Jay Rockefeller

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.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation that would establish four medical emergency preparedness research centers within the Department of Veterans Affairs. These centers would make the most of VA's expertise in basic and clinical research to shape new strategies for coping with, or preventing, the medical crisis that could result from a terrorist attack against the American people. The threats posed by biological, chemical, radiological, and incendiary weapons demand that we prepare immediately, using our existing national resources as efficiently as possible. Although many of my colleagues know that VA operates the Nation's largest integrated healthcare system, fewer may know that VA manages the largest health professionals training program in the United States. VA's clinical research programs investigate both cutting-edge technology and best medical practices, and included over 15,000 projects last year. Through its reach, its educational programs, and its research capacity, VA stands ready to make a significant contribution to protecting veterans and the public from the medical consequences of a terrorist attack. Only a few weeks ago, VA researchers announced that they have developed the most promising drug yet to protect the public should a terrorist deliberately release smallpox virus. I remain confident that this is only the first of many such scientific breakthroughs by VA scientists. VA already plays a key role in supporting Federal disaster preparedness, including maintaining pharmaceutical stockpiles, jointly administering the National Disaster Medical System, serving as primary medical back-up to the Department of Defense, and sharing medical personnel and supplies with communities whose own resources are overwhelmed. The legislation that I propose today would add another dimension to VA's role in emergency preparedness by acknowledging its expertise in developing clinical approaches to public health. The centers authorized by this legislation would foster research by VA scientists and clinicians in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of illnesses or injuries that might arise from the use of terrorist weapons. These centers would encourage cooperation between VA researchers and professionals at affiliated schools of medicine and public health to bring new findings and ideas as quickly as possible to the Nation's caregivers. The legislation that I have proposed would promote fruitful collaboration between VA, academic, and other Federal researchers, so that we can integrate research, public health, and domestic security efforts expeditiously. The legislation I introduce today also makes two changes in law which affect VA's non-profit research corporations. These two changes are technical in nature and are designed to clarify existing provisions of law: one clarifies that research corporation employees are covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, FTCA, and the other provision clarifies that VA Medical Centers may enter into contracts or other forms of agreements with nonprofit research corporations to provide services to facilitate VA research and education. On the issue of FTCA coverage, a recent Department of Justice opinion determined that physicians employed by the VA-affiliated nonprofit research did not enjoy FTCA coverage, despite the fact that they have VA appointments. Prior to this opinion, the understanding was that the corporations' employees were covered, subject to a certification that their activities were within the scope of government work. Since research corporations were authorized in 1988, not a single suite has been filed against a corporation employee. Nevertheless, it is critical that employees working on VA approved research and education be protected. It is estimated that nationwide, the corporations have 1,500-2,000 research employees. These non-profit research corporations have been placed in a difficult spot. Corporations must decide whether to take their chances that the FTCA will cover a suit despite the Department of Justice provision, as the VA General Counsel believes; to reduce their activities by only hiring employees with access to private sector insurance; to use funds normally devoted to supporting research to buy an expensive blanket insurance policy; or to close down entirely. The better choice, is to be explicit in providing FTCA coverage to corporation employees engaged in activities that further VA's research and education missions. The second change relates to contracts between VA Medical Centers and research corporations. Many times, VA Medical Centers need help to provide services which are ancillary to research, such as travel coordination, technical services, and conference management. I believe that a precedent for such contracts already exists. VA Medical Centers can enter into agreements with closely affiliated universities. For more than 50 years, the VAMCs and universities have contracted with each other for goods and services. In my view, we need to bring this kind of thinking to the non-profit research corporations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation that would establish four medical emergency preparedness research centers within the Department of Veterans Affairs. These centers would make the most of VA's expertise in basic and clinical research to shape new strategies for coping with, or preventing, the medical crisis that could result from a terrorist attack against the American people. The threats posed by biological, chemical, radiological, and incendiary weapons demand that we prepare immediately, using our existing national resources as efficiently as possible. Although many of my colleagues know that VA operates the Nation's largest integrated healthcare system, fewer may know that VA manages the largest health professionals training program in the United States. VA's clinical research programs investigate both cutting-edge technology and best medical practices, and included over 15,000 projects last year. Through its reach, its educational programs, and its research capacity, VA stands ready to make a significant contribution to protecting veterans and the public from the medical consequences of a terrorist attack. Only a few weeks ago, VA researchers announced that they have developed the most promising drug yet to protect the public should a terrorist deliberately release smallpox virus. I remain confident that this is only the first of many such scientific breakthroughs by VA scientists. VA already plays a key role in supporting Federal disaster preparedness, including maintaining pharmaceutical stockpiles, jointly administering the National Disaster Medical System, serving as primary medical back-up to the Department of Defense, and sharing medical personnel and supplies with communities whose own resources are overwhelmed. The legislation that I propose today would add another dimension to VA's role in emergency preparedness by acknowledging its expertise in developing clinical approaches to public health. The centers authorized by this legislation would foster research by VA scientists and clinicians in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of illnesses or injuries that might arise from the use of terrorist weapons. These centers would encourage cooperation between VA researchers and professionals at affiliated schools of medicine and public health to bring new findings and ideas as quickly as possible to the Nation's caregivers. The legislation that I have proposed would promote fruitful collaboration between VA, academic, and other Federal researchers, so that we can integrate research, public health, and domestic security efforts expeditiously. The legislation I introduce today also makes two changes in law which affect VA's non-profit research corporations. These two changes are technical in nature and are designed to clarify existing provisions of law: one clarifies that research corporation employees are covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, FTCA, and the other provision clarifies that VA Medical Centers may enter into contracts or other forms of agreements with nonprofit research corporations to provide services to facilitate VA research and education. On the issue of FTCA coverage, a recent Department of Justice opinion determined that physicians employed by the VA-affiliated nonprofit research did not enjoy FTCA coverage, despite the fact that they have VA appointments. Prior to this opinion, the understanding was that the corporations' employees were covered, subject to a certification that their activities were within the scope of government work. Since research corporations were authorized in 1988, not a single suite has been filed against a corporation employee. Nevertheless, it is critical that employees working on VA approved research and education be protected. It is estimated that nationwide, the corporations have 1,500-2,000 research employees. These non-profit research corporations have been placed in a difficult spot. Corporations must decide whether to take their chances that the FTCA will cover a suit despite the Department of Justice provision, as the VA General Counsel believes; to reduce their activities by only hiring employees with access to private sector insurance; to use funds normally devoted to supporting research to buy an expensive blanket insurance policy; or to close down entirely. The better choice, is to be explicit in providing FTCA coverage to corporation employees engaged in activities that further VA's research and education missions. The second change relates to contracts between VA Medical Centers and research corporations. Many times, VA Medical Centers need help to provide services which are ancillary to research, such as travel coordination, technical services, and conference management. I believe that a precedent for such contracts already exists. VA Medical Centers can enter into agreements with closely affiliated universities. For more than 50 years, the VAMCs and universities have contracted with each other for goods and services. In my view, we need to bring this kind of thinking to the non-profit research corporations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, it is my pleasure to join my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Byrd to introduce a resolution designating April 11, 2002 as National Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day. I have long been a supporter of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles because they contribute to our nation's energy independence and provide needed environmental benefits. The transportation sector accounts for more than 65 percent of the petroleum consumed in the United States. Reducing the amount of petroleum used by the transportation sector by encouraging greater use of alternative fuel vehicles and fuels will improve our energy security and bring the added benefit of reducing emissions from that sector of the economy. As the price of gasoline continues to rise, these facts are perhaps more relevant than ever before. Adoption of this Resolution will enhance a national event this Thursday, April 11, 2002, organized by industry leaders, educational institutions, Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) coalitions, and others. The event, called National AFV Day Oydssey, is a public awareness event being held in more than 50 locations in 31 states nationwide with more than 72 organizations. Thousands of people will participate all over the country. The purpose of the event is to build awareness and enthusiasm for AFV's as a viable option for consumer and fleet transportation. The debate over energy security and national security issues has been at the forefront of policy discussions in recent months. We must, as a nation, continue searching for alternatives to our dependence on foreign oil. Supporting these existing and new environmentally friendly transportation choices will reduce our oil use and help prevent the environmental damage being done by conventional cars, trucks, and vans. Alternative fuel vehicles offer the opportunity for continued personal mobility while significantly reducing the harm done to the environment. Nearly 100 cities across the U.S. fail to meet federal air quality standards, and approximately 62 million people live in counties where monitored data show unhealthy air for one or more of the six ``criteria'' pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide). For many urban areas, alternative fuel vehicles can be a particularly important means to substantially reduce emissions of mobile source pollutants, including volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen that are the precursors of smog. When integrated into America's transportation network in meaningful quantities, alternative fuels-- such as electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, methanol and propane--can contribute to mitigating the environmental problems caused by the transportation sector.