Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am enormously pleased to bring to my colleagues' attention not only a serious problem that threatens health care throughout this Nation, but my optimism that the Department of Veterans Affairs can serve as a pathfinder in seeking solutions to this problem. On June 14, the Committee 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, VA, health care facilities. Quality of care issues have always been important to this committee and to me, and skilled nurses are indispensable to high quality health care. Representatives of nursing associations, unions, and VA testified about the conditions that have created this critical nurse shortage and what VA--the largest employer of nurses in the United States--can do to address them. The problem can be stated simply: too few nurses are caring for too many patients in our Nation's hospitals. Fewer young people seek nursing careers every year, while the demand for skilled nursing care, especially long-term care, is climbing. Although we have faced health care staffing shortages before, experts warn that we are on the brink of a severe and long-lasting crisis. Unless we take steps to address this problem now, the demand for nurses will exceed the supply for many years to come. Working conditions for nurses--never easy--have become even more challenging. 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 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. Astonishingly, VA has not been included in the other hearings on the nurse shortage that have taken place during this session of Congress. VA is the largest employer of nurses in the Nation, and its nurses are closer to retirement age than those in other health care systems. This makes the problem even more critical in VA health care facilities. However, VA enjoys a lower rate of nurse turnover, and a handful of VA nurses have managed to carve out innovative programs to improve nurse recruitment and retention. Several of these innovators testified at the hearing on June 14. Programs initiated within VA to improve conditions for nurses and patients have focused on issues beyond staffing ratios 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. Nursing administrators in an award-winning program at the Tampa VA Medical Center have looked for ways to include nurses in decisionmaking, and to keep up with technical innovations that can make the job safer and less physically demanding. 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. As nursing careers have dropped from favor for young women, the sort of training programs that provided so many with their first glimpses of patient care have fallen by the wayside. Much to my surprise, one of our witnesses testified that the ``candy striper'' programs of the past no longer exist to serve as training grounds for future nurses. Through a ``nurse cadet'' program at the VA Medical Center in Salem, VA, VA is attempting to fill that void by providing leadership in testing community mentoring programs designed to spark the next generation's interest in nursing careers. Clearly, more can be--and must be--done to address this problem. 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 look forward to working with VA to provide a model for the Nation on how to accomplish these difficult tasks. In closing, I ask unanimous consent that a Raleigh, North Carolina, News and Observer article that focuses on the innovative nursing programs, and the enthusiastic and committed nurses, at the Durham VA Medical Center be printed in the Record. It is just this sort of commitment which gives me confidence that VA can indeed assume a leadership role as we as a Nation confront the nurse shortage.

Mr ROCKEFELLER

Mr ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am enormously proud to reflect upon West Virginia's years of accomplishment and good works on this, its 138th anniversary as a State. Among West Virginia's greatest achievements are its outstanding citizens who have had an influence, not only on their home State, but also on the Nation as a whole. West Virginia is home of some of the country's greatest educators, authors, and scientists. Like all great Americans, these luminaries worked for the advancement of others. Like all great West Virginians, they pursued their goals while remembering their roots. I am reminded of Anna Jarvis, a teacher who longed to heal the rift between brothers during the Civil War. Miss Jarvis strove to provide a common bond between all Americans, northern and southern, that could serve as a stepping-stone toward a more lasting peace. To this end, she founded ``Mother's Friendship Day,'' now known as Mother's Day, which honors the sacrifices of all mothers. Indeed, Anna achieved her goal; and, she created a tradition that endures today. Another West Virginian, author Pearl S. Buck, sought much the same goal. Ms. Buck's revolutionary novel, ``The Good Earth'', highlighted the plight of poor women and children in early-20 century China. In addition, Pearl worked tirelessly to advance the civil rights movement, as well as the women's rights movement. Her efforts brought increased understanding and tolerance for the underprivileged. Pearl S. Buck was inspired by the tolerance and charity of her fellow West Virginians and instilled these ideals in a new generation of Americans. Like Anna and Pearl, Reverend Leon Sullivan recognized his ability to change the lives of others through example. A Baptist minister, educator, and civil rights activist, Leon also served on the board of directors of the General Motors Corporation. There, he promoted the idea of corporate responsibility abroad. His desire for racial egalitarianism worldwide forged the path for the Sullivan principles; these beliefs were instrumental in the abolition of apartheid in South Africa. Though he recently passed away, Reverend Sullivan leaves a lasting legacy of fairness and equality both at home and abroad. Finally, I think of Homer Hickam, an aerospace engineer who, in spite of his humble background, attended college and achieved great professional success. Today, Homer attributes his accomplishments to the early influence of an outstanding teacher. His story demonstrates that educators inspire students and open doors. Most importantly, it reminds us of why we should collectively invest in education. Today, I commend all of West Virginia's heroes, those that are well known and those who remain anonymous. I hope all Americans are inspired by the generosity, integrity, and devotion displayed by the people of this great State.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Hollings, and Byrd, in introducing the Trade Law Reform Act of 2001. It has been far too long, well over a decade in fact, since the last general reform of our trade laws, and current circumstances, particularly the ongoing steel crisis that has resulted in 18 American steel companies declaring for bankruptcy since 1997, necessitate the prompt action of Congress. Nothing short of section 201 can save the American steel industry. I have written President Bush twice since he took office in January urgently pleading with him to initiate a section 201 case before the International Trade Commission. In the time between my first and second letters, five U.S. steelmakers filed for bankruptcy. Imports have continued at record levels and prices have not rebounded. Absent a Section 201, any measures we take up in the Congress to redress the steel crisis are akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Despite the necessity of an immediate section 201 on steel, we must not cease in our efforts to improve the proper functioning of our trade laws. The safeguard, countervailing duty, and anti-dumping laws are vital to the manufacturing sector of our economy. They are often the first and last line of defense for U.S. industries injured by unfairly or illegally traded imports. Companies, workers, families, and communities rely heavily on these laws to prevent the ill-effects of unfair trade by our trading partners. Unfortunately, recent events like the steel import crisis have demonstrated how painfully inadequate our current trade laws are in responding to rapid import surges. The flooding of U.S. markets with unfairly or illegally traded steel has caused severe and irreparable harm to our steelworkers, their families, and communities, and it is high time we revisit our trade laws in an effort to make our laws more responsive to the changing realities of the global economy. In the case of steel, I refer to the problem of foreign steel overcapacity that continually finds its way into the open U.S. market where it seriously injures our