Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. We appreciate the Leader's interest and support. With that support, and that of all our colleagues who have joined us today, I feel confident that we will succeed in getting this bill enacted into law this year. And I am excited at that prospect, because I think it will make a big difference in moving broadband both to remote and underserved areas of the Nation, and also in moving it to the next generation. That will be an outstanding result, and a great benefit for the Nation. energy policy act of 2002

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator and welcome his support. I believe the Senator from New York wanted to join in the discussion, as well.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes, indeed As I recall, the New York doctor remotely controlled some kind of robotic arms there at the patient's location, and it came off without a hitch, I believe.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Absolutely. I am with you 100 percent. We have to get this done, and we have to get it done this year. I note that the majority leader has joined us on the floor and I wonder if we might impose on him to give us his views on the prospects for the broadband tax credit.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of American veterans whose hearing loss may have resulted from their military service. The Veterans Hearing Loss Compensation Act of 2002 would accomplish two goals: first, it would correct a long- standing inequity in compensating veterans for service-related hearing loss. Second, it would direct VA, with input from outside experts, to determine whether service in certain military occupations can be presumed to be associated with hearing loss. Currently, section 1160 of title 38, United States Code, directs VA to extend special consideration when evaluating veterans' service- connected disabilities in ``paired organs or extremities,'' such as eyes, kidneys, or hands. If there is damage to both organs, even if only one resulted from military service, the disability of the non- service-connected organ may be considered. For all listed disabilities except hearing loss, the law requires only ``loss'' or ``loss of use,'' whereas ``total deafness'' is required in rating hearing loss. If hearing loss in either ear is anything less than total, VA cannot even consider the loss in the non- service-connected ear. Section 2 of this bill would remove this requirement for total hearing loss in either ear, allowing VA to consider the effect of any non-service-connected disability when rating hearing loss. Section 3 of this bill would require VA to contract with an independent scientific organization, such as the National Academy of Sciences, to review scientific evidence on occupational hearing loss, particularly acoustic trauma experienced during military service. This legislation would also require VA to review its own claims and record of medical treatment for hearing loss or tinnitus in veterans. Through these two avenues, VA should be better able to determine objectively whether service in certain military specialties might be associated with an increased risk of hearing loss later in life. Once the outside scientific authority reports to VA, the Secretary would be required to determine whether the evidence warrants presuming an association between certain military occupations and hearing loss or tinnitus. If VA finds sufficient evidence linking noise exposure in these occupations to veterans' later hearing loss, the Secretary would be required to develop regulations for providing disability benefits to these veterans; if VA determines that no presumptive service-connection is appropriate, the Secretary would be required to publish this determination and report to Congress on the basis of that decision. With the aging of the veterans population, the number of claims for hearing loss or tinnitus continues to climb. VA faces difficulties in determining whether certain veterans can attribute their hearing loss to damage suffered decades ago during military service, especially as many veterans received no appropriate hearing evaluation at discharge. I realize that the proposed process is not an immediate fix, but it should provide VA, Congress, and veterans with a solid basis for tackling this difficult problem. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of American veterans whose hearing loss may have resulted from their military service. The Veterans Hearing Loss Compensation Act of 2002 would accomplish two goals: first, it would correct a long- standing inequity in compensating veterans for service-related hearing loss. Second, it would direct VA, with input from outside experts, to determine whether service in certain military occupations can be presumed to be associated with hearing loss. Currently, section 1160 of title 38, United States Code, directs VA to extend special consideration when evaluating veterans' service- connected disabilities in ``paired organs or extremities,'' such as eyes, kidneys, or hands. If there is damage to both organs, even if only one resulted from military service, the disability of the non- service-connected organ may be considered. For all listed disabilities except hearing loss, the law requires only ``loss'' or ``loss of use,'' whereas ``total deafness'' is required in rating hearing loss. If hearing loss in either ear is anything less than total, VA cannot even consider the loss in the non- service-connected ear. Section 2 of this bill would remove this requirement for total hearing loss in either ear, allowing VA to consider the effect of any non-service-connected disability when rating hearing loss. Section 3 of this bill would require VA to contract with an independent scientific organization, such as the National Academy of Sciences, to review scientific evidence on occupational hearing loss, particularly acoustic trauma experienced during military service. This legislation would also require VA to review its own claims and record of medical treatment for hearing loss or tinnitus in veterans. Through these two avenues, VA should be better able to determine objectively whether service in certain military specialties might be associated with an increased risk of hearing loss later in life. Once the outside scientific authority reports to VA, the Secretary would be required to determine whether the evidence warrants presuming an association between certain military occupations and hearing loss or tinnitus. If VA finds sufficient evidence linking noise exposure in these occupations to veterans' later hearing loss, the Secretary would be required to develop regulations for providing disability benefits to these veterans; if VA determines that no presumptive service-connection is appropriate, the Secretary would be required to publish this determination and report to Congress on the basis of that decision. With the aging of the veterans population, the number of claims for hearing loss or tinnitus continues to climb. VA faces difficulties in determining whether certain veterans can attribute their hearing loss to damage suffered decades ago during military service, especially as many veterans received no appropriate hearing evaluation at discharge. I realize that the proposed process is not an immediate fix, but it should provide VA, Congress, and veterans with a solid basis for tackling this difficult problem. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to allow researchers and clinicians in the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish up to ten more centers to study and treat mental illnesses. Historically, as many as one-third of veterans seeking care at VA have received mental health treatment, and research suggests that serious mental illnesses affect at least one-fifth of veterans who use the VA health care system. About 450,000 of the approximately 2.3 million veterans who receive compensation from VA have service- connected psychiatric and neurological disorders. These statistics do not reflect problems that affect veterans alone: in 1999, the Surgeon General of the United States reported that mental disorders account for more than 15 percent of the overall burden of disease from all causes, slightly more than all forms of cancer. Major depression alone ranked second only to heart disease in impact. In 1996, Congress authorized VA to establish five centers dedicated to mental illness research, education, and clinical activities. These Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers, called ``MIRECCs'' by VA, integrate basic and clinical research with a training mission that allows VA to translate new findings into improved patient care. Research undertaken within these centers has helped to increase our fundamental understanding of mental illnesses, and has given VA caregivers more and better tools to treat patients with mental disorders so they can function more easily within their communities. Because they have proved so effective at fostering scientific, clinical, and educational improvements in mental health care, I have introduced legislation today that would allow VA to expand the number of these centers from the five authorized programs to a possible total of fifteen. Based on the programs' success, VA researchers have already started three more centers, expanding the number of existing programs to eight, and have demonstrated their willingness to open more in the near future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the expansion of this program, which benefits not only veterans but the entire mental health care community. