would force states to restructure existing programs that are working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a welfare check. We should not cut back on necessary child care and work supports for working families who are following the rules we set in 1996. This comprehensive welfare reform bill makes the right investments. It invests $5.5 billion more in child care, which is the amount supported by the Finance Committee in a bipartisan vote last June. This bill also increases funding for the basic TANF block grant by $2.5 billion because of state need. It provides full funding for the Social Services at $2.8 billion, which was promised to the states in 1996. My bill also would expand and increase the supplemental grants to help the states with high growth and high poverty deal with the challenges of welfare reform. With these new investments, states will be able to increase investment in the fundamental work supports like child care, transportation, and training, that help a parent succeed in moving from welfare to work. States would have flexibility in allocating the new resources, but I believe much of the funding can and will be directed into child care, which is a major priority. This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage, and I appreciate his leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training and English as a Second Language programs, so parents can get real jobs. In recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program, States have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their caseload to combine work and education. The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be eligible for grants as well. A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to improve the support network for parents. These grants are intended to provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare. Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important aspects of the lives of families and children. This legislation creates a Family Formation Fund to encourage healthy families, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in children's lives. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples. Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's responsibilities is the well-being of their children. This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can make even more improvements in our welfare system, while maintaining our partnership with the States, particularly at this time of severe fiscal problems in our States.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to re-introduce a bill that reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed in 1996. It is basically the same bill as I introduced in the last Congress and it is designed to allow States to continue the important work to promote work and personal responsibility. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow States to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved millions of Americans from welfare to work. Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare rolls have left for work. Seven years ago, we agreed that the bipartisan goal of welfare reform should be to promote work and to protect children. We stood here together, on unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we believed would help families gain independence and economic self- sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each State designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific to their populations. While the results have been mixed, I believe that encouraging progress has been made. The challenge this year will be to continue to build on our foundation, and be sensitive to the current economic situation and the fiscal crisis States face today. When we started welfare reform, we had a strong economy. Now, States are struggling and most of their reserves are gone. I believe we can continue the progress of welfare reform, but I strongly believe we must provide the key investments that help welfare parents make a successful transition from welfare to work, including increasing child care funding. In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. In 2001, I hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the well-being of their children, even as they work. Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2003. States need help to continue making progress. We should continue to build on this foundation, and not reduce state flexibility. It is essential that we continue welfare reform, not unravel it, or restructure it. This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, designed by Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and Congressman Levin of Michigan. Under this important provision, States will only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a part-time job has achieved a true accomplishment, and that deserves recognition. It is also the first step toward independence. It is an empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to incorporate their proposal into my bill, and I look forward to working with them closely throughout the welfare debates during this Congress to develop an employment credit that truly rewards work. At this point, with a soft economy, I believe it is unwise to significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher work participation rates requiring 40 hours per week of work and activities. Such changes, as suggested by the Administration, would double the work requirement for mothers with children under the age of 6, and that does not seem right. Increasing work requirement without new funding for child care, transportation, and job placement activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate. It could hinder state efforts to move parents into private sector jobs. It could undermine our progress. State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such changes would force states to restructure existing programs that are working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a welfare check. We should not cut back on necessary child care and work supports for working families who are following the rules we set in 1996. This comprehensive welfare reform bill makes the right