Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am delighted that Congress passed the National Science Foundation Doubling Act last week. I have been working for quite some time to increase basic research funding at the National Science Foundation. Passing this bill at such a critical time for our economy is extremely important, since investing in science and technology is one of the best ways to ensure long-term growth. I am particularly pleased at the inclusion of two programs I authored, the Math and Science Partnership Program and the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, that I separately proposed in freestanding legislation. Each program is an investment designed to strengthen and improve math and science education at elementary and secondary schools. The Math and Science Partnership Program has strong bipartisan support, and President Bush requested and received funding in last year's appropriation bill to jump start this important program. The Math and Science Partnership program's inclusion in the reauthorization bill is important to provide both policy guidance and a long-term commitment to the program. This legislation provides increasing funding for math and science partnerships for five years, with a specific recommendation of $900 million for the first 3 years. These grants will be awarded to universities, businesses, and State agencies to coordinate activities in math and science education for elementary and secondary school students. For example, funding could be given to a university which is working with a local business to offer workshops to kindergarten through 12th grade teachers, giving them new ideas for teaching science and math classes. Since introducing this initiative, I have visited many West Virginia classrooms, and teachers are excited about the potential for this program. Teachers are eager to partner with engineers and scientists from business and academia to engage students in high quality science and math programs. The Robert Noyce Scholarship Program will similarly take a big step toward improving math and science education in schools. By awarding college scholarships in exchange for a promise from leading college students to teach in disadvantaged elementary and secondary schools, this program is intended to attract the most motivated students into the teaching profession. This NSF bill provides funding for the Noyce program for 5 years, with a recommendation of $60 million for the first 3 years. Together, the Math and Science Partnership Program and the Noyce Scholarship Program will help the country in many ways. Promoting math and science education for our children is the most important investment we can make for the future of science and technology in the United States. I truly appreciate the bipartisan support for these incentives. I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, who introduced the companion bill in the House and has been an ally for many years on science and education issues. In addition to bolstering elementary and secondary math and science education, this bill also strives to stimulate scientific research throughout the country with the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR. This program targets States, like West Virginia, that have historically had low amounts of science and technology research, and uses a State's own science and technology resources to promote economic development. Under EPSCoR, disadvantaged states still must develop competitive proposals that pass peer review standards at NSF, but states do get assistance to become competitive and develop their research capacity. It is essential to encourage many states to invest in research. For many years, I have worked closely with the West Virginia EPSCoR program, and I am proud of its work. I know that this program has helped to leverage research and investment in our State. It has also helped to promote partnerships within our state universities and colleges, which is vital. With this NSF bill, EPSCoR is a declared priority for NSF. Helping West Virginia and other states become competitive in first class research helps the individual States and our country as a whole. Overall, the most important part of this legislation is the plan to double the NSF budget over the next 5 years, with the increases in the fourth and fifth year contingent on NSF meeting performance measures. This increase in funding will increase the length and amount of all research grants funded through NSF, giving researchers a better opportunity to conduct more in-depth studies and concentrate on discovery rather than grant proposals. These types of grants are essential to technological and scientific advancements, which are the engines for long-term economic prosperity. Indeed, realizing the vital role that NSF plays in the economy's long- term health, some have called for a tripling of the NSF budget. Many of the discoveries currently occurring in other fields, including health care, are linked to the basic research in math, computing, and science that is supported by the NSF. By seeking to increase the agency's budget, the Congress has helped to ensure that the United States remains the world's leader in science and technology research and development. Once again, I am proud that Congress has passed this valuable, bipartisan legislation, and I look forward to its approval by President Bush.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am delighted that Congress passed the National Science Foundation Doubling Act last week. I have been working for quite some time to increase basic research funding at the National Science Foundation. Passing this bill at such a critical time for our economy is extremely important, since investing in science and technology is one of the best ways to ensure long-term growth. I am particularly pleased at the inclusion of two programs I authored, the Math and Science Partnership Program and the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, that I separately proposed in freestanding legislation. Each program is an investment designed to strengthen and improve math and science education at elementary and secondary schools. The Math and Science Partnership Program has strong bipartisan support, and President Bush requested and received funding in last year's appropriation bill to jump start this important program. The Math and Science Partnership program's inclusion in the reauthorization bill is important to provide both policy guidance and a long-term commitment to the program. This legislation provides increasing funding for math and science partnerships for five years, with a specific recommendation of $900 million for the first 3 years. These grants will be awarded to universities, businesses, and State agencies to coordinate activities in math and science education for elementary and secondary school students. For example, funding could be given to a university which is working with a local business to offer workshops to kindergarten through 12th grade teachers, giving them new ideas for teaching science and math classes. Since introducing this initiative, I have visited many West Virginia classrooms, and teachers are excited about the potential for this program. Teachers are eager to partner with engineers and scientists from business and academia to engage students in high quality science and math programs. The Robert Noyce Scholarship Program will similarly take a big step toward improving math and science education in schools. By awarding college scholarships in exchange for a promise from leading college students to teach in disadvantaged elementary and secondary schools, this program is intended to attract the most motivated students into the teaching profession. This NSF bill provides funding for the Noyce program for 5 years, with a recommendation of $60 million for the first 3 years. Together, the Math and Science Partnership Program and the Noyce Scholarship Program will help the country in many ways. Promoting math and science education for our children is the most important investment we can make for the future of science and technology in the United States. I truly appreciate the bipartisan support for these incentives. I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, who introduced the companion bill in the House and has been an ally for many years on science and education issues. In addition to bolstering elementary and secondary math and science education, this bill also strives to stimulate scientific research throughout the country with the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR. This program targets States, like West Virginia, that have historically had low amounts of science and technology research, and uses a State's own science and technology resources to promote economic development. Under EPSCoR, disadvantaged states still must develop competitive proposals that pass peer review standards at NSF, but states do get assistance to become competitive and develop their research capacity. It is essential to encourage many states to invest in research. For many years, I have worked closely with the West Virginia EPSCoR program, and I am proud of its work. I know that this program has helped to leverage research and investment in our State. It has also helped to promote partnerships within our state universities and colleges, which is vital. With this NSF bill, EPSCoR is a declared priority for NSF. Helping West Virginia and other states become competitive in first class research helps the individual States and our country as a whole. Overall, the most important part of this legislation is the plan to double the NSF budget over the next 5 years, with the increases in the fourth and fifth year contingent on NSF meeting performance measures. This increase in funding will increase the length and amount of all research grants funded through NSF, giving researchers a better opportunity to conduct more in-depth studies and concentrate on discovery rather than grant proposals. These types of grants are essential to technological and scientific advancements, which are the engines for long-term economic prosperity. Indeed, realizing the vital role that NSF plays in the economy's long- term health, some have called for a tripling of the NSF budget. Many of the discoveries currently occurring in other fields, including health care, are linked to the basic research in math, computing, and science that is supported by the NSF. By seeking to increase the agency's budget, the Congress has helped to ensure that the United States remains the world's leader in science and technology research and development. Once again, I am proud that Congress has passed this valuable, bipartisan legislation, and I look forward to its approval by President Bush.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent for a bill which has been hotlined on our side and which relates to improved protection for children under the Children's Health Insurance Program. And it is not a bill which I will hand to the clerk at the time that I have completed my remarks, nor will I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, although it is ready and being hotlined, because we want to try to resolve a few remaining problems from several States on our side, which I do not think we are going to be able to do. We have tried in every way to do it. Fundamentally, the Senator from West Virginia is on his feet trying to convince those States, whether they are here or not, whether their staff members perhaps are, not to try and do what has happened so often before under the Children's Health Insurance Program, and that is a State at the last moment using the leverage of the final seconds of Congress to try to leverage a better deal for itself. The House is coming back to pass homeland security. There was one objection made on that side in the House. That person is being worked with at this time. If that objection is not raised and there is not an objection raised here, then the Children's Health Insurance Program could get funding for another 2 years. If not, funds will be returned to the Federal Government. Children will not get health insurance, and there will be a very dramatic effect which this Senator does not want to see happen. This bill, which I will not ask unanimous consent to report, is very much bipartisan. It has been worked on for a very long period of time. It started back in 1992, something of that sort. It had a slow evolution because Senator John Chafee and myself wanted very much for the bill to be done under Medicaid. The Governors struggled strenuously to have the entire matter handled on a State-by-State basis, which was in effect a mistake because it meant some States that were very aggressive picked it up, and in others that were not so aggressive--my own being one of those--it took a number of years for the program to get going. That was lost time, lost health care for children. It is very much a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that we believe is in the best interests of our constituents and that we can do it on the Children's Health Insurance Program this year. The budget situation clearly is going to get a lot worse, starting in January. We need to protect the CHIPS funds before they are spent on other matters, as indeed they will be because, as I indicated, the money will be returned to the Federal Government. Don't expect that to come back into children's health insurance. It is my understanding there are a number of Senators who have expressed concern and have stated their intention to hold up this bill in an effort to get the best possible outcome for their State. I do understand that. I have been through that a number of times even this year with individual States, now two or three States, one or two States, where they are trying to use a formula, which has been worked out, which applies to all States equally, to increase that formula to allow them to do other things which are outside of the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Children's Health Insurance Program is obviously larger than any one State. My State does not get what it needs. There are only 20,000 children on a regular basis who are covered, although 55 have come in and out of that program, but I cannot say in all conscience that 55 are covered. The Children's Health Insurance Program is in a situation that if we do not act now, this money will be lost from the Children's Health Insurance Program for good. It will happen. We have a new administration, new priorities, new budget, and the same OMB director who has very firm views about this. This is not, however, a permanent solution. I am trying to stanch the drain, the bleeding for these next 2 years. I am trying my level best to do that. This bill actually has a chance to pass in the Senate and in the House and to be taken up and passed in its entirety. I only ask with all of my heart that Senators give it a chance, that Senators not try to leverage the last possible variety or program outside of the CHIP program or extension of or some particular addition which will bring down, in fact, if an objection at this very late stage, with a day or so remaining, which will obviously work, is held. If that objection is held, then there will be no bill at all. Earlier this year I worked in a bipartisan manner to develop a very comprehensive proposal based on a basic and fundamental philosophy that no child should go without needed health care. I was pleased at the time to be joined by my good friend Senator Lincoln 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 this session in a day or two 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. This is not a permanent solution. This can change. But it is a solution for the next 2 years so money does not have to be returned. Children will be left behind. The Children's Health Insurance Program, as the Presiding Officer knows very well, has been an unqualified success. It has been an amazing success. Last year 4.6 million children across America were enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program and the percentage of children without health insurance has declined in recent years by reason of the Children's Health Insurance Program. In my State of West Virginia, the CHIP program provides health coverage on a permanent basis to over 20,000. And, of course, it needs to do much better than that. As I indicated, we were slow in starting a number of years ago. We have picked up our pace more recently. Health insurance coverage is key to assuring children's access to all kinds of health care. I need not go into this. Uninsured children who are injured are 30 percent less likely than insured children to receive medical treatment, 3 times more likely not to get a needed prescription. Health outcomes are affected in all respects. As children do eventually become adults, they carry with them the legacy of what they didn't get as children in the way of health insurance. However, the continued success of the CHIP program is now, as I have indicated--I hope soberly enough--in very serious jeopardy. On September 30 of this year, $1.2 billion in unspent children's health insurance funds was sent back to the General Treasury. It is gone. 