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member McConnell for working closely with me to reach agreement on an amendment to help ensure that the millions of Americans living overseas can vote in Federal elections. Millions of Americans live abroad. Some are business people, some are military personnel, others are students, and some are Peace Corp volunteers. Their votes should count, too. This amendment is simple and reasonable, but important. It directs the Commission created in the Election Reform package to consider the needs and concerns of millions of overseas voters, both civilian and military personnel. The amendment directs the commission to study the issue of long-term registration for overseas voters and make recommendations. It would create a single office in every state that overseas voters could contact for information about voter registration and absentee ballots. The Commission is asked to determine if this office could, and should do more. It states that when election officials reject an absentee ballot, the overseas voter should be notified and given an explanation on why their application was rejected. Finally, this amendment also ask states to report on the number of absentee ballots, within a reasonable time frame. Early in my political career, I served as the Secretary of State for West Virginia, so I understand the importance of voting issues and the need to be sensitive to the concerns of states. But we also have an obligation to overseas Americans who deserve the chance to vote. I deeply appreciate the interest and support of Chairman Dodd, Senator McConnell and their staffs. I know that the bipartisan House Election Reform legislation includes important provisions for overseas voters, both civilian and military, recognizing that they, too, deserve to vote.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am pleased today to say a few words about the Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA to those of us who work on veterans matters, in connection with the organization's PVA Awareness Week, which takes place next week. PVA began in February 1947, when delegates from seven groups of paralyzed veterans from around the country met at the Hines VA Hospital in Chicago, IL. Those veterans agreed to form a national organization to address the needs of spinal cord injured veterans. They believed that veterans with spinal cord injuries would have the strongest voice in speaking for veterans with such injuries and for all who were similarly disabled, a belief that has been borne out over the years. The original members of PVA also emphasized the need both to conduct research to find a cure for spinal cord injury while, at the same time, providing for the basic, immediate needs of spinal cord injured veterans. Since its inception, PVA has dedicated itself to the well being of some of America's most catastrophically disabled veterans as it has developed a unique expertise on a wide variety of issues involving the special needs of its members, veterans of the armed forces who have experienced spinal cord injury, SCI, or dysfunction. PVA, which received a Congressional charter as a veterans service organization in 1971, is a dynamic, broad-based organization with more than 40 chapters and sub-chapters nationwide and nearly 20,000 members. In addition to its Washington, D.C. headquarters, PVA operates 58 service offices around the country to serve the needs of all veterans seeking Department of Veterans Affairs' claims and benefits. PVA is a leading advocate for quality health care not only for spinal cord injured veterans, but for all other veterans as well. They also continue to press for research and education addressing spinal cord injury and dysfunction. PVA's commitment to research can be seen in its sponsorship of the Spinal Cord Research Foundation which supports research to alleviate, and ultimately end, medical and functional consequences of paralysis; its endowment in 1980 of a Professorship in SCI Medicine at Stanford University; its creation of the Spinal Cord Injury Education and Training Foundation to support innovative education and training programs; and its role in establishing the PVA-EPVA Center for Neuroscience and Regeneration Research at Yale University along with the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Yale University, with the goal of restoration of function in people with spinal cord dysfunction. PVA also coordinates the activities of two coalitions of professional, payer, and consumer groups, the Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine and the Multiple Sclerosis Council, which develop clinical practice guidelines defining standards of care for people with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis. While PVA's Congressional charter requires it to devote substantial resources to representing veterans in their claims for benefits from VA, the PVA Veterans Benefits Department goes above and beyond the call of duty, providing assistance and representation, without charge, to veterans with a spinal cord dysfunction and other veterans seeking health care and other benefits for which they are eligible. This assistance is offered through a network of PVA national service officers across the nation who assist veterans in making claims for benefits and monitor medical care at local VA medical facilities. PVA's national service officers assist claimants through every stage of the VA claims process and also offer representation to veterans who have claims pending before the Social Security Administration. PVA's advocacy does not stop at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. It has one of the most active presences at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing cases that have set precedents that have helped thousands, if not millions, of veterans and their families. Other key PVA programs include its Architecture Program, which plays an important role in the lives of severely disabled veterans with quality design and construction of affordable and accessible housing; its Health Analysis Program, which keeps a constant eye on the performance of the VA health care system as well as other health care systems in the public and private sector; and its Sports and Recreation Program which is dedicated to promoting a range of activities for its members and other people with disabilities, with special emphasis on activities that enhance lifetime health and fitness, including through co-sponsorship of the National Veterans Wheelchair Games with the Department of Veterans Affairs. For 16 years, PVA has co-authored an important, highly respected policy guide for the Congress, The Independent Budget: A Comprehensive Policy Document Created by Veterans for Veterans, with the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars which addresses the needs of veterans on issues ranging from health care to benefits and the resources required to meet these needs in the VA budget every year. PVA's Government Relations staff is well-known here on Capitol Hill. It's Advocacy Program is a leading voice for civil rights and opportunities that maximize independence of individuals who have experienced spinal cord injury or disease, or other severe disabilities. PVA played an important role in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It continues its advocacy as an active member of the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities. Its Legislation Program staff is directly involved in every budget, legislative, and policy initiative affecting veterans under consideration in the Congress every year. Over the years, I have relied heavily on PVA members in my State of West Virginia to keep me informed about the issues so critical to veterans with spinal cord injuries. I am particularly grateful for the wisdom and counsel of my friend Randy Pleva, President of WV PVA and one of PVA's National vice presidents. I do not know a more dedicated and compassionate advocate for paralyzed veterans. Those of us who work with PVA every day recognize the dedication and expertise that this organization brings to Capitol Hill. The organization is one of the top national veterans' service organizations in terms of expertise and dedication. We must acknowledge the extreme sacrifices that the members of their organization have made in service to this country and honor the fact that PVA members continue that service on behalf of veterans and all Americans with disabilities. At a time when this country has soldiers deployed to far-off lands in defense of freedom, it is important that we recognize these men and women who have served this country in the past and continue to serve our nations' veterans today. I look forward to a continuing partnership with PVA to provide for the needs of veterans, past, present, and future.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today with Senators Specter and Byrd to temporarily suspend a portion of the tariff applicable to a specific chemical product, N- (Cyclohexylthio)-phthalimide, which is usually referred to as ``PVI,'' and thereby provide for greater economic growth. Import duties are intimately related to the tax and trade policies of the United States. Just as Congress expressly imposes duties on imported goods to protect specific domestic industries and at the same time raise revenue, Congress abolishes, reduces, or suspends duties to encourage domestic business enterprise and export activity, particularly if a specific domestic industry will not be harmed. This is the situation applicable to PVI. PVI stands for ``Pre-Vulcanization Inhibitor,'' which means that PVI retards the onset of the vulcanization when rubber is being processed. In other words, PVI functions as a safeguard when rubber articles are being manufactured. There is no direct substitute product for PVI. As you might expect, there is a reasonable demand for this product in the U.S. rubber industry, particularly in the tire industry. To meet this demand, various companies around the world now manufacture PVI and export it to the United States; however, PVI is not manufactured in the United States. Therefore, the U.S. economy is paying a duty for the use of PVI, but no domestic industry is being protected. Therefore, this tariff should be suspended to the maximum extent possible. This legislation would suspend the tariff above the 2 percent level, which will provide for greater economic growth for the United States. I encourage my colleagues to support this initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today with Senators Specter and Byrd to temporarily suspend a portion of the tariff applicable to a specific chemical product, N- (Cyclohexylthio)-phthalimide, which is usually referred to as ``PVI,'' and thereby provide for greater economic growth. Import duties are intimately related to the tax and trade policies of the United States. Just as Congress expressly imposes duties on imported goods to protect specific domestic industries and at the same time raise revenue, Congress abolishes, reduces, or suspends duties to encourage domestic business enterprise and export activity, particularly if a specific domestic industry will not be harmed. This is the situation applicable to PVI. PVI stands for ``Pre-Vulcanization Inhibitor,'' which means that PVI retards the onset of the vulcanization