investments. It invests $5.5 billion more in child care, which is the amount supported by the Finance Committee in a bipartisan vote last June. This bill also increases funding for the basic TANF block grant by $2.5 billion because of state need. It provides full funding for the Social Services at $2.8 billion, which was promised to the states in 1996. My bill also would expand and increase the supplemental grants to help the states with high growth and high poverty deal with the challenges of welfare reform. With these new investments, states will be able to increase investment in the fundamental work supports like child care, transportation, and training, that help a parent succeed in moving from welfare to work. States would have flexibility in allocating the new resources, but I believe much of the funding can and will be directed into child care, which is a major priority. This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage, and I appreciate his leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training and English as a Second Language programs, so parents can get real jobs. In recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program, States have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their caseload to combine work and education. The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be eligible for grants as well. A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to improve the support network for parents. These grants are intended to provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare. Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important aspects of the lives of families and children. This legislation creates a Family Formation Fund to encourage healthy families, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in children's lives. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples. Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's responsibilities is the well-being of their children. This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can make even more improvements in our welfare system, while maintaining our partnership with the States, particularly at this time of severe fiscal problems in our States.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this past Saturday, the world once again became painfully aware of the risks inherent in manned space travel. The Columbia tragedy has deeply wounded not only members of the NASA community, but also every American and indeed every person around the world who has ever looked up into the night sky and gazed in wonderment. Of course, space exploration has always been a dangerous venture, and the seven astronauts who gave their lives on Saturday knew this full well and accepted their mission witout reservation. Their long dedication to public service and their willingness to sacrifice, even at the risk of their own lives, in pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of mankind should be celebrated. We honor these American heroes. At the same time, all of our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the crew during this terrible and difficult time. May they know that every American is forever indebted to their loved ones for their bravery and devotion to the American space program. As we sort out the causes of this tragedy over the next several months and years, however, we must not fear the exploration of outer space. We must strive to return to space as soon as possible, maybe with different means, maybe unmanned, until we can be most assured of improved safety, for the benefits of the space program are innumerable and irrefutable. Because of research performed in outer space, people all over the world now benefit from, among other things, improved water and air purification systems, kidney dialysis machines, more efficient solar collectors, artificial hearts and limbs, improved emergency rescue equipment, and fire retardant materials, In fact, more than 100 documented NASA technologies from the space shuttle are now incorporated into the tools we use, the foods we eat, and the biotechnology and medicines used to improved our health. In addition to these immense practical benefits, we must not forget the power of space flight to inspire and motivate that those who will eventually lead us in the future. In 1957, a group of six boys in my home State of West Virginia observed Sputnik flying high overhead and realized that rocketry was their calling in life. In the 45 years since, the group, now known as the Rocket Boys, has mad space exploration a reality for countless children and adults in West Virginia. Early space flight inspired them, and it inspired space education in West Virginia. As a result of this inspiration, West Virginia is now the proud home of the NASA Independent Identification and Validation Center in Fairmont where 150 NASA employees and contractors play a critical role in space shuttle mission control software. Our State is also the proud home of the Challenger Learning Center at Wheeling Jesuit University which provides schoolchildren and teachers the chance to experience space simulation and many opportunities for math, science, and technology education. It is easy to support the space program during times of great success and spectacular achievement. But it is perhaps during times of tragedy and confusion that the program needs our support the most. Just yesterday, President Bush expressed his support for the continuation of the space shuttle program, declaring that the ``American journey into space will go on.'' NASA's remaining astronaut corps, as well as their flight directors and engineers, embody the very same bravery and dedication as their fallen colleagues. It is now up to all of us to echo support for our space program so that this bravery is not wasted, so that the immense benefits of the space program, as well as future astronauts, can be safely brought back to Earth.