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 in fact use it, we will have failed our children. A 2-year fix is only a first step. There is much more that we need to do. The Bush administration projects that 900,000 children will lose their health insurance coverage between fiscal years 2003 and 2006 if we do not take action this year. The bill I am discussing, that I hope will not be blocked by any individual Member, is tremendously important. It is called the CHIP Dip. Federal CHIP funding has dropped by more than $1 billion this year, and this reduction has no underlying health policy justification whatsoever. I cannot honestly imagine that with so many children at stake in so many different States, that one would look at the last moment to leverage a particular advantage. I have been through this before even this year with a Senator from another State. And in formulas, there are various ways, technical ways, of things happening. Those can be brought up in a very careful and effective way at the last moment, and people can dig in their heels. But I beg Senators to look at the overall results for our children. If we do not get this bill, it will affect the next 2 years. All of this, I might say, resulted in something that took place during the budget compromises that we had in 1997. These programs all have sort of obscure beginnings, but there are very large consequences. As a result, a number of States will have insufficient Federal funding to sustain their enrollment. They just won't have that money. They will have no choice but to scale back or limit their Children's Health Insurance Programs. I cannot imagine anything worse. We have talked about judges this afternoon while I was presiding. We talked about homeland security. I am talking about children's health insurance. I would not put that second to either of the previous two discussions. I care passionately about it. I remember precisely when the Senate got together and asked all the staff to leave, and 20 of us with very different points of view sat around a number of years ago and we worked out a children's health insurance budget, which passed very easily. Some people had never talked about health insurance at all, and we said this cannot do for children. It passed and it has been moving along ever since. The biggest problem will result in enrollment cuts in the CHIP Program and the future health problems, as I indicated, of adults who, as children, could have received benefits under the CHIP Program but who did not because we were unable to take action, or the program was fundamentally insufficient. We are trying to do the best we can. I am introducing this concept of the bill. It is being hotlined on our side. It has not been hotlined on the Republican side yet. Again, it is only a first step that we need to take. We need a comprehensive and reasonable approach to shore up CHIP financing and avert a devastating enrollment. I cannot think of anything more important that we can do as a nation. I conclude by saying we need to put more money into this program. However, this legislation--at least for the short period--will protect $1.2 billion that should be spent on children's health insurance rather than on roads or other matters, and will put money into States that can use it now to cover children. It is the least we can do. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues on the other side to support it in the last days when it is hotlined on their side of the aisle. I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support it for the protection of 4.6 million children across America and giving us a chance to do more. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to pass S. 2237, the proposed ``Veterans Benefits Act of 2002.'' Mr. President, the pending measure is the final compromise version of an omnibus bill that would improve a variety of veterans benefits, from pensions for heroes awarded the Medal of Honor to fairness in evaluating the disabilities of veterans with hearing loss. I will briefly highlight some of the provisions of which I am most proud, and refer my colleagues seeking more detail to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying this statement. S. 2237, which I will refer to as the ``Compromise Agreement,'' would eliminate many inequities and obstacles that affect veterans and their families. I thank Ranking Member Arlen Specter and his staff for their efforts on behalf of our Nation's veterans, and my colleagues in the House for working with our Committee staff to craft this agreement. I would also like to take this moment to note the loss of a dear colleague, a dedicated advocate for veterans. Many have eulogized Senator Paul Wellstone in the past few weeks, and I do not need to tell my colleagues of his passion, his energy, and his unwavering commitment to shout on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. However, few have noted his work on behalf of America's veterans, particularly those most neglected by a Nation that has not always kept its promises. Senator Wellstone worked on behalf of homeless veterans, veterans suffering from the mental illnesses that can be the silent legacy of the battlefield, and for those who returned from war to fight their own government's denials about the invisible wounds caused by chemicals and radiation. Paul Wellstone may have launched his political career in protest of the Vietnam War, but as a Senator, he chose to fight for those who served. It is up to all of us now to carry on his work. As veterans and their families--like the rest of Americans expect to enjoy--lengthening life spans, we must regularly review and update laws crafted in earlier times. Last year, I proudly authored legislation to allow survivors of severely disabled veterans to continue receiving VA healthcare coverage through the program called CHAMPVA after age 65. Section 101 of the Compromise Agreement would take this further, allowing the eligible surviving spouses of veterans who died from service-connected disabilities or in the line of duty to retain their eligibility for CHAMPVA benefits even if they remarry after age 55. Those who sacrificed so much for their Nation throughout their lives should not be further penalized by losing the special healthcare safety net that CHAMPVA offers. Mr. President, Congress last year authorized VA to offer special monthly compensation to women who had lost one or both breasts as a result of military service. VA's subsequently promulgated regulations limited eligibility for this benefit to women who had undergone simple or radical mastectomy. Even if this restriction plays no role in a woman's medical decisions, it implies unfairly that tissue-sparing treatments create no physical, emotional, or financial obstacles to a woman's health. Section 102 of the Compromise Agreement would extend this eligibility to women veterans who have endured service-connected loss of 25 percent or more of a breast's tissue, or radiation treatment to a breast. As women comprise a growing percentage of our Armed Services, we must ensure that they receive fair recognition for their sacrifices, and equitable assistance in overcoming the medical challenges that they face. I am enormously proud that the Compromise Agreement would help veterans who have both service-connected and unrelated hearing loss expect a fair disability rating. Currently, VA can consider whether a veteran has bilateral damage to ``paired'' organs or extremities--such as kidneys, lungs, feet, or hands--when rating the veteran's disability, even if only one of the paired organs was injured through military service. However, VA can only consider how non-service- connected hearing loss might further disable a veteran if he or she suffers total deafness in both ears. Section 103 of the Compromise Agreement would allow VA to consider whether a veteran suffers from partial non-service-connected hearing loss in one ear when evaluating disability caused by compensable service-connected hearing loss in the other ear. This would not only extend the same special consideration to damage to the ears that VA gives to other paired organs, but would assist veterans whose hearing loss has been made even worse due to military service. This provision represents an important step for veterans with hearing loss, but other challenges remain. America's aging veterans suffer increasingly from hearing loss and tinnitus, and the number of disability claims for hearing disorders submitted to VA continues to climb. Many veterans who left service decades ago received an ineffective hearing examination at separation, or no evaluation at all, leaving VA with a legacy of incomplete records and uncertain clinical evidence. This affects not only veterans with hearing loss, but all veterans who must wait for VA to process a staggering burden of hearing loss claims without a clear scientific standard on past exposures. Section 104 of the Compromise Agreement would require VA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to review evidence on hearing damage suffered during military service from World War II to the present. As part of this study, scientists would determine when the audiometric testing and hearing conservation programs initiated by the military services became adequate for VA to assess whether an individual veteran had hearing loss at or prior to separation. The Compromise Agreement would also require VA to review its own records on hearing loss or tinnitus in veterans, including the cost of adjudicating these claims under the current system and the cost of treating hearing disorders. These reports together should provide VA's Secretary with critical tools to decide how to assist veterans whose hearing loss may have resulted from damage suffered years ago quickly and fairly. Mr. President, Section 304 of the Compromise Agreement would increase the special pension granted to recipients of the Medal of Honor as a token of recognition for their extraordinary heroism from $600 to $1000, and adjust this pension annually with inflation. The agreement would also provide a one-time payment to Medal of Honor recipients who--due to a time lag between the date of the act of valor and the actual awarding of the Medal of Honor--received this pension only after a delay. The next section of the Compromise Agreement grew from legislation introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone, another example of his advocacy on behalf of those who serve this Nation. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA) applies to servicemembers, including National Guard Members, who serve on active duty under title 10 of the United States code. It suspends enforcement of certain civil liabilities against servicemembers on active duty so that they can devote their concentration to their duties. National Guard members may also be called to active duty by their State Governors under title 32. National Guard missions under title 32 are funded by the federal government ``to perform training and other duty.'' However, if the National Guard members are called up under title 32, rather than title 10, they are not entitled to SSCRA protections. In the days following September 11, 2001, under the direction of the President, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Secretary of Defense coordinated the use of National Guard members at commercial airports. These National Guard members, called to active duty from four to six months, clearly served a national mission. However, because they were called up under title 32, they were not entitled to SSCRA protections. Section 305 of the Compromise Agreement would extend SSCRA protections to include National Guard members called to active service for more than 30 consecutive days in response to a national emergency declared by the President, even if they serve under title 32. This provision is intended to protect members of the National Guard when called up under circumstances similar to those following last September's terrorist attacks. Mr. President, it is time to amend the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act of 1940 to reflect the critical role that National Guard members now play in protecting this Nation. These National Guard members have increasingly been called onto active duty since September 11th. Like all active duty servicemembers, National Guard members deserve these rights and legal protections to allow them to concentrate on national defense. Paul Wellstone recognized this, and took steps to make sure that those who don the uniform to protect our freedoms--at home or abroad--have earned our protection. The Compromise Agreement would also ensure that veterans receive a full judicial review when appealing claims denied by VA. The ``benefit of the doubt'' rule, the standard applicable to proceedings before VA, states that a veteran's claim is granted unless the preponderance of the evidence is against the claimant. This rule, unique in administrative law, recognizes the tremendous sacrifices made by the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces. A number of veterans service organizations have expressed concern that the current appellate process is overly deferential to VA findings of fact that are adverse to veteran claimants. Specifically, these groups argue that the ``clearly erroneous'' standard applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) when reviewing Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) cases results in veterans' claims receiving