Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, it is not with pride exactly, but with a firm resolve that I join with my good friend and colleague Senator Bob Graham, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in cosponsoring two important pieces of legislation: Bills to establish the National Office for Combating Terrorism and the Intelligence to Prevent Terrorism Act of 2001. While we strive to go on and do the work that the people sent us here to do, we cannot help but feel heartsick as a Congress, and I am quite sure as individuals, when we consider the unimaginable loss of human life and the magnitude of the destruction wrought by these malicious and misguided men. But grieve though we must, it is our solemn responsibility as representatives of the American people to look into this abyss and find the lessons that may be there for us. When a relatively large group of foreign terrorists who had lived and even trained in this country carried out a despicable and unfortunately well-choreographed wave of terror attacks months or years in the planning, it cast a harsh light on a range of deficiencies in our Nation's efforts to combat terrorism. We are made to feel vulnerable by the sheer enormity of the evil and by the realization that any of us could become targets of the next fanatical assault. Our dread might even turn to despondency if we consider the agonizing possibility that our law enforcement and intelligence establishments might have been able to prevent the horror of last Tuesday if they had had adequate mechanisms with which to collaborate on strategy, share information, and assist in investigation and apprehension of men capable of these heinous crimes. Rather than feeling despondent, however, it is our duty as a Congress to act. This Nation and this Congress can no longer tolerate a situation in which competing missions of agencies--or competing personalities of public officials--put our citizens and our property at risk. We must create an environment of coordination between the intelligence community, our Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, the military, public health authorities, and all the other parties who can play a role in combating terrorism. I believe these two pieces of legislation, which establish a centralized authority to coordinate the activities and responsibilities of a multifaceted group of agencies, and provide both the intelligence community and law enforcement with valuable tools to combat terrorism-related crimes, do just this. Briefly, the bills introduced today in the Senate would do the following: Establish a ``National Office for Combating Terrorism'' to provide a greater level of coordination among the Nation's law enforcement establishment, the intelligence community, the military, public health authorities, and State and local governments to create a coherent, functional strategy for combating terrorism out of a current system a blue-ribbon Presidential Commission has called fragmented, uncoordinated, and politically unaccountable. Ensure that terrorism-related intelligence gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--FISA--is used to further the overall antiterrorism strategy. The legislation clarifies that the Director of Central Intelligence--DCI--is the primary government official responsible for coordination and dissemination of intelligence gathered under, while retaining the FBI as the agency with operational authority for intelligence gathering from foreign nationals. Require law enforcement agencies to share with the DCI any terrorism- related intelligence information gathered in criminal investigations. Mandate cooperation between the DCI and the Treasury Department to root out and cut off the international money trail terrorists use to finance their activities. Develop training programs for State and local law enforcement agencies and public officials to help them detect terrorist activity, and to improve their understanding and use of intelligence shared with them. Establish a National Virtual Translation Center to enable intelligence information collected anywhere in the world to be transmitted over secure electronic lines, translated and analyzed by experts elsewhere, and shared with relevant law enforcement and government personnel throughout this country, as well as by policymakers in Washington and intelligence agents overseas. Make explicit that U.S. Government officers, acting in their official capacity, may recruit any person who has information about terrorist, terrorist groups, or those who assist or harbor them--including foreign governments. The reactions to last week's attacks have ranged from shock, to horror, to sadness, to rage, and now, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, to resolve. Just over a week after the worst act of terrorism, indeed, the worst crime, in the history of the country, we are united as a people behind our President, our armed forces, and our law enforcement agencies, resolved to root out and defeat terrorism wherever this particular breed of hatred is fostered. Part of that resolve may be seen in the package of legislation introduced here today, although it would be incorrect to characterize this legislation as a reaction to the nightmare of September 11. These bills are the product of a longstanding concern about a lack of coordination between our law enforcement and intelligence resources and are the result of several months of hard work on the part of Chairman Graham, several other members of our committee, and Intelligence Committee staff. I believe these bills represent good first steps. I have not had the privilege of being a member of the Intelligence Committee for very long, but from the very first day I have been enormously impressed with the careful balance the committee strikes between the intelligence gathering needs of this nation, and the civil liberties enjoyed by its citizens. However, in this time of heightened tension and increased security, I must admit that I share some of the concerns of many Americans, from across the political spectrum, who fear that well-meaning reforms may unduly infringe on the liberties we cherish. While I am confident that in crafting this legislation Senator Graham has taken those concerns very much to heart and has protected the rights of law-abiding Americans, I will closely monitor the progress of this legislation. I cannot overestimate the importance of ensuring that in our zeal to prevent another terrorist assault on this Nation we do not contribute to an atmosphere of fear and mistrust of our fellow citizens. I will also be looking for an understanding of these concerns from our colleagues on the various committees of referral, and in the Senate as a whole. We must commit ourselves and our Nation that, despite the grave seriousness of combating terrorism, we will always safeguard civil liberties as we consider this or any other piece of legislation introduced to combat terrorism. What is needed--and what this package of legislation provides--is greater coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness among our existing antiterrorism resources, without a surrender of the rights and liberties that make this the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 30 seconds.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, a brutal and cowardly act of terrorism has taken thousands of lives, destroyed great symbols of U.S. power and wealth, and stolen from every one of us a measure of the joy and confidence that Americans take as our birthright. As the poet Yeats once wrote, ``everything is changed, and changed utterly.'' In this dark hour we all stand with President Bush and the military and intelligence leadership of this Nation in the search for the propagators of this great evil, and for an appropriate and strong response. America must respond to this crime, this act of war, rapidly and decisively, with an intensity and determination that reflect the outrage every American and I feel. A response whose violence and magnitude makes it clear to every terrorist that their lives are in danger, and makes it clear to every nation that the cost of supporting terrorism is too high to bear. We will not hesitate to put the strongest military on earth to use as it was intended: to protect the lives, safety and property of American citizens, everywhere in the world. But we must also respond with a defiant embrace of our way of living. The United States must continue to make military and foreign policy decisions based on our understanding of what is right and what is wrong, and what is in the best interest of the American people and allies with whom we are proud to stand. This Nation must remain a free and open society, people of every race and background must be accepted and embraced without fear and without prejudice. And America must continue to prove to the world the worth of our beliefs and of the society we have created by remaining the most dynamic force for growth, creativity and opportunity this earth has ever seen. For all that must and will change, for all that has changed already, some things must remain constant: America must remain a moral, open and vital society embarked on a new era of triumph. Franklin Roosevelt said that ``the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'' Fear is the terrorists' greatest weapon. Together, looking confidently ahead, we can disarm this cowardly and elusive foe. The Senate will be searching for the reasons behind this tragedy and for strategies that will prevent another, similar disaster. I will report to the people of West Virginia regularly, consistent with national security.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that would exempt certain veterans from copayments for needed prescription drugs. Currently, veterans with incomes of less than $24,000 a year are exempt from copayments for most VA health care services. However, when it comes to prescription drugs, the income threshold for exemption is just $9,000 a year. Veterans earning over $9,000, well below the poverty threshold established by the Census Bureau, are required to make copayments. These copayments place an undue burden on our poorest veterans. To compound the problem, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently proposed increasing the copayment for prescription drugs from $2 to $7 per 30-day prescription. I have serious concerns about what this copayment increase will mean for veterans. Indeed, I have already heard from a number of veterans whose incomes hover just above the $9,000 threshold, who must make the required copayments for their pharmaceuticals. Many of them are on several different medications for multiple medical conditions, each requiring their own copay. There are many veterans like Steven Smith, formerly of Greenwood, WV, who has no health insurance except Medicare and depends upon the VA for his medications. With the lack of a Medicare drug benefit, he, and many veterans like him, are faced with a 350 percent increase in what they must pay for life-sustaining medications. I am not alone in my concerns about the impact the copayment increase will have on veterans. In commenting on the proposed regulations, the VFW recently cited an example of a veteran who has an annual income of $10,500, just above the current exemption limit set by VA. The increase in the prescription copayment rate would force that veteran to allocate over 8 percent of his annual income just to prescription drugs. There is a grave danger that, faced with this situation, many veterans will stop seeking necessary medical care because they are priced out of the system. At a glance, the increase to $7 per prescription may