domestic steel manufacturers. The reforms we are proposing today fall into three categories. Title I of the act improves the ability of our safeguard laws, often referred to as section 201, to adequately respond to import surges such as the flood of cheap steel that began to hit U.S. shores in 1997 and has not yet abated. Section 201 allows U.S. producers to obtain relief from serious injury that is substantially caused by imports even in the absence of unfair trade. However, the current U.S. safeguard standard for proving that a U.S. industry has been seriously injured by imports is stricter than the corresponding standard in the WTO Safeguards Agreement, a discrepancy which places U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage with regard to their foreign trading partners. Whereas a foreign producer must prove only that an import surge, like the current steel import crisis, is a cause of injury, domestic producers are hindered by our trade laws which require our domestic industry to prove that the imports are a substantial cause of injury. This inequity hampers the ability of our domestic industries to obtain relief from unfairly traded imports and creates an unequal playing field on which our foreign trading partners have an advantage. It also contributes to making the U.S. the premiere dumping ground for illegal and unfairly traded imports, particularly in the case of steel. Our trading partners know the U.S. injury standard is high, and they exploit that fact. Title I simply brings the U.S. safeguard law with respect to the injury test into line with the WTO standard, thereby putting our domestic industries on equal footing with the rest of the world. Title I also contains other language to make section 201 more effective, such as provisions that expand the availability of early and meaningful provisional relief and more rapidly and effectively address import surges. Title II of this legislation updates our anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws to make them more effective for a rapidly- changing marketplace. First, the bill makes it tougher for our trading partners to circumvent an anti-dumping or countervailing duty order. No longer will foreign nations be able to skirt around our laws by making slight alterations to the products they are exporting to the U.S. This legislation clarifies that antidumping and countervailing duty orders include products that have been changed in only minor respects. In addition, the bill provides that the ITC cannot conclude that imports do not have a significant effect on domestic prices simply on the basis of the magnitude or stability of the volume of imports. This allows the Commission to take into account the fact that in some cases and for some industries, even small volumes of imports can have significant price effects and negatively impact the domestic industry. Title III creates a steel import monitoring program designed to act as an early notification system when imports begin flooding the U.S. market. When the steel import surge began in July 1997, it was many months, even close to a year, before anyone in the administration would even admit that there was a spike in imports that was potentially harmful to the domestic industry. During that time, companies went bankrupt and thousands of steelworkers were laid off. These provisions will make it easier to track imports and provide much quicker notification of potentially harmful import surges. Quite simply, the sooner we learn of unfair import surges, the sooner the administration, Congress, and the industry itself can take the necessary steps to provide steelworkers and steel companies with the relief they deserve. By recognizing the changed reality of the international marketplace and how quickly import surges become major crises, the bill being introduced today provides much needed improvements of our trade laws. Too many of the current provisions designed to provide relief to our domestic manufacturing sector have been antiquated by recent changes in the global economy and the structure of international trade. It is time we reaffirm our commitment to our manufacturing base by updating and enhancing the very laws designed to protect U.S. manufacturers from unfair and illegal imports from abroad. The Trade Law Reform Act of 2001 does just that. Once again, I must reiterate that only an immediate section 201 on steel can preserve basic steelmaking capacity in the United States. While this bill cannot solve the steel crisis by itself, it does represent a significant step in the right direction.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Rockefeller pertaining to the introduction of S. 981 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for a period of 7 minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we all know the cost of gasoline has been increasing very dramatically and the people of my State, a very rural State, have to travel very long distances. There is little public transportation in rural counties, and as a result they have to use their cars and have to, therefore, buy a lot of gas. Today I am introducing legislation to give temporary help to those who need it most, particularly low-income families, workers, seniors, and, frankly, students who have to drive long distances each day to get to their work, their school, and to critical health care. In West Virginia prices of gas have gone up, as they have everywhere. In the North and South they have gone up by a great deal. People suffer because of that. I know high prices affect everyone when it comes to gas, but they do hit lower income people in the most painful way. When you are already struggling to pay the cost of housing and the cost of education or whatever it might be, the cost of gas aggregated over a period of time becomes a very painful item. As I indicated, if you are in a rural area, your problem is much worse because there is not public transportation. This is a very crucial fact. It means you have to use your automobile. It means you have to buy the gas to put in the automobile. I support the development of long-term energy policies and hope we will do that in a wise way. But for those who pay their living expenses day to day, that will not come soon enough. Therefore, my bill is a simple one. It is a temporary approach to what I believe is already, in fact, something of an emergency. The bill is modeled on the successful Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which helps working families and seniors cope with home heating costs. The proposal which I call LIGAP--not out of my poetic sense but simply because it stands for Low-Income Gasoline Assistance Program--would give grants to States for an emergency assistance program for people who must drive 30 miles a day or an average of 150 miles a week for work, for education related to work, or scheduled routine health care. This new program will have similar income eligibility guidelines as the LIHEAP program. Therefore, it will not be difficult to administer. It is triggered when a State's average gasoline price hits the unmanageable current level. It is also triggered off when gas prices decline. Every eligible person or family will get a monthly stipend of $25 to $75 to help cover the high cost of gasoline. This legislation encourages States to use their block grant funding to help welfare recipients pay for transportation costs, necessary for people getting off welfare to get to work. Some States, including West Virginia, are already using welfare reform moneys as part of their welfare-to-work initiatives to help with transportation costs. I think that is a very important thing for States to do. I am proud of my State's initiative, and I am proud of their approach to welfare reform. There obviously are not any magic bullets in bringing some sanity back to gasoline pricing, but this bill is designed to offer at least much-needed relief to West Virginians and other Americans who simply cannot make ends meet while we are in the throes of high gasoline costs. I think it is a sensible bill, and I hope at the appropriate time it will get favorable consideration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Hollings, and Byrd, in introducing the Trade Law Reform Act of 2001. It has been far too long, well over a decade in fact, since the last general reform of our trade laws, and current circumstances, particularly the ongoing steel crisis that has resulted in 18 American steel companies declaring for bankruptcy since 1997, necessitate the prompt action of Congress. Nothing short of section 201 can save the American steel industry. I have written President Bush twice since he took office in January