Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today we celebrate West Virginia's 137th year as a state. West Virginia joined the Union in the midst of the Civil War when President Lincoln admitted it to the Union as the 35th state on June 20, 1863. The spirit of pride and determination that gave the first West Virginians the courage to start anew can still be seen in the ever- innovative and evolving ways that West Virginians have adapted to changing economics and culture. This is apparent in the transitions of the coal and steel industries as well as in the increasing cultivation of the tourism industry. However, through the continual change, West Virginians have held a heritage that remains rich in song, craft, and tradition. It is as visible at the State Fair of West Virginia in Lewisburg, the Appalachian Heritage Festival in Shepherdstown, and the Tamarack Arts Center in Beckley as it is at Bob's Grocery in Lindside. The state has an abundance of coal, steel, forests, rivers, and mountains, but her greatest resource has always been her people. This natural charm of West Virginians is reflected in the scenic treasures that crown the state. Though born during a time of turmoil, present-day West Virginia is an emblem of peace and tranquility. Ernest W. James captured it perfectly: There autumn hillsides are bright with scarlet trees; And in the spring, the robins sing, While apple blossoms whisper in the breeze And where the sun draws rainbows in the mist of waterfalls and mountain rills, My heart will be always in the West Virginia hills. So on this, West Virginia's 137th birthday, I am enormously proud to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing and celebrating this West Virginia Day.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe it is vital to make a clear statement against all violent hate crimes against individuals because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. This is a basic point, and the number of hate crimes in our country is truly disturbing. When such a case claims headlines and dominates national news for a few days or a few weeks, people are troubled and sad. But we can and we should do more to oppose hate crimes. My hope is that having leaders at all levels, including the U.S. Senate, speak against such hate crimes will send a powerful message that such violent behavior should not be tolerated. No one in our country should be afraid of violence because of their race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. When such crimes occur, families are devastated and entire communities are stunned and hurt. In addition to sending a strong message, the Kennedy amendment would offer federal help to combat violent hate crimes, including up to $100,000 in federal grants to state and local law enforcement officials to cover the expenses of investigating and prosecuting such crimes. Federal grants would also encourage cooperation and coordination with the community groups and schools that could be affected. The bipartisan Kennedy amendment is a balanced attempt to combat hate crimes by helping state and local officials.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, recently my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Jeffords, and Harkin introduced The Family Opportunity Act of 2000. I have proudly signed on to this important piece of legislation which will help hundreds of thousands of American families who have children with disabilities get access to Medicaid as well as obtain much needed support and information. The Family Opportunity Act is modeled after last year's successful Work Incentives Improvement Act, which assures adults with disabilities can return to work and not risk losing their health care coverage. This new Act would create a state option to allow middle-income parents who have a child with special health needs to keep working, while having an option to buy in to Medicaid coverage for their child. In my own state of West Virginia, over 50,000 children are known to have a disability. I have heard personally from many of these families, who remind me about their daily struggles of sacrificing time, energy, and finances to provide the best environment for their child. In the past, this has meant that parents often refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime just to keep their incomes low enough so that they can qualify for services under Medicaid for their children with special health care needs. Medicaid coverage is so crucial to the child because many private plans do not offer essential services such as occupational, physical and speech therapy, mental health services, home and community-based services, and durable medical equipment such as walkers and wheelchairs, which if uncovered, can be financially devastating to a family. Under the Family Opportunity Act, families would be required to first take employer-sponsored health coverage if available. The option to buy in to Medicaid would be used as a supplement to existing private insurance or as stand alone coverage if employer-based coverage were not an option. In addition to creating Medicaid buy-in options for families, the Family Opportunity Act proposes the establishment of Family to Family Health Information Centers. These Centers, staffed by both parents and professionals would be available to help families identify and access appropriate health care for their children with special needs, as well as answer questions on filling out the necessary paperwork to establish health care coverage. The Family Opportunity Act promises to promote early intervention, ensures medically necessary services, offers support, and will help restore family stability. I applaud my colleagues for proposing this important legislation, but even more important, I give a standing ovation to the dedicated families who give so greatly of themselves to care for their children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge the passage of the Domenici, Bingaman and Burns amendment to the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, Senate Amendment 3432. This amendment appropriates $20 million for grants supporting the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot program, properly targeting necessary funding to needy small airports. When I became Ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I was determined to make support of small airports a priority. This March, I helped