Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this morning I was unavoidably detained for longer than expected at a doctor's appointment. Because of that appointment I was not able to vote on the motion to table the first division of the Hagel amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill. My vote would not have changed the outcome on this amendment. I would have voted to table.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join today with the chairwoman of the Aviation Subcommittee in introducing the Aviation Delay Prevention Act. The bill is intended to start a dialogue about some of the solutions for reducing congestion, specifically ways to expedite airport construction, and provide a mechanism for air carriers to talk about changing flight schedules to reduce delays. This is a tough issue with no easy, simple solutions. Senator Hutchison and I know this. I also know that this specific piece of legislation is intended to provide a framework for a debate on how to provide a better air transportation system for travelers. We must, though, continue our efforts to work through every issue in our efforts to enable the FAA, airports and air carriers to provide a more efficient air transportation system. Senator Hutchison and I want to provide our colleagues with constructive and feasible legislative provisions that are well thought out and considered. We will hold a hearing on this bill on Thursday, eliciting testimony from the Department of Transportation, DOT, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, airports and airlines, as well as general aviation. We do know we are facing an aviation system that today is overcrowded and cannot keep up with demand. Tomorrow's demand forecasts are also daunting, with an increase in passenger traffic from about 670 million passengers to more than a billion. As we review the problems of our aviation system, I am constantly thinking and envisioning a system with twice the number of planes, and twice the number of people traveling within the next 10 years. Today, right now, we have airports that cannot accommodate all of the planes. We have terminals that need to be expanded, and runways that must be built. One thing all of us know is that without adequate runways and terminals, no one is well served. We see it first hand as we fly around the country, as our planes are delayed, as we talk with constituents at home and here in Washington, that our aviation system is running on empty. Last year, we had to fight and claw our way to getting bills that finally provides sufficient money for the FAA to be able to build new runways and buy new equipment. We must be vigorous in ensuring that the Administration does not make cuts to these key programs, as was initially proposed by the Bush Administration. Knowing that it takes years to build a runway and years to develop new air traffic control systems, we cannot shortchange the system. Last year, as part of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act, FAIR-21, P.L. 106-181, we set out a road map for a more businesslike Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, creating a corporate-type Board with people from non-aviation related businesses to oversee air traffic control. We created a Chief Operating Officer, COO, to run air traffic, with specific authority to focus on operations, the budget and establishing a goal-oriented ATC. In addition, we made sure that the money was provided to buy new ATC equipment to expand ATC capacity. With respect to airports, we authorized significant increases in Airport Improvement Program monies, increases of $1.25, $1.35 and $1.45 billion over 1999 funds, $1.95 billion. We also gave airports the ability to increase their passenger facility fees from $3 to $4.50 per person. The money is there to build and expand capacity. But, nothing happens overnight and we all know it. With the reforms of the FAA and the funding, we are on a path to change. Yet, even with that path, we are not able to keep up with demand, particularly in the short term. Secretary Mineta has already stated he wants to use the reforms of FAIR-21, and not get bogged down in an age-old debate over FAA privatization/corporatization. The Air Transport Association, ATA, has echoed this sentiment. Nonetheless, we must look at ways particularly in the near term, to provide relief to travelers, and in the longer term figure out better ways to build runways, while being cognizant of the need to be environmentally conscious. Right now we have runway construction underway at Denver, Detroit- Metro, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Houston, and Orlando. Miami is set to begin construction within the next month or two as is St. Louis. Charlotte is awaiting the United-US Airways merger decision before it begins construction since the carriers will help finance the project. At other airports, runway planning is ongoing. Chip Barclay, the President of the American Association of Airport Executives, in testimony before a House Committee recently noted that if we could build 50 more miles of additional runways we could solve our airport capacity problem. Fifty miles. Each of us wants them built more quickly, but changes in the laws may not expedite the current construction. Yet, we can ensure, as this bill does, that the FAA and other Federal, State and local agencies do a better job of coordinating the various environmental and planning reviews necessary before a runway is built. It is a starting point for the discussion, but by no means an end point. We want to expedite construction, without intruding upon the necessary environmental reviews. AAAE has put out a proposal to expedite runway construction, and we will carefully evaluate it too. I have been developing my own legislation which will build upon the bill we introduced today and want to work with Senator Hutchison and other members on that bill. I have learned that this is a complicated problem, with no easy, or quick, solutions. As the legislation we introduce today is considered by the Committee, changes will be made to reflect many concerns and issues. Senator Hutchison and I want to work with the entire aviation community in addressing and solving this issue.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the problem of the uninsured continues to plague our Nation, and it is particularly severe for older Americans who are facing the loss of health coverage but who are not yet eligible for Medicare. Today, over 40 million Americans are without health insurance. Adults between the ages of 55 to 65 are the fastest growing group of uninsured. Individuals 55 and older who have been laid off or retire early are particularly vulnerable to loss of health insurance. They have a difficult time buying health insurance on their own because they tend to have more chronic health problems that can result in either the denial of coverage, limited coverage, or very expensive policies. This is the age group where early detection and access to preventative care become crucial. For example, only 16 percent of uninsured women report having had a mammogram in the past year, compared to 42 percent of insured women. Because regular preventative care is not received, the uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage of cancer, over 40 percent more likely to be diagnosed with late stage breast and prostate cancer, and more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with late stage melanoma than the insured. The uninsured are more likely than those with insurance to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided, such as pneumonia and uncontrolled diabetes. Delaying or not receiving treatment can lead to more serious illness and avoidable health problems, which has a direct impact on the health care needs of this segment of the population as they become old enough for Medicare coverage. Lack of insurance and gaps in coverage affect more than just those without insurance. There is a cost to society, as well. When an uninsured person goes to a public hospital or clinic, and emergency room, or a private physician for care and cannot pay the full cost, some of the bill is passed on to those who do pay, through higher insurance premiums and in the form of taxes supporting our public insurance programs. One way or another, we all pay indirectly for having a large and growing uninsured population. With the aging of the baby boom generation, this particularly vulnerable age group is expected to increase significantly. In 1999, there were 23.1 million Americans in this age group. This is expected to increase to 35 million Americans by the year 2020. Unless we effect positive change to address the barriers facing the growing number of uninsured in this age group, this problem will only get worse. I join Senators Kennedy, Daschle, and Sarbanes, and Representatives. Stark, Brown, Gephardt, Rangel, Dingell, and a number of their colleagues today to introduce an improved version of the Medicare Early Access Act. Our legislation will create an opportunity for people between ages 55 and 64 to purchase Medicare coverage, which is really the only affordable option for this group, because of their age and the likelihood of chronic and/or preexisting conditions. The Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by more than 500,000. This bill provides new insurance coverage options through a Medicare buy-in for people aged 55 through 64 or through a special COBRA continuation program for workers aged 55 through 64 whose employers reneged on the promise of retiree health coverage. This legislation improves upon the existing Medicare Early Access Act by adding a new 50 percent federal tax credit to the program to make it more affordable for people age 55 and over to obtain health insurance coverage. By including a tax credit, we are making this option available to a broader range of people. A survey released last session by the Commonwealth Fund finds that one in five people from age 50-64 reported a period of time when they were without health insurance coverage since turning age 50. Access to employer insurance is reduced as people approach age sixty-five and retire. Consequently, older Americans rely most heavily on individual insurance, which is expensive and limited for people with serious health problems. Because average health expenses increase sharply with age, people closest to age sixty-five face the greatest risk of being uninsured and being charged the highest premiums in the individual market. Clearly, we need to take real steps to address the needs of this population. The Commonwealth survey also found that, when asked what source they would trust more to provide health insurance for adults ages 50 to 64, Medicare outranked employer-sponsored coverage and direct purchase of private individual health insurance. Half of uninsured adults ages 50- 64 said they would trust Medicare the most as a source of coverage. The Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act provides an insurance option for people who are unable to purchase health insurance in the private market either because of pre-existing conditions, age related premium increases, or both. The Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act is not the solution to solving America's health insurance coverage problems. But, it is a simple and obvious step to take to open new doors to a vulnerable segment of our population who are lacking affordable coverage elsewhere, and who need the opportunity to buy in to Medicare. I urge my colleagues to join us in making health insurance a reality for people in their later years of life, who are not yet eligible for the safety net of Medicare. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join today with the chairwoman of the Aviation Subcommittee in introducing the Aviation Delay Prevention Act. The bill is intended to start a dialogue about some of the solutions for reducing congestion, specifically ways to expedite airport construction, and provide a mechanism for air carriers to talk about changing flight schedules to reduce delays. This is a tough issue with no easy, simple solutions. Senator Hutchison and I know this. I also know that this specific piece of legislation is intended to provide a framework for a debate on how to provide a better air transportation system for travelers. We must, though, continue our efforts to work through every issue in our efforts to enable the FAA, airports and air carriers to provide a more efficient air transportation system. Senator Hutchison and I want to provide our colleagues with constructive and feasible legislative provisions that are well thought out and considered. We will hold a hearing on this bill on Thursday, eliciting testimony from the Department of Transportation, DOT, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, airports and airlines, as well as general aviation. We do know we are facing an aviation system that today is overcrowded and cannot keep up with demand. Tomorrow's demand forecasts are also daunting, with an increase in passenger traffic from about 670 million passengers to more than a billion. As we review the problems of our aviation system, I am constantly thinking and envisioning a system with twice the number of planes, and twice the number of people traveling within the next 10 years. Today, right now, we have airports that cannot accommodate all of the planes. We have terminals that need to be expanded, and runways that must be built. One thing all of us know is that without adequate runways and terminals, no one is well served. We see it first hand as we fly around the country, as our planes are delayed, as we talk with constituents at home and here in Washington, that our aviation system is running on empty. Last year, we had to fight and claw our way to getting bills that finally provides sufficient money for the FAA to be able to build new runways and buy new equipment. We must be vigorous in ensuring that the Administration does not make cuts to these key programs, as was initially proposed by the Bush Administration. Knowing that it takes years to build a runway and years to develop new air traffic control systems, we cannot shortchange the system. Last year, as part of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act, FAIR-21, P.L. 106-181, we set out a road map for a more businesslike Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, creating a corporate-type Board with people from non-aviation related businesses to oversee air traffic control. We created a Chief Operating Officer, COO, to run air traffic, with specific authority to focus on operations, the budget and establishing a goal-oriented ATC. In addition, we made sure that the money was provided to buy new ATC equipment to expand ATC capacity. With respect to airports, we authorized significant increases in Airport Improvement Program monies, increases of $1.25, $1.35 and $1.45 billion over 1999 funds, $1.95 billion. We also gave airports the ability to increase their passenger facility fees from $3 to $4.50 per person. The money is there to build and expand capacity. But, nothing happens overnight and we all know it. With the reforms of the FAA and the funding, we are on a path to change. Yet, even with that path, we are not able to keep up with demand, particularly in the short term. Secretary Mineta has already stated he wants to use the reforms of FAIR-21, and not get bogged down in an age-old debate over FAA privatization/corporatization. The Air Transport Association, ATA, has echoed this sentiment. Nonetheless, we must look at ways particularly in the near term, to provide relief to travelers, and in the longer term figure out better ways to build runways, while being cognizant of the need to be environmentally conscious. Right now we have runway construction underway at Denver, Detroit- Metro, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Houston, and Orlando. Miami is set to begin construction within the next month or two as is St. Louis. Charlotte is awaiting the United-US Airways merger decision before it begins construction since the carriers will help finance the project. At other airports, runway planning is ongoing. Chip Barclay, the President of the American Association of Airport Executives, in testimony before a House Committee recently noted that if we could build 50 more miles of additional runways we could solve our airport capacity problem. Fifty miles. Each of us wants them built more quickly, but changes in the laws may not expedite the current construction. Yet, we can ensure, as this bill does, that the FAA and other Federal, State and local agencies do a better job of coordinating the various environmental and planning reviews necessary before a runway is built. It is a starting point for the discussion, but by no means an end point. We want to expedite construction, without intruding upon the necessary environmental reviews. AAAE has put out a proposal to expedite runway construction, and we will carefully evaluate it too. I have been developing my own legislation which will build upon the bill we introduced today and want to work with Senator Hutchison and other members on that bill. I have learned that this is a complicated problem, with no easy, or quick, solutions. As the legislation we introduce today is considered by the Committee, changes will be made to reflect many concerns and issues. Senator Hutchison and I want to work with the entire aviation community in addressing and solving this issue.