when rubber is being processed. In other words, PVI functions as a safeguard when rubber articles are being manufactured. There is no direct substitute product for PVI. As you might expect, there is a reasonable demand for this product in the U.S. rubber industry, particularly in the tire industry. To meet this demand, various companies around the world now manufacture PVI and export it to the United States; however, PVI is not manufactured in the United States. Therefore, the U.S. economy is paying a duty for the use of PVI, but no domestic industry is being protected. Therefore, this tariff should be suspended to the maximum extent possible. This legislation would suspend the tariff above the 2 percent level, which will provide for greater economic growth for the United States. I encourage my colleagues to support this initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, as the Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am committed to focusing a spotlight on findings by researchers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. For too long, VA researchers have labored with only the recognition of their peers to acknowledge the excellent caliber of VA research into the treatment of a wide range of diseases. A recent finding--the discovery of a drug that might help us fight smallpox, the most feared weapon in bioterrorists' arsenal--offers real hope for protecting our Nation against the threat of bioterrorism. This discovery demonstrates again how integral VA's efforts are not only to public health and research, but to domestic security. VA's Medical Research Service may not support as many projects as the NIH, but its work has yielded effective treatments for diseases that include schizophrenia, diabetes, cancer, depression, heart disease and stroke. Some of my colleagues may know that VA's expertise in prosthetics and spinal cord injury research is unparalleled; fewer may be aware that VA researchers pioneered the concepts that allowed development of the CAT scan and MRI, the cardiac pacemaker, and safe kidney and liver transplants. VA researchers have demonstrated the best clinical practices for detecting high cholesterol and colon cancer, launched a large-scale study to determine the best way to treat HIV infection, and started a landmark clinical trial to treat Parkinson's disease. In March, VA researchers announced another breakthrough finding. Two VA researchers, Dr. Karl Hostetler and Dr. James Beadle of the VA San Diego Healthcare System, worked with military and academic colleagues to develop a drug that could be the best tool we have yet to protect the public from the threat of smallpox. Until recently, only vaccination could be used to stop the spread of a smallpox epidemic. Because doctors eradicated naturally occurring smallpox in the 1960's, the smallpox vaccine has been neither manufactured nor used regularly in decades, leaving the American population vulnerable to a deliberate attack by terrorists. Although HHS recently accelerated and expanded a plan to vaccinate the U.S. population, the vaccine doses will not be ready for some time, and are not without risk of potentially serious side-effects. Although researchers proved several years ago that an existing drug called cidofovir could prevent smallpox from multiplying and spreading, this drug had to be administered intravenously, over the course of at least an hour. In the case of an epidemic, it would simply be impossible to treat every person at risk. Drs. Hostetler and Beadle and their colleagues developed a powerful form of this drug that can be taken as a pill or a capsule. Although this research is still in its early stages, VA and military scientists showed that a few oral doses of this drug each day protected animals completely against a virus closely related to smallpox. In the near future, we may be able to contain any potential outbreak of smallpox using this simple medication, rendering smallpox useless as a biological weapon. This research promises to bear fruit not only for emergency medical preparedness, but for those who must take cidofovir to treat more common but still devastating viral infections. This work grew from a collaboration between VA, military, NIH, and academic researchers. As I have said many times, we cannot in these times neglect any resource available to us when confronting potentially catastrophic threats to this nation's health, whether in offering medical care or developing new technologies and treatments to protect the public. I am proud to recognize the insight that these researchers and VA have shown, and continue to show, in exploring cutting-edge research. This is yet another contribution that the VA health care system has made, not only to the health of our nation's veterans, but to our national safety and well-being.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am today introducing legislation which responds to concerns relating to judicial review of VA benefits expressed by the authors of the Independent Budget for Veteran's Programs for fiscal year 2003. I am doing this in order to provide a vehicle for further discussion on these and related matters. The Independent Budget, the IB, is the collaborative effort of a coalition of four veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, which is endorsed by dozens of other veterans' groups and others. This is the sixteenth year that the these organizations have drafted an independent budget to advocate for the funding that they feel is necessary to properly provide care and benefits to our veterans. This bill proposes three amendments to title 38, United States Code, and a free-standing provision relating to the Equal Access to Justice Act. Section 1 of this legislation would amend section 502 of title 38 to allow the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Federal Circuit, to review and set aside VA changes to the schedule for rating disabilities found to be arbitrary and capricious or in violation of statute. Section 2 would amend section 7261 of title 38 to specify that the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims, the CAVC, shall apply a preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing findings of fact made by the Board of Veterans Appeals. Section 3 would amend section 7292 of title 38 to permit the Federal Circuit to review CAVC decisions on questions of law. The final section of this legislation would allow the CAVC, when awarding attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act to award compensation to qualified non-attorney representatives before the CAVC. Current section 502 of title 38, provides for judicial review of VA rules and regulations in the Federal Circuit, but expressly precludes review of VA actions relating to the adoption or revision of the so called ``rating schedule'' made pursuant to section 1155 of title 38. This rating schedule is the system by which VA categorizes types and levels of disability by percentages and, as noted by the IB authors, this preclusion of review was based on the view that VA has specific expertise in this area, an expertise not found in most courts. However, while the IB authors recognize the importance of VA's particularly informed judgment in this area, they are concerned that, ``without any constraints or oversight whatsoever, VA is free to promulgate rules to rating disabilities that do not have as their basis reduction in earning capacity.'' To remedy this concern, the authors of the IB propose an amendment to section 502 of title 38 which would authorize Federal Circuit review of rating schedule decisions. This is the intent of section 1 of this bill. A second concern of the authors of the IB relates to the scope of review applied by the CAVC to factual determinations of the Board of Veterans' Appeal. Under current law, section 5107(b) of title 38, VA is required to give a claimant the benefit of the doubt when ``there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits'' of an issue material to the claim. However, as noted in the IB for fiscal year 2003, the CAVC, in reviewing a VA decision on a factual issue, is required to apply a ``clearly erroneous'' standard. Under this standard, which is the same as applied by Federal appellate courts in their review of factual determinations of trial courts, if there is a plausible basis for a factual finding, it can not be clearly erroneous. This results in the CAVC having to accord significant deference to findings of fact made by the Board. As the IB authors note, this approach of requiring the CAVC to uphold a Board decision based on only the lower ``plausible basis'' undermines the statutory ``benefit of the doubt'' rule. Section 2 of this legislation would protect the ``benefit of the doubt'' rule by amending section 7261 of title 38 to specify that the CAVC is to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing factual determinations of the Board. Another concern of the IB authors is the present limit on Federal Circuit's authority to review CAVC precedential decisions on questions of law. Under section 7292 of title 38, the Federal Circuit is authorized to review CAVC findings on questions of statutory or regulatory interpretation, but is not authorized to review such decisions based on questions of law not rooted on a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory interpretation. In a 1992 case, Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, the Federal Circuit has described this limitation as follows: ``The interpretation of the board's decision is unquestionably a matter of law, but that is not enough to bring the appeal within this court's statutory jurisdiction. In the absence of a challenge to the validity of a statute or a regulation, or the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or a regulation, we have no authority to consider the appeal.'' The IB authors express the concern that this ``unavailability of Federal Circuit review, has, in many instances, undesirable consequences'' and urge that the law be amended to give the Federal Circuit jurisdiction to review all CAVC decisions on questions of law. Section 3 would modify section 7292 of title 38 to accomplish that result. A final issue raised by the authors of the Independent Budget is not one of procedural fairness, but rather of equality of access to the administrative and judicial structures of the veterans' appeals process. Currently, veterans who enlist the aid of attorneys, and non- attorney practitioners supervised by attorneys, who are successful in their claims and satisfy the other requirements, can avail themselves of the benefits of the Equal Access to Justice Act, the EAJA. The EAJA shifts the burden of attorney fees from the citizen to the government in cases where the citizen successfully challenges an unreasonable government action. In the case of VA claims, however, claimants often turn to qualified, non-attorney representatives of the many veterans service organizations to represent them, up to and through the CAVC. Based upon the prior long standing limitation on paying attorney fees in veterans' benefits cases, there had not been an active veterans' bar. As a result, veterans service organizations developed expertise to enable them to effectively represent claimants before VA. VA does not require that these representatives be attorneys, only credentialed by a VA-recognized veterans service organization. Therefore, when the court was created, certain non-attorney practitioners were allowed to represent appellants at the court. However, as currently interpreted, these non-attorney practitioners are not eligible to receive compensation under the EAJA, despite the fact that they are doing the same work as their attorney counterparts. The authors of the Independent Budget, representatives of the organizations which are affected by this limitation, ask that unsupervised, non-attorneys be given access to fee compensation under the EAJA. They believe that this change would allow veterans organizations to represent even more veterans. Section 4 of the bill would provide for this change. As a new generation is called to sacrifice in service of our country it is imperative that we ensure the fairness and accessibility of the benefits that they so richly deserve and it is for this reason that I introduce this bill. As I noted earlier in my statement, I am doing so in order to provide a vehicle for detailed discussion of these and other issues related to the judicial review of VA claims. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these matters in the months ahead.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am today introducing legislation which responds to concerns relating to judicial review of VA benefits expressed by the authors of the Independent Budget for Veteran's Programs for fiscal year 2003. I am doing this in order to provide a vehicle for further discussion on these and related matters. The Independent Budget, the IB, is the collaborative effort of a coalition of four veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, which is endorsed by dozens of other veterans' groups and others. This is the sixteenth year that the these organizations have drafted an independent budget to advocate for the funding that they feel is necessary to properly provide care and benefits to our veterans. This bill proposes three amendments to title 38, United States Code, and a free-standing provision relating to the Equal Access to Justice Act. Section 1 of this legislation would amend section 502 of title 38 to allow the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Federal Circuit, to review and set aside VA changes to the schedule for rating disabilities found to be arbitrary and capricious or in violation of statute. Section 2 would amend section 7261 of title 38 to specify that the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims, the CAVC, shall apply a preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing findings of fact made by the Board of Veterans Appeals. Section 3 would amend section 7292 of title 38 to permit the Federal Circuit to review CAVC decisions on questions of law. The final section of this legislation would allow the CAVC, when awarding attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act to award compensation to qualified non-attorney representatives before the CAVC. Current section 502 of title 38, provides for judicial review of VA rules and regulations in the Federal Circuit, but expressly precludes review of VA actions relating to the adoption or revision of the so called ``rating schedule'' made pursuant to section 1155 of title 38. This rating schedule is the system by which VA categorizes types and levels of disability by percentages and, as noted by the IB authors, this preclusion of review was based on the view that VA has specific expertise in this area, an expertise not found in most courts. However, while the IB authors recognize the importance of VA's particularly informed judgment in this area, they are concerned that, ``without any constraints or oversight whatsoever, VA is free to promulgate rules to rating disabilities that do not have as their basis reduction in earning capacity.'' To remedy this concern, the authors of the IB propose an amendment to section 502 of title 38 which would authorize Federal Circuit review of rating schedule decisions. This is the intent of section 1 of this bill. A second concern of the authors of the IB relates to the scope of review applied by the CAVC to factual determinations of the Board of Veterans' Appeal. Under current law, section 5107(b) of title 38, VA is required to give a claimant the benefit of the doubt when ``there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits'' of an issue material to the claim. However, as noted in the IB for fiscal year 2003, the CAVC, in reviewing a VA decision on a factual issue, is required to apply a ``clearly erroneous'' standard. Under this standard, which is the same as applied by Federal appellate courts in their review of factual determinations of trial courts, if there is a plausible basis for a factual finding, it can not be clearly erroneous. This results in the CAVC having to accord significant deference to findings of fact made by the Board. As the IB authors note, this approach of requiring the CAVC to uphold a Board decision based on only the lower ``plausible basis'' undermines the statutory ``benefit of the doubt'' rule. Section 2 of this legislation would protect the ``benefit of the doubt'' rule by amending section 7261 of title 38 to specify that the CAVC is to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing factual determinations of the Board. Another concern of the IB authors is the present limit on Federal Circuit's authority to review CAVC precedential decisions on questions of law. Under section 7292 of title 38, the Federal Circuit is authorized to review CAVC findings on questions of statutory or regulatory interpretation, but is not authorized to review such decisions based on questions of law not rooted on a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory interpretation. In a 1992 case, Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, the Federal Circuit has described this limitation as follows: ``The interpretation of the board's decision is unquestionably a matter of law, but that is not enough to bring the appeal within this court's statutory jurisdiction. In the absence of a challenge to the validity of a statute or a regulation, or the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or a regulation, we have no authority to consider the appeal.'' The IB authors express the concern that this ``unavailability of Federal Circuit review, has, in many instances, undesirable consequences'' and urge that the law be amended to give the Federal Circuit jurisdiction to review all CAVC decisions on questions of law. Section 3 would modify section 7292 of title 38 to accomplish that result. A final issue raised by the authors of the Independent Budget is not one of procedural fairness, but rather of equality of access to the administrative and judicial structures of the veterans' appeals process. Currently, veterans who enlist the aid of attorneys, and non- attorney practitioners supervised by attorneys, who are successful in their claims and satisfy the other requirements, can avail themselves of the benefits of the Equal Access to Justice Act, the EAJA. The EAJA shifts the burden of attorney fees from the citizen to the government in cases where the citizen successfully challenges an unreasonable government action. In the case of VA claims, however, claimants often turn to qualified, non-attorney representatives of the many veterans service organizations to represent them, up to and through the CAVC. Based upon the prior long standing limitation on paying attorney fees in veterans' benefits cases, there had not been an active veterans' bar. As a result, veterans service organizations developed expertise to enable them to effectively represent claimants before VA. VA does not require that these representatives be attorneys, only credentialed by a VA-recognized veterans service organization. Therefore, when the court was created, certain non-attorney practitioners were allowed to represent appellants at the court. However, as currently interpreted, these non-attorney practitioners are not eligible to receive compensation under the EAJA, despite the fact that they are doing the same work as their attorney counterparts. The authors of the Independent Budget, representatives of the organizations which are affected by this limitation, ask that unsupervised, non-attorneys be given access to fee compensation under the EAJA. They believe that this change would allow veterans organizations to represent even more veterans. Section 4 of the bill would provide for this change. As a new generation is called to sacrifice in service of our country it is imperative that we ensure the fairness and accessibility of the benefits that they so richly deserve and it is for this reason that I introduce this bill. As I noted earlier in my statement, I am doing so in order to provide a vehicle for detailed discussion of these and other issues related to the judicial review of VA claims. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these matters in the months ahead.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am tremendously pleased to introduce legislation that will authorize a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, to veterans' compensation for next year. Every year, Congress fulfills its obligation to provide a cost-of- living adjustment to veterans disability benefits. While we can never truly repay the debt that we owe to these individuals for their sacrifices to our country, what we can do is ensure that the benefits we provide for the men and women who are disabled while serving in places such as Afghanistan retain their value and are not eroded by inflation. The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2002 continues this tradition of fulfilling our obligation to America's veterans by directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, as of December 1, 2002, the rates of veterans' disability compensation, as well as compensation for eligible dependents and surviving spouses. This increase would be the same percentage as the increase Social Security Act beneficiaries will receive. The COLA is enormously important to veterans and their families. It is critical that veterans' disability compensation rates keep pace with the increasing cost of living. Without it, many disabled veterans might not be able to afford the simple necessities of life--warm clothes, food, and shelter. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am tremendously pleased to introduce legislation that will authorize a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, to veterans' compensation for next year. Every year, Congress fulfills its obligation to provide a cost-of- living adjustment to veterans disability benefits. While we can never truly repay the debt that we owe to these individuals for their sacrifices to our country, what we can do is ensure that the benefits we provide for the men and women who are disabled while serving in places such as Afghanistan retain their value and are not eroded by inflation. The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2002 continues this tradition of fulfilling our obligation to America's veterans by directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, as of December 1, 2002, the rates of veterans' disability compensation, as well as compensation for eligible dependents and surviving spouses. This increase would be the same percentage as the increase Social Security Act beneficiaries will receive. The COLA is enormously important to veterans and their families. It is critical that veterans' disability compensation rates keep pace with the increasing cost of living. Without it, many disabled veterans might not be able to afford the simple necessities of life--warm clothes, food, and shelter. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that a long distinguished career has come to an end and a new chapter is beginning for Mr. David B. Sanford, Jr. a native of Huntington, WV, has retired as Chief, Interagency and International Services Division, Directorate of Military Programs, Headquarters, United States Corps of Engineers. Mr. Sanford is a United States Army veteran with active duty service from 1966 to 1969. He joined the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1971 working at its Huntington, WV, District Office. A native of Huntington, he received his undergraduate degree from Concord College in Athens, WV, and attended graduate school at Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH. Mr. Sanford's public service career has been filled with remarkable achievements. Previous to his most recent appointment, he was the Chief of the Civil Works Policy Division, Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers. In 1992, he served as a Water Resources Advisor, through a Congressional fellowship, to the distinguished Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from New York, then Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. Sanford has been the recipient of several public service awards. He has been honored by the United States Department of the Army for his significant contributions to national policy issues related to water resources and military infrastructure. Through the years, many Members of Congress have relief on Mr. Sanford's insight and advice. He is trusted and respected throughout Washington and the Federal Government. Additionally, he has mentored many young people within the Corps of Engineers, encouraging them to serve their Nation to the best of their ability. David Sanford, Jr., has dedicated nearly 34 years to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, serving with honor and distinction. The Corps' public engineering services are renowned as world class. David, as a career member of the Corps elite force, has exhibited the kind of character and leadership that has been associated with the Corps. I am proud that a native West Virginia son has earned the rank of the Senior Executive Service. He has the gratitude of his fellow West Virginians and of our Nation for his years of exemplary service. I know my colleagues join me in wishing him well in the years to come.