only cursory review on appeal, not allowing for full application of the ``benefit of the doubt'' rule. Section 401 of the Compromise Agreement would maintain the current ``clearly erroneous'' standard of review, but modify the requirements of the review the court must perform when making determinations under section 7261(a) of title 38. CAVC would be specifically required to examine the record of proceedings--that is, the record on appeal-- before the Secretary and BVA. Section 401 would also provide special emphasis during the judicial process to the ``benefit of the doubt'' provisions of section 5107(b) as CAVC makes findings of fact in reviewing BVA decisions. The combination of these changes is intended to provide for more searching appellate review of BVA decisions, and thus give full force to the ``benefit of doubt'' provision. The addition of the words ``or reverse'' after ``and set aside'' in section 7261(a)(4) is intended to emphasize that CAVC should reverse clearly erroneous findings when appropriate, rather than remand the case. This new language in section 7261 would overrule the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision of Hensley v. West, which emphasized that CAVC should perform only limited, deferential review of BVA decisions, and stated that BVA fact-finding ``is entitled on review to substantial deference.'' However, nothing in this new language is inconsistent with the existing section 7261(c), which precludes the court from conducting trial de novo when reviewing BVA decisions, that is, receiving evidence that is not part of the record before BVA. Section 402 of the Compromise Agreement would also expand the Federal Circuit's authority to review CAVC decisions based on rules of law that are not derived from a specific statute or regulation. This change would allow the Federal Circuit to review comprehensively any CAVC decisions of law that adversely affect appellate reviews of veterans' claims. Currently, attorneys and non-attorney practitioners supervised by attorneys who represent certain claimants may receive compensation for their services under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Section 403 of the Compromise Agreement would allow non-attorney practitioners admitted to practice before the CAVC, such as veterans service organization representatives, to be awarded fees under this act without the signature of a supervising attorney. This would make organizations that provide invaluable assistance to veterans eligible for richly deserved compensation. The Joint Explanatory Statement contains language responding to the Executive Branch's interpretation that the CAVC is part of the Executive Branch, and subject to rescissions of budget pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 107-206. I wish to reiterate that it is the Committees' intent to clarify that the CAVC is not part of the Executive Branch. The Committees have previously stated as much, finding in reports in both the House and Senate that the ``Court, established by the Congress under Article I of the Constitution to exercise judicial power, has unusual status as an independent tribunal that is not subject to the control of the President or the executive branch.'' It is my hope that the Committees will not have to address this issue again through legislation or other means. Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to thank Senator Specter and his benefits staff--Bill Tuerk, Jon Towers, David Goetz, and Chris McNamee--for diligently working with me and my benefits staff--Mary Schoelen, Julie Fischer, Chris Reinard, and Dahlia Melendrez--to craft this legislation during such an incredible year. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan commitment to our Nation's veterans, and to send a strong message of support to the men and women who now serve in uniform by caring for those who served before. I ask unanimous consent that the joint explanatory statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my friend and colleague, Senator DeWine, as an original cosponsor of two important bills, S. 3165 and S. 3166, to offer loan forgiveness to social workers and attorneys willing to work in the child welfare field. Senator DeWine has been an inspiring leader on child welfare issues for many years, and I am delighted to work closely with him to continue to seek ways to improve the administrative agencies and legal courts that serve such vulnerable children. The bills are designed to encourage students graduating with social work degrees and law degrees to spend several years working in the child welfare system. Eligible students would receive loan forgiveness for working in child welfare agencies and courts for abused and neglected children. The amount of loan forgiveness would increase over time to reward experience, and to retain social workers and attorneys in the system. Every day, approximately 500,000 children are in the foster care system. Services to such children need to be improved so that every child's health and safety is paramount, and every child secures a permanent home. These priorities were established in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, thanks to the leadership of Senator DeWine and a bipartisan coalition. To achieve such bold goals, we must have trained, committed social workers and skilled attorneys serving such children and their families. There is a compelling need to invest in social workers. The turnover rate for child welfare agencies has doubled in the past decade. Making decisions about a child's health and safety is a serious challenge, and we need more experienced and trained social workers to serve children and their families. Many social workers are burdened with a staggering caseload. The number of social workers per children in the child welfare system varies widely from state to state, and not all states even report their child protective services workforce data. Still, we know there is a compelling need in many places. The Child Maltreatment 2000 Report published by the Department of Health and Human Services indicates that the national average is 130 children per investigative workers, and several states acknowledge that workers have over 200 children to monitor and assess. Obviously, we need to recruit and retain qualified social workers to serve children and families at risk. Experienced attorneys are also needed to help manage the individual cases and to help ensure that the bold, new time frames established by the Adoption and Safe Families Act are met. Under this new law, courts face stricter requirements to monitor and make decisions about a child's safety, health, and placement in a permanent home. This means qualified attorneys need to work with the courts, the agencies, and the families. In West Virginia, and across our country, children and families in the child welfare system need and deserve qualified social workers and attorneys. Senator DeWine's bill to offer student loan forgiveness would provide the right incentive to recruit and retain new professionals in the system. It would be a meaningful addition to the Higher Education Act reauthorization.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Ohio for his very thoughtful and important comments in which he reached to a deeper level, which I was going to do, but now I do not feel the need to because he spoke of the importance for good working relations between management and those who work with management, particularly in a field as important as homeland security. I rise today to lend my support to the Homeland Security Act. I thank Senator Lieberman for taking really the lead, before anybody else did, on this issue and for his tireless work to bring the new Department to the point it is today. I think it is a remarkable feat on his part. I also would be remiss in not thanking my senior colleague from West Virginia, with whom I disagree on this important issue, but who has, nevertheless, led the opposition with clarity, with conviction, and passion. In the end, I am glad it now appears we will be able to answer the President's call to pass this legislation, and to do so before we adjourn this session. The tragedies of September 11, and the continuing terrorist threat to our Nation, demand powerful and decisive action from us and from the President. He has asked this Congress, after the leadership of Senator Lieberman, to support him by creating a new Department of Homeland Security. I think we should do that. The President believes this massive reorganization of government, combining our currently fragmented homeland security functions into a single Cabinet-level agency, makes sense. Anybody who thinks we are prepared, no matter what reports you read-- including the most recent ones--that we are prepared to handle attacks of any sort, is just greatly wrong. In each of our individual States, as you look at hospitals and police departments, and all the rest, we know that is the case. So I think a single Cabinet-level agency is crucial in providing this Nation and its citizens with the protection they deserve. I agree this historic reorganization is a bold and necessary step that we, as lawmakers, must take, quite frankly, in order to be faithful to our first and foremost duty as lawmakers--I do not think this is generally understood by the American people--because our first and foremost duty as lawmakers is the guaranteeing of the safety of people we represent in our individual States, and also throughout the country. I hope all who are present will recognize this is but a first step. This is going to be an extraordinarily complicated evolution. When the Aviation Security Act was passed not very long after September 11, it became the assumption of the American people that all airport security would be in place, ready to go, with all of the equipment and people trained, within a matter of months. I said from the very beginning it was probably a matter of 3 to 4 to 5 years before we would arrive at a point where we had the kind of aviation security, the training, personnel, and the equipment that we needed. People have to understand all of this is going to take time, but you can't start the clock running unless you pass a bill to get homeland security going. I don't think anybody should be under the illusion that this new Department will solve all of our security problems at home. I hope we will remember the lessons of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, which basically made the largest previous reorganization of Government--that is, the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947--a working reality. I strongly believe this new Department of Homeland Security will be a work in progress; that the public has to understand it is a work in progress; that you cannot take 170,000 people, meld them together, create a whole new series of layers of intelligence agencies, and expect them all to work very crisply together, when they don't work crisply together now. Nevertheless, there needs to be a central point. I believe in that firmly. So with the understanding it is a work in progress, we will, therefore, have to shepherd its ongoing development, and we will. Although the homeland security act should not be mistaken for the definitive answer for all of our security woes, I believe it is a strong piece of legislation with a lot of potential to serve its purpose and all of us and the people we represent well. The Department we are creating is strikingly similar to the original proposals both the White House and Senate introduced last summer. It has been some time since then. The new Department will combine the functions of 22 Federal agencies and subagencies. Again, this will be complicated. There will be all kinds of problems. We have to assume that. That is not a bad thing. That is the evolution of anything that large that takes place, whether it is in business or in government; change, reorganization of that sort, does not happen quickly. By placing these agencies and all of their people in one new Department, we should foster much better communication--it will take time--eliminate internal redundancies--that will take time--and greatly improve our ability to detect, respond to, and recover from future actions from terrorism. The new Department is intended to be a cooperative environment in which intelligence from all sources is brought together, analyzed, and then used more efficiently than in the past, guiding the customers, as the term is used, which is the President and his National Security Council, allowing us a much clearer view of all threats from whatever source against America. The Department is charged with carefully coordinating with State and local governments, none of which is prepared at this point to handle what could very well and probably will be confronting them. As well, I might say, private industry faces this same challenge. Some have responded, most have not, partly because they don't know what to do. Secondly, the economy is not strong, and they don't feel they can do that now. But their condition will be much worse if they don't. So to them we have to collect and pass along threat information. They have to respond. This whole system has to begin to function in a rational way. This is the most serious subject we could be discussing in the Halls of this Congress. Border security should be greatly improved under the new agency. Our ability to prevent chemical and biological and radiological and nuclear threats may be stronger than ever before. We have to make sure that is the case. In the event the horrors of terrorism, in fact, visit our shores again, as I think they will, the new Department should be better equipped to respond with disaster relief. However, we must not forget that many of the assets that we will need to respond to disaster or terrorism will continue to reside in agencies which are outside of the homeland security bill. The one that comes to my mind is, of course, the Veterans' Administration, which is the largest health care system in this country. That whole system is going to have to be not incorporated in the bill but incorporated into the process which I hope this bill will engender of its own force and momentum. I have confidence in this act. I nevertheless would like to go on record as saying that clearly it does not do everything that I and many of my colleagues, including the Chair, to whom I am particularly grateful, wanted. I regret that we were unable to work effectively to create a new Department where dedicated employees are guaranteed the civil service protection to which they are entitled. However, having said that, I think that, as the Senator from Ohio said in his very powerful and deep speech, I have to believe our President will act wisely, partly because of the light that will be on him, partly because of the situation, partly because of the need for workers to be happy and to be doing their work well, assuming the flexibility that we give him only when he really needs that, and that he will be wise in that respect. So with this act, Congress and the White House have cooperated to make a powerful statement to our citizens as well as to our enemies. We will work together to ensure that the American people are as free as possible from terror and as free as possible from the fear of terrorism. I am very thankful to have been able to play a role in the creation of the Department. I look forward to playing a continuing role, as I indicated, in watching this development in sort of a congressional oversight mode. I ask my colleagues to join with their support of this homeland security act. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, Paul Wellstone was a committed and effective Senator who will be deeply missed by millions of often ignored Americans, people who relied on him not only to fight their battles, but to win important victories on their behalf. I worked closely with Senator Wellstone for many years, in a number of areas important to both of us. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I know that he was a tireless fighter for the men and women who had served in America's armed forces, especially for ill and aging veterans, those least able to fight for themselves, yet most in need of our help. He fought for children, for their education and health care. And he worked to fashion a welfare system that encouraged work and protected children, without becoming punitive or unreasonable. He also worked on behalf of the unskilled and unemployed, for a living minimum wage, for job training, and for education benefits to promote workers' 21st century skills. And I knew I could always count on his support for West Virginia's steelworkers and all workers threatened by unfair practices in an increasingly complex economy. Senator Wellstone's many battles earned him a reputation as an ideologue and a firebrand. But I saw him reach across the aisle many times in his career. His first loyalty was to people, not to party, and his work with Senator Domenici on the groundbreaking Mental Health Parity Act stands as testimony to the strength of his priorities and the effectiveness of his approach. I am proud to be able to continue his work to bring equitable treatment to those who suffer from mental illness. Paul Wellstone never believed that having principles and sticking to them somehow meant you couldn't get things done in the United States Senate. Instead, he believed that you had to stick to your principles, or you couldn't get anything worthwhile done. It was an approach that made him unique and won him unusual respect and admiration from every member of this body. Senator Wellstone's tragic death, along with the deaths of Sheila and Marcia Wellstone, staffers Tom Lapic, Mary McEvoy, and Will McLaughlin, and pilots Richard Conroy and Michael Guess, have left a void in the Senate and in our hearts. But all of us who worked with him, or knew of the work he did, will find some cheer in the memory of Minnesota's great voice for justice and opportunity. Many will remember him for his fiery speeches and outspoken opinions. But atomic veterans finally receiving treatment for their service- related disabilities, and homeless veterans with a new chance to find their way off the streets; parents whose children are learning from better teachers and enjoying better access to health care; activists who found an ally in their struggle to end violence against women; workers receiving job training; and entrepreneurs, especially women, minorities, and the urban poor, profiting from a changed and expanded federal small business loan regime. All these people will remember Paul Wellstone, as I will, not just for what he said, but what he did.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, we convene again today after a national holiday set aside to honor one of America's greatest treasures, its veterans. This important holiday, originally called Armistice Day, began as a commemoration of the historic ending of World War I at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. Armistice Day became primarily a day of remembrance for those who served during World War I; indeed, Americans hoped World War I would be ``the war to end all wars.'' Then, during World War II, 16 million Americans again answered the call to service on behalf of our Nation. After the war ended, Americans saw the need to honor all those who served in the United States Armed Forces, during times of war and peace, and through all periods of our history. On June 1, 1954, Armistice Day became Veterans Day. I know that many of my colleagues joined me yesterday in taking the Veterans Day holiday to celebrate the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who wore this Nation's uniform and served honorably. That is a start, but we must do more. As the crisis with Iraq heightens, it is especially appropriate to make certain that we keep the promise of care and support made to young men and women who made great sacrifices on behalf of this Nation. We must remember the pledge of Abraham Lincoln, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have fought hard for improvements in benefits and services for our Nation's veterans. We have made progress in fulfilling Abraham Lincoln's pledge this year, but we must never waiver in our commitment to provide our veterans with benefits and services that reflect their changing needs. For example, our Nation's rapidly aging veterans have a critical need for long-term care. There can be no doubt that such care requires great resources, but it is our responsibility to answer the call to provide a continuum of quality health care for veterans, as they once answered the call to preserve our freedoms. I am honored to represent the State of West Virginia, which has one of the highest veteran populations per capita of any State. The service of the over 202,000 living West Virginia veterans inspires me each day in my role as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, where I have the privilege to serve not only the veterans of West Virginia, but those living throughout this Nation. America's 25 million living veterans deserve to be honored and respected every day, and not merely on the national holiday set aside for the commemoration of their service. It would be shameful if veterans were made to feel forgotten every day except for this one day each year. There should be no ambivalence toward those who have served our Nation in the armed forces. I urge my colleagues to join me, not only to remember the sacrifices of our veterans, but to renew our commitment to them and to keep the promises that we made to them in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. The men and women who served this Nation deserve no less.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am sincerely disappointed about the placing of an anonymous hold on S. 2043, the ``Veterans Long- Term Care and Medical Programs Enhancement Act of 2002.'' There is no apparent reason why this important piece of legislation should be held up at this time. It was developed in a bipartisan manner and encompasses many vital pieces of legislation from both sides of the aisle. It is my sincere hope that the Senator responsible for this hold will realize that this is certainly not the time to be playing politics with legislation that affects our Nation's veterans. I would like to share with my colleagues some of the key provisions of S. 2043 that seek to improve the accessibility and quality of the VA health care system. The centerpiece of this bill is an effort to make VA's prescription drug copayment policy a bit more equitable for lower-income veterans. Mr. President, currently, veterans with incomes of less than $24,000 a year are exempt from copayments for most VA health care services. However, when it comes to prescription drugs, the income threshold for exemption is about $9,000 a year. This bill would raise the exemption level for prescription copayments to make them the same as other VA health care copayments. Veterans earning just over $9,000--which is well below the poverty threshold, are required to make prescription copayments. These copayments place an enormous financial burden on our poorest veterans. To compound this problem, earlier this year, the Department of Veterans Affairs increased the copayment for prescription drugs from $2 to $7 per 30-day prescription. Most of the veterans who will benefit from this provision are older, are on fixed incomes, and are on many different medications, each requiring a separate copayment. Most of them have no health insurance except for Medicare and so they must depend upon the VA for their medications. With the lack of a Medicare drug benefit, these veterans are now faced with a 350 percent increase in what they must pay for life-sustaining medications. Imagine the situation of a veteran with an income of about $10,000 a year who takes ten medications a month and it is not at all unusual for an elderly person to take that many medications. With the increase in the prescription copayment rate, that veteran now has to allocate over 8 percent of this annual income just to pay for prescription drugs. And although the $7 per prescription charge may seem like an insignificant amount to some, I can assure my colleagues that to the veteran and his family living on a very limited income, it is quite significant. Of particular note, S. 2043 also contains mental health care provisions--a key element of caring for those who have served on the battlefield--that would ensure currently successful programs across the country continue to get necessity funding. Congress previously enacted a provision to designate $15 million in VA funding specifically to help medical facilities improve care for veterans with substance abuse disorders and PTSD. The funds for these mental health grant programs, mandated by the Veterans Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of 1999, will soon revert to a general fund. Despite the slow start, this funding has already increased the PTSD and substance abuse disorder treatment programs available to veterans. More than 100 staff have been hired in 18 of VA's 21 service networks to treat substance abuse disorders. Nine new programs--in Baltimore, Maryland; Atlanta, Georgia; San Francisco, California; and Dayton, Ohio among others--have initiated or intensified opioid substitution programs for veterans who have not responded well to drug-free treatment regimens. Other new programs, such as those in Tampa, FL; Cincinnati, OH; Columbia, MO; and Loma Linda, CA put special emphasis on treating veterans with more complex conditions that include PTSD and substance abuse. The 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 legislation being blocked in the Senate would ensure that this funding remained ``protected'' for three more years, and would increase the total amount of funding identified specifically for treatment of substance abuse disorders and PTSD from $15 million to $25 million. Additionally, the bill contains authorization for four construction projects. Two of these projects are much-needed seismic corrections for VA Medical Centers in the state of California. I think all of my colleagues would agree that no veteran should ever be endangered by aging infrastructure while in the care of VA should a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, occur. I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership on the construction issue. The remaining two construction projects in S. 2043 are for nursing homes. One of these homes is in Beckley, WV, of which the design plans have already been made. I am proud to be involved in helping to bring a long-term care facility to the veterans of my home State who have been in need of such a home for quite some time now. The other nursing home project is in Lebanon, PA. S. 2043 would also fix a longstanding problem faced by VA's retired nurses. Last December, Congress passed the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001. Enacted as Public Law 107-135, this legislation gave VA several tools to respond to the looming nurse crisis. In addition, it altered how part-time service performed by certain title 38 employees would be considered when granting retirement credit. Previously, the law required that title 38 employees' part-time services prior to April 7, 1986, be prorated when calculating retirement annuities, resulting in lower annuities for these employees. Section 132 of the VA Health Programs Enhancement Act was intended to exempt all previously retired registered nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-function dental auxiliaries from this requirement. However, the Office of Personnel Management has interpreted this provision to only apply to those health care professionals who retire after its enactment date. The legislation being blocked in the Senate would require OPM to comply with the original intent of the VA Health Programs Enhancement Act, and therefore to recalculate the annuities for these retired health care professionals. This clarification would not extend retirement benefits retroactively to the date of retirement, but would ensure that annuities are calculated fairly from now on for eligible employees who retired between April 7, 1986, and January 23, 2002. Mr. President, the legislation would also provide transfer rights for hourly rate Veterans Canteen Service, VCS, employees to title 5 VA positions through internal competitive procedures. VCS hourly employees are federal employees hired under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 7802. While this authority provides many of the same benefits that title 5 federal employees enjoy, (i.e., workers compensation, health benefits, retirement, and veterans preference) there are benefits to which they are not entitled. For example, VCS hourly employees do not have the same transfer rights to other VA positions that VCS managers have. As a result, VCS hourly employees applying for VA food service positions, VA housekeeping positions, and other VA positions--positions for which they are well qualified--are not treated as internal competitive service candidates. Their years of service are irrelevant, as they cannot easily transfer to another job at VA without first going through civil service competitions. This legislation would change that and allow them to compete equally with other VA candidates. I wish to thank the American Federation of Government Employees for bringing this issue to my attention and for the assistance and leadership that they provided. S. 2043 will help thousands of veterans across America, in a variety of ways. We cannot turn our backs on those who have sacrificed so much for this country. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I agree, and I also want to clarify that section 2102(b)(14) is a ``no weakening'' provision, and not a ``no net weakening'' provision. In other words, it encompasses any new international obligation whose acceptance would impair current U.S. trade remedies by making relief costlier, more uncertain, or otherwise harder to achieve and maintain over time. An agreement that includes such changes must be rejected, and it is no answer, insofar as section 2102(b)(14) and the intent of the Congress is concerned, to contend that the agreement in question also includes some ``strengthening'' provisions. As I believe the strong vote on the Dayton-Craig amendment demonstrated, it would be a serious mistake to think that an agreement or package of agreements can be successfully presented to Congress for approval, under fast-track rules or otherwise, if it includes weakening changes to our trade remedy laws. I would also like to clarify that this negotiating directive does not preclude U.S. negotiators from addressing the very serious shortcomings that have become apparent in the operation of the WTO dispute settlement system.