Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, AMVETS, a nonprofit veterans service organization chartered by Congress in 1947, which boasts approximately 250,000 members. Formed in the years immediately following World War II, AMVETS has served America's veterans for more than 50 years. This bill would amend the AMVETS' congressional charter in three ways. First, it would change AMVETS' official name from ``American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam'' to simply ``American Veterans,'' in order to more accurately reflect the group's membership; second, it would amend the charter to reflect long-standing organizational changes; and finally, it would recognize the change of address for AMVETS' headquarters from Washington, DC, to Lanham, MD. These amendments are important to allowing AMVETS to continue its strong tradition of serving veterans. I am proud to offer them my assistance, and I ask that my colleagues act quickly to accommodate these small changes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, AMVETS, a nonprofit veterans service organization chartered by Congress in 1947, which boasts approximately 250,000 members. Formed in the years immediately following World War II, AMVETS has served America's veterans for more than 50 years. This bill would amend the AMVETS' congressional charter in three ways. First, it would change AMVETS' official name from ``American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam'' to simply ``American Veterans,'' in order to more accurately reflect the group's membership; second, it would amend the charter to reflect long-standing organizational changes; and finally, it would recognize the change of address for AMVETS' headquarters from Washington, DC, to Lanham, MD. These amendments are important to allowing AMVETS to continue its strong tradition of serving veterans. I am proud to offer them my assistance, and I ask that my colleagues act quickly to accommodate these small changes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am enormously proud to highlight the recognition of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Huntington, in my home State of West Virginia, for excellence in health care delivery. The Huntington VA Medical Center has received accreditation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, JCAHO, as a result of meeting national health care standards. I am very pleased to see this VA health care provider in my home State receiving the accolades it so richly deserves for delivering a high standard of care to veterans. The Joint Commission, an independent, non-profit organization, is an accreditation body focused on ensuring quality and safety standards for health care on a national level. An on-site survey of the Huntington VA Medical Center, as well as its affiliated facilities, was conducted by the Joint Commission last November, giving Huntington an overall score of 98. Only about 4 percent of all of the facilities that the Joint Commission surveys receive scores of 98 or above a true testament to the quality of health care at the Huntington VA Medical Center. It is the administration and staff at the Huntington VA Medical Center that make it the superb facility it is. I recognize the hard work and tireless efforts of all the staff there: from the Director's office, maintenance workers, the food preparers, doctors, nurses, physician assistants and physical therapists, to the mental health treatment staff, specialized medicine, emergency, and geriatric care providers. The entire team has made the hospital a true model for quality health care delivery, not just within the VA health care system, but for the entire Nation. I, along with the veterans who receive care at Huntington, thank them for all they do, and encourage them to continue their good work.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last Friday the children in my State of West Virginia had reason to celebrate. I am delighted to announce that the Communities in Schools Program and America's Promise have joined to form a new partnership aimed at giving our children resources that help them to stay in school and be successful in life. This exciting new program, launched on January 31, 2002, is called the Alliance for Youth. Bill Milliken, Communities in Schools CEO and West Virginia Governor Bob Wise joined together last week to signal the start of a major initiative to help students. The Alliance for Youth combines the missions of education and community service with the goal of making each more accessible to students in West Virginia. Through the Alliance, children can connect with concerned adults and have a safe place where they can develop useful life skills, have a wholesome start in life, and have the opportunity to become involved in their communities. As a former VISTA worker, I personally know how public service can change and improve someone's life. Providing more opportunities for public service will help both the communities served and the students involved. By helping to shape the lives of our children, the Alliance for Youth Program is making the most important investment in our future. Years ago, the National Commission on Children which I chaired, challenged society in general to create a moral climate for our children. The Alliance for Youth Program responds to this challenge. We all understand that the chances for children's success are tied to quality education, strong child development, and strong support from family and caring adults. It is my hope that the Alliance for Youth will continue the worthy and important work of providing children with extra support for a successful start in life. I applaud this new partnership, and I look forward to seeing the results of its valuable work.

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, among other things, include care for newborn children of women veterans provided by a contract provider among those medical services VA is allowed to provide, authorize VA to provide dental care to former Prisoners of War, POW, and change the definition of ``minority veterans'' to conform to the new Race & Ethnic Standards used in Federal statistical reporting and in the 2000 U.S. Census. 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, 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, among other things, include care for newborn children of women veterans provided by a contract provider among those medical services VA is allowed to provide, authorize VA to provide dental care to former Prisoners of War, POW, and change the definition of ``minority veterans'' to conform to the new Race & Ethnic Standards used in Federal statistical reporting and in the 2000 U.S. Census. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Secretary Principi's transmittal letter that accompanied the draft legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, will my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Senator from South Carolina, yield for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from South Carolina if he would agree that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, this nation came to a number of stark realizations about our vulnerabilities and the overall state of our security? We have become aware that glaring security gaps exist throughout our nation's transportation system. The Senator from South Carolina has been a leader in focusing the Senate's attention on the need to improve the safety of our ports, and he has been steadfast in his support for additional protections for our nation's rail passengers. I hope that he will agree with me that as important as improving the security in those areas is, our job is not complete until we pay similar attention to the security of our freight rail system. One of the most serious vulnerabilities in the nation's transportation system is possibility that terrorists may target hazardous materials being transported across this nation's vast and largely unsecured freight rail network. I am sure the Senator is aware that several studies conclude that the chemical industry is particularly vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and point to the shipment of hazardous materials by rail as one of the most serious threats to the industry. In fact, I believe that a study requested by the Senator's Appropriations Subcommittee and due to be published this month, will come to this very conclusion. I do not mean to suggest that transportation of chemicals or other hazardous materials should be curtailed. While the transportation of hazardous materials poses risks to human health, the expeditious movement of certain products, like chlorine for municipal water systems, is absolutely essential for the protection of human health. The railroad and chemical industries have acknowledged the risks, and have taken strides toward improving the security of their facilities, hazardous materials shipments, and rolling stock since the September 11th attacks. These security improvements, and additional security enhancements that are planned, will be inordinately costly, perhaps reaching as high as $150 million in this calendar year, and another $150 million in 2002. I hope the Senator will agree that the extraordinary and unforeseen nature of the costs being incurred by hazardous materials shippers, tank car owners, and railroads, combined with the benefit to human health and public safety that these security enhancements represent, justifies a program of short-term federal grants to reimburse or defray some of the post-September 11th security- related expenses these companies are incurring. If the Senator from South Carolina does agree with the need to improve our nation's rail security, and understands the unprecedented outlays that railroads and shippers have made or will make in the near future, would he commit to this Senator to hold whatever hearings deemed necessary, and to schedule a prompt mark-up in the Commerce Committee early in 2002 for legislation of mine to require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a comprehensive terrorism risk assessment, and to set up a Rail Security Fund to make the types of grants that we have discussed here today?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to introduce the Safe Rails Act of 2001. This bill will protect the lives of millions of Americans by providing our Nation's freight railroads and hazardous materials shippers with the ability to enhance the security of hazardous materials shipped on the Nation's freight rail network. The Safe Rails Act will require the Department of Transportation to focus its attention on the significant potential for harm to human health and public safety posed by terrorist attacks on our Nation's freight rail infrastructure. In performing the risk assessment called for in the bill, the Secretary of Transportation will be able to make use of the expertise of the various companies and industries involved in the transportation of hazardous materials. Upon completion of the assessment, the Secretary will administer a 2-year Rail Security Fund to assist railroads and hazardous materials shippers in paying the extraordinary costs associated with their post-September 11 activities to secure rail infrastructure and rolling stock. Among the painful lessons we have learned from the sad and alarming events of the past three months, one of the most obvious is that security measures for much of our Nation's transportation infrastructure needs immediate improvement. Americans had, for the most part, taken for granted that life in the United States was safe from the senseless violence that occurs all too often elsewhere on the planet. When terrorists used hijacked airlines as missiles against our people, or transformed the mail into a means of spreading illness and death, we awoke in this country to the potential for harm that exists in the misuse of things we depend upon every day. We depend on few things like we depend on our transportation system. