Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, 139 years ago today, on June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th State admitted to the Union. The only State born of Civil War, West Virginia was signed into existence by the hand of Abraham Lincoln. I am both proud and grateful to be a West Virginian and to represent my State in the U.S. Senate. I am also glad to have this opportunity to reflect on some of the features that make my home State so very special. Aside from my State's distinct heritage of industry and agriculture, one of its most defining characteristics is its extravagant natural beauty. Blessed with icy native trout streams, majestic deep-forest hardwood stands, and lush groves of rhododendron, West Virginia is almost heaven to many people. West Virginia is home to three of the Nation's most famous rivers: The Shenandoah and Potomac to the east, and the Ohio River along the State's entire western border. These and many other rivers, streams, and mountain lakes provide great places to fish or canoe on a relaxing weekend or sunny afternoon. The New River, which is thought to be the world's oldest river, tumbles through ancient limestone canyons and provides some of the world's premier whitewater rafting. The more serene waters at Harpers Ferry were praised by our Nation's third President when he wrote: ``The passage of the Patowmac through the Blue Ridge is perhaps one of the most stupendous scenes in Nature. This scene is worth a voyage across the Atlantic.'' President Jefferson was right, and the millions of people who visit the Mountain State regularly to ski our mountains, raft our rivers, marvel at the brilliant autumn foliage, and enjoy our hospitality agree. Thousands of miles of trails and scenic roads wind through the State's National Forest, State Parks, and countless mountain passes, luring hikers and bikers of all ages and from around the world. Seneca Rocks, the most dramatic rock formation in the east, is a visual feast and rock climbers' paradise. The State is also home to a wide variety of wild vegetation and animal life found nowhere else in America, and protests 20 threatened and endangered plant and animal species. West Virginia truly earns its label of ``wild and wonderful.'' The people of West Virginia remain its greatest asset. West Virginians are industrious, hard-working, unpretentious, straightforward, open and fun-loving. They value common sense and fairness, and have a deeply rooted connection to the land and attachment to home. On this West Virginia Day, I am joining all West Virginians in celebrating the abundance of our natural beauty. We are truly blessed in West Virginia to have such a bounty of natural resources. As we strive to promote our economic growth, I hope we will also be mindful of our responsibilities to the land. West Virginia's environment is a special resource, a national treasure that must be preserved and protected for future generations. I am proud to represent my home State of West Virginia, and deeply honored to stand here today to recognize the 139th anniversary of the Mountain State.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for 4 minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have the sad duty to report another death of a West Virginian in Afghanistan. For many generations, the people of West Virginia have answered the call and many have paid with their lives. West Virginians understand the cost of freedom and have always been willing to pay that cost when called for duty. Today we are reminded again how much that cost is because we now know of the death of Anissa A. Shero in Gardez, Afghanistan. She is from Grafton, WV. This was a tragic death in an airplane crash. She is the first woman Air Force casualty in the war in Afghanistan. She was married to SSgt Nathan Shero this past September, 2001. She had just been married. He is also deployed. Her father was a disabled Vietnam war veteran who lost both of his legs as a result of a casualty, and her grandfather fought in the Battle of the Bulge in the Second World War. She was a volunteer who chose to serve her country in the face of grave danger. When terrorists struck, she was there. She left behind the mountains of West Virginia, in a sense, to go to the mountains of Afghanistan, to risk her life so our lives would be freer and safer. She was part of an extraordinarily successful effort to eradicate the Taliban and to make tremendous disruption to and demoralize the al- Qaida forces, and again to give us more freedom and hope. Men and women in both nations are safer now because of her work, and unfortunately because of her death. All of us who value freedom owe Sergeant Shero a profound debt of gratitude and honor, and I know the thoughts and prayers of many people in this Chamber, the other body, and all over America, certainly all over West Virginia, are like mine, with her family and her friends. She represented the very best of West Virginia and the very best of America. She was strong, courageous, and dedicated. She will forever serve as a role model for West Virginians, for men and women alike, who love their country and who, like her, know that our ideals are worth fighting for. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, for many generations, the people of West Virginia have distinguished themselves by their willingness to serve their country in the armed forces. West Virginians understand the cost of freedom and have always been willing to pay it when called. Today, we are reminded again just how great that cost can be, as we mourn the loss of Air Force Staff Sgt. Anissa A. Shero, of Grafton, WV, who died in a tragic airplane crash near the town of Gardez, Afghanistan. Sgt. Shero was a volunteer, who chose to serve her country in the face of grave danger. When terrorists struck, she left behind the mountains of West Virginia for the mountains of Afghanistan, to risk her life so that we might live ours in freedom and safety. She was part of an extraordinarily successful effort to crush the Taliban, disrupt and demoralize al-Qaida, and free the people of Afghanistan from two decades of war and despotism. Men and women in both nations are safer now because of her work, and all of us who value freedom owe Sgt. Shero a profound debt of gratitude and honor. I know that the thoughts and prayers of many people are, like mine, with her family and her friends tonight. Like the two service members who died with her, and the 37 others killed in Afghanistan during this war, including West Virginian Sgt. Gene Vance, Jr., Sgt. Shero bravely did her duty as an American. Now, let us pledge to do ours in her honor. Let us remember always, including on the floor of this Senate Chamber, that wars are about people, and freedom, and lives. Let us make certain that our armed forces have the tools they need to meet any foe, any where, any time. And let us treasure the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and give thanks for the service members who fight to protect them. Sgt. Shero represented the best of West Virginia and the best of America. She was strong, courageous, and dedicated. She will forever serve as a role model for West Virginians, men and women alike, who loved their country and who, like her, know our ideals are worth fighting for.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the airline stabilization program is vitally important to my State, and I am pleased that we have reached agreement to strike a potentially threatening provision in the supplemental appropriations bill. Last September, we created the Airline Stabilization Loan Guarantee program to prevent a collapse of our airline industry in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Such a collapse would have had a disastrous effect on the national economy, and on communities throughout America. The loan program is a last alternative to bankruptcy for airlines struggling to recover after September 11. The Air Transportation Stabilization Board has been a strict guardian of public funds with respect to the terms it has required of applicants. The program was intended to be a last resort for airlines and passengers when they have no place else to go. We established the airline loan guarantee program less than 2 weeks after September 11 because a number of airlines faced crushing losses and the threat of losing their insurance altogether. The law gives the airlines until June 28 to apply for loans because we knew the full effects of September 11 would take at least that long to be realized. The airlines' continuing poor financial health has proven the case. It is essential that we not undermine the industry's slow recovery by freezing funding for the remainder of this fiscal year. Absent this amendment, the supplemental would have prevented applicants from obtaining loan guarantees until October 1. Some major carriers, including West Virginia's most prominent airline, just can't wait that long for relief. Here is why. First, a freeze would have sent negative signals to the financial markets. Airline stocks are low already, and the only reason they aren't even lower is because Wall Street is reasonably expecting support of the airlines from the loan guarantee program. Eliminating funding--even if only temporarily--could signal Wall Street that the program is unstable and subject to changes in each Congress. Given the financial predicament of many airlines, these signals alone could be devastating. Second, airlines would not have been able to obtain commercial bridge loans between now and October. I know from hard experience in my efforts to help the steel industry that lenders do not offer bridge loans without a reliable Federal guarantee. Anything short of actual issuance of the credit instrument would be insufficient for the private market. A freeze on the loan board would have prevented this from happening. Without this important amendment, we were almost certain to see more airline bankruptcies. This would have been a terrible result, not just for the airlines, but for the hundreds of communities that depend on them. My State of West Virginia would have been particularly hard hit, as would rural regions throughout America--regions which frequently have little or no choice of airlines. The predominant airline serving West Virginia is US Airways, and it is expected to apply for a critically- needed loan guarantee within the next couple of weeks. As of March 31, US Airways had cash reserves of $561 million and was losing $3.5 million per day. Airline officials said in a recent SEC filing that, without the loan program, they will be forced to declare bankruptcy as early as this summer. In Beckley, Bluefield, Parkersburg, and Morgantown, WV, US Airways is the only provider of passenger air service. US Airways is the only way to fly from Clarksburg to Pittsburgh. It is the only way to fly from Huntington to Charlotte or Pittsburgh. It is also the only way to fly from Lewisburg to Charlotte or Pittsburgh. And it is the only way to fly from Charleston to Baltimore, Charlotte, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh. For people all across West Virginia, US Airways is a critical connection to the rest of the world, and a major force in our local economy. If US Airways were to go under, the result would be a serious blow to my state. Today's amendment is not about any one airline or state. It is about communities across the country that will suffer if airlines go bankrupt. Last September, we decided that we could not permit the attacks of September 11 to bring down our entire airline industry. That was the right decision then. And I am glad that my colleagues recognize that it is also the right decision today. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I should also note that today is a very proud day for my family as we gather for my youngest son's college graduation. I am confident the amendment will pass by a large margin, and had I been present, I would have cast my vote in support of the amendment. I am grateful for everyone's hard work in recent weeks to achieve this good result.