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am glad to.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, if this provision becomes law, no service member who retires next year and is disabled because of service will be found service connected by VA. No current retiree who has yet to file a claim with VA but is disabled because of service will be service connected by the Veterans' Administration. No retiree who is already service connected, whose condition worsens, will receive a service-connected rating increase. No widow of a retiree who died of a disability related to service will be able to receive VA service- connected death benefits if she receives Department of Defense survivor benefits. It is discrimination. It is wrong. If followed to its logical conclusion, none of the benefits that flow from service-connected disability status will be given to otherwise completely eligible individuals. These important benefits include free health care and, most importantly, obviously, long-term care, vocational rehabilitation and certain life or homeowner's insurance, health care, education, and home loan eligibility for surviving spouses and children. Our House colleagues have justified this action, so to speak, this policy choice, by pointing to the cost to the Federal Government of paying for benefits that rightfully accrue to veterans who devoted a lifetime of service to this country. The House Appropriations Committee also warned of a potential flood of new claims that might be filed if concurrent receipt passes, increasing delays in processing. My shock over these provisions and the rationale given for them is not that of the chair, which I am, of an authorizing committee seeing its role usurped by appropriators. One gets accustomed to that. No one is more concerned about the way the Veterans' Administration adjudicates claims than I am. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have been working on this issue for a very long time. I am troubled not only about the length of time the Veterans' Administration takes but the quality of the decisionmaking in that process. We can quibble over the number of claims that might arise if concurrent receipt passes and how much they might add to VA's already shocking backlog. That is why we must support, therefore, a sufficient appropriation to process and pay for these claims. None of these concerns aforementioned by me justify prohibiting benefits to eligible veterans and their families, benefits they have earned through their service to this country. Nothing justifies that. It can be straightened out in this body. It is time for us as a nation to step up and do the right thing. Otherwise, how can we face Hugh Weeks, the aforementioned veteran from Beckley, WV, and all of the disabled retirees who stand with him. When will it be time to stop discriminating against those who continue to serve after they have suffered disabling injuries or illnesses? I hope that time is now.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise at this point on a different subject, with the tolerance and forgiveness of the Senator from Louisiana, to discuss a different problem, concurrent receipt. I am very pleased my friend from Minnesota is in the Chair because he is on the Armed Services Committee, and so it makes me very happy to be able to present this argument to him. We are all very familiar with this practice of requiring military retirees to choose between military pay for retirement and disability benefits. There is a history of this which I will get into. The money comes from the Department of Veterans Affairs, but it is a very sad state of affairs that we have come into. This is a practice that my friend, Bill Stubblefield, of Martinsburg, which is a large town in West Virginia, who serves on the board of directors of the Retired Officers Association, told me ``is patently unfair when a serviceman or woman, who has devoted 20 plus years of their life in service to this country--suffering physically as a consequence--has to be penalized by having their VA disability offset by their retirement pay.'' It is a huge subject. We have been fighting for years to eliminate this injustice. While the Senate, under the leadership of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, has passed such a provision several times, this is the first time we have something to offer that approximates the Senate's efforts in dealing with the House, which is now a problem. Money has been set aside in the deeming resolution to fund some version of concurrent receipt. Now we learn that the Bush administration is threatening to veto-- they have said the President will veto--the Department of Defense authorization bill. I think the enormity of that is $347 billion, something of that sort. They said the President will veto the entire bill because officials in this administration oppose concurrent receipt for service members who are retired from the Armed Forces with a service-connected disability. A disability is a very special condition. Frankly, I find this opposition highly objectionable. I find it shocking. It wholly disregards the enormous dedication and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, and it labels their claim to compensation earned in service to this Nation as ``double-dipping,'' which is a slam and a putdown. It is something you say in sort of contemptuous terms. When did this become double-dipping? More than 100 years ago, Congress examined the military pensions of veterans of the Mexican- American war. At that time, Congress found the retired service members who returned to active duty could draw active duty, retirement, and disability pay. So life was good and right and fair. During debate, the late Senator Francis Marion Cockrell, who, I confess, is unknown to me, argued that: [T]he salary we pay the officers of the Army is intended to be in full for all military services. We allow longevity pay . . . in lieu of pension and everything else. In 1891, therefore, Congress banned what is called ``dual compensation'' for past or active service and disability compensation. So that is history, 1891. That legislation accomplished its goal. Service members can no longer receive retirement or full disability compensation while on active duty. However, the Congress of 1981 painted with too broad a stroke. Retirement and compensation are and have always been intended to compensate very different purposes. One is called retirement; the other is called a disability. They are totally unconnected. This is a very important issue to veterans in this Senator's State and to veterans throughout the country. In fact, I would say to the Presiding Officer, there is no single subject on which this Senator gets more mail and more telephone calls and more conversations when in my State than on this subject of concurrent receipt. It is an overwhelmingly emotional and powerful argument of anger and disgust and frustration on the part of the veterans of this country. Veterans such as Hugh Weeks of Beckley, WV, a veteran of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam--that's not bad--a career military man, writes to tell me that while their military careers placed hardships on them and their families, they never stopped serving during those hardships. Hugh wrote to me: ``Now is the time for the government to stop discriminating against us.'' In yet another disturbing setback for retiree veterans, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, last week, reported out a VA- HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 spending. This bill contains a provision that would prohibit specifically VA from using any staffing funds to adjudicate claims for VA service-connected disability benefits that would result in concurrent receipt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the applicable text of the bill and committee report be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I find myself in total agreement with the Senator from Montana, sadly so but nevertheless very much so. But this situation strikes me as ironic. I support the position of the Senator from Montana and what he is trying to do with the give-back. The Senator from Maine talked about resolving a few minor differences, and the Senator from Montana said they are not minor. They have to do with whether or not a State such as West Virginia, which this Senator represents, will have any prescription drug benefits at all because there are no insurance companies that have any intention of coming into the State of West Virginia and making those available. I am not so sure that any would be willing to go to Maine. I do not think they would be willing to go to Montana. I do not think they would be willing to go to--well, I don't know. They probably would be willing to go to Florida, probably Nevada a little bit, Michigan a little bit, but Nebraska not very much; Wisconsin, I do not know. Basically, all rural States--and 81 percent of all counties in the United States of America are rural--will be shut out by this prescription drug bill which the tripartite approach embraces. I hope the Presiding Officer does not think for one moment the Senator from West Virginia is going to contemplate working out a compromise on the floor of the Senate, with only a few days left, when we have been filibustered on every single thing we have brought up, especially something as complicated as a difference between a pharmacy benefit manager and an insurance model. There is a lot of educating that has to go on on the Senate floor that has taken place in the Finance Committee. There was a vote on the floor. The vote said one thing and the Senator from Maine says she wants something else. I am extremely disappointed we are not able to get the unanimous consent that was sought to proceed to the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002. I have heard nonstop from those in my State concerning the effects of the declining Medicare reimbursement on access to critical care services. The reality is we will also be unable to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit for this year. Why? Because of the huge ideological gap which I have just finished describing. People can describe it as a minor difference. It is the Grand Canyon of difference, and it is the difference between whether people from populated, wealthier areas get a prescription drug benefit and everybody else does not. If that is what one wants, fine; but that is not what the Senator from West Virginia wants, and it is not what my people want. It is not what the majority of the people in this country want. Yes, they want something called a prescription drug benefit. But there is a question of saying how do they get it and who gets it? The mechanism is important. I want a prescription drug benefit. I dare say the income of Medicare beneficiaries in the State of West Virginia is lower--about $10,800-- than the Medicare beneficiaries in the State of Maine. People spend $4,000, $5,000, to $6,000 out of their pockets on prescription drugs. Do I want a prescription drug benefit? You better believe I do, but I want one which will actually get to the people I represent and which are represented across America in rural States. We do not have a choice of being able to say let's do both. We cannot finish that debate on this floor. We cannot reach agreement on this floor. Not the Senator from Maine, but there are many on the other side of the aisle who do not want to see that happen in some respects because they do not want to see the Graham-Miller bill pass because that would be deemed a victory for the wrong people, or something like that. However, one priority that cannot wait until next year is providing States with fiscal relief. That would include the State that the Presiding Officer is from. On July 25, 75 members--talk about a consensus. The Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins; the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson; and this Senator put forward a compromise plan, and it got 75 votes. It got half the Senators on the other side of the aisle to vote to provide States with $9 billion in assistance. That has since been somewhat cut down in an agreement with the Republican leader on the Finance Committee to $5 billion, but that is still substantial relief--$4 billion in Medicaid and then $1 billion in Social Security's block grant. That is a lot of money. It will help all States. Since we passed that amendment by an overwhelming vote, the situation in the States has, in fact, gotten much worse. The last time States faced a budget crisis this bad was in 1983. I happen to remember that because I was Governor of West Virginia and our unemployment rate was about 21 or 22 percent. One does not forget those things quickly. At least 46 States struggled to close a combined budget gap of $37 billion in the past fiscal year. This year's gap is even wider. This year it is going to be a combined $58 billion deficit. Most States are required by law to balance their budgets, something we did up until a year and a half ago. Then a variety of things happened, and it is no longer balanced. So they are being forced to slash their spending. The Governors do not want to, but they have to. This year coming up, 18 States are planning to cut families from Medicaid coverage, and 15 States are eliminating important health care benefits. Twenty-nine States are cutting or freezing provider payment, further jeopardizing access to health care. As a result, thousands of Americans, at the least, will join the ranks of the uninsured and countless more will find access to needed benefits reduced or eliminated altogether. In this tough fiscal climate, a new survey of Medicaid programs shows an increasing number of States are dropping certain groups of patients, curtailing some services, requiring poor people to help pay for their own care when they can, limiting access to expensive drugs and then cutting or freezing payments to hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and other providers of care. Is that kind of important? You bet your bottom dollar it is. Fundamental access to health care. In Massachusetts, the legislature had to stop covering about 50,000 unemployed adults. In California, children spent longer in foster care because of cuts in adoption services. In New Jersey, the working poor will lose access to State-funded health care. In Louisiana, there will not be future hospital beds available for low-income patients. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which nobody disputes, in a new study found that 18 States are planning to tighten their eligibility rules in the coming fiscal year, compared with 8 States last year. The most common strategy that States are using to cut costs is to limit their expenditures on prescription drugs by reducing pharmaceutical payments or making it more difficult for doctors and patients to select expensive but necessary medicines. Forty States are trying to cut costs by limiting their drug expenditures. In Illinois last month, Medicaid officials began requiring patients who need the popular antidepressant drug Zoloft to get tablets that are twice as strong as they need and then break the pills in half. I do not know if that makes a tragedy, but it sure is a lousy way to do business. In a subtler strategy, some States are curtailing recent innovations that were designed to find more people who are eligible for public insurance and then make it easier for them to stay covered once enrolled. Delaware stopped a very good initiative which had been paid through an outside grant to publicize Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program and to help clients fill out applications. They had to stop that because they had no money. So the decision being made by Governors, legislators, and Medicaid administrators underscores the pressure that States are confronting in a weakened economy, which I dare say will stay weakened for some time. Their revenues are plunging. Increases in unemployment and poverty are prompting more people to sign up for government help. As a result, States are reversing the trend that lasted nearly a decade when they added money and changed rules so the public insurance programs could help more Americans who lack health coverage and pay for more kinds of care. The fiscal crisis has a direct impact on the families in our States but it also has a direct impact on local economies. Medicaid is the largest purchase of maternity care in the United States of America. It pays for half of all nursing home care which everybody faces at some point in their life. Medicaid provides significant support for local hospitals and for nursing homes. Providers in some instances are struggling to stay in business, and in many instances have stopped. Eight out of 10 hospitals in West Virginia are losing money. How long can they continue in small rural counties? The bottom line is that means Medicaid plays a critical role in sustaining local economies as well as people's lives and health care. For every dollar a State cuts from Medicaid--and that is what is happening--it loses between $1 and $3.31 in Federal assistance. That is one large loss. That loss would have otherwise gone to hospitals, to home health services, nursing homes, and health clinics tied into our local economy. For this reason, the legislation introduced last week in the Senate to increase payments to providers under Medicare, which we just failed to get unanimous consent on, also includes a billion dollars in fiscal relief for States. In many ways, States are the largest providers of health care, and ensuring their stability is the best way to maintain access. If Congress does not act to provide a temporary boost to Medicaid funding for States to help them meet their responsibility to protect the most vulnerable citizens, and all citizens, since a great majority of Medicare citizens are vulnerable, the situation will get worse. We have made significant progress over the last 10 years in expanding access to health insurance. This year, 50 million Americans are expected to receive health insurance through two programs: Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program which was started in the Senate Finance Committee. These programs provide health coverage to more than 10 percent of all Americans. In closing, this coverage is now at risk unless, as the Senator from Montana wants, the Congress refuses to act. This is one priority that cannot wait until next year. We should pass the Senate's proposal to reduce the current law cuts to critical Medicare providers. Even if we fail to do that, we must enact a provision to provide additional relief to the States that struggle to provide our Nation's people with the crucial safety net. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased the Senate supports H.R. 4015, the proposed ``Jobs for Veterans Act,'' as modified by a Manager's Amendment which reflects a final compromise developed by the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. This legislation would improve the employment, training and placement services furnished to the men and women who have served our Nation. At the conclusion of World War II, Congress made job placement for veterans a national priority. Legislation passed then created special employment services for returning troops, establishing hiring priorities for veterans in federal employment and giving them early notice of jobs in the private sector. Later, Congress provided grants to states to hire experts with experience in placing veterans into civilian jobs. These experts, called Local Veterans' Employment Representatives and Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists, serve veterans through state employment service offices and one-stop centers. Currently, the funding to hire these specialists is provided by a rigid formula that affords states little flexibility in allocating personnel for veterans' employment services. The Jobs for Veterans Act would change this formula, and would remove restrictions on how states can employ these experts in veterans' employment. I expect that these changes will enable the Department of Labor to rise above the criticism the veterans employment programs have recently drawn. These necessary changes would allow states to tailor their employment services to better serve our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, the ``Jobs for Veterans Act'' would additionally restore priority of service to veterans, and spouses of certain veterans, for employment, training and placement and extend it to any job training program administered by the Department of Labor. Additionally, the Secretary of Labor would be authorized to set priorities among eligible veterans and spouses by taking into account their special needs. H.R. 4015 would also modify the threshold that determines when Federal contractors and subcontractors must take affirmative action to employ--and to advance in employment--qualified veterans, including immediately listing employment openings for such contracts. This modified threshhold keeps pace with inflation, and provides the Office of Contract Compliance with a manageable amount of contracts to oversee and assure that contractors are meeting their obligations. This legislation would also provide special financial and nonfinancial incentives to state employees to encourage them to develop improved and modern employment services for veterans. The awards would be administered through the states, based on criteria established by the Secretary of Labor in consultation with the states. In some states, certain economic obstacles may create serious challenges to finding appropriate job placements for veterans. The ``Jobs for Veterans Act'' would allow the Secretary of Labor to give technical assistance to states that might need help in finding solutions, and would mandate that the state develop and implement a corrective plan to be approved by the Secretary. As we ask the young men and women of this Nation to prepare themselves to take up arms in its defense, we must ensure that we will be able to help them find productive careers upon their return as we did for the previous generations that defended our freedoms. I am pleased colleagues have joined in supporting this bill on behalf of those who have served, and those who will serve in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying joint explanatory statement be printed in the Record following this statement.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3253, the proposed ``Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act,'' as it will be modified by a manager's amendment. The pending measure represents a compromise agreement on an omnibus bill that would ensure that VA can capably fulfill its obligations to veterans, the military, and the entire Nation during disasters. H.R. 3253 would not only preserve veterans services during national emergencies, but would take advantage of VA's expertise in the medical consequences of weapons of mass destruction to protect all Americans. This legislation would establish four medical emergency preparedness research centers within the VA health care system. Although my colleagues may not be surprised to learn about VA's research expertise in the long-term health consequences of biological, chemical, and radiological exposures, fewer may be aware of VA's unparalleled clinical management research program. The centers authorized by H.R. 3253 would allow VA's experts to develop practices for managing or preventing mass casualties resulting from the use of terrorist weapons, and to do so within our evolving National strategy for homeland security research. H.R. 3253, as amended, would also authorize a new Assistant Secretary, requested by the administration, to coordinate VA's internal and interagency operations, security, preparedness, and law enforcement activities. This measure would also clarify the Secretary's preparedness duties, which would include ensuring that VA's 105,000 healthcare professionals--and the additional 81,000 providers trained in VA facilities each year--receive the education and training that they need to protect themselves and their patients during disasters. Finally, this measure would recognize the role that VA--the largest integrated healthcare system in the Nation already plays during disasters. In 1982, Public Law 97-174 assigned a new duty to VA: serving as the contingency medical system to the Department of Defense during conflicts and emergencies, which Congress assumed would mean caring for wounded troops as they returned home from war. In 1982, no one anticipated that VA might be called upon to care for active duty military casualties during a domestic disaster. H.R. 3253 as amended acknowledges that we no longer have the luxury of ignoring that possibility, and authorizes VA to extend care to active duty military casualties injured while fulfilling their duties during a conflict or disaster on American soil as well as abroad. The legislation would also acknowledge VA's role in protecting public health during emergencies. As part of the Federal Response Plan for disasters and a cornerstone of the National Disaster Medical System, VA caregivers have aided overwhelmed communities during every major domestic disaster of the last two decades. After the Oklahoma City attack, after Hurricanes Andrew and Floyd, during Houston's disastrous floods, and in New York City on September 11 of last year, VA medical professionals stepped up to care for victims--not only veterans, but anyone in need. VA medical centers are more than just the backbone of the Federal clinical infrastructure, they are integral parts of communities, and those communities turn to them during crises. The compromise agreement highlights this mission, authorizing VA to provide medical care to those affected by or responding to declared disasters, or following activation of the National Disaster Medical System. I wish to stress to my colleagues that this reflects VA's already enormous contribution to public safety, a mission that VA will carry out in the future as part of the Nation's homeland security strategy. Following last year's attacks, Congress sought new tools and new strategies to protect the American people from the suddenly evident threat posed by terrorists wielding weapons of mass destruction. We learned--at the price of five lives lost and months of fear, confusion, and the disruption of the Senate that our public health resources and our scientific expertise could be overwhelmed by a biological assault aimed at a handful of public figures. We must do more than bemoan the slow starvation of our public health care system, the chronic underfunding of the laboratories that detect outbreaks, and the managed care principles that have stripped away our hospitals' surge capacity. We must use the resources at hand as efficiently as possible to ready ourselves for whatever disasters may come. In conclusion, I want to thank Senator Specter and his staff Bill Tuerk, Bill Cahill, and David Goetz for diligently working with me and my staff Kim Lipsky and Julie Fischer to craft this legislation. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, particularly Chairman Christopher Smith and his staff Pat Ryan, Kingston Smith, Jeannie McNally, Peter Dickinson, Kathleen Greve, and John Bradley and Ranking Member Lane Evans and his staff, Michael Durishin and Susan Edgerton, for their essential contributions to this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support these preparedness improvements for veterans and VA. This bipartisan measure represents a vital step in ensuring VA's preparedness, with a potentially enormous pay-off in public safety.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 30 minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Nevada very much. Madam President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions that I, at least, have ever had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States. The difficulty of this decision is that while Saddam Hussein represents a threat, each of the options for dealing with him poses a threat--to America's service members, to our citizens, and to our role in the world at large. It is clear none of the options that confront us are easy or risk free. For all of us, the upcoming vote on this critical issue will reflect our best judgment on which path will minimize the risk to our fellow Americans because we all know the risk cannot be eliminated. And that judgment will, in turn, depend on a complex interaction of many factors, some of which we do not know and perhaps cannot know. It is clear military operations against Saddam Hussein, of the sort that are being discussed, pose serious risks, and we should all admit to that. Any military campaign runs very serious risks to our service members. On paper, we surely have an overwhelming advantage against Saddam Hussein--in the skill, the technology, and, of course, dedication of our Armed Forces. We defeated Saddam quickly and conclusively in 1991. In the decade since, our force effectiveness has improved dramatically, while many of Saddam's capabilities have deteriorated. But a new battle against Saddam Hussein, if it comes to that, will be very different and much more difficult. A U.S. victory might be quick, and it might be painless. One hopes that will be the case, but it may not be so. The American people need to know a war against Saddam will have high costs, including loss of American lives. Our confident assertions that Saddam Hussein will quickly be deposed by his own people have in the past been too optimistic. Presumably, Saddam Hussein will be more determined to use all the weapons and tactics in his arsenal, if he believes that our ultimate goal is to remove him from power. The administration assures us our troops have equipment and uniforms that will protect them from that risk, should that risk arise. We can only hope to God they are right. We also acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland. Saddam's government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States. Finally, we also need to recognize that should we go to war with Iraq, it could have a serious impact on America's role in the world and the way the rest of the world responds, therefore, to America's leadership. We are told that if Saddam Hussein is overthrown, American soldiers would be welcomed into Baghdad with liberation parades. That may be true. But it is true the people who have suffered most at Saddam's hands are, of course, his own citizens. For many people around the world, an American-led victory over Saddam Hussein would not be cause for celebration. No matter how strong our case, there will inevitably be some who will see a U.S.