seem reasonable enough and in keeping with industry standards. However, consider a veteran with an income of about $9,000 a year who currently pays $2 per prescription for 10 medications a month. He presently incurs out-of- pocket costs of $240 a year. Under the new regulations, his costs would go up to $840 per year, an increase of $600. For someone living barely over the $9,000 annual income threshold, this is a substantial sum. I am also concerned about disparities in how VA defines who is ``poor'' for the purpose of exemption from health care copayments. For prescription drugs, veterans with more than $9,000 annual income must make copayments, but for outpatient care, hospitalization, and extended care, the income threshold for copayments is $24,000 per year. My proposed legislation would raise the exemption level for prescription copays to make them the same as all other VA health care copays. It will be less confusing to veterans, easier to administer, and quite simply, it's the right thing to do. My legislation, the Veterans' Copayment Adjustment Act, would also require VA to delay implementing the increase in prescription copayments until we see an adjustment to copayments for other health care services. On July 24, I held a hearing on prescription drug issues in VA. At that hearing, we heard testimony from VA Secretary Anthony Principi who also believes that new drug copayments shouldn't be put into effect until we see a reduction in other health care copayments. As part of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, Congress gave VA authority to adjust the different health care copayments. This was intended to make VA's copayments more rational. Currently, veterans must make a copayment of over $50 for outpatient care services. There is no doubt that $50 for a routine outpatient visit is unreasonable at best, and at worst, discourages veterans from getting the primary care they need. By delaying the increase in the medication copayment until VA implements its adjusted outpatient copayment, we will reduce the negative financial impact on our Nation's veterans. I am confident that VA will study this issue closely and will expeditiously set the outpatient copayment to be more in line with managed care plans. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in seeking to provide affordable health care for our sick and disabled veterans. They have sacrificed for all of us, and deserve every effort we can make to keep them from having to choose between buying needed prescription drugs and putting food on the table. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that would exempt certain veterans from copayments for needed prescription drugs. Currently, veterans with incomes of less than $24,000 a year are exempt from copayments for most VA health care services. However, when it comes to prescription drugs, the income threshold for exemption is just $9,000 a year. Veterans earning over $9,000, well below the poverty threshold established by the Census Bureau, are required to make copayments. These copayments place an undue burden on our poorest veterans. To compound the problem, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently proposed increasing the copayment for prescription drugs from $2 to $7 per 30-day prescription. I have serious concerns about what this copayment increase will mean for veterans. Indeed, I have already heard from a number of veterans whose incomes hover just above the $9,000 threshold, who must make the required copayments for their pharmaceuticals. Many of them are on several different medications for multiple medical conditions, each requiring their own copay. There are many veterans like Steven Smith, formerly of Greenwood, WV, who has no health insurance except Medicare and depends upon the VA for his medications. With the lack of a Medicare drug benefit, he, and many veterans like him, are faced with a 350 percent increase in what they must pay for life-sustaining medications. I am not alone in my concerns about the impact the copayment increase will have on veterans. In commenting on the proposed regulations, the VFW recently cited an example of a veteran who has an annual income of $10,500, just above the current exemption limit set by VA. The increase in the prescription copayment rate would force that veteran to allocate over 8 percent of his annual income just to prescription drugs. There is a grave danger that, faced with this situation, many veterans will stop seeking necessary medical care because they are priced out of the system. At a glance, the increase to $7 per prescription may seem reasonable enough and in keeping with industry standards. However, consider a veteran with an income of about $9,000 a year who currently pays $2 per prescription for 10 medications a month. He presently incurs out-of- pocket costs of $240 a year. Under the new regulations, his costs would go up to $840 per year, an increase of $600. For someone living barely over the $9,000 annual income threshold, this is a substantial sum. I am also concerned about disparities in how VA defines who is ``poor'' for the purpose of exemption from health care copayments. For prescription drugs, veterans with more than $9,000 annual income must make copayments, but for outpatient care, hospitalization, and extended care, the income threshold for copayments is $24,000 per year. My proposed legislation would raise the exemption level for prescription copays to make them the same as all other VA health care copays. It will be less confusing to veterans, easier to administer, and quite simply, it's the right thing to do. My legislation, the Veterans' Copayment Adjustment Act, would also require VA to delay implementing the increase in prescription copayments until we see an adjustment to copayments for other health care services. On July 24, I held a hearing on prescription drug issues in VA. At that hearing, we heard testimony from VA Secretary Anthony Principi who also believes that new drug copayments shouldn't be put into effect until we see a reduction in other health care copayments. As part of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, Congress gave VA authority to adjust the different health care copayments. This was intended to make VA's copayments more rational. Currently, veterans must make a copayment of over $50 for outpatient care services. There is no doubt that $50 for a routine outpatient visit is unreasonable at best, and at worst, discourages veterans from getting the primary care they need. By delaying the increase in the medication copayment until VA implements its adjusted outpatient copayment, we will reduce the negative financial impact on our Nation's veterans. I am confident that VA will study this issue closely and will expeditiously set the outpatient copayment to be more in line with managed care plans. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in seeking to provide affordable health care for our sick and disabled veterans. They have sacrificed for all of us, and deserve every effort we can make to keep them from having to choose between buying needed prescription drugs and putting food on the table. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maryland, the chair of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, to enter into a colloquy. I had intended to offer an amendment to the bill before us to increase the spending for veterans' health care. I think the need is there, as the President's budget plainly shows that next year VA will need nearly $1 billion to cover the cost of payroll and inflation. But the President's budget only provided an additional $800 million. VA needs additional funding to pay for the long-term care needs of an aging population, emergency care coverage in non-VA hospitals, hepatitis C treatment, and new outpatient clinics. I do understand the very restrictive allocation that Senator Mikulski's subcommittee faces--due to a budget resolution not of her own making. Because of that, I have decided against offering my amendment, but I would like to ask the Senator a question. Toward the end of the year, I feel certain that Congress will need to revisit various spending bills. I feel strongly that one of the areas which should receive more attention at that time is VA health care. I ask, therefore, for the Senator's assurance that we can go back and add additional funding for VA health care.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, millions of Americans live abroad, serving in our military or working in foreign countries. These Americans pay taxes and have the right to vote. They deserve to know that their votes will be counted. Today, I am introducing legislation designed to streamline and improve the process for absentee ballots to help ensure that Americans living overseas can participate in American elections. The bill is called the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Reform Act. It is based on the bipartisan legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Congressman Thomas Reynolds. This bill is developed through recommendations of overseas Americans. Our goal is to help both military and civilian citizens overseas to participate in elections. The right to vote is important in our country, and we need to encourage all of our citizens, including those millions living abroad, to participate in elections. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, millions of Americans live and work overseas. While living abroad, they continue to pay taxes and they can vote in our Federal elections. They are American citizens and they want to be counted in the next decennial Census in 2010. To achieve this goal, it is essential to plan and prepare. For several years, I have been working closely with Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. She has been a true leader on the important issues of the U.S. Census and I am proud to work with her. The bill I am introducing today is the companion bill to H.R. 680. This legislation authorizes funding to being the work at the Census Bureau to count Americans living overseas. The House Appropriations Committee has included some funding for this important initiative which is encouraging news. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, one of our major national problems is the dismal educational achievement of our children in the areas of mathematics and science. In 1989 President George H. Bush proposed and the Governors adopted as a national goal that by the year 2000, the United States would be first in the world in mathematics and science. Not only has our country neglected this education goal, the evidence shows that our country has not made significant improvements. Several studies have shown that in the intervening years, our performance relative to other industrialized countries is about average and there is no indication of any change. Furthermore, the evidence clearly shows that between the 4th and 8th grades our achievement level actually declines relative to other countries. Not only is this a concern for our future competitiveness in the modern world but it could present a serious national security problem. The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century concluded in a February 2001 report that the ``Second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating in an American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science, technology, and education for the common good over the next quarter century.'' One major factor in this situation is the lack of sufficient qualified mathematics and science teachers. A large number of mathematics and science teachers are not certified in their subject area. The greatest number of uncertified teachers are located in areas with large minority populations and high concentrations of poverty. This situation is of great concern since many studies have shown that full certification or a major in the field is a strong predictor of student achievement. Mr. Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School has documented that over 90 percent of urban schools report teacher shortages in mathematics and science. Furthermore, recently, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Preparation showed that 50,000 new teachers enter the profession each year lacking appropriate preparation. More than 30 percent of secondary mathematics teachers hold neither a major or minor in mathematics. I am proud to have Senators Roberts and Kennedy as original cosponsors of this legislation since each is a recognized leader on education. We are introducing a bipartisan bill entitled the National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act. Our bill is very similar to legislation reported out of the House Committee on Science, and I have worked with Chairman Boehlert on this important initiative. The purpose of this bill is to make a major impact on the teaching of technical subjects in grades K through 12. This bill accomplishes its goal by bringing the wider community including industry into the educational process through partnerships, by increasing the number of qualified teachers and providing support programs to improve their qualifications, and by providing access to master teachers, curriculum related materials, and research opportunities. The bill also sets up Centers of Research on Learning to determine which methodologies are most effective for educating our students in mathematics and science. One of the main provisions authorizes the National Science Foundation to establish a program of mathematics and science education partnerships involving universities and local educational agencies. These partnerships will focus on a wide array of reform efforts ranging from professional development to curriculum reform for grades K through 12. The partnerships may include the State educational agency and 50 percent of them must include businesses. These partnerships are intended to conceive, develop, and evaluate innovative approaches to education in mathematics, science, engineering, and other technical subjects. A special feature is an emphasis on encouraging the ongoing interest of girls in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology preparing them to pursue careers in these fields. A second provision authorizes the expansion of the National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library to include peer reviewed elementary and secondary education materials. The library will serve as an Internet accessible resource for state-of-the- art curriculum materials in support of teaching technical subjects. A third provision, that is of particular importance to me, provides for the establishment of a new scholarship program designed to encourage mathematics, science, and engineering majors to pursue careers in teaching. The program provides grants to universities who will, in turn, award scholarships to mathematics, science and engineering majors who agree to teach following graduation and certification. The institutions must also provide education and support programs for the scholarship recipients. A second element is that stipends will be offered to mid-career professionals in mathematics, science, or engineering who need course work to transition to a career in teaching. Recipients are required to teach in a K through 12 school receiving assistance under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as payback for the scholarship. The bill also provides for a study of Broadband Network access for schools and libraries. This requires the National Science Foundation to determine how Broadband access can be used and can be effective in the educational process. This section is important to the future of the highly successful E-Rate program that is helping close the digital divide between rich and poor schools and urban, rural, and suburban schools. Another important provision sets up a grant program to train master teachers to work in K through 9 classrooms to improve the teaching of mathematics or science. This program will develop an invaluable in- house resource for teachers of technical subjects. There are a number of other provisions, all of which, address shortcomings in our current approach to education in technical subjects. I often visit West Virginia schools, and during the school year I use the Internet to host on-line chats with students across the State. I believe that students, parents, and teachers recognize the important of math, science and engineering on the workplace, but we need a better support system for these key subjects in my State, and nationwide. The National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act is not by itself a solution to solving the crisis in technical education. However, in conjunction with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will begin the process of addressing a major national problem. I urge my colleagues to join us in making our children the best in the world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud to support the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to be the Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. As chairman of the National Commission on Children, I had a unique opportunity to work closely with Wade Horn. From that experience, I know how deeply Wade cares about children and families. I know that Wade is willing to listen to diverse views and find common ground, which will be key to his success in this important position. On the Children's Commission, committed advocates representing both the liberal and conservative policy views came together to learn about child development and we struggled to find bipartisan policy initiatives to help children and their families. Our process was intense, but it led to a bold, bipartisan report full of recommendations to change policy to support children. Throughout that process, I witnessed how Wade Horn was willing to take risks for the right reasons. I am proud to say that the Children's Commission report has been a guidebook for my legislative initiatives on children's policy. While there is much more to do on children's issues, we are making real progress. The Children Commission that Dr. Horn and I supported in 1991 called for a refundable child tax credit and an improved Earned Income Tax Credit. Our report recommended changing the welfare system, then known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children. It stressed the importance of child support enforcement. It called for education reform with a greater emphasis on local schools. And it even had a controversial chapter called ``Creating a Moral Climate for Children,'' which challenged public officials, the media, the entertainment industry, and individuals to serve as role models for children. Many of our recommendations from the Children's Commission have become public policy, and I continue to build on this foundation. While Dr. Horn and I do not agree on every issue, we do strongly agree about the importance of supporting children and families. We agree on the importance of bipartisanship on children's issues, especially in the area of child welfare and adoption. We agree about the importance of direct and honest communication and cooperation between Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services. Because I have worked with Dr. Wade Horn on the Children's Commission and during his previous position in the first Bush administration, I am confident that he will be a committed leader on children's issues in this administration. I look forward to working with him, including on the reauthorization of the Safe and Stable Families Program this year.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I rise today to lend my full support to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Farmers, Communities, and Firms Act of 2001, which I introduced today along with Senators Bingaman, Baucus, and Daschle. I particularly want to congratulate Senator Bingaman on all the hard work and dedication that he has shown on this issue over the past several months in crafting this piece of legislation, which is so critical to American workers and their families. Improving and expanding TAA is a priority for us, and we hope it will become a priority for Congress and for the President as well. This bill is not just a reauthorization but an improvement to our current TAA program--and not a moment too soon. Earlier this week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve told us our economic outlook remains troubling. We know that means there will be more and more workers and families who will need to turn to TAA for help to rebuild their futures. In addition to reauthorizing TAA for an additional five years, this bill makes substantial improvements to the TAA program as a whole. The bill extends possible TAA benefits for an additional 26 weeks, provides wage insurance for many displaced workers over 50, and expands coverage for secondary workers and workers whose jobs were lost when companies shifted their operations overseas. Given the massive legacy cost issue facing our steel companies, I particularly wanted to take action to provide health care and child care benefits for workers who have lost their jobs due to imports. At my urging, the bill contains several health care provisions, including a refundable tax credit for 50 percent of COBRA benefits and a provision that links TAA beneficiaries to child care and health benefits that they are entitled to under TANF. As we expand coverage and benefits available under TAA, however, we still have to remember what's really important in this debate: TAA cannot substitute for a good job, and too many good jobs are being lost due to our current trade policies. That's what we really need to focus on, although we still need TAA because there will always be workers who need it. As Governor of West Virginia in the 1980's and later as a U.S. Senator, I have seen firsthand the devastation that import surges have wrought on manufacturing communities. I have walked the streets of Welch, knowing that one in four people I met that day were unemployed. I have been to Weirton and Wheeling and seen the impact of the recent surge of dumped and subsidized steel imports on the economic landscape and the collective psyche of those communities as thousands of steelworkers, as well as workers whose jobs depend on those steel companies staying open, have been laid off. I have seen jean factories in Elkins and Phillippi, a shoe plant in Marlington, a glassworks in Huntington, and a shirt factory in Morgantown, close down because of foreign competition, throwing hundreds of people--many of whom had never held another job--out of work. Many of the unemployed are in their 20's and 30's with young children to support. Others are in their 40's and 50's and have held the same job for more than 20 years. A few may never find work again. For those who do, it will be at a vastly reduced salary with fewer benefits. And as plants continue to close down, who knows if the health care and pension benefits that were guaranteed by their employers and which those workers thought they could depend on will still be there for them when they retire? It makes me angry that we as a Nation have not done nearly enough to help those who have been dislocated from foreign trade, through no fault of their own, particularly when our trade policies led to their unemployment. Instead, we