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would promote the health and well- being of America's children by restoring funds to the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. CHIP has been an unqualified success, helping millions of children. The program has the potential to help millions more. However, it is only as effective as we make it. In 1997, I was joined by Senator Chafee in introducing the Children's Health Insurance Program as part of the Balanced Budget Act. At that time, 10 million children were uninsured. Today, 4.6 million have coverage; this includes over 21,000 children in the State of West Virginia. I believe the families touched by this program would agree it serves its purpose well. Unfortunately, this purpose may be seriously undermined. On September 30, 2002, $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP funds reverted back to the national treasury because of a budget compromise. On September 30, 2003, an additional $1.5 billion will be returned to the treasury. This combined $2.7 billion loss will serve a huge blow to the program. As a result of it, States may be forced to stop accepting new children and may have to cut current participants from their rolls. In the meanwhile, money intended for the care of children will be spent on other initiatives. Healthy kids will go without preventative care, and sick kids will go without treatment or medicine. However, such a tragedy is preventable. Today, I am joined by Senators Chafee, Kennedy, Snowe, and others in introducing a bill that would restore full CHIP funding over 2 years and allow the program to continue its enormously important work without cutting the benefits of a single child. I am pleased to tell you that our legislation enjoys bicameral, bipartisan support and is endorsed by the National Governors Association, NGA. Though it is not a permanent solution to the problems faced by CHIP, this proposal would go far in addressing them. Most notably, it would provide real relief to States struggling to cover beneficiaries under Medicaid and would allow them to offer the care that every child needs and deserves. In order to achieve this, we must provide States with the resources they need. Today, we have introduced a bill which will do just that. However, this body must make its enactment a priority. The children we serve deserve nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would promote the health and well- being of America's children by restoring funds to the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. CHIP has been an unqualified success, helping millions of children. The program has the potential to help millions more. However, it is only as effective as we make it. In 1997, I was joined by Senator Chafee in introducing the Children's Health Insurance Program as part of the Balanced Budget Act. At that time, 10 million children were uninsured. Today, 4.6 million have coverage; this includes over 21,000 children in the State of West Virginia. I believe the families touched by this program would agree it serves its purpose well. Unfortunately, this purpose may be seriously undermined. On September 30, 2002, $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP funds reverted back to the national treasury because of a budget compromise. On September 30, 2003, an additional $1.5 billion will be returned to the treasury. This combined $2.7 billion loss will serve a huge blow to the program. As a result of it, States may be forced to stop accepting new children and may have to cut current participants from their rolls. In the meanwhile, money intended for the care of children will be spent on other initiatives. Healthy kids will go without preventative care, and sick kids will go without treatment or medicine. However, such a tragedy is preventable. Today, I am joined by Senators Chafee, Kennedy, Snowe, and others in introducing a bill that would restore full CHIP funding over 2 years and allow the program to continue its enormously important work without cutting the benefits of a single child. I am pleased to tell you that our legislation enjoys bicameral, bipartisan support and is endorsed by the National Governors Association, NGA. Though it is not a permanent solution to the problems faced by CHIP, this proposal would go far in addressing them. Most notably, it would provide real relief to States struggling to cover beneficiaries under Medicaid and would allow them to offer the care that every child needs and deserves. In order to achieve this, we must provide States with the resources they need. Today, we have introduced a bill which will do just that. However, this body must make its enactment a priority. The children we serve deserve nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am pleased to join my colleagues today in highlighting the need for timely congressional action to secure funding necessary to protect children on the S-CHIP health program. Nearly 21,000 children benefit from this program in my State of West Virginia. The S-CHIP program was created in 1997 with a bipartisan group of members to provide $40 billion over a 10-year period to extend health insurance to some uninsured children. Senator Chafee and I, along with other Senators, worked last year to develop a proposal that would address the long-term funding shortfall confronting the S-CHIP program over the next several years. While this was not considered last year, in the end, we were able to develop this 2-year compromise with the authorizers in both the House and Senate as a first step towards a long-term solution for S-CHIP's funding issues. The compromise is a very reasonable one, providing assistance both to those States that have spent their allocations and need additional resources to serve their S-CHIP children as well as States that need a bit more time to utilize their S-CHIP allocations. I share my colleagues' concerns that this issue is a very timely one, and demands fast action on our part. I recognize that the first step is to include the necessary funds for this bipartisan 2-year proposal in the fiscal year 04 budget resolution, and then to consider the specific legislation in the Finance Committee. I would hope that Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus would work to schedule a markup of this proposal as quickly as possible after the budget resolution is approved. We cannot wait to act on this until later this year when it is expected that we would consider broader health care measures. Contrary to what some have said, this is an emergency for our States and uninsured children. I look forward to working with my chairman on the Finance Committee, who deserves credit along with Senator Baucus for developing this 2-year approach, to move this proposal through the Congress as quickly as possible.