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will agree with me that to adequately protect our homeland security, it is absolutely necessary that Congress, the administration, and the various transportation industries cooperate on a comprehensive evaluation and enhancement of transportation security. I believe we must act soon, and not wait for our ocean-going vessels, our long-haul trucks, or our passenger rail system to be used as tools of terrorist aggression against our fellow citizens. I have offered this legislation today because the threat to Americans from a terrorist act against a freight railroad carrying hazardous materials may be greater than the threats against all of those other modes combined. Several analyses undertaken even before September 11 point to the chemical industry and the railroads that carry the bulk of its products as likely targets of terrorism. Our economy, and indeed, our public health, depend on the movement of these chemicals. In the days immediately after September 11, for example, a disruption of rail traffic resulted in some major cities having only a few days' supply of water-purifying chlorine at their disposal. It is quite obvious, I believe, that we must safeguard movement of these life-saving, although potentially dangerous, chemicals. There is legislation before the Senate that would protect the 21 million passengers Amtrak carries every year. I would encourage all my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation. Before we enact that legislation and think we have completed our job, I would just say to my colleagues that the passenger rail traffic in this Nation covers only about one-sixth of the 140,000 miles in the country's freight rail network. The freight rail network, which passes through or near virtually every small town and large city in the country, carries more than 1.7 million carloads, many millions of tons, of chemicals and other hazardous materials each year. More than 50,000 carloads of ``poison by inhalation'' chemicals, including chlorine, are transported within a few miles of a huge percentage of our population. It is not my purpose to alarm my colleagues or the public at large. The simple fact is, however, the Safe Rails Act will protect millions of Americans living or working in proximity to the facilities manufacturing these hazardous materials, or the trains carrying them. Very briefly, the Safe Rails Act would require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the security risks on our entire rail system, with special emphasis given to a security needs assessment for the transportation of hazardous materials. The bill creates a Rail Security Fund, to be administered by the Secretary, to reimburse or defray the costs of increased or new security measures taken by railroads, hazardous materials shippers, or tank car owners, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11. In conducting the required assessments, the Secretary will consult with and may use materials prepared by the railroad, chemical, and tank car leasing industries, as well as any relevant security analyses or assessments prepared by Federal or State law enforcement, public safety, or regulatory agencies. The Secretary will develop criteria to determine the appropriateness of full or partial reimbursement for various security-related activities. The Secretary may consider, but will not be limited to, using the Fund to help pay for costs incurred due to the following security-related activities: unanticipated rerouting or switching of trains or cargoes, and the express movement of hazardous materials to address security risks; hiring additional manpower required to increase security of the entire rail network, including rail cars on leased track; the purchase of equipment or improved training to enhance emergency response in hazardous materials transportation incidents; improvements in critical communications essential for rail operations and security, including: Development and deployment of global positioning tracking systems on all tank cars transporting high hazard materials; and development of secure network to provide hazardous materials shippers and tank car owners information regarding credible threats to shipments of their products or rolling stock; investment in the physical hardening of critical railroad infrastructure to enable it to withstand terrorist attacks; tank car modifications, or storage of additional tank cars in excess of the number normally stored on-site at shippers' facilities, as mandated by federal regulators; research and development supporting enhanced safety and security of hazardous materials transportation along the freight rail network, including: technology for sealing rail cars; techniques to transfer hazardous materials from rail cars that are damaged or otherwise represent an unreasonable risk to human life or public safety; systems to enhance rail car security on shipper property. Mr. President, the Safe Rails Act is crucially important legislation for the safety and security of our country, and for the protection of human health all along our Nation's rail network. I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee for his commitment to mark this bill up early next year. I strongly urge the leadership of the Senate to schedule consideration of this legislation early in the next session of the 107th Congress, and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to introduce the Safe Rails Act of 2001. This bill will protect the lives of millions of Americans by providing our Nation's freight railroads and hazardous materials shippers with the ability to enhance the security of hazardous materials shipped on the Nation's freight rail network. The Safe Rails Act will require the Department of Transportation to focus its attention on the significant potential for harm to human health and public safety posed by terrorist attacks on our Nation's freight rail infrastructure. In performing the risk assessment called for in the bill, the Secretary of Transportation will be able to make use of the expertise of the various companies and industries involved in the transportation of hazardous materials. Upon completion of the assessment, the Secretary will administer a 2-year Rail Security Fund to assist railroads and hazardous materials shippers in paying the extraordinary costs associated with their post-September 11 activities to secure rail infrastructure and rolling stock. Among the painful lessons we have learned from the sad and alarming events of the past three months, one of the most obvious is that security measures for much of our Nation's transportation infrastructure needs immediate improvement. Americans had, for the most part, taken for granted that life in the United States was safe from the senseless violence that occurs all too often elsewhere on the planet. When terrorists used hijacked airlines as missiles against our people, or transformed the mail into a means of spreading illness and death, we awoke in this country to the potential for harm that exists in the misuse of things we depend upon every day. We depend on few things like we depend on our transportation system. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will agree with me that to adequately protect our homeland security, it is absolutely necessary that Congress, the administration, and the various transportation industries cooperate on a comprehensive evaluation and enhancement of transportation security. I believe we must act soon, and not wait for our ocean-going vessels, our long-haul trucks, or our passenger rail system to be used as tools of terrorist aggression against our fellow citizens. I have offered this legislation today because the threat to Americans from a terrorist act against a freight railroad carrying hazardous materials may be greater than the threats against all of those other modes combined. Several analyses undertaken even before September 11 point to the chemical industry and the railroads that carry the bulk of its products as likely targets of terrorism. Our economy, and indeed, our public health, depend on the movement of these chemicals. In the days immediately after September 11, for example, a disruption of rail traffic resulted in some major cities having only a few days' supply of water-purifying chlorine at their disposal. It is quite obvious, I believe, that we must safeguard movement of these life-saving, although potentially dangerous, chemicals. There is legislation before the Senate that would protect the 21 million passengers Amtrak carries every year. I would encourage all my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation. Before we enact that legislation and think we have completed our job, I would just say to my colleagues that the passenger rail traffic in this Nation covers only about one-sixth of the 140,000 miles in the country's freight rail network. The freight rail network, which passes through or near virtually every small town and large city in the country, carries more than 1.7 million carloads, many millions of tons, of chemicals and other hazardous materials each year. More than 50,000 carloads of ``poison by inhalation'' chemicals, including chlorine, are transported within a few miles of a huge percentage of our population. It is not my purpose to alarm my colleagues or the public at large. The simple fact is, however, the Safe Rails Act will protect millions of Americans living or working in proximity to the facilities manufacturing these hazardous materials, or the trains carrying them. Very briefly, the Safe Rails Act would require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the security risks on our entire rail system, with special emphasis given to a security needs assessment for the transportation of hazardous materials. The bill creates a Rail Security Fund, to be administered by the Secretary, to reimburse or defray the costs of increased or new security measures taken by railroads, hazardous materials shippers, or tank car owners, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11. In conducting the required assessments, the Secretary will consult with and may use materials prepared by the railroad, chemical, and tank car leasing industries, as well as any relevant security analyses or assessments prepared by Federal or State law enforcement, public safety, or regulatory agencies. The Secretary will develop criteria to determine the appropriateness of full or partial reimbursement for various security-related activities. The Secretary may consider, but will not be limited to, using the Fund to help pay for costs incurred due to the following security-related activities: unanticipated rerouting or switching of trains or cargoes, and the express movement of hazardous materials to address security risks; hiring additional manpower required to increase security of the entire rail network, including rail cars on leased track; the purchase of equipment or improved training to enhance emergency response in hazardous materials transportation incidents; improvements in critical communications essential for rail operations and security, including: Development and deployment of global positioning tracking systems on all tank cars transporting high hazard materials; and development of secure network to provide hazardous materials shippers and tank car owners information regarding credible threats to shipments of their products or rolling stock; investment in the physical hardening of critical railroad infrastructure to enable it to withstand terrorist attacks; tank car modifications, or storage of additional tank cars in excess of the number normally stored on-site at shippers' facilities, as mandated by federal regulators; research and development supporting enhanced safety and security of hazardous materials transportation along the freight rail network, including: technology for sealing rail cars; techniques to transfer hazardous materials from rail cars that are damaged or otherwise represent an unreasonable risk to human life or public safety; systems to enhance rail car security on shipper property. Mr. President, the Safe Rails Act is crucially important legislation for the safety and security of our country, and for the protection of human health all along our Nation's rail network. I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee for his commitment to mark this bill up early next year. I strongly urge the leadership of the Senate to schedule consideration of this legislation early in the next session of the 107th Congress, and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious disappointment that we could not reach agreement on a stimulus package that would both help America's workers and encourage immediate business investment to strengthen our economy. I intend to keep fighting for real help for the workers who have lost their jobs and need health care coverage until they get the assistance they need. I think an economic recovery package is still important work to do. Had my Republican counterparts been willing to stay at the negotiating table and keep talking, I would not have left my post until we reached agreement. As a conferee on this unique Leadership Conference, I am especially disappointed that our work was abandoned by the Republican Leadership. Unfortunately, the House Leadership chose to walk out on the tough work of negotiation and move a partisan bill that includes numerous, multiyear tax cuts for corporations and for the wealthiest Americans. The House bill would do little to actually stimulate our economy and would not provide real health care coverage for workers in need of meaningful assistance to retain their health insurance. Moreover, from what I can learn of the legislation which passed just hours ago, it will have significant costs after 2002, as much as $67 billion. That means substantial deficit spending to finance corporate tax relief and additional tax cuts for the top 25 percent of all taxpayers. Nearly 80 percent of West Virginia taxpayers would not get a dime from the tax rate changes proposed by the House Republicans, and to add insult to injury, their payroll taxes would pay for the corporate tax breaks. I cannot support raiding billions of dollars from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Nearly a million people have lost their jobs in recent months as a result of the economic downturn that was exacerbated by the September 11 terrorist attacks on our Nation. Those families deserve the help that the Senate Finance Committee package provided, substantial help to pay for health insurance that they can count on and a temporary extension and improvement of unemployment benefits, which includes improved benefits and makes part-time and low wage workers eligible. Unemployed Americans deserve access to affordable health care and to unemployment benefits as they seek new employment. I deeply regret that the House Leadership conferees could not, or I should say, would not, accept the Senate's worker package that provides immediate, but temporary health care coverage for displaced workers and extended and improved unemployment insurance. The House approach on