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in memory of Dr. Claude Shannon, a pioneer in the field of modern communications technology. His work provided a major part of the theoretical foundation leading to applications as diverse as digital cell phones, deep space communications and the compact disc. Dr. Shannon died on February 24 after suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He was not widely known by the general public, but he should have been. His work predated the establishment of the World Wide Web, but in 1948 he published a seminal paper entitled ``A Mathematical Theory of Communication.'' This paper was the first to provide a mathematical model of the communication process. He was able to define ``information'' in a way that was unrelated to its semantic meaning by explaining the power of encoding information in a simple language of 1's and 0's. Communication then became the process of transferring information from a ``source'', modified by an ``encoder'', through a ``channel'', to a ``decoder'' at the output of a channel. This theory underlies the modern communications revolution. Dr. Shannon's work showed that every kind of information source-- text, images, video, data--has associated with it a quantifiable information content that mandates how efficiently it can be represented, the basis for ``data compression.'' For instance, he showed that, no matter how clever you are, you can't represent English text with less than about 1.5 bits per letter. Dr. Shannon also established fundamental limits to how efficiently one can transmit information over imperfect communication channels; his work on reliable transmission formed the theoretical basis for the modems, satellite links and computer memories that are pervasive today. These aspects of Shannon's work became the foundation of what we now call ``Information Theory.'' As important as Dr. Shannon's 1948 masterwork was, it was not his sole contribution to the emerging information age. As a graduate student at MIT, Shannon made a profound and fundamental contribution to the field of computer design when he showed that a then-obscure branch of mathematics called ``Boolean algebra,'' the algebra of 1's and 0's, could be used to design circuits for computation and switching. The result was what some have called ``the most influential master's thesis in history.'' Shannon's work on cryptography during World War II also formed the modern theoretical framework for secure communication systems. The Washington Post pointed out in Dr. Shannon's obituary that his achievements are at the core of the technology that delivers the Internet and its various applications, from music to video to e-mail. His work has had applications in fields as diverse as computer science, genetic engineering and neuroanatomy. Some have called his 1948 paper ``the Magna Carta of the information age.'' Dr. Shannon was also renowned by his friends and colleagues for his eclectic interests and capabilities. He rode down the halls of Bell Labs on a unicycle while juggling; he invented a rocket-powered Frisbee; and he developed ``THROBAC-I,'' a computer that computed in Roman numerals. There are only a few authentic geniuses in this world. Dr. Shannon was one and today we remember him for his accomplishments.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about our Nation's most vulnerable children, innocent children who have been abused or neglected by parents, many of whom have alcohol and drug abuse problems. Over 500,000 children receive foster care services nationwide, including 3,000 children in West Virginia. These numbers belie our policy that every child deserves a safe, healthy, permanent home, as specified in the fundamental guidelines set forth in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, ASFA. National statistics tell us that a majority of families in the child welfare system may struggle with alcohol and/or drug abuse. One recent survey noted that 67 percent of parents involved in child abuse or neglect cases required alcohol or drug treatment, but only one-third of those parents received appropriate treatment or services to address their addiction. In my own state of West Virginia, over half of the children placed in the foster care system have families with substance abusing behaviors. We are also aware of countless numbers of other children who, while not receiving foster care services, are at risk of neglect due their parents' addictions. Another stunning, sad statistic is that children with open child welfare cases whose parents have substance abuse problems are younger than other children in the foster care system and are more likely to suffer severe, chronic neglect from their parents. Once these children are placed in the foster care system, they tend to stay in care longer than other children. It will be impossible to achieve the critical goal of safe, healthy, and permanent homes for children in the child protection system if we do not address the problems of parental alcohol and drug abuse. Examining the effects of substance abuse involves complex and far- reaching issues. As part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, was directed to study substance abuse as it relates to and within the framework of the child protection system. Their important report, ``Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground,'' outlines many challenges. It concludes that we lack the necessary array of appropriate substance abuse treatment programs and services, and emphasizes the well-known lack of services designed for women, especially for women and their children. In addition, the report notes that the separate substance abuse and child protection systems have no purposeful, planned partnership to address the unique needs of abused and neglected children. The report details the lack of a cooperative, inter-agency relationship between the two systems whose staffs work diligently to provide services under their own jurisdiction, but have minimal communication, different goals, and divergent service philosophies with regard to each other. For example, each system has different definitions of the ``client served.'' While ASFA views the child as ``the client'' and expects child protection agencies and courts to consider termination, within a 22-month time frame, of parental rights for children receiving foster care service for 15 months, substance abuse treatment providers often view the adult as the client, with different time frames and expectations for recovery. In order to meet the goals of ASFA, we must develop new ways to encourage these two independent systems to work together on behalf of parents with substance abuse problems and their children. The issues of addiction and children receiving protection services cannot be addressed in isolation. It is essential to consider the total picture: The needs of the child, the needs of the parents, and cost-effective services that meet adoption laws' goal to provide every child with a safe, healthy, and permanent home. The HHS report identifies significant priorities. First, it calls for building collaborative working relationships between the child protection and substance abuse agencies. While substance abuse treatment is a challenge in and of itself, the report explains that effective treatment is further complicated for parents with children. The majority of substance abuse treatment programs are not set up to serve both women and their children. While our country in general lacks the comprehensive services needed for such families, there are some models and promising practices on how to serve both parents and children. One model can be found in my State, the MOTHERS program in Beckley, WV, which serves women and their children. The majority of these women have either lost custody of their children or were under child protection service investigation or mandate, are typically unemployed and untrained for gainful employment, have few aspirations, and wrestle with depression. This innovation program simultaneously addresses the needs of both mothers and their children, through individual and joint therapy, in such areas as recovery, mental health counseling, employment, academic education, healthy living skills, parenting, and family permanency. These services are provided using a residential model where mothers and their children live in a therapeutic environment and receive temporary housing, meal service, recreation activities, and transportation to and from community Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. The bill we are introducing today would give other localities the opportunity to develop similar programs or alternative models. In addition, the HHS report recognizes the importance of research to better understand the relationship between substance abuse and child maltreatment. Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, DeWine, and Dodd, to introduce legislation to address the challenges of abused and neglected children whose parents have alcohol and/or drug problems. We have worked with state officials, child advocates, criminal justice officials, and members of the substance abuse community to develop the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2001. This bill builds on ASFA's fundamental goal of making a child's safety, health, and permanency paramount. To accomplish this bold purpose, we must invest in a partnership designed to respond to the needs and priorities outlined in the HHS report. I believe that a new program and a new approach are essential. Existing substance abuse treatment programs such as those designed to serve single males cannot respond to the needs of a mother and her child. To be effective, we must connect child protection and substance abuse treatment staffs and support them to work in partnership to test and identify best practices. Forging new partnerships take time--and it takes money. That is why this bill invests $1.9 billion over 5 years to combat the problems of substance abuse faced by families whose children are sheltered by the child protection system. I understand this is a large sum, but alcohol and drug abuse is an enormous problem in our country and represents an overwhelming financial and human loss. Before reacting to the bill expenditure alone, consider the costs we would incur if we remain silent on this issue. If we do not invest in substance abuse prevention and treatment for such families, we cannot effectively combat the abuse and neglect of children. Our bill is designed to tackle this tough issue and encourage child protection and substance abuse agencies to work in partnership and promote innovative approaches within both of their systems to support women and their children. This bill can provide funding for outreach services to families, screening and assessment to enhance prevention, outpatient or residential treatment services, retention supports to aid mothers to remain in treatment, and aftercare services to keep families and children safe. This bill also addresses the importance of dual training for the staffs of the child protection and substance abuse treatment systems, to share effective strategies in order to meet the goal of safe and permanent homes for children. If we choose to invest in child protection and substance abuse partnerships for families, we can achieve two things. For many families, I hope that parents will achieve sobriety through treatment and that their children will return to a safe and stable home. For those who are unsuccessful, we will know that we have put forth a reasonable, good faith effort and learned an important lesson--that some children need alternate homes, and that we will still need to pursue adoption for some children. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, courts cannot move forward on adoption until appropriate services have been provided to families. That is the law, and we need to follow it. Our bill will promote a responsible approach with a focus on accountability. It requires annual progress reports that detail defined outcomes, challenges, and proposed solutions. These reports will evaluate parental treatment outcomes, the child's safety, and the stability of the family. Throughout the years, I have worked to address the needs of abused and neglected children in a bipartisan matter. I am proud to continue this bipartisan approach as we come to grips with such a controversial and emotionally charged issue as protecting children who are abused and neglected by their substance-abusing parents.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about our Nation's most vulnerable children, innocent children who have been abused or neglected by parents, many of whom have alcohol and drug abuse problems. Over 500,000 children receive foster care services nationwide, including 3,000 children in West Virginia. These numbers belie our policy that every child deserves a safe, healthy, permanent home, as specified in the fundamental guidelines set forth in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, ASFA. National statistics tell us that a majority of families in the child welfare system may struggle with alcohol and/or drug abuse. One recent survey noted that 67 percent of parents involved in child abuse or neglect cases required alcohol or drug treatment, but only one-third of those parents received appropriate treatment or services to address their addiction. In my own state of West Virginia, over half of the children placed in the foster care system have families with substance abusing behaviors. We are also aware of countless numbers of other children who, while not receiving foster care services, are at risk of neglect due their parents' addictions. Another stunning, sad statistic is that children with open child welfare cases whose parents have substance abuse problems are younger than other children in the foster care system and are more likely to suffer severe, chronic neglect from their parents. Once these children are placed in the foster care system, they tend to stay in care longer than other children. It will be impossible to achieve the critical goal of safe, healthy, and permanent homes for children in the child protection system if we do not address the problems of parental alcohol and drug abuse. Examining the effects of substance abuse involves complex and far- reaching issues. As part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, was directed to study substance abuse as it relates to and within the framework of the child protection system. Their important report, ``Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground,'' outlines many challenges. It concludes that we lack the necessary array of appropriate substance abuse treatment programs and services, and emphasizes the well-known lack of services designed for women, especially for women and their children. In addition, the report notes that the separate substance abuse and child protection systems have no purposeful, planned partnership to address the unique needs of abused and neglected children. The report details the lack of a cooperative, inter-agency relationship between the two systems whose staffs work diligently to provide services under their own jurisdiction, but have minimal communication, different goals, and divergent service philosophies with regard to each other. For example, each system has different definitions of the ``client served.'' While ASFA views the child as ``the client'' and expects child protection agencies and courts to consider termination, within a 22-month time frame, of parental rights for children receiving foster care service for 15 months, substance abuse treatment providers often view the adult as the client, with different time frames and expectations for recovery. In order to meet the goals of ASFA, we must develop new ways to encourage these two independent systems to work together on behalf of parents with substance abuse problems and their children. The issues of addiction and children receiving protection services cannot be addressed in isolation. It is essential to consider the total picture: The needs of the child, the needs of the parents, and cost-effective services that meet adoption laws' goal to provide every child with a safe, healthy, and permanent home. The HHS report identifies significant priorities. First, it calls for building collaborative working relationships between the child protection and substance abuse agencies. While substance abuse treatment is a challenge in and of itself, the report explains that effective treatment is further complicated for parents with children. The majority of substance abuse treatment programs are not set up to serve both women and their children. While our country in general lacks the comprehensive services needed for such families, there are some models and promising practices on how to serve both parents and children. One model can be found in my State, the MOTHERS program in Beckley, WV, which serves women and their children. The majority of these women have either lost custody of their children or were under child protection service investigation or mandate, are typically unemployed and untrained for gainful employment, have few aspirations, and wrestle with depression. This innovation program simultaneously addresses the needs of both mothers and their children, through individual and joint therapy, in such areas as recovery, mental health counseling, employment, academic education, healthy living skills, parenting, and family permanency. These services are provided using a residential model where mothers and their children live in a therapeutic environment and receive temporary housing, meal service, recreation activities, and transportation to and from community Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. The bill we are introducing today would give other localities the opportunity to develop similar programs or alternative models. In addition, the HHS report recognizes the importance of research to better understand the relationship between substance abuse and child maltreatment. Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, DeWine, and Dodd, to introduce legislation to address the challenges of abused and neglected children whose parents have alcohol and/or drug problems. We have worked with state officials, child advocates, criminal justice officials, and members of the substance abuse community to develop the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2001. This bill builds on ASFA's fundamental goal of making a child's safety, health, and permanency paramount. To accomplish this bold purpose, we must invest in a partnership designed to respond to the needs and priorities outlined in the HHS report. I believe that a new program and a new approach are essential. Existing substance abuse treatment programs such as those designed to serve single males cannot respond to the needs of a mother and her child. To be effective, we must connect child protection and substance abuse treatment staffs and support them to work in partnership to test and identify best practices. Forging new partnerships take time--and it takes money. That is why this bill invests $1.9 billion over 5 years to combat the problems of substance abuse faced by families whose children are sheltered by the child protection system. I understand this is a large sum, but alcohol and drug abuse is an enormous problem in our country and represents an overwhelming financial and human loss. Before reacting to the bill expenditure alone, consider the costs we would incur if we remain silent on this issue. If we do not invest in substance abuse prevention and treatment for such families, we cannot effectively combat the abuse and neglect of children. Our bill is designed to tackle this tough issue and encourage child protection and substance abuse agencies to work in partnership and promote innovative approaches within both of their systems to support women and their children. This bill can provide funding for outreach services to families, screening and assessment to enhance prevention, outpatient or residential treatment services, retention supports to aid mothers to remain in treatment, and aftercare services to keep families and children safe. This bill also addresses the importance of dual training for the staffs of the child protection and substance abuse treatment systems, to share effective strategies in order to meet the goal of safe and permanent homes for children. If we choose to invest in child protection and substance abuse partnerships for families, we can achieve two things. For many families, I hope that parents will achieve sobriety through treatment and that their children will return to a safe and stable home. For those who are unsuccessful, we will know that we have put forth a reasonable, good faith effort and learned an important lesson--that some children need alternate homes, and that we will still need to pursue adoption for some children. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, courts cannot move forward on adoption until appropriate services have been provided to families. That is the law, and we need to follow it. Our bill will promote a responsible approach with a focus on accountability. It requires annual progress reports that detail defined outcomes, challenges, and proposed solutions. These reports will evaluate parental treatment outcomes, the child's safety, and the stability of the family. Throughout the years, I have worked to address the needs of abused and neglected children in a bipartisan matter. I am proud to continue this bipartisan approach as we come to grips with such a controversial and emotionally charged issue as protecting children who are abused and neglected by their substance-abusing parents.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been quick to embrace the idea that more needs to be done to deal with patients' pain, and this has become an integral part of VA's overall efforts to improve care at the end of life--for veterans and for all Americans. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am enormously proud of VA's efforts in pain management and end-of-life care. I suspect, however, that many of my colleagues are unaware of VA's good work in this area. We simply must recognize the lack of services and resources for people who are suffering with pain, especially those who need long-term institutional care and other alternatives, such as hospice or home health for chronic conditions. The health care and related needs of Americans are very diverse. We must target problems and address them with creativity, with a variety of resources that can help different groups in different ways. Taking a look at the VA's success in this area is a good place to start fixing the problem. I therefore ask unanimous consent that a press release on VA's pain management initiatives and a Washington Post article on VA's success in this area be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join many of my colleagues in paying tribute to former Senator Alan Cranston, who died on New Year's Eve, 2000. Since I came to the Senate in 1985, I have had the honor of serving on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and my first 8 years on the committee were under the superb chairmanship of Senator Cranston. During our years, I came to know and appreciate his unbounded dedication to the veterans of this country, and his extraordinary record of leadership and commitment to our Nation throughout his 24 years of public service in the U.S. Senate. Senator Cranston played an integral role in veterans affairs from his first days in the Senate, serving initially as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee of the then-Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. When that subcommittee became the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs in 1971, he was a charter member of it. He became Chairman of the full Committee in 1977, was ranking member from 1978- 1986, and then Chairman again in 1987, until he left the Senate in 1993. Throughout his tenure, Senator Cranston demonstrated a devoted commitment to the men and women who risk their lives for the safety and welfare of our Nation. Although he opposed the war in Vietnam, he was a strong champion for the rights and benefits of those who served in it. Senator Cranston's vision--to ensure that our country uphold its obligation to meet the post-service needs of veterans and their families--was the inspiration for the many pieces of legislation passed during his tenure. He showed his concern for disabled veterans and their families in many ways, including authoring support programs that provided for grants, cost-of- living increases in benefits, adaptive equipment, rehabilitation, and other services. Senator Cranston's record on issues related to the employment and education of veterans is unequaled. As early as 1970, he authored the Veterans' Education and Training Amendments Act, which displayed his heartfelt concern for Vietnam-era veterans, and served as the foundation for other key initiatives over the years. As a strong advocate for health care reform myself, I appreciated Senator Cranston's efforts over the years to improve veterans' health care through affirmative legislation. He brought national attention to the many needs of VA health care facilities, which resulted in the improvement of the quality of their staffs, facilities, and services. Senator Cranston's patience in pursuit of his goals is legendary. For example, he introduced legislation in 1971 to establish a VA readjustment counseling program for Vietnam veterans. When it failed that year, he reintroduced it in the next Congress, and the next, and the next, never losing sight of his vision. Four Congresses later, in 1979, it was finally accepted by the House of Representatives. The VA's Vet Center Program was established that year and, in the ensuing years, this program helped many Vietnam veterans deal with their adjustment problems after service, including post-traumatic stress disorder. After the program was established, Senator Cranston fought successfully to make it permanent, thereby enabling Vet Centers to survive proposed cuts by the Reagan administration. He also pushed for enactment of legislation which extended the eligibility period for readjustment counseling. In 1991, Senator Cranston authored legislation which allowed veterans of later conflicts, including the Persian Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, and Lebanon, to receive assistance at Vet Centers as well. Another example of Senator Cranston's persistence was his effort to provide an opportunity for veterans to seek outside review of VA decisions on claims for benefits. He began working on this issue in the mid-70's and stayed with it through final enactment in 1988 of legislation which established a court to review veterans' claims. That court, now known as the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, stands as a legacy to Senator Cranston's commitment to making sure that veterans are treated fairly by the government that they served. The list of Senator Cranston's achievements is long--for veterans, his home State of California, our country, and the world. Senator Cranston's leadership had a broad sweep, way beyond the concerns of veterans. From nuclear disarmament to housing policy to education to civil rights, Senator Cranston fought to do the right thing, with energy and passion. For nearly a quarter of a century, he was a true champion for the less fortunate among our society. Senator Cranston's legacy is immense, and I know that his leadership, which continued after he left this Chamber, will be missed. I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to work side-by-side with him over the years. By continuing his fight for the people we represent and the ideals we were elected to uphold, I seek to carry on his mission. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article about Senator Cranston by Thomas Tighe, a former staff member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, be printed in the Record. His thoughts on Senator Cranston, which appeared in the January 7, 2001, edition of the Santa Barbara News-Press, are quite compelling.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to voice my support of Senator Kennedy's effort to restore the minimum wage. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2001 would raise the minimum wage by $1.50 in three incremental steps, benefitting over 11 million workers. We owe a pay raise to the hard-working Americans who would be affected by a minimum wage increase. To do so would demonstrate the real value of their hard work. Care givers in our preschools and nursing homes, service workers in our retail and restaurant industries, the domestic workers in our homes and offices--these are the real people upon whom each of us relies every day. These are the workers who deserve to have their wages restored to a level that will afford them a reasonable standard of living. In West Virginia alone, over one-fifth of our workers will directly benefit from a $1.50 increase in the minimum hourly wage. This would mean an increase of almost $3,000 a year for full-time workers. In more concrete terms, this translates into more than a year of groceries, rent for seven months, seventeen months of utility bills, or a year of tuition at a two-year college. Currently, a full-time minimum wage earner with two children may be faced with difficult decisions when trying to both feed and clothe her children. We need to make sure that a mother or father who works forty hours a week does not have to decide between groceries for the family and paying the electric bill. Ultimately, we must acknowledge that the minimum wage standard has been allowed to slowly erode over the past thirty years. At present, the $5.15 hourly minimum has reached its lowest purchasing power in two decades, which has aggravated problems for the working poor. Today, the real value of the minimum wage is $2.90 below what it was in 1968. As our country continues to make unprecedented economic gains, this is simply unacceptable. We have an obligation to the working families in West Virginia, and across the Nation, to raise the minimum wage to a level that will lift them out of the day-to-day struggle of meeting their most basic needs. I believe that raising the minimum wage over the next two years is essential to help families and to reinforce the fundamental American values of hard work and self-sufficiency. The goal of the country's minimum wage is to ensure that working Americans earn a living wage that makes work a truly better choice than welfare or other public assistance. The fact that 70 percent of workers earning minimum wage are adults over the age of twenty, that 60 percent are women, and that nearly half have full-time jobs means that this is an issue central to millions of hard-working families in our country. In West Virginia alone, almost 14 percent of our work force earn at the minimum wage, and our state has one of the largest populations of workers receiving the minimum wage. I am proud to join Senator Kennedy and my colleagues to work together to enact this essential bill for working Americans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the United States Constitution expressly grants to the Senate the prerogative, responsibility, and duty to determine its ``advice and consent'' to the nominations of all Presidents. This is an important, even awesome mandate, and one no Senator takes lightly. While the Senate's constitutional role is plainly much more than a mere rubber stamp, the President also should be given wide latitude in the people he chooses to run our government with him. Over the last several weeks, I have voted to approve all but one of President Bush's cabinet nominations. I have done so because, on the whole, I believe his nominees are an impressive, diverse, and well- qualified group who reflect the broad spectrum of America's philosophical and cultural backgrounds. Of course, without exception, they appear to represent the views of the new President who nominated them. Beyond their fundamental ability to do the job, their views and ideologies have been of little consequence to my decisions. Instead, an important additional characteristic I have looked for, particularly at this time in our nation's history, is a proven ability to bring people together. I seek nominees who will welcome diverse points of view and ideas and who will lead in building consensus. In that vein, I have given my full support to 18 of the cabinet nominations sent to the Senate by President Bush this year. The nominee before us today, however, is not one I can support. The United States Attorney General has a particularly compelling and important role, as evidenced by this vigorous debate. The Attorney General is known as the President's legal advisor and the people's lawyer. He or she is charged with leading our nation in interpreting, enforcing, and upholding our laws. He must be a person who embodies balance and evenhandedness, so that all of our citizens feel fully and fairly represented by his actions. He must be able to contribute in a meaningful way to the great challenge of uniting our nation. That is my test for this nomination. Former Senator John Ashcroft is a man that I have come to know here in the United States Senate. I have served with him on the Senate Commerce Committee and spent many hours observing and participating with him in debate. Throughout his service here, and earlier as Governor and Attorney General in the State of Missouri, he has shown a strong moral compass and passionately held views about what he wants for our country and its citizens. As Senate colleagues, we have sometimes agreed, and more often disagreed on policy and legislation. In many cases, his legislative agenda was not one that I thought helped or protected West Virginia's working families, seniors and children. But, again, my test for Attorney General is not whether I share John Ashcroft's views on any particular issue or matter. I have great respect for John Ashcroft as a person of deeply held religious beliefs, and his particular faith is of no consequence for me in this decision. In fact, I have been personally offended by a few who suggest that someone's religion might be a consideration in this or any other decision I make. I unequivocally reject that type of thinking and believe my own long record proves otherwise. John Ashcroft has been honest in his convictions and his principles, and he has fashioned his public life working to advance his firmly held beliefs. He is a man of strong, unbending ideology--so unbending, in fact, that this is what makes him the wrong choice for Attorney General. I have plainly seen in John Ashcroft a basic inability to compromise or to reach out to those with opposing or different points of view. The problem is not John Ashcroft's ideology. It is the fact that he never seems able to look beyond that ideology to respect and encompass others' equally strong beliefs and convictions. There is nothing in his long history of public service to suggest he can rise to the challenge of being a uniter, someone who can compromise when necessary to bring us all together. Furthermore, I have heard John Ashcroft's promise to uphold and enforce our laws, and I take him at his word. But the question of his nomination and the role of Attorney General are not that simple. If they were, then every person nominated to a position charged with upholding the law would be approved--every judge, every U.S. Attorney, every Cabinet Secretary. Reasonable people have honest disagreements about what the law says and how to apply it in different situations. The law is not always precise, and the path to justice is not always clearly marked. The Attorney General instead has a great deal of discretion, and he must bring to that discretion his own standards, experiences and beliefs. Deciding which cases to defend and which to prosecute, which judges and proposed changes in the law to support and which to oppose, where to dedicate limited resources and where to cut back all are tasks that call for objectivity, balance, and leadership. Mr. President, after carefully reviewing all of the facts and circumstances, and after lengthy personal reflection, I am not convinced that John Ashcroft can do the job of Attorney General without returning to his life-long rejection of moderation and conciliation. John Ashcroft proudly judges issues and people on the basis of his own strong ideology. Time and again I have seen John Ashcroft show hostility and insensitivity toward those who disagree with him or who hold ideals and values that differ from his. He has never hesitated to use his views as a test to judge others. This uncompromising approach is not what I think our country wants and expects from its leaders. I do not stand in judgment of my former Senate colleague, but I must reject his nomination for Attorney General.