Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Senator Edwards' amendment establishes a Technology Partnership Ombudsman at Department of Energy's National Laboratories. It is my understanding that the Ombudsman should promote the use of collaborative alternative dispute resolution techniques such as mediation to facilitate the speedy and low-cost resolution of complaints and disputes with industry partners. To ensure fairness and objectivity, however, it would be the Senator's intent that nothing in this Section be interpreted to empower the Ombudsman to act as a mediator or an arbitrator in the process.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. First, I would like to comment on the comments that were made by Senator Torricelli from New Jersey. I thought they were profound, moving, and obviously urgent. What I regret to have to report to him is that the Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve on the minority side, has concluded there will be no markup. There will with no markup on the balanced budget amendment. So this is very sad. This is part of the denigration of the process of this entire institution. There is no health care legislation that has come out of the Finance Committee, or anywhere else, in the last 2 years. We could go through that litany. But I want to report my profound discouragement to the Senator that we were told yesterday there would be no markup, no markup on the one thing that we could do to help not only the people you are talking about but all the hospitals and hospices and skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies in our States which are suffering. So we have to rely on the good will of the President when he meets with leaders, Republican leaders. Hopefully, maybe a Democrat will be included in that meeting. Maybe something can happen. But this is where we have arrived at in this institution. It is unfortunate. It is wretched. It has a terrible consequence for the people who you so movingly and eloquently talked about. Railroad Competition

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I would like to commend Senators Mary Landrieu and Larry Craig for their leadership in creating the Angels in Adoption program. I am happy to join in this initiative to honor the special families that open their hearts and homes when they adopt a child. This year I want to recognize a special family from Falling Waters, West Virginia as our very own angels in adoption. The Merryman family has been nominated for the Angels in Adoption Award by Steve Wiseman, Executive Director of West Virginia Developmental Disability Council, for being outstanding examples of adoptive parents. Scott and Faith Merryman have been happily married for 32 years and live in Berkeley County, West Virginia. They both work in the disability field, Scott as a supervisory mentor at the Autism Center and Faith at the West Virginia Parent Training Information Center, a resource center for parents of children with special needs. They have 6 children, 8 grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. Two of their children, Richard and Hope, are adopted and they are in the process of adopting another foster child, Charity Megan. Richard, who has cerebral palsy, is 26 years old, and now lives in his own apartment. Richard is a member of the West Virginia Team of the President's Committee on Mental Retardation and attended the International Academy in 1999. He is also a member of the West Virginia Developmental Disabilities Council and a self-directed activist on accessibility and other disability issues. Hope was adopted at 13 days old because her birth parents were unable to take care of her. She is now 19 years old and enjoys working as an Assistant Manager in a local restaurant as well as spending time with her family. Charity Megan came to the Merryman family when she was 14 months old from an institution. She is now 17 years old, and has severe disabilities including facial deformities, stunted growth, mental retardation, and a seizure disorder. Despite the long hours of care and trips to the doctor, Scott and Faith say that they have learned a lot about the kind of things money can't buy--like love and laughter. I am proud to honor the Merrymans for the love that they show their family, and to the commitment they share in promoting adoption. In my own state of West Virginia, we have had a 51 percent increase in the number of adoptions since 1995 because of caring families like the Merrymans. We as a Nation need to continue to offer our support to these special families. As a member of Congress I will continue to introduce legislation that will build on the foundation of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act to ensure our children a safe and stable home.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am enormously pleased that the Senate has passed this bill to reestablish the Department of Veterans Affairs' duty to assist veterans in developing their claims for benefits from the Department. Senator Murray, who introduced the original Senate bill, S. 1810, that led to this compromise bill should be praised for her leadership on this issue. The ``duty to assist,'' along with other principles such as giving the veteran the benefit of the doubt in benefits' determinations, are parts of what make the relationship between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the claimant unique in the Federal Government. Congress has long recognized that this Nation owes a special obligation to its veterans. The system to provide benefits to veterans was never intended to be adversarial or difficult for the veteran to navigate. That is why Congress codified, in the Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-687), these longstanding practices of the VA to help claimants develop their claims for veterans benefits. Over time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims attempted to give meaning to loosely defined, but well-ingrained concepts of law. In Caluza v. Brown, the Court identified three requirements that would be necessary to establish a well-grounded claim, which the Court viewed as a prerequisite to VA's duty to assist. These requirements were: (1) a medical diagnosis of a current disability; (2) medical or lay evidence of the inservice occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus or link between an inservice injury or disease and the current disability. Through a series of cases, which culminated in Morton v. West, the Court ruled that VA has no authority to develop claims that are not ``well-grounded.'' This resulted in a change of practice where VA no longer sought records or offered medical examinations and opinions to assist the veteran in ``grounding'' the claim. Veterans advocates, VA, and Congress grew very concerned over this situation and the resulting potential unfairness to veterans. Veterans may be required to submit records that are in the government's possession (e.g., VA medical records, military service records, etc.). Also, veterans who could not afford medical treatment and did not live near or did not use a VA medical facility (and thus had no medical records to submit) would not be provided a medical exam. Many veterans claims were denied as not well-grounded. Therefore, Congress, with significant input from the veterans service organizations and VA, developed legislation to correct this problem. H.R. 4864, as amended, reflects the compromise language developed jointly by the staff of the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs. I believe that this bill restores VA to its pre-Morton duty to assist, as well as enhances VA's obligation to notify claimants of what is necessary to establish a claim and what evidence VA has not been able to obtain before it makes its decision on the claim. In developing this compromise, it was very important to me to ensure that veterans will get all the assistance that is necessary and relevant to their claim for benefits. This assistance should include obtaining records, providing medical examinations to determine the veteran's disability or opinions as to whether the disability is related to service, or any other assistance that VA needs to decide the claim. On the other hand, it was also important to balance this duty against the futility of requiring VA to develop claims where there is no reasonable possibility that the assistance would substantiate the claim. For example, wartime service is a statutory requirement for VA non-service-connected pension benefits. Therefore, if a veteran with only peacetime service sought pension, no level of assistance would help the veteran prove the claim; and if VA were to spend time developing such a claim, some other veteran's claim where assistance would be helpful would be delayed. However we need to ensure that the bar is no longer set so high that veterans with meritorious claims will be turned away without assistance. H.R. 4864, as amended, does specify certain types and levels of assistance for compensation claims. The majority of VA's new casework is in making these initial disability determinations. If the record could be developed properly the first time the veteran submits an application for benefits, subsequent appeals or claims for rating increases or for service connection for additional conditions would be much more accurate and efficient. The compromise bill provides that VA shall provide a veteran a medical examination or a medical opinion when such an exam or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim. The bill specifies one instance when an exam or opinion is necessary--when there is competent evidence that the veteran has a disability or symptoms that may be related to service, but there is not sufficient evidence to make a decision. This determination may be based upon a lay statement by the veteran on a subject that he or she is competent to speak about. That is, if a veteran comes to VA claiming that she or he has a pain in his leg that may be related to service--and there is no evidence that the veteran, for example, was awarded a workers compensation claim for a leg disability last month--VA must provide an examination or opinion. The veteran can probably not provide evidence that the pain is due to traumatic arthritis; that would requires a doctor's expertise. H.R. 4864 does recognize that there are many other instances when a medical examination or opinion would be appropriate or necessary. Again, by specifying certain types of assistance for compensation claims, the bill does not limit VA's assistance to those types of claims or to a specific type of assistance. It expressly provides that nothing in the bill prevents the Secretary from rendering whatever assistance is necessary. It also does not undo some of the complementary Court decisions that require the VA to