have provided a TAA program for which many of our workers do not qualify and which provides too little assistance for workers to retrain so that they can adequately provide for their families. That is just not right. At the same time, our foreign trade partners continue to engage in unfair and illegal trade practices that throw more and more Americans out of work. For years, the relative market shares of the top Japanese steel firms has never varied by more than 1 percent, regardless of changes in the marketplace, because they have a cartel. Russian steelworkers often do not receive wages. New uneconomic steel capacity continues to come on line around the world, often partially funded by loans from international financial institutions that receive U.S. Government funding. Yet our steelworkers, glassworkers, and others in the manufacturing sector of our economy are forced to compete on the same playing field with these countries, whose producers are heavily subsidized or who have benefitted from a long legacy of indirect government assistance or toleration of anti-competitive activities. Such practices have allowed foreign steel companies to stay in business long after they would have shut down if they were located in the United States. How are our workers supposed to compete with that, no matter how efficient they are? It is no wonder that people in this country are beginning to wake up to our trade policies and wonder just what we are doing and what principles, if any, we are using to guide them. You should not need to have an MBA from Harvard in order to get a good job, with good wages and benefits, in this country. If this Administration wants to negotiate more trade agreements, without dealing with the impact that trade has on our steelworkers and workers in other sectors of our economy who built this country into the economic super power that it is today, then it will fail miserably. This bill is a good step forward. I urge my colleagues in Congress to help us pass it and the President to sign it into law. But it is only the beginning. We simply cannot ignore the fact that with trade, a rising tide does not always lift all boats. Our laws are not the laws of nature, but rather, the laws of mankind. We cannot say that dislocation through trade is inevitable and just throw up our hands, leaving millions of American workers behind. We have an obligation to them and to their families, to craft trade policies that are to their benefit and which help them prepare for the future. It is an obligation that we simply cannot ignore.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I want to share with my colleagues some of the concerns voiced by veterans at a recent field hearing in my state of West Virginia. On July 16, the Committee held a hearing in Huntington, West Virginia, to examine the challenges facing veterans from rural areas who receive health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Committee held its last West Virginia field hearing on access to rural VA health care in 1993. Since then, profound changes in VA's health care delivery--a rapid increase in community clinics, eligibility reform that opened the system to more veterans, and the reorganization of VA into 22 service networks--have affected how veterans access basic and specialized medical care. The challenges that face VA in providing the best health care possible to our Nation's veterans are often magnified in rural areas, where veterans and VA caregivers must stretch already limited resources over long distances. West Virginia contends with a unique situation: each of our four VA medical centers belongs to a different VA service network. While this partitioning creates problems for West Virginians, it also offers the Committee the opportunity to study in microcosm the problems facing veterans throughout the VA health care system. Regrettably, many of the problems discussed at the 1993 field hearing remain with us: the struggles with an inadequate budget, long waiting times for care, too few VA personnel to provide specialized care, insufficient long-term care services, and transportation problems for veterans traveling to or between VA medical centers. And, with the aging of the veterans population and continued absence of meaningful prescription drug coverage under Medicare, veterans' concerns about access to, and copayments for, prescription drugs grow even more pressing. It will not be easy to solve these problems; after the President's recent tax cut, there is simply not enough money available--either in the President's budget or the Budget Resolution adopted by the Congress--for veterans' health care. That said, we must do our best to improve access to rural health care with the resources that we have. On July 16, West Virginia veterans talked to me about the obstacles they face just to get an appointment at a VA health care facility, and then in getting to that appointment for care. Veterans report to the State Veterans Coalition that they regularly wait months for an appointment for basic VA medical care--or even longer for a first visit. After veterans have finally seen a doctor for a first exam, they may wait weeks or months longer for a referral to needed specialty care. For veterans in rural areas, referrals frequently require a transfer to distant VA medical centers. After hours of driving, veterans may sit for many more hours in a waiting room, without meals or a safe place to rest. A shocking number of veterans disabled by spinal cord injuries neglect basic medical checkups to avoid travel. One West Virginia veteran described making more than 30 round trips to the VA hospital at Richmond for tests based on a single referral; and his story, unfortunately, is not unique. This is not only inconvenient for the veteran, but a waste of VA resources. VA must focus on coordination and management of care between facilities--both to provide the best health care and to consider the practical needs of veterans. For veterans who must drive long distances or depend on van services, appointments could be scheduled to accommodate their traveling times. VA could coordinate tests to compress them into the shortest time span possible, with lodging arranged when an overnight stay is required. Veterans who served this country should not be expected to sleep in waiting room chairs and to go hungry when simple attention to details can prevent excessive traveling and long waits. At the very least, VA should have a systemwide plan for communicating how transfers work, and what resources are available, to veterans and their families. Although it is impossible to expect that every veteran in the Nation's vast rural areas can access every health care service close to home, it is essential that--should they require care at distant VA or private facilities--their transfers happen as simply and efficiently as possible. VA's network and hospital directors must eliminate barriers to coordinating and managing care between medical centers or between networks. I will continue to work with VA to find better ways to communicate with veterans and to make transfers as seamless as possible. The Millennium Act, which VA has been shamefully slow to implement, will provide veterans with access to noninstitutional long-term care services. As I heard from the son of a World War II ex-prisoner of war, now being cared for at home at his family's expense, aging veterans suffering from PTSD need caregivers who understand the legacies of war- time experiences. The Committee will continue to oversee VA's efforts to bring long-term care services--both nursing beds and noninstitutional services--to the veterans who need it. I have advocated the opening of community-based outpatient clinics, which bring basic primary health care closer to the veteran. These outpatient clinics are enormously important to veterans in rural areas, and I will continue to urge VA to make these clinics the best they can possibly be--without sacrificing the specialized programs at which VA has excelled. We have to count more than just the number of clinics and hospitals when we talk about access to health care--we must consider waiting times for an appointment. Many of the delays in appointments, referrals, and transfers that veterans experience stem from inadequate staffing, especially the increasingly critical shortage of skilled nurses. I have recently introduced legislation to improve VA's ability to recruit and retain nurses, whose skills are essential to providing high quality health care in a timely fashion. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the many volunteers who help bring rural veterans closer to health care. Disabled American Veterans (DAV) operates a nationwide Transportation Network that helps sick and disabled veterans reach VA medical facilities for care. Since its inception, DAV volunteers in West Virginia have dedicated more than 700,000 hours of time to driving veterans to medical appointments, often in vans donated by DAV to the VA. Nationally, DAV Hospital Service Coordinators operate 185 such programs, where 8,000 volunteers donated almost 2 million hours last year alone. Although this program does not replace VA's obligation to bring services close to the veteran where possible and to smooth transfers between medical centers, this service is certainly indispensable to disabled veterans who must reach a VA medical center for necessary medical care. Mr. President, in closing, I look forward to working with VA and my colleagues in the Senate to find the best ways to extend health care more efficiently--and effectively--to veterans in our Nation's rural areas. We owe our veterans nothing less.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I believe that it is our families, friends and communities that create the very essence of our beings. They serve as our roots, instilling the values that shape our personal relationships and our professional careers. In youth, we often fail to realize the crucial role that these people play, and we often lose touch with the people who mold us into whom we are today. With the passage of time, we can only wonder what path we might have otherwise taken had we maintained contact. Today, I would like to join a very special group of West Virginians--the Montgomery High School class of 1951--as its members renew the bonds of youth in celebrating the 50th anniversary class reunion. As the members of Montgomery High School class of 1951 gather for their 50th anniversary reunion, they will recall the carefree days of their youth. Once again, they will refer to themselves as the Greyhounds of Montgomery High. Visions of victorious football games and summer vacations will waft through their collective memory as they join in singing their beloved Alma Mater. They'll reminisce about Saturday nights at the Rockette and spending afternoons with friends at Kelly's Drug Store. More importantly, they will remember the diversity that makes Montgomery such a very special place. Communities such as Cannelton, Kimberly, Powellton, Smithers, and Deep Water joined together, creating a unique bond that remains today. The Class of 1951 should be commended for renewing the bonds fostered more than 50 years ago. In celebrating this occasion, its members remind us of the importance of community in our own lives. In honor of Montgomery High School class of 1951, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, I am reminded that ``between the lofty mountains where the great Kanawha flows, in a valley that is magic and the seed of wisdom grows. Hail Montgomery.