urgently pleading with him to initiate a section 201 case before the International Trade Commission. In the time between my first and second letters, five U.S. steelmakers filed for bankruptcy. Imports have continued at record levels and prices have not rebounded. Absent a Section 201, any measures we take up in the Congress to redress the steel crisis are akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Despite the necessity of an immediate section 201 on steel, we must not cease in our efforts to improve the proper functioning of our trade laws. The safeguard, countervailing duty, and anti-dumping laws are vital to the manufacturing sector of our economy. They are often the first and last line of defense for U.S. industries injured by unfairly or illegally traded imports. Companies, workers, families, and communities rely heavily on these laws to prevent the ill-effects of unfair trade by our trading partners. Unfortunately, recent events like the steel import crisis have demonstrated how painfully inadequate our current trade laws are in responding to rapid import surges. The flooding of U.S. markets with unfairly or illegally traded steel has caused severe and irreparable harm to our steelworkers, their families, and communities, and it is high time we revisit our trade laws in an effort to make our laws more responsive to the changing realities of the global economy. In the case of steel, I refer to the problem of foreign steel overcapacity that continually finds its way into the open U.S. market where it seriously injures our domestic steel manufacturers. The reforms we are proposing today fall into three categories. Title I of the act improves the ability of our safeguard laws, often referred to as section 201, to adequately respond to import surges such as the flood of cheap steel that began to hit U.S. shores in 1997 and has not yet abated. Section 201 allows U.S. producers to obtain relief from serious injury that is substantially caused by imports even in the absence of unfair trade. However, the current U.S. safeguard standard for proving that a U.S. industry has been seriously injured by imports is stricter than the corresponding standard in the WTO Safeguards Agreement, a discrepancy which places U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage with regard to their foreign trading partners. Whereas a foreign producer must prove only that an import surge, like the current steel import crisis, is a cause of injury, domestic producers are hindered by our trade laws which require our domestic industry to prove that the imports are a substantial cause of injury. This inequity hampers the ability of our domestic industries to obtain relief from unfairly traded imports and creates an unequal playing field on which our foreign trading partners have an advantage. It also contributes to making the U.S. the premiere dumping ground for illegal and unfairly traded imports, particularly in the case of steel. Our trading partners know the U.S. injury standard is high, and they exploit that fact. Title I simply brings the U.S. safeguard law with respect to the injury test into line with the WTO standard, thereby putting our domestic industries on equal footing with the rest of the world. Title I also contains other language to make section 201 more effective, such as provisions that expand the availability of early and meaningful provisional relief and more rapidly and effectively address import surges. Title II of this legislation updates our anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws to make them more effective for a rapidly- changing marketplace. First, the bill makes it tougher for our trading partners to circumvent an anti-dumping or countervailing duty order. No longer will foreign nations be able to skirt around our laws by making slight alterations to the products they are exporting to the U.S. This legislation clarifies that antidumping and countervailing duty orders include products that have been changed in only minor respects. In addition, the bill provides that the ITC cannot conclude that imports do not have a significant effect on domestic prices simply on the basis of the magnitude or stability of the volume of imports. This allows the Commission to take into account the fact that in some cases and for some industries, even small volumes of imports can have significant price effects and negatively impact the domestic industry. Title III creates a steel import monitoring program designed to act as an early notification system when imports begin flooding the U.S. market. When the steel import surge began in July 1997, it was many months, even close to a year, before anyone in the administration would even admit that there was a spike in imports that was potentially harmful to the domestic industry. During that time, companies went bankrupt and thousands of steelworkers were laid off. These provisions will make it easier to track imports and provide much quicker notification of potentially harmful import surges. Quite simply, the sooner we learn of unfair import surges, the sooner the administration, Congress, and the industry itself can take the necessary steps to provide steelworkers and steel companies with the relief they deserve. By recognizing the changed reality of the international marketplace and how quickly import surges become major crises, the bill being introduced today provides much needed improvements of our trade laws. Too many of the current provisions designed to provide relief to our domestic manufacturing sector have been antiquated by recent changes in the global economy and the structure of international trade. It is time we reaffirm our commitment to our manufacturing base by updating and enhancing the very laws designed to protect U.S. manufacturers from unfair and illegal imports from abroad. The Trade Law Reform Act of 2001 does just that. Once again, I must reiterate that only an immediate section 201 on steel can preserve basic steelmaking capacity in the United States. While this bill cannot solve the steel crisis by itself, it does represent a significant step in the right direction.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we all know the cost of gasoline has been increasing very dramatically and the people of my State, a very rural State, have to travel very long distances. There is little public transportation in rural counties, and as a result they have to use their cars and have to, therefore, buy a lot of gas. Today I am introducing legislation to give temporary help to those who need it most, particularly low-income families, workers, seniors, and, frankly, students who have to drive long distances each day to get to their work, their school, and to critical health care. In West Virginia prices of gas have gone up, as they have everywhere. In the North and South they have gone up by a great deal. People suffer because of that. I know high prices affect everyone when it comes to gas, but they do hit lower income people in the most painful way. When you are already struggling to pay the cost of housing and the cost of education or whatever it might be, the cost of gas aggregated over a period of time becomes a very painful item. As I indicated, if you are in a rural area, your problem is much worse because there is not public transportation. This is a very crucial fact. It means you have to use your automobile. It means you have to buy the gas to put in the automobile. I support the development of long-term energy policies and hope we will do that in a wise way. But for those who pay their living expenses day to day, that will not come soon enough. Therefore, my bill is a simple one. It is a temporary approach to what I believe is already, in fact, something of an emergency. The bill is modeled on the successful Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which helps working families and seniors cope with home heating costs. The proposal which I call LIGAP--not out of my poetic sense but simply because it stands for Low-Income Gasoline Assistance Program--would give grants to States for an emergency assistance program for people who must drive 30 miles a day or an average of 150 miles a week for work, for education related to work, or scheduled routine health care. This new program will have similar income eligibility guidelines as the LIHEAP program. Therefore, it will not be difficult to administer. It is triggered when a State's average gasoline price hits the unmanageable current level. It is also triggered off when gas prices decline. Every eligible person or family will get a monthly stipend of $25 to $75 to help cover the high cost of gasoline. This legislation encourages States to