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Except in unusual circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by the Administration so that such measures will be available for review and consideration. This ``by-request'' bill contains four titles and proposes to move and modify employment service programs for veterans and other eligible persons from the Department of Labor to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Title I of the proposed bill contains provisions governing the transition of certain veterans' employment services from the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service, or VETS, program to a new program within the Department of Veterans Affairs to be known as the Veterans' Employment, Business Opportunity, and Training, or VEBOT, program. This bill would mandate that the VEBOT program provide performance-based competitive grants to State Governors or other entities for the purpose of providing employment services to veterans. The VETS program currently provides grants for Disabled Veterans' Outreach Programs and Local Veterans Employment Representatives, LVER. These programs are staffed by State employees and provide employment services for veterans through State employment service offices and one- stop centers. Section 103 delegates responsibility to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to define by regulations virtually every aspect of the VEBOT program. This includes establishing and monitoring performance standards for state VEBOT programs, eligibility criteria for VEBOT clients, services to be provided by these programs, and service delivery practices. Titles II and III mandate that responsibility for transition assistance and Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs shall be transferred from the Department of Labor to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The transfer of veterans' employment programs currently administered by the Department of Labor to the Department of Veterans Affairs would be completed by the later of September 30, 2003, or the date upon which the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to govern these programs take effect. Again, I submit this for the review and consideration of my colleagues at the request of the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Secretary Principi's transmittal letter that accompanied the draft legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I also wish to clarify with my colleagues that section 2(c)(9) is a ``no weakening'' provision, and not a ``no net weakening'' provision. In other words, the President is directed to reject any new international obligation whose acceptance would impair our current trade remedies in the way you have described--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 2(c)(9) and the intent of the Congress is concerned--to contend that the agreement in question also includes some ``strengthening'' provisions. That would include any revisions that intended to ``strengthen'' the disciplines governing other countries' trade laws, including those in the developing world. I personally believe that until the United States has a documented record of challenging those foreign trade laws at the WTO--and for some inexplicable reason we do not--there is no justification for saying existing WTO rules are not sufficient to ensure due process and transparency in foreign trade laws. Additionally, I think it is important 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. As explained in the Finance Committee's report on the TPA measure, in a series of decisions involving trade remedy measures, the WTO Appellate Body and lower dispute settlement panels have fabricated U.S. obligations which our negotiators never accepted and have blatantly disregarded the discretion which the Uruguay Round negotiators intended for national investigating authorities to retain. These WTO tribunals have violated their mandate not to increase or reduce the rights and obligations of WTO Members; have imposed their preferences and interpretations, and those of a biased WTO Secretariat, on the United States and on other WTO Members; and have issued decisions with no basis in the legal texts they supposedly were interpreting. I believe this may be because other countries have been far more aggressive about challenging our trade laws at the WTO than we have been in challenging theirs. The effect has been to upset the careful balance achieved in the Uruguay Round by adding new, and wholly unwarranted, constraints on the use of trade remedies. Before we vote on the bill, am I correct in understanding that section 2(c)(9) does not preclude a forceful U.S. agenda to address the problems plaguing WTO dispute settlement?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I certainly share the Senator's concern regarding the potential for new trade agreements to weaken U.S. trade remedy laws, in particular the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. These essential laws level the playing field on which our firms and workers compete internationally, and serve the crucial function of offsetting and deterring some of the most harmful unfair trade practices affecting international trade today. The steady leadership the Senator has provided on this issue has been admirable, and I certainly hope the message has gotten through. It would be a serious mistake indeed 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 any weakening changes to our trade remedy laws. I believe the Senator has accurately captured the general definition of a ``weakening'' change, and I agree fully with the examples he has laid out. I want to ask about some other proposals which have already surfaced at this early stage of the WTO negotiations, and which in my view must be rejected under the standard set out in section 2(c)(9). These proposals include: One, changes to the rules for ``sunset'' reviews of antidumping and CVD measures which would make it more difficult to keep relief in place; two, additional constraints or criteria for dumping calculations, in areas where current WTO rules and U.S. law vest discretion in the administering authority; and, three, special rules and standards that would make it easier for a particular group of countries, such as developing countries, to utilize injurious dumping or subsidies as a means of promoting their own industries at our expense. Am I correct in my view that accepting any such changes, as some trading partners have requested, would weaken our existing trade remedies?