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, because of a clerical mistake, Senator Specter was not listed as an original cosponsor to S. 1188, the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Enhancement Act of 2001. This bill was introduced yesterday. Although Senator Specter has now been added as a cosponsor and my introductory statement on the bill referred to him as an original cosponsor, I want the Record to reflect his early support of the legislation. I look forward to working with him to enact the VA Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2001.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs has made great strides in becoming a leader within the health care profession. Too often, we dwell only on what is going wrong or what else can be done. However, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would like to instead draw attention to what VA has done to bring a high quality of care to our nation's veterans. While there is no doubt that VA go even further in this area, we know that they have made great strides in delivering the standard of care veterans deserve. A few years ago, the Democratic staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs issued a report examining the standards of quality within the VA Health Care system. VA spends considerable effort and resources aimed at providing veterans with the highest quality health care in its hospitals and clinics. Over the years, VA has developed dozens of programs devoted exclusively to quality of care issues, yet public attention continues to be focused on examples of poor care within the health care system. With nearly 950 sites and growing, VA operates the largest health care system in the United States. Veterans should know that the care at one VA hospital or clinic is at the same high quality level as the care at another VA health care facility. The study concluded that this can only be possible if the VA has a national system of quality which has built-in safeguards sufficient to overcome the inevitable fact that human error will always occur. The committee is currently working on a follow-up to the original study. As more technological solutions to the problem of quality standardization are implemented, they will need to be examined. Quality of care is a vital issue to which I am very committed, and will continue to monitor closely as the VA health care system reconfigures itself to accommodate the changing demographics of the population it serves. Coronary disease care is one area in particular that VA has excelled in with regard to quality of care. With coronary atherosclerosis being the second-most frequent diagnosis among veterans enrolled in VA health care, it is imperative that VA is able to treat this condition with the best care possible. They have met that challenge, with VA medical facilities now providing the same level of care as non-VA hospitals. The New England Journal of Medicine recently published a report that made this conclusion, based on a study of heart attack patient care within VA. The report also applauded VA's efforts to improve their overall quality of care. I ask unanimous consent that an article from The Topeka Capital- Journal, highlighting the report from The New England Journal of Medicine on the study of VA's quality of care, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with Senators Cleland and Specter the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Enhancement Act of 2001. 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. Working conditions for nurses, never easy, have become even more challenging in recent years. Managed care principles lead hospitals to admit only the very sickest of patients with the most complex health care needs. As the pool of highly trained nurses shrinks, many health care providers rely heavily upon mandatory staff overtime to meet staffing needs. 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. The legislation we introduce today includes a requirement that VA produce a policy on staffing standards. 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 we leave it 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. Because mandatory overtime was frequently cited at the committee's June hearing as being of serious concern, the legislation includes a requirement that the Secretary report to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on the use of overtime by licensed nursing staff and nursing assistants in each facility. This is a critical first step to determining what can be done to reduce the amount of mandatory overtime. We will continue to monitor this issue with rigor and pledge to work to reduce the burdens borne by our nurses. In terms of providing sufficient pay, our legislation mandates that VA provide Saturday premium pay to certain health professionals. These group of professionals include licensed practical nurses, LPN's, certified or registered respiratory therapists, licensed physical therapists, licensed vocational nurses, pharmacists, and occupational therapists. This group of 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 the direct hiring and a more flexible compensation system. This is an issue of equity, especially for LPN's who work alongside other nurses on Saturday. While registered nurses, RN's are mandated to receive Saturday premium pay, they may be working alongside an LPN who is not. Factoring in 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. Of the 17,000 hybrid employees, 8,000 are not receiving the pay premium. In my own State of West Virginia, many LPN's are not receiving Saturday premium pay. Deborah Dixon is an LPN at the VA Medical Center in Huntington, WV. She works nights 6 days in a row, has 2 days off, works nights 5 days, then has 1 day off, then works 4 nights and has 3 days off. As a result, she has off every third weekend. She says that ``LPN's deserve Saturday premium pay. It feels like discrimination. It makes me wonder why LPN's are not being respected. I believe this change in law will make pay more consistent and fair for our health care workers. 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 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 we introduced today 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. There are various other provisions included in the bill. One provision requires that VA nurses enrolled in the Federal Employee Retirement System have the same ability to include unused sick leave as part of the retirement year calculation that VA nurses enrolled in the Civilian Retirement System have. The legislation also 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. Retired nurses, such as Tonya Rich from Morgantown, WV, who has contacted me, stress the inequity of the situation. In order to rectify this, our legislation 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. This bill is a good start, but clearly, we must remain vigilant. 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. We do not have the luxury of reflecting upon this problem at length; we must act now. Fortunately, we have as allies hardworking nurses who are dedicated to helping us find ways to improve working conditions and to recruit more young people to the field. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, as you may know, my state of West Virginia was ravaged last week by its worst flooding in years. Homes were destroyed, businesses and infrastructure were shut down and, most tragically, lives were lost. The outpouring of support thus far has been truly heartwarming; however, much is still needed in order to rebuild our communities. That is why I am asking my colleagues, our staffs, and our friends to support this resolution and to participate in a clothing drive that will give aid to the victims of this tragedy. I am proud to be joined by our distinguished senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd, in our effort to help West Virginians. Our drive can only be successful if the resolution before us is passed, and if we each give what we can. Immediately following the floods, I visited some of the areas hardest hit. Although I have seen this type of devastation before, I was still taken aback by dissolved roads, collapsed homes, and splintered bridges. Fortunately, the clean-up process is already underway as federal disaster relief pours in. Organizations such as the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army have provided for residents' most immediate needs, while agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, begin processing damage claims. Governor Wise and state agencies are working hard to reach out to communities struggling to cope with the aftermath of the flooding. Working together, federal, state, and local officials can begin the crucial work to rebuild our communities. Yet, much remains to be done. Today, Sharon and I will visit more of the state. With us, we will take the prayers and well-wishes we have been given. We will also present generous donations from corporations such as the Pepsi Cola Company. While I am in the state, my staff will organize a clothing drive to replace some of the items lost in the floods. Clothing of all kinds is needed as residents rebuild their homes and their lives. Many have lost everything and, as they return to work and school, will need the basic items we all take for granted. Moreover, as the winter months approach and the season brings rugged weather, victims will also find themselves in need of cold-weather clothing and shoes. Once the clothing is collected on Capitol Hill, United Airlines will transport all of the donations to West Virginia and the National Guard will help distribute the clothing to families in need. These are just two examples of the generosity displayed by companies and by individuals who wish to help. Each of them has my deep gratitude. Of course, in the rush to move on and rebuild, we cannot forget about those lost. I am enormously sorry for the loss of Bonnie Shumate and Bradley Jenkins, and my heart goes out to their families and friends. Though rebuilding will serve as a challenge for the average West Virginian, grieving will, of course, prove far more difficult for the Shumates and the Jenkins. It has been said that there is light at the end of every tunnel. Considering the awesome amount of support provided to date for the flood victims in West Virginia, I would have to agree. Let us continue this support by committing to and participating in a clothing drive for the people affected by the flood. On behalf of the Mountain State, thank you.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that would make guide dogs more available to veterans in need. Service dogs, or ``guide dogs'', have traditionally been viewed as being helpful only to those who are visually impaired. However, in recent years, primarily as a result of the Americans With Disabilities Act, there has been a push to find alternative methods of providing assistance to people with various kinds of disabilities. While there have been many technological developments in this field, there still remains a need for long-term assistance that allows for the most possible independence on the part of the disabled individual. Specifically, my legislation would enable the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide hearing-impaired veterans and veterans with spinal cord injury or dysfunction, in addition to blind veterans, the ability to obtain service dogs to assist them with everyday activities. There are numerous ways in which service dogs can assist their owners. Tasks such as opening and closing doors, turning switches on and off, carrying bags, and dragging a person to safety in the case of an emergency are just a few of the standard duties for service dogs. Their ability to perform these types of duties makes them invaluable to those who require day-to-day aid. Having this sort of assistance can make a big difference in terms of offering not only physical support, but companionship as well. Various types of evidence illustrate the value of companion pets, not just to the disabled, but to everyone. The Journal of the American Medical Association published a trial study a few years ago that examined the impact of service dogs on the lives of people with disabilities--both in terms of economic and social impacts. With regard to social considerations, researchers found that all participants had increased levels of self-esteem, independence, and community integration. The economic benefit was exemplified through a sharp decrease in the number of paid assistance hours. Overall, the JAMA study concluded that service dogs can greatly improve the quality of life for the disabled. In closing, I extend my thanks to the Paralyzed Veterans Association, who assisted me invaluably in preparing this legislation. Their hard work and dedication to this issue have been a great help, and I am proud to have worked with them to develop this bill. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in seeking to provide greater accessibility to assistance for disabled veterans. They have sacrificed for all of us, and deserve every effort we can make to restore their sense of independence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that would make guide dogs more available to veterans in need. Service dogs, or ``guide dogs'', have traditionally been viewed as being helpful only to those who are visually impaired. However, in recent years, primarily as a result of the Americans With Disabilities Act, there has been a push to find alternative methods of providing assistance to people with various kinds of disabilities. While there have been many technological developments in this field, there still remains a need for long-term assistance that allows for the most possible independence on the part of the disabled individual. Specifically, my legislation would enable the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide hearing-impaired veterans and veterans with spinal cord injury or dysfunction, in addition to blind veterans, the ability to obtain service dogs to assist them with everyday activities. There are numerous ways in which service dogs can assist their owners. Tasks such as opening and closing doors, turning switches on and off, carrying bags, and dragging a person to safety in the case of an emergency are just a few of the standard duties for service dogs. Their ability to perform these types of duties makes them invaluable to those who require day-to-day aid. Having this sort of assistance can make a big difference in terms of offering not only physical support, but companionship as well. Various types of evidence illustrate the value of companion pets, not just to the disabled, but to everyone. The Journal of the American Medical Association published a trial study a few years ago that examined the impact of service dogs on the lives of people with disabilities--both in terms of economic and social impacts. With regard to social considerations, researchers found that all participants had increased levels of self-esteem, independence, and community integration. The economic benefit was exemplified through a sharp decrease in the number of paid assistance hours. Overall, the JAMA study concluded that service dogs can greatly improve the quality of life for the disabled. In closing, I extend my thanks to the Paralyzed Veterans Association, who assisted me invaluably in preparing this legislation. Their hard work and dedication to this issue have been a great help, and I am proud to have worked with them to develop this bill. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in seeking to provide greater accessibility to assistance for disabled veterans. They have sacrificed for all of us, and deserve every effort we can make to restore their sense of independence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, during the past five years, we have debated the merits and faults of assorted patients' rights legislation. We have offered statistics, we have shared stories, and we have reduced strong legislation--legislation that held the real possibility of protecting all Americans--to weaker law that protects a minority of the population. Our work at times spoke of this issue in the abstract, yet there is nothing abstract about it. The 180 million Americans enrolled in health care plans have always understood exactly what it means to have insufficient coverage. However, they are not sitting on the edges of their seats, watching our heated arguments and waiting breathlessly for an outcome. Instead, they are engaged in the battles they have fought for far too long, and their disputes have far higher stakes. They are, quite literally, fighting with managed care organizations for their lives. The American people are tired, Mr. President, and deserve relief from these battles. They deserve good health and the peace of mind that comes with quality care. It is time we cast aside our partisan bickering and give the American people the right to health care, as well as the right to seek redress if denied quality health care. It is time to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. Recognizing that 43 million Americans go without health insurance each day, and millions more carry partial to inadequate health coverage, I have worked with my colleagues both in committee and on the floor to deliver quality care that truly benefits patients. I am convinced that such health care coverage must include liability when needed care is denied, resulting in injury or death. Quality care must also include patients' access to medical specialists, and an appeals and review process when such access is denied. The McCain-Edwards- Kennedy bill includes these stipulations and goes one step further. It ensures that, for the first time, all Americans enrolled in health plans will be given access to the care they need. With this in mind, I would like to enthusiastically endorse the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights. A bipartisan effort in all regards, the legislation before us will ensure access to the quality of care that all Americans need--access which they deserve. First and foremost, it grants every individual with health coverage the same quality care. Under this McCain-Edwards-Kennedy legislation, for example, women, children, and the critically ill--often, the groups that are denied the care they need--will be given access to doctors who will determine their best medical interests. If denied such care, patients will also be given the opportunity to immediately appeal decisions. By employing independent review boards, victims will be able to seek second opinions prior to the denial of care. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill ensures access to medical treatments, before it is too late. To date, thousands of patients have died as a result of decisions made by non-medical HMO personnel who merely sought to reduce cost and increase profits. With this legislation, that need not happen ever again. We have now come to agreements so that the pending legislation will allow employees to seek punitive damages only if their employers willfully and negligently deny medical care that results in injury or death. Though some might argue that this will increase the cost of health care and, by extension, increase the number of uninsured in America, studies in states that have implemented similar protections have shown that this just is not the case. This right serves as a check against irresponsible decision-making and is critical to the legislation before us. Finally, the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights provides hope for those suffering from chronic illness by encouraging the use of clinical trials if no other treatment exists. Alzheimer's, AIDS, and cancer patients, for example, have real hope that alternative therapies may improve their suffering and offer a long-term cure. This element of the legislation is long overdue. I fought along with other members of this body for this right as part of the Medicare program--yet the same opportunity does not exist for those with private coverage. It is a right--and it is time to help the seriously ill so that they can fight their illness, not their insurance company. We have been debating this issue for five years, in spite of the fact that we all agree patients deserve quality health care. Here on the floor, we concur on many of the issues that held this legislation up in conference last year. I was a member of that conference committee, and can safely say the negotiating we have done here has greatly improved the bipartisan support for the Patients' Bill of Rights, previously lacked in conference. We have negotiated and agree upon scope between state and federal law, and on the definition of ``medical necessity,'' as well as employer liability. We all agree that women should have access to OBGYN care, children should have access to pediatric care, and all patients should have access to emergency room care. I ask, then, what is holding us back? Indisputably, Americans have suffered too long and have endured too much. They deserve quality care--they deserve the Patients' Bill of Rights, and we must give it to them. I urge my colleagues to vote for the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am happy today to join with my colleagues Senator Dorgan and Senator Burns, in introducing the Rail Competition Act of 2001. Very simply, the purpose of this legislation is to encourage a bare minimum of competitive practices among participants in the freight rail industry, which has undergone unprecedented concentration in recent years, to the detriment of virtually all rail customers. This legislation is a renewed effort on the part of my colleagues and me to address an issue that has amazed and shocked us for years. The monopoly power of the railroads places pervasive burdens on so many industries important to our states and to the national economy. No other industry in this country wields as much power over its customers as the railroad industry, and no other industry has as close an ally in the agency charged with its oversight as the railroad industry has with the Surface Transportation Board, known by the abbreviation STB. In fact, no other formerly regulated industry in this country continues to maintain this level of market dominance over its customers and essential infrastructure. Shippers of bulk commodities, like coal from mines in West Virginia and grain from the Plains states, must routinely deal with shipments that move more slowly, and at rates much higher than would normally be charged in a truly competitive market. Every company that ships its product by rail has a trove of horror stories regarding how high prices and poor service attributable to the lack of meaningful competition in the freight rail industry has affected their ability to compete in their own industries. I know this because these companies have been telling me the same types of stories since I came to Congress. I know that other members of Congress have heard the stories, too. As many of my colleagues will remember, the point was driven home last year when more than 280 CEOs from companies covering the broadest possible spectrum of the American economy wrote to Senators McCain and Hollings asking them to do something to insert real competition in the freight rail industry. For the record, the STB has also heard the complaints. However, the Board's focus has been the railroads' still- weak