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, following on what the Senator from Rhode Island said, it is extremely important that we get it done immediately. This is a two-part problem. One is the $1.5 billion shortfall in this fiscal year, and the $1.6 billion in the second fiscal year. The States have the money. Since we did not put the program under Medicaid at the very beginning, States started at various rates. Some were faster than others. Therefore, not all the money has been used. Rather than return it to the Treasury where it can't help any child at all--we still have 8 million, or 10 million, or 12 million children who need to be insured. We need to do the short-term fix, which is what this colloquy is about. Then we need to get to a longer term fix in the Finance Committee. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and Chairman Baucus to mark up a bill which will accomplish this objective on an annual basis, and then, of course, move on to the next logical step, which is to include the parent or parents of those same children. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. We don't need that much.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have strong concerns about the very narrow manner in which this provision is written. In general, I am not in favor of legislating in a way that deals with one specific company. Furthermore, as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, I regret that this matter was not considered via the normal committee process. I hope that we can have a broad discussion in the days ahead about ways to address pension issues at struggling companies. Despite these concerns, however, I am supporting the amendment of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, particularly since this provision will place no additional burden on the American taxpayer. I also support its goal of protecting employees' pensions. Furthermore, this provision is important to US Airways' effort to secure a loan from the Air Transportation Stabilization Board. As a critical provider of air service to West Virginia, I am committed to doing everything I can to ensure US Airways' long-term viability.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this budget cycle State legislators face the largest deficits in 50 years. To balance combined budget deficits of $60 to $85 billion, most States will be forced to raise taxes and cut spending. In July of last year, 75 Senators voted to provide meaningful fiscal relief to the states. That is why I return to the floor today to introduce ``The State Budget Relief Act of 2003,'' with my friends and colleagues Senators Collins, Ben Nelson, and Gordon Smith. This bipartisan legislation will provide $20 billion in immediate assistance to states to help pay for increases in Medicaid enrollment due to rising unemployment and to stop cuts in health insurance coverage, child care, education and other social services due to state budget crises. As one of the largest State programs, Medicaid has become increasingly vulnerable as a target for cuts. In 11 States, legislators have proposed and adopted cuts that when fully implemented will strip health insurance coverage from approximately one million low-income people. Further, when governors release their budgets this month, that number is expected to climb much higher than one million. Most of these people are parents and children in working families that will go uninsured without Medicaid coverage. If States are forced to institute further Medicaid cuts, our most vulnerable Americans will be left out in the cold. In West Virginia, Medicaid provides coverage to 14 percent of the population. Just this week, a West Virginia health clinic, which provides the only care for Medicaid patients in town, was forced to lay off 18 employees. The clinic is at risk because the State Medicaid program does not have the money to pay it for services. These problems are not unique to West Virginia. Stories from across the country show that many states will be forced to seek solutions to their budget crises at the expense of low-income people covered by Medicaid. On December 30th, the LA Times reported that California is considering proposals that would cut coverage for 500,000 people by the end of fiscal year 2004. This is more than one-third of the total number of people, nationally, who lost coverage in all of 2001. Some Senators might ask why we should help the States. The answer to that question is that the current economic downturn and the continuing State fiscal crises are hurting people across this country and a great many more people will be hurt in the next 18 months. The budget deficits are too large for States to cover alone without threatening the health and welfare of millions of Americans. The bipartisan ``State Budget Relief Act'' provides a temporary increase in Federal Medicaid matching rates, which will help reduce the pressure on states to cut health insurance coverage for low-income families and individuals. It grants states money that they can use for social services such as education and child care. Finally, the bill holds States harmless for reduced Federal match rates in fiscal year 2002. As a result of these provisions, West Virginia would receive $127 million to help balance its budget. I want to stress that this proposal is a critical component of economic stimulus. In this time of economic downturn, we need to ensure that there will be a safety net for low-income people and that states are not placing a further drag on the economy in efforts to balance their budgets. Several States have completed Medicaid economic impact studies within the last year. These reports conclude that in addition to the personal toll that loss of coverage takes on people, Medicaid cuts create an economic ripple effect by contributing to job and income losses for individuals and reduced output for businesses. The President's proposed economic stimulus package