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Except in unusual circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by the Administration so that such measures will be available for review and consideration. This ``by-request'' bill contains four titles and proposes to move and modify employment service programs for veterans and other eligible persons from the Department of Labor to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Title I of the proposed bill contains provisions governing the transition of certain veterans' employment services from the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service, or VETS, program to a new program within the Department of Veterans Affairs to be known as the Veterans' Employment, Business Opportunity, and Training, or VEBOT, program. This bill would mandate that the VEBOT program provide performance-based competitive grants to State Governors or other entities for the purpose of providing employment services to veterans. The VETS program currently provides grants for Disabled Veterans' Outreach Programs and Local Veterans Employment Representatives, LVER. These programs are staffed by State employees and provide employment services for veterans through State employment service offices and one- stop centers. Section 103 delegates responsibility to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to define by regulations virtually every aspect of the VEBOT program. This includes establishing and monitoring performance standards for state VEBOT programs, eligibility criteria for VEBOT clients, services to be provided by these programs, and service delivery practices. Titles II and III mandate that responsibility for transition assistance and Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs shall be transferred from the Department of Labor to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The transfer of veterans' employment programs currently administered by the Department of Labor to the Department of Veterans Affairs would be completed by the later of September 30, 2003, or the date upon which the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to govern these programs take effect. Again, I submit this for the review and consideration of my colleagues at the request of the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Secretary Principi's transmittal letter that accompanied the draft legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we received confirmation yesterday that Sergeant Gene Vance of Morgantown, West Virginia, was killed on Sunday in an exchange of gunfire near the village of Shkin, near Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Sergeant Vance was a member of the 19th Special Forces Group of the West Virginia National Guard. His unit was patrolling southeastern Afghanistan in an effort to locate and eliminate any pockets of al Qa'eda and Taliban resistance. Sergeant Vance was the first American killed in combat in Afghanistan since March. On behalf of all the Member of the Senate--I believe I can so speak-- I want to express to Sergeant Vance's wife, Lisa, and daughter, Amber, our deepest sympathy at their loss and ours. I extend those condolences to other members of Sergeant Vance's family who must be going through the kind of grief to which some people have become accustomed, but not many. He was a member of the West Virginia National Guard. I had the honor to be Governor of West Virginia for 8 years. I know it just so happens that the West Virginia National Guard has top rankings all across the country in all respects--professionally audited, so to speak. There is no stronger embodiment of the patriotism that runs so deep in the mountains of my State of West Virginia. America's early success in the war in Afghanistan, and in driving the Taliban from power, has created for many Americans the illusion that things have returned to normal. A few more metal detectors, a few more security guards, a longer line to board airplanes, but otherwise life seems to be getting back to the way it was before September 11. That is foolhardy thinking. Sergeant Vance knew it, and he was doing his duty. The Vice President asserted, I think correctly, that there will be more attacks, that we are foolish if we are not prepared, if we are not mindful of this fact. But if we Americans are managing to live our daily lives without fear, that may bring us some comfort, but it is entirely due to the courageous efforts being made by men such as Sergeant Vance and women in uniform in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Their efforts are not always the lead stories anymore, but they are taking the time to do the job right--eliminating the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks on this country on September 11. In an era, as they say, of asymmetric threats, when small groups can develop weapons of mass destruction--and now we are looking at the probability of suicide bombers--and a group of 19 fanatics can carry out with relative ease an attack of unprecedented devastation on American soil, it is clear that our security will not be assured until we eliminate--not defeat but eliminate--the terrorists who are committed to hurting us. Our forces in Afghanistan continue to perform a vital national task, and we had all darn well better recognize that. The death of Sergeant Vance is a reminder that they continue to put themselves at considerable risk, in unbelievably