health care was inadequate and unworkable. It would not have guaranteed health care coverage to a single solitary worker. It failed to include needed reforms to the insurance market to make insurance affordable, or to ensure that a decent benefit package was available. I am deeply frustrated that the Republican conferees wanted to leave workers at the mercy of the insurance industry. Under the House bill, workers would have had to, on their own, seek affordable coverage on the current, failed individual market, armed with limited resources and zero leverage. Older and sicker workers would have been left entirely out of luck with that kind of approach. I am frustrated that House Leaders insisted on promoting their ideology over existing programs that could have been used to provide reliable health care coverage to workers who need it. I believe our economy would benefit from additional stimulus in the form of 1-year business incentives and additional individual tax cuts for those taxpayers who were left out and did not benefit from the rebate checks last summer. I believe we could have come together on a package that would have helped workers even as it provided business tax cuts like bonus depreciation and expensing for small businesses. We could have helped many businesses who are having a hard time in this economy by extending the carryback period for net operating losses, NOLs. I also firmly believe we could have reached accommodation on the issue of AMT relief, if only the House Leadership had been willing to accept real health care and unemployment coverage as part of the package. But the House chose to move forward with a plan that consists primarily of tax cuts, not help for the workers who have been promised for months, promised by both the President and Congress, that we would attend to their needs after the tragedy of September 11. Instead, the House bill's cost over both 5 and 10 years is over 90 percent tax cuts. Less than half of those tax cuts would come in 2002 because it is a back-loaded plan, not the temporary stimulus measure Congress and the President had mutually agreed was the goal of a stimulus package. Common sense tells us that tax cuts in 2003 don't stimulate the economy during our current downturn. There is strong evidence that the House's proposed tax cuts to higher income individuals would not stimulate the economy in the out years, either, because wealthier individuals tend to save rather than spend. Finally, the House bill does not sufficiently address the desperate financial conditions of the States, or the fact that some of the business tax provisions in the bill will actually mean the States lose billions in revenue. The House bill, as far as I can estimate, does not even offset those costs. States are facing a collective, roughly $50 billion deficit, and experts believe the House bill will cost States. Estimates are that West Virginia alone could lose $35 million in State revenues because of policies embedded in the House Republican package. That means West Virginia and other States would be more likely to cut health care to the poor and other low income programs just when the economy makes the programs most essential. In sum, workers did not get the help they need or deserve from the House Republicans' bill. They did not get the consideration they deserve from the House Republican Leadership. And some useful business tax incentives, that combined with additional assistance for the unemployed, could have effectively stimulated our economy, won't pass this year. I had hoped we could have put our partisan and ideological differences aside to speed relief to workers and our ailing economy. I will not give up until we help the people who are waiting to get their fair share of Federal assistance, just as other sectors of our economy have been provided with Federal aid in this unusual time. Today, in an effort to at least provide a short-term extension of unemployment benefits to workers on the verge of running out of assistance and facing the holidays, the Senate Majority Leader asked unanimous consent to take up and pass a 13-week extension of existing unemployment benefits. He asked for a one-time, 13-week extension of existing benefits, no benefit improvements, no expanded eligibility, just a straight, short-term extension. The Senate Republican Leader objected to that request, despite the fact that we have frequently extended these unemployment benefits in the past. That tells you something about why the stimulus conference did not produce legislation. American workers are still waiting for the help they need.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge prompt Senate passage of H.R. 3447, the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001. This bill passed the House on December 11, 2001, and our action will clear the measure for the President's signature. This bill reflects a compromise agreement that the Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs have reached on a number of health-related bills considered in the Senate and House during the 107th Congress, including: a bill to help VA respond to the looming nurse crisis; a bill to extend health care for Persian Gulf War veterans; and a bill to improve specialized treatment and rehabilitation for disabled veterans. The centerpiece of this bill are provisions to improve recruitment and retention of VA nurses. On June 14, 2001, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing to explore reasons for the imminent shortage of professional nurses in the United States and how this shortage will affect health care for veterans served by Department of Veterans Affairs' health care facilities. Several registered nurses, including Sandra McMeans from my state of West Virginia, testified before the Committee that unpredictable and dangerously long working hours lead to nurses' fatigue and frustration--and patient care suffers. Following this hearing, I joined with Senators Specter and Cleland to introduce the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Enhancement Act of 2001, S. 1188. This bill was included in full in S. 1188 as reported on October 10, 2001, the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Programs Enhancement Act of 2001, and all of the provisions are now included in H.R. 3447. I will highlight a number of the provisions included in the pending measure and refer my colleagues to the joint explanatory statement on the legislation which I will insert at the end of my remarks, for more detail. The legislation before us includes a requirement that VA produce a policy on staffing standards in VA health care facilities. Such a policy shall be developed in consultation with the VA Under Secretary for Health, the Director of VA's National Center for Patient Safety, and VA's Chief Nurse. While it is up to VA to develop the standards, the policy must consider the numbers and skill mix required of staff in specific medical settings, such as critical care and long-term care. I thank J. David Cox, R.N. from the American Federation of Government Employees for eloquently demonstrating the need for this critical provision at our June hearing. Because mandatory overtime was frequently cited at the Committee's June hearing as being of serious concern, the legislation also includes a requirement that the Secretary report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on the use of overtime by licensed nursing staff and nursing assistants in each facility. This is a critical first step in determining what can be done to reduce the amount of mandatory overtime. In terms of providing sufficient pay, the pending legislation mandates that VA provide Saturday premium pay to certain health professionals. This group of professionals includes licensed practical nurses (LPN's), certified or registered respiratory therapists, licensed physical therapists, licensed vocational nurses, pharmacists, and occupational therapists. These workers are known as ``hybrids'' as they straddle two different personnel authorities--titles 38 and 5 of the United States Code. Hybrid status allows for direct hiring and a more flexible compensation system. This is an issue of equity, especially for LPN's who work alongside other nurses on Saturdays. When LPN's who do not receive Saturday premium pay must work together with registered nurses (RN's) who do, poor morale inevitably results. Being aware of the looming nurse shortage, we should be doing all we can to improve VA's ability to recruit and retain these caregivers. Currently, hospital directors have the discretion to provide Saturday premium pay. But of the 17,000 hybrid employees, 8,000 are not receiving the pay premium. I believe this change in law will make pay more consistent and fair for our health care workers. There are other VA health care employees who are employed under the title 5 personnel system who are not affected by this change. But since the title 5 system is not under the Veterans' Affairs Committee jurisdiction, we were not able to address Saturday pay for these workers. However, because of concerns about those workers, I pledge to work with my colleagues on other committees to provide other title 5 workers with Saturday premium pay. Programs initiated within VA to improve conditions for nurses and patients have focused on issues other than staffing ratios, pay, and hours. A highly praised scholarship program that I spearheaded in 1998 allows VA nurses to pursue degrees and training in return for their service, thus encouraging professional development and improving the quality of health care. Included within the legislation before us are modifications to the existing scholarship and debt reduction programs. These changes are intended to improve the programs by providing additional flexibility to recipients. In the Upper Midwest, the special skills of nurses and nurse practitioners are being recognized in clinics that provide supportive care close to the veterans who need it. The legislation before us seeks to encourage more nurse-managed clinics and also includes a requirement that VA evaluate these clinics. The legislation before us would amend the treatment of part-time service performed by certain title 38 employees prior to April 7, 1986, for purposes of retirement credit. Currently, part-time service performed by title 5 employees prior to April 7, 1986, is treated as full-time service; however, title 38 employees' part-time services prior to April 7, 1986, is counted as part-time service and therefore results in lower annuities for these employees. In order to rectify this, the pending measure exempts registered nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-function dental auxiliaries from the requirement that part-time service performed prior to April 7, 1986, be prorated when calculating retirement annuities. Although the nursing crisis has not yet reached its projected peak, the shortage is already endangering patient safety in the areas of critical and long-term care, where demands on nurses are greatest. We must encourage higher enrollment in nursing schools, improve the work environment, and offer nurses opportunities to develop as respected professionals, while taking steps to ensure safe staffing levels in the short-term. In addition to the many important changes for nurses, this bill also contains other significant health care provisions. For example, the legislation would enable the Department of Veterans Affairs to allow hearing-impaired veterans and veterans with spinal cord injury or dysfunction, in addition to blind veterans, to obtain service dogs to assist them with everyday activities. This bill would also establish a VA chiropractic program in each of the VA's health care networks. A chiropractic advisory committee will be established for the purpose of advising the Secretary in the development and implementation of the chiropractic program. The Secretary will provide protocols governing referrals, direct access, chiropractic scope of practice, and definition of chiropractic services, which will be available to all veterans enrolled in the VA health care system. I thank our Majority Leader, Senator Daschle, for his leadership in shaping this new landmark chiropractic program within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Another important provision of this bill would help ``near poor'' veterans living in high cost-of-living areas, by significantly reducing VA copayments for hospital inpatient care. For those veterans whose family incomes fall between the VA's current means test level and the Department of Housing and Urban Development low income index for the area of their primary residence, the current inpatient copayments would be reduced by 80 percent. This is a significant step in reducing the inequities imposed on those veterans in high cost-of- living areas. Another very important provision of this bill authorizes $28.3 million for a much needed repair project at the Miami VA medical center. Three years ago there was a devastating fire that destroyed the electrical plant at the medical center, and this project is desperately needed. As has been the case in previous years and is particularly important in light of our country's current military actions, this legislation truly represents a bipartisan commitment to our Nation's veterans. I particularly recognize the hard work of Kim Lipsky and Mickey Thursam of the Democratic staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; Bill Cahill of the Republican staff of the Committee; Tamera Jones of Senator Cleland's staff, and John Bradley, Kimberly Cowins, and Susan Edgerton of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee in seeing this bill through the legislative process. In conclusion, I believe that this bill represents a real step forward for veterans and for the health care system which veterans turn to for care. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of health care legislation for our veterans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the compromise agreement and a joint explanatory statement on the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the final conference report on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, and I commend Senator Kennedy and all the conferees for their hours of negotiations to forge consensus on this vital legislation. This package outlines our major Federal framework for education policy for the coming years. The bill requires new emphasis on achievement through annual testing and school report cards, but it also calls for new investments to reach these higher education goals. We must have higher education standards. This bill creates new goals through the Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP, standards, which charts a 12-year strategy to achieve education goals, with meaningful measurement along the way, to ensure that all children, especially disadvantaged students, get help and make strides. Students in schools that are struggling and fail to meet the standards will have the option of after-school tutoring, which is a good compromise to ensure help to students without using controversial private school vouchers that drain needed resources from public schools. While high standards are crucial, it takes real resources to achieve them. This legislation authorizes meaningful increases in title I funding for disadvantaged schools and IDEA. This year, West Virginia received $73.7 million in title I funding. Today's legislation authorizes new investments in title I; depending on the final negotiations in the pending Labor-HHS-Education appropriation conference, West Virginia will receive between $78.8 million to $80.9 million for title I, which will be essential to achieving our new goals. However, pushing for the additional resources is not a single event; it will mean hard work on appropriations for the next 6 years. I am committed to working with Senator Kennedy and others to deliver on the needed funding to fulfill our promises on education. This is a major legislative initiative. I particularly want to note the emphasis on reading for young children. Teaching a child to read, and read well, is a fundamental building block for education. We should be proud of the bill's provisions highlighting reading and literacy, and its special support for reading programs for preschool and early grades. I am also pleased about the new emphasis on drop-prevent programs and parental involvement. In addition, this legislation protects and continues some key education programs, including the Safe and Drug-Free School program which I worked to create more than a decade ago. We all understand the importance of school safety and protecting children from the dangers of drugs and alcohol. Our bill requires that all teachers be qualified in their subjects by the school year beginning in 2005. This will be a challenge in West Virginia and many States, especially in crucial subject areas like math and science. When I talk with business leaders in my State, they bring up the importance and the difficulties of attracting teachers who are qualified, especially in math and science. Given the national shortage of teachers, this will be hard to achieve, but we simply must ensure that our teachers are qualified in their subjects if we hope to achieve the adequate yearly progress standards. In the Senate, we voted to fulfill our Federal commitment to fully fund the IDEA program, which suggests that the Federal Government pay 40 percent of the costs of educating children with disabilities. However, while progress was made on better funding for IDEA, we did not reach the Senate goal of full mandatory funding, and this is a real disappointment to me. We need accountability and high standards, but we also need investments to achieve those key goals. This legislation provides the framework for success. It will up to President Bush and the Congress to work together over the coming years to secure the investment needed to fill in this bold plan for education reform. Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have debated this year. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has provided the framework for the Federal role in education for more than 35 years. The conference report currently before us, the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' will chart the course for the Federal role in education for the next 6 years and beyond. I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. The Federal Government has an important role to play in supporting our States and school districts as they carry out one of their most important responsibilities, the education of our children. Every child in this country has the right to a free public education. Every child. That is an awesome responsibility, and one that should not have to be shouldered by local communities alone. The States and the Federal Government are partners in this worthy goal, and ESEA is the document that outlines the Federal Government's responsibilities to our Nation's children, to those who educate them, and to our States and local school districts. It is with this conference report that we must find the right balance between local control and Federal targeting and accountability guidelines for the Federal dollars that are so crucial to local school districts throughout the United States. I remain opposed to the new federally-mandated annual tests in grades 3-8. I am concerned that adding another layer of testing could result in a generation of students who know how to take tests, but who don't have the skills necessary to become successful adults. I am pleased that the conference committee retained a Senate provision to ensure that the tests that are used are of a high quality and that the conference included language to ensure that the test results are easy to understand and are useful for teachers and school districts to help improve student achievement. I fear that this new annual testing requirement will disproportionately affect disadvantaged students. We should ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to succeed in school. I am pleased that this conference report authorizes a 20-percent increase in title I funding for fiscal year 2002 and that it authorizes additional increases for this crucial funding in each of the next 5 years, 2003- 2007. I am also pleased that the conference report includes language to ensure that these dollars are targeted to students who need them the most. I will continue to work to ensure that Title I is fully funded. I am pleased that the conference report includes language to ensure that the States will not have to implement or administer this new Federal testing mandate unless the Federal Government provides a specific amount of funding. While the true cost of this mandate is still unclear, it is clear that the Federal Government should provide adequate funding for this new requirement. I regret that the House-Senate conference voted to strip a Senate provision that would have guaranteed full funding of the federal share of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This action, coupled with the new Federal testing mandate, could push already stretched local education budgets to the breaking point. I will continue to work for fiscally responsible full funding of the Federal share of IDEA when the Senate considers reauthorization of that important law next year. This debate gave Congress the opportunity to strengthen public education in America. Unfortunately, many of the provisions contained in the conference may undermine public education by blurring the lines between public and private, between church and state, and between local control and Federal mandates. Because this conference does not provide the resources necessary to implement its goals, it will leave many children behind. For those reasons, I will vote against it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am proud to highlight the recognition given to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the high level of attention they have paid to patient safety in recent years. The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University has announced that VA's National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) will be one of five winners of the annual Innovations in American Government awards. An article in yesterday's Washington Post brings this achievement to national attention and details why VA's Center was the only federal recipient of the award. It's apparent that the NCPS has cultivated a culture within VA that promotes communication and therefore enables health care staff to feel more comfortable about reporting medical errors or even concerns that they have about patient safety. VA launched this initiative in 1998, but it received a major push in 1999 when the Institute of Medicine released a report estimating that 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical mistakes. This award demonstrates how VA has pioneered the establishment of the type of culture which must exist. According to the article, many health care providers in the private sector have started to model their patient safety models around that of the NCPS. This was a driving force behind the Institute for Government Innovation's decision to recognize VA's efforts by giving them this honor. For a long time now, I have pushed VA to pay closer attention to patient safety, as it has been an issue of concern in the past. This is why I am glad to finally see VA on the cutting edge of patient safety, and being acknowledged for it. Our veterans deserve nothing less than highest standards of health care. I ask unanimous consent that an article from The Washington Post, detailing VA's patient safety program and the award, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my distinct pleasure to join my friend from Georgia, Senator Cleland, in cosponsoring the Heroic Emergency Response Operations, or HERO, Act. The legislation we introduce today honors individuals whom the tragic events of the past few months have truly shown to be heroes, our firefighters and police officers. The HERO Act honors these men and women by providing grants to State and local governments to allow there dedicated public servants to be trained in the proper handling of hazardous materials emergencies. The HERO Act expands upon the existing Department of Transportation, DOT, Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants, which are intended to provide financial and technical assistance to enhance State and local hazardous materials planning and training. The program is authorized to distribute up to $14 million in fees that have been collected from shippers and carriers of hazardous materials to emergency responders for hazmat training. Unfortunately, this money has never been fully allocated to this important endeavor, and there is now a $15 million surplus. The HERO Act will allow the Secretary of Transportation to access this $15 million in surplus funds and use it for its intended purpose. Additionally, the HERO Act authorizes that $1 million of the surplus funds go to the International Association of Fire Fighters, (IAFF), which offers a specialized program of hazmat training, free of charge, to firefighters across the country. The IAFF is the only organization currently offering this specialized hazmat training, and the additional funding will quadruple the number of firefighters with access to it. In the course of learning some important, but painful, lessons during the past few months, our nation has had the opportunity to focus on some positives that we may have taken for granted. As surely as the epic tragedies of September 11 made us aware of the unspeakable evil in the world, it also gave us great pride in the heroes in our midst. When an anthrax-laden letter contaminated the offices of the Majority Leader and others, we came to understand our vulnerability to chemical and biological terrorism. At the same time, we came to more fully appreciate the dedication of the Capitol Police, and the highly trained biohazard units from several agencies of the Federal Government and the armed forces. I am among a group of displaced Senators and staff anxiously waiting for these experts to determine that the Hart Building is safe to re-enter, and I am confident that when we do go back in, the health of Senators and staff members will have been safeguarded by these brave men and women. I believe it is our duty as members of Congress to see to it that when firefighters and police officers anywhere in the country respond to an accident, crime, or act of terrorism that has resulted in the release of hazardous materials, these heroes have the proper training to protect themselves and the general public. I further believe it is unconscionable that while hazmat teams in every State in the Union go without this much-needed training, this stockpile of money sits unused in the Treasury. Even before the events of the past few months highlighted the need for enhanced and expanded hazardous materials training, DOT and the IAFF were training as many emergency personnel as possible. However, at its current level of funding, the Emergency Preparedness Grants Program can only provide hazmat training to approximately 120,000 of the nation's 3 million emergency workers each year. Given what has happened, it should be obvious that the need for specialized hazmat training has quickly outpaced the money currently available. This leaves emergency workers in big cities and small towns in the untenable situation of knowing the risks they face, but lacking the proper training to react appropriately. The legislation I am cosponsoring with Senator Cleland offers an excellent solution to this problem. At no cost to taxpayers, the HERO Act will allow many thousands of emergency personnel to receive hazardous materials training that they would not otherwise be able to receive. Further, it will require DOT to develop minimal national standards for providing security training to those who transport hazardous materials in commerce, which should reduce the likelihood that emergency personnel will have to put their lives at risk to protect us. I commend Senator Cleland for his work on this issue, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to my colleagues. I believe the Congress should enact this bill at its earliest opportunity, and that the President should sign it into law.