render certain additional types of assistance, such as those required in McCormick v. Gober. Although VA is moving its claims adjudication system toward a team- based, case management system that will result in better service and communication with claimants, I felt that it was critical to include requirements that VA explain to claimants what information and evidence will be needed to prove their claim. VA will also be required to explain what information and evidence it would secure (e.g., medical records, service medical records, etc.) and what information the claimant should submit (e.g., marriage certificate, Social Security number, etc.). Currently, many veterans are asked for information in a piecemeal fashion and don't know what VA is doing to secure other evidence. Better communication will lead to expedited decisionmaking and higher satisfaction in the process. H.R. 4864, as amended, provides for retroactive applications of the bill's duty to assist provisions, as well as the enhanced notice procedures. Now, claimants that were denied due to the Morton decision will be able to have their claims readjudicated in accordance with the provisions of this bill and receive VA's full duty to assist. This will also ensure an earlier effective date if their claim is successful. It is critical that we honor our commitment to veterans and their families. We should not create technicalities and bureaucratic hoops for them to jump through. I am pleased that Congress is able to move this provision and begin the restoration of VA's duty to assist claimants in developing the evidence and information necessary to establish their claims for veterans benefits.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the philanthropy of one of West Virginia's most celebrated adopted daughters. Later this month at a formal naming ceremony, the Marshall University School of Medicine in Huntington, West Virginia, will be renamed the Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine at Marshall University. It gives me great honor to come to the floor today to be able to share Joan Edwards' remarkable story with the nation. Born in London, England, Joan's family moved to New Orleans when she was only four years old. At the age of 17, Joan set off to tour the nation singing the ``Sugar Blues'' with Clyde McCoy and his Kentucky band. As a young girl, Joan's singing career brought her to Chicago, New York, and Pittsburgh, among other cities, where she met her future husband and Huntington, West Virginia native, James ``Jim'' Edwards. Joan and Jim were married soon after, and lived in Pittsburgh prior to returning to Huntington to work at the Edwards' family business, National Mattress Company. Together, Jim and Joan would build the family's business into a great American success story and were also able to take up their passion of breeding racehorses. In 1991, after 54 years of marriage, Jim Edwards lost his battle with cancer. Shortly thereafter, Joan Edwards announced that she would present a total of over $20 million in contributions to the Huntington community from their estate. This included $1 million to the Marshall University School of Medicine, $1 million to the Huntington Museum of Art, $2 million to the Episcopal Church, and $16 million to the Cabell Huntington Hospital for the construction of an adult cancer center. This story in and of itself is remarkable, but Joan Edwards' charity goes even beyond that. Since that time, Joan has donated an additional $1 million to the Fine and Performing Arts Center at Marshall and $2 million to address the University's most pressing needs. And Joan Edwards has not stopped there. She has raised the bar even further. Having lost both her husband and son to cancer, Joan has bequeathed an additional $16 million to the Marshall University Medical School with an additional $2 million dedicated toward preliminary planning, design, and development for the creation of a children's cancer center. It is indeed fitting that Marshall University will bestow a great honor upon Mrs. Edwards, formally renaming its Medical School the Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine at Marshall University. I would also like to point out that only one-third of all of the medical schools in the nation are named after a benefactor. Of these institutions, Marshall University's School of Medicine will be the first in the nation named after a woman. This is such a fitting tribute for such an amazing woman. Joan has demonstrated the true meaning of philanthropy. Her active engagement in academics, the arts, athletics, and health care has impacted the lives of countless people in West Virginia and across the country, serving as an inspiration to us all. She has done more for the foundation of the community than most people would ever be able to do, and we are fortunate to have her as part of the fabric of West Virginia. I thank Joan for all of her selfless acts, and as we celebrate this honor, I am reminded of how proud I am that she is a fellow West Virginian.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, many of us have struggled for months to decide what is the right vote on China PNTR--the right vote for our individual states, the right vote for the Nation. I certainly have, as I have tried to grasp what effect PNTR with China might have on my state of West Virginia. Over the last few months I've taken some time to listen and to talk with people in my state, to review where we are in West Virginia under the current trading system. I've tried to assess if West Virginia will be helped or disadvantaged if the Congress rejects PNTR. That is what I care about more than anything. It is well known that West Virginia is a long way from enjoying the full benefits of the economic boom that we hear so much about. Unemployment remains over 5 percent, stuck stubbornly far above the national average. Our per capita income is $19,362, 49th among the states. Far too many of our working poor require food stamps, and far too many remain uninsured. And while I will fight every day to bring more and better jobs to West Virginia, the fact remains that we are a long way from providing the economic opportunities for the thousands of West Virginians who want to improve their lives, or are just struggling to survive from day to day. There are many complex reasons that my state lags behind the nation economically. But one significant reason-- which I believe with all of my heart and which I cannot ignore--is the simple fact that our current international trading system is simply not working for the people of West Virginia. The status quo is not working for West Virginia, neither for its workers nor for its industries. We are just not being fairly treated under the current rules. Witness the struggle we have faced to protect our critical steel industry. Cheap and illegal imports began flooding the U.S. market in late 1997. A full two years passed before the first trade cases were resolved and the domestic industry got any relief and remedy. In those two years, six steel producers went bankrupt. Thousands were laid off. The impact on those companies, their employees, and the steel communities was devastating. And that is why I introduced fair trade legislation that would give our steel industry a fairer chance to prevent illegal steel dumping in the future. The status quo, our current unfair trade laws, were not working for West Virginia. We in West Virginia are not being protected by the current trading rules. They are causing us to lose ground, lose jobs, and lose industries. I love my state too much to allow this to continue without fighting in every way I know to make it better. I will not vote to continue the current rules. I will not vote to maintain the status quo. A vote in favor of PNTR for China will allow us to deal specifically with China on steel. For example, under today's unfair trade laws, the President must take uniform action against all countries that are dumping their imports on our market. Under current law and the status quo, the United States cannot single out one country for a tough remedy. Under the bilateral's antisurge provisions, we could address an influx of imports from China specifically. That is just one example, there are a few other provisions of the bilateral that could also work to, in essence, strengthen our ability to guard against Chinese steel disrupting our market. West Virginia's chemical industry will benefit greatly from the tariff reduction that will come from passing PNTR legislation. The chemical industry is the largest industrial employer in West Virginia with an average salary of $51,000. During this debate, I heard from all of our chemical companies about the potential they have to increase their exports to China once this agreement goes into effect. Companies like DuPont who wrote me recently with the following: ``DuPont currently exports to China almost $16 million of products from our plants in West Virginia, and we see those exports increasing as the Chinese economy grows. West Virginia is, in fact, the second leading exporter to China, surpassed only by Texas, among DuPont operations nationwide. West Virginia exports will drop to zero, however, if Congress does not enact PNTR legislation--because China will keep its tariffs high for U.S. exporters while lowering its tariffs for all other members' nations of WTO. Enactment of this legislation is, therefore, extremely important to DuPont and to our 3500 employees in West Virginia.'' It also means that as a part of the international trading regime, China will have to deal with 131 other trading partners who all will be incredibly vigilant to ensure that China is playing by the rules. It will not be a perfect system, but it will be a much better system. So I say, Mr. President, when you have the opportunity to do trade and business with 1.2 billion people, to engage them with the world as we do today, to change the status quo that is not working for West Virginia, then you must do what is right. It's even more important when your state ranks 4th among all 50 states in percentage of products made that are exported abroad. That is why I will vote today to approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. To be clear, the vote we take today is not about China entering the WTO. Others have said this, but it bears repeating over and over. The American people must understand this: China will enter the WTO no matter what the Congress does. So, the sole question we must answer is, what will the impact be if the Congress rejects PNTR? Has this annual review of our trading relationship with China had the impact we had hoped it would, and what will be the effect of rejecting PNTR on West Virginia and all the United States? First, as to the impact on China. I do not accept, indeed, I abhor, the unfair and sometimes inhumane