hostile territory, and often in a hostile society. I do not know what it is that makes fine Americans feel so deeply the love of their country that they are prepared to risk their life for it. I want to say that I know what it is. But I think it is a mystery that all of us revere, and it is within the soul and the heart of each individual person who goes over to fight and to defend our way of life. In other words, we can never know that entirely. But we can know, and what we must never forget, is that we Americans, who enjoy the freedoms and comforts our society provides, only do so because men such as Sergeant Vance are willing to do what they did: Engage in firefight and lose their life. So we mourn the death of Sergeant Vance in Afghanistan, and we are reminded yet again that America's strength is built on the individual decisions of hundreds of thousands of people who make those decisions in their own individual ways. Sometimes, of course, they cannot foresee what will happen. They sign up. They go. They cannot foresee what is going to happen. Sometimes what happens brings great sadness to many people. To Sergeant Vance's wife and daughter, as you grieve, let your sense of loss be joined by the knowledge that Gene Vance died for a just and noble cause. He was prepared to put himself on the line for America, for Americans, and for the society that he wanted you, Lisa, and you, Amber, to be able to live in, in peace. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I want to close for our side, if that is all right with my colleagues. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma he is using the classic, sort of nose-under-the-tent approach. No other industry has ever gone before the ITC in the last 20 years and come out with a unanimous vote proving injury because of imports as has the steel industry. No other industry has ever been so totally and entirely neglected by the U.S. Federal Government, under Republican and Democratic leadership, allowing cartels and state-owned subsidies to simply crush our steel industry. What we are talking about, and what we are voting on, is whether steel retirees who lost the health coverage they earned because their company shut down permanently due to an import crisis should get the benefit of 1 year of health care, and only get it once. We understand that we pay for the cost, that the pay-go is taken care of. The essence of the vote is before the Senate. I further say that the Senator from Oklahoma, I am sure, misunderstands one thing: Other industries--I think he refers to the minimills--the minimills support this amendment, and we have a letter from Nucor, the largest, to so say. This is a matter of people, only 125,000. It is paid for in a tax-friendly way. I urge my colleagues to support the cloture vote.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from Alaska has mentioned politics and that the steel industry evidently decided not to take advantage of this multibillion-dollar offer that he and I talked about a number of times. I made it very clear to the Senator from Alaska during our conversations that whereas we do make pipe in the United States, we only have about 40 million tons of production left. And we don't make pipe of the size that was required for what the Senator was talking about at ANWR. That was the only reason. It was not politics. The Senator talks about letters from the White House. I don't know if the Senator disagrees, but the Senator talks about letters from the White House. There was a reason for that. That was that the White House was and still is--they have been e-mailing all over the country and getting other people to e-mail because they have opposed this from the very beginning. They have opposed legacy costs. They made it very clear. All of their Cabinet officers made it very clear. The President made it clear. That is the reason we are reduced to simply having 1 year of health benefits because we have no other alternative. I would have, as the Senator from Alaska knows, voted probably for ANWR if Senator Stevens, who was equally as angry as I was over what transpired, had been allowed to proceed. But it was simply bludgeoned. I hope that the Senator would agree with that.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we are now on the retired steelworkers amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. We are basically allowing a very small group of steel retirees who, through no fault of their own--we are going to allow them to get the TAA health credit for 1 year only, and for 1 year only once. So it is a highly restricted amendment, more so than TAA benefits generally. No transitional costs, no cash benefits, no retraining, none of that. If you support trade adjustment assistance for workers who lost jobs because of imports, you must support some temporary assistance--1 year and only once--of just health benefits for steel retirees who lost their coverage because of the same types of imports. The fact is, the American steel industry has suffered more than any other industry that I can think of. If you check the record, no other industry has suffered and been such a victim of a flood of imports as has the steel industry. It is very well documented. In the Presidentially initiated section 201 initiative, which involved the investigation of the International Trade Commission, and Republican and Democratic Senators are members, recently unanimously declared that the steel industry had been seriously injured by imports. Nobody else has gone through that process. They studied it and found out the steel industry had been clobbered by imports over a long period of years. Steel has been besieged by unfair trade and subsidy practices. One of the things that so wrenches my gut is that the U.S. Government has done nothing about it. We have done nothing about unfair trade practices, about dumping, countervailing duties, cartels, or predatory pricing. We have just let it continue because somehow the steel industry, I guess, does not count as much as a number