ignores this storm brewing in the States. It provides no fiscal relief for states and, in fact, worsens the problem by reducing state revenues by more than $4 billion a year through the individual tax cut on dividends. In contrast, our bipartisan proposal provides immediate, temporary relief to States that will complement other economic stimulus strategies while protecting the health of millions of Americans. It will be effective for 18 months from April 2003. I am extremely disappointed that the Administration failed to include any real relief for the states in its own massive stimulus package. I think that is a serious mistake, and I will fight to include the proposal introduced by Senators Collins, Ben Nelson, Gordon Smith and myself in any stimulus package we deal with in the Senate Finance Committee or on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this budget cycle State legislators face the largest deficits in 50 years. To balance combined budget deficits of $60 to $85 billion, most States will be forced to raise taxes and cut spending. In July of last year, 75 Senators voted to provide meaningful fiscal relief to the states. That is why I return to the floor today to introduce ``The State Budget Relief Act of 2003,'' with my friends and colleagues Senators Collins, Ben Nelson, and Gordon Smith. This bipartisan legislation will provide $20 billion in immediate assistance to states to help pay for increases in Medicaid enrollment due to rising unemployment and to stop cuts in health insurance coverage, child care, education and other social services due to state budget crises. As one of the largest State programs, Medicaid has become increasingly vulnerable as a target for cuts. In 11 States, legislators have proposed and adopted cuts that when fully implemented will strip health insurance coverage from approximately one million low-income people. Further, when governors release their budgets this month, that number is expected to climb much higher than one million. Most of these people are parents and children in working families that will go uninsured without Medicaid coverage. If States are forced to institute further Medicaid cuts, our most vulnerable Americans will be left out in the cold. In West Virginia, Medicaid provides coverage to 14 percent of the population. Just this week, a West Virginia health clinic, which provides the only care for Medicaid patients in town, was forced to lay off 18 employees. The clinic is at risk because the State Medicaid program does not have the money to pay it for services. These problems are not unique to West Virginia. Stories from across the country show that many states will be forced to seek solutions to their budget crises at the expense of low-income people covered by Medicaid. On December 30th, the LA Times reported that California is considering proposals that would cut coverage for 500,000 people by the end of fiscal year 2004. This is more than one-third of the total number of people, nationally, who lost coverage in all of 2001. Some Senators might ask why we should help the States. The answer to that question is that the current economic downturn and the continuing State fiscal crises are hurting people across this country and a great many more people will be hurt in the next 18 months. The budget deficits are too large for States to cover alone without threatening the health and welfare of millions of Americans. The bipartisan ``State Budget Relief Act'' provides a temporary increase in Federal Medicaid matching rates, which will help reduce the pressure on states to cut health insurance coverage for low-income families and individuals. It grants states money that they can use for social services such as education and child care. Finally, the bill holds States harmless for reduced Federal match rates in fiscal year 2002. As a result of these provisions, West Virginia would receive $127 million to help balance its budget. I want to stress that this proposal is a critical component of economic stimulus. In this time of economic downturn, we need to ensure that there will be a safety net for low-income people and that states are not placing a further drag on the economy in efforts to balance their budgets. Several States have completed Medicaid economic impact studies within the last year. These reports conclude that in addition to the personal toll that loss of coverage takes on people, Medicaid cuts create an economic ripple effect by contributing to job and income losses for individuals and reduced output for businesses. The President's proposed economic stimulus package ignores this storm brewing in the States. It provides no fiscal relief for states and, in fact, worsens the problem by reducing state revenues by more than $4 billion a year through the individual tax cut on dividends. In contrast, our bipartisan proposal provides immediate, temporary relief to States that will complement other economic stimulus strategies while protecting the health of millions of Americans. It will be effective for 18 months from April 2003. I am extremely disappointed that the Administration failed to include any real relief for the states in its own massive stimulus package. I think that is a serious mistake, and I will fight to include the proposal introduced by Senators Collins, Ben Nelson, Gordon Smith and myself in any stimulus package we deal with in the Senate Finance Committee or on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will improve and protect health insurance for out Nation's children. Earlier this year, I worked in a bipartisan manner to develop a comprehensive proposal based on the basic and fundamental philosophy that no child should go without needed health care. I was pleased at that time to be joined by my good friends Senator Chafee, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Hatch to introduce the Children's Health Insurance Improvement and Protection Act of 2002. Unfortunately, no action has been taken on that proposal and I am left worrying that we will end the 107th session of Congress having forgotten our children. Therefore, I am introducing a proposal that will at least protect the Children's Health Insurance Program for the next 2 