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 1291, the proposed ``Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001.'' The pending measure is the final compromise version of an omnibus bill that improves a wide variety of veterans benefits, such as the amount and flexibility of the Montgomery GI bill, enhances compensation to Gulf War veterans, as well as to Vietnam veterans with Agent Orange- related conditions, increases the VA home loan guaranty amount, extends VA's authority to provide home loans to Reservists and on Native American tribal land, and augments burial benefits. The key provisions are described in more detail below. I refer my colleagues seeking more detail to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying this statement. H.R. 1291, which I will refer to as the ``compromise agreement,'' makes significant enhancements to educational benefits for veterans and their families. I thank my colleagues in the House for working with our committee staff to enhance the education benefits that help pay back veterans for the service they have given our Nation. Today's Montgomery GI bill, MGIB, provides a valuable recruitment and retention tool for the Armed Services. As a transition benefit, it allows veterans to gain the skills they need to adjust productively to civilian life when they return from service. I am very pleased that the compromise bill, in section 101, will increase the MGIB basic monthly benefit to $800 per month beginning in January 2002, $900 in 2002, and $985 in 2003. I am even more proud that H.R. 1291 also takes the next step to keep pace with education needed for success in high-technology fields. As our colleagues know, many servicemembers leave the military with skills that place them in demand for careers in the technology sector. But even these veterans may require additional coursework to convert their military skills to civilian careers. Sections 104 and 110 of the committee bill will allow veterans to use their Montgomery GI bill educational benefits to pay for short-term, high technology courses that enable veterans to earn the credentials they need to gain entry to lucrative civilian-sector careers. Currently, the MGIB provides a basic monthly benefit for education costs. This payment structure is designed to assist veterans pursuing traditional 4-year degrees at universities. However, in today's fast paced, high-tech economy, traditional degrees may not always be the best option. Many veterans are pursuing forms of nontraditional training, such as short-term courses that lead to certification in a technical field. In certain fields, these certifications are a prerequisite to employment. These courses, such as Microsoft or Cisco systems training, may be offered through training centers, private contractors to community colleges, or the companies themselves. They often last just a few weeks or months, and can cost many thousands of dollars. The way MGIB is paid out in monthly disbursements is not suited to this course structure. For example, MGIB would pay less than $1,400 for a 2-month course that could cost as much as $10,000. The percentage of veterans who actually use the MGIB benefits they have earned and paid for is startlingly low, 45 percent of eligible veterans, according to VA's Program Evaluation of the Montgomery GI bill published in April 2000, despite almost full enrollment in the program by servicemembers. By increasing the flexibility of the MGIB program, we will permit more veterans to take advantage of these benefits. This legislation gives veterans the right to choose the kind of educational program that will be best for them. This legislation will modify the payment method to accommodate the compressed schedule of these courses. Specifically, section 104 allows veterans to receive an accelerated payment equal to 60 percent of the cost of the program. This is comparable to VA's MGIB benefit for flight training, for which VA reimburses 60 percent of the costs. The dollar value of the accelerated payment would then be deducted from the veteran's remaining entitlement. Section 110 allows courses offered by these providers to be covered by MGIB. I am extremely proud that section 103 of this legislation will restore educational and vocational rehabilitation and training benefits for servicemembers and reservists who must leave their course of study to serve on active duty, such as military members called away to serve in connection with the current National Emergency declared in response to the events of September 11, 2001. This provision will amend a provision that restores such entitlements for servicemembers and reservists called to active duty for the Persian Gulf War. In 1997, Congress similarly expanded educational benefits restoration for the Selected Reserve Program. Section 102 will increase the Dependent's Educational Allowance, DEA, for dependents and eligible spouses of veterans. Congress created this educational program in 1968 to provide educational opportunities to children whose education would be impeded or interrupted because of the disability or death of a parent from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the Armed Forces. In addition, surviving spouses of veterans who do not remarry are generally eligible for the educational allowance in order to assist them in preparing to support themselves and their families at the standard-of-living level that the veteran could have been expected to provide for his or her family but for the service-connected disability or death. Children and surviving spouses of servicemembers who are missing in action for 90 days, captured in the line of duty by a hostile force, or detained or interned by a foreign government, are also eligible for the educational allowance. DEA is available for full-time, three-quarter time or half-time attendance at an institution of higher learning, for students taking correspondence courses, pursuing special restorative training, or apprenticeship training. The increase in DEA for full-time students would be to $670 from $608 on January 1, 2002, with no cost-of-living adjustment that year. The allowance for a three-quarter time student would increase to $503 from $456, and the allowance for half-time pursuit would increase to $335 from $304. As many of my colleagues remember, questions about the long-term consequences of exposure to Agent Orange arose during the Vietnam War. Decades later, veterans of that war still await clear answers. A series of ongoing reviews by the National Academy of Sciences has helped to provide some of those answers, such as the potential link between exposure to chemicals in Agent Orange and respiratory cancers. The legislation before us would continue these scientific reviews, and extend the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' authority to act upon new scientific evidence. Currently, Vietnam veterans can claim service-connected benefits for respiratory cancers, but only if those cancers are diagnosed within 30 years of their Vietnam service. Section 201 would remove that time limit, which the last scientific review preliminarily found to be without clear basis. However, to ensure that this decision is based upon sound evidence, the provision also allows the Secretary to request a scientific review by NAS specifically addressing whether a time limit on manifestation of respiratory cancers is warranted, and to impose such a limit if supported by scientific findings. Should the Secretary's requested review result in a finding of a more restrictive latency period for manifestation of these respiratory cancers, the compromise agreement would ensure that the families and survivors of these veterans remain eligible for VA benefits. Finally, this bill also restores a VA presumption, eliminated by a Court decision, that all in-country Vietnam veterans were exposed to Agent Orange. Following the Gulf War, returning troops began to report a range of unexplained illnesses that many attributed to their service, but that could not be linked conclusively to a specific battlefield hazard. In 1994, Congress passed the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act, allowing the Secretary to compensate certain Gulf War veterans disabled by ``undiagnosed illnesses'' for which no other causes could be identified. The term ``undiagnosed illnesses'' has been interpreted by VA to preclude any veteran from eligibility who has received a diagnosis, even if that diagnosis is merely a descriptive label for a collection of unexplained symptoms. This legislation would authorize the Secretary to compensate an eligible Gulf War veteran disabled by a ``medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms,'' such as chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia. Rather than defining Gulf War illnesses, section 202 of this legislation would correct an unfair situation that penalizes Gulf War veterans whose physicians have embraced changes in medical terminology in the past decade. Since 1933, there has been a prohibition on paying benefits to an incompetent veteran who has no dependents and who has assets of $1,500 or more, if the veteran is being provided institutional health care by the Government. Then, incompetent individuals might be institutionalized for years. It was believed that a large estate based on the veteran's benefits should not be allowed to build up just to pass to the state upon the veteran's death. Now, treatment modalities have changed and veterans are more likely to cycle in and out of treatment, which results in virtually constant suspension and reinstatement of their benefits. Last year, in Public Law 106-419, Congress addressed this anomaly in law. Although we had hoped to fully eliminate the disparate and discriminatory treatment of incompetent veterans, due to cost restraints we were only able to raise the dollar amount of the cutoff to five times the 100 percent compensation rate. I am enormously proud that Section 204 would fully repeal the limitation on payment thereby ending decades of prejudice and discrimination against these veterans. The committee bill also enhances and extends home loan programs. As most of our colleagues appreciate, VA does not provide a direct home loan for servicemembers and veterans. Instead, it provides a guaranty to mortgage lenders should the borrower veteran be unable to meet the payments and go into foreclosure. A VA guaranty allows a veteran to buy a home valued at up to four times the guaranty amount. The price of homes in major metropolitan areas has increased significantly in the last several years, yet the VA guaranty amount has not been increased since 1994. VA estimates that during fiscal year 2001, VA will have guaranteed 250,000 loans for veterans. Section 401 will increase the home loan guaranty amount to $60,000 from the current $50,750, supporting a loan of up to $240,000. Section 403 will extend for 2 years the authority for housing loan guaranties for members of the Selected Reserve, currently set to expire in 2007. Reservists must serve 6 years in order to become eligible for a VA-guaranteed loan. In order for the home loan to be used as a recruiting incentive now, the benefit must be authorized beyond 6 years. It is especially appropriate that we recognize the importance of those who serve in the Selected Reserves as we rely on them yet again, in this time of national crisis. In conclusion, I want to thank Senator Specter and his benefits staff, Bill Tuerk, Jon Towers, and Chris McNamee, for diligently working with me and my benefits staff, Bill Brew, Mary Schoelen, Julie Fischer, Bridget Baylin, Chris Reinard, and Dahlia Melendrez, to craft this legislation during this extraordinary year. I urge my colleagues to support these vital enhancements to veterans benefits. As has been the case in previous years and is particularly important in light of our country's current military actions, this truly represents a bipartisan commitment to our Nation's veterans. I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my distinct pleasure to join my friend from Georgia, Senator Cleland, in cosponsoring the Heroic Emergency Response Operations, or HERO, Act. The legislation we introduce today honors individuals whom the tragic events of the past few months have truly shown to be