use their block grant funding to help welfare recipients pay for transportation costs, necessary for people getting off welfare to get to work. Some States, including West Virginia, are already using welfare reform moneys as part of their welfare-to-work initiatives to help with transportation costs. I think that is a very important thing for States to do. I am proud of my State's initiative, and I am proud of their approach to welfare reform. There obviously are not any magic bullets in bringing some sanity back to gasoline pricing, but this bill is designed to offer at least much-needed relief to West Virginians and other Americans who simply cannot make ends meet while we are in the throes of high gasoline costs. I think it is a sensible bill, and I hope at the appropriate time it will get favorable consideration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to this fiscally irresponsible conference report. Today, this tax cut perpetrates a fraud on the American people. Their hard work created this surplus and this opportunity to sustain our economy and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. But no one should be fooled that this conference report is anything but an irresponsible, unfair, and politically motivated giveaway to the wealthiest in our society. I deeply regret that we have failed to take this historic opportunity to provide a meaningful tax cut to all Americans, and at the same time, continue to make real progress paying down our national debt and reserve sufficient resources to invest in our future. I voted for a $900 billion tax cut that would have allowed us to provide all Americans with an immediate and meaningful tax cut across the board and that included important education and energy provisions, and would have allowed us to pay down the debt and provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, as well leave room for other West Virginia priorities. The conference report's tax cut is far too large to protect West Virginia's priorities and its future whether it's education, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, federal investments in roads and aviation safety, or safer communities. In fact, the true cost of this bill is probably over $1.7 trillion over the 10 years of the budget. And because of backloading of the tax cuts, which means that the effective dates for many of the tax cuts don't occur for at least 5 years, the tax cut cost will explode in later years. Even more farcical, the conferees have hidden even more of the true costs of the tax cut by making it appear that it will expire, and taxes substantially rise, after 2010. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee know this is simply not what will happen, but they have nevertheless used this gimmick to make it appear that they have held to the Senate-passed Budget Resolution. It is ludicrous to think that the Congress would impose a quarter of a trillion dollar tax increase on the American people in 2010 when this tax cut proposal expires. These tax cuts will be extended, and their cost will thus explode to $4 trillion and more. That's not responsible, and it's bad economic policy. What's even worse, this bill is just not fair to hardworking Americans who created the surplus. This tax conference report simply gives too much to the wealthiest Americans and does too little to reduce our national debt. This tax plan endangers our ability to provide a desperately needed Medicare prescription drug benefit to 39 million American seniors and taps into the Medicare Trust Fund. It threatens Social Security just when our ``baby boomers'' start to retire. It leaves us too little to invest in our children's education, and jeopardizes our efforts to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure. It chokes our ability to improve our national defense and veterans health care--ironically, just as many Members of Congress are planning to return to their states to honor their veterans on this coming Memorial Day. This tax bill short- circuits critical components of a balanced energy policy to invest in clean coal research and encourage alternative fuels and energy efficiency. And this tax giveaway will, undoubtedly, return us to the huge budget deficits we worked nearly a generation to eliminate. All of us remember the consequences of the Reagan tax cut--two decades of spiraling deficits. And for my state of West Virginia, the consequences were devastating. As a Governor, I know how my state suffered. I don't want to return to those days, and West Virginians don't either. This proposal, regretfully, sets us on that path. As the second ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, I was officially named a conferee on this tax legislation. I had hoped to work hard to improve the Senate-passed bill where we could, and, at a minimum, retain the Senate's provisions. While the Senate's tax proposal was backloaded and cost the same unaffordable $1.35 trillion, it included some essential improvements for lower and middle income families. As grave a mistake as I believe this tax package is, and as dangerous as I believe it will be for our Nation's economic future, I was prepared to support these Senate provisions in conference and do what I could to prevent further erosion of the already tilted tax cut for the rich. I deeply regret to report, however, that neither the Minority Leader nor I were included in the negotiations of this bill. We were presented with this conference report after it had been completed and at the same time my nonconferee colleagues learned of the package's content. I note this procedural point only to raise my concern that we have deviated from the traditional committee processes and from any semblance of true bipartisan negotiating, to our Nation's and the Senate's ultimate detriment. The Chairman's repeated assertions that this matter has been conducted in an open and inclusive process does not reflect reality. Let me outline the most obvious problems with this irresponsible tax cut. The tax conference report has several fatal flaws. It plays games with the effective dates of the tax cuts in order to mask the real cost of this tax proposal. Those games mean that married people won't get relief from the marriage penalty for 5 years, until 2006. The reason why married people have to wait for their tax cut is because the conference report chose to give even more money to the wealthiest Americans at their expense. The top income tax rate that was reduced from 39 percent to 36 percent in the Senate bill is now lowered to 35 percent by the terms of the conference report--that's a 1.6 percent deeper cut than any other income tax bracket. While there is no reduction in marginal rates for the 15 percent income tax bracket--where most Americans and most West Virginians pay their last dollar of tax--there is a 4.6 percent reduction for the wealthiest Americans who need it the least. West Virginians will not be fooled by that; they will see that this is unfair. When we get the best analysis from the experts, it will no doubt document just how much is robbed from middle income taxpayers to finance the tax break for the wealthiest. Only 0.3 percent of West Virginians are in the top income tax bracket. And let's not be misled by the rhetoric that the wealthy get more of the benefit only because they pay more taxes. Of course, the wealthiest Americans pay a significant share of Federal taxes--about 22 percent. The President's proposal would have given those wealthiest Americans 43 percent of the tax cuts. This conference report will give them roughly 38 percent of the entire tax cut. They pay in 22 percent, but they get 35 percent of the surplus. I can't explain why they have been rewarded with more of the surplus than they deserve at the expense of hardworking West Virginia families, and I can't support it. I can't support a tax cut that gives about 15 percent of our Nation's surplus to the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers, and 38 percent to the top 1 percent. The estate tax provisions of this bill, also a benefit solely for the wealthy, begin almost immediately--in 2002, but middle income married couples are told they must wait for their relief until 2006. The estate tax is also totally repealed in 2010. But another startling fact about this tax bill is that the entire bill--even the tax relief for lower and middle income people, the child credit, and EITC improvements, all sunset in 2010 in order to pretend that this bill really costs $1.35 trillion over 10 years. We know that this is a sleight of hand. We know Congress won't sunset or trigger off the tax cuts in 2010. So the true cost of this bill, while it purports to