of other industries in the minds of various administrations. I am talking not just about this administration, but previous ones also. For 30 years, it is not just that bad things have been happening, but we have been breaking our own trade laws, as well as international rules. We have been ignoring them. We passed a law saying there shall be no dumping. We did that in 1974. Administrations constantly ignore that law. So we have unfair foreign trade practices that have led us to this crisis. There was insufficient action against foreign dumping. Do people know what ``dumping'' means? It means selling a product to another country at less than the cost of producing it in that country. So they are dumping it, so to speak, into the American markets. There was insufficient action, again, under U.S. law--we were breaking our own laws--and international trade rules against decades of foreign subsidies to steelmakers. We do not subsidize our steelmakers. We never have. Everything they have done, they have done on their own-- everything. Other countries subsidize their steelmakers. They underwrite their steel industries. Our Government has turned a blind eye to the foreign steel cartels. Anybody who has anything to do with steel understands that. Those cartels have served as protectionist barriers to protect foreign steelmakers. Those barriers have protected them from international competition, from fairness, even from quality, and our Government declined to pursue endless reports that foreign steelmakers from different countries were operating in collusion. What do I mean by that? These other countries that are producing steel decided they were not going to compete with each other; they were going to take all of their steel with this huge global overcapacity because our Government was not enforcing trade laws and they would send it all to America. Hence, our steelworkers were put out of work. Somehow we, in our innocence and belief that everything will work out, did not view steel as a vital national asset. Every other country does. They have used all kinds of policies, all kinds of unfair policies, all kinds of illegal policies to promote their domestic steelmakers at our expense, and our Government never aggressively pursued any of those illegal practices. That is not to criticize the Government. The point of this amendment is that it has penalized the steelworkers who are now in chapter 7 and retired, out of work, lights out, with no health care. I can think of no other sector where an American industry that is organized along commercial lines has had to engage in the brutal competition with what is called ``national champion''--foreign steelmakers that are state protected, that are state subsidized and, in many cases, state owned. How does one cope with that? You do not because we will not enforce our own laws. That is the trade case. The other side is the human case. Senator Wellstone said this very well the other day. Why is it we have such trouble when a few select people--we are talking about 125,000 here-- are in trouble through no fault of their own, through no protection of their Government, and we have trouble giving them any help? The Presiding Officer and this Senator voted for a farm bill. It is embarrassing when we look at the help we gave soybeans in this country and then compare it to what this would cost to help 125,000 steelworkers who are retired because their companies went belly up and our Government would not do anything to help them. We have to think about people, Mr. President. It is not unfair to think about people in the Chamber of the Senate. It is not unfair to think about helping people who are in dire need when we help them for 1 year and only one time with health benefits. That is less than trade adjustment assistance in the underlying amendment. That is probably closer to 2 years. We are only asking for 1 year for 125,000 retired steelworkers. The human toll is enormous. Somebody explain this to me: How does the Senate sit by while steelworker retirees and their families bear the brunt of our collective Government failure to adequately enforce our laws? After the administration's refusals to support any comprehensive solution for our steel industry during the ANWR debate--we had a much broader amendment then--we scaled it way back. Senators Mikulski, Wellstone, Specter, DeWine, Voinovich, Stabenow, and others decided we would only work for a temporary solution of 1 year of health care coverage for steel retirees who lost their health benefits when their companies permanently closed. What is wrong with 1 year of benefits? What is wrong with that? It is a bipartisan amendment. Workers who lose their jobs due to imports have some temporary health care coverage under this bill. Steel retirees who lost their health care coverage because of imports do not have health care coverage, and we are trying to get them some--1 year of TAA health credit and only once. It is not too much to ask for a group of American workers. I hope and pray my colleagues in the Senate will vote to support cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment which is sponsored by myself, Senators Mikulski, Wellstone, DeWine, Durbin, Voinovich, and Stabenow.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There has never been a case I know of in American history where the Government, over a period of 30 years, since the passing of the Trade Act in 1974, has been so absolutely unilaterally egregiously negligent of the interests of fulfilling American law which says that steel cannot be dumped at lower than its cost of production by other countries into this country. As my colleague may remember, President Clinton promised--actually it turns out it was West Virginia--he would not allow dumping to happen. The present administration has made similar types of promises. They and all other administrations have egregiously ignored the law. That is why I keep saying the Government's negligence is what makes the steel retirees so different in what they deserve and what they should get in the way of this modest health benefit for so few, primarily because, one, they have been injured by imports--that is what the International Trade Commission said--and second, the Government has been so totally negligent. Much of this is the Government's fault they are out of work--our Federal Government.