-led action against Iraq as a cause for concern. At its most extreme, that concern feeds the terrorist paranoia that drives their mission to hurt America. We can affect how deep that sentiment runs by how we conduct ourselves--whether we work with allies, whether we show ourselves to be committed to the reconstruction of Iraq and to the reconciliation with the Arab world. But we ignore all of that at our peril. Clearly, there are many risks associated with the resolution we are considering today, but it is equally clear that doing nothing and preserving the status quo also poses serious risks. Those risks are less visible, and their frame of time is less certain. But after a great deal of consultation and soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that the risks to our citizens and to our Nation of doing nothing are too great to bear. There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have it earlier if he is able to obtain fissile materials on the outside market, which is possible-- difficult but possible. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction. When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints that he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America's homeland, as well as to America's allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become, therefore, irrelevant. Americans will return to a situation like we faced in the cold war, waking each morning knowing that we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy, only back then our Communist foes--in those so-called good old days, which, of course, they were not, but in making the comparison between now and then, our Communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy. This time our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he believes it serves any of his whims or purposes to so do. The global community in the form of the United Nations has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass, but the U.N. has been unable to enforce these resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly. We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction that he currently possesses or that he will use them against us. But as we do know, Saddam has the capability to do that. We know that very well. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people, and he has ill will toward Americans. I am forced to conclude on all the evidence that Saddam poses a significant risk. Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States and believe he would not do so. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it is so irrational. If he thought, as he got older and looked around an impoverished and isolated Iraq, his principal legacy to the Arab world to be a brutal attack on the United States, he might not think it is so irrational. If he thought the U.S. would be too paralyzed with fear to respond, he might not think it was too irrational. Saddam has misjudged what he can get away with and how the United States and the world will respond many times before. At the end of the day, we cannot let the security of the American citizens rest in the hands of somebody whose track record gives us every reason to fear that he is prepared to use the weapons he has used against his enemies before. As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. The fact that an attack on our homeland has not occurred since September 11 cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future or on any day. We no longer have that luxury. September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat, the overwhelming threat and reality of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world or in our own country. There has been some debate over how ``imminent'' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can. The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but has failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks--and we should not minimize the risks--we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. So I will vote for the Lieberman-McCain resolution. This is a difficult vote, but I could not sleep knowing that, faced with this grave danger to the people of my State and to all Americans, I have voted for nothing more than continuing the policies that have failed to address this problem over the years. Two months ago, or even a month ago, I would have been reluctant to support this resolution. At the time, it appeared that the administration's principal goal was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, clear and simple, without fully exploring every option to resolve this peacefully, without trying to enlist the support of other countries, without any limitation on the use of United States force in the Middle East region. The original use of force resolution that the White House sent to the Congress was far too broad in its scope and ignored the possibility that diplomatic efforts might just be able to resolve this crisis without bloodshed. Moreover, it appeared that the administration planned to cut back its efforts in the war on terrorism and shift all of its attention and resources to Iraq, and that would have been a tragic mistake. I believe the war against global terrorist networks remains the greatest current threat to the security of America over the long term and to our forces overseas. We have seen that in Kuwait in just the last week. America cannot be diverted or distracted from our war on terrorism. In the past month or so, in my judgment, we have begun to see an encouraging shift in the administration's approach. The President stated earlier this week that war is neither imminent nor unavoidable. The administration has assured us that whatever action we take toward Iraq, it will not be permitted to divert resources or attention from the war on terrorism internationally. Secretary Powell has been working with the U.N. Security Council to put together a new resolution to make clear that Iraq must disarm, or face the consequences. We have already begun to see some encouraging movement on the issue of Iraqi disarmament. Other Security Council members--I mentioned France and Russia, as well as other Arab States in the Middle East--have begun to talk seriously about forcing Saddam to comply with the U.N. resolutions. Saddam Hussein has begun to make offers on inspections and disarmament, offers that, while inadequate so far, indicate that he has at least begun to move off his hardline position against inspections. Obviously, much important and very hard work remains to be done. That will take tough negotiating with the other members of the U.N. and a firm line with Iraq. We need to be realistic about how best to move forward. Any headway we are making toward getting Saddam to disarm has not occurred in a vacuum. U.N. members did not just suddenly decide to debate a new resolution forcing Iraq to disarm. Saddam Hussein did not just suddenly decide to reinvite U.N. inspectors and to remove the roadblocks that had hindered their efforts in the past. Progress is occurring because the President told the United Nations General Assembly that if the U.N. is not prepared to enforce its resolution on Iraqi disarmament, the United States will be forced to act. At this point, America's best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear that the United States is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes, the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world's leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved--and dangerous ones at that. So that is the context in which I am approaching this vote. This resolution does authorize the use of force, if necessary. Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is just the core issue. It is the only core issue. And whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in 6 months, or in 1 year, that is the issue we will all have to confront. War--if it comes to that--will cost money. I and the Presiding Officer dearly wish we could use that money for other domestic purposes--to address the very real needs that West Virginia, Michigan, and other States face in this tough economy. But, ultimately, defending America's citizens from danger, their safety, and their security is a responsibility whose costs we must bear because this is not just a resolution authorizing war; in my judgment, it is a resolution that could provide a path to peace. I hope that by voting on this resolution now, while the negotiations at the U.N. are continuing, this resolution will show to the world that the American people are united in our resolve to deal with the Iraqi threat, and it will strengthen the hand of the administration in making a final effort to try to get the U.N. to deal with the issue. Given the difficulty of trying to build a coalition in the United Nations, I could not, in good conscience, tie the President's hands. The administration is in negotiations on which the safety and security of all Americans depend. I believe we must give the President the authority he will need, if there is any hope to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion. So I will vote for the Lieberman-McCain resolution. Preventing a war with Saddam Hussein-- whether now or later--must be a top priority. I believe this resolution will strengthen the President's hand to resolve that crisis. By my vote, I say to the U.N. and our allies that America is united in our resolve to deal with Saddam Hussein and that the U.N. must act to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction. By my vote, I say to Saddam Hussein: Disarm or the United States will be forced to act. We have that resolve. September 11 changed our world forever. We may not like it, but it is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans' lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, once again I rise to congratulate the Morgantown Vet Center in my State of West Virginia for receiving both the ``Clinical Programs of Excellence'' award presented by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Administration and the ``Vet Center of Excellence'' award presented by VA's Readjustment Counseling Service. For the second time in a row, the skilled, dedicated staff of the Morgantown Vet Center has been recognized by VA for providing the best of VA care in their field. To receive either of these two awards once would be an outstanding accomplishment. But to receive both of them, twice in a row, by continuing to meet such high standards of care is something to be enormously proud of. The services provided by the staff at the Morgantown Vet Center include individual and group counseling, family/marital counseling, sexual trauma counseling, substance abuse counseling, vocational and employment assistance, VA claims and benefits information, help for the homeless, and social service and health care referrals. They provide readjustment counseling to combat veterans and their families, including veterans who served during Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and the Persian Gulf. The staff at the Morgantown Vet Center is extremely dedicated, and literally hundreds of veterans have benefitted from their expertise. In fiscal year 2001, 11,528 visits were made to the Morgantown Vet Center, a 41 percent increase in the number of visits for fiscal year 1998. This growth is just one of the many positive facets of Morgantown's program that allowed VA to select them once again as a ``Clinical Program of Excellence.'' So to each and every one of the staff at the Morgantown Vet Center, thank you again for the exemplary work you do, for your professionalism, your dedication, and your compassion. Congratulations for a job well done.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. MR. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to pass S. 2237, the proposed ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2002,'' as modified by a manager's amendment which I developed with the committee's ranking member, Senator Specter. I will describe the provisions of the amendment in a moment. The pending omnibus measure would touch many parts of veterans' lives, from increasing pensions for those who have earned the Medal of Honor to ensuring that veterans' appeals get more than a cursory review. I thank Ranking Member Specter and his staff for their significant contributions to a bill I believe will substantially improve the benefits provided to those who have served our Nation. S. 2237 as reported, which I will refer to as the ``committee bill,'' improves numerous veterans' benefits. I will highlight some of the provisions of which I am most proud. Congress last year authorized VA to offer special monthly compensation to women who had lost one or both breasts, including through surgery, as a result of their military service. VA subsequently released regulations that limited eligibility for this benefit to women who had suffered complete loss of all breast tissue through simple or radical mastectomy. Even if such a restriction does not influence medical decisions, it fails to acknowledge that tissue-sparing treatments still create physical, emotional, and financial challenges to returning to health. Section 101 of the Committee bill would extend eligibility for benefits to women veterans who have experienced service-connected loss of half or more of a breast's tissue. The number of claims that veterans submit for hearing loss and tinnitus grows each year, and hearing disorders now account for two of the most commonly claimed disabilities. In order to settle these claims, VA staff must determine whether a veteran's hearing loss is as likely to be linked to noise exposure during service as to other causes, a tough decision made even harder by incomplete medical records and uncertain clinical evidence. Aging veterans--many of whom received no hearing evaluation upon discharge from service--now struggle to prove that their hearing problems resulted from damage suffered decades ago, while VA battles a staggering backlog of claims. Not only must veterans with hearing loss wait for assistance, but all veterans must accept the delays that arise as VA sorts through an enormous number of hearing loss claims without a clear scientific standard on past exposures. Section 103 of the committee bill would help VA and veterans understand whether service in certain military specialties might be associated with an increased risk of hearing loss later in life. The committee bill would require VA to contract with an independent scientific organization, such as the National Academy of Sciences, to review evidence on acoustic trauma during military service. Experts would be asked to consider the types of noise exposure that could contribute to hearing disorders, and to determine whether servicemembers' hearing loss would be immediate or cumulative. The scientists would also determine when the audiometric data collected by the military services became adequate for VA to assess individual exposures during subsequent hearing loss claims. The committee bill would also require that VA review its own records on hearing loss or tinnitus in veterans, and estimate the cost of adjudicating