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Thomas and Jeffords to introduce the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act of 2002. This bill will authorize a demonstration project to allow VA to bill Medicare for health care services provided to certain dual eligible beneficiaries. The legislation, known as VA subvention, is a concept that has been discussed over the years by many of us in Congress, by veterans service organizations, and by advisory bodies studying the VA health care system. Although the VA subvention proposal is a small effort compared to the other changes that must be made to the Medicare program, it is enormously important to our veterans and the health care system they depend upon. Until recently, when we looked at the VA health care budget, we focused on the declining veteran population and declining demand. We are in a totally different predicament today. More and more veterans are turning to the VA health care system, and that is a success story. More than 38 percent of all veterans are Medicare eligible; unfortunately, many of these veterans are seeking VA care because of the lack of drug benefits in the Medicare program. An uncertain economy and the collapse of many HMOs have also contributed to the rising number of veterans turning to VA. While I will continue to push for Medicare prescription drug benefits, something must be done to alleviate the pressure on the VA health care system. VA simply does not have unlimited resources to meet this demand. VA now has more than 6 million veterans enrolled in health care services. That's more than double the figure in 1996. Not surprisingly, access to care has been affected by the high demand for services. It is not unusual for some veterans in certain pockets of the country to have to wait for more than a year to have their initial appointment with a VA primary care physician. Because of concerns about access and quality of care, last fall the VA was prepared to cease enrolling new higher income veterans, so called Category C or Priority 7 veterans, into the VA health care system. Their decision was based simply upon budgetary constraints, as VA suffered from a $400 million shortfall. Except for a last minute approval of supplemental funding, veterans would have been turned away from VA health care services. This legislation would allow VA and HHS to either choose a Medi- care+Choice or Preferred Provider Option at ten VA sites, three of these sites must be in rural areas. Several years ago the Department of Defense attempted a Medicare subvention pilot and lost money, primarily on the restrictive nature of the capitation model they set up. This proposal will give VA the opportunity to look at both the preferred provider and Medicare+Choice model, and in the end select the model that works best for them. For veterans, approval of this veterans subvention would mean the infusion of new revenue to their health care system and, thus, greater access to care. For the Department of Health and Human Services, a VA subvention demonstration project will provide the opportunity to assess the effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and quality of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. In addition, it would also present an opportunity to reduce Medicare expenditures. Under the Medicare+Choice option in our legislation, the reimbursable rate will be 100 percent of the rate normally paid to a Medicare+Choice provider. However, under the Preferred Provider Option, reimbursement rates would be 95 percent of otherwise applicable rates. For both options the rates would be further discounted by excluding Disproportionate Hospital Share adjustments, VA's direct graduate medical education costs, its indirect medical education costs, and 67 percent of capital-related costs. As a further way to limit exposure to the Trust Fund during the three year demonstration portion of this bill, this proposal caps all Medicare payments to the VA at $75 million per year. Allowing VA to bill Medicare is good for the Federal health care system overall. It's a classic ``win-win'' situation. VA would also be required to maintain its current level of services to Medicare-eligible veterans who have been served prior to 1998, and would be effectively limited to reimbursement for care provided to new patients since then. In 1998, Congress allowed all veterans to enroll for VA care and receive a standard benefits package, which includes prescription drugs. Prior to the end of the three year demonstration, GAO will do a thorough evaluation of the program and submit a report to Congress, complete with details on performance measures and justification for planned expansion. Based upon the GAO recommendations, VA and HHS will jointly determine the most appropriate health care delivery models for the expansion of the program through the entire VA health care system. GAO will continue to evaluate the expansion of the program for an additional six years. During the first session of the 106th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I successfully pushed a similar proposal through the Senate Finance Committee. Indeed, over the last couple years, we have tried to enact this proposal several times. Unfortunately, we have continually met resistance. Our goal is to overcome this resistance and enact this proposal without delay. I believe that without enactment of a Medicare subvention program, VA may well choose to bar middle-income veterans without a service-connected disability from coming to the VA for care. I think we all want to avoid that prospect. There are over 33 thousand Medicare eligible veterans enrolled in the VA health benefits program in my State of West Virginia. The VA spent almost $116 million providing health care to them last year. Though this is telling information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the truly crucial piece of the story, that is, the number of these Medicare-eligible veterans who aren't coming to VA because of long waiting lines and lack of adequate resources. This demonstration project would encourage these eligible veterans, who have not previously received care from the Huntington, Beckley, Martinsburg, and Clarksburg VAMCs, to do so. Truly, this VA/Medicare proposal is a way to provide quality health care to veterans who are eligible for both systems of care, while at the same time preserving and protecting the Medicare Trust Fund. Let us not delay any longer. I wish to remind my colleagues of the burden VA now carries in providing health care to Medicare-eligible veterans. Many Senators have asked me for a solution to the financial woes of the hospitals in their States. Enacting this proposal is part of the answer. Veterans deserve the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their care and bring their Medicare coverage with them. It makes sense for all parties.

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 two sections. The first would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase administratively the rates of compensation for service-disabled veterans, and for the dependent survivors of veterans whose deaths were service-related, beginning this December. The rate of increase, as requested by VA in its proposed budget for FY 2003, would be the same as the cost-of-living adjustment provided under current law to veterans' pension and Social Security recipients. The second section of this bill would allow VA to change the way that it calculates the number of veterans receiving VA long-term care. In 1999, Congress passed the Veterans Millennium Health Care Benefits Act, which required VA to maintain the level of extended care services offered to veterans at the 1998 level. VA has argued that this law, based on the average daily census in VA-operated nursing homes, unfairly ignores care provided through contracts with private nursing homes and by VA-subsidized State nursing homes. The requested bill would amend the law to include nursing home care furnished by community providers and State veterans homes when determining whether VA has maintained extended care services at the mandated 1998 level. 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. President, I introduce legislation today to allow researchers and clinicians in the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish up to ten more centers to study and treat mental illnesses. Historically, as many as one-third of veterans seeking care at VA have received mental health treatment, and research suggests that serious mental illnesses affect at least one-fifth of veterans who use the VA health care system. About 450,000 of the approximately 2.3 million veterans who receive compensation from VA have service- connected psychiatric and neurological disorders. These statistics do not reflect problems that affect veterans alone: in 1999, the Surgeon General of the United States reported that mental disorders account for more than 15 percent of the overall burden of disease from all causes, slightly more than all forms of cancer. Major depression alone ranked second only to heart disease in impact. In 1996, Congress authorized VA to establish five centers dedicated to mental illness research, education, and clinical activities. These Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers, called ``MIRECCs'' by VA, integrate basic and clinical research with a training mission that allows VA to translate new findings into improved patient care. Research undertaken within these centers has helped to increase our fundamental understanding of mental illnesses, and has given VA caregivers more and better tools to treat patients with mental disorders so they can function more easily within their communities. Because they have proved so effective at fostering scientific, clinical, and educational improvements in mental health care, I have introduced legislation today that would allow VA to expand the number of these centers from the five authorized programs to a possible total of fifteen. Based on the programs' success, VA researchers have already started three more centers, expanding the number of existing programs to eight, and have demonstrated their willingness to open more in the near future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the expansion of this program, which benefits not only veterans but the entire mental health care community. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to fix a long-standing inequity. 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 I introduce today 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. I ask my colleagues to join me in restoring our original legislative intent to this issue of fairness for retired VA health care professionals, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to fix a long-standing inequity. 