years. The Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, has been an unqualified success. Last year, 4.6 million children were enrolled in CHIP and the percentage of children without health insurance has declined in recent years. In my State of West Virginia, the CHIP program provides health coverage to over 20,000 children. Health insurance coverage is key to assuring children's access to appropriate and adequate health care, including preventive services. Research demonstrates that uninsured children are more likely to lack a usual source of care, to go without needed care, and to experience worse health outcomes than children with coverage. Uninsured children who are injured are 30 percent less likely than insured children to receive medical treatment and three times more likely not to get a needed prescription. However, the continued success of the CHIP program is now in serious jeopardy. On September 30 of this year $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP funds was sent back to the General Treasury. In addition, some $1.5 billion of these funds are projected to revert back to the Treasury next September 30. If we do not act to protect this money for children and send money to the States that can use it, we will have failed our children. A 2-year fix is only a first step. There is more that we need to do. The Bush administration projects that 900,000 children will lose their health coverage between fiscal years 2003 and 2006, if Congress does not take appropriate action. This is because even as State enrollment and spending rapidly increases, Federal CHIP funding dropped by more than $1 billion this year and will be reduced in each of the next 2 years. Known as the ``CHIP Dip,'' this reduction has no underlying health policy justification; it was solely the result of the budget compromises we had to make when enacting the balance budget deal in 1997. As a result, a number of States will have insufficient Federal funding to sustain their enrollment and they will have no choice but to scale back or limit their CHIP programs. As enrollment is cut, the number of uninsured children will increase, and as a consequence, sick children will get sicker. The biggest problem that will result from enrollment cuts in the CHIP program are the future health problems of adults who as children could have received benefits under CHIP. The bill I am introducing today is only a first step that we must take this year. We need a comprehensive and reasonable approach to shore up CHIP financing in order to avert the devastating enrollment decline and make sure that our children are protected into the future. We need to put more money into this program. However, this legislation will protect $1.2 billion that should be spent on children's health insurance from being spent on roads and will put money in states that can use it now to cover kids. It is the least we can do. I urge Congress to enact this legislation and ensure the continued success of the CHIP program and sustain the significant progress CHIP has made in reducing the ranks of uninsured children. 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 a bill that will improve and protect health insurance for out Nation's children. Earlier this year, I worked in a bipartisan manner to develop a comprehensive proposal based on the basic and fundamental philosophy that no child should go without needed health care. I was pleased at that time to be joined by my good friends Senator Chafee, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Hatch to introduce the Children's Health Insurance Improvement and Protection Act of 2002. Unfortunately, no action has been taken on that proposal and I am left worrying that we will end the 107th session of Congress having forgotten our children. Therefore, I am introducing a proposal that will at least protect the Children's Health Insurance Program for the next 2 years. The Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, has been an unqualified success. Last year, 4.6 million children were enrolled in CHIP and the percentage of children without health insurance has declined in recent years. In my State of West Virginia, the CHIP program provides health coverage to over 20,000 children. Health insurance coverage is key to assuring children's access to appropriate and adequate health care, including preventive services. Research demonstrates that uninsured children are more likely to lack a usual source of care, to go without needed care, and to experience worse health outcomes than children with coverage. Uninsured children who are injured are 30 percent less likely than insured children to receive medical treatment and three times more likely not to get a needed prescription. However, the continued success of the CHIP program is now in serious jeopardy. On September 30 of this year $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP funds was sent back to the General Treasury. In addition, some $1.5 billion of these funds are projected to revert back to the Treasury next September 30. If we do not act to protect this money for children and send money to the States that can use it, we will have failed our children. A 2-year fix is only a first step. There is more that we need to do. The Bush administration projects that 900,000 children will lose their health coverage between fiscal years 2003 and 2006, if Congress does not take appropriate action. This is because even as State enrollment and spending rapidly increases, Federal CHIP funding dropped by more than $1 billion this year and will be reduced in each of the next 2 years. Known as the ``CHIP Dip,'' this reduction has no underlying health policy justification; it was solely the result of the budget compromises we had to make when enacting the balance budget deal in 1997. As a result, a number of States will have insufficient Federal funding to sustain their enrollment and they will have no choice but to scale back or limit their CHIP programs. As enrollment is cut, the number of uninsured children will increase, and as a consequence, sick children will get sicker. The biggest problem that will result from enrollment cuts in the CHIP program are the future health problems of adults who as children could have received