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel, in submitting amendment No. 3044 addressing energy metering at consumers' homes and the availability of reliable energy usage data for consumers to use in making energy consumption decisions. The amendment we are submitting is very straightforward, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Under the Energy Tax Incentives Act a tax credit and accelerated depreciation is established for the benefit of electric and gas suppliers that install energy meters that provide consumers with real- time information about the amount of energy they are consuming and the cost of that energy. This provision was passed by the Senate Finance Committee, and will become a part of the bill now under consideration. The intent of these provisions is to promote energy conservation by allowing consumers to monitor, in real time, their energy use and its cost. By providing consumers with access to current energy use and cost information, consumers will be better able to change their usage patterns, thereby conserving energy and saving money in the process. The one problem my cosponsors and I see with this provision is that it is limited to only one or two specific metering technologies, and I strongly believe there are other very cost effective and beneficial metering technologies, collectively referred to as ``time of use'' technology that would similarly allow consumers to better conserve energy. Our amendment would simply expand the availability of this tax provision to include those suppliers who provide consumers with time of use metering technology. One of these time of use technologies is manufactured by a company doing business in Scott Depot, WV. I have not brought this amendment to the floor of the United States Senate solely because it may benefit a business in my home State. I have brought this amendment to the floor because I believe it will enhance the effectiveness of the underlying bill by giving consumers and their utilities a number of options for conserving energy through the auditing of their energy use. By using time of use technology, consumers could easily and conveniently determine how much energy they consumed during different times of the day and the specific costs associated with their use during each time period. Consumers would have access to time of use information for pre-selected time segments of each day. Each selected time period would have the exact price of the energy consumed. For example, a consumer in New Manchester, WV, using this technology could determine how much energy was used between 6-7 p.m. each night. By knowing this information, this consumer would be able to change his or her energy-use habits during specific time periods, or as an overall policy. If helpful, consumers could also easily be provided with historic time of use information so they could compare their current use and costs with their past use to see the extent they have been conserving energy and saving money. I believe this type of metering technology would be particularly beneficial to many consumers in West Virginia. This is a good amendment, and I think that it improves the energy efficiency provisions of the underlying bill, without favoring one technology over another. amendment no. 3045

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am committed to helping craft national energy legislation that takes energy production and conservation, balanced with environmental concerns and economic issues, into consideration. Today, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Allen, Senator Specter, and Senator Warner, in submitting amendment No. 3043 to the Senate energy bill to create an important tax incentive that I believe will encourage the recycling of coal combustion waste materials produced in the process of reducing sulfur emission in coal- fired electric utility boilers. Currently in the United States, many coal-fired power plants are equipped with sulfur dioxide scrubbers, the purpose of which is to significantly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the air. In the process of cleaning the air, these scrubbers produce more than 20 million tons of coal combustion waste or sludge per year. Stabilization of the sludge increases the waste materials to over 40 million tons per year, and this amount is expected to more than double as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 continue to phase in. At this time, less than 20 percent of this waste material is recycled. In fact, the balance of the sludge is disposed of in landfills at a cost to electric utilities of as much as $40 per ton, depending upon the locale. I am concerned that, as landfills become full, and new landfills become more difficult to site, the costs to utilities, and ultimately to electric consumers, will continue to escalate. A tax credit is needed to encourage utilities that are controlling their sulfur dioxide emissions to recycle the waste material their scrubbers produce. By helping to alleviate and perhaps eliminate the cost of disposing of the waste products generated by using important emission control systems, we can realize the multiple environmental benefits: Cleaner air and less combustion waste being landfilled. There are basically two types of scrubbing, or emission control systems, currently in use. One produces a wet sludge and the other a dry sludge. Wet sludge is more difficult and costly to treat. Accordingly, the proposed credit is $6 for each ``wet ton'' and $4 for each ``dry ton'' recycled by a third party. The credit will have a 10- year limit and includes strict requirements to determine that the sludge has actually been ``recycled'' and that a value-added product, with genuine marketplace appeal, is created. The tax credits will stimulate the development of new technologies to recycle the sludge and encourage existing technologies to enhance their recycling efforts. The 10-year life of this credit will provide sufficient time to aid the start-up of new companies and technologies and the further development of existing technologies; thereafter these recycling efforts should be self-supporting. The cost of these credits is less than $75 million over the next 10 years and could, in part, be offset by taxes generated by new businesses as well as the savings to the economy through reduced energy costs. I remain committed to promoting the use of coal as a primary energy source for this nation, and I wholeheartedly embrace tax incentives for the installation of clean coal technologies. I believe this credit to encourage combustion waste recycling efforts is an important addition to our energy policy. It will support economic development and protect the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 3044

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, amendment No. 3045 is very simple but it could make a life or death difference to miners who work in one of the most dangerous occupations in America. This amendment would require the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to review current staffing levels of mine inspectors, and considering current needs and expected retirements, to hire and train as many new mine inspectors as are needed to maintain proper safety in coal mines. The Secretary is to maintain the number of mine inspectors at a level no lower than current levels. When filing these positions, my amendment encourages the Secretary of Labor to give consideration to experienced miners or mine engineers. Coal miners are dying in alarming numbers in accidents that might be prevented if more mine inspectors were on the job. Coal mine fatalities increased in 2001 for the third year in a row. Forty-two miners died in mine accidents in the United States. Forty-two miners lost their lives. This is the most since 1995. Already in 2002, eight miners have died in American coal mines. Improved technology is increasing the productivity of our mines. We should also be seeing improvements in mine safety, not a rising death toll. Two of the miners who have died this year were West Virginians. On January 2nd, a 44-year-old miner with 23 years of experience was fatally injured when unsupported roof rock measuring seven feet by five feet fell on him in the Justice #1 mine in Boone County, WV. Just over a month later, on February 20th a 53-year-old miner at the Radar Run #2 mine in Greenbrier County was crushed by loose rock, some as large as 30 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 10 feet thick. These deaths are tragedies for the families and friends of the miners who died. If these accidents could have been prevented, it is unforgivable. Our industry and Federal mine safety system are supposed to protect miners to the maximum extent possible. The sheer number of mine deaths tells me that we are not doing enough to ensure miners' safety. I am proud that West Virginia produces much of the coal that powers the national economy. Over 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal. But in producing this fuel, year in and year out, too many West Virginia miners become casualties. Twelve of the 42 miners lost in coal mines in the United States last year were West Virginians. Nine West Virginians, died in both 1999 and 2000. Since 1992, 114 of the 406 American miners who have died in mine accidents have been West Virginians. This is unacceptable. We must do a better job of preventing these accidents, with the goal of eliminating them altogether. West Virginia miners are not the only ones dying in coal mines. Last September 23rd, two explosions in the Jim Walter #5 mine in Brookwood, AL, took the lives of 13 coal miners, in the single largest coal mine disaster in the United States since 1984. Twelve of these miners had rushed into the mine to save trapped co-workers. That kind of heroism is frequently found in the history of coal mining. We need to make it less necessary. Anyone who has gone down into a mine knows that accidents happen. This amendment will cut down on preventable accidents. Retirements will reduce the current number of mine inspectors by 25 percent in the next five years. Despite this trend, and the number of mine fatalities, the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request cuts the Mine Safety and Health Administration budget by $4 million. The premise is not that more money will necessarily solve the problem. The premise is this: The energy bill properly sees coal as a vital part of the nation's energy mix. The amendment intends to make sure that the hardworking men and women who bring that coal out of the ground are not doing so at an unacceptable risk to their lives.