heroes, our firefighters and police officers. The HERO Act honors these men and women by providing grants to State and local governments to allow there dedicated public servants to be trained in the proper handling of hazardous materials emergencies. The HERO Act expands upon the existing Department of Transportation, DOT, Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants, which are intended to provide financial and technical assistance to enhance State and local hazardous materials planning and training. The program is authorized to distribute up to $14 million in fees that have been collected from shippers and carriers of hazardous materials to emergency responders for hazmat training. Unfortunately, this money has never been fully allocated to this important endeavor, and there is now a $15 million surplus. The HERO Act will allow the Secretary of Transportation to access this $15 million in surplus funds and use it for its intended purpose. Additionally, the HERO Act authorizes that $1 million of the surplus funds go to the International Association of Fire Fighters, (IAFF), which offers a specialized program of hazmat training, free of charge, to firefighters across the country. The IAFF is the only organization currently offering this specialized hazmat training, and the additional funding will quadruple the number of firefighters with access to it. In the course of learning some important, but painful, lessons during the past few months, our nation has had the opportunity to focus on some positives that we may have taken for granted. As surely as the epic tragedies of September 11 made us aware of the unspeakable evil in the world, it also gave us great pride in the heroes in our midst. When an anthrax-laden letter contaminated the offices of the Majority Leader and others, we came to understand our vulnerability to chemical and biological terrorism. At the same time, we came to more fully appreciate the dedication of the Capitol Police, and the highly trained biohazard units from several agencies of the Federal Government and the armed forces. I am among a group of displaced Senators and staff anxiously waiting for these experts to determine that the Hart Building is safe to re-enter, and I am confident that when we do go back in, the health of Senators and staff members will have been safeguarded by these brave men and women. I believe it is our duty as members of Congress to see to it that when firefighters and police officers anywhere in the country respond to an accident, crime, or act of terrorism that has resulted in the release of hazardous materials, these heroes have the proper training to protect themselves and the general public. I further believe it is unconscionable that while hazmat teams in every State in the Union go without this much-needed training, this stockpile of money sits unused in the Treasury. Even before the events of the past few months highlighted the need for enhanced and expanded hazardous materials training, DOT and the IAFF were training as many emergency personnel as possible. However, at its current level of funding, the Emergency Preparedness Grants Program can only provide hazmat training to approximately 120,000 of the nation's 3 million emergency workers each year. Given what has happened, it should be obvious that the need for specialized hazmat training has quickly outpaced the money currently available. This leaves emergency workers in big cities and small towns in the untenable situation of knowing the risks they face, but lacking the proper training to react appropriately. The legislation I am cosponsoring with Senator Cleland offers an excellent solution to this problem. At no cost to taxpayers, the HERO Act will allow many thousands of emergency personnel to receive hazardous materials training that they would not otherwise be able to receive. Further, it will require DOT to develop minimal national standards for providing security training to those who transport hazardous materials in commerce, which should reduce the likelihood that emergency personnel will have to put their lives at risk to protect us. I commend Senator Cleland for his work on this issue, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to my colleagues. I believe the Congress should enact this bill at its earliest opportunity, and that the President should sign it into law.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senate is passing the House bill to reauthorize the Safe and Stable Families Program. This is necessary action to protect funding that is fundamental for promoting adoptions and preventing child abuse and neglect. By acting today, the Senate can secure $1.5 billion over the next 5 years for vital priorities. It would be wrong to leave Washington without taking action to ensure long-term support for such vulnerable children. Earlier this year, I joined with Senator Mike DeWine and a bipartisan group in introducing an even better legislative package to boldly expand this vital program. Our bill, which was based on President Bush's own proposal, would have increased the basic funding for the Safe and Stable Families Program from $305 million to $505 million of guaranteed annual funding. This would have provided an additional $1 billion over the next 5 years, including $60 million in funding for scholarships for teens aging out of foster care. It would also have provided authority to create a new program designed to mentor the children of prisoners. I truly wish we were moving the Senate bill today, but since that is not possible. I believe enacting the House bill is essential for the long-term security of this program. The House version provides a 5-year reauthorization of the Safe and Stable Families Program. The House bill also authorizes scholarships for teens aging out of foster care and new programs for mentoring children of prisoners. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Harkin and Specter, there is a $70 million increase in this year's Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations. That is good news for families who need adoption support services and prevention services. I am proud of this increase, and enormously grateful for the support and cooperation of the Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate. Throughout my years of legislative work on child welfare, I have worked hard to forge bipartisan compromise and consensus. I strongly believe that we must maintain such bipartisanship. The best news is that we have more money to provide more services to families next year. But the challenge remains for us to work and achieve the goals of the original Senate bill and President Bush's proposal. I remain committed to this, and hope that this important step forward will help build the good will and bipartisanship necessary to deliver on all of our long-term goals in the years ahead. I want to especially thank my primary cosponsor, Senator Mike DeWine, who has been a passionate leader on adoption and child welfare reform for many years. Senator DeWine was a leader in 1997 on improving the reasonable efforts standards to ensure that a child's health, safety, and need for a permanent home are priorities. This change and others have helped reform the system and dramatically increase adoptions. I also want to thank and recognize the strong bipartisan support from all of my Senate colleagues for our original bill, including Senators Bingaman, Bond, Breaux, Chafee, Collins, Craig, DeWine, Graham, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Snowe. In West Virginia, adoptions are increasing, thanks to both the reforms set in 1997 under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the new investments. My state needs increased funding to help develop local community-based programs, so our children can get needed services in their own communities and not be sent out-of-state, away from family, friends and familiar schools. I am proud of my State for its improvement, but we all understand much more must be done, in West Virginia and nationwide, for these vulnerable children who depend on our efforts. Today's action provides a good foundation, but we must continue working in a bipartisan manner to build upon today's action, and achieve all of the goals we share.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to pass S. 1088, the proposed ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2001,'' as it will be modified by a manager's amendment which I developed with the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Specter. I will describe provisions of the amendment in a moment. The pending measure is an omnibus bill that improves many veterans benefits, such as the amount and flexibility of the Montgomery GI Bill, and enhances compensation to Gulf War veterans, as well as to Vietnam veterans with Agent Orange-related conditions. Although the Budget Resolution assumed some significant spending on veterans benefits, our Committee nonetheless had to make some difficult decisions to assist the most veterans within the resources available to our Committee. I thank Ranking Member Specter and the minority staff for their significant efforts toward attaining that goal. S. 1088, as reported, which I will refer to as the ``Committee bill,'' makes significant enhancements to educational benefits for veterans and their families. The original GI Bill allowed a generation of soldiers returning from World War II to create the booming post-war economy, and, in fact, the prosperity that we enjoy today. Today's Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), modeled after the original GI Bill, provides a valuable recruitment and retention tool for the Armed Services and begins to repay veterans for the service they have given to our Nation. As a transition benefit, it allows veterans to gain the skills they need to adjust productively to civilian life. I am very pleased that section 101 of the Committee bill would increase the MGIB basic monthly benefit by $50 per month this year, $100 in 2002, and $150 in 2003. I am even more proud that S. 1088 also takes the next evolutionary step to keep pace with the careers and education that today's veterans require. As our colleagues know, many servicemembers leave the military with skills that place them in demand for careers in the technology sector. But even these veterans may require coursework to convert their military skills to civilian careers. Section 103 of the Committee bill would allow veterans to use their Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits to pay for short-term, high technology courses that would allow veterans to earn the credentials they need to gain entry to lucrative civilian-sector careers. Currently, the MGIB provides a basic monthly benefit of $672 for 36 months of education. This payment structure is designed to assist veterans pursuing traditional four-year degrees at universities. However, in today's fast paced, high-tech economy, traditional degrees may not always be the best option. Many veterans are pursuing forms of nontraditional training, such as short-term courses that lead to certification in a technical field. In certain fields, these certifications are a prerequisite to employment. These courses, such as Microsoft or Cisco systems training, may be offered through training centers, private contractors to community colleges, or the companies themselves. They often last just a few weeks or months, and can cost many thousands of dollars. The way MGIB is paid out in monthly disbursements is not suited to this course structure. For example, MGIB would pay less than $1,400 for a two-month course that could cost as much as $10,000. The percentage of veterans who actually use the MGIB benefits they have earned and paid for is startlingly low--45% of eligible veterans, according to VA's Program Evaluation of the Montgomery GI Bill published in April 2000--despite almost full enrollment in the program by servicemembers. By increasing the flexibility of the MGIB program, we will permit more veterans to take advantage of these benefits. We should give veterans the right to choose whatever kind of educational program will be best for them. This legislation would modify the payment method to accommodate the compressed schedule of the courses. Specifically, section 103 would allow veterans to receive an accelerated payment equal to 60 percent of the cost of the program. This is comparable to VA's MGIB benefit for flight training, for which VA reimburses 60 percent of the costs. The dollar value of the accelerated payment would then be deducted from the veteran's remaining entitlement. This provision would also allow courses offered by these providers to be covered by MGIB. Another provision of the Committee bill would correct an unintended exclusion of certain Gulf War veterans from eligibility for service- connected benefits. Our efforts to explain symptoms reported by many troops returning from the 1991 Gulf War have been frustrated by inconclusive scientific data and by poor military recordkeeping during the conflict. In 1994, Congress passed the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act to provide compensation to certain Gulf War veterans disabled by ``undiagnosed illnesses'' for which no other causes could be identified. Since then, changes in medical terminology have led many Gulf War veterans to receive diagnoses for chronic conditions without known cause--such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia--which VA has interpreted as precluding them from eligibility for benefits. Section 202 of the Committee