benefits under CHIP. The bill I am introducing today is only a first step that we must take this year. We need a comprehensive and reasonable approach to shore up CHIP financing in order to avert the devastating enrollment decline and make sure that our children are protected into the future. We need to put more money into this program. However, this legislation will protect $1.2 billion that should be spent on children's health insurance from being spent on roads and will put money in states that can use it now to cover kids. It is the least we can do. I urge Congress to enact this legislation and ensure the continued success of the CHIP program and sustain the significant progress CHIP has made in reducing the ranks of uninsured children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with a tremendous amount of frustration and disappointment that I come before the Senate to discuss the failure of efforts in the 107th Congress to craft an energy bill. I have been a long-time advocate of a comprehensive national policy that would address the national and economic security aspects of this country's growing demand for energy, as well as the importance of protecting our environment. I was very proud of the work the Senate had done this year to produce this legislation. Under the leadership of Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, the Senate did what many in Washington thought impossible--we produced balanced and responsible energy legislation combining increased domestic production of conventional fuels, expanded use of alternative and renewable energy sources, and energy conservation and efficiency programs. Unfortunately, in our rush to complete work on a number of pending matters, many Senators chose to not proceed with Conference negotiations, acquiescing in what I would characterize as a strategy to scuttle this worthwhile bill. Perhaps the thought was that a better bill--or at least one that better met a different set of priorities--could be crafted next year. Candidly, I doubt it. I believe the demise of the Energy bill this year is unfortunate for West Virginia, and for the entire nation. During a nearly year-long debate on the complex components of the energy bill, my position as a senior Majority member of the Senate Finance Committee allowed me to influence the legislation so that its end results would be good for consumers, workers, and industries in my state of West Virginia. I am concerned that a new set of circumstances confronting the 108th Congress will result in a bill that does not serve my state nearly as well. While the need to grapple with energy issues will not go away, no matter what other factors are to be considered, Congress will be forced to act in a vastly changed budgetary climate. The growing deficit, additional proposed tax cuts, and the need to fund both a war on terrorism and a possible war with Iraq, will inhibit the ability of Congress to make any significant outlays to improve our energy situation. The 2002 energy bill was a bipartisan effort. Perhaps most significantly for West Virginia, there was general agreement among Senate conferees that the final bill should include meaningful Clean Coal incentives. I worked very hard to see that the Senate-passed bill included incentives for the installation of Clean Coal technologies on smaller existing coal-burning facilities, such as we have in West Virginia. The version passed by the House would have bypassed existing facilities altogether--putting thousands of West Virginia jobs at risk and jeopardizing the health of all West Virginians downwind of these plants. As a member of the House-Senate Conference Committee reconciling the two versions of the energy bill, I was able to ensure that the final legislation included incentives for existing facilities. If the energy bill is considered again in the 108th Congress, I will likely again be a conferee, but my ability to apply pressure to benefit the people and environment of our state will be lessened. I also worked closely with a number of colleagues from both parties to see that the bill included incentives to capture coal mine methane, a deadly hazard in coal mines, and a potent greenhouse gas when vented to protect the lives of miners. I was proud to join with members from both sides of the aisle to extend credits for the production of oil and natural gas from non-conventional sources. Without this credit, the natural gas industry in the entire Appalachian Basin would likely cease to exist. Likewise, I was pleased to join in a bipartisan effort to promote the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. Similarly, I joined colleagues from across the political spectrum to further research and development and create tax incentives for the production of electricity from renewable sources, and to increase energy efficiency in homes, commercial buildings, and appliances. In fact, what most frustrates me is that this product of so much bipartisan cooperation is dead because of what may have been a cynical calculation to reconsider later a few issues with which there will never be truly bipartisan agreement. If the next Congress does revisit the issue of a national energy policy, I am certain that those in charge will put much-needed emphasis on domestic production. At the same time, I have serious doubts that the incoming congressional majorities will toil quite as hard to balance that priority with the equally necessary issue of protecting the environment. In the same vein, while I suspect that there will be new efforts to exploit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on our other public lands, regardless of the minimal amounts of mineral resources that may be recoverable, I am not confident that a new bill's authors will show the same zeal to expand our domestic energy production from clean and abundant renewable resources. This has been a hard fight, and while not perfect, the legislation we were so close to producing would have been the truly comprehensive and balanced energy policy that I have been calling for since I came to Congress eighteen years ago. Since then, I have continuously urged my colleagues in the Congress, as well as both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, to work together on a responsible energy policy for this country. The 107th Congress was prepared to deliver a balanced, comprehensive energy plan for the President's signature. Now, for a number of reasons the energy bill is dead, putting the American economy and the American environment at risk. I find this frustrating, short-sighted, and extremely unfortunate.