these claims under the current system. With this information, Congress and VA should be in a better position to decide whether evidence warrants service connection of hearing loss or tinnitus for certain veterans, so that their claims can be decided as quickly and fairly as possible. We currently provide a special pension of recipients of the Medal of Honor to recognize, in some small measure, their extraordinary heroism. Congress has periodically increased this pension to keep pace with inflation and the needs of its recipients, but these increases have been irregular in amount and frequency. For some recipients, delays between the dates of the recipient's act of valor and the actual awarding of the Medal of Honor have resulted in lower aggregate amounts of special pension, based only on differences in the timing of the official recognition. Section 104 of the committee bill would increase the Medal of Honor special pension from $600 to $1,000. Beginning next year, the pension amount would be adjusted annually with inflation. Finally, it would provide for a one-time, lump-sum payment in the amount of pension the recipient would have received between the date of the act of valor and the date that the recipient's pension actually commenced. I want to thank Senators Specter and Hutchinson for their leadership on this issue, and for assisting the committee in reaffirming our commitment to these heroes. Section 401 of the committee bill would extend certain protections currently offered to National Guard members called up for national defense to include those who may have been called up for homeland security activities but not federalized. The Soldiers and Sailor's Civil Relief Act of 1940, SSCRA, protects active duty servicemembers and their families from evictions, foreclosures, and certain legal judgements while they serve the Nation in federally funded national defense missions. However, SSCRA protections do not cover National Guard members called up under title 32 of the United States Code, which places the servicemembers under the command of their State Governors. Following the events of September 11, many National Guard members activated under title 32 guarded commercial airports at the request of the Federal Government, serving for 4 to 6 months. Although they served a national mission, their title 32 status denied them SSCRA protections. Furthermore, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as passed by the Senate, specifically allows National Guard members to be called up for full-time homeland security duty under title 32. Should this provision be enacted into law, it is likely that National Guard members will be called upon more frequently to serve in this status. Section 401 of the committee bill would expand SSCRA protections to include National Guard members serving full-time for homeland security purposes under title 32 upon an order of the Governor of a State, by request of the head of a Federal law enforcement agency, and with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. As America relies increasingly on the National Guard and reservists to support its all-volunteer forces, we must be sure that all of our servicemembers can focus on their duties when they leave home to serve their Nation. Sections 501 and 502 of the committee bill would ensure that veterans receive a full judicial review when appealing claims denied by VA. A long-standing tenet of veterans law is that the veteran receives the ``benefit of the doubt.'' This ``benefit of the doubt'' rule is unique in administrative law and states that when the evidence in support of benefits is in equipoise the benefit of the doubt must be given to the veteran, recognizing the tremendous sacrifices made by the men and women who have serve in our Armed Forces. A number of veterans service organizations have expressed concern that the current appellate process is overly deferential to VA findings of fact that are adverse to veteran claimants. Specifically, these groups argue that the ``clearly erroneous'' standard applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, CAVC, when reviewing Board of Veterans' Appeals, BVA, cases results in veteran claims receiving only cursory review on appeal, not allowing for full application of the ``benefit of the doubt'' rule. Section 501 of the committee bill would change the standard of review the CAVC applies to BVA findings of fact from ``clearly erroneous'' to ``unsupported by substantial evidence'' with an explicit reference to VA's application of the ``benefit of the doubt'' provision. This would clearly instruct the court to perform a searching review of BVA findings of fact, yet allow the CAVC to give deference to BVA findings based on specific evidence. Section 502 of the committee bill would improve appellate review of veterans claims by expanding the Federal Circuit's authority to review CAVC decisions based on rules of law that are not derived from a specific statute or regulation. This change would allow the Federal circuit to review comprehensively any CAVC decisions of law that adversely affect appellants. Section 503 of the committee bill would allow nonattorney practitioners admitted to practice before the CAVC without the signature of a supervising attorney, such as veterans service organization representatives, to be awarded fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Currently, attorneys and nonattorney practitioners supervised by attorneys who represent claimants that satisfy certain statutory requirements may receive compensation for their services pursuant to the EAJA. This would allow well-deserved compensation to organizations that provide invaluable assistance to veterans. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, VCAA, required VA to take very specific steps to help veterans prepare their benefits claims, such as informing claimants of medical or lay evidence or helping them obtain evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. The Federal circuit, in two recent decisions--Dyment v. Principi and Bernklau v. Principi-- found that certain provisions of the VCAA pertaining to VA's duty to assist cannot be applied retroactively to claims pending at the time of enactment. Section 504 states explicitly that VA's duty to assist will be applied retroactively to cases that were ongoing either at the various adjudication levels within VA or pending at the applicable Federal courts prior to the date of VCAA's enactment. Section 504 of the committee bill would make it clear that VA's duty to assist can be applied retroactively to cases that were either ongoing within VA or pending at the applicable Federal courts prior to the date of VCAA's enactment. This clarification would give full force to the congressionally mandated duty to assist claimant veterans, and provide crucial assistance to the men and women who sacrified so much in service to our Nation. I now turn to the manager's amendment, which would modify a section of the committee bill on evaluating service-connected hearing loss. Section 102 of the committee bill, as modified by the manager's amendment, would address an issue of fairness for veterans who have both service-connected and non-service-connected hearing loss. Currently, when evaluating veterans' service-connected disabilities in paired organs or extremities--such as kidneys, lungs, feet, or hands-- VA is authorized to consider any degree of damage to both organs, even if only one resulted from military service. However, total deafness in both ears is required for special consideration of hearing loss. The committee bill would eliminate the ``total deafness'' requirement, allowing VA to consider partial non-service-connected hearing loss in one ear when rating disability for vetearns with at least 10 percent compensable service-connected hearing loss in the other ear. This change would mirror exceptions made for other ``paired'' organs and extremities and would help ensure fair compensation for veterans whose hearing has been more greatly impaired by service than it would have been had they not served. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support these improvements to veterans benefits. In light of our increased military commitments-- abroad and on American soil--this represents a critical bipartisan commitment to our Nation's Veterans. The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I thank my colleagues in the Senate for their support of this legislation that will provide a cost-of-living adjustment to veterans' compensation for next year. I thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, ranking member Arlen Specter, for his commitment to our Nation's veterans. The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2002 directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, as of December 1, 2002, the rates of veterans' disability compensation, as well as compensation for eligible dependents and surviving spouses. The legislation raises compensation by the same percentage as the increase provided to Social Security recipients. It is particularly important that we move this legislation as soon as possible. Veterans and their families depend on the cost-of-living increase to ensure that their well-deserved benefits are not eroded by inflation. Veterans' disability compensation rates must keep pace with the increasing cost of living. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record following this statement.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, Washington is graced this week by the visit of Madame Chen Wu Sue-Jen, the First Lady of Taiwan and a distinguished humanitarian and advocate for human rights. Mrs. Chen has worked tirelessly to promote human rights and democratization on Taiwan. In tandem with her husband, President Chen Shui-Bien, Mrs. Chen has worked to open up the Taiwanese political system and ensure that the Taiwan Government reflects all its citizens' views and interests. Taiwan's democracy serves as an model to Chinese-speaking people around the world, and as compelling evidence that human rights and democracy are truly universal aspirations. The struggle for democratization is never quick or easy, and in Mrs. Chen's case, it led to very personal sacrifice. When leaving a campaign rally in 1985, she was hit by a vehicle that left her paralyzed from the waist down. While some might view that as a justification to withdraw from public life, in the case of Mrs. Chen, it only reinforced her commitment to public service, and she went on to serve with distinction in Taiwan's legislature. Her experience has also given her a profound sense of identification with the disabled, whom she has worked as First Lady to support. While here in Washington, Mrs. Chen will meet with the Red Cross and the National Rehabilitation Hospital to discuss the work she has done in Taiwan to promote the rights of the disabled. It has been pointed out that Mrs. Chen's visit is the first visit by a First Lady of the Republic of China since Soong May-ling, better known here as Madame Chiang, traveled to Washington to ask for U.S. support in 1943. Since that turbulent period, America has maintained close ties with the Republic of China. The United States has had, and will continue to have, a unique partnership with Taiwan, and the people on Taiwan should remain assured that they have no better friend than the United States. But this week's historic milestone also marks a good opportunity to reflect the vast distance the Republic of China has traveled between 1943 and now. Today when Taiwan talks with the United States, it does so as a vibrant democracy, a flourishing economy, a major trading partner and investor in the United States, and an important partner of the U.S. in our efforts to preserve peace and stability in East Asia. There is no better reflection of today's Taiwan than this dedicated woman who embodies so many of the positive changes that have occurred on the island. This week's visit will give Americans an opportunity to deepen their understanding of Taiwan by meeting with one of its most accomplished and articulate representatives. It gives me great pleasure to welcome my friend, Madame Chen Wu, to Washington. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to get to know her, you will be glad you did.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the latest action by the Administration to cut services to veterans. For years when we looked at the health care budget, we focused on the declining veteran population and declining demand. We are in a totally different predicament today. More veterans are turning to the VA health care system, and that is a success story. In recent months, however, unacceptably long waiting times for care have materialized. Cutting services to veterans who now depend more upon VA, is a perverse reaction to the problem. In 1996, Congress enacted eligibility reform which allowed all veterans to come to the VA health care system. At the time, I spoke about the dilemma that we would face in opening up the doors and providing a rich benefit package and how, down the road, we would have to face the consequences. In my view, the administration has a choice: Either own up to the demand for health care services and provide funding--my preference--or manage enrollment. The administration has chosen a completely different course. In its budget request, the administration proposed charging a $1,500 deductible to higher-income veterans as a means to ``reduce demand.'' In July, VA issued a mandate prohibiting all enrollment-generating activities, such as health fairs. Yesterday, regulations were issued to require VA to give priority for health care services to veterans with service-connected conditions. No veteran who is enrolled with VA for health care should have to endure long waiting times for care. The administration's latest action changes the way veterans access health care services, and in doing so, not only circumvents current law regarding eligibility for care, but will also create serious hardship for hundreds of thousands of veterans who depend upon VA. These regulations should be rescinded. Today, several other Senators and I wrote to the President and asked that he do so. These regulations will almost certainly increase--rather than decrease--the waiting times facing hundreds of thousands of veterans. Let me repeat that: The recent regulations will do nothing for the more than 300,000 veterans waiting to be seen by VA clinicians, and in fact, the new priority system could more than double the time they are forced to wait for care. I ask unanimous consent that VA's list of waiting times be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Finally, Mr. President, we have seen a rush by the Administration to implement these new regulations, without the normal comment period for Congress, veterans, or veterans advocates to make their views known. I believe VA's finding, that it has ``good cause'' to dispense with a normal notice-and-comment period, is without factual merit. If an emergency situation exists, the Administration could have surely provided the $270 million in additional funds which Congress already appropriated to deal with the unacceptably long waiting times. We must work together to find a better solution for veterans and these regulations must be rescinded to protect access to care for all veterans.