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I answer the Senator's question?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Can I answer the Senator's question?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I correct the Senator for a second? Remember that the company they are working for no longer exists in order for them to qualify.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I don't think it is a question of what is the age. It is a question of what happened to the company, when did it fit into the dates. We have constricted it by saying that the company had to go belly-up, so to speak, by January 1, 2000, until the year January 1, 2004. You cannot tell what the age might be. We could presumably find out what the ages are right now, but you cannot predict that in the future because it does not depend on the age; it depends upon whether the company has gone out of business.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Without the prescription drugs, correct.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. As best we can figure, 25 percent of the steelworkers who might receive this proposal are not receiving Medicare. As such, none have prescription drugs.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I may answer the Senator, unlike the coal industry, the steel industry has a whole series of different bargained health benefit packages. I don't know exactly, but my guess is that right now the steel companies probably pay about 90 percent of the health care costs of the steelworkers, and the steelworkers pay 10 percent. So they have already gone from 90 percent down to 70 percent, and then they have their choice, as the Governor of Ohio, Governor Taft, indicated, of using a variety of risk pools. It could be a variety of programs, but it is not a constant figure. It could vary, and it is definitely not based upon what it is they negotiated. They have made tremendous cuts and sacrifices from the agreements they negotiated with the steel company.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Except in unusual circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by the administration so that such measures will be available for review and consideration. This ``by-request'' bill contains four sections, which amend existing sections or provisions of title 38. The first section would expand the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' authority to pay plot and interment allowances to State veterans cemeteries for all eligible peacetime veterans. Currently, the Secretary can only provide a plot allowance if the veteran served during wartime, was discharged for a service- connected disability, was receiving VA disability compensation or pension, or died in a VA facility. This amendment would facilitate States' participation in VA's State Cemeteries Grant Program, SCGP. Under the SCGP, VA pays for the construction of the cemetery, but the States bear the future maintenance costs. This provision would allow States to receive allowances for approximately 1,200 additional interments annually. The second section of this bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to lease the undeveloped land and unused or underused buildings of the National Cemetery System and retain the proceeds from these leases, as well as agricultural licenses. The National Cemetery Administration, NCA, is endowed with thousands of acres of land, some of which is unused because it is not suitable for NCA development or has not yet been developed for NCA use. Currently, the NCA is authorized to issue limited-term agricultural licenses for these lands, and all profits must be deposited with the U.S. Treasury. However, some NCA land would be suitable for other purposes. This provision is meant to provide the Secretary with greater flexibility in using NCA lands to generate revenues, while allowing the NCA to become more self- sufficient by keeping profits within the administration. The third section of this bill would modify amendments made by the Veterans' Claims Assistance Act of 2000, VCAA, which imposed a 1-year time limit for veterans to submit evidence--such as medical records-- necessary to substantiate their claims for benefits. Prior to the enactment of the VCAA, a 1-year time limitation was imposed on information--such as complete contact information--necessary to complete a veteran's application for benefits. This provision was not included in the VCAA. The Secretary asserts that this requires VA to keep claims open indefinitely if they lack information for the application, while not allowing VA to make a payment on a claim that required the veteran to submit evidence to substantiate it, even if the claim could be granted on other grounds. This provision would reinstate the original time limitation on information for applications and rescind the current limitation on evidence to substantiate. Section four of this bill would eliminate the reporting requirement on certain advance planning projects. Currently, VA cannot obligate more than $500,000 from its advance planning fund without submitting a report on the proposed obligation to both committees of Congress. However, VA argues that such reports are redundant for projects that have already been authorized by Congress, creating unnecessary and untimely delays. Accordingly, VA proposes that Congress eliminate this reporting requirement for already authorized projects. Again, Mr. President, I submit this for the review and consideration of my colleagues at the request of the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Secretary Principi's transmittal letter that accompanied the draft legislation be printed in the Record.