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to support the nomination of Anthony J. Principi to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. If confirmed, Mr. Principi will have the responsibility of steering the Department of Veterans Affairs through a period of great transformation. I recently had the chance to meet with Mr. Principi and to discuss the many challenges he will face in guiding the VA through this critical period. I have also had the opportunity to read his answers to prehearing questions and to hear his testimony at the January 18, 2001, hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on his nomination. Mr. Principi has expressed his belief that our veterans deserve access to quality health care and swift and accurate decisions about disability benefits. I wholeheartedly agree and believe feel that Mr. Principi has the experience and the commitment to maintain this special obligation to our Nation's veterans. I know that with his years of service to veterans--at VA, here in the Senate, and as chair of the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition (the so-called Transition Commission)--Mr. Principi is familiar with the importance of the leadership role he will soon assume at the VA. Because of his long history and experience, we have great expectations for his success, and we expect him to hit the ground running to tackle the VA's many challenges. We have all heard the President speak about the need to revamp the VA health care system. But what exactly does that mean to veterans who depend upon the VA? Yes, we have made many sweeping changes in the delivery of VA health care. Veterans' health care is now very often provided in different settings, which are frequently not the traditional hospital site. Outpatient clinics cover the VA landscape and provide new access points to many veterans. And veterans--unlike many other groups--now have improved coverage of their long-term care needs, although VA has been embarrassingly slow in implementing some of these programs. But while the past decade has brought tremendous transformation to the VA health care system, we may be approaching the most challenging period of all. The VA medical system offers programs of enormous value, especially for veterans who are blind or have spinal cord injuries, who need prosthetic devices or dependable mental health care. We must retain these specialized services, offered nowhere else in the U.S. healthcare landscape, which have made the VA great. Mr. Principi understands that, if confirmed, he will be expected to be a steward and protector of this very special health care system. America's veterans will accept no less. The Veterans Benefits Administration is in crisis. Last year, Chairman Specter chaired a hearing on the benefits adjudication system, and we were greatly disturbed by what we heard about the lack of quality and timeliness in VBA decisionmaking. At that hearing, a Vietnam combat veteran from my state of West Virginia, suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder, testified that it took a full five years for his VA disability claim to be approved. The documented chronology of events over that five-year period paints a clear picture of a benefits system that needs a great deal of work. This is just one example of the many cases my staff hear about daily. We continue to be dismayed by the delays in making eligibility determinations. And despite efforts by hardworking, dedicated VBA employees, which have yielded some gains in customer service, the problems with VA claims' processing seem to be getting worse. In fact, the backlog has increased by 50,000 claims just since we held that hearing last July. You know the old saying: ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' Our aging veterans population cannot afford to wait. We look to Mr. Principi for innovative approaches so that VBA can absorb changes in law and new business processes without always going into a tailspin. We must do better than this. Mr. President, in my view, Mr. Principi is well qualified for this important position. He would bring to it his many experiences as an advocate for veterans' needs, as well as his sincere commitment to their well-being. I urge my colleagues to approve this nomination.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001. The convergence of computing and communications has changed the way America interacts and does business. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of networked communications more and more each year. However, where in the past access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications needs, today many people and organizations need the ability to transmit and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites. In some areas of the country companies are building networks that meet today's broadband need as fast as they can. Technology companies are fighting to roll out the current generation of broadband facilities as quickly as they can in urban and suburban areas. They are tearing up streets to install fiber optics, converting cable TV facilities to broadband telecom applications, developing incredible new DSL technologies that convert regular copper telephone wires into broadband powerhouses. Other areas are not as fortunate. In rural and inner city areas access to even the current generation of broadband communications is harder to come by. In fact, there are only a few broadband providers outside the prosperous areas of big cities and suburban areas nationwide. This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve. Terrain is difficult. Populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of our current broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office--which is the case for most rural Americans. In inner cities, companies may believe that lower household income levels will not support a market for their services, so they chose not to invest in these communities. The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity to continue are alarming. Organizations in traditional robust communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban and suburban communities, will be able to reap the rewards of a networked economy. Organizations in other areas, often in rural areas as in inner cities, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, will suffer the consequences of being unable to take advantage of the astounding power of broadband networked computing. Just as companies that employ technological advances are decimating their less technologically savvy competitors, businesses in infrastructure-rich areas may soon decimate competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is just as true as rural and inner city students, workers trying to gain new skills, and regular individuals who want to participate in the New Economy in other ways compete against their non-rural peers. The result could be disastrous for Americans who live in rural areas or in our inner cities: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and business failure concentrated in their communities. Denying Americans who live in rural areas and inner cities a chance to participate in the New Economy is also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner city locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production environments. Additionally, without adequate infrastructure, the businesses and individuals in these communications infrastructure poor areas are less likely to be integrated into the national electronic marketplace. Their absence would put a damper on the growth of the digital economy for everyone--not just for those in rural areas. Therefore, we must do everything we can to ensure that broadband communications are available to all areas of the country--rural and inner city as well as the prosperous urban and suburban communities. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001 addresses this problem. The Act would give companies the incentive to build current generation broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very focused tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband facilities in rural or inner city areas a ten percent tax credit over the next five years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in technology I just described. The credit is also restricted to investments needed for high-speed broadband telecommunications services. This means that only powerful broadband services are covered. Companies cannot claim that inferior services qualify for the credit. Only facilities that can download data at a rate of speed of 1.5 megabytes per second, and upload data at 200 kilobytes per second qualify. In addition, the bill provides a 20 percent tax credit for companies that invest in next generation broadband services. These powerful new services, that can deliver data capacities of 22 megabytes per second download and 5 megabytes per second upload will be the infrastructure the new economy depends as the digital economy matures. We need to reward the companies who have the foresight to invest in these next generation broadband services--they will benefit the whole country. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000 is part of the solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans and Americans living in inner cities deserve the chance to participate in the New Economy. Without access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important bill. For those who want even more details, I ask unanimous consent that Attachment One to this statement, titled Broadband Internet Access Tax Credit, be made part of the Record. This attachment is a detailed explanation of the tax credit based on an analysis of the similar Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000, from the 106th Congress. We will hopefully have a more updated explanation that reflects changes to the bill for the 107th Congress very soon.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001. The convergence of computing and communications has changed the way America interacts and does business. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of networked communications more and more each year. However, where in the past access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications needs, today many people and organizations need the ability to transmit and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites. In some areas of the country companies are building networks that meet today's broadband need as fast as they can. Technology companies are fighting to roll out the current generation of broadband facilities as quickly as they can in urban and suburban areas. They are tearing up streets to install fiber optics, converting cable TV facilities to broadband telecom applications, developing incredible new DSL technologies that convert regular copper telephone wires into broadband powerhouses. Other areas are not as fortunate. In rural and inner city areas access to even the current generation of broadband communications is harder to come by. In fact, there are only a few broadband providers outside the prosperous areas of big cities and suburban areas nationwide. This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve. Terrain is difficult. Populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of our current broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office--which is the case for most rural Americans. In inner cities, companies may believe that lower household income levels will not support a market for their services, so they chose not to invest in these communities. The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity to continue are alarming. Organizations in traditional robust communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban and suburban communities, will be able to reap the rewards of a networked economy. Organizations in other areas, often in rural areas as in inner cities, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, will suffer the consequences of being unable to take advantage of the astounding power of broadband networked computing. Just as companies that employ technological advances are decimating their less technologically savvy competitors, businesses in infrastructure-rich areas may soon decimate competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is just as true as rural and inner city students, workers trying to gain new skills, and regular individuals who want to participate in the New Economy in other ways compete against their non-rural peers. The result could be disastrous for Americans who live in rural areas or in our inner cities: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and business failure concentrated in their communities. Denying Americans who live in rural areas and inner cities a chance to participate in the New Economy is also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner city locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production environments. Additionally, without adequate infrastructure, the businesses and individuals in these communications infrastructure poor areas are less likely to be integrated into the national electronic marketplace. Their absence would put a damper on the growth of the digital economy for everyone--not just for those in rural areas. Therefore, we must do everything we can to ensure that broadband communications are available to all areas of the country--rural and inner city as well as the prosperous urban and suburban communities. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001 addresses this problem. The Act would give companies the incentive to build current generation broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very focused tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband facilities in rural or inner city areas a ten percent tax credit over the next five years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in technology I just described. The credit is also restricted to investments needed for high-speed broadband telecommunications services. This means that only powerful broadband services are covered. Companies cannot claim that inferior services qualify for the credit. Only facilities that can download data at a rate of speed of 1.5 megabytes per second, and upload data at 200 kilobytes per second qualify. In addition, the bill provides a 20 percent tax credit for companies that invest in next generation broadband services. These powerful new services, that can deliver data capacities of 22 megabytes per second download and 5 megabytes per second upload will be the infrastructure the new economy depends as the digital economy matures. We need to reward the companies who have the foresight to invest in these next generation broadband services--they will benefit the whole country. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000 is part of the solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans and Americans living in inner cities deserve the chance to participate in the New Economy. Without access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important bill. For those who want even more details, I ask unanimous consent that Attachment One to this statement, titled Broadband Internet Access Tax Credit, be made part of the Record. This attachment is a detailed explanation of the tax credit based on an analysis of the similar Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000, from the 106th Congress. We will hopefully have a more updated explanation that reflects changes to the bill for the 107th Congress very soon.