craft the Wendell H. Ford Aviation and Reform Act of the 21st Century (FAIR-21), the Federal Aviation Administration and the Airport Improvement Program bill authorizing $40 billion for aviation funding, the largest increase in aviation funding ever. This included significant new funding for rural airports. In 1998, I had authored the Air Service Restoration Act, directing the Department of Transportation to make new priorities and incentives supporting the development of airports in small communities, which was incorporated into FAIR-21. The Domenici-Bingaman-Burns amendment builds on these efforts and makes the proposed funding a reality. The Domenici-Bingaman-Burns amendment provides the funding small airports need. Small airports are an essential part of our aviation infrastructure. Without improvements to our small airports, we will stymy the economic growth of less developed areas. We know transportation is vital to economic development and that improving air transportation needs more Congressional attention. Senator Domenici sponsored this amendment with Senators Burns and Bingaman and made it a priority and possible. But I would like to especially note the work of my good friend and respected colleague, Senator Bingaman, who deserves tremendous credit for his assiduous efforts to make sure this funding is available. I wholeheartedly endorse this amendment and urge its adoption as part of the Department of Transportation Appropriation Act.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I thank the Presiding Officer. The American Medical Association says: The AMA strongly supports attaching the Norwood-Dingell patients' of rights bill to the DOD reauthorization bill. Patients and physicians have worked for more than half a decade on a bill that protects patients. Now is the time to make it law. They further say: The Republican counterproposal put forward on June 4 was unacceptable making it little better than the HMO protection act passed by the Senate last summer. The bill was a sham. That is the American Medical Association. I listened to my colleagues, all of whom I have enormous affection for, and they know I respect them. I work with them on many things. As they describe the conference process, I can't really believe what I am hearing, because I have been in that conference. What I am hearing on the floor and what I heard in the conference is two entirely different worlds. I would like to expand on that, but I don't have the time. But we have asked for proposals. We haven't gotten proposals. We should not be in the business of suing HMOs or corporations. We said we wouldn't do that. Senator Kennedy said it many times. Congressman Dingell said it many times. If you want to write the language which says that corporations cannot be sued under this bill, we will accept the language. We don't want to sue corporations unless they themselves intervene in the decision which produces death or injury. What could be clearer than that? To listen to the argument from this side, one would think it was something entirely different. This is reduced to a political discussion. As Democrats, we feel passionately about the Patients' Bill of Rights and want 161 million Americans or more to be covered by this, rather than the 48 million which would be covered by the present Senate bill. We want them, first, to have coverage if the bill passes; and second, if the bill doesn't pass, to know so that there could be created a ground swell for future action over who is accountable. It is accountability not only for HMOs, but it is accountability for Congresspeople on both sides. Our Patients' Bill of Rights--basically, the one that has been introduced which I urge my colleague to support--is incredibly sound and sensible. It gives people the kind of protection they want. Senator Frist understands well that a child needs a pediatric cardiologist; an adult needs an adult cardiologist. An adult's fist is not the same as a child's fist. They require different kinds of surgery. In the bill the other side proposes, that would not be possible. They could not go out of their plan to get that kind of help. In our bill they could. That is an example of the kind of attention we placed in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the bill we have before the Senate. It is much better for the American people.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I gladly lend my support to the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act being introduced by Senator Jeffords, along with Senators Hatch, Robb, Kerry, Bryan, and Chafee. I join with my colleagues because of my longstanding dedication to increasing the use of alternative fuels for transportation, and my understanding that to do so we must stimulate interest in the still fledgling alternative fuel vehicle industry. The success of this industry, and the acceptance of these vehicles in the market place, is critical to lowering our dependence on imported oil, improving the quality of the air we breathe, and reducing the greenhouse gases our nation emits. Let me take a few moments to relate some of the reasons why it is so important that we reduce our consumption of petroleum and use alternative sources of energy. The first and most tangible reason is the need to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. Currently, we import more than half of the oil consumed in this nation. That translates to $180,000 per minute that is being spent to purchase foreign oil. That's bad for our balance of trade, but more important, none of us want to continue to have our energy costs fluctuate and spike at the whim of OPEC or any other foreign organization. The recent price increase shows just how important this is, and how vulnerable we are. A second reason is that it is critical that we reduce the transportation sector's negative impact on air quality. While the automobile industry has made great strides in reducing the emissions of cars and trucks, the improvement has been largely offset by the dramatically increasing number of miles these vehicles are driven each year, and by our increasing desire for larger, more powerful vehicles. In 1980, light trucks, a category that includes minivans and SUVs, accounted for only 19.9 percent of the U.S. automobile market. Traditionally, these vehicles have been exempted from corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. In the past couple of years, some