conditions faced by the people of that largest of the world's countries. I have spent a considerable amount of time in that part of the world and I know conditions there are unacceptable. All people who love freedom decry the violations of people's rights in China. As the leader of the free world, America must acknowledge its responsibility to do all in our power to better China's treatment of its people. I also believe we should encourage nations like China, where fast- growing economies will increase both energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions, to use the cleanest technologies available. In fact, I view PNTR as the best means of introducing these mostly-American technologies, some of the most cutting-edge of which were developed in West Virginia, to the Chinese energy sector. At the same time, I cannot say that the Congress' annual review of China has had any impact on China whatsoever--and we are just kidding ourselves if we think denying China PNTR now will improve labor or human rights. The annual PNTR review was supposed to provide us with some leverage to improve the conditions in China. But in reality, it has become mostly a feel-good, rubber stamp process here in the Congress that has no impact. Neither wages nor working conditions nor environmental safeguards have been advanced because we go through the annual charade of PNTR. I wish this were not true; the world experience says it is. What will improve labor and human rights in China, in my view, is our working to bring China into a world living under law, acting to bring China into a fairer trading system without its restrictive tariffs and other barriers, and fighting to force China to deal in the world of nations under fairer rules, not just its own rules. Fighting to make China play by the rules--that's a fight I'm willing to make! So I turn then to my second question: Will our country and my state be disadvantaged if we reject PNTR? To that there is only one answer--I am convinced we, my state, my country, will be harmed if PNTR is rejected. No one else. Remember, China will enter the WTO no matter how the Congress votes on PNTR. When that happens, and if we reject PNTR, all other WTO nations will have the upper hand, and all of our trading partners will benefit from lower tariffs and greater access to the world's largest market. Other nations will have all of the advantages in doing business there. Our workers, our industries, our farmers--all will have lost this new opportunity to gain fairer access to the largest of the world's untapped economies. Why would we want to squander that opportunity? Rejecting PNTR means we lose--America loses--the many important concessions that were won last year in our government's negotiations with China. All will be lost, including unprecedented concessions that will give U.S. industries the upper hand in cases where the fairness of China's trading practices is in question. The bilateral agreement provides a twelve year product specific safeguard that ensures that the U.S. can take action on China if imports from that country cause market disruptions here in America. China has also agreed to grant U.S. industries the right to apply non-market methodology in anti-dumping cases for the next 15 years. This is a major boon for U.S. industries suffering from injury caused by unfair and illegal imports. China makes other concessions as well, which make it easier for businesses in this country to prove countervailing duty cases against China. These new provisions could be used to help companies, like Portec Rail, in Huntington, West Virginia, who may have been harmed from dumping of Chinese steel rail joints. It seems to me that companies like Portec Rail might be early beneficiaries of these stronger import surge provisions. Let me be clear, these provisions improve the status quo. They are stronger than our current unfair trade laws. Under the new agreement, China will finally be required to greatly lower its barriers to our trade there. China makes all the concessions. We have nothing to gain-- and everything to lose--by rejecting PNTR. And lose we will. What would be the likelihood of Chinese retaliation if we reject PNTR? There is little doubt in my mind that China would retaliate against U.S. economic interests. On a purely political level, it would bolster China's hardline forces of party control and state enterprise. And this could destabilize an area of the world that I care deeply about, the Taiwan Straits. I have spent a large part of my time working on the cross Straits issue between China and Taiwan. I want to see peace in that region. I want to see Taiwan join the WTO. But, rejection of this deal could have real dangerous consequences for Taiwan. China is simply too unpredictable, and could paralyze our efforts to promote peace and economic stability in Asia and around the globe. Mr. President, of course we need to be vigilant and tough with China as we take advantage of this new economic opportunity. I fully realize that China has generally gone about its trading business however it saw fit, doing whatever it wanted and barring most competition. That cannot continue, and that is exactly why I believe we must bring China into and under the scrutiny of the WTO. We must make China play by a fairer set of rules, which means bringing them into a trading system governed by rules that we have helped create. And rules that we can enforce. Mr. President, this is an opportunity for America that I am willing to fight for.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Jeffords, and Lincoln, in the introduction of legislation to establish a tax credit incentive program for the production of super energy-efficient appliances. This creative proposal will result in substantial environmental benefits for the nation at a very small cost to the government. Our bill would provide for either a $50 or $100 tax credit for the production and sale of energy efficient washing machines and refrigerators. Today, these two appliances account for approximately 15 percent of the energy consumed in a typical home, which amounts to about $21 billion in energy expenditures annually. Although most Americans may not realize it, home appliances offer the potential for major energy savings across the nation. Recently, several energy efficiency and environmental organizations joined with the appliance industry in endorsing considerably tougher energy-efficiency standards for washing machines. These proposed standards are now under active consideration by the Department of Energy for incorporation in new regulations. The new standards will result in tremendous energy-efficiency improvements that will have very positive environmental consequences over time. But there is a cost to these new minimum standards and, as we often find, reluctance on the part of industry and the public to incur the additional costs necessary to achieve higher energy efficiencies. Home appliances can be made more efficient but it would mean greater costs to consumers. I believe there is a necessary balance between the objective of obtaining higher energy efficiencies that reduce air emissions and the higher product costs that result. This is as true with respect to the purchase of appliances as it is with respect to the automobile, electric power, and other markets. I also recognize that there are understandable limits to the costs that society is willing to bear through regulation to obtain higher energy savings that result in environmental benefits. However, that is not necessarily the limit at which point energy savings can be achieved. While many consumers may not be willing to pay extra for more energy-efficient appliances, I believe they can be encouraged to do so through incentive programs. The legislation we are proposing today would do just that by giving manufacturers either a $50 or $100 tax credit for every super energy-efficient appliance produced prior to 2007. The idea is to give manufacturers the means by which to create the most appropriate incentives to get consumers to purchase washing machines and refrigerators that are the most energy-efficient. Through these tax credits we will accelerate the production and market penetration of leading-edge appliance technologies that create significant environmental benefits. The expanded use of super energy-efficient appliances will have significant long-term environmental benefits. It is estimated that as a result of this legislation over 200 trillion Btus of energy will be saved over the life of the appliances manufactured with these credits. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or closing down six coal-fired power plants for a year. Energy savings of this magnitude pay significant environmental dividends. For example, it is projected that with these energy savings carbon emissions, the critical element in greenhouse gas emissions, will be reduced by over 3.1 million metric tons. In addition, the super energy-efficient washing machines will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, or approximately the amount of water necessary to meet the needs of every household in a state the size of West Virginia for nearly 2 years. Vice President Gore recently recommended a similar program of tax incentives for the purchase of home appliances as part of his energy savings initiatives--and I congratulate him for his leadership in this regard. I am very glad the Vice President is considering ways to balance how we produce energy savings and believe it is important that we discuss this balance of interests as part of our national dialogue to improve our energy efficiency. I am also extremely pleased this legislation is strongly supported by leading environmental organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. The use of energy-efficient appliances is an important milestone on the road to a cleaner, lower-cost energy future. This common-sense initiative follows on the heels of other important bipartisan legislation that I am proud to have sponsored or cosponsored during this Congress to improve our nation's energy independence and the environment. During the first session of the 106th Congress, I was joined by Senators Hatch, Crapo, and Bryan in introducing the Alternative Fuel Promotion Act in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower our consumption of imported oil. Earlier this year I joined Senators Jeffords and Hatch on the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act, which would accomplish many of the same goals. I am especially proud to have joined with Senator Bingaman and six of my Democratic colleagues on the Energy Security Tax and Policy Act, a comprehensive energy policy bill that looks to improve our nation's energy independence while protecting the environment. Finally, it was my pleasure last week to join with Environment and Public Works Chairman Bob Smith and the Ranking Democratic Member Senator Baucus on the Energy Efficient Building Incentives Act, which promotes the construction of buildings 30-50 percent more efficient than today's standard. As building energy use accounts for 35 percent of the air pollution emissions nationwide and $250 billion per year in energy bills, this legislation could produce a dramatic benefit for our environment, and this country's long-term energy needs.