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 I introduce today 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. I ask my colleagues to join me in restoring our original legislative intent to this issue of fairness for retired VA health care professionals, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Thomas and Jeffords to introduce the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act of 2002. This bill will authorize a demonstration project to allow VA to bill Medicare for health care services provided to certain dual eligible beneficiaries. The legislation, known as VA subvention, is a concept that has been discussed over the years by many of us in Congress, by veterans service organizations, and by advisory bodies studying the VA health care system. Although the VA subvention proposal is a small effort compared to the other changes that must be made to the Medicare program, it is enormously important to our veterans and the health care system they depend upon. Until recently, when we looked at the VA health care budget, we focused on the declining veteran population and declining demand. We are in a totally different predicament today. More and more veterans are turning to the VA health care system, and that is a success story. More than 38 percent of all veterans are Medicare eligible; unfortunately, many of these veterans are seeking VA care because of the lack of drug benefits in the Medicare program. An uncertain economy and the collapse of many HMOs have also contributed to the rising number of veterans turning to VA. While I will continue to push for Medicare prescription drug benefits, something must be done to alleviate the pressure on the VA health care system. VA simply does not have unlimited resources to meet this demand. VA now has more than 6 million veterans enrolled in health care services. That's more than double the figure in 1996. Not surprisingly, access to care has been affected by the high demand for services. It is not unusual for some veterans in certain pockets of the country to have to wait for more than a year to have their initial appointment with a VA primary care physician. Because of concerns about access and quality of care, last fall the VA was prepared to cease enrolling new higher income veterans, so called Category C or Priority 7 veterans, into the VA health care system. Their decision was based simply upon budgetary constraints, as VA suffered from a $400 million shortfall. Except for a last minute approval of supplemental funding, veterans would have been turned away from VA health care services. This legislation would allow VA and HHS to either choose a Medi- care+Choice or Preferred Provider Option at ten VA sites, three of these sites must be in rural areas. Several years ago the Department of Defense attempted a Medicare subvention pilot and lost money, primarily on the restrictive nature of the capitation model they set up. This proposal will give VA the opportunity to look at both the preferred provider and Medicare+Choice model, and in the end select the model that works best for them. For veterans, approval of this veterans subvention would mean the infusion of new revenue to their health care system and, thus, greater access to care. For the Department of Health and Human Services, a VA subvention demonstration project will provide the opportunity to assess the effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and quality of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. In addition, it would also present an opportunity to reduce Medicare expenditures. Under the Medicare+Choice option in our legislation, the reimbursable rate will be 100 percent of the rate normally paid to a Medicare+Choice provider. However, under the Preferred Provider Option, reimbursement rates would be 95 percent of otherwise applicable rates. For both options the rates would be further discounted by excluding Disproportionate Hospital Share adjustments, VA's direct graduate medical education costs, its indirect medical education costs, and 67 percent of capital-related costs. As a further way to limit exposure to the Trust Fund during the three year demonstration portion of this bill, this proposal caps all Medicare payments to the VA at $75 million per year. Allowing VA to bill Medicare is good for the Federal health care system overall. It's a classic ``win-win'' situation. VA would also be required to maintain its current level of services to Medicare-eligible veterans who have been served prior to 1998, and would be effectively limited to reimbursement for care provided to new patients since then. In 1998, Congress allowed all veterans to enroll for VA care and receive a standard benefits package, which includes prescription drugs. Prior to the end of the three year demonstration, GAO will do a thorough evaluation of the program and submit a report to Congress, complete with details on performance measures and justification for planned expansion. Based upon the GAO recommendations, VA and HHS will jointly determine the most appropriate health care delivery models for the expansion of the program through the entire VA health care system. GAO will continue to evaluate the expansion of the program for an additional six years. During the first session of the 106th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I successfully pushed a similar proposal through the Senate Finance Committee. Indeed, over the last couple years, we have tried to enact this proposal several times. Unfortunately, we have continually met resistance. Our goal is to overcome this resistance and enact this proposal without delay. I believe that without enactment of a Medicare subvention program, VA may well choose to bar middle-income veterans without a service-connected disability from coming to the VA for care. I think we all want to avoid that prospect. There are over 33 thousand Medicare eligible veterans enrolled in the VA health benefits program in my State of West Virginia. The VA spent almost $116 million providing health care to them last year. Though this is telling information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the truly crucial piece of the story, that is, the number of these Medicare-eligible veterans who aren't coming to VA because of long waiting lines and lack of adequate resources. This demonstration project would encourage these eligible veterans, who have not previously received care from the Huntington, Beckley, Martinsburg, and Clarksburg VAMCs, to do so. Truly, this VA/Medicare proposal is a way to provide quality health care to veterans who are eligible for both systems of care, while at the same time preserving and protecting the Medicare Trust Fund. Let us not delay any longer. I wish to remind my colleagues of the burden VA now carries in providing health care to Medicare-eligible veterans. Many Senators have asked me for a solution to the financial woes of the hospitals in their States. Enacting this proposal is part of the answer. Veterans deserve the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their care and bring their Medicare coverage with them. It makes sense for all parties.

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 two sections. The first would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase administratively the rates of compensation for service-disabled veterans, and for the dependent survivors of veterans whose deaths were service-related, beginning this December. The rate of increase, as requested by VA in its proposed budget for FY 2003, would be the same as the cost-of-living adjustment provided under current law to veterans' pension and Social Security recipients. The second section of this bill would allow VA to change the way that it calculates the number of veterans receiving VA long-term care. In 1999, Congress passed the Veterans Millennium Health Care Benefits Act, which required VA to maintain the level of extended care services offered to veterans at the 1998 level. VA has argued that this law, based on the average daily census in VA-operated nursing homes, unfairly ignores care provided through contracts with private nursing homes and by VA-subsidized State nursing homes. The requested bill would amend the law to include nursing home care furnished by community providers and State veterans homes when determining whether VA has maintained extended care services at the mandated 1998 level. 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. Madam President, I introduce legislation today that would help VA continue to meet the needs of veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military. This legislation would also extend special compensation to women veterans whose service led to the loss of all or part of a breast, and would help us understand better how well VA is meeting the health care needs of women veterans. Almost a decade ago, the Committee on Veterans Affairs took a hard look at the growing needs of women veterans in a hearing that helped VA improve its women's health care and services. Many studies grew from this hearing, including investigations that showed that women veterans are eight times more likely to report having experienced sexual assault during military service than women civilians of the same age. In 1992, Congress authorized VA to provide counseling to women who experienced sexual trauma during active military service. Two years later, recognizing that sexual trauma is not limited to women, Congress expanded VA's mandate to offer counseling and treatment to victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault without regard to gender. The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 broadened VA's responsibilities toward victims of sexual trauma even farther, strengthening outreach efforts and extending the programs through December 2004. VA has worked, internally and with the Department of Defense, to educate health care professionals about the physical and emotional legacies of military sexual trauma. Those who have endured such trauma need counseling and appropriate treatment, both during and following service. Although we must hope that education will eliminate sexual violence from our forces, the sad reality is that the programs that VA has established will continue to be needed. The legislation I introduce today would authorize VA to continue its counseling and treatment programs for veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma beyond 2004, so that veterans and health care professionals can depend upon these critical services. The Committee on Veterans Affairs continues to await VA's report on rates of military sexual trauma among National Guard and Reservists, mandated in the Millennium Act and due in March 2001, to make a sound decision on the need for counseling services among these forces who might have experienced sexual trauma while on active duty for training. Last year, Congress authorized VA to offer special monthly compensation to women who had lost one or both breasts, including through surgical treatment, as a result of their military service. VA recently issued regulations addressing this, which would require complete loss of a breast through simple or radical mastectomy in order to make a woman eligible for benefits. The intent of Congress in passing this legislation was to acknowledge that women who undergo such procedures face physical, emotional, and financial challenges in returning to health. The need for increased medical attention, and concomitant impairment in daily activities, remains consistent, whether the loss of a breast is complete or partial. Therefore, the legislation that I offer here would extend benefits to women veterans who have lost half or more of a breast's tissue as a result of military service, rather than drawing an arbitrary clinical line for compensation. According to the Veterans Health Administration, women veterans now make up about 5 percent of enrolled veterans, a percentage that is expected to double over the next two decades. We must ensure that women veterans enjoy access to the best possible health care, including for gender-specific medical conditions, in the most appropriate setting. One of the challenges that Congress and VA face in assessing how well the needs of women veterans are being met is understanding exactly what services women veterans require, and whether these are being offered by VA's medical facilities. Many of the advances VA has made in improving