in Congress have been successful in blocking any adjustment to CAFE standards, including the inclusion of SUVs and minivans. Now the reason for including them is even more obvious. By 1998, these larger vehicles accounted for 47.5 percent of the automobile market, with SUVs alone accounting for 18.1 percent. Clearly, doing something to cut air pollution and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will require an enormous change in our transportation sector. Because I believe it is the right thing to do for the people of West Virginia, and for the nation as a whole, I have been a long-time supporter of research into, incentives for, and commercial implementation of alternative fuel technologies. During my first term in the United States Senate, I introduced the Alternative Motor Vehicle Act of 1988. That legislation has been credited with a dramatic increase in the production of alternatively fueled vehicles, notably the so-called flexibly-fueled vehicles, which run on either alternative fuels or gasoline. In fact, 500,000 of the 17 million cars sold in the United States in 1999 were flexible-fuel vehicles. In 1992, when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (EPAct), I authored and supported a number of provisions in that law to promote the use of alternatively-fueled and electric vehicles through tax credits for vehicle purchase and installation of supporting infrastructure. Finally, just over a year ago, along with my colleagues Senators Hatch, Crapo, and Bryan, I introduced the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act, S. 1003. Both the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act introduced today, and the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act introduced last year, would provide the alternative fuel vehicle industry some of the help it needs to begin to get a sustainable foothold in the market place. While these bills differ in the size and type of tax incentives, I strongly believe that both bills are appropriate steps toward a cleaner environment and a more energy independent nation. As I have stated on the Floor of the Senate before, the options for bringing about change in the transportation sector are somewhat limited. Congress could impose new taxes, mandates, or regulations. However, these approaches are sometimes unpopular with both the American people and our colleagues in Congress. I believe the best way to bring about the change we need is to provide incentives for manufacturers to develop and sell clean technology and for consumers to buy and use this technology. I believe that the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act being introduced today offers manufacturers and consumers these necessary incentives. Our domestic automobile manufacturers have developed a number of clean-running and efficient vehicles. These vehicles are virtually indistinguishable from their gasoline-powered counterparts in terms of performance, safety, and comfort. However, there are still two major barriers to widespread acceptance. The first is cost. Though manufacturers have made great strides in reducing the cost of these vehicles, most, including those powered by natural gas, propane, methanol, and electricity, are still significantly more expensive than their gasoline-powered counterparts. A second critical roadblock impeding acceptance of alternatively fueled vehicles is the lack of an adequate refueling infrastructure. I received a call a few months ago from a woman who had just purchased a compressed natural gas-powered car made by a domestic manufacturer. Her entire car pool loved the car, especially the absence of any ``exhaust smell'' when you stood behind the car. She was calling to find out if we could help her locate more places to fuel it. She lives in Boston, and knew of only three fueling stations within a reasonable driving area. If this is the case in a major metropolitan area--which has a significant number of compressed natural gas-powered fleets in operation--it is clear that we have a long way to go. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act offers strong incentives aimed at minimizing these roadblocks. We know that when national policy supports the creative energies and potential of the private sector, progress is made at a faster rate. The private sector is leading the way in developing alternative fuel vehicle technology. We need to provide consumers with a strong financial incentive to use this technology. Certainly, our continued dependence on foreign oil and the contribution of conventionally- powered vehicles to air pollution--including greenhouse gases--compels us to try. I encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at our environment and our national energy security, and to pass the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act during this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be inserted in the Record immediately after Senator Jeffords' statement introducing the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I gladly lend my support to the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act being introduced by Senator Jeffords, along with Senators Hatch, Robb, Kerry, Bryan, and Chafee. I join with my colleagues because of my longstanding dedication to increasing the use of alternative fuels for transportation, and my understanding that to do so we must stimulate interest in the still fledgling alternative fuel vehicle industry. The success of this industry, and the acceptance of these vehicles in the market place, is critical to lowering our dependence on imported oil, improving the quality of the air we breathe, and reducing the greenhouse gases our nation emits. Let me take a few moments to relate some of the reasons why it is so important that we reduce our consumption of petroleum and use alternative sources of energy. The first and most tangible reason is the need to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. Currently, we import more than half of the oil consumed in this nation. That translates to $180,000 per minute that is being spent to purchase foreign oil. That's bad for our balance of trade, but more important, none of us want to continue to have our energy costs fluctuate and spike at the whim of OPEC or any other foreign organization. The recent price increase shows just how important this is, and how vulnerable we are. A second reason is that it is