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Jeffords, and Lincoln, in the introduction of legislation to establish a tax credit incentive program for the production of super energy-efficient appliances. This creative proposal will result in substantial environmental benefits for the nation at a very small cost to the government. Our bill would provide for either a $50 or $100 tax credit for the production and sale of energy efficient washing machines and refrigerators. Today, these two appliances account for approximately 15 percent of the energy consumed in a typical home, which amounts to about $21 billion in energy expenditures annually. Although most Americans may not realize it, home appliances offer the potential for major energy savings across the nation. Recently, several energy efficiency and environmental organizations joined with the appliance industry in endorsing considerably tougher energy-efficiency standards for washing machines. These proposed standards are now under active consideration by the Department of Energy for incorporation in new regulations. The new standards will result in tremendous energy-efficiency improvements that will have very positive environmental consequences over time. But there is a cost to these new minimum standards and, as we often find, reluctance on the part of industry and the public to incur the additional costs necessary to achieve higher energy efficiencies. Home appliances can be made more efficient but it would mean greater costs to consumers. I believe there is a necessary balance between the objective of obtaining higher energy efficiencies that reduce air emissions and the higher product costs that result. This is as true with respect to the purchase of appliances as it is with respect to the automobile, electric power, and other markets. I also recognize that there are understandable limits to the costs that society is willing to bear through regulation to obtain higher energy savings that result in environmental benefits. However, that is not necessarily the limit at which point energy savings can be achieved. While many consumers may not be willing to pay extra for more energy-efficient appliances, I believe they can be encouraged to do so through incentive programs. The legislation we are proposing today would do just that by giving manufacturers either a $50 or $100 tax credit for every super energy-efficient appliance produced prior to 2007. The idea is to give manufacturers the means by which to create the most appropriate incentives to get consumers to purchase washing machines and refrigerators that are the most energy-efficient. Through these tax credits we will accelerate the production and market penetration of leading-edge appliance technologies that create significant environmental benefits. The expanded use of super energy-efficient appliances will have significant long-term environmental benefits. It is estimated that as a result of this legislation over 200 trillion Btus of energy will be saved over the life of the appliances manufactured with these credits. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or closing down six coal-fired power plants for a year. Energy savings of this magnitude pay significant environmental dividends. For example, it is projected that with these energy savings carbon emissions, the critical element in greenhouse gas emissions, will be reduced by over 3.1 million metric tons. In addition, the super energy-efficient washing machines will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, or approximately the amount of water necessary to meet the needs of every household in a state the size of West Virginia for nearly 2 years. Vice President Gore recently recommended a similar program of tax incentives for the purchase of home appliances as part of his energy savings initiatives--and I congratulate him for his leadership in this regard. I am very glad the Vice President is considering ways to balance how we produce energy savings and believe it is important that we discuss this balance of interests as part of our national dialogue to improve our energy efficiency. I am also extremely pleased this legislation is strongly supported by leading environmental organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. The use of energy-efficient appliances is an important milestone on the road to a cleaner, lower-cost energy future. This common-sense initiative follows on the heels of other important bipartisan legislation that I am proud to have sponsored or cosponsored during this Congress to improve our nation's energy independence and the environment. During the first session of the 106th Congress, I was joined by Senators Hatch, Crapo, and Bryan in introducing the Alternative Fuel Promotion Act in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower our consumption of imported oil. Earlier this year I joined Senators Jeffords and Hatch on the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act, which would accomplish many of the same goals. I am especially proud to have joined with Senator Bingaman and six of my Democratic colleagues on the Energy Security Tax and Policy Act, a comprehensive energy policy bill that looks to improve our nation's energy independence while protecting the environment. Finally, it was my pleasure last week to join with Environment and Public Works Chairman Bob Smith and the Ranking Democratic Member Senator Baucus on the Energy Efficient Building Incentives Act, which promotes the construction of buildings 30-50 percent more efficient than today's standard. As building energy use accounts for 35 percent of the air pollution emissions nationwide and $250 billion per year in energy bills, this legislation could produce a dramatic benefit for our environment, and this country's long-term energy needs.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, over the last several years health care reform has dropped off our national and Congressional agenda. We talk about it primarily to posture politically, not because we are determined to actually succeed in extending coverage. Too often, the goal seems to be to simply create a campaign issue and make voters believe we are working to solve the problem, when in reality no progress is being made. This year, we have seen a lot of talking on health care, but it's clear that Congress' priorities lie elsewhere. Just this past week we passed a tax break that will affect only 1.7 percent of Americans, yet will cost us $50 billion a year when fully phased in. In the meantime, 40 million people, mostly of modest incomes, continue to live their lives with little hope of getting the health coverage they need. The question that Congress needs to answer: will we continue to sit back and simply watch as the problem of the uninsured grows worse? Along with Senator Kennedy, and Congressmen Dingell, Stark and Waxman, I obviously have very clear answers to this question. And today we are offering a commonsense, bi-partisan step that Congress can take this year to improve the plight of working, uninsured families. We know that the majority of those without health insurance are concentrated in lower-income, working families. The Medicaid and CHIP Family Care Improvement Act would target our efforts to these families by allowing states to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of eligible children. This is a sensible, affordable expansion that will make a real and immediate difference for many American families. In addition, FamilyCare would provide assistance to increase coverage for workers in small businesses by providing grant money for states to pursue new and innovative approaches to expand health insurance coverage through small business. Our plan also gives states a number of new tools to help improve outreach and enrollment in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. FamilyCare would provide health insurance coverage to millions of low-income working families for a fraction of the cost of the recently- passed tax breaks that affect only a small number of people. Eight years ago, the fight for universal health care had a surge of energy and there was a common purpose among political leaders and the American people. Unfortunately, little progress has been made since then. While the number of uninsured has grown from 36 million in 1993 to 44 million in 1999, we have stood by as a nation and simply watched. Over the next 3 years, about 30 percent of the population, 81 million Americans, can expect a gap in their health insurance coverage lasting at least one month. It is practically inconceivable--and morally wrong--that we are allowing this to happen in such a strong economy, with an extremely competitive labor market. It is time to end the failed experiment of trying to let the disease cure itself. We need to accomplish the goal of comprehensive reform in any way we can--even if it means continuing to work on incremental changes, as long as we always keep our target squarely set on universal coverage. Today, we are giving Congress the opportunity to take a major step forward in accomplishing this goal. With FamilyCare, we are simply taking a program that is already working to reduce the number of uninsured, and expanding it to cover more people who we know need the help. This approach makes so much sense that even the conservative Health Insurance Association of America--the organization that helped to defeat universal coverage--has offered its support. In addition, our bill has four Republicans as original cosponsors. With this bipartisan bill we have a real opportunity to stop talking about expanding health coverage, and start acting.