financial health, rather than the continued service problems that are its root cause. I want to give my colleagues an example from an industry that is very important to my State and the rest of the Nation, the chemical industry. Throughout the country, approximately 80 percent of individual chemical operations are ``captive'' to one railroad, meaning they are served by only one railroad, and are subject to whatever pricing scheme the railroad chooses to use. In my home State of West Virginia, where the chemical industry is one of the pillars of the State's economy, 100 percent of chemical plants are captive. Some might be tempted to just write this off as the cost of doing business, but let me impart another view: These plants produce bulk chemicals that other companies buy and turn into countless products in use in every home and business in America. Make no mistake, while the immediate beneficiary of this legislation will be the Rail Shipper who will have the opportunity to operate with the confidence that they are getting a fair deal the true beneficiary of this legislation is the retail shopper. Every purchase of every product that began its life in a chemical plant will be cheaper when that chemical plant receives competitive rail service because of this bill. Every ingredient in your families' dinners will go down in price when the shippers of agricultural commodities see their costs go down because this bill has produced efficiencies that benefit both shipper and railroad. Every time you flip the switch, and the lights turn on at a lower kilowatt-per-hour rate, it will happen because utilities throughout the nation have a more reliable and inexpensive supply of coal because of the Railroad Competition Act of 2001. Congress deregulated the railroad industry with the passage of the Staggers Rail Act in 1980. Many of the predicted results of deregulation came to pass in relatively short order. The major freight railroads, which were in pretty bad financial shape at the end of the 1970's, put their fiscal houses in order. In the course of these improvements, some weaker railroads were swallowed up by stronger corporations. Our Nation's rail network, which was extensive but inefficient in some respects, became more streamlined. Unfortunately, some of the benefits of competition that Congress was led to expect most notably improved service at lower cost have simply not materialized for many shippers in several parts of the country. Indeed, rather than improving over time, the situation has grown steadily worse. The second half of the 1990's saw an unprecedented spate of railroad mergers, to the point now that the more than 50 Class I railroads in existence when I entered the United States Senate has dwindled to only six with four railroads carrying a staggeringly high percentage of the freight. STB has considered these mergers to be ``in the public interest,'' and I will not dispute the possibility that some of them may have been. I tend to believe that the notion that fueled many of the mergers was that somehow financially weak corporations with poor track records of service could be transformed overnight into efficient, businesslike railroads providing good service at lower costs. Meanwhile, rail shippers had to contend with newly merged railroads with monopoly power that did not seem to care any more about customer service than the separate companies that preceded them. Before I complete my remarks, I want to address what I predict will be some of the rhetoric bandied about by the railroad industry. This bill is not an attempt to re-regulate the industry. When Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act in 1980, it did not do so with only the financial health of the railroads in mind. The Interstate Commerce Commission, and its successor agency, the STB, were supposed to maintain competition in the rail industry. Both agencies have failed miserably to contain the anti-competitive behavior of the railroads. My cosponsors and I only seek to require railroads to quote a price for a portion of a route on which they carry a company's products. This bill does not seek to give the STB more regulatory authority over the railroads, it only serves to remind the Board of the pro-competitive responsibilities authorized by Congress in the Staggers Act. Likewise, we do not offer this bill to hasten the demise of the industry. The companies that have come to us time and again for help in getting competitive rail service absolutely need a strong railroad industry. Their products, for the most part, cannot be moved efficiently via trucks or barges. The competition that will be fostered by this legislation is intended to help the railroads as much as it is intended to help shippers. Some may dispute the fundamental economic logic of this, to which I respond: Giving the railroads relatively unfettered regional monopolies with the right to engage in anti-competitive behavior has not produced the strong railroad industry the Staggers Act sought to produce. At the very least, perhaps it is time to give competition a chance to succeed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am happy today to join with my colleagues Senator Dorgan and Senator Burns, in introducing the Rail Competition Act of 2001. Very simply, the purpose of this legislation is to encourage a bare minimum of competitive practices among participants in the freight rail industry, which has undergone unprecedented concentration in recent years, to the detriment of virtually all rail customers. This legislation is a renewed effort on the part of my colleagues and me to address an issue that has amazed and shocked us for years. The monopoly power of the railroads places pervasive burdens on so many industries important to our states and to the national economy. No other industry in this country wields as much power over its customers as the railroad industry, and no other industry has as close an ally in the agency charged with its oversight as the railroad industry has with the Surface Transportation Board, known by the abbreviation STB. In fact, no other formerly regulated industry in this country continues to maintain this level of market dominance over its customers and essential infrastructure. Shippers of bulk commodities, like coal from mines in West Virginia and grain from the Plains states, must routinely deal with shipments that move more slowly, and at rates much higher than would normally be charged in a truly competitive market. Every company that ships its product by rail has a trove of horror stories regarding how high prices and poor service attributable to the lack of meaningful competition in the freight rail industry has affected their ability to compete in their own industries. I know this because these companies have been telling me the same types of stories since I came to Congress. I know that other members of Congress have heard the stories, too. As many of my colleagues will remember, the point was driven home last year when more than 280 CEOs from companies covering the broadest possible spectrum of the American economy wrote to Senators McCain and Hollings asking them to do something to insert real competition in the freight rail industry. For the record, the STB has also heard the complaints. However, the Board's focus has been the railroads' still- weak financial health, rather than the continued service problems that are its root cause. I want to give my colleagues an example from an industry that is very important to my State and the rest of the Nation, the chemical industry. Throughout the country, approximately 80 percent of individual chemical operations are ``captive'' to one railroad, meaning they are served by only one railroad, and are subject to whatever pricing scheme the railroad chooses to use. In my home State of West Virginia, where the chemical industry is one of the pillars of the State's economy, 100 percent of chemical plants are captive. Some might be tempted to just write this off as the cost of doing business, but let me impart another view: These plants produce bulk chemicals that other companies buy and turn into countless products in use in every home and business in America. Make no mistake, while the immediate beneficiary of this legislation will be the Rail Shipper who will have the opportunity to operate with the confidence that they are getting a fair deal the true beneficiary of this legislation is the retail shopper. Every purchase of every product that began its life in a chemical plant will be cheaper when that chemical plant receives competitive rail service because of this bill. Every ingredient in your families' dinners will go down in price when the shippers of agricultural commodities see their costs go down because this bill has produced efficiencies that benefit both shipper and railroad. Every time you flip the switch, and the lights turn on at a lower kilowatt-per-hour rate, it will happen because utilities throughout the nation have a more reliable and inexpensive supply of coal because of the Railroad Competition Act of 2001. Congress deregulated the railroad industry with the passage of the Staggers Rail Act in 1980. Many of the predicted results of deregulation came to pass in relatively short order. The major freight railroads, which were in pretty bad financial shape at the end of the 1970's, put their fiscal houses in order. In the course of these improvements, some weaker railroads were swallowed up by stronger corporations. Our Nation's rail network, which was extensive but inefficient in some respects, became more streamlined. Unfortunately, some of the benefits of competition that Congress was led to expect most notably improved service at lower cost have simply not materialized for many shippers in several parts of the country. Indeed, rather than improving over time, the situation has grown steadily worse. The second half of the 1990's saw an unprecedented spate of railroad mergers, to the point now that the more than 50 Class I railroads in existence when I entered the United States Senate has dwindled to only six with four railroads carrying a staggeringly high percentage of the freight. STB has considered these mergers to be ``in the public interest,'' and I will not dispute the possibility that some of them may have been. I tend to believe that the notion that fueled many of the mergers was that somehow financially weak corporations with poor track records of service could be transformed overnight into efficient, businesslike railroads providing good service at lower costs. Meanwhile, rail shippers had to contend with newly merged railroads with monopoly power that did not seem to care any more about customer service than the separate companies that preceded them. Before I complete my remarks, I want to address what I predict will be some of the rhetoric bandied about by the railroad industry. This bill is not an attempt to re-regulate the industry. When Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act in 1980, it did not do so with only the financial health of the railroads in mind. The Interstate Commerce Commission, and its successor agency, the STB, were supposed to maintain competition in the rail industry. Both agencies have failed miserably to contain the anti-competitive behavior of the railroads. My cosponsors and I only seek to require railroads to quote a price for a portion of a route on which they carry a company's products. This bill does not seek to give the STB more regulatory authority over the railroads, it only serves to remind the Board of the pro-competitive responsibilities authorized by Congress in the Staggers Act. Likewise, we do not offer this bill to hasten the demise