critical that we reduce the transportation sector's negative impact on air quality. While the automobile industry has made great strides in reducing the emissions of cars and trucks, the improvement has been largely offset by the dramatically increasing number of miles these vehicles are driven each year, and by our increasing desire for larger, more powerful vehicles. In 1980, light trucks, a category that includes minivans and SUVs, accounted for only 19.9 percent of the U.S. automobile market. Traditionally, these vehicles have been exempted from corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. In the past couple of years, some in Congress have been successful in blocking any adjustment to CAFE standards, including the inclusion of SUVs and minivans. Now the reason for including them is even more obvious. By 1998, these larger vehicles accounted for 47.5 percent of the automobile market, with SUVs alone accounting for 18.1 percent. Clearly, doing something to cut air pollution and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will require an enormous change in our transportation sector. Because I believe it is the right thing to do for the people of West Virginia, and for the nation as a whole, I have been a long-time supporter of research into, incentives for, and commercial implementation of alternative fuel technologies. During my first term in the United States Senate, I introduced the Alternative Motor Vehicle Act of 1988. That legislation has been credited with a dramatic increase in the production of alternatively fueled vehicles, notably the so-called flexibly-fueled vehicles, which run on either alternative fuels or gasoline. In fact, 500,000 of the 17 million cars sold in the United States in 1999 were flexible-fuel vehicles. In 1992, when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (EPAct), I authored and supported a number of provisions in that law to promote the use of alternatively-fueled and electric vehicles through tax credits for vehicle purchase and installation of supporting infrastructure. Finally, just over a year ago, along with my colleagues Senators Hatch, Crapo, and Bryan, I introduced the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act, S. 1003. Both the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act introduced today, and the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act introduced last year, would provide the alternative fuel vehicle industry some of the help it needs to begin to get a sustainable foothold in the market place. While these bills differ in the size and type of tax incentives, I strongly believe that both bills are appropriate steps toward a cleaner environment and a more energy independent nation. As I have stated on the Floor of the Senate before, the options for bringing about change in the transportation sector are somewhat limited. Congress could impose new taxes, mandates, or regulations. However, these approaches are sometimes unpopular with both the American people and our colleagues in Congress. I believe the best way to bring about the change we need is to provide incentives for manufacturers to develop and sell clean technology and for consumers to buy and use this technology. I believe that the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act being introduced today offers manufacturers and consumers these necessary incentives. Our domestic automobile manufacturers have developed a number of clean-running and efficient vehicles. These vehicles are virtually indistinguishable from their gasoline-powered counterparts in terms of performance, safety, and comfort. However, there are still two major barriers to widespread acceptance. The first is cost. Though manufacturers have made great strides in reducing the cost of these vehicles, most, including those powered by natural gas, propane, methanol, and electricity, are still significantly more expensive than their gasoline-powered counterparts. A second critical roadblock impeding acceptance of alternatively fueled vehicles is the lack of an adequate refueling infrastructure. I received a call a few months ago from a woman who had just purchased a compressed natural gas-powered car made by a domestic manufacturer. Her entire car pool loved the car, especially the absence of any ``exhaust smell'' when you stood behind the car. She was calling to find out if we could help her locate more places to fuel it. She lives in Boston, and knew of only three fueling stations within a reasonable driving area. If this is the case in a major metropolitan area--which has a significant number of compressed natural gas-powered fleets in operation--it is clear that we have a long way to go. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act offers strong incentives aimed at minimizing these roadblocks. We know that when national policy supports the creative energies and potential of the private sector, progress is made at a faster rate. The private sector is leading the way in developing alternative fuel vehicle technology. We need to provide consumers with a strong financial incentive to use this technology. Certainly, our continued dependence on foreign oil and the contribution of conventionally- powered vehicles to air pollution--including greenhouse gases--compels us to try. I encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at our environment and our national energy security, and to pass the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act during this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be inserted in the Record immediately after Senator Jeffords' statement introducing the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize and celebrate the recent expansion of K.S. of West Virginia. It seems like just a short time ago, in August of 1995 to be precise, that I had the privilege of announcing that this Japan-based company would be moving to Ravenswood, West Virginia. Remarkable things have happened since that day almost five years ago. At that time, just two Japanese firms called West Virginia home. Today, I am honored to say that seventeen Japanese companies are thriving in our state, creating good paying jobs that support both families and communities. K.S. of West Virginia has played an important role in that success, and I would like to personally extend my gratitude to the Kato family for their unwavering support and belief in us. Our efforts in Japan would