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, over the last several years health care reform has dropped off our national and Congressional agenda. We talk about it primarily to posture politically, not because we are determined to actually succeed in extending coverage. Too often, the goal seems to be to simply create a campaign issue and make voters believe we are working to solve the problem, when in reality no progress is being made. This year, we have seen a lot of talking on health care, but it's clear that Congress' priorities lie elsewhere. Just this past week we passed a tax break that will affect only 1.7 percent of Americans, yet will cost us $50 billion a year when fully phased in. In the meantime, 40 million people, mostly of modest incomes, continue to live their lives with little hope of getting the health coverage they need. The question that Congress needs to answer: will we continue to sit back and simply watch as the problem of the uninsured grows worse? Along with Senator Kennedy, and Congressmen Dingell, Stark and Waxman, I obviously have very clear answers to this question. And today we are offering a commonsense, bi-partisan step that Congress can take this year to improve the plight of working, uninsured families. We know that the majority of those without health insurance are concentrated in lower-income, working families. The Medicaid and CHIP Family Care Improvement Act would target our efforts to these families by allowing states to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of eligible children. This is a sensible, affordable expansion that will make a real and immediate difference for many American families. In addition, FamilyCare would provide assistance to increase coverage for workers in small businesses by providing grant money for states to pursue new and innovative approaches to expand health insurance coverage through small business. Our plan also gives states a number of new tools to help improve outreach and enrollment in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. FamilyCare would provide health insurance coverage to millions of low-income working families for a fraction of the cost of the recently- passed tax breaks that affect only a small number of people. Eight years ago, the fight for universal health care had a surge of energy and there was a common purpose among political leaders and the American people. Unfortunately, little progress has been made since then. While the number of uninsured has grown from 36 million in 1993 to 44 million in 1999, we have stood by as a nation and simply watched. Over the next 3 years, about 30 percent of the population, 81 million Americans, can expect a gap in their health insurance coverage lasting at least one month. It is practically inconceivable--and morally wrong--that we are allowing this to happen in such a strong economy, with an extremely competitive labor market. It is time to end the failed experiment of trying to let the disease cure itself. We need to accomplish the goal of comprehensive reform in any way we can--even if it means continuing to work on incremental changes, as long as we always keep our target squarely set on universal coverage. Today, we are giving Congress the opportunity to take a major step forward in accomplishing this goal. With FamilyCare, we are simply taking a program that is already working to reduce the number of uninsured, and expanding it to cover more people who we know need the help. This approach makes so much sense that even the conservative Health Insurance Association of America--the organization that helped to defeat universal coverage--has offered its support. In addition, our bill has four Republicans as original cosponsors. With this bipartisan bill we have a real opportunity to stop talking about expanding health coverage, and start acting.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate the life and accomplishments of one of West Virginia's most esteemed citizens, Coach Jerome Van Meter. On August 15th of this year, Coach Van Meter will celebrate his 100th birthday. A remarkable milestone for a truly remarkable man, Coach Van Meter's birthday provides a special opportunity for all of West Virginia to join in thanking him for a lifetime of service to our state. With a career that has spanned a century, there isn't much that Coach Van Meter hasn't accomplished. Known affectionately as just Coach to his many students, he led the Beckley Flying Eagles to three state championships in football, and six more in basketball. A member of the National High School Sports Hall of Fame, Coach was both a beloved teacher and principal and served on the faculty of Beckley College. In addition to the numerous honors and awards he has received, Coach Van Meter holds the great distinction of being a surviving veteran of both World Wars. Today, however, the countless lives touched by Coach are his greatest legacy. The lessons he taught on the basketball court and football field brought many victories, but the lessons of life he taught his players and students shaped their destinies in more profound ways. Dedication, hard work, compassion and dignity are the touchstones of Coach Van Meter's career, and his example continues to inspire us. Thank you, Coach, for the invaluable contributions you have made to the families and communities of West Virginia. As you celebrate this very special birthday, you have my deepest admiration and gratitude.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act of 2000, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act of 2000, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 219 I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted for the motion to table the McCain amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be so recorded.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, could I just offer a unanimous consent request?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on vote No. 198, I was unavoidably detained. I apologize for that. I missed the first vote. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the bill Senator Kennedy and others have worked on which is formally called the Medicaid/CHIP Family Improvement Act, but I will simply refer to it as the Family Care Act. Most of the people in this country who are uninsured work. A lot of Americans assume that if somebody does not have health insurance, there is lack of merit or effort on their part. Most of the people who do not have health insurance are, in fact, working every single day. They are working, and many happen to be the working poor. The whole philosophy of the earned-income tax credit, which President Reagan started and a lot of people continued, is that if people are poor and are working, we say: Good, you have taken a job; as a result of taking a job, you have given up your Medicaid health care benefits, and in America we respect that you are taking a risk by going out into the marketplace. You are probably not getting health insurance because of the low wages you are being paid but, nevertheless, you value work and you are going ahead with it. This is the same spirit we are talking about in the Family Care Act. We value people who work. We value people who work for low wages, and we want to help them and their families. Essentially through the Family Care Act, not only do we have the CHIP program, with which we are all familiar, which was started in 1996, which has been moderately successful for 2 million out of the 11 million children in this country, but we expand that. We say: Let your parents be included in this, too, because you are all part of the same family. The Senator from Alabama was just talking about the importance of protecting the family. This is an example of how to do that. The parent of the child receiving the Children's Health Insurance Program is probably without health insurance, so why not expand that to include that parent, which brings the family together on health insurance. It is sensible. We also provide some money because it is very hard in places such as West Virginia and, I suspect, Alabama, both of which are essentially rural States, and most States in this country have very rural aspects to them--it is very hard to reach out and find the children. We go through the School Lunch Program, but not everybody wants to admit they are on Medicaid or they are available for the CHIP program. It is hard to reach out, so we provide more money to the States to do that in ways the States believe are appropriate. We also provide States some money for other ways they might think of to do innovative planning to include parents and expand those who are uninsured. It is interesting to me because we are talking a lot about health care but not doing very much about it. I remember when President Clinton was elected. Although his health care bill did not succeed, there was a lot of energy around here. The energy did not start out to be partisan. It started out that he was elected to do universal health care, and there was a lot of talk. At that time, the only industrialized countries in the world that did not have universal health insurance were the United States and South Africa. South Africa now has universal health insurance, and the United States is still the only country which does not. Of course, we are in a massively successful economic situation with a lot of people working and a lot of opportunities to make these changes. What I worry about and why I care about the Family Care Act is that we have tended more away from the fundamentals of health care towards what I call political posturing. I do not want to get into who is doing it and to what extent, but I think most people will agree there is a lot of political posturing occurring. I am hopeful we will pass a prescription drug benefit. I am not sure we will. I am hopeful we will pass Medicare reform. I do not think we will. I spent a year with the Medicare Reform Commission. It was quite an exercise in futility. There were a lot of negative feelings going back and forth. It was not the kind of commission or work with which one really wanted to be associated in terms of expanding health care. This bill is not about posturing; it is about trying to eliminate the number of uninsured as much as we possibly can. I still very much have on my mind the concept of universal health care. I understand that is not the top subject of the moment. We are at an incremental stage. If I can do things incrementally, then I will do that. If I have to wait some years for universal health care, then I will have to do that. I will always be pushing for universal health care, but I will take steps as we can take them, and this Family Care Act is a splendid way to do that. One of the problems is that since President Clinton's health care bill did not pass--and I will not comment on that--there were 36 or 37 million people uninsured in the country, and there was disagreement as to the number. That is a lot of people. Now there are about 43 million to 44 million uninsured. One can extrapolate from that that we have been talking but not doing much about it. There have been a couple of instances where there has been bipartisan legislation which has passed and has helped, but nothing really substantial, and it has been very sporadic. We are looking at a situation where, over the next 3 years, approximately 30 percent of the population, or about 81 million Americans, can expect to have no health insurance for at least 1 month out of a year. Who is to say when a problem might