women's care and services has resulted from the hard work of the Women Veterans Coordinators who work within VA's medical centers. These coordinators assist women veterans who seek VA medical care, and help VA understand which needs still go unmet, frequently as a collateral portion of their jobs, while facing many competing demands on their time. As VA health care evolves from a primarily hospital-based system to a network of outpatient clinics, women veterans coordinators face an even more complex set of tasks and a shifting geography of care. Women veterans increasingly receive care within general outpatient clinics rather than in women's clinics, an issue of special concern as women may comprise only a tiny part of the caseload for VA's general practitioners, unlike the private sector where women make up half or more of a doctor's patients, resulting in less expertise in women's health. The legislation I offer here would request a report on how many clinics and health care teams remain dedicated specifically to the needs of women veterans, and how many hours per week Women Veterans Coordinators can allocate to serving women veterans. In 1983, Congress responded to the needs of the growing number of women veterans by establishing the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. This committee advises the Secretary of VA on the adequacy of programs for women veterans, and helps ensure that women veterans have the same access to services and benefits as their male counterparts. Early this year, the Secretary renewed the charter for the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in acknowledging both the Secretary's decision to foster this essential voice, and the service of the men and women who share their time and experience with VA on behalf of all women veterans. Together, VA and the advisory committee have worked to be sure that VA can offer women veterans the services they need and the respect they have earned. I ask that the text of the bill and a list of the membership of the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have consistently, over the years, voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area. I will oppose both the Murkowski and the Stevens amendments. As a refuge, ANWR is protected land, intended to ensure the national diversity of wildlife, to ensure quality in water and conservation, and to provide subsistence living for Native Americans who have lived in that region for many generations. The Coastal Plain within the refuge is targeted by some, as we well know, for oil exploration while only 8 percent of this refuge, the plain, is home to a wide variety of wildlife, including polar bears, caribou, and 100 species of birds. ANWR is likely to produce, at best, 2 percent of America's oil demand in a given year if the oil, in fact, is there. Extracting it, if it is there, will be extremely costly. According to the Congressional Research Service, ANWR would not under any circumstances start producing oil for at least 7 years, or perhaps as many as 12 years. The limited amount of oil and the problems extracting it make it clear we should not risk opening the refuge, which is the last 5 percent of Alaska's vast North Slope that remains protected. There are other, better ways to promote domestic oil production and other more effective ways to deal with our country's energy needs. In addition to opening ANWR to oil exploration, Senator Stevens--who in my work with him acted in total honor and integrity, which is part and parcel of his nature--adds a provision that appears to provide health care benefits to retired steelworkers and also coal miners. They relate to ANWR. He links the two. If that were a real possibility, it would be very hard to resist for somebody like me, who has been fighting for steelworkers who have been going downhill. However, no matter how genuine the Senator from Alaska is--and he is--he has been unable to secure any kind of support for either himself, myself, or anybody else from the White House that it would support it through the conference committee. Remember, the House has passed this bill. ANWR is in it; there is no steel. Therefore, no matter what we do, it has to go to conference. The whole problem is they would then drop legacy costs for steel and coal miners and keep ANWR, and that would be easy, unless, of course, the White House committed and the House committed not to do so. Senator Stevens asked for that kind of commitment and was given no such commitment whatsoever. That leaves an empty promise. It basically says: Vote for me on what I want and when your turn comes, I will consider what you want. In addition, the White House said they would not even consider sending a letter of any sort until they had 60 votes on ANWR. That is the same thing as saying: Give us 60 votes; we will write you some kind of a letter, and steel will get dropped in conference. No. No. I represent West Virginia, as well as the United States of America and steelworkers and other people everywhere. I am not a part of anything of that sort. I will not and cannot support the effort of the Senator from Alaska to add steel retiree legacy costs to the ANWR amendment, although I am very sympathetic with what his predicament is. It is the same predicament I face. I have great respect for the Senator. His amendment offers nothing to steelworkers across this Nation, through no fault of his own. The American steel industry and retired steelworkers were struggling in the face of an unprecedented steel crisis. They deserve help from their Government and need help. The steel industry is not a casual industry. It is no less strong in its meaning to America than the oil industry, but nobody seems to care about the steel industry. Not that many States produce steel, and half the Senators from those States do not care. It is a discouraging situation. The steelworkers deserve straight talk about what the administration is prepared to do to help them, not political gain. There are nearly 100,000 steelworkers without health care benefits today. Most are former LTV workers who lost their benefits less than 8 months ago. Some are workers of American steel companies that went bankrupt waiting for the President to act on section 201, which was the matter of tariffs for unfair trade practices. There are hundreds of thousands of steelworkers whose health benefits are in imminent jeopardy without some help. There is an urgent need for legislation to restore the health benefits and to protect the steelworker health benefits that are at risk. I want my colleagues to know for months and months I have tried in every way I possibly could to try to get the White House to have some sense of empathy for this situation. They did the tariffs. All that did was buy time. It did nothing for the steel industry. You have to have legacy followed by consolidation. Without consolidation, there is no steel industry. Without legacy there is no consolidation. It has to be tariffs, legacy, consolidation. They said no to legacy. Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce, was on one of the Sunday shows. He said: That is up to the Congress to pass. Well, there is a Republican House, a one-vote organizing majority in the Senate, and a Republican White House. What do you think that says? We are not interested. It is, unfortunately, the steel industry that is not a priority for this administration. I am disappointed but not surprised. I am disappointed. I am bitter about it. I will be back about it. I will be back on this because I represent steelworkers. There has never been a single solitary indication that this administration would support the concept of legacy relief. The President's refusal to make a commitment to retired steelworkers at this point sends a very chilling message to every steelworker, every steel company in the United States of America that this White House simply does not care about the long-term well-being of the steel industry. I don't know how I can reach any other conclusion. I tried to work with them, but there could be no other conclusion. For our own industrial manufacturing base, of which steelworkers are 14 percent in West Virginia, for our national security interests, we all have a vested interest in doing something about steel. I conclude by saying, again, please do not be fooled by the linking of drilling and legacy costs. This amendment is misleading. There will be legislation introduced in this body that will represent a meaningful way to protect steel retiree benefits, but this is not the vehicle. Drilling in and of itself is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against both the Stevens amendment and the Murkowski amendment. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to read one paragraph of a letter from the United Steelworkers of America which was given to me last night. It says: The United Steelworkers of America support you-- That happens to be me---- now and will continue to support you as you go forward to explore every avenue for the passage of this vital legislation [the legacy costs for health care]. In the last 2 weeks, despite every effort, the White House and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate refused to grant the ironclad assurances necessary to go forward with legacy costs legislation as part of the energy bill. In fact, the inaction of the White House and the Republican leadership shows a total lack of concern for the 600,000 steelworkers who have or are about to lose their retiree health care. I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am tremendously pleased to introduce legislation that would establish a new service-disabled veterans life insurance program. Named in honor of Robert Carey, former Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Insurance Center until his untimely death in 1990, this bill will improve enormously the life insurance options available to those veterans who are unable to purchase commercial policies because they became disabled in service to our Nation. I look forward to its swift passage. Since 1919, the Department of Veterans Affairs has provided life insurance for servicemembers and veterans in various amounts and with varying degrees of success, but with the overarching purpose of providing them with an insurance benefit comparable to the commercial coverage that they are unable to purchase due to their service in the Armed Forces. Unfortunately, as described in the Department of Veterans Affairs' Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with Service-connected Disabilities, which was released last May, the current Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, or SDVI, program does not sufficiently fulfill this purpose. . The SDVI program insures service-disabled veterans who, but for their service-connected disability, would be eligible for commercial life insurance. The basic policy currently provides up to $10,000 in coverage. Veterans who are deemed totally