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am especially proud to recognize the achievement of one of my state's most prized organizations, the Youth Museum of Southern West Virginia. Joining only 21 other museums nationwide, the Youth Museum has been selected as a recipient of this year's prestigious Institute of Museum and Library Service National Award for Museum Service. This award highlights the enormous contributions made by the Youth Museum to the growth and development of the children of Southern West Virginia. This organization is truly deserving of this national recognition. Located in the beautiful mountains of Beckley, West Virginia, the Youth Museum has brought culture, art, and the rich tradition of Appalachian history to West Virginian school children since 1977. Earning the praise of teachers, parents, and school administrators, the Museum has touched the lives of thousands of families across the state. Without the vast resources of more urban contemporaries, the Youth Museum has helped to ensure that West Virginia's children have a sense of the diverse accomplishment and creativity that define their state's heritage. An example of the unique and significant opportunities offered by the Youth Museum can be found in the Page After Page program. Recognizing the extraordinary number of talented writers to be found in our state, the Museum has brought together teachers, librarians, reading specialists, students, and native authors to create an exhibition that emphasizes literacy and the achievements of West Virginia artists. Combining a focus on improving reading skills with the unique and personal contributions of local writers, this program continues to challenge, stimulate, and inspire young readers across the state. However, the Page After Page program is just one example of the Museum's commitment to providing positive and significant opportunities for West Virginia's youth. The Artists-in-Residence series, programs for special needs preschoolers, a planetarium, a science room, even a recreated pioneer village--the list of educational resources and activities is endless. Of course, this list reflects the hard work and dedication of an organization that has not wavered in its commitment to our children, or in its celebration of the unique and vital history of West Virginia. For 23 years, the Youth Museum has been enriching the lives of the children and families in our great state. Truly, it was a privilege to nominate the Youth Museum of Southern West Virginia for this year's Award for Museum Service, and it was no surprise to learn that they were chosen for this prestigious national recognition. I am deeply proud of their accomplishment, and look forward to the many contributions the Museum will continue to make to the education of West Virginia's youth.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the achievement of one of West Virginia's finest healthcare facilities, Saint Joseph's Hospital in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Earlier this month, Saint Joseph's was recognized as one of the top 100 hospitals in the United States in a prestigious study conducted by the HCIA-Sachs Institute in conjunction with the University of Michigan School of Public Health,. This is an enormous honor for one of West Virginia's critical health care providers. St. Joseph's Hospital is an acute care regional healthcare facility. Located on the western edge of Wood County, the hospital's service area includes three counties in Ohio and eight counties in West Virginia, with a total population of 316,000. With the announcement of the top 100 hospitals, Saint Joseph's became the first facility in West Virginia to receive this great recognition. I had the pleasure of visiting Saint Joseph's in October 1998, to partake in the ground breaking for their new $20 million extension. This extension has created over 100 new jobs at the hospital, adding to the 860 people already employed by Saint Joseph's. The extension replaced the physical facilities for surgical and emergency services, and consolidated the hospital's heart services. The HCIA-Sachs study selects the top 100 hospitals based on five categories, depending on the number of beds and teaching status, and ranks them based on seven measures of clinical, operational, and financial performance. Saint Joseph's has been recognized as one of the top twenty large community benchmark hospitals, with more than 250 beds. The list encourages awareness of industry-wide benchmarks and the measurement of performance against peers. For example, the top hospitals have taken median average length of stay to a five-year low this year, and surpassed comparable hospitals in clinical quality measures, such as lower mortality and complications. I find it highly gratifying that one of West Virginia's finest hospitals has been nationally recognized by this great honor. It is particularly striking that Saint Joseph's has been distinguished by a study with such very high standards as one of the top twenty facilities of its kind. I am so thankful to the Saint Joseph's Hospital's CEO Stephens Mundy, its doctors and nurses, and all of its employees for the amazing work that they continue to do to serve their community. The people of Wood County, West Virginia, and the surrounding areas, are indeed fortunate to have you as part of their community. Congratulations on this great achievement.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today on a personal basis to reflect a little bit about the Slade Gorton I have known and worked with over a number of years now. Even as I welcome Mary Cantwell into the Senate, I also am very sorry to see Slade Gorton go--just because of the very extraordinary character he brought to this institution. I worked with Slade very closely on the Commerce Committee. Our jurisdictions, so to speak, overlapped a good deal. Our interests overlapped a good deal. One of the pieces of legislation where I thought you saw Slade working at his best, when he was so effective in the Senate, was the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Agency. This was actually a very complicated piece of legislation. It was one that was particularly difficult because the Senate as a whole has not bothered to engage itself particularly with the whole subject of aviation and the enormity of the crisis which is facing us and which manifests itself in the summer and tourist season and then is quickly forgotten as soon as the tourist season is over and the delays diminish somewhat. One can see, as the industry grows, it also runs into more severe problems, financially and otherwise. Slade Gorton had an innate understanding of aviation, obviously, because of the State from which he came. But he was also a master craftsman in terms of understanding issues, producing legislation, and then forging a compromise that would lead to a result that, in effect, reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration and put forth money on an unprecedented basis to do what needed to be done, both for our air traffic control system and for the infrastructure which our Congress and our Nation just blithely ignore--complaining about noise, complaining about delays, and then declining to do anything about it. It is not a problem which fixes itself. Slade was, in a sense, kind of a pioneer on this issue which in some ways is similar to the IT phenomenon, the Internet; it burst upon us. But people have been rather quick to learn about the new economy and the Internet and rather slow to learn about a problem which is just as severe and technical and just as complex as that one. But Slade, obviously, as is typical of him, never shirked his duty either to his State or to his country. He has a work ethic. A ``work ethic'' simply describes itself, but the way in which Slade Gorton has carried that out over all the years I have worked with him is something which has both given me joy and a great sense of admiration. I don't know if there are any cartoons anywhere, but there are a lot of stories: One always sees Senator Gorton at his desk--reading. The entire Senate can be engulfed in a conflagration of some sort, usually about something which means absolutely nothing, but Slade Gorton understands that and so he simply turns to newspapers, journals, things which--again, with his very superior intellect--are increasing his knowledge, increasing his perspective and the depth of his ability, therefore, to be helpful to his people, to his country, and to the Senate. He had a very interesting position, too, in the Senate, in that he was a very close adviser, and may remain so, to the majority leader, Trent Lott. He did not do that through the power of politics. He did not lobby in the way that people often do when they run for offices, go around trying to pick up votes in that way. It was simply the power of his reasoned, calm intellect, the even temperament of his nature, and the compelling force of his logic and the calmness in which all of this evolved and presented itself, which I think--my guess would be--drew Senator Lott to understand that to rely on Slade Gorton's judgment and understanding and advice would be a very wise thing to do. Slade Gorton and I did not necessarily have the same voting records, but we often had the same approach to issues, not all of which I will discuss here, and we have come to differ on some of those issues. But I always have had this deep sense of respect for him. He never was a typical Senator. He was not a backslapper. Yet when he gave his word, you needed to worry no more because that was it. As they say, his word was his bond--and it really was. He had always an excellent staff about him. Yet you always had the feeling that Slade Gorton made all of the decisions and did, really, most of the basic thinking himself because of the deeply thoughtful nature of his mind and his instinct about not just legislating but the way he conducted probably all his life. I admire very much the fact that he has been in public life for so long, and at the age of 72 sought to continue that public service. He has expressed a deep belief in public service. There are many honorable professions, but I think public service is one of the hardest and most honorable of all of them if it is carried out with serious intent and serious purpose. Ambition always accompanies public service, but ambition has to be overruled in the final analysis by this concept of serving the public and of trying to make a better situation for the State one represents and also our Nation. Slade is a Senator from the State of Washington but also from the United States of America. He understood that and exercised both of those responsibilities. He argued, I am told, 14 times before the U.S. Supreme Court when he was attorney general of his State. That says to me that he did not simply, as is the case sometimes, particularly in more recent years, jump for the top office or one of the top offices. He worked his way up through the system. I admire that. It shows a determined, a very professional, long-term commitment to public service at whatever level and also respect for the experience one develops on the way up as one serves in one's State and goes on to a more national forum. He is and always will be a superb legislator. He has been a superb friend to me. We have not spent a lot of time engaged in personal discussion, but there was a constancy in the way our relationship evolved and then maintained itself which always made me believe I could trust Slade Gorton and look to Slade Gorton for sound advice and sound judgment on virtually any matter. He is firm in his views, and I respect that. We differ often on views, and yet it is never a personal matter. Again, it is a truly brilliant, analytical, ordered mind coming to his conclusions in the way he thought best for him and for the people he represents. When we talked personally, it was almost always about his grandchildren; of course, about Sally, his wife, whom I think he married in 1958. He has seven grandchildren, and when there was frustration about the Senate dragging on too long, he would talk about the joy of being with his grandchildren. He talked at length about that. That was another side of Slade Gorton: Slade Gorton the family person, the tightly disciplined mind, and yet underneath a very warm sense of what, in many ways, is an even larger legacy, and that is, what is the nature of one's family, what is the nature of one's relationship to the members of one's family. I express my respect for him, my affection for him for his constancy of purpose and for his superbly honed skills. His presence in the Senate is and will be always considered unique. He is a unique person, cerebral but effective, highly analytical but deeply effective in the internal combat, whether it be on the Appropriations Committee, the Budget Committee, the Commerce Committee, the Energy Committee, or any of his various committees. He knows how to fight. He knows how to achieve what he wants for the people of his State. As I said at the beginning, I rise to express this respect, to express this sense of admiration for the nature of his abilities as a Senator and his broad expanse as a human being. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am very proud that VISTA is celebrating its thirty-fifth anniversary this year. VISTA is special for me because it was my work in VISTA that brought me to West Virginia and changed the course of my career. Because of my work in Emmons, WV, as a VISTA worker, I decided to make West Virginia my home and public service in government my life. In Emmons, I worked for a community center, preventative health care, and fought to get a school bus so those teens would get a high school education. From the grassroots, I learned how government can improve the quality of life in a community. I pursued a career in government, beginning with a seat in the West Virginia House of Delegates. My work in Emmons was very meaningful, and it changed me. I have stayed in touch with the people of Emmons and joined them this summer to celebrate the community finally getting clean water. I have also stayed in touch with VISTA and was delighted to participate in the VISTA anniversary events, as many former VISTA workers did. Mr. President, I ask to print in the Record, the remarks of John E. Gherty, president and CEO of Land O' Lakes, Inc., and more importantly a former VISTA worker. His remarks outline the history of VISTA and capture its vision for the future. The remarks follows: October 13, 2000 Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to be with you to celebrate the 35th anniversary of VISTA--now a proud part of AmeriCorps. I wanted to participate in this celebration for a couple of very important and very personal reasons. First, because I truly believe in the principles behind VISTA and AmeriCorps. I take considerable pride in the program's 35 years of accomplishment--and in my own participation some 32 years ago. I'll tell you more about that in just a few minutes. My second reason for being here is even more personal. It's because the youngest of my three daughters, ten-year-old Katherine, told me it was important for me to be here. Let me explain. Originally, I thought I might be addressing this group on the weekend, and that I might bring Katherine with me. One evening about six weeks ago, I got home somewhat late and went up to her room to say goodnight. It seemed like the right time to ask her if she would like to take a trip to Washington, DC. Like most ten-year-olds, she responded with a question of her own. ``What for?'' I told her I was considering speaking to a group called AmeriCorps, which was the successor to VISTA. Her response--and you parents will understand this, was another question of her own--``What's AmeriCorps or VISTA do?'' I told her it was an organization formed to help people in need in the United States--and that it dealt with issues like poverty, hunger, health care and housing. Her eyes lit up with understanding, and without hesitation, she said ``Dad, you should go.'' I tell you this story because I believe Katherine's almost instant understanding serves to reinforce the fundamental importance and value of what each of you has accomplished or is committed to accomplishing as VISTA alumni and AmeriCorps participants. This afternoon's program brings together a unique mix of new AmeriCorps/VISTA participants and VISTA alumni. As one of those alumni, I have a message for all of the new participants. What you accomplish during today's working sessions, and the work you put in during the coming year, will make a difference. It will make a difference not just in the lives of those who benefit from the services you develop and provide--but in your lives as well. That, in fact, is what this three-day celebration is all about . . . recognizing the ongoing difference VISTA has made in the lives of the millions of people who have been served by its programs, as well as in the lives of the 130,000 VISTA alumni who delivered those programs. Let me take just a few minutes to reflect on my own VISTA experience. I remember when President Kennedy announced the formation of the Peace Corps back in 1962. I was a student at the University of Wisconsin . . . an institution rightfully known for the quality of its education and the strength of its activism. I recall being impressed with the concept of the Peace Corps, and being convinced it was something I wanted to do once I finished school. After graduating from business school and entering law school, I was even more convinced that public service was not only a personal opportunity, but-- quite simply--just the right thing to do. It was at about that time that VISTA--then referred to as ``The Domestic Peace Corps''--was formed. When I completed law school, I sought out public service opportunities and was offered the chance to serve with the Peace Corps in Ethiopia or Botswana. I felt very strongly, on a personal level, about the importance of giving a priority to addressing our needs here at home. So, I focused my energies on becoming part of VISTA. I soon found myself--fresh out of law school at the University of Wisconsin and not really that far removed from my family's Western Wisconsin farm--on my way to Chicago to work out of the Henry Booth House, which was part of Hull House, in the lckes public housing development on Chicago's South Side. How much of a culture shock was that? For those of you who aren't familiar with the South Side of Chicago, Folk singer Jim Croce--in his song ``Bad Bad LeRoy Brown''--referred to the area as ``the baddest part of town.'' On the surface, that was a pretty apt description. It was a tough, poverty-stricken, inner-city neighborhood, where Black Power was an influential and powerful force--and for good reason. It was a pretty challenging environment for a fresh-out-of- school, Caucasian, farm- kid from Wisconsin. I can tell you truthfully that there was considerable community skepticism regarding my intentions and my motives. As you can imagine, my VISTA involvement proved to be a truly eye-opening experience. It was also tremendously rewarding, knowing that I was contributing to the future of what I came to think of as my South Side community--that I was helping to establish programs and services that would continue to benefit the neighborhood after I was gone. It was also a significant learning experience. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that my personal VISTA ``take-aways'' matched, and probably even exceeded, what I gave to the program. When I think about what I learned during my VISTA involvement, five things come to mind almost immediately: The absolute importance of taking responsibility and creating opportunity; The essential role of teamwork and team building; The importance of building effective alliances; The strength that can be found in diversity; and The need to identify leaders and build leadership skills. These were critical elements in my ability to fulfill my role with VISTA ... and over the years I have found them to be the critical building blocks for success, no matter what the endeavor or organization. Let's look at these five concepts--starting with the importance of taking responsibility and creating opportunity. My VISTA involvement taught me that, to truly succeed, you must take personal responsibility for getting the job done. I saw the importance of sizing up the issues and--in an environment where there were not a lot of rules or precedents to follow--taking the initiative in ways that made a difference. My participation in VISTA also taught me that long-term success depends on the ability to create opportunity. The success of VISTA programming is not based on ``hands-outs,'' it's based on creating opportunities for people to better themselves. I can guarantee--from personal experience on Chicago's South Side--that given the opportunity to succeed, and even the slightest bit of sincere encouragement, people will take advantage of it. For example, when I arrived at the Ickes public housing development back in 1968, food prices and food quality were significant issues. Poverty and mobility limited residents' choices. Working with community residents, we formed a volunteer-led food buying club focused on bringing higher-quality, fairly priced groceries into the neighborhood. Very quickly we had a crew of volunteers in each building taking weekly grocery orders from fellow residents and additional volunteers turning their apartments into food distribution centers. We were able to leverage our volunteer force and our increased buying power to make higher-quality groceries available at better prices. Just as important, perhaps, the residents had a new sense of self-esteem--of knowing they could take control--that they could have a say in community quality of life. The program gave them the opportunity to succeed and they took advantage of it. VISTA also gave me new insight into the importance of teamwork and team building. I learned that one of the first elements in being successful at anything is to recognize that you simply cannot do it all alone. In VISTA, I quickly recognized the importance of going out into the community and identifying the team players--those with the skills, the commitment and the spirit to get the job done--and getting them on your team. I also learned a great deal about the importance of building effective alliances--and that sometimes you find strong allies where you least expect them. Going back to the issue of food quality and prices. There was a particular grocery chain which was taking advantage of its location and the limited resources of neighborhood residents. High prices and very poor quality meat and produce were the rule--not the exception. In our wisdom--or perhaps our ignorance--our VISTA team decided to organize a picket line at the store to bring attention to its shortcomings. It was a tense situation, and we actually feared for our safety and that of the residents who were supporting us. At that same time, a gang called The Blackstone Rangers-- known for years as an intimidating ``take no prisoners'' organization--was making a real effort to change their image. The most outward signs of that effort were their donning of distinctive red berets and the changing of their name to the Peacestone Rangers. Well, they decided to make our cause their cause--and with these allies on the picket line, the balance of power shifted in the community's favor. My VISTA involvement also taught me the strength that can be found in diversity. I learned that by bringing together people of different cultures, different viewpoints and different skills in pursuit of common goals, you can being even greater force to bear on those goals. I also learned that when you are getting your hands dirty in pursuant of a common goal, people very quickly forget whether you are white, black, young or old, from the farm or the city. Once you roll up your sleeves and get down to the task at hand--diversity is not a problem, it is a powerful problem- solving tool. Finally, VISTA taught me a lot about leadership. I'm not talking just about how to best exercise my own leadership role--but also about identifying existing and potential leaders and building leadership skills in the community. I learned that to succeed, you must drive leadership skills throughout the organization--and you must give those new leaders responsibility and authority. Believe me, I met lots of strong, effective leaders on Chicago's South Side. Some were single mothers with babies balanced on their hips, others were experienced organizers from the Reverend Jesse Jackson's Operation Breadbasket, and still others were elderly couples who had lived their entire lives in a neighborhood they refused to give up on. Yes, and some were even wearing the red berets of the Peacestone Rangers. They were all different, but they all shared a vision, and an ability to motivate others in pursuit of that vision. They were true leaders--and our team of VISTA volunteers would have accomplished very little without them. Were these important lessons? I think all the VISTA participants from the past 35 years would agree that the lessons they learned in VISTA--the insight they gained and the skills they honed while serving the community--helped prepare them for success, no matter what course their lives took. To this day--more than 30 years later--my own service with VISTA continues to have an impact on my life and my career. I continue to believe with a passion that corporate social responsibility is absolutely non-negotiable. No matter what business you are in--the recognition of corporate social responsibility must be part of your core values and an essential element in your organizational vision. And, I'm not just talking about corporate and foundation giving--or the encouragement of community service and volunteerism. I'm also talking about the way you treat employees, customers and owners; the ethics and values you bring to your business practices; the respect you show for the environment. That's why, at the company I work for today--Land O'Lakes-- we have included being our customers' first choice; our employees' first choice; responsible to our owners; and a leader in our communities as critical elements in our vision of being one of the best food and agricultural companies in the world. Our extended vision statement states clearly that--We recognize our responsibilities to the communities in which we operate. And that we will be proactive in dedicating resources to build a better quality of life, operate in an ethical and environmentally sensitive manner and live by our values. What about our internal community--our employees? Again, in our vision, we state clearly that ``We believe in respecting diversity and in encouraging teamwork, involvement, development and empowerment of all employees. What does all this sound like? It sounds very much like my personal takeaways from VISTA--taking responsibility; creating opportunity; building teams, teamwork and effective alliances; and developing leaders and leadership. In just a few minutes, you are going to break into work groups and tackle the task of developing Pilot AmeriCorps VISTA projects for 2001 and beyond. I urge you to be aggressive and ambitious in those deliberations. To recognize that, in a time of what many call unprecedented prosperity--there is still significant poverty in America. In fact, approximately 32 million Americans--one in nine--live on incomes below the poverty level. I believe today's combination of prosperity and poverty makes each and every American's social responsibility even more demanding. We must ask ourselves, in a nation as prosperous as ours: Why do children still go to school hungry? Why are so many still homeless? Why are so many citizens isolated from health care by economics or geography? Why is quality education or training still out of the reach of so many individuals desperately trying to better themselves? In short, we must ask ourselves the tough questions--and then come up with the right answers--the programs it will take to address these issues--the programs that will close the gap between prosperity and poverty. No one is going to do it for us. We must each take this responsibility, first as individuals and then as part of larger communities and organizations. But then again, that's why you are all here--because you are willing to take that responsibility, to act in ways that can truly make a difference. I applaud that willingness and, seeing the spirit in this room, I am confident what you are doing will make a significant difference in communities across America. Since we are meeting in our nation's Capitol, I'd like to close my remarks with a comment from a speech by former President Woodrow Wilson. ``You are not here merely to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget this errand.'' As VISTA celebrates 35 years of service, and embarks on year 36 as AmeriCorps VISTA, it is clear to me that the program and its people remain clearly focused on that task-- on enabling the world to live more amply, developing a greater vision for all and generating a finer spirit of hope in communities across our nation. Ultimately, the lives of each of you--and of the people you touch--will all be richer for it. I can guarantee it--and my daughter Katherine would agree.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I was absent from the Senate on the morning of Friday, October 27, 2000, during the vote on the motion to proceed to consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2415, which contains the pending bankruptcy reform legislation. I was unable to return to the Senate in time for this unscheduled vote due to a commitment Friday morning in Charleston, West Virginia. Had I been in attendance in the Senate during that vote, I would have voted to proceed to the bankruptcy legislation. My vote would not have changed the outcome of the vote on the motion to proceed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to address a subject very close to my heart. Not long after my wife, Sharon, and I settled in West Virginia, my father presented me with a wonderful painting of the Kanawha River by Frederic Edwin Church, one of America's greatest nineteenth-century landscape painters. Thoroughly delighted with the painting, I became curious to know more about West Virginia's art history. What I discovered was a rich and varied tradition of artists, musicians and authors. Indeed, we in West Virginia have much to be proud of in the fields of fine art, music and literature, as well as theater, dance and architecture. However, there has persisted a distinct lack of documentation of West Virginia's artistic tradition. That is, until now, with the publication of the groundbreaking book, Early Art and Artists in West Virginia. Compiled and narrated by Dr. John A. Cuthbert, in cooperation with West Virginia University Press, this book is the first of its kind. This wonderful compendium finally establishes a foundation upon which we can begin to explore the history of art in West Virginia, and examine the important contributions the state has made to the world of fine art. Dr. Cuthbert offers us a richly illustrated explanation of the development of portrait and landscape painting, as well as lesser genres in the state. He has also compiled a directory of nearly one thousand artists who are a part of this special history, providing both teachers and scholars with an invaluable tool for further study. From the many visiting and native artists who worked in the panhandles in the early nineteenth century, to the members of the Hudson River School who delighted in the state's virgin forests several decades later, all are present in this remarkable volume. The lovely portrait of Sophie B. Colston that graces the book's cover is but a sample of the caliber of their work. Set in a landscape that every West Virginian will recognize, this masterpiece by Berkeley County's William Robinson Leigh suggests the underlying message of this book--that sophistication and elegance have long been a part of the state's celebrated mountain folk culture. Since receiving Church's study of the Kanawha River from my father, I have continued to be intrigued by the fine art inspired by and produced in my adopted state. Few American communities the size of Charleston and Wheeling can boast symphony orchestras as accomplished as those found in these cities. Rebecca Harding Davis, Melville Davisson Post, Pearl S. Buck, Davis Grubb and Jayne Anne Phillips are but a few of the West Virginians who have contributed to the great canon of American literature. This uplifting part of our heritage deserves to be much better known. Early Art and Artists in West Virginia is a remarkable contribution toward this end. Thank you, John Cuthbert and West Virginia University Press, for this wonderful and important book.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the success of one of West Virginia's most successful non-profit health organizations. It gives me great honor to come to the floor today to be able to share with you the remarkable story of West Virginia Health Right, Inc. West Virginia Heath Right was the brainchild of a group of dedicated volunteers who recognized a desperate need to provide free, quality health care to the homeless, the working poor, the un- and underinsured, de-institutionalized mental health patients, and countless others. Their vision was realized when they opened a small, mission-driven health clinic in Charleston, West Virginia in 1982. From these modest beginnings, West Virginia Health Right, Inc. grew tremendously fast. They soon found that the need in the community was far greater than they had expected and moved from their original location in a soup kitchen in Kanawha County, to a homeless shelter, and finally settled into the third floor of the Charleston Area Medical Center. In 1989, West Virginia Health Right moved to their own clinic building supported by funds from the community. In 1999, West Virginia Health Right again appealed to the community for support and found an overwhelming reception to their needs. They are now housed in a state of the art clinic in Charleston. Modeling the success of the Charleston clinic, other free clinics began to sprout up in communities throughout the state at the rate of about one every two years. Today, Health Right has eight separate sites across West Virginia, including Charleston, Wheeling, Morgantown, Clarksburg, Huntington, Parkersburg, Bluefield, and Logan, which serve our State's poor and uninsured. Just recently, Health Right announced the opening of a new clinic in Beckley, West Virginia for which I am proud to serve as a board member. They will also be opening new locations in Summersville and Weirton. Remarkably, each of these facilities operates with just a small staff of employees, and relies entirely on the volunteer services of dedicated physicians and nurse practitioners from the area. West Virginia Health Right, Inc. is a living example that just a few people can make a difference. Eighteen years ago, four doctors and a dozen volunteers set out with a vision to provide health care to those who needed it most. Today, Health Right is a network of more than 500 physicians and 15,000 volunteers serving 45,000 West Virginians each year. With the uninsured in this nation still at staggering levels, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the invaluable work of West Virginia Health Right, Inc., a group that rather than simply talking about a problem, is actually working to fill a vital need in our state. Congratulations, West Virginia Health Right, for your success. And thank you for your tireless contributions to the state of West Virginia.