occur, when a leg might be broken, when a cancer may be discovered or when some other problem might arise? Basically, that to me is uninsurance. Business people like to have predictability, and individuals like to have a sense of predictability: I have it; I am safe. That is why it is called the Health Security Act. Security is very important in health care. Others would say let the market do that. The market has worked wonderfully in many ways in our country. It has had a lot to do with the success of our economy. It probably has had more to do with the success of our economy than the very Chairman of the Federal Reserve the Senator from Alabama was talking about a few moments ago. We are an entrepreneurial country, but we carry entrepreneurship to those places where we are quite certain it is going to work. There are those who take risks, but basically Americans, when it comes to something such as health care, are rather risk averse, and therefore the whole concept of predictability and security once again becomes particularly important. I am very unhappy when I think of 81 million Americans having at least 1 month out of the year without health insurance. I do not suspect the market is going to turn that around because it declined to. The Health Insurance Association of America, which is not a particularly aggressive group on health care, would agree with that statement. They do not want to get into that business of doing that kind of insurance. The Family Care Act is a sensible Government approach in which we simply take the CHIP program, which is beginning to work now at a rapidly increasing rate as States grow more comfortable with it, and say let's extend that to the parents. That is called incrementalism. It is sensible. It fits within a pattern. It is logical, and it also helps those who tend to be from the working poor. I think we should do all we can to help people who are poor and who work and who choose not to go on welfare. I think it is time to act. The family care amendment is not in any way political. It is not even large scale. But it does help. It is something that we will be voting on next week. With a strong degree of intensity, I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe in the importance of the New Markets initiative to promote growth and economic development in struggling communities across our country. I have worked closely with Senator Robb on this effort, as well as the President and his Administration. Given the commitment of President Clinton and Speaker Hastert, I believe we may have a real chance to enact meaningful legislation on New Markets. But I do not believe the Santorum amendment is the right starting point. I have serious questions about the provisions in the bill labeled ``Charitable Choice.'' While I strongly support and admire the community development and social service work performed by faith-based organizations, I am deeply troubled by the potential for discrimination in hiring on the basis of an applicant's faith with programs funded by federal dollars. This is not good public policy. Senator Robb has announced his intention to introduce another New Markets bill, and I will continue to work closely with the distinguished Senator from Virginia. We introduced the original New Markets bill in August of 1999, and I am committed to working for passage of a final package. But such an important initiative deserves consideration in the Finance Committee, and more than ten minutes of flood debate. West Virginia has several Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities, including Huntington, McDowell County, the Central Appalachia Community and the Upper Kanawha Community. These communities are working hard to deliver on the promise of the President's economic development initiative, and I am proud of our progress. Together we can make a real difference. I hope that the Santorum amendment will not prevail, but that Members will work together to build on the Clinton-Hastert initiative to develop vital legislation to promote New Markets. We should provide tax incentives to promote new investments. We should expand on the success of Empowerment Zones and create new Renewal Communities to help small businesses get started in struggling communities. We should invest in affordable housing by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and promote home ownership by expanding Mortgage Revenue Bonds. We should make these strategic investments, but not include language that might allow discrimination in hiring practices which would cause controversy and hinder the important investments of New Markets.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has taken an important step toward protecting the lives and property of all Americans with the passage of the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act. I am proud today to join with Senators Dodd and DeWine as a cosponsor of this legislation. I wish to thank Senator Dodd and Senator DeWine for the leadership and effort they have shown on behalf of the men and women serving as firefighters across the nation. I would also like to commend the many other Senators who already have signed on as cosponsors of this important legislation. The Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act seeks to address the enormous amount of fiscal need faced by our nation's fire departments, both paid and volunteer, and does so with an eye to the human costs incurred by both firefighters and the general public these brave men and women protect every day. Every year, more than 4,000 people are killed and 24,000 are injured by fire in the United States. Sadly, about 660 of those killed each year are children. One hundred of the individuals who lose their lives to fire each year are firefighters, the very men and women who are fighting to protect others. Many of these deaths and injuries could be avoided by simply using the technology and equipment that while currently available, is often so expensive that fire departments are unable to purchase it. Similarly, many of the deaths and injuries could be avoided with increased efforts at fire prevention and training. Fire departments in many of our towns and cities spend the bulk of their entire budgets on administrative costs and compliance with existing safety regulations, and can simply not afford the available safety equipment and training. As a consequence, far too many volunteer firefighters and EMTs are forced to pay for their own training because their departments simply do not have enough money to have them trained. West Virginia fire departments share in this enormous need for additional funding. There are about 16,000 firefighters in West Virginia serving in 437 fire departments. Virtually every one of those departments are underfunded. West Virginians were forced to cope with almost $73 million of property damage due to fires in 1999. More importantly, 45 civilians were killed and two firefighters were killed in the line of duty. Much of the loss of life and property, and many of these injuries could have been avoided if fire departments had the funds to deal with emergencies as effectively as possible and to establish prevention programs. Over the past few months, my state has grieved the tragic loss of two firefighters whose deaths may well have been prevented if their departments had access to grants available under S. 1941. Angelo ``Wayne'' Shrader, a firefighter with the East River Volunteer Fire Department, in Princeton, WV, who also worked as a Communicator with the Mercer County ``911'' service, died as a result of injuries incurred fighting a fire as part of an understaffed local fire department. Similarly, Fire Lieutenant Robbie Brannon, of the City of Bluefield Fire Department, died as the result of injuries, including a heart attack, he suffered fighting a residential fire with a crew short two firefighters because of budget constraints. I humbly join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle today in honor of the bravery and sacrifice of Wayne Shrader and Robbie Brannon, and the many firefighters in West Virginia and across the nation who continue to protect us each day. Like fire departments all across the country, West Virginia fire departments do receive support from State and local governments. Unfortunately, it is simply not enough. Indeed, fire departments in West Virginia are just like those in every other state, with equipment and personnel needs requiring substantial additional funding. Equipment such as thermal imaging cameras would be a tremendous aid to firefighters and could result in lives being saved, but such equipment is very expensive. Similarly, new and technologically advanced fire engines would be an enormous help to fire departments and the towns and cities they serve. Unfortunately, with current funding levels, most fire departments cannot upgrade their equipment and many must raise funds themselves just to fuel the antiquated vehicles many must still keep in service. However, the greatest need fire departments in West Virginia have is the need for increased training. Additional training would be an invaluable resource to fire departments across the state. There simply is not enough money available. Three years ago, the projected five-year need for the fire departments in Raleigh County, West Virginia, alone was $14 million. While the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act would not cover that entire need, it would be a tremendous aid to fire departments as they attempt to meet their various needs. For many years, fire departments and firefighters across the nation have simply dealt with funding shortfalls, and yet have managed to protect our communities despite the limited resources available to them. However, we cannot expect these miracles to be performed any longer. Bake sales and bingo can only pay for so much. It is vital that the federal government become involved. The men and women serving as firefighters play an important role in the quality of life in our communities, and it is high time Congress recognizes their contribution. It is our responsibility to provide adequate funding sources to keep firefighters from facing dangers that could be mitigated or eliminated though better training, the availability of state-of-the-art equipment, and the implementation of fire prevention programs. The Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act provides a portion of this much-needed relief. The legislation authorizes $1 billion to be distributed by FEMA to fire departments across the nation on a competitive basis. No more than ten percent of this money is to be used for administrative costs. This assures that the money is really getting to the fire departments that so desperately need help. Further, at least ten percent of the funds are to be used to establish vital fire prevention programs to stop fires before they start. The remaining appropriations will be available on a competitive basis to address a wide variety of needs faced by fire departments across the nation. This allows money to be used for the most desperate needs of individual departments. It is past time that we provide some relief to our nation's brave firefighters who have managed to get by on far too little for far too long. Once again, I commend the Senate for taking this action on behalf of our nation's firefighters. I also wish to thank Senator Dodd and Senator DeWine for sponsoring this legislation to supply a portion of that much-needed aid. Little that we do may be as immediately important as the help we should act quickly to provide our fire departments. By helping our nation's fire departments, we are truly helping everyone.