be $1.35 trillion--will be well over $4 trillion in the next 10 years. The Senate-passed bill cost $1.35 trillion over 10 years, but to finance the upper income tax cut, that timeframe was shortened by a year so about $90 billion could be used to transfer it to the wealthiest Americans. I should note that there are needed provisions to help lower and middle income families with children in this bill that I think we can all be proud of, even as they are set in the context of a tax bill for the wealthiest Americans. I do not support this massive irresponsible tax cut. But I do support the provisions to make the child tax credit partially refundable. I do support the provisions to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and to simplify and reduce errors in the EITC. As the Chairman of the National Commission on Children years ago, we issued a bold bipartisan report calling for a fully refundable child tax credit of $1,000. The child credit and EITC provisions of this bill are a major step in that direction, and it will help millions of children and their families. I believe that tax relief should be directed towards the families that need it the most: the parents who are working and playing by the rules, but struggling to raise their children on low-wages. I cannot support this overall package because I do not believe it helps the majority of West Virginia families. But some of its provisions, like the partially refundable child tax credit, the EITC, and the education provisions will help families in my state who need and deserve help. The Senate-passed tax bill, bloated as it was, included a permanent extension of the R&E tax credit. The conference report fails to include this provision. The R&E tax credit is a highly successful way of giving businesses an extra incentive to invest more in research and experimentation that is highly beneficial but otherwise can be beyond the reach of private companies. This investment benefits all Americans by allowing companies to expand our understanding of science and technology, and by enabling the marketplace to bring better products and services to everyone. Congress should permanently extend the credit, rather than leaving companies in limbo every few years about whether it will be merely extended, in order to provide businesses with the certainty they need to engage in long-term planning and resource allocation. If businesses can count on the credit, they can make the long-term, continuous investments that are necessary for real breakthroughs. I am glad that this conference report included pension provisions that will help some middle income families save and improve portability. Again, here, I would have done more for the majority of taxpayers that need to be encouraged to save, but the balance of the bill is an important savings tool. Finally, the sad fact is that this tax cut is now so large that it commits every dime of the surplus for tax cuts and current obligations, leaving nothing--0--for Medicare solvency, new defense needs, or any other future or unanticipated emergencies. I will conclude by saying I regret that we are passing this bill today without much opportunity to review its details, but knowing that overall it gives too much to those who already have much, and reserves too little for our Nation's most important priorities. I cannot support this tax bill, and I hope that my fear that this bill will endanger our Nation's economic future will be proven incorrect. It will unquestionably make meeting the many needs of my state more difficult.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is considering the Veterans' Survivor Benefits Improvements Act of 2001. It is fitting that we will enact this bill in time to commemorate Memorial Day, the day we, as a nation, remember and pay tribute to the brave members of the American military who died to ensure our freedom. That is why the theme of the bill is especially appropriate. Although not broad in scope, H.R. 801 attempts to improve the ways in which we relate to the survivors of servicemembers and veterans, the families of those who have sacrificed so much for their country. I am enormously pleased that the bill before us contains my legislation to extend health care protections to CHAMPVA beneficiaries over the age of 65. Last year, Congress finally enacted legislation to restore the promise of providing lifetime health care to military retirees, by allowing military retirees to retain coverage through TRICARE, rather than having to shift to Medicare at age 65. TRICARE for Life, as it is known, was a great benefit for retirees, but CHAMPVA beneficiaries were not included in this new benefit. The Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, CHAMPVA, provides health care coverage to several categories of individuals: Dependents of veterans who have been rated by VA as having a total and permanent disability; survivors of veterans who died from VA-rated service-connected conditions; and survivors of servicemembers who died in the line of duty. As such, CHAMPVA provides a measure of security to a group of persons who have undeniably already sacrificed a great deal for our country. Under current law, CHAMPVA beneficiaries lose their eligibility for coverage when they turn 65 and have to shift to Medicare. The TRICARE for Life law passed last year specifically allows military retirees and their dependents to remain in the TRICARE program after they turn age 65, as long as they are enrolled with Part B of Medicare. TRICARE will cover those expenses not covered under Medicare. it also provides for retail and mail-order pharmaceutical coverage for Medicare-eligible military retirees. Title 38, United States Code, reflects the view that TRICARE and CHAMPVA should operate in similar ways. However, with the enactment of TRICARE for Life, that linkage was broken and a modification in law is needed to make CHAMPVA consistent with TRICARE. The provisions in this bill simply clarify that the CHAMPVA and TRICARE programs should continue to operate in a similar manner, with similar eligibility. This would mean that Medicare-eligible CHAMPVA beneficiaries who enroll in Part B of Medicare would retain secondary CHAMPVA coverage and receive the same pharmacy benefit as CHAMPVA beneficiaries who are under age 65. The failure of Congress to enact prescription drug coverage under Medicare only magnifies the need to enact this CHAMPVA reform. Incredible advances in drug therapy, combined with staggering inflation in prescription drug costs, have made the need for affordable prescription drug coverage absolutely critical. CHAMPVA beneficiaries who have sacrificed so much already should not be forced to forego other necessities of life to purchase needed prescription drugs. I recently heard from a couple from Alderson, WV, who represent a classic example of why this legislation is so necessary. The husband is a veteran of the Korean war. They wrote to me when they learned that the wife lost all of her CHAMPVA benefits when she turned 65. As a result, she was forced to pay more than $300 per month for her diabetes and heart medications, in addition to all the other new costs for care not covered by Medicare. With Social Security and disability compensation as their only income, this couple is struggling to absorb this enormous new expense in their modest budget. My bill would relive them of that burden. I thank the Gold Star Wives Association and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities for their dedication in bringing this issue to my attention. We must never forget that the costs of military service are borne not by the servicemember alone, but by their families as well. Section 4 of H.R. 801 addresses a shortcoming in the current insurance coverage provided to servicemembers, the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI. Currently, dependents, spouses and children, are not eligible for insurance coverage under the servicemember's policy and must secure outside commercial coverage. This bill would extend coverage to dependents, giving great peace of mind to servicemembers with many other worries as they train and prepare for deployment, and especially when they are sent into harm's way. Servicemembers can elect to participate in a VA-administered group life insurance program, SGLI. Government insurance for servicemembers was created in 1917 to provide insurance to soldiers going off to war, because they were unable to purchase commercial life insurance that would cover death resulting from an act of war. That need still exists today. Coverage is available in $10,000 increments up to a maximum of $250,000 unless the servicemember declines coverage or