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to ensure that veterans who struggle with post-traumatic stress and substance use disorders continue to get the care that they need and deserve. This legislation would increase the funding for an already- established grant program for specialized mental health services programs. In addition, the legislation would guarantee that some funding would go to those facilities which need it the most but, for whatever reason, have not sought grants. From its inception, the VA health care system has been challenged to meet the special needs of veterans, such as spinal cord injuries, the need for prosthetics, blindness, traumatic brain injury, homelessness, post-traumatic stress disorders or PTSD, and the substance abuse disorders that frequently accompany these other afflictions. Over the years, VA has developed widely commended expertise in providing specialized services to meet these needs. We can all be rightfully proud of VA's specialized programs, which provide care that is often unparalleled in the greater health care community. Unfortunately, these programs have been endangered by budget constraints, a shift in focus from inpatient care to outpatient clinics, and the introduction of a new resource allocation system. In 1996, Congress recognized that VA's constant battle to serve more veterans with a limited budget made these relatively costly specialized services programs disproportionately vulnerable to reductions, and took steps to protect them. The Veteran's Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1966 required the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain VA's capacity to treat specific special needs of disabled veterans at the then-current level, and to report to Congress annually on the maintenance of these specialized services. Subsequently, internal VA advisory committees, the GAO, and my own staff on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs reported that these protections did not go far enough. Many specialized programs--particularly substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, were closed, reduced in size, or understaffed, offering little or no care to veterans suffering from these seriously debilitating disorders which often result from combat experiences. VA's own annual capacity reports give evidence that these programs have failed to provide services to veterans at the needed levels, or to preserve equal access throughout the system. However, the current law's reliance on systemwide, rather than local or regional capacity, and VA's failure to issue these reports on a timely basis as mandated, prevent us from understanding how well these programs meet veterans' needs throughout the Nation. In December 2001, Congress strengthened protection of specialized services through the VA Health Care Programs Enhancement Act, which described how VA is to maintain capacity for these services in considerably more detail. However, I believe that we must continue to do what we can to foster innovation and to patch some of the holes in substance abuse and PTSD programs. In addition to protecting VA's capacity to treat veterans' special needs, Congress also designated $15 million in VA funding specifically to help medical families improve care for veterans with substance abuse disorders and PTSD. The funds for these mental health grant programs, mandated by the Veterans Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of 1999, will soon revert to a general fund. In order to distribute these funds, VA sought proposals from facilities interested in expanding and improving their substance use disorder and PTSD programs. VA began to release these funds a little more than a year ago. As of this month, only 8 of the 16 PTSD treatment programs awarded funding had become operational, and only a third of these have hired their full complement of authorized and funded staff. Of the substance abuse disorder programs funded through this act, 18 of 31 have not yet hired complete staffs. Despite the slow start, this funding has already increased the PTSD and substance abuse disorder treatment programs available to veterans. More than 100 staff have been hired in 18 of VA's 21 service networks to treat substance abuse disorders. Nine new programs, in Baltimore, MD; Atlanta, GA; San Francisco, CA; and Dayton, OH, among others, have initiated or intensified opioid substitution programs for veterans who have not responded well to drug-free treatment regimens. Other new programs, such as those in Tampa, FL; Cincinnati, OH, Columbia, MO; and Loma Linda, CA, put special emphasis on treating veterans with more complex conditions that include PTSD and substance abuse. The additional funding has enabled VA to develop better outpatient substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, outpatient dual-diagnosis programs, more PTSD community clinical teams, and more residential substance abuse disorder rehabilitation programs. Due to these grants, VA has made improvements; however, many VA medical center directors have been reluctant to hire specialized substance abuse or PTSD treatment staff when, in FY 2003, the funding for these programs will be subject to a population-based allocation system and may disappear from their budgets. The legislation that I introduce today would ensure that this funding remained ``protected'' for three more years, and would increase the total amount of funding identified specifically for treatment of substance abuse disorders and PTSD from $15 million to $25 million. Of the $25 million authorized for this program, $15 million would be allocated to individual medical facilities which respond to the call for proposals. The remaining $10 million would be provided as direct grants to VA treatment facilities throughout the Nation, based on veterans' needs as identified by VA's Mental Health Strategic Health Care Group and the Committee on Care of the Severely Chronically Mentally Ill. Although I am disappointed that VA has still been unable to properly maintain adequate levels of care for those veterans with specialized health care needs, I am encouraged that our actions to fund specific PTSD and substance abuse programs have provided a strong start. Congress has spoken quite clearly in the past: VA does not have the discretion to decide whether or not to provide adequate care for veterans with substance abuse and post traumatic stress disorders. I ask that my colleagues support this bill, which would help ensure that these specialized services, a critical aspect of the health care VA provides to veterans, are maintained at the necessary levels for the men and women who have served this Nation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to improve VA's response to meeting the long-term care needs of an aging veteran population. Specifically, the bill would extend two long-term care authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999. In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care legislation for veterans. For the first time, VA was required to provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of Public Law 106-117, directed the VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled. In addition, VA was to have provided non-institutional care, such as home-based care, respite, and adult day health care, to all enrolled veterans. Within 3 years of the bill's enactment, VA was to evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both of these provisions and to make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions. These programs were given an expiration date of 4 years so that we could adequately study its effects and, if need be, make appropriate adjustments. Unfortunately, it's been more than two years and very little has happened with these long-term care programs. With both provisions due to expire next year, there is hardly enough time to sufficiently study them. The legislation I introduce today will extend the expiration dates of both long-term care authorities for an additional 5 years, until December 31, 2008. I am extremely disappointed that the VA has taken so long to bring these new extended care authorities into the lives of veterans. Although there is a sense of urgency about meeting the long-term care needs of veterans, the VA seems frozen to respond. In addition to mandating that VA provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled, the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act required the VA to maintain the staffing and level of extended care during any fiscal year at the same level that was provided in fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, both the staffing level for nursing home care and the average daily census has dropped since 1998, and VA readily admits that they are not in compliance with this mandate, citing a lack of resources. In addition to providing nursing home care, a key element of the Millennium bill required VA to furnish non-institutional long-term care as part of the standard benefits package. While the bill was signed into law at the end of 1999, it was just last October that VA finally issued interim guidance on the new benefit. The policy was essentially meaningless, in that it required facilities to either have these non- institutional long-term care services available or to develop a plan for providing such services. As a result, I suspect that many facilities have not yet made non-institutional services universally available. In order to confirm this, I have asked that the General Accounting Office provide me with information as to what inventory of noninstitutional long-term care programs exists within VA. The GAO's report should be completed shortly. We know that there is an expanding need for long-term care in our country, and in the VA that demand is even more pressing. About 37 percent of the veteran population is 65 years or older, and that number will grow dramatically in the next few years. By extending the existing long-term care authorities, we signal to VA that they cannot shirk this responsibility. There is no doubt that long-term care is expensive. It is our responsibility, however, to make sure that the necessary resources are provided to VA to implement existing long-term care programs. For my part, I will continue to push VA to move forward, and in the near future, I will be chairing a Committee hearing to learn more about VA's inaction. Long-term care should be seen as a part of the continuum of quality health care we have promised our veterans. The point of this legislation is to extend two important VA long-term care authorities, and I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr President, I am proud to introduce a bill that reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed 1996. It will allow States to continue their excellent work on behalf of families on welfare. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow states to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved millions of Americans from welfare to work. Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare rolls have left for work. Six years ago, we said the goal of welfare reform should be to promote work and to protect children. We stood here together, on unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we believed would help families gain independence and economic self- sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each state designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific to their populations. While there are still many challenges facing families who are struggling to make the transition from welfare to work, as well as challenges facing States in administering the program, I believe that we are on the right course. It is essential to keep on course and support the fundamental principles adopted in 1996, as well as maintain new State flexibility in order to reward and continue the innovations made by the States. In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. Last summer, I hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the well-being of their children even as they work. Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2002. States are making measurable progress. We should continue to build on this foundation, and not reduce State flexibility. It is essential we continue welfare reform, not unravel it, or restructure it. This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the caseload reduction credit with a new employment credit. States will only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a part-time job has had a true accomplishment, and that deserves recognition. It is also the first step toward independence. I am especially grateful to Senator Lincoln and Congressman Levin for their leadership and vision in designing this new incentive. It is an empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to incorporate their proposal into my bill. At this point, with a soft economy, it would be unwise to significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher work participation rates requiring 40 hours per job placement activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate. State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such changes would force States to restructure existing programs that are working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a welfare check. We should not turn away from helping our working families while spending limited resources to meet new, and arbitrary, work rates and hours. To promote work, it is essential to help working parents. We obviously must invest more in child care funding to help parents stay on the job. My proposal seeks to increase guaranteed child care funding for this provision by $1 billion each year. This increase is designed to address existing needs of the current TANF program. This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage and I appreciate his leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training and English as a Second Language programs so parents can get jobs. In recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program, states have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their caseload to combine work and education. Because States are investing more in the existing welfare program than the current $16.5 billion grant, this legislation would provide a modest increase of $2.5 billion in the basic TANF block grant over the next five years. The new TANF funding would be allocated based on the number of poor children. In 1996, Congress promised States that it would fully fund the Social Services Block Grant at $2.8 billion dollars. The block grant is a flexible resource to states to help families, and many States use it for child care. Unfortunately, its funding was slashed to $1.7 billion in recent years. I believe that since the States kept their promise on welfare reform, Congress should keep our promise to fund the Social Services Block Grant. The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be eligible for grants as well. A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to improve this support network for parents. These grants are intended to provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare. Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important aspects of the lives of children and children. This legislation creates a Family Formation Fund to encourage health families, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in children's lives. The bill authorizes Second Chance homes, an innovative program to help teenage parents get the support and education they need. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples. Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's responsibilities is the well-being of their children. This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can make even more improvements in our welfare system, while maintaining our partnership with the States. We all must work together, the Administration, the Congress and the States, to improve our partnership to help families move from welfare to work. I ask unanimous consent to print the section-by-section summary of my bill in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to improve VA's response to meeting the long-term care needs of an aging veteran population. Specifically, the bill would extend two long-term care authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999. In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care legislation for veterans. For the first time, VA was required to provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of Public Law 106-117, directed the VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled. In addition, VA was to have provided non-institutional care, such as home-based care, respite, and adult day health care, to all enrolled veterans. Within 3 years of the bill's enactment, VA was to evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both of these provisions and to make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions. These programs were given an expiration date of 4 years so that we could adequately study its effects and, if need be, make appropriate adjustments. Unfortunately, it's been more than two years and very little has happened with these long-term care programs. With both provisions due to expire next year, there is hardly enough time to sufficiently study them. The legislation I introduce today will extend the expiration dates of both long-term care authorities for an additional 5 years, until December 31, 2008. I am extremely disappointed that the VA has taken so long to bring these new extended care authorities into the lives of veterans. Although there is a sense of urgency about meeting the long-term care needs of veterans, the VA seems frozen to respond. In addition to mandating that VA provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled, the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act required the VA to maintain the staffing and level of extended care during any fiscal year at the same level that was provided in fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, both the staffing level for nursing home care and the average daily census has dropped since 1998, and VA readily admits that they are not in compliance with this mandate, citing a lack of resources. In addition to providing nursing home care, a key element of the Millennium bill required VA to furnish non-institutional long-term care as part of the standard benefits package. While the bill was signed into law at the end of 1999, it was just last October that VA finally issued interim guidance on the new benefit. The policy was essentially meaningless, in that it required facilities to either have these non- institutional long-term care services available or to develop a plan for providing such services. As a result, I suspect that many facilities have not yet made non-institutional services universally available. In order to confirm this, I have asked that the General Accounting Office provide me with information as to what inventory of noninstitutional long-term care programs exists within VA. The GAO's report should be completed shortly. We know that there is an expanding need for long-term care in our country, and in the VA that demand is even more pressing. About 37 percent of the veteran population is 65 years or older, and that number will grow dramatically in the next few years. By extending the existing long-term care authorities, we signal to VA that they cannot shirk this responsibility. There is no doubt that long-term care is expensive. It is our responsibility, however, to make sure that the necessary resources are provided to VA to implement existing long-term care programs. For my part, I will continue to push VA to move forward, and in the near future, I will be chairing a Committee hearing to learn more about VA's inaction. Long-term care should be seen as a part of the continuum of quality health care we have promised our veterans. The point of this legislation is to extend two important VA long-term care authorities, and I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to ensure that veterans who struggle with post-traumatic stress and substance use disorders continue to get the care that they need and deserve. This legislation would increase the funding for an already- established grant program for specialized mental health services programs. In addition, the legislation would guarantee that some funding would go to those facilities which need it the most but, for whatever reason, have not sought grants. From its inception, the VA health care system has been challenged to meet the special needs of veterans, such as spinal cord injuries, the need for prosthetics, blindness, traumatic brain injury, homelessness, post-traumatic stress disorders or PTSD, and the substance abuse disorders that frequently accompany these other afflictions. Over the years, VA has developed widely commended expertise in providing specialized services to meet these needs. We can all be rightfully proud of VA's specialized programs, which provide care that is often unparalleled in the greater health care community. Unfortunately, these programs have been endangered by budget constraints, a shift in focus from inpatient care to outpatient clinics, and the introduction of a new resource allocation system. In 1996, Congress recognized that VA's constant battle to serve more veterans with a limited budget made these relatively costly specialized services programs disproportionately vulnerable to reductions, and took steps to protect them. The Veteran's Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1966 required the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain VA's capacity to treat specific special needs of disabled veterans at the then-current level, and to report to Congress annually on the maintenance of these specialized services. Subsequently, internal VA advisory committees, the GAO, and my own staff on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs reported that these protections did not go far enough. Many specialized programs--particularly substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, were closed, reduced in size, or understaffed, offering little or no care to veterans suffering from these seriously debilitating disorders which often result from combat experiences. VA's own annual capacity reports give evidence that these programs have failed to provide services to veterans at the needed levels, or to preserve equal access throughout the system. However, the current law's reliance on systemwide, rather than local or regional capacity, and VA's failure to issue these reports on a timely basis as mandated, prevent us from understanding how well these programs meet veterans' needs throughout the Nation. In December 2001, Congress strengthened protection of specialized services through the VA Health Care Programs Enhancement Act, which described how VA is to maintain capacity for these services in considerably more detail. However, I believe that we must continue to do what we can to foster innovation and to patch some of the holes in substance abuse and PTSD programs. In addition to protecting VA's capacity to treat veterans' special needs, Congress also designated $15 million in VA funding specifically to help medical families improve care for veterans with substance abuse disorders and PTSD. The funds for these mental health grant programs, mandated by the Veterans Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of 1999, will soon revert to a general fund. In order to distribute these funds, VA sought proposals from facilities interested in expanding and improving their substance use disorder and PTSD programs. VA began to release these funds a little more than a year ago. As of this month, only 8 of the 16 PTSD treatment programs awarded funding had become operational, and only a third of these have hired their full complement of authorized and funded staff. Of the substance abuse disorder programs funded through this act, 18 of 31 have not yet hired complete staffs. Despite the slow start, this funding has already increased the PTSD and substance abuse disorder treatment programs available to veterans. More than 100 staff have been hired in 18 of VA's 21 service networks to treat substance abuse disorders. Nine new programs, in Baltimore, MD; Atlanta, GA; San Francisco, CA; and Dayton, OH, among others, have initiated or intensified opioid substitution programs for veterans who have not responded well to drug-free treatment regimens. Other new programs, such as those in Tampa, FL; Cincinnati, OH, Columbia, MO; and Loma Linda, CA, put special emphasis on treating veterans with more complex conditions that include PTSD and substance abuse. The additional funding has enabled VA to develop better outpatient substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, outpatient