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in 1994 we passed the original Violence Against Women Act, creating programs that addressed the many forms of domestic violence all-too prevalent in the United States today. The bill helped communities create shelters, build partnerships among law enforcement agencies to respond to violence against women, and provide legal assistance to battered women. The bill also established a domestic violence hotline that receives hundreds of calls daily from people concerned about violence in their families. Now, we have the opportunity and responsibility to reauthorize this legislation to give women and children a way out of violent and unhealthy situations. For groups that strive to combat domestic violence, the original Violence Against Women Act was a turning point in their battle. In my state, the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence stands as an outstanding example of the great work that groups devoted to the noble cause of stamping out domestic violence can do when Congress acts appropriately. With the added funding provided by the Violence Against Women Act, the Coalition was able to quadruple its staff, increase the budgets of its shelters to meet their day-to-day needs, and increase services to under-served parts of the population of West Virginia. Many of the women who escape from violent homes cannot afford legal services, but thanks to grants authorized under the Violence Against Women Act, thirteen civil legal assistance programs are now in place around West Virginia providing free representation for women. The Coalition also computerized its entire network, enabling instant communication with offices in other parts of rural West Virginia. By creating a database that compiles information on offenders from all over the state, they were able to work with regional jails, sheriffs, and other law enforcement agencies to use this valuable resource. I am proud to say that several other states have used West Virginia's system as a model, helping to combat domestic violence within their borders. Passing the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 not only sustains existing programs, but creates several new initiatives that extend help to different groups and communities. The bill establishes a new formula for calculating some of the grants, enabling small states like West Virginia to continue to expand their services. In addition, it augments current policies with protections for older and disabled women, and builds on legal assistance programs to further expand coverage. Perhaps most importantly, the passage of this legislation conveys the important message that the federal government considers domestic violence to be a serious issue. Those of us in Congress share in this concern with the people we serve. We can take some pride that by acting to address these problems, we may have moved some State governments to improve their services to abused spouses and children, and to increase the penalties meted out to the abusers. By paying attention to this enormously important issue, and by enhancing the current legislation, we are taking steps in the right direction. Although the measures in the original legislation have helped to alleviate the problem, we must continue to wage a persistent fight as long as anyone feels unsafe in their homes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be joined by Senators Jeffords and Breaux in introducing the Tax Relief for Working Families Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill is designed to strengthen the effectiveness of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in reducing child poverty and promoting work. Our bill will increase the EITC for families with three or more children. Families could qualify for almost an additional $500. Obviously, raising a large family costs more, and these families have a higher poverty rate of 29 percent, more than double the poverty rate of children in smaller families. Nearly three out of every five poor children live in families with three or more children. A report by the Committee for Economic Development found that the ``EITC has become a powerful force in dramatically raising the employment of low-income women in recent years.'' The report also recommended further expansions of the EITC. Since research shows that larger families have greater problems leaving welfare for work, this legislation should build upon our welfare reform efforts. But even more compelling than national statistics are the real stories from West Virginia families. One woman in Huntington, West Virginia is struggling to raise five daughters and care for her husband who was disabled in a roofing accident. That family is managing on approximately $13,000 a year. She works the night shift, but must currently rely on the public bus. Her shift begins at midnight, but the last bus is at 9:00 p.m. so she takes the earlier bus, and spends several hours waiting for her shift instead of having time with her family. Last year, she used the EITC to pay her bills, including a winter coat for one of her daughters. With an increase, she hopes to save for a used car. Another West Virginia mother is recently divorced and struggling to raise four sons, ranging in age from sixteen to seven. Her 16-year-old son has Downs Syndrome. Last year she earned $13,800 and she used her EITC to purchase a used van so she would have reliable transportation for her 50-mile commute to work. Another year, the EITC helped pay for new mattresses for her children's beds. With an increase, she'd like to save a little money in case of an emergency or for better housing. These are real stories of real families who are working hard to make ends meet but need and deserve more help. This is a bipartisan bill. We have closely consulted with leading groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Catholic Charities U.S.A., the United Way of America, and the Progressive Policy Institute. In addition to increasing the EITC available to large families, our bill includes several bipartisan provisions to simplify the credit by conforming the definition of earned income and simplifying the definition of a dependent child. Some may question the cost of expanding the EITC, but I believe, compared to other tax proposals such as providing additional marriage tax relief, investing an additional $8 billion over the next five years is a reasonable investment to help low-wage working families. Most of these families are married. All are struggling, but working hard to do the right thing for their children. In its letter supporting our efforts, Catholic Charities U.S.A. describes our legislation is ``pro- family, pro-marriage, and pro-work.'' During the 1998 tax year, over 19 million working Americans got $30.5 billion in tax relief, thanks to the EITC. In my state, about 141,000 West Virginians claimed $210.7 million. About nineteen percent of West Virginia taxpayers benefit from the EITC. In my state, 84 percent of taxpayers earn less than $50,000. I believe that this legislation to expand the EITC for families with three or more children will help more West Virginians than many of the other, more expensive provisions under consideration as part of the marriage penalty relief debate. We know that the EITC works. It encourages work, and it helps lift families out of poverty. I urge my colleagues to join with Senators Jeffords and Breaux to help hard working families raise their children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War, an often overlooked, yet very important event in history. ``Forgotten'' is a term used too often about the Korean War; for veterans and their families, the war is very real, and something they can never forget. Officially, the war was the first military effort of the United Nations, but American involvement was dominant throughout the conflict. Thousands of Americans traveled to a distant land to help defend the rights of strangers threatened by hostile invasion. Unfortunately, many who fought bravely to aid the Koreans lost their lives while waging the war. Today, I want to pay homage to all who served in this war. The troops from the United States and the 20 other United Nations countries who provided aid to the South Koreans deserve our great acclaim every day, but even more so on this special anniversary. These great countries united to preserve the rights of South Korea, a small democracy threatened by the overwhelming power of the Communist government. South Korea did not have sufficient military resources to protect its interests. Fortunately, the United Nations member countries were not about to sit back and watch North Korea, with the aid of China and the Soviet Union, annihilate the democracy in the south. On June 25, 1950, troops from Communist-ruled North Korea invaded South Korea, meeting little resistance to their attack. A few days later, on the morning of July 5th--still Independence Day in the United States--Private Kenny Shadrick of Skin Fork, West Virginia, became the war's first American casualty. Kenny was the first, but many more West Virginians were destined to die in the conflict--in fact, more West Virginians were killed in combat during the three years of the Korean War than during the 10 years that we fought in Vietnam. In one of the bloodiest wars in history, 36,940 more Americans would lose their lives before it was all over. In addition, more than 8,000 Americans are still missing in action and unaccounted for. Five years ago, we dedicated the Korean War Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC. This stirring tribute to the veterans of this war poignantly symbolizes the hardships of the conflict. The Memorial depicts, with stainless steel statues, a squad of 19 soldiers on patrol. The ground on which they advance is reminiscent of the rugged Korean terrain that they encountered, and their wind-blown ponchos depict the treacherous weather that ensued throughout the war. Our soldiers landed in South Korea poorly