disabled are eligible for an additional $20,000 in supplemental coverage and may apply to have the premium on their initial $10,000 policy waived. However, according to VA's report, the current SDVI program uses mortality tables from 1941 to determine the premiums paid by its policyholders. This has led to premiums nearly four times greater than those paid by non-veterans. While SDVI policyholders would generally expect to pay somewhat higher premiums, many veterans still cited this extremely high cost as a major reason for not purchasing an SDVI policy. In light of this fact, it is not difficult to understand why only 3.5 percent of those eligible actually take advantage of the current SDVI program. Also cited as a reason for non-participation was the limited benefit available under the current SDVI program. According to VA's report, the typical private sector employee possesses a life insurance policy two to three times his or her annual income, and most financial planners recommend even more coverage than that. However, half of all SDVI beneficiaries report receiving less than $15,000 in total insurance benefits from the loss of a loved one. On average, only $9,000 of this comes from their SDVI policy. Forty percent of all SDVI beneficiaries sole source of income are the benefits provided by VA. Their lack of other coverage, combined with the very limited benefit currently available through the current SDVI program, leaves disabled veterans woefully under-insured. We simply cannot accept this situation. This bill would create a new life insurance program for service- disabled veterans offering as much as $50,000 in coverage at a price comparable to that of commercial coverage. It would also bring the premiums charged under the current SDVI program more in line with commercial policies by updating the mortality tables VA uses to set its rates. The motto of the Department of Veterans Affairs is ``To care for him that has borne the battle and for his widow and orphan.'' By introducing the ``Robert Carey Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2002,'' I propose that we take yet another step toward fulfilling the obligation embodied in those words, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting this very important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I introduce legislation today that would help VA continue to meet the needs of veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military. This legislation would also extend special compensation to women veterans whose service led to the loss of all or part of a breast, and would help us understand better how well VA is meeting the health care needs of women veterans. Almost a decade ago, the Committee on Veterans Affairs took a hard look at the growing needs of women veterans in a hearing that helped VA improve its women's health care and services. Many studies grew from this hearing, including investigations that showed that women veterans are eight times more likely to report having experienced sexual assault during military service than women civilians of the same age. In 1992, Congress authorized VA to provide counseling to women who experienced sexual trauma during active military service. Two years later, recognizing that sexual trauma is not limited to women, Congress expanded VA's mandate to offer counseling and treatment to victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault without regard to gender. The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 broadened VA's responsibilities toward victims of sexual trauma even farther, strengthening outreach efforts and extending the programs through December 2004. VA has worked, internally and with the Department of Defense, to educate health care professionals about the physical and emotional legacies of military sexual trauma. Those who have endured such trauma need counseling and appropriate treatment, both during and following service. Although we must hope that education will eliminate sexual violence from our forces, the sad reality is that the programs that VA has established will continue to be needed. The legislation I introduce today would authorize VA to continue its counseling and treatment programs for veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma beyond 2004, so that veterans and health care professionals can depend upon these critical services. The Committee on Veterans Affairs continues to await VA's report on rates of military sexual trauma among National Guard and Reservists, mandated in the Millennium Act and due in March 2001, to make a sound decision on the need for counseling services among these forces who might have experienced sexual trauma while on active duty for training. Last year, Congress authorized VA to offer special monthly compensation to women who had lost one or both breasts, including through surgical treatment, as a result of their military service. VA recently issued regulations addressing this, which would require complete loss of a breast through simple or radical mastectomy in order to make a woman eligible for benefits. The intent of Congress in passing this legislation was to acknowledge that women who undergo such procedures face physical, emotional, and financial challenges in returning to health. The need for increased medical attention, and concomitant impairment in daily activities, remains consistent, whether the loss of a breast is complete or partial. Therefore, the legislation that I offer here would extend benefits to women veterans who have lost half or more of a breast's tissue as a result of military service, rather than drawing an arbitrary clinical line for compensation. According to the Veterans Health Administration, women veterans now make up about 5 percent of enrolled veterans, a percentage that is expected to double over the next two decades. We must ensure that women veterans enjoy access to the best possible health care, including for gender-specific medical conditions, in the most appropriate setting. One of the challenges that Congress and VA face in assessing how well the needs of women veterans are being met is understanding exactly what services women veterans require, and whether these are being offered by VA's medical facilities. Many of the advances VA has made in improving women's care and services has resulted from the hard work of the Women Veterans Coordinators who work within VA's medical centers. These coordinators assist women veterans who seek VA medical care, and help VA understand which needs still go unmet, frequently as a collateral portion of their jobs, while facing many competing demands on their time. As VA health care evolves from a primarily hospital-based system to a network of outpatient clinics, women veterans coordinators face an even more complex set of tasks and a shifting geography of care. Women veterans increasingly receive care within general outpatient clinics rather than in women's clinics, an issue of special concern as women may comprise only a tiny part of the caseload for VA's general practitioners, unlike the private sector where women make up half or more of a doctor's patients, resulting in less expertise in women's health. The legislation I offer here would request a report on how many clinics and health care teams remain dedicated specifically to the needs of women veterans, and how many hours per week Women Veterans Coordinators can allocate to serving women veterans. In 1983, Congress responded to the needs of the growing number of women veterans by establishing the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. This committee advises the Secretary of VA on the adequacy of programs for women veterans, and helps ensure that women veterans have the same access to services and benefits as their male counterparts. Early this year, the Secretary renewed the charter for the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in acknowledging both the Secretary's decision to foster this essential voice, and the service of the men and women who share their time and experience with VA on behalf of all women veterans. Together, VA and the advisory committee have worked to be sure that VA can offer women veterans the services they need and the respect they have earned. I ask that the text of the bill and a list of the membership of the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am tremendously pleased to introduce legislation that would establish a new service-disabled veterans life insurance program. Named in honor of Robert Carey, former Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Insurance Center until his untimely death in 1990, this bill will improve enormously the life insurance options available to those veterans who are unable to purchase commercial policies because they became disabled in service to our Nation. I look forward to its swift passage. Since 1919, the Department of Veterans Affairs has provided life insurance for servicemembers and veterans in various amounts and with varying degrees of success, but with the overarching purpose of providing them with an insurance benefit comparable to the commercial coverage that they are unable to purchase due to their service in the Armed Forces. Unfortunately, as described in the Department of Veterans Affairs' Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with Service-connected Disabilities, which was released last May, the current Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, or SDVI, program does not sufficiently fulfill this purpose. . The SDVI program insures service-disabled veterans who, but for their service-connected disability, would be eligible for commercial life insurance. The basic policy currently provides up to $10,000 in coverage. Veterans who are deemed totally disabled are eligible for an additional $20,000 in supplemental coverage and may apply to have the premium on their initial $10,000 policy waived. However, according to VA's report, the current SDVI program uses mortality tables from 1941 to determine the premiums paid by its policyholders. This has led to premiums nearly four times greater than those paid by non-veterans. While SDVI policyholders would generally expect to pay somewhat higher premiums, many veterans still cited this extremely high cost as a major reason for not purchasing an SDVI policy. In light of this fact, it is not difficult to understand why only 3.5 percent of those eligible actually take advantage of the current SDVI program. Also cited as a reason for non-participation was the limited benefit available under the current SDVI program. According to VA's report, the typical private sector employee possesses a life insurance policy two to three times his or her annual income, and most financial planners recommend even more coverage than that. However, half of all SDVI beneficiaries report receiving less than $15,000 in total insurance benefits from the loss of a loved one. On average, only $9,000 of this comes from their SDVI policy. Forty