elects coverage at a reduced amount. Veterans can opt to continue VA insurance, VGLI, after leaving the service, although generally the rates are not as competitive as commercial policies. As of last September, the SGLI premium was $.08 per month per $1,000 of coverage, and there was 2,307,000 SGLI policies in force. However, there is no VA or DoD sponsored insurance for the families of these servicemembers, who are often overseas, which makes securing U.S. commercial insurance difficult. Last year, the Senate passed S. 1810, which would have provided an opportunity to provide similar coverage to spouses and children to SGLI-insured servicemembers. The House did not accept this provision in conference, and it was dropped from the final omnibus veterans bill. This year, the House passed a provision that essentially mirrors last year's Senate provision to allow coverage for dependents. Dependents' coverage would be automatic unless it is declined. The amount of coverage for a spouse would be equal to the coverage of the insured servicemember, up to a maximum of $100,000. The lives of a covered servicemember's dependent children would be insured for $10,000. Premiums are to be set by VA to cover the costs of providing the insurance coverage. Section 5 of H.R. 801 also addresses an apparently small discrepancy that may make a great different in the lives of some servicemembers' survivors. In Public Law 106-419, Congress increased the maximum coverage for servicemembers' group life insurance from $200,000 to $250,000, but delayed the effective date to the ``first day of the first month that begins more than 120 days after the date of the enactment of [this] Act.'' The bill was signed by the President on November 1, 2000. However, between passage of the law in Congress and the prospective implementation of the increase, the nation has been shocked by several high profile incidents resulting in loss of servicemembers' lives, such as the tragic bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. This provision would make the increase retroactive back to October 1, 2000, to cover those servicemembers who died in the line of duty in the last several months. There are no costs associated with this provision, nor will there be any increase in premiums to the insured. It is simply the right thing to do for our men and women in uniform. Finally, section 6 of H.R. 801 would require VA to expand outreach efforts to veterans' dependents and survivors, by requiring the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that the availability of services and assistance for eligible dependents is made known through a variety of means, including the Internet, announcements in veterans' publications, and announcements to the media. The most recent survey conducted by VA indicated that less than half of the veterans contacted were aware of certain benefits they were entitled to receive. For survivors of veterans, there is even a lower level of awareness. Currently, VA is mandated to perform outreach to servicemembers and veterans, but not to eligible dependents, a spouse, surviving spouse, child, or dependent parent of a person who served on active duty. It is critical that we reach out to these survivors and dependents. They should know that VA has many services to assist them in the difficult time following a servicemember's death and in transitioning through that period with insurance, compensation, education, and health care. In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 801 as a tribute to our deceased servicemembers, not just on the day we have selected to honor them, but on every day throughout the year.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I was absent from this afternoon's three confirmation votes on Justice Department officials because of a family funeral. I regret that I was absent for these unanticipated rollcall votes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I support a meaningful tax cut that provides all Americans with financial relief as quickly as possible, but I can not in good conscience support the bill before us today. The decision the Senate is faced with is not whether we should have a tax cut--no one can doubt that Democrats and Republicans alike want a tax cut. Rather, the question is how can we create a tax cut that is fair to the majority of working people and still have enough resources for other critical national priorities? During the Senate's consideration of this bill, I supported a $900 million tax package that provides broad relief to all Americans--across the income spectrum--while ensuring sufficient funds for continued debt reduction and important programs like a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Unfortunately, the tax bill that we are on the brink of passing here today is significantly too large and is heavily skewed toward the most wealthy. If budget surpluses fail to materialize as projected, this bill will threaten our ability to fund urgent national priorities such as education and road construction, and could force us to dip into the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds in the coming year just as the Baby Boomers begin to retire. Mr. President, this bill is simply too large, given the enormous uncertainty of long-term budget projections. I believe that both President Bush's $1.6 trillion plan and this $1.35 trillion plan jeopardize our economic future and the long-term solvency of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. The facts are stark: Social Security payments will exceed income in 2015, and Medicare payments exceed income in 2010. We will be forced to tap into the Social Security Trust Fund principal in 2025 and the Medicare Trust Fund principal in 2017. In 2037, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted, and the Medicare Trust fund will be exhausted even earlier, in 2025. I believe this tax bill jeopardizes the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. These programs are fundamental for our seniors, and we have an obligation to ensure that both the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are protected before enacting massive tax cuts. This tax bill is even larger than it appears, because it is backloaded in order to keep the real cost of the overall package hidden. Estate tax repeal does not occur until 2011, so its full cost is not included in the Budget Resolution numbers. Marriage penalty relief--which to me should be a higher priority than estate tax repeal because it helps all married taxpayers across-the-board--does not begin to phase in until 2006. Because of these late phase-ins, the true cost of this tax plan will not be apparent until the second 10 years. While the cost of the tax plan in the first 10 years is an estimated $1.35 trillion, the cost explodes in the second 10 years to $4 trillion. The simple question we must ask is this: If we cannot afford these tax cuts now, then how will we afford them in the following decade, just as the Baby Boomers enter their retirement years? There are other gimmicks in the tax bill designed to make the tax cut's impact look smaller than it actually is. For example, the tuition deduction sunsets in 2005, in order to keep the cost of the overall bill within the $1.35 trillion limit. But we all know from experience that the Congress will certainly renew this popular deduction in 2005 when it expires, so the relatively limited price tag for this provision is intentionally misleading. This bill also fails to address the need to reform the alternative minimum tax (AMT). AMT was designed to make sure the very richest people paid their fair share of taxes, but as a result of this bill, almost 40 million mostly middle income taxpayers will actually pay substantially more in AMT by the end of the decade. This is a problem that will have to be dealt with in the next few years, or much of the tax relief in this bill will be nullified. Real AMT reform will cost several hundred billion dollars--an expense which is not accounted for in this tax bill. Further, the majority has already asserted that it intends to pass additional corporate tax cuts this session. As large as this tax package is, the final figure will surely grow. Another fundamental problem with this bill is that the lion's share of the tax relief it contains goes to the wealthiest Americans. Estate tax repeal was included in the bill, despite the fact that 98 percent of Americans who die are not subject to the estate tax and pass their estate on to their heirs tax free. Indeed, only 47,000 taxpayers in the entire country even pay the estate tax each year, and half of all estate taxes are paid by the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans. According to Responsible Wealth, the estate tax is repealed under this bill in 2011 at a cost of $60 billion--which effectively means we will need to tap into the Medicare Trust Fund in order to meet our obligations. State and local taxes may need to be raised to make up for the loss of state estate tax revenues, which are also eliminated by this tax bill. Under the federal estate tax, taxpayers are allowed a credit up to a certain amount for payment of estate taxes, and many states, like West Virginia, tax up to the amount of the credit. If the estate tax is repealed, the credit will be eliminated as well, and West Virginia would lost over $20 million in revenue a year that is being used to fund critical state programs. Another way this tax bill benefits the very wealthy is the cut in the top rate from 39.6 percent to 36 percent. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the cost of this cut will be $114 billion. This is one of the more expensive provisions in the bill--but the top rate only takes effect at $297,000. So very few taxpayers, including only 0.3 percent of West Virginians, actually receive any benefit from it. The Senate version of the tax plan does make some improvements in terms of fairness of the distribution of tax cuts. I strongly supported a provision to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, so that families earning between $13,000-$16,000 a year will get the full EITC assistance. I also cosponsored Senator Snowe's amendment to give partial refundability of the enhanced child credit so that families with children can benefit from this tax cut. The bill gives families earning over $10,000 a 15 percent child credit, making the child credit partially refundable. Both of these provisions are improvements, but they do not make up for a tax package that is otherwise unfair to our state, and an unnecessary bonanza for only the wealthiest. The provisions for low- income families and children account for just 5 percent of the $1.35 trillion package. In addition, the low income improvements of this bill don't even benefit all families with children. Nearly 68,000 children in West Virginia won't be helped by the partial refundability provision because with incomes of less than $10,000 their families still do not ``earn enough.'' West Virginia taxpayers without children would receive little tax relief under the tax bill, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. The bill does nothing to relieve the real federal tax burdens faced by average West Virginians, who pay not only income taxes, but high payroll taxes and federal excise taxes. During the Senate consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment to put a Medicare prescription drug benefit on equal footing with the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans--those in the uppermost income bracket. My amendment required that we enact a universal and affordable Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit before the income tax cuts for the very wealthiest go into effect. The amendment was defeated 48-51, on a mostly party-line vote. I sincerely believe my amendment would have put positive pressure on Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit we all promised our constituents. The vote tells me that many Members understand very well that the size of this tax cut threatens our ability to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. In sum, the overall size of this tax package jeopardizes our economic future and the future solvency of Society Security and Medicare for today's workers and for our children. While the Senate version of the tax bill is an improvement over the House and Bush plan, too much of the tax cut still goes to the wealthiest, while hardworking West Virginia taxpayers--seniors, families with children, married couples, and singles--receive little or virtually no benefit. For these reasons, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to state how delighted I am that the President has nominated a statesman of such skill and integrity to serve as our Ambassador in Japan. Senator Baker had just completed three terms when I entered this body, including terms as majority and minority leader. He was well known as a man of courtesy and thoughtfulness, who managed difficult political battles with grace and good humor. He took those traits with him to the White House, where as Chief of Staff he played a key role in rebuilding public confidence in a presidency that was racked by foreign policy scandal. Throughout his career Senator Baker has often been called into service to help heal the ruptures created by difficult issues like Watergate, the Panama Canal and Iran-Contra; and he has repeatedly played a key role in forging the bipartisan consensus necessary to move our government and our nation forward. There is no relationship more important for the U.S. than Japan. The vicissitudes of our difficult relationship with an emerging China, or the ongoing frictions on the Korean Peninsula, tend to attract most of the media attention devoted to Asia. But it is in fact Japan that is the indispensable country to the U.S. in Asia. Even after a decade of slow growth, Japan has by far the largest economy in Asia, and is the largest overseas market for U.S. products. Japan is an important investor in the United States, including in my state of West Virginia. Japan hosts the largest number of American troops in Asia, and is an important ally in our efforts to promote peace, prosperity and democracy throughout Asia. The nomination of Senator Baker as Ambassador to Tokyo--the most recent in a series of senior statesman to serve in that critical post-- will send confirmation to our Japanese allies the tremendous importance the United Sates attaches to our partnership with Japan. I know he will work with the new Government of Prime Minister Koizumi to express support for measures that will restart the Japanese economy, and enable Japan to resume its part as one of the locomotives of global growth. I know he will work with Japan to continue to re-invigorate our security alliance, which plays such an important role in maintaining peace in Asia. And I know he, by his very presence in Tokyo, will dispel Japanese perceptions that America is ``Japan-passing.'' Having followed U.S.-Japan relations for the past 40 years, I am confident that U.S. relations with Japan are not moribund but in fact mature. I commend the President for his excellent selection of a representative for this critical post, and add how pleased I am that his wonderful and talented wife, our former colleague, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, will be in Tokyo with him. I can think of no one better to join him on this mission than my dear and most admired former colleague. I will vote to support the nomination.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes, I seek to modify the amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the modification that I would ask is that OMB be allowed to certify the amendment as being in proper order.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, my amendment is a very simple one. It asks Senators to choose between whether or not they would rather first implement a prescription drug provision for all Americans, a universal prescription drug provision for all Americans, before the top income tax bracket reduction would become available. It does not eliminate the income tax reduction. It only says we have to do the prescription drug provision first. We have a year and a half to do it. That is plenty of time. The objection raised on the floor was that it was not constitutional. We consulted extensively over the weekend and OMB found it to be constitutional and that, in fact, it could be and would be constitutional. There was not a problem.