equipped to face the icy temperatures of 30 degrees below zero, their weaponry outdated and inadequate. As a result of the extreme cold, many veterans still suffer today from cold-related injuries, including frostbite, cold sensitization, numbness, tingling and burning, circulatory problems, skin cancer, fungal infections, and arthritis. Furthermore, the psychological tolls of war have caused great hardship for many veterans. As a background to the soldiers' statues at the Memorial, the images of 2,400 unnamed men and women stand etched into a granite wall, symbolizing the determination of the United States workforce and the millions of family members and friends who supported the efforts of those at war. Looking at the steadfast, resolute faces of these individuals invokes in the viewer a deep admiration and appreciation for their importance to the war effort. Author James Brady, a veteran of the Korean War, spoke for all those who served in the war when he wrote, ``We were all proudly putting our lives on the line for our country. But I would later come to realize that the Korean War was like the middle child in a family, falling between World War II and Vietnam. It became an overlooked war.'' Mr. Brady conveys the sentiments of many of the veterans who served in this war and underscores our need to give these veterans the recognition they are long overdue. Today, I salute the courage of those who stood up for democracy while fighting for the freedom of strangers. Through their unselfish display of determination and valor in the battles they endured, they sent an important message to future generations. I thank our Korean War veterans; their bravery reminds us of the value we put on freedom, while their sacrifices remind us that, as it says at the Korean War Memorial, ``Freedom is not free.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Virginia. This is really a moral issue, and the question is, Are we going to do it? We keep putting it off. We keep talking about it. We keep saying, let's have a commission, let's do a resolution, let's study it some more, let's make the process work perfectly. I spent most of the afternoon in the Finance Committee trying to work out a resolution on this. Frankly, at the end, there was some hope. But there was also some discussion about what happens if we don't get to vote on prescription drugs. There was a discussion of that. I don't want to see that happen. This will probably be our only vote on prescription drugs in this entire session. It is a bipartisan bill. I have made some compromises. Others have made compromises. It is a solid bill. It is probably the only vote we will have on it. It is a moral issue, not a political issue, a moral issue that seniors don't have prescription drugs under Medicare. They ought to. John Breaux is right: Prescription drugs are like a bed in a hospital in 1965; now we are going to modernize it, it is available for all. It is an amendment we should pass. It is a moral, not a political, issue. This will probably be the only vote on prescription drugs we will have in this session of the Senate.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today Senator Kennedy and a bipartisan coalition are introducing the National and Community Service Amendments Act of 2000 to strengthen this program of community service throughout our country. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill because I know how public service has enriched my life. As elected representatives, we are entrusted with preserving the strong democracy and just society that our founders envisioned. The programs supported by this legislation, such as AmeriCorps, extend the opportunity to young people to do something for others. While working in the Peace Corps, at an Asian desk, I was motivated to accept the challenge made by president Kennedy and I joined VISTA. Through VISTA, I came to West Virginia and a ``coal camp,'' a small, struggling town called Emmons. Working to improve life in Emmons was not easy. But after a lot of effort, I was able to both make friends and work to make some kind of difference. We pulled down an abandoned school house in southern West Virginia and hauled the boards back to Emmons, where we built a community center. We brought a mobile health van for women to get Pap smears for the first time. And we waged a long, hard fight to get the school bus to stop close enough so the teenagers did not have to drop out of school just because the transportation to high school did not exist. Those two years in Emmons, and the experiences gained there, changed me forever. I stayed in West Virginia and chose to make public service my career. When President Clinton chose to unveil a new domestic civil-service program in 1993, I was proud to stand by him as he announced the creation of AmeriCorps in Princeton, New Jersey. AmeriCorps is an exciting program promoting community service, like VISTA. Under AmeriCorps, members invest their time in community service and earn educational awards that help finance college or pay back student loans. Since its inception just a few years ago, AmeriCorps has renewed community service across our nation with a network of programs designed to meet the specific needs of an area. In West Virginia, AmeriCorps has established more than a half dozen programs that help children learn how to read, provide them with caring mentors, and promote healthy lifestyles. In highlighting a few of these programs, I must begin with the AmeriCorps Promise Fellows. These individuals service eighteen West Virginia counties, striving to mobilize communities to provide children with resources critical to their development. In the same way that I helped the community of Emmons build a center where young people could learn and play, AmeriCorps Promise Fellows work to establish safe places and structured activities in their local areas. Another program, Energy Express, provides balanced meals, an environment that abounds with literature, and the attention of mentors to school-aged children during the summer months. I visited the Energy Express site in Pineville, West Virginia, and read to children there. AmeriCorps programs also aid adult members of the community, as evidenced by the success of Project MOVE in west-central West Virginia that strives to move people from welfare to work. After the first year, the heads of households in twenty families had become employed and had sustained themselves for more than three months. These three programs are just a sampling of what AmeriCorps does in a rural state like West Virginia. In more urban areas throughout the country, AmeriCorps has programs that address the unique needs of those cities and their populace. I place an enormous value on public service, and I know that I gained much from my VISTA experience in Emmons. Continuing AmeriCorps, VISTA and our range of community service programs will enhance the lives of Americans, young and old, who join and enrich our communities.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today Senator Kennedy and a bipartisan coalition are introducing the National and Community Service Amendments Act of 2000 to strengthen this program of community service throughout our country. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill because I know how public service has enriched my life. As elected representatives, we are entrusted with preserving the strong democracy and just society that our founders envisioned. The programs supported by this legislation, such as AmeriCorps, extend the opportunity to young people to do something for others. While working in the Peace Corps, at an Asian desk, I was motivated to accept the challenge made by president Kennedy and I joined VISTA. Through VISTA, I came to West Virginia and a ``coal camp,'' a small, struggling town called Emmons. Working to improve life in Emmons was not easy. But after a lot of effort, I was able to both make friends and work to make some kind of difference. We pulled down an abandoned school house in southern West Virginia and hauled the boards back to Emmons, where we built a community center. We brought a mobile health van for women to get Pap smears for the first time. And we waged a long, hard fight to get the school bus to stop close enough so the teenagers did not have to drop out of school just because the transportation to high school did not exist. Those two years in Emmons, and the experiences gained there, changed me forever. I stayed in West Virginia and chose to make public service my career. When President Clinton chose to unveil a new domestic civil-service program in 1993, I was proud to stand by him as he announced the creation of AmeriCorps in Princeton, New Jersey. AmeriCorps is an exciting program promoting community service, like VISTA. Under AmeriCorps, members invest their time in community service and earn educational awards that help finance college or pay back student loans. Since its inception just a few years ago, AmeriCorps has renewed community service across our nation with a network of programs designed to meet the specific needs of an area. In West Virginia, AmeriCorps has established more than a half dozen programs that help children learn how to read, provide them with caring mentors, and promote healthy lifestyles. In highlighting a few of these programs, I must begin with the AmeriCorps Promise Fellows. These individuals service eighteen West Virginia counties, striving to mobilize communities to provide children with resources critical to their development. In the same way that I helped the community of Emmons build a center where young people could learn and play, AmeriCorps Promise Fellows work to establish safe places and structured activities in their local areas. Another program, Energy Express, provides balanced meals, an environment that abounds with literature, and the attention of mentors to school-aged children during the summer months. I visited the Energy Express site in Pineville, West Virginia, and read to children there. AmeriCorps programs also aid adult members of the community, as evidenced by the success of Project MOVE in west-central West Virginia that strives to move people from welfare to work. After the first year, the heads of households in twenty families had become employed and had sustained themselves for more than three months. These three programs are just a sampling of what AmeriCorps does in a rural state like West Virginia. In more urban areas throughout the country, AmeriCorps has programs that address the unique needs of those cities and their populace. I place an enormous value on public service, and I know that I gained much from my VISTA experience in Emmons. Continuing AmeriCorps, VISTA and our range of community service programs will enhance the lives of Americans, young and old, who join and enrich our communities.