percent of all SDVI beneficiaries sole source of income are the benefits provided by VA. Their lack of other coverage, combined with the very limited benefit currently available through the current SDVI program, leaves disabled veterans woefully under-insured. We simply cannot accept this situation. This bill would create a new life insurance program for service- disabled veterans offering as much as $50,000 in coverage at a price comparable to that of commercial coverage. It would also bring the premiums charged under the current SDVI program more in line with commercial policies by updating the mortality tables VA uses to set its rates. The motto of the Department of Veterans Affairs is ``To care for him that has borne the battle and for his widow and orphan.'' By introducing the ``Robert Carey Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2002,'' I propose that we take yet another step toward fulfilling the obligation embodied in those words, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting this very important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the American steel industry will not consolidate and will not survive without relief from their unique burden of substantial retiree health care costs. Failing to assist the American steel industry with its retiree health care costs puts our industry at a tremendous disadvantage as it competes in the world markets. If we are to have a competitive, viable industry, we must not shirk our responsibility. In the case of steel in America, that means three things: tariffs under Section 201, as is provided for under our trade laws; legacy, retiree health, relief; and effective consolidation of the steel industry. Earlier this year, the President imposed limited and temporary steel tariffs under Section 201. Today, I introduce the Steel Industry Consolidation and Retiree Benefits Protection Act of 2002, the Steel Legacy bill. This bill provides strong incentives for consolidation in the United States steel industry by supporting companies' retiree health care costs. This bill provides desperately needed medical care to retirees whose companies have been forced out of business by imports. This bill is critical to the preservation of the American steel industry, and it is humane to those individuals who have paid a very high price for our nation's free trade policies. The American steel industry has been facing an unprecedented crisis since 1997, when the Asian financial crisis disrupted global steel trade and diverted much of the world's excess steel capacity to the U.S. market. Thirty-three U.S. steel companies, representing over 40 percent of domestic steelmaking capacity, have gone into bankruptcy since 1999, including such venerable names as Bethlehem Steel and LTV. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel in my state is in the process of reorganizing. Many more steel companies have been forced into liquidation. Almost 50,000 steelmaking jobs have been lost in this country since the steel crisis began in 1998--losses that come on top of hundreds of thousands of steel job losses in the two preceding decades. The cause of this crisis in the industry is not that demand for steel has suddenly collapsed or that the competitiveness of the American steel industry has suddenly collapsed, but because foreign steelmakers have enjoyed decades of government subsidies and protection. Those foreign subsidies have created massive global steel overcapacity, and that foreign protection has ensured that most of the world's overcapacity has been directed at the U.S. market, which has been the most open major market in the world. The crisis our steel industry currently faces could well mean the end of steelmaking in the United States. This would have grave consequences for steel companies and steel workers, for the steel communities that depend on them, and for our nation's industrial base and our national defense. In recognition that this could not be allowed to happen, the President announced last month that he would impose temporary Section 201 tariff measures on some steel imports. These measures will help give the U.S. steel industry some breathing room to recover. I commend the President for recognizing the importance of maintaining a domestic steel manufacturing base and for taking these steps. Still, I think it's essential to realize that the Section 201 measures are limited in their scope and duration: first, the tariffs range from 8 percent to 30 percent, far less than the level recommended by two of the ITC Commissioners and the level that I and many others in the steel industry had argued for. And these tariffs are lowered dramatically each year, and stop after only three years. The tariffs do not apply to all steel products. Because of this, foreign steel companies will be able to engage in circumvention measures to get around the tariffs, as they have with antidumping measures. Under the 201 relief, tariffs were imposed on some grades of steel, others were exempted altogether, numerous exemptions for specific steel products have been issued, and for the critical category of slab, a tariff rate quota has been imposed that is unlikely to have any positive effect whatsoever. The tariffs are not being applied across the board to all foreign steel producers; the relief exempts all steel from developing countries and from NAFTA members, who between them represent a significant portion, over a third, of overall U.S. steel imports. We knew from the beginning of the 201 process that even in the best of circumstances, it was clear that Section 201 tariffs were going to provide only part of the solution to help the domestic steel industry respond to this crisis. But the Section 201 remedy imposed, with its exclusions and exemptions and declining tariffs, makes the need for additional measures even more compelling. Section 201 will slow the tide of imports. But it will not resolve the other critical issues that will determine whether America's integrated steelmaking capacity survives. America's integrated steelmakers face massive ``legacy costs'' for retiree health and pension benefits, stemming from the dramatic reduction in the American steel industry's active workforce over the past two decades, which in turn results from successive Administrations' inability to negotiate an agreement for foreign governments to stop subsidizing their steelmakers. These legacy costs both hurt American steel's international competitiveness and serve as a liability that has prevented the consolidation of the fragmented domestic steel industry. Industry consolidation is another issue that must be addressed: with foreign steelmakers merging to create a new level of top tier steelmakers, American steelmakers risk being permanently consigned to the second rank, with sub-scale facilities and insufficient revenues to fund the necessary investment in research and technology. Finally, we must take measures to mitigate the human cost of this steel crisis, particularly the cost to retirees who worked long, hard years to earn health and pension benefits for themselves and their families, but now risk seeing all that taken away because the company that pays those benefits is threatened by unfair foreign trade practices. The bill I am introducing today, the Steel Industry Retiree Benefits Protection Act of 2002, addresses the toughest of these problems. It guarantees the health care coverage and a very limited life insurance benefit for steel industry retirees whose employer is acquired by another steelmaker or whose employer is forced to shut down because no other steelmaker will acquire it. This will ensure that in steel communities throughout the nation, no retirees will lose their critical health benefits simply because of a crisis in the global steel industry that our government failed to avert. Equally important, this bill will address retiree legacy costs in a way that will enhance our steel industry's competitiveness, by clearing the way for the industry consolidation that is necessary and inevitable if the American steel industry is to survive. The mechanics of the bill are fairly simple. A Federal trust fund will be established that will assume the retirees' health care and life insurance costs for steel, iron ore, and coke producers, and those who transport steel mill products for steelmaking operations, that are acquired by another company; that are in bankruptcy and attempted unsuccessfully to be acquired by another company, and thus have been closed, or are in imminent danger of closing, or have been unable to be acquired for at least two years; that are in bankruptcy and sell a significant steelmaking operation to another company; or, finally, in order to ensure that the assumption of legacy costs does not distort competition within the domestic steel industry, if a significant portion of the entire industry's legacy costs have been assumed by the Federal trust fund, all steel industry retirees and beneficiaries would be eligible to be covered by the program. The money for the Fund to pay for these legacy costs will come from the following: steel tariff revenues; an acquired steelmaker's retiree health care trust fund assets; payments for 10 years by the qualified steel company of $5 per ton of steelmaking capacity, subject to the bill's provisions; retiree premiums; and, and appropriated funds if necessary. In order to simplify the management of the program, retiree health benefits assumed by the Fund will be limited to Federal Blue Cross/Blue Shield health benefits, a fair and reasonable standard of health coverage. Life insurance will be limited to a one-time payment of $5,000 dollars. The program will be administered by the Secretary of Commerce and by Trustees who are designated by both management and labor. This bill is supported by both the integrated steelmakers and by the steel unions, who understand what it will take to save the American steel industry. They know that legacy costs have been the major barrier to consolidation of the American steel market and that it is critical that we resolve that problem if we are to preserve retiree health benefits and an integrated domestic steel industry. I am introducing this legislation with my partner as Co-Chair of the Senate Steel Caucus, Senator Specter. We have a history of working together on issues that are vital to the core industries in our states and the workers who have helped fuel and build this nation. I am pleased that Senators Wellstone, Durbin, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Dayton, and the distinguished Senate Majority Leader, who have long been champions of retirees and workers health care issues, join me today as cosponsors. We have also worked in close consultation with our colleagues on the House side, especially members of the House Steel Caucus, who share our concern that these critical legacy cost issues be addressed. But, make no mistake, this steel legacy legislation will not happen without