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with a tremendous amount of frustration and disappointment that I come before the Senate to discuss the failure of efforts in the 107th Congress to craft an energy bill. I have been a long-time advocate of a comprehensive national policy that would address the national and economic security aspects of this country's growing demand for energy, as well as the importance of protecting our environment. I was very proud of the work the Senate had done this year to produce this legislation. Under the leadership of Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, the Senate did what many in Washington thought impossible--we produced balanced and responsible energy legislation combining increased domestic production of conventional fuels, expanded use of alternative and renewable energy sources, and energy conservation and efficiency programs. Unfortunately, in our rush to complete work on a number of pending matters, many Senators chose to not proceed with Conference negotiations, acquiescing in what I would characterize as a strategy to scuttle this worthwhile bill. Perhaps the thought was that a better bill--or at least one that better met a different set of priorities--could be crafted next year. Candidly, I doubt it. I believe the demise of the Energy bill this year is unfortunate for West Virginia, and for the entire nation. During a nearly year-long debate on the complex components of the energy bill, my position as a senior Majority member of the Senate Finance Committee allowed me to influence the legislation so that its end results would be good for consumers, workers, and industries in my state of West Virginia. I am concerned that a new set of circumstances confronting the 108th Congress will result in a bill that does not serve my state nearly as well. While the need to grapple with energy issues will not go away, no matter what other factors are to be considered, Congress will be forced to act in a vastly changed budgetary climate. The growing deficit, additional proposed tax cuts, and the need to fund both a war on terrorism and a possible war with Iraq, will inhibit the ability of Congress to make any significant outlays to improve our energy situation. The 2002 energy bill was a bipartisan effort. Perhaps most significantly for West Virginia, there was general agreement among Senate conferees that the final bill should include meaningful Clean Coal incentives. I worked very hard to see that the Senate-passed bill included incentives for the installation of Clean Coal technologies on smaller existing coal-burning facilities, such as we have in West Virginia. The version passed by the House would have bypassed existing facilities altogether--putting thousands of West Virginia jobs at risk and jeopardizing the health of all West Virginians downwind of these plants. As a member of the House-Senate Conference Committee reconciling the two versions of the energy bill, I was able to ensure that the final legislation included incentives for existing facilities. If the energy bill is considered again in the 108th Congress, I will likely again be a conferee, but my ability to apply pressure to benefit the people and environment of our state will be lessened. I also worked closely with a number of colleagues from both parties to see that the bill included incentives to capture coal mine methane, a deadly hazard in coal mines, and a potent greenhouse gas when vented to protect the lives of miners. I was proud to join with members from both sides of the aisle to extend credits for the production of oil and natural gas from non-conventional sources. Without this credit, the natural gas industry in the entire Appalachian Basin would likely cease to exist. Likewise, I was pleased to join in a bipartisan effort to promote the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. Similarly, I joined colleagues from across the political spectrum to further research and development and create tax incentives for the production of electricity from renewable sources, and to increase energy efficiency in homes, commercial buildings, and appliances. In fact, what most frustrates me is that this product of so much bipartisan cooperation is dead because of what may have been a cynical calculation to reconsider later a few issues with which there will never be truly bipartisan agreement. If the next Congress does revisit the issue of a national energy policy, I am certain that those in charge will put much-needed emphasis on domestic production. At the same time, I have serious doubts that the incoming congressional majorities will toil quite as hard to balance that priority with the equally necessary issue of protecting the environment. In the same vein, while I suspect that there will be new efforts to exploit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on our other public lands, regardless of the minimal amounts of mineral resources that may be recoverable, I am not confident that a new bill's authors will show the same zeal to expand our domestic energy production from clean and abundant renewable resources. This has been a hard fight, and while not perfect, the legislation we were so close to producing would have been the truly comprehensive and balanced energy policy that I have been calling for since I came to Congress eighteen years ago. Since then, I have continuously urged my colleagues in the Congress, as well as both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, to work together on a responsible energy policy for this country. The 107th Congress was prepared to deliver a balanced, comprehensive energy plan for the President's signature. Now, for a number of reasons the energy bill is dead, putting the American economy and the American environment at risk. I find this frustrating, short-sighted, and extremely unfortunate.