bill would correct this unintended exclusion by expanding service connection to ``poorly defined chronic multisymptom illnesses of unknown etiology, regardless of diagnosis,'' characterized by the symptoms already listed in VA regulations. Because scientific research has still determined neither the cause of veterans' symptoms nor the long-term health consequences of Gulf War- era exposures, and because the Department of Defense recently expanded its estimates of who might have been exposed to nerve agents, this section also extends the presumptive period for benefits for Gulf War veterans for 10 more years. I thank the Committee's newest member, Senator Hutchison, for her leadership on this issue. For many years there has been a prohibition on paying compensation and pension benefits to an incompetent veteran who has no dependents and who has assets of $1,500 or more, if the veteran is being provided institutional health care by the government. This reduction of benefits to this population of veterans dates back to 1933, when incompetent individuals might be institutionalized for years. At that time, it was believed that a large estate based on the veteran's benefits should not be allowed to build up just to pass to the state upon the veteran's death. Now, however, treatment modalities have changed and veterans do not generally remain hospitalized for years at a time. Instead, they are more likely to cycle in and out of treatment, which results in virtually constant suspension and reinstatement of their benefits. Last year, in Public Law 106-419, Congress addressed this anomaly in law. Although we had hoped to fully eliminate the disparate and discriminatory treatment of incompetent veterans, due to cost restraints we were only able to raise the dollar amount of the cutoff from $1,500 to five times the 100 percent compensation rate, which is $10,535 in the current year. The current monthly VA disability compensation rate for a veteran rated 100 percent disabled is $2,107. Section 209 would fully repeal the limitation on payment of benefits to incompetent institutionalized veterans who have no dependents and thereby end decades of prejudice and discrimination against these veterans. The Committee bill also enhances and extends home loan programs. As most of our colleagues appreciate, VA does not provide a direct home loan for servicemembers and veterans. Instead, it provides a guaranty to mortgage lenders should the borrower veteran be unable to meet the payments and go into foreclosure. A VA guaranty allows a veteran to buy a home valued at up to four times the guaranty amount. The price of homes in major metropolitan areas has increased significantly in the last several years, yet the VA guaranty amount has not been increased since 1994. VA estimates that during fiscal year 2001, VA will have guaranteed 250,000 loans for veterans. Section 301 would increase the home loan guaranty amount to $63,175 from the current $50,750 to keep pace with FHA loan guaranties, thereby supporting a loan of up to $252,700. Section 302 would extend the Native American veterans housing loan program, set to expire in 2002, by 4 years. Special authority to provide these loans is necessary, in addition to the general VA home loan guaranty, because these homes sit on tribal land. This makes traditional foreclosure and resale by the mortgage holders impossible. Section 303 would extend for 4 years the authority for housing loan guaranties for members of the Selected Reserve, currently set to expire in 2007. Reservists must serve 6 years in order to become eligible for a VA-guaranteed loan. In order for the home loan to be used as a recruiting incentive now, the benefit must be authorized beyond 6 years. Senator Akaka, my good friend and colleague on the Committee, has again championed the loan programs for Native Americans and reservists in the Senate. I now turn to the provisions contained in the manager's amendment. They include further enhancements to educational benefits, pension simplification, and eliminating an arbitrary bar to benefits for Vietnam veterans suffering from Agent Orange-related respiratory cancers. First, new section 105 would protect educational benefits for those that must leave their course of study to serve on active duty in support of the National Emergency declared in response to the events of September 11, 2001. This provision would restore educational entitlements for recipients of the Montgomery GI Bill, Veterans Educational Assistance Program, VEAP, and Dependent's Educational Allowance, DEA, for regular servicemembers and reservists who are called up for active duty and who are forced to relocate or take on extra work because of their participation in support of the National Emergency. This provision would be an amendment to a provision that restores such entitlements for servicemembers and reservists called to active duty for the Persian Gulf War. In 1997, Congress similarly expanded educational benefits restoration for the Selected Reserve Program. New section 106 would increase the Dependent's Educational Allowance (DEA) for dependents and eligible spouses of veterans. Congress created this educational program in 1968 to provide educational opportunities to children whose education would be impeded or interrupted because of the disability or death of a parent from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the Armed Forces. In addition, unremarried surviving spouses of veterans are generally eligible for the educational allowance in order to assist them in preparing to support themselves and their families at the standard-of-living level that the veteran could have been expected to provide for his or her family but for the service-connected disability or death. Children and surviving spouses of servicemembers who are missing in action for 90 days, captured in the line of duty by a hostile force, or detained or interned by a foreign government, are also eligible for the educational allowance. DEA is available for full-time, three-quarter time or half-time attendance at an institution of higher learning, for students taking correspondence courses, pursuing special restorative training, or apprenticeship training. The increase in DEA for full-time students would be to $690 from $608 on November 1, 2002, with no cost-of-living adjustment that year. The allowance for a three-quarter time student would increase to $517 from $456, and the allowance for half-time pursuit would increase to $345 from $304. In addition, new section 107 would address statutory gaps that led to a court decision, Ozer v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 257 (2001), that eliminated the delimiting date for use of DEA benefits by surviving spouses. Under the new provision, subject to the Secretary's approval, the surviving spouse would be allowed to change the beginning date of the 10-year period during which he or she is eligible for benefits. This provision would allow the surviving spouse to select the beginning date of eligibility from any date between the effective rating of the veteran's total and permanent service-connected disability and the date on which the Secretary determines that the veteran died of a service- connected disability. The amendment would restore the delimiting date provision, making the DEA program more uniform with other VA educational programs. New section 201 would remove the arbitrary 30-year limit for manifestation of Agent Orange-related respiratory cancers in Vietnam veterans. Currently, title 38, United States Code, only provides a presumption in Vietnam veterans for respiratory cancer if the disease manifested within 30 years of their service in Vietnam. The most recent National Academy of Sciences report confirmed that there is no scientific basis for assuming that cancers linked to dioxin exposure would occur with a specific window of time. This provision would eliminate the 30-year limit and allow future claims for Vietnam veterans' respiratory cancers, irrespective of the date of manifestation of the disease. Finally, new section 203 would restore the presumption of disability for pension purposes by allowing VA to accept certain types of evidence, beyond just medical evidence, to establish permanent and total disability. VA non-service-connected pension is a needs-based monthly benefit paid to certain disabled wartime veterans. Currently, the VA must determine if medical evidence demonstrates that the veteran can be rated as permanently and totally disabled. This can be a very time-consuming process that creates hardships for pension claimants. This provision would allow VA to consider a veteran to be permanently and totally disabled for pension purposes if the veteran is a patient in a nursing home, the Social Security Administration has determined that the veteran is disabled for their benefit programs, or the veteran is age 65 or over. This provision should streamline the processing of pension claims and provide faster service for disabled and elderly veterans. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support these vital enhancements to veterans benefits. As has been the case in previous years and is particularly important in light of our country's current military actions, this truly represents a bipartisan commitment to our Nation's veterans. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of S. 1088 be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge prompt Senate passage of H.R. 2716, the ``Comprehensive Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2001,'' a bill that enhances VA's efforts to combat homelessness among our Nation's veterans. This bill represents a compromise between S. 739, as passed by the Senate on November 15, 2001; and H.R. 2716, which passed the House on October 16, 2001. This bill sets a rather lofty--but, in my view, attainable--goal of ending chronic homelessness among veterans within a decade. Unless we aim high, we will never end the problem. The bill also encourages interagency cooperation to facilitate meeting that goal. With the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services administering most programs targeting homelessness, it seeks to revive the Interagency Council on the Homeless, of which all three agencies are members. I will highlight some of the other key provisions in this important piece of legislation. Proposed new section 2062 of title 38, United States Code, is intended to authorize VA to provide essential dental care services to those homeless veterans who demonstrate a commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration into society. In the course of developing this provision, the Committee members agreed that there is a unique and urgent need for basic dental care within the homeless population. Consequently, the bill provides a one-time course of dental care to those homeless veterans who enroll and remain in a specified VA, grant or contract assistance, or specialized health program for 60 consecutive days. The treatment is limited to a ``one-time'' course of care that would allow VA to carry out a treatment plan as medically indicated by the veteran's needs. The Committee members also recognized there may be a break in treatment services that could occur through no fault of the veteran. In those cases, the compromise agreement makes allowance for the Secretary to aggregate days of treatment, by disregarding these breaks in continuous treatment. Section 8(a) of the compromise agreement contains a provision requiring that every VA facility develop a plan to treat patients who present themselves at the facility and are in need of mental health care. This can include referral to another facility that has the mental health treatment capability if the original facility does not. A similar provision was included in section 8(c) with regard to the availability of substance abuse treatment at every VA medical center. It requires VA to have a plan ready to implement should a veteran walk into a VA medical center and require such treatment. Opioid substitution therapy is specifically mentioned in this section because it has proven to be very successful for the treatment of heroin addiction. In closing, I acknowledge the tireless efforts of the original namesake of the bill, Heather French Henry, Miss America 2000. She dedicated her tenure to raising the Nation's awareness of the plight of homeless veterans, traveling some 20,000 miles a month to visit with veterans in recovery programs and offer encouragement. Mrs. Henry's father and uncle provided the inspiration for her to commit herself to the issue, as they both had suffered and recovered from substance abuse and ultimately homelessness following their military service. The work that Heather French Henry has done on behalf of homeless veterans did not stop at the end of her reign, but has continued on. This bill is a testament to her profound dedication. I also thank my good friend and colleague Senator Wellstone for his strong dedication to this issue. His unwavering commitment to homeless veterans was exemplified by his introduction of the Senate version of the bill and his tenacious efforts to get it passed. I applaud his efforts on behalf of this forgotten segment of the veterans population. Finally, Mr. President, I recognize the hard work of Alexandra Sardegna of the Democratic staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; Bill Cahill of the Republican staff of the Committee; and John Bradley and Susan Edgerton of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee in developing this legislation