the active involvement of the President. This bill is fair, it is pro-competition, and there is a broad consensus that legacy cost legislation like this is absolutely necessary if we are to preserve integrated steelmaking in the United States, as well as the communities and businesses that depend on those facilities. But realistically, a program like this is only going to be enacted with the strong support and active engagement of the President. The President's announcement of his decision on Section 201 tariffs last month was an encouraging sign that the President was committed to the preservation of the American steel industry, and his recognition that, if equipped with the right tools and competing in a fair market, the domestic steel industry can regain its former role as the world's leader. I surely hope so. But I know that without President Bush's support for a legacy cost bill, the Section 201 tariffs he announced last month will not be enough, and we will witness the erosion of a vital national asset, the American steel industry. I appeal to the President to maintain his personal interest in the well-being of our steel industry. It is vital to our nation's economy and to our defense capability. I encourage the President to lead on this issue because surely, in these times, without his support and quick involvement, we will not be able to get a bill through this Congress. I hope the Administration will work with us here in the Senate to pass a legacy cost bill that will ensure fairness for America's retired steelworkers and a competitive future for America's integrated steel industry. We need legacy cost legislation like that outlined in the bill I am submitting today, if we are to preserve the U.S. steel industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to highlight, and acknowledge in law, a mission that already exists in fact: VA's role in offering health care and support to individuals affected by disasters. I am pleased to be joined in offering this legislation by my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Daniel Akaka. VA's first, and most familiar, three missions include caring for our Nation's veterans, training future health care personnel, and fostering scientific and clinical research to improve future medical care. In 1982, Congress assigned to VA a fourth mission: serving as the primary medical back-up system to the Department of Defense during times of war or domestic emergencies. If necessary, VA estimates that it could make about 3200 beds available immediately, and about 5500 beds within 72 hours, to care for injured troops. VA has expanded this Fourth Mission to encompass a much greater share of the Federal responsibility for public health during crises beyond caring for active duty military casualties. VA also serves as a supporting agency in the Federal Response Plan for domestic disasters, as a cornerstone of the National Medical Disaster System, and by managing the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile. Through these programs, VA provides personnel, supplies and medications, facilities, and, if necessary, direct patient care to communities whose resources have been overwhelmed by medical crises. VA conducts large-scale disaster training exercises with its military partners, cooperates with other agencies to staff emergency medical teams during high-profile public events, and can deploy its group of experts in radiological medicine anywhere in the United States within a day. VA's mental health care professionals offer expertise in post- traumatic stress disorder counseling that is unparalleled anywhere in the world. VA has responded to every major domestic disaster of the last two decades, including the Oklahoma City attack, and Hurricanes Andrew and Floyd, by sharing skilled medical staff and supplies with community caregivers. Following catastrophic flooding in Houston last year, the local VA medical center remained the only area hospital with power, and its staff extended care to rescue workers and the public. On September 11, VA physicians cared for at least 68 injured individuals in New York, and VA coordinators identified more than half of the 20,000 beds that would have been available for the care of victims in New York and Virginia through VA's community hospital partnerships. In the weeks following the terrorist attacks, VA continued to provide skilled medical specialists, including mental health professionals, to care for rescue workers and servicemembers in New York and at the Pentagon. The legislation that we introduce today would confer no new responsibilities or missions upon VA, but would recognize VA's already enormous contribution to public safety and emergency preparedness. As Congress continues to prepare for the threat of terrorism, it becomes increasingly important to focus not only the public health community, but those capable of providing medical care during mass casualty events. As the largest health care system in the nation, VA medical centers can and will offer invaluable services during a public health care emergency, whether that emergency is terrorism or a natural disaster. When VA health care providers are called upon to care for disaster victims, they serve not only as part of the Federal response to emergencies, but as part of the communities in which they live. This legislation would extend the Congressional mandate calling upon VA to provide care for active duty military personnel during a disaster to recognize VA's contribution to general public safety during crises. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join Senator Akaka and me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to highlight, and acknowledge in law, a mission that already exists in fact: VA's role in offering health care and support to individuals affected by disasters. I am pleased to be joined in offering this legislation by my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Daniel Akaka. VA's first, and most familiar, three missions include caring for our Nation's veterans, training future health care personnel, and fostering scientific and clinical research to improve future medical care. In 1982, Congress assigned to VA a fourth mission: serving as the primary medical back-up system to the Department of Defense during times of war or domestic emergencies. If necessary, VA estimates that it could make about 3200 beds available immediately, and about 5500 beds within 72 hours, to care for injured troops. VA has expanded this Fourth Mission to encompass a much greater share of the Federal responsibility for public health during crises beyond caring for active duty military casualties. VA also serves as a supporting agency in the Federal Response Plan for domestic disasters, as a cornerstone of the National Medical Disaster System, and by managing the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile. Through these programs, VA provides personnel, supplies and medications, facilities, and, if necessary, direct patient care to communities whose resources have been overwhelmed by medical crises. VA conducts large-scale disaster training exercises with its military partners, cooperates with other agencies to staff emergency medical teams during high-profile public events, and can deploy its group of experts in radiological medicine anywhere in the United States within a day. VA's mental health care professionals offer expertise in post- traumatic stress disorder counseling that is unparalleled anywhere in the world. VA has responded to every major domestic disaster of the last two decades, including the Oklahoma City attack, and Hurricanes Andrew and Floyd, by sharing skilled medical staff and supplies with community caregivers. Following catastrophic flooding in Houston last year, the local VA medical center remained the only area hospital with power, and its staff extended care to rescue workers and the public. On September 11, VA physicians cared for at least 68 injured individuals in New York, and VA coordinators identified more than half of the 20,000 beds that would have been available for the care of victims in New York and Virginia through VA's community hospital partnerships. In the weeks following the terrorist attacks, VA continued to provide skilled medical specialists, including mental health professionals, to care for rescue workers and servicemembers in New York and at the Pentagon. The legislation that we introduce today would confer no new responsibilities or missions upon VA, but would recognize VA's already enormous contribution to public safety and emergency preparedness. As Congress continues to prepare for the threat of terrorism, it becomes increasingly important to focus not only the public health community, but those capable of providing medical care during mass casualty events. As the largest health care system in the nation, VA medical centers can and will offer invaluable services during a public health care emergency, whether that emergency is terrorism or a natural disaster. When VA health care providers are called upon to care for disaster victims, they serve not only as part of the Federal response to emergencies, but as part of the communities in which they live. This legislation would extend the Congressional mandate calling upon VA to provide care for active duty military personnel during a disaster to recognize VA's contribution to general public safety during crises. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join Senator Akaka and me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the American steel industry will not consolidate and will not survive without relief from their unique burden of substantial retiree health care costs. Failing to assist the American steel industry with its retiree health care costs puts our industry at a tremendous disadvantage as it competes in the world markets. If we are to have a competitive, viable industry, we must not shirk our responsibility. In the case of steel in America, that means three things: tariffs under Section 201, as is provided for under our trade laws; legacy, retiree health, relief; and effective consolidation of the steel industry. Earlier this year, the President imposed limited and temporary steel tariffs under Section 201. Today, I introduce the Steel Industry Consolidation and Retiree Benefits Protection Act of 2002, the Steel Legacy bill. This bill provides strong incentives for consolidation in the United States steel industry by supporting companies' retiree health care costs. This bill provides desperately needed medical care to retirees whose companies have been forced out of business by imports. This bill is critical to the preservation of the American steel industry, and it is humane to those individuals who have paid a very high price for our nation's free trade policies. The American steel industry has been facing an unprecedented crisis since 1997, when the Asian financial crisis disrupted global steel trade and diverted much of the world's excess steel capacity to the U.S. market. Thirty-three U.S. steel companies, representing over 40 percent of domestic steelmaking capacity, have gone into bankruptcy since 1999, including such venerable names as Bethlehem Steel and LTV. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel in my state is in the process of reorganizing. Many more steel companies have been forced into liquidation. Almost 50,000 steelmaking jobs have been lost in this country since the steel crisis began in 1998--losses that come on top of hundreds of thousands of steel job losses in the two preceding decades. The cause of this crisis in the industry is not that demand for steel has suddenly collapsed or that the competitiveness of the American steel industry has suddenly collapsed, but because foreign steelmakers have enjoyed decades of government subsidies and protection. Those foreign subsidies have created massive global steel overcapacity, and that foreign protection has ensured that most of the world's overcapacity has been directed at the U.S. market, which has been the most open major market in the world. The crisis our steel industry currently faces could well mean the end of steelmaking in the United States. This would have grave consequences for steel companies and steel workers, for the steel communities that depend on them, and for our nation's industrial base and our national defense. In recognition that this could not be allowed to happen, the President announced last month that he would impose temporary Section 201 tariff measures on some steel imports. These measures will help give the U.S. steel industry some breathing room to recover. I commend the President for recognizing the importance of maintaining a domestic steel manufacturing base and for taking these steps. Still, I think it's essential to realize that the Section 201 measures are limited in their scope and duration: first, the tariffs range from 8 percent to 30 percent, far less than the level recommended by two of the ITC Commissioners and the level that I and many others in the steel industry had argued for. And these tariffs are lowered dramatically each year, and stop after only three years. The tariffs do not apply to all steel products. Because of this, foreign steel companies will be able to engage in circumvention measures to get around the tariffs, as they have with antidumping measures. Under the 201 relief, tariffs were imposed on some grades of steel, others were exempted altogether, numerous exemptions for specific steel products have been issued, and for the critical category of slab, a tariff rate quota has been imposed that is unlikely to have any positive effect whatsoever. The tariffs are not being applied across the board to all foreign steel producers; the relief exempts all steel from developing countries and from NAFTA members, who between them represent a significant portion, over a third, of overall U.S. steel imports. We knew from the beginning of the 201 process that even in the best of circumstances, it was clear that Section 201 tariffs were going to provide only part of the solution to help the domestic steel industry respond to this crisis. But the Section 201 remedy imposed, with its exclusions and exemptions and declining tariffs, makes the need for additional measures even more compelling. Section 201 will slow the tide of imports. But it will not resolve the other critical issues that will determine whether America's integrated steelmaking capacity survives. America's integrated steelmakers face massive ``legacy costs'' for retiree health and pension benefits, stemming from the dramatic reduction in the American steel industry's active workforce over the past two decades, which in turn results from successive Administrations' inability to negotiate an agreement for foreign governments to stop subsidizing their steelmakers. These legacy costs both hurt American steel's international competitiveness and serve as a liability that has prevented the consolidation of the fragmented domestic steel industry. Industry consolidation is another issue that must be addressed: with foreign steelmakers merging to create a new level of top tier steelmakers, American steelmakers risk being permanently consigned to the second rank, with sub-scale facilities and insufficient revenues to fund the necessary investment in research and technology. Finally, we must take measures to mitigate the human cost of this steel crisis, particularly the cost to retirees who worked long, hard years to earn health and pension benefits for themselves and their families, but now risk seeing all that taken away because the company that pays those benefits is threatened by unfair foreign trade practices. The bill I am introducing today, the Steel Industry Retiree Benefits Protection Act of 2002, addresses the toughest of these problems. It guarantees the health care coverage and a very limited life insurance benefit for steel industry retirees whose employer is acquired by another steelmaker or whose employer is forced to shut down because no other steelmaker will acquire it. This will ensure that in steel communities throughout the nation, no retirees will lose their critical health benefits simply because of a crisis in the global steel industry that our government failed to avert. Equally important, this bill will address retiree legacy costs in a way that will enhance our steel industry's competitiveness, by clearing the way for the industry consolidation that is necessary and inevitable if the American steel industry is to survive. The mechanics of the bill are fairly simple. A Federal trust fund will be established that will assume the retirees' health care and life insurance costs for steel, iron ore, and coke producers, and those who transport steel mill products for steelmaking operations, that are acquired by another company; that are in bankruptcy and attempted unsuccessfully to be acquired by another company, and thus have been closed, or are in imminent danger of closing, or have been unable to be acquired for at least two years; that are in bankruptcy and sell a significant steelmaking operation to another company; or, finally, in order to ensure that the assumption of legacy costs does not distort competition within the domestic steel industry, if a significant portion of the entire industry's legacy costs have been assumed by the Federal trust fund, all steel industry retirees and beneficiaries would be eligible to be covered by the program. The money for the Fund to pay for these legacy costs will come from the following: steel tariff revenues; an acquired steelmaker's retiree health care trust fund assets; payments for 10 years by the qualified steel company of $5 per ton of steelmaking capacity, subject to the bill's provisions; retiree premiums; and, and appropriated funds if necessary. In order to simplify the management of the program, retiree health benefits assumed by the Fund will be limited to Federal Blue Cross/Blue Shield health benefits, a fair and reasonable standard of health coverage. Life insurance will be limited to a one-time payment of $5,000 dollars. The program will be administered by the Secretary of Commerce and by Trustees who are designated by both management and labor. This bill is supported by both the integrated steelmakers and by the steel unions, who understand what it will take to save the American steel industry. They know that legacy costs have been the major barrier to consolidation of the American steel market and that it is critical that we resolve that problem if we are to preserve retiree health benefits and an integrated domestic steel industry. I am introducing this legislation with my partner as Co-Chair of the Senate Steel Caucus, Senator Specter. We have a history of working together on issues that are vital to the core industries in our states and the workers who have helped fuel and build this nation. I am pleased that Senators Wellstone, Durbin, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Dayton, and the distinguished Senate Majority Leader, who have long been champions of retirees and workers health care issues, join me today as cosponsors. We have also worked in close consultation with our colleagues on the House side, especially members of the House Steel Caucus, who share our concern that these critical legacy cost issues be addressed. But, make no mistake, this steel legacy legislation will not happen without the active involvement of the President. This bill is fair, it is pro-competition, and there is a broad consensus that legacy cost legislation like this is absolutely necessary if we are to preserve integrated steelmaking in the United States, as well as the communities and businesses that depend on those facilities. But realistically, a program like this is only going to be enacted with the strong support and active engagement of the President. The President's announcement of his decision on Section 201 tariffs last month was an encouraging sign that the President was committed to the preservation of the American steel industry, and his recognition that, if equipped with the right tools and competing in a fair market, the domestic steel industry can regain its former role as the world's leader. I surely hope so. But I know that without President Bush's support for a legacy cost bill, the Section 201 tariffs he announced last month will not be enough, and we will witness the erosion of a vital national asset, the American steel industry. I appeal to the President to maintain his personal interest in the well-being of our steel industry. It is vital to our nation's economy and to our defense capability. I encourage the President to lead on this issue because surely, in these times, without his support and quick involvement, we will not be able to get a bill through this Congress. I hope the Administration will work with us here in the Senate to pass a legacy cost bill that will ensure fairness for America's retired steelworkers and a competitive future for America's integrated steel industry. We need legacy cost legislation like that outlined in the bill I am submitting today, if we are to preserve the U.S. steel industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 would allow VA to create an office, directed by an Assistant Secretary, to address operations, preparedness, security, and law enforcement functions. With the increased focus on homeland security has come increased emphasis on the role that VA is expected to play in providing medical care to veterans, active duty military personnel, and civilians during disasters. In order to improve emergency preparedness without sacrificing its primary mission, caring for the Nation's veterans, the Secretary has proposed creating an Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness to help coordinate preparedness strategies, both within VA and with other Federal, State, and local agencies. 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.