of the industry. The companies that have come to us time and again for help in getting competitive rail service absolutely need a strong railroad industry. Their products, for the most part, cannot be moved efficiently via trucks or barges. The competition that will be fostered by this legislation is intended to help the railroads as much as it is intended to help shippers. Some may dispute the fundamental economic logic of this, to which I respond: Giving the railroads relatively unfettered regional monopolies with the right to engage in anti-competitive behavior has not produced the strong railroad industry the Staggers Act sought to produce. At the very least, perhaps it is time to give competition a chance to succeed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am today introducing this legislation which attempts to ensure there will be a sufficient number of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims so as to decide the appeals of our Nation's veterans for disability claims. In addition, this bill would terminate the Notice of Disagreement requirement in the current law which acts as a bar to appealing cases to the court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, CAVC, originally named the Court of Veterans' Appeals, was created in 1988 in the Veterans Judicial Review Act, VJRA, to provide judicial review to veterans' claims for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is comprised of one chief judge and six associate judges. At the court's inception, the terms for judges on the court were not staggered. The original chief judge and six associate judges were appointed to 15-year terms within 16 months of one another from 1989 to 1991. A new judge was appointed in 1997 to fill a vacancy created by the death of one of the originally appointed judges. The chief judge retired in 2000 and his seat has not yet been filled. By 2005, the terms of five of the remaining judges will end. Because the judges' terms were not staggered, it is very likely that there will be simultaneous vacant seats. In 1998, Congress attempted to preemptively avoid the crisis of having only two sitting judges, and the resulting backlog of cases, by offering some of the original judges an opportunity to retire early. However, no judges accepted the offer. Therefore, we must again make the effort to solve this problem. The legislation I am introducing proposes to do so by allowing two additional judges to be appointed to full terms, in order to bridge the retirement of the original judges. Specifically, this bill would temporarily expand the membership of the court by two judgeships until August 2005, when the last of the seven original judges' terms will expire. This expansion should give ample time for the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm judges for the court, and avoid the potentially damaging effects of a court with only two judges. In addition, this bill would terminate the Notice of Disagreement, NOD, as a jurisdictional requirement for review at the court. The NOD begins the appellate process within the VA. The veteran usually sends the NOD to a regional office of the VA, telling the regional office that he disagrees with the regional office's decision, in whole or part. This constitutes notice that the veteran is appealing his case to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. When Congress created the court in 1988, it required claims to have an NOD filed after November 18, 1988, the date of enactment of the VJRA, in order to be appealed to the CAVC. This explicit rule was enacted to keep the new court from becoming overwhelmed with appeals. However, many difficulties have arisen with this jurisdictional requirement, due to the complexity of the VA appellate process. Problems mainly arise in determining what is the applicable NOD when there are multiple agency decisions and extensive correspondence by the claimants. Also, many cases originated before November 18, 1988, adding to the difficulty of determining which NOD confers jurisdiction to the court. In addition, much litigation has occurred to determine what type of writing constitutes an NOD, and the type of language that must be used to construe disagreement over the VA's decision. While there has been favorable response to the court, the anticipated floodgates have not opened. Last year the court decided 1,556 claims. This legislation does not confer jurisdiction upon the court on any matter not currently within its jurisdiction. Instead, it is meant to free up the court to determine appeals on the merits. The appellate process for veterans' claims is long enough without a veteran being additionally burdened to argue over NODs. In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Veterans appeals already take years, sometimes decades. We must do what we can to avoid increasing the length of the process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am tremendously pleased to introduce today legislation that would allow veterans to use their Montgomery GI bill educational benefits to pay for short-term, high technology courses that lead to lucrative careers. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Ranking Minority Member Senator Arlen Specter. The 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. Currently, the MGIB provides a basic monthly benefit of $650 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, short-term courses often leading 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, at most, $1300 for a two-month course that potentially costs $10,000. Even if veterans claimed this small benefit, providers must be approved by VA as an educational institution in every State in which they operate in order for MGIB benefits to be paid for coursework. Because veterans would only recoup a small portion of the course cost from VA, many of the course providers do not undertake the onerous processing of becoming VA-approved. Therefore, many veterans with MGIB eligibility are forced to bear the entire costs of these courses. Many borrow the funds to pay for them, incurring significant interest charges. I note that last year, in Public Law 106-419, Congress extended MGIB benefits to cover the costs of certification exams that these courses prepare veterans to take. I believe that we should take the next logical step and pay for the courses themselves. The percentage of veterans who actually use the MGIB benefits that they have earned and paid for is startlingly low, 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 what 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 1 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. Section 2 would allow courses offered by these providers to be covered by MGIB. In closing, I note that 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 MGIB must continue to evolve to keep pace with the careers and education that today's veterans require. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the changing needs of our veterans, and to maintain this investment in our veterans and our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that would continue to respond to at least some of the concerns of Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange during their service to this Nation. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Ranking Minority Member Senator Arlen Specter, and my good friend, Senator Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader and a true champion of Vietnam veterans. In passing the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Congress demonstrated its commitment to securing fair treatment for veterans enduring long-term health consequences following their service during the Vietnam war. The bill before us would continue the systematic scientific reviews that help us understand these consequences. Provisions in this bill also would extend the presumptive period for Vietnam veterans suffering from respiratory cancers and ease the burden on veterans in proving exposure to Agent Orange. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 directed the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, to review scientific evidence on the health effects of exposure to dioxin and other chemicals found in herbicides used in Vietnam. The scientific reviews, there have been four thus far, have found evidence of connections between exposure to dioxin and diseases such as respiratory cancers, Type 2 diabetes, and the birth defect spina bifida, all currently compensated by the VA as service connected. These reviews will end after 2002 unless we act now. We simply do not know enough about the long-term effects of dioxin exposure to say that the body of scientific evidence is complete. The bill before us would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to extend the existing agreement with NAS to provide five more biennial reports. Currently, title 38 of the United States Code allows Vietnam veterans with respiratory cancers to claim benefits for this disease as a service-connected disability, but only if the disease manifested within 30 years of their service in Vietnam. The most recent NAS report confirmed that there is no scientific basis for assuming that cancers linked to dioxin exposure would occur within a specific window of time. The bill that I am introducing would remove this arbitrary limit, and would restore eligibility for benefits to any Vietnam veterans with respiratory cancers previously denied due to the cutoff. I recently learned of the tragic story of Jerry Slusher from Huntington, WV, a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam war. While dying of respiratory cancer in 1999, Jerry filed for benefits and learned that he might have been eligible, if only he had been diagnosed just a few months earlier. The men and women who served this Nation, and who struggle with the consequences of that service so many years later, deserve better. Lastly, this bill would give all Vietnam veterans the benefit of the doubt regarding their exposure in Vietnam when claiming benefits for diseases related to Agent Orange exposure. Due to the difficulties in determining who might have been exposed to Agent Orange, Congress determined in 1991 that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should concede exposure to veterans whose military records indicated that they served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era. This presumption eased a veteran's burden in qualifying for service-connected benefits. VA subsequently interpreted this law to mean that, if a veteran had served in Vietnam during the war, it should be presumed that the veteran was exposed to Agent Orange. However, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ruled in McCartt v. West (12 Vet. App. 164[1999]) that VA had interpreted the statute too broadly. This ruling limited the presumption of exposure to Vietnam veterans diagnosed with one or more of the diseases listed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, rather than to any disease claimed by a veteran. As a result, veterans who suffer from diseases not on this list must go about the difficult task of proving exposure to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam, and that the disease resulted from that exposure. This legislation would restore the presumption of exposure for all veterans who served in Vietnam during the war. This bill ensures that the system of scientific review and determinations for presumptive compensation already in place for Vietnam veterans will continue. We must address these issues promptly to continue to assist veterans who have already waited too long for answers. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.