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to support this comprehensive bill which would make changes to a wide range of veterans's benefits and services. The bill represents compromise on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress, and many, many hours of staff and Members' work. For that, I thank everyone involved. The bill covers a wide spectrum of issues--from new educational benefits for service members to improvement in VA nurses' and dentists' pay. I would like to address some of the major provisions. Mr. President, S. 1402, as amended, represents a comprehensive effort to address the shortfall in the amount provided for veterans' education. The current basic GI Bill benefit is $536 per month, which, according to College Board data, pays for less than 60 percent of the costs of a public four-year university. The cost of tuition and fees for public and private educational institutions rose approximately 90 percent from 1980-1995, while the MGIB benefit rates only increased 42 percent from 1985 to 1995. S. 1402 will provide an increase for fiscal year 2001 of 22 percent, raising the basic rate to $650 per month. Additionally, this compromise bill adopts a Senate ``buy up'' provision that will allow servicemembers to elect to contribute up to an additional $600 (above the $1,200 that they contribute over their first year of service), in exchange for receiving four times their contribution. This additional contribution can be made at any time prior to the servicemember leaving service. Thus, it is targeted at those who definitely plan to pursue additional education when they leave service. Although these increases fall short of the full tuition recommended last year by the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance, they will nevertheless provide a substantial improvement in assistance to veterans. The basic monthly benefit increase to $650, when combined with the maximum ``buy up'' contribution, would yield a monthly benefit of $800 per month, an increase of 49 percent over the current benefit. I believe that education is the key to success in today's high tech, fast-paced economy. We must ensure that our nation's veterans do not wind up on the wrong side of the ``digital divide.'' It should be our policy to always encourage servicemembers and veterans to strive for greater achievement. Aside from the benefits that accrue to the individual veteran, we cannot overlook the benefits that accrue to our Nation when we provide a substantial educational benefit to veterans, including increased tax dollars from better salaries, greater stability through higher levels of home ownership rates, and a stronger recruiting tool for future servicemembers. We also must remember our commitment to take care of the families of servicemembers killed on duty and families of veterans who are totally disabled due to their service. S. 1402 provides a corresponding increase in the monthly educational benefit, Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA), provided to survivors and dependents of these veterans. Part of the reason that DEA is so low when compared to MGIB is that the MGIB rate has been indexed to the inflation rate, while the DEA has not. That is why it was so important to me that we index DEA, as section 111 of S. 1402 provides. This will ensure that the education benefit to eligible dependents and survivors will keep pace with the cost of education and MGIB benefits. Last year, we expanded VA's authority to provide education benefits to veterans by including payment for pre-admission exam preparatory courses (SATs, GREs, etc). This year, through section 114, we are extending this valuable benefit to the eligible survivors and dependents of veterans through DEA. At some of the nation's top schools, scores on entrance exams can count for half of the total application, creating enormous pressure to score well. Studies by national consulting companies have shown improvement of over 100 points on the SAT exam scores for students who take exam preparatory courses. However, many of these exam preparatory course are quite costly. One national provider charges as much as $750 for a two-month, part-time, SAT preparatory course. Fairtest, an educational advocacy group, argues that ``[t]he SAT has always favored students who can afford coaching over those who cannot. . . .'' To be able to compete, it is critical that veterans' survivors and dependents have access to such courses. Last year, along with Senator Murray and Senator Daschle, I introduced legislation that will provide much needed benefits to the children born with birth defects to female Vietnam veterans. I am enormously pleased that this legislation has been incorporated in S. 1402. Section 401 will provide health care and compensation to children born with permanently disabling birth defects to women Vietnam veterans. The legislation had its inception in a comprehensive study the VA conducted of long-term reproductive health outcomes of women Vietnam-era veterans. After analyzing the records of over 4,000 women Vietnam veterans compared with 4,000 women Vietnam-era veterans, the study found a ``statistically significant increase in birth defects,'' particularly moderate to severe birth defects, in the children of the women Vietnam veterans. According to the study, the risk to a woman Vietnam veteran of having a child with birth defects was significantly elevated, even after adjusting for age, demographic variables, military characteristics, and smoking and alcohol consumption of the mothers. As VA does not have the authority under current law to provide health care or their benefits to the children of women Vietnam veterans disabled from birth defects other than spinal bifida, I worked with VA to craft legislation modeled after that groundbreaking spina bifida legislation to address this issue. It is only fitting that we assist these children. Their mothers served our Nation with honor and courage, volunteering to be placed in harm's way, without knowledge of what effects their service may bring later. They were the nurses, mapmakers, air traffic controllers, clerical staff, Red Cross and USO workers, and others who supported our troops in the field. Unfortunately, some of their children have suffered because of their mothers' service, and it is time for them to begin to be repaid for that suffering. Under the provisions of S. 1402, VA would be authorized to provide reimbursement for health care of the disabled children for their birth defect and associated conditions, vocational rehabilitation services, and a monthly allowance that is not countable as income for the purpose of other federal programs. Women Vietnam veterans have waited 25 years for this acknowledgment of the special risks they faced. Helping their children born with birth defects is the logical extension of our policy to provide benefits for disabilities that result from service. It's the compassionate and the right thing to do, and I am enormously gratified that we are finally doing it. S. 1402 contains a number of benefits provisions that will aid veterans. Section 301 extends compensation to be paid to reservists on inactive duty for training who were disabled or died from heart attack or stroke during training or travel to/from training. Currently, guards members and reservists who sustain an injury during inactive duty for training are eligible for veterans benefits. However, they are not eligible to receive compensation for diseases incurred or aggravated during such training, while active duty servicemembers would be eligible for the same condition. This provision recognizes the special nature of strokes and heart attacks and how they may be triggered by the additional physical stress during inactive duty for training, and ensures that these servicemembers and their families will be taken care of. Section 302 will provide special monthly compensation to female veterans who have lost a breast due to service-connected conditions. Special monthly compensation is an additional monthly monetary benefit provided above regular compensation for loss, or loss of use of a part of a veterans' body, that yields an additional disability that another loss would not, such as loss of sight or hearing, loss of use of the veterans' legs, or loss of a creative organ. The loss of a breast to a woman veteran is consistent with the other disabilities where special monthly compensation is provided. I am very pleased that S. 1402 closes the final chapter on a 55-year- old injustice--the cause of Filipino veterans who fought under U.S. Command during World War II. When the decision to extend benefits to this group was initially made, the law authorized payments to Filipino veterans at the rate of 50 cents on the dollar of the amounts that American veterans receive. It is my understanding that the VA-HUD Appropriations bill will contain a provision that will provide full compensation benefits and extend health care to these Filipino veterans. Section 332 of S. 1402 will extend full burial benefits to the dependents of Filipino veterans, while section 331 will provide that Filipino veterans who are American citizens and in the U.S. at the time of their death can be buried in National Cemeteries. This is a long overdue correction of an old injustice. I am enormously proud of the fact that S. 1402 includes a small provision that I introduced which removes the limit on adaptive housing grants to disabled veterans who own their home with someone other than a spouse. I became aware that there was a problem with the adaptive housing regulations when I was contacted by the family of Darren Frederick, a West Virginia Gulf War veteran who lost his ability to walk when he developed ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Darren owned a house with his brother and applied for a grant from VA to adapt his home for his wheelchair. But because he owned the house with someone other than a spouse, VA regulations required that the grant be reduced by half. Still, this young, disabled veteran needed a whole ramp, not half a ramp, into his home. The regulation VA was applying was written in 1947 to protect veterans from unscrupulous people who might take advantage of them. However, I am certain that this provision has hurt far more people than it has helped. That is why I pushed to eliminate it, and am pleased to say that it is no longer going to be the law. Unfortunately, I am sad to say that this change came too late to help young Darren Frederick. Darren passed away while he was still dealing with the red tape caused by this provision. I am very disappointed that last year we were unable to move the Senate provision overturning the ``$1,500 rule.'' Since 1933, the law has required VA to suspend the compensation or pension benefits of incompetent veterans who have no dependents and are hospitalized at government expense. This suspension is triggered when the veteran's estate (basically, his bank account) exceeds $1,500, and continues until the estate is spent down to $500. At that time, VA reinstates the veteran's compensation until the veteran is hospitalized again and the estate exceeds $1,500, when the benefits are cut off again. No similar suspension is made for competent veterans or for incompetent veterans who are not hospitalized or who have dependents. The rationale for cutting off benefits was that these veterans might have been institutionalized for years, and that it was not good policy to allow their estates to build up when they have no dependents to inherit them. There was also a fear of fraud on the part of the veteran's guardian or fiduciary. Today, veterans are generally being hospitalized for shorter periods of time, but even so, the rule often applies quickly because of the outdated low dollar limit. It takes VA an average of 66 days to restore the benefits to incompetent veterans once their estates have been spent down. The result is that a veteran may have been released from the hospital for quite some time before the benefit is restored, creating great hardships in paying for the expenses of daily living. The dollar amounts of the limit have not changed since 1933, when $1,500 equaled almost three years' worth of VA benefits at a 100 percent rating level. In today's dollars, this is less than one month's benefit at a 100 percent rating level. Although I truly believe that this is an outdated and indefensible policy that discriminates against incompetent veterans--veterans who are least likely to be able to fight for themselves--we remain unable to fully eliminate the restriction, as I wish we could. However, we are doing the next best thing--raising the limits to a more realistic dollar amount and indexing it to account for future increases in compensation. Section 304 provides that the $1,500 will be replaced with the dollar value represented by five times the 100-percent service-connected compensation rate, and that amount will be indexed to include future cost-of-living adjustments. If we can't eliminate this type of discrimination, I am gratified that we could at least reduce its application and impact. I am especially pleased that this legislation includes authorization for the construction of a $9.5 million nursing home in Beckley, West Virginia. With the World War II and Korean War veteran population aging, there is a increased demand for an alternative to private long- term care, which is often costly and beyond the reach of many veterans and their families. I fought so hard for this federally funded facility because it will be available to all veterans in need of care, regardless of income. It will also contain a 20-bed Alzheimer's unit, to meet the special needs of those suffering from this horrible disease. Long-term care for Alzheimer's patients is very limited in southern West Virginia, and the Beckley VA Medical Center must often send veterans outside the state for this specialized care. Quality long-term care for West Virginia veterans is long overdue. Currently, the Senate is deliberating on a bill that would appropriate $1 million in design funds for this project. I am hopeful that we will get the full amount needed for completion of the facility in the near future. I am very proud of the nurses' pay provision in section 201 of S. 1402, which finally gives a very valued segment of VA's health care staff their due. Since the inception of the locality pay system in 1990, which determined the rate of pay for nurses according to trends in local health care labor markets, only some nurses in the VA system nationwide have actually seen pay increases. This was an unjust consequence of implementing the locality pay system that I am very glad we can now rectify. This bill prohibits directors from reducing nurses' pay, and guarantees VA nurses a national comparability increase equivalent to that provided to other federal employees. Additionally, it reforms the local labor market survey process currently used to determine wages. Finally, I am pleased that this provision also requires Veterans Health Administration network directors to consult directly with nurses on policy issues that involve the work of VA nurses, and allows registered nurses to participate on medical center committees considering clinical care, budget matters, or resource allocation involving the care and treatment of veteran patients. Section 202, the dentists' pay provision of S. 1402, is one that I am very satisfied with as it seeks to improve the recruitment and retention of dentists within the VA, and, therefore, the level of dental care our veterans receive as well. The basic pay rates of dentists employed in the VHA are supplemented by special pay and incentive pay scales that were originally enacted with the intent of helping recruitment and retention rates. However, they were not sufficient enough to keep this vital sector of veterans' care secured. This bill will build on what was already started nearly 10 years ago by finally revising and increasing the rates of special pay for VA dentists. Another important provision in this legislation that I am very proud of is the creation of a physician assistant advisory position within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This position will finally give voice to a very essential segment of the VA health care system. Current law requires that the office of Under Secretary for Health in the VA include representatives of a variety of health care professions. However, despite the fact that the VA is the nation's largest single employer of physician assistants, physician assistants have not had any representation within this office. That is why I am pleased to be able to provide these often underrated health care workers with their own representative advisor. The VA Under Secretary for Health will designate a VHA physician assistant to fill this position and charge that person with advising on all matters regarding the employment and use of physician assistants within the Veterans Health Administration. The advisor may be assigned out in the field with periodical visits as necessary to VHA headquarters for reports, so that they are able to keep in touch both with physician assistants working all over the country and the VA Under Secretary for Health in VA Headquarters. The language associated with this section specifically calls upon VA to provide this individual with the necessary support and resources to enable this consultant to fulfill the assigned responsibilities of this position. Just over 15 years ago, the VA conducted a large-scale survey on the occurrence of PTSD and other psychological problems in Vietnam veterans. The study found that 15 percent of male veterans and 8.5 percent of female veterans suffered from PTSD. However, among those veterans exposed to higher levels of war zone stress, PTSD rates were significantly higher. In addition, the study found that nearly one- third of both male and female Vietnam veterans had suffered from PTSD at some point following military service. Therefore, I am very gratified that this bill provides for a followup study to be conducted to monitor the effectivness of the PTSD programs and other psychiatric services the VA has provided over the years to help veterans cope with the symptoms of this debilitating disorder. The study is to be conducted by an independent contractor, but the VA is being encouraged to design the study protocol itself in order to secure high quality responses to the survey. Mr. President, in closing, I want to acknowledge the work of our Committee's Chairman, Senator Specter, in developing this comprehensive legislation. Through his efforts, and that of his staff--Bill Turek, Staff Director; Chris Yoder, Assistant Staff Director; and Legislative Assistants Jon Tower and William Cahill, we are moving this significant piece of legislation today. I appreciate the willingness of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, especially Chairman Bob Stump and Ranking Member Lane Evans, to work together to reach compromise on so many vital issues. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the efforts of my own staff: Jim Gottlieb, Minority Staff Director; Kim Lipsky, Professional Staff Member; and Mary Schoelen, Counsel. I am enormously grateful for their diligence, and for their commitment to the work we do in this Committee on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to speak about an issue--the plight of captive shippers--on which the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, spoke and on which I have been working for 16 years, every day I have been in the Senate, with a complete, absolute, and total lack of success. One doesn't ordinarily admit those things, but I say that because that is how bad the situation is. That is how unwilling the Congress is to address this problem even though it affects every single Senator and every single Congressman in the entire United States of America without a single exception. How did this happen is the same question as asking why is it that people complain about planes being late but don't take any interest in aviation policy. We are a policy body. We are meant to deliberate; we are meant to discuss issues. We don't. We don't take any interest in aviation. So we complain but don't do anything. We take no interest in railroad policy, and so we don't complain and we don't do anything. As a result, the American Association of Railroads, which is one of the all-time most powerful lobbying groups in the country, has its way. As Senator Dorgan said, they have their way although there are only really four or five railroads left. When I came here in 1985, as the junior Senator from West Virginia, there were 50 or 60 class I railroads. Those are the big ones. Now there are four or five, probably soon to be two or three. When the Staggers Act was passed to deregulate the railroads, which unfortunately this Congress did in 1980, they divided it into two parts. They said for those railroads which had competition, the market would set the price. But they said there are about--let's pick the number--20 percent of all railroads which have no competition. In the coal mines, steel mills, granaries, and manufacturing facilities that these railroads serve, there is no competition. Their rates would be determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission at that time. Now it is called the Surface Transportation Board. Very few of my colleagues know anything about the Surface Transportation Board or knew anything about the Interstate Commerce Commission, even though many of their people are suffering vastly from the consequences of the inaction of these two bodies. We don't have railroad competition in many aspects of our economy. You can't move coal by a pickup truck and you can't fly it in an airplane, you have to move it in a train. Sometimes you can put it in a truck, but you have to basically put it in a train. The Presiding Officer knows that very well; he comes from a State that produces coal. I also am going to submit the same letter the Senator from North Dakota did for the Record so it appears at the conclusion of my remarks. It is an extraordinary letter to Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings signed by 282 CEOs--not government relations people, not lobbyists, but by CEOs. It is the most extraordinary document of commitment and anger over a subject I have seen in the 16 years I have been in the Senate. I have never seen anything like this before. This is obviously a matter of enormous importance to my State. Most of what we produce has to be moved by railroad: Chemicals; coal; steel; lumber. It is a place where railroads have an enormous presence and railroads dominate. This letter seeks to make railroad policy a top concern. These people say it is their top legislative concern. They represent virtually every industry, and all parts of the country. I don't know how we got to this situation. I think it is ignorance on the part of the Congress, it is inattention, to some degree laziness on the part of the Commerce Committee and the Congress. It doesn't rise to the level of a crisis which hits us one day and grabs all the headlines. It is like the ALS about which the Senator from New Jersey was talking. It just creeps slowly. It just gradually destroys parts of the economy. Let me explain the situation this way. Imagine if I decided I wanted to fly to Dallas, TX, from Charleston, WV, and I was told I had to go through Atlanta. We don't have a lot of direct connections out of West Virginia. And suppose the airline told me, told this Senator, that they would not tell me how much my ticket would cost from Atlanta to Dallas. I would be outraged. All kinds of people would jump into the action. They couldn't do that. That would be illegal. It would be wrong. The railroads can do what the airlines are prevented from doing. They can refuse to quote you a price on what is called bottleneck situations, where they will not tell you how much it is going to cost on a monopoly segment. By doing that they control the price of whatever you are shipping, wherever you are shipping it. That is wrong. One of the reasons they are able to do that is that railroads, unlike virtually every other industry that has been deregulated, have antitrust exemption. Why do railroads have antitrust protection? Can anybody give me a reason they would have antitrust protection? They have been deregulated. No other industry that has been deregulated has an exemption from our antitrust law, but the railroads do, because the American Railroad Association moves very quietly and skillfully under the radar of attention. It is a huge and powerful group. It doesn't make waves, doesn't cause notice. It hands out tremendous amounts of money, but they do their work below the radar screen. As a result, when chemicals move out of the Kenawha Valley and the Ohio Valley in West Virginia and when coal moves out of southern West Virginia and northern West Virginia, we are victims in many circumstances to captive shipping. We are captives of the railroads. They can charge our companies whatever they want, and they do. It is illegal, but the railroads have on their side the Surface Transportation Board, which is supposed to ``regulate'' them, but instead is concerned only with how much money the railroads are making. So why should the railroads do anything other than make the most money they can? And they do. I know of no other situation like that in America. I come from a family that knew something about monopoly. And, properly and correctly, a President named Theodore Roosevelt came along and ended that because it was wrong. It was done in those times. That is the way those businesses were done, but it was wrong. Well, it is wrong what the railroads are doing today on captive shipping. For 16 years we have been fighting this--16 years, no progress, nothing. The STB comes up and they say: We need to have rules and regulations from the Congress. The folks in the Commerce Committee say: We are having all kinds of hearings. We don't have hearings. We technically have hearings, but they are not hearings. They are not probing hearings. A couple people drop in; a couple people drop out. Consumers everywhere suffer from this, and they don't even know about it. We should, because it is our responsibility to protect consumers. Where the law says the railroad companies cannot do something which they are doing, we should be upset by that. And if it is 20 percent of railroad traffic, we should be angry about it. But we don't care. We don't care. Again, many, if not most, of the products and commodities--coal and chemicals especially--being shipped by companies in West Virginia these products are shipped by companies, are shipped by companies that are captive to a single railroad. Only one line serves most of these plants. The railroads have all power: This is what you are going to pay; if you don't want to pay it, then we won't serve you. And they use a lot of other strong-arm tactics, which I will not go into, although I am protected on the floor and I could, and I would be happy to, but I won't do it. But they use strong-arm tactics; they know how to use them and they do use them. There are four or five major railroads, and they can use strong-arm tactics and get away with it. All the others have been merged and eaten up. So the shippers are forced to pay whatever the railroads want to charge. If my colleagues think that is fair, fine. This is what it's like: When you walk into a grocery store to buy bread, you know what bread is supposed to cost. But no, the grocer says, no, you have to pay three times the usual cost. I don't think my colleagues would stand for that. But my colleagues do put up with this, by continuing to let railroads charge whatever they want--not what the market says the cost should be--even though it costs their constituents and companies in their states more money than it should, and puts people out of work. Why won't my colleagues get interested in this subject? Why won't they require the STB and the railroads to follow the law? Why doesn't the Commerce Committee take this more seriously? I cannot remember any significant period of time since I have been in this body that I have not had a steady flow of complaints from my ``captive'' shippers--large and small companies that are captive to one railroad. They have no alternative but to pay what the railroad says they must. There is only one line going in; what are they going to do? Carry it out by hand? The Staggers Act said the railroads shouldn't exercise this kind of control. The captive shippers cannot set their own price. The railroads set the price on the monopoly segment, often without telling shippers what the price is, and thereby control the price along the entire route. This happens--today and every day--in the American economy. This is free market? So businesses in my State and in your State, Mr. President, and the State of the Senator from Alaska are hindered from making the kinds of profits and putting a number of people to work because we in Congress choose to ignore an enormous American problem. I'd like to say a little bit about why this has all happened. I have talked about the diminution of the number of railroads. We have just two railroads on the east coast and two on the west coast, and one running the length of the Mississippi. These five railroads collect 95 percent of all freight revenues, as Senator Dorgan said. Pretty soon, that number may be reduced to just two railroads, period. These railroads are not exactly having a hard time. This level of ``competition''--with just a few railroads controlling 95 percent of the traffic--means, prima facie, that we really have no competition at all. You just say 95 percent, and there you have it. By definition, there is no competition. During the last 5 years, the pace of railroad consolidation has been dizzying. In 1996, the merger of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads threw the entire country into crisis. Did we care? Yes, briefly, for a week or so. There were some stories in the Wall Street Journal--we heard about the Houston railyard being shut down--and some of the rest of the country noticed, too. It was a strange and confusing railroad problem, and we didn't have time to figure it out; that was our attitude. So it came and it went. But it cost endless millions of dollars and endless lost jobs. But we need to look at what happened. The results of that merger-- creating one huge, unresponsive railroad, from two large unresponsive railroads--were major service disruptions, plant closings, thousands of lost workdays, and endless millions of dollars lost by companies all over this country. We had the same thing on a smaller scale in West Virginia and in the East. We have had our own merger. Conrail was divided kind of piecemeal between CSX and Norfolk Southern Railroads. A period of disruption followed that merger also--perhaps not the scale of the UP-SP debacle-- but still devastating and frustrating to my manufacturers in my State and throughout the Northeast. The railroads didn't worry because they knew nobody here was paying any attention. Rail consolidation isn't the only culprit. Several unjustified and counterintuitive rulings made by the Surface Transportation Board and its predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, have stifled railroad competition and made matters much worse. These agencies have enormous power in our economy. Their key decision was the 1996 ``bottleneck'' decision to which I have already referred. That allows a railroad to remain in control of its essential facilities, known as ``bottlenecks'' and effectively prevent a rail customer from getting to a competing railroad, or even getting a price. In other words, where railroads share a line, they won't let you use it. They won't let anybody else use it. They won't tell you what it would cost even if you work out some kind of arrangement. They control the cost of shipping along your whole route, and they shut you down. The court of appeals upheld the decision of the STB as not being ``arbitrary or capricious.'' So that seems to be on the side of the railroads. In its decision, the court of appeals went out of its way to say that the bottleneck decision was, one, not the only interpretation that the STB could have made under the law; and, two, not necessarily the interpretation the court itself would have made. Since then, the STB, predictably, has refused to revisit this decision and seems to take the official position that it does not have the legal authority to reach any other conclusion without specific direction from Congress to put competition first. Well, I don't have any problem with that, except Congress hasn't been paying any attention and probably won't do that anytime soon. There is no chance we will do that in the Commerce Committee now. Public anger hasn't been galvanized, and congressional anger hasn't been galvanized. Congressional passiveness rules. Under the protective rulings of the Surface Transportation Board, railroads are the only industry in the Nation that have both been deregulated and allowed to maintain monopoly power over its essential facilities. Congress, the Federal agencies, and the Federal courts have specifically prevented telephone companies, airlines, natural gas pipelines, and electric utilities from controlling essential facilities, while at the same time they enjoy the benefits of deregulation. I reject the notion that the Staggers Rail Act intentionally allowed railroads to use their bottleneck facilities to prevent customers access to competition. That is wildly illogical and wildly untrue. It goes against every principle of the American market economy. Likewise, it makes no sense, and runs counter to the law of the land, for the STB to view protection of the financial health of the railroads as its overriding mission, which they do. In all of their history, they have never found a railroad to be revenue adequate. That is the technical term. In other words, they have never found a railroad which is making enough money. The railroads have to make more money, suppress competition, according to the STB. So if we in Congress really care about the long-term viability of the freight railroad industry, we have to examine and make fundamental changes to the policy. But first we have to understand it--and we don't, and we won't, until people get motivated. The railroad industry itself is given unwarranted special treatment, about which I have spoken, regarding the antitrust review. They are totally exempt from review by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Instead, it is left to the Surface Transportation Board to determine whether a merger or acquisition is ``in the public interest.'' Now, fortunately, as the Senator from North Dakota indicated, the STB is quite concerned about its merger policy. Hurrah. They see, as I do, the very real and ominous possibility that a final round of railroad mergers could leave us with just two transcontinental railroads carrying 97 percent of all American rail freight. So the STB responded this year by instituting a 15-month moratorium on major railroad mergers. They are also conducting a rulemaking on their merger procedures. I commend this unprecedented and important letter from 282 chief executive officers of huge American companies and small American companies to all of my colleagues. My guess is that very few colleagues will read that letter because we are passive, because this issue is under our radar. Or more accurately, we have decided to ignore it. When it comes to ignoring this problem, we have an unblemished record of success, even though our inaction hurts companies and people in every part of this country. Their letter sends a compelling message to Congress that the status quo on railroad policy is unacceptable and must be changed. Senator Burns, Senator Dorgan, and I have a bill to do exactly that, if we can get anybody to pay attention to it. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.