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Iowa, and I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe the Senator has a right to modify his amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Save the American Steel Industry Act of 2001. As you know, the domestic steel industry is currently faced with the most devastating crisis in its history, one that could lead to its decimation if the Administration fails to initiate action under Section 201 of our trade laws. Over two- thirds of our largest steelmakers have entered bankruptcy since 1997, and some analysts predict that almost half of existing U.S. steelmaking capacity may be idled by year's end if the President does not take immediate and decisive action to provide the industry with desperately needed relief. The surge of dumped, subsidized, and disruptive imports that was initially triggered by the onset of the Asian financial crisis has not abated, but has in fact worsened over the past few months. Steel prices have plummeted over the last 3 years, with no hopes of rebounding, and an additional five U.S. steel companies entered Chapter 11 in the first 4 months of this year, with more certain to follow absent Presidential action on Section 201. My State has two major steel facilities, one owned by Weirton and the other by Wheeling-Pittsburgh. Wheeling-Pitt is in bankruptcy and Weirton is struggling. Thousands of jobs and two important communities in a small, relatively poor State are threatened. It is a situation that is all too common in the American steel belt, and one that demands immediate attention. Throughout the steel belt, tens of thousands of jobs are at stake; more than 20,000 have already been lost. Hundreds of communities are endangered. Billions of dollars in wages and shareholder value are threatened. Most alarming, our national security is threatened. Unless we act decisively, the United States could soon be as dependent on foreign steel as we are on foreign oil. We are facing a permanent loss of capacity that has the potential to harm every heavy industry in this country, including automakers, defense contractors and, in my home State of West Virginia, aerospace companies. For some time now, I have advocated consolidation as one of the best ways to ensure the survival of the domestic steel industry in the face of this massive surge of imports. Merged companies create greater economies of scale and with their enhanced capacity and purchasing power, stand a better chance of competing against their heavily subsidized foreign competitors. While consolidation by itself will not relieve the hardships of the steel crisis for our steelworkers, their families and communities, the domestic industry can really only recover with the imposition of remedies under Section 201, I believe that it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the pace of consolidation in the domestic industry has been slowed due to companies' fears of assuming the tremendous legacy and environmental compliance costs of acquired entities. Legacy costs, in particular, are a tremendous expense for companies, as there are more retired steelworkers than steelworkers currently employed. The burden of assuming such substantial costs has acted as a deterrent to industry consolidation, which I believe, gives our industry a much better chance of long-term survival. The Save the American Steel Industry Act of 2001 attempts to address these concerns. Title I of the Act establishes a Steel Retiree Health Care Board in the Department of Labor to administer a newly-created Health Care Benefit Costs Assistance Program. Under the program, the board will contribute funds to eligible steelworker group health plans equal to 75 percent of the qualified expenditures of such plans. The funds will be allocated from a Steelworker Retiree Health Care Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury financed by a 2 percent Federal excise tax on all steel products sold in the United States. Title I is critical, because by some estimates, 10 percent of the cost of steel in the U.S. consists of payments to pension and retiree health care funds for workers laid off in the 70's and 80's. This new fund would be accessible to all steel companies providing health insurance to retirees and, as the pool of affected retirees declines, the tax will be reduced. In the meantime, U.S. companies will be at less of a disadvantage against competitors whose governments pick up the tab for health care and retirement costs. Title II of the Act allows merged companies to apply for grants of up to $200 million from the Commerce Department to help cover the costs of compliance with applicable environmental regulations. The Secretary of Commerce can only provide grants after it is determined that the merger promotes maximum retention of jobs and production capacity consistent with long-term viability. Specifically, at least 80 percent of the steelworkers employed by the merging companies, including a minimum 50 percent of steelworkers employed by the acquired company, must be retained to qualify for a grant. At least 80 percent of the steelmaking facilities of each party must be retained. The Act provides for substantial penalties if a company receiving a grant subsequently violates these thresholds. Together, these two actions could make a tremendous difference for many domestic steel mills, especially small and mid-sized operations by providing incentives for domestic steel companies to consider joining forces. The Health Care Benefit Costs Assistance Program proposed under Title I makes mergers more likely by ensuring that a large portion of legacy costs inherited in consolidation plans would be covered by the Federal Government. By providing domestic steelmakers with substantial funds to bring merged facilities into compliance with environmental laws, Title II of the bill provides further incentives for consolidation. At the same time, Title II ensures that steelworkers and their families are not sacrificed in the merger process by requiring that most jobs and production capacity are retained and by heavily penalizing companies that receive funding and subsequently do not stick to the agreement. The American steel industry has earned the respect and consideration of this body as an industry that took some very tough medicine not so very long ago. During the first steel crisis, the U.S. steel industry got very little sympathy. As the first great wave of imports washed across our coasts, the industry was told that it was too old, too inefficient, and too unresponsive to save. But rather than walk away, the American steel industry put itself through a wrenching, and almost miraculous revitalization, transforming century-old mills into miracles of modern production. No steel industry on earth gets more production per man hour than the U.S. industry. None has a cleaner environmental record. No one has been faster or more effective at integrating computer technology into its production. And yet, having done that, the industry finds itself threatened again--not by better steelmakers, but by subsidized producers. Companies who have the support of their governments are taking advantage of our traditional commitment to trade, to dump steel on a saturated market. Their competitive advantage lies in their government support, and not their manufacturing skill. It is not fair. It is not just. And I don't believe that our Government should stand by idly and let the painful years and billions of dollars our steel industry invested be stolen away by companies who do not play by the rules. The Save the American Steel Industry Act of 2001 represents the first step in the Federal Government's commitment to ensuring that the United States maintains our basic steelmaking capacity. While I do not believe that the industry can survive without a comprehensive Section 201 action on all steel products and ultimately, negotiation of a multilateral steel agreement with our trading partners to address the foreign overcapacity problem, this act provides greater incentives for domestic steel companies to consider consolidation, which, I believe, substantially enhances their chances of survival in today's increasingly turbulent steel marketplace. Failure to act now, in this Congress, would be a grave mistake.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have a minute remaining. I would simply say, I think the point is that the words that have been spoken are good and encouraging. There is a time and a place for everything, but there is not necessarily the money for everything. It is this Senator's view--and I think anybody who does the mathematics of this bill, much less the tax cut bills which will come later on--we will be depleting the revenue available for us to spend on anything. There will simply not be the money to pass a prescription drug benefit in July or in August or at any time unless we adopt this amendment. The money will not be there. You have to have the $300 or $311 billion, and it will not be there. I strongly, therefore, for 39 million Medicare beneficiaries and for those who are disabled and on a voluntary basis want to make use of this, urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Because if they do not, there will not be a prescription drug benefit. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia is happy to yield 4 minutes to the junior Senator from the State of Michigan.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I might ask the Presiding Officer how much time remains.