and seeing it through the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 194, S. 1088; further, that the Rockefeller-Specter substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, as amended, the bill be read a third time, that the Veterans Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1291, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1088, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time and passed, the title amendment be agreed to, S. 1088 be returned to the calendar, and any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I must say that I am mystified as to why there would be an objection to proceeding to consideration of this bill. I realize that the objecting Senator is not the one holding up passage of this important piece of veterans legislation. But as the hold is anonymous, I would ask whichever one of the Senators across the aisle is holding the bill to please come and speak to me to let me know the nature of the objection. As far as I know, the Committee's Ranking Member also has no idea who has objected to the bill. This bill was voted unanimously out of Committee and is completely lacking in controversy. More specifically this bill makes significant enhancements to educational benefits for veterans and their families. The original GI Bill allowed a generation of soldiers returning from World War II to create the booming post-war economy, and, in fact, the prosperity that we enjoy today. Today's Montgomery GI Bill, MGIB, modeled after the original GI Bill, provides a valuable recruitment and retention tool for the Armed Services and begins to repay veterans for the service they have given to our Nation. As a transition benefit, it allows veterans to gain the skills they need to adjust productively to civilian life. I am very pleased that the legislation would increase the MGIB basic monthly benefit by $50 per month this year, $100 in 2002, and $150 in 2003. I am even more proud that this bill also takes the next evolutionary step to keep pace with the careers and education that today's veterans require. As our colleagues know, many servicemembers leave the military with skills that place them in demand for careers in the technology sector. But even these veterans may require coursework to convert their military skills to civilian careers. The bill would allow veterans to use their Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits to pay for short-term, high technology courses that would allow veterans to earn the credentials they need to gain entry to today's civilian- sector careers. Currently, the MGIB provides a basic monthly benefit of $672 for 36 months of education. This payment structure is designed to assist veterans pursuing traditional four-year degrees at universities. However, in today's fast paced, high-tech economy, traditional degrees may not always be the best option. Many veterans are pursuing forms of nontraditional training, such as short-term courses that lead to certification in a technical field. In certain fields, these certifications are a prerequisite to employment. These courses often last just a few weeks or months, and can cost many thousands of dollars. The way MGIB is paid out in monthly disbursements is not suited to this course structure. For example, MGIB would pay only $1,344 for a two-month course that could cost as much as $10,000. The percentage of veterans who actually use the MGIB benefits they have earned and paid for is startlingly low--45% of eligible veterans, according to VA's Program Evaluation of the Montgomery GI Bill published in April 2000--despite almost full enrollment in the program by servicemembers. By increasing the flexibility of the MGIB program, we will permit more veterans to take advantage of these benefits. We should give veterans the right to choose whatever kind of educational program will be best for them. This legislation would modify the payment method to accommodate the compressed schedule of the courses. Specifically, it would allow veterans to receive an accelerated payment equal to 60 percent of the cost of the program. This is comparable to VA's MGIB benefit for flight training, for which VA reimburses 60 percent of the costs. The dollar value of the accelerated payment would then be deducted from the veteran's remaining entitlement. This provision would also allow courses offered by these providers to be covered by MGIB. A provision that is extremely important right now would preserve educational benefits for those that must leave their studies to serve on active duty in support of the National Emergency declared in response to the events of September 11th. This provision would restore educational entitlements for recipients of the Montgomery GI Bill, Veterans Educational Assistance Program, VEAP, and Dependent's Educational Allowance, DEA, for regular servicemembers and reservists who are called up for active duty and who are forced to relocate or take on extra work because of their participation in support of the National Emergency. Their ability to complete their education should not be compromised because they were called up in our fight against terrorism. The bill would also increase the Dependent's Educational Allowance for dependents and eligible spouses of veterans to $690 from $588. This program primarily provides for the children whose education would be impeded because of the disability or death of a parent due to a service-related condition. In addition, unremarried surviving spouses of veterans are generally eligible for the educational allowance in order to assist them in preparing to support themselves and their families at the standard-of-living level that the veteran could have been expected to provide for his or her family but for the service- connected disability or death. As we send troops into harm's way, it is entirely appropriate that we ensure that their families' futures are secure. The bill also enhances home loan programs. VA provides a guaranty to mortgage lenders rather than a direct home loan to servicemembers and veterans. A VA guaranty allows a veteran to buy a home valued at up to four times the guaranty amount. The price of homes in major metropolitan areas has increased significantly in the last several years, yet the VA guaranty amount has not been increased since 1994. This bill would increase the home loan guaranty amount to support a loan of up to $252,700, keeping pace with FHA loan guaranties. It would also extend for 4 years the authority for housing loan guaranties for members of the Selected Reserve, currently set to expire in 2007. Reservists must serve 6 years in order to become eligible for a VA- guaranteed loan. In order for the home loan to be used as a recruiting incentive now, the benefit must be authorized beyond 6 years. Another provision of the bill would correct an unintended exclusion of certain Gulf War veterans from eligibility for service-connected benefits. Our efforts to explain symptoms reported by many troops returning from the 1991 Gulf War have been frustrated by inconclusive scientific data and by poor military record keeping during the conflict. In 1994, Congress passed the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act to provide compensation to certain Gulf War veterans disabled by ``undiagnosed illnesses'' for which no other causes could be identified. Since then, changes in medical terminology have led many Gulf War veterans to receive diagnoses for chronic conditions without known cause--such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia--which VA has interpreted as precluding them from eligibility for benefits. Section 202 of the Committee bill would correct this unintended exclusion by expanding service connection to ``poorly defined chronic multisymptom illnesses of unknown etiology, regardless of diagnosis,'' characterized by the symptoms already listed in VA regulations. Because scientific research has still determined neither the cause of veterans' symptoms nor the long-term health consequences of Gulf War- era exposures, and because the Department of Defense recently expanded its estimates of who might have been exposed to nerve agents, this section also extends the presumptive period for benefits for Gulf War veterans for 10 more years. This bill would also remove the arbitrary 30-year limit for manifestation of Agent Orange-related respiratory cancers in Vietnam veterans. Current law only provides a presumption in Vietnam veterans for respiratory cancer if the disease manifested within 30 years of their service in Vietnam. The most recent National Academy of Sciences report confirmed that there is no scientific basis for assuming that cancers linked to dioxin exposure would occur with a specific window of time. This provision would eliminate the 30-year limit and allow future claims for Vietnam veterans' respiratory cancers, irrespective of the date of manifestation of the disease. As you can tell, these are important provisions. But they are also not opposed by anyone, as far as I can see. So why would someone block their passage? What further adds to my confusion is that a very similar scenario played out just a few weeks ago, with the very delayed passage of legislation to improve programs to homeless veterans. As America honored its veterans on Veterans Day, a member of the Senate was blocking legislation to help those who have put their lives on the line defending this country but who have fallen on hard times. How is it, at a time when our Nation is at war and the resounding call of patriotism rings in our ears a Senator or Senators is playing penny ante partisan politics with legislation to help veterans, servicemembers and their dependents? Everyone is now flying the American flag. It is time that we act to honor those who carried it into battle. Again, I request that whomever has placed a hold on this bill please come to speak to me I look forward to working with this colleague to resolve whatever impediments there are to Senate passage of this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Chamber as in morning business.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud to have been an original cosponsor of the bipartisan Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001 when it was introduced this spring. This legislation has strong bipartisan support and it deserves action before Congress adjourns this year. In West Virginia, we have over 11,000 retirees and their families currently depending on railroad retirement, and almost 3,500 West Virginians working for the railroads who will need their railroad retirement in the future. These hardworking railroad employees have done tough jobs for years, and because of the physical work and often harsh outdoor working conditions, they deserve a good retirement package, at a earlier age than current benefits allow. Nationwide, there are currently about 673,000 railroad retirees and families, and about 245,000 active rail workers. They, too, deserve a better retirement program, and I want to work with them to promote this historic package supported by both rail labor and rail management. There can be no doubt that improving retirement benefits for railroad workers, retirees, and their families must be one of our top priorities. Right now, it takes 10 years of service before a railroad worker becomes vested in the retirement plan, while private companies covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, vest their employees in just 5 to 7 years. The need to dramatically improve benefits for railroad widows and widowers is also obvious and has gone unaddressed for far too long. It is cruel to slash the benefits of the widow of a railroad retiree at the death of her spouse, as the current policy does. Railroad widows have called my offices and pleaded with me at West Virginia town meetings to understand how essential this legislation is for them. A railroad widow living in Hinton, WV, recently told me that her current railroad pension benefit is too small for her to pay the premium for railroad health insurance. This widow's husband died when he was just 56, and she was only 46. She has been struggling to maintain her home and pay her bills, and can just barely do that, but she cannot afford to buy health insurance. She deserves a better deal. Railroad widows in my state and across our country living on fixed incomes face a tough challenge to maintain their homes and their dignity. Increasing pension benefits for railroad widows should be a priority before this Congress adjourns. Today, experts predict that the Railroad Trust Funds are solvent for the next 25 years, and existing policy offers guaranteed benefits to railroad retirees and their families. Under the new plan, the railroads would pay less taxes into the Railroad Retirement Trust Funds, but the fund would create an investment board to invest its reserves in private equities, so the increased rate of returns would cover the expanded benefits. Under the plan, there is a provision to increase railroad taxes in the future when necessary to fully fund the railroad retirement benefits. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been pushing hard to enact this legislation to improve benefits for railroad retirees and their families. I will be working with Finance Chairman Baucus and Senate Majority Leader Daschle to achieve our goal of improving railroad retirement. Our railroad workers, our retirees, and their widows have been waiting too long for a better retirement package. It would be wrong for Congress to leave without acting on this vital program.