dual-diagnosis programs, more PTSD community clinical teams, and more residential substance abuse disorder rehabilitation programs. Due to these grants, VA has made improvements; however, many VA medical center directors have been reluctant to hire specialized substance abuse or PTSD treatment staff when, in FY 2003, the funding for these programs will be subject to a population-based allocation system and may disappear from their budgets. The legislation that I introduce today would ensure that this funding remained ``protected'' for three more years, and would increase the total amount of funding identified specifically for treatment of substance abuse disorders and PTSD from $15 million to $25 million. Of the $25 million authorized for this program, $15 million would be allocated to individual medical facilities which respond to the call for proposals. The remaining $10 million would be provided as direct grants to VA treatment facilities throughout the Nation, based on veterans' needs as identified by VA's Mental Health Strategic Health Care Group and the Committee on Care of the Severely Chronically Mentally Ill. Although I am disappointed that VA has still been unable to properly maintain adequate levels of care for those veterans with specialized health care needs, I am encouraged that our actions to fund specific PTSD and substance abuse programs have provided a strong start. Congress has spoken quite clearly in the past: VA does not have the discretion to decide whether or not to provide adequate care for veterans with substance abuse and post traumatic stress disorders. I ask that my colleagues support this bill, which would help ensure that these specialized services, a critical aspect of the health care VA provides to veterans, are maintained at the necessary levels for the men and women who have served this Nation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr President, I am proud to introduce a bill that reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed 1996. It will allow States to continue their excellent work on behalf of families on welfare. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow states to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved millions of Americans from welfare to work. Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare rolls have left for work. Six years ago, we said the goal of welfare reform should be to promote work and to protect children. We stood here together, on unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we believed would help families gain independence and economic self- sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each state designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific to their populations. While there are still many challenges facing families who are struggling to make the transition from welfare to work, as well as challenges facing States in administering the program, I believe that we are on the right course. It is essential to keep on course and support the fundamental principles adopted in 1996, as well as maintain new State flexibility in order to reward and continue the innovations made by the States. In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. Last summer, I hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the well-being of their children even as they work. Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2002. States are making measurable progress. We should continue to build on this foundation, and not reduce State flexibility. It is essential we continue welfare reform, not unravel it, or restructure it. This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the caseload reduction credit with a new employment credit. States will only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a part-time job has had a true accomplishment, and that deserves recognition. It is also the first step toward independence. I am especially grateful to Senator Lincoln and Congressman Levin for their leadership and vision in designing this new incentive. It is an empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to incorporate their proposal into my bill. At this point, with a soft economy, it would be unwise to significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher work participation rates requiring 40 hours per job placement activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate. State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such changes would force States to restructure existing programs that are working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a welfare check. We should not turn away from helping our working families while spending limited resources to meet new, and arbitrary, work rates and hours. To promote work, it is essential to help working parents. We obviously must invest more in child care funding to help parents stay on the job. My proposal seeks to increase guaranteed child care funding for this provision by $1 billion each year. This increase is designed to address existing needs of the current TANF program. This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage and I appreciate his leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training and English as a Second Language programs so parents can get jobs. In recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program, states have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their caseload to combine work and education. Because States are investing more in the existing welfare program than the current $16.5 billion grant, this legislation would provide a modest increase of $2.5 billion in the basic TANF block grant over the next five years. The new TANF funding would be allocated based on the number of poor children. In 1996, Congress promised States that it would fully fund the Social Services Block Grant at $2.8 billion dollars. The block grant is a flexible resource to states to help families, and many States use it for child care. Unfortunately, its funding was slashed to $1.7 billion in recent years. I believe that since the States kept their promise on welfare reform, Congress should keep our promise to fund the Social Services Block Grant. The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be eligible for grants as well. A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to improve this support network for parents. These grants are intended to provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare. Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important aspects of the lives of children and children. This legislation creates a Family Formation Fund to encourage health families, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in children's lives. The bill authorizes Second Chance homes, an innovative program to help teenage parents get the support and education they need. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples. Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's responsibilities is the well-being of their children. This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can make even more improvements in our welfare system, while maintaining our partnership with the States. We all must work together, the Administration, the Congress and the States, to improve our partnership to help families move from welfare to work. I ask unanimous consent to print the section-by-section summary of my bill in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that a long distinguished career has come to an end and a new chapter is beginning for Mr. David B. Sanford, Jr. Mr. Sanford, a native of Huntington, WV has retired as Chief, Interagency and International Services Division, Directorate of Military Programs, Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Sanford is a United States Army veteran with active duty service from 1966 to 1969. He joined the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1971 working at its Huntington, WV District Office. A native of Huntington, he received his undergraduate degree from Concord College in Athens, WV and attended graduate school at Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH. Mr. Sanford's public service career has been filled with remarkable achievements. Previous to his most recent appointment, he was the Chief of the Civil Works Policy Division, Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers. In 1992, he served as a Water Resources Advisor, through a Congressional Fellowship, to the distinguished Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from New York, then Chairman of Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. Sanford has been the recipient of several public service awards. He has been honored by the United States Department of the Army for his significant contributions to national policy issues related to water resources and military infrastructure. Through the years, many members of Congress have relied on Mr. Sanford's insight and advice. He is trusted and respected throughout Washington and the Federal Government. Additionally, he has mentored many young people within the Corps of Engineers, encouraging them to serve their nation to the best of their ability. David Sanford, Jr. has dedicated nearly 34 years to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, serving with honor and distinction. The Corps public engineering services are renowned as world class. David, as a career member of the Corps elite force, has exhibited the kind of character and leadership that has been associated with the Corps. I am proud that a native West Virginia son has earned the rank of the Senior Executive Service. He has the gratitude of his fellow West Virginians and of our Nation for his years of exemplary service. I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him well in the years ahead.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I was on the conference committee on the stimulus package prior to Christmas, which failed. That was predicated on unemployment insurance, health benefits, and money to help States with Medicaid. Two of the three are left out in this stimulus package. I urge my colleagues to vote against this stimulus package, which I consider to be hurtful to the States but will no doubt get virtually everybody's vote for the wrong reasons. I have been fighting for the stimulus package for a long time, obviously since September 11. I cannot, in any sense of conscience, support this bill. This has about $9 million to expand unemployment insurance. That is good. That is fine. That is one of the three. Two of the three we had to have we did not do; one, we did do. It also has $86 billion in corporate tax breaks and eliminates the tax cuts for those lower income Americans who missed out on last summer's rebates. In other words, the people who did not get a rebate will continue not to get a rebate. It provides no help for States at this critical time and, in fact, hurts them. On every Senator's desk Members will find the 46 of 50 States that are hurt. Members will see how much each State is hurt. I am outraged this $100 billion-plus bill was pushed to a vote, frankly, in the way that it was with, at best, totally inadequate notice to Senators, with no debate and discussion about the need for stimulus on a day after Alan Greenspan said that everything is going just fine. Why are we ignoring the clear consensus among economists and our Federal Reserve chief? I cannot answer that. Maybe I can. We all say we want to defend the Nation, and we do. We want to fund a prescription drug benefit, and we do. We want to support better education for our children, and we do. But now, we are in deficit. Our surplus is gone. Critical needs remain. Are we addressing them? No. Can we afford nearly $100 billion more in corporate tax breaks right now? No. Are we even going to discuss it? No, we are not. This bill causes 46 States to lose $14 billion in tax revenues at a time when they are already facing between $40 and $50 billion of debt. I spoke to my Governor last night. It will cost him $86 million. He will have to cut Medicaid. He does not know where he will get the money. It is another nail in the coffin of the State which is not famed for being rich.