surely suffer were it not for the positive voices of our friends here at K.S. Indeed, Mr. Kato's enthusiasm and excitement about West Virginia is unmistakable and contagious. West Virginia has found a valuable ally and a good friend in Mr. Kazuo Kato, and his tireless work continues to be appreciated. Too often in this country we have witnessed the destruction of families and whole communities as the result of the corporate philosophy of the bottom line. However, companies like K.S. of West Virginia, who recognize the importance of their employees and communities, demonstrate that compassion and sound judgement are the real keys to success. K.S. is an example of the kind of company that truly deserves our praise and support. There is no clearer example of this than an issue Mr. Kato and I have been working on over the past year. As the leader of K.S., Mr. Kato faced a difficult situation with costly ramifications. Yet, instead of maintaining the status quo, Mr. Kato made a series of innovative decisions that will have far-reaching effects for both K.S., and the U.S. steel industry. Not only a leader in the business world, K.S. has shown leadership in the West Virginia community, as well. Companies like K.S., who believe that their success is measured not just by overall profit margins, but by the amount that is shared with the people who make them profitable, teach us a valuable lesson in management, ethics, team work and mutual respect. This philosophy is as ancient as Confucius or the Bible, and as relevant as the news you read in this morning's paper. Indeed, there are 115 individuals who have contributed to the prosperity of K.S. of West Virginia. Their hard work is not taken for granted, and as this company grows, so does the value of their loyalty. We are blessed in West Virginia to have parents and grandparents who taught their children that by working hard and playing by the rules a person can be successful--each employee at K.S is a reflection of this tradition and a credit to our State. As part of his core teaching, Confucius emphasized that people in positions of leadership have a sacred obligation to serve those who have entrusted them with power. If this power is abused, then the entire system would break down, dooming any enterprise. Thus, I am proud to add my voice to the collective celebration of the success we are witnessing at K.S. of West Virginia. To Mr. Kato and his family, and all the members of K.S. of West Virginia, I extend my thanks and congratulations. You have demonstrated that by working together, unattainable dreams can become reality.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today to recognize and welcome the visit to Washington, DC by a group of my fellow West Virginians for this Sunday's ``Million Mom March.'' The Million Mom March, coinciding with Mothers' Day, is a grassroots effort led by people across the country--Dads and Kids included-- dedicated to educating our children and our nation about guns; both the dangers posed by their misuse and the tragic toll this misuse has taken on our country's youth, their friends, and their families. The people who attend this event here in Washington will have gathered in the parking lots of schools, churches, and synagogues across the country, and will have come here to let those of us in Congress know, in no uncertain terms, that we need to be doing more to protect our children. I am pleased to say that among those relaying that message this weekend will be a delegation of Moms from West Virginia, many with their entire families in tow. As they point out, one difference many of these West Virginian Moms may have from others participating in this weekend's events is that they also have hunters in their own families. In fact, it would not surprise me at all to find out that more than a few of the folks marching were hunters themselves. In West Virginia, we respect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, and we consider parents and children hunting together to be a time-honored tradition. Yet our state legislature has already taken the responsible step of limiting possession and legal ownership of handguns to those 18 and older. Now the West Virginian Moms join with their counterparts from around the nation to demand that Members of Congress respond appropriately to the epidemic of American children killed and injured by accidents and crime involving guns. Unfortunately, all too often when we in Congress discuss the misuse of guns, the debate turns into a pointless back-and-forth about whether we have too many gun laws, or too few. Rather than engage in that debate, I would just invite my colleagues to consider these staggering statistics: One in 910 American children die because of the misuse of guns before the age of 20. American children under the age of 15 are twelve times more likely to die from gunfire than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Seventy-seven percent of murder victims aged 13-17 are killed by a firearm. Last year: 4,205 children and teens were killed by gunfire; 2,562 were murdered by gunfire; 1,262 committed suicide using a firearm; and 306 died from an accidental shooting. Each day: Two children under the age of 5 are murdered; Six children and youths under 20 commit suicide; Ten children and youths under 20 are homicide victims; and Twelve children and youth under 20 die from firearm misuse. Between 1979 and 1997, gunfire killed nearly 80,000 children and teens in America--25,000 more than the total number of American soldiers killed in battle in Vietnam. Firearms wounded an additional 320,000 children during this same period. In that period, more than 25,000 children took their own lives with firearms, and nearly 10,000 died as a result of an accidental shooting. In 1997, my home state of West Virginia lost 23 children younger than 20 to firearm misuse, up seven from the previous year. Nine were murdered, ten committed suicide, and three were the victims of accidents. Mr. President, last year the United States Senate passed the Juvenile Justice bill. Among its provisions, this bill contained some courageous efforts to address the culture of crime and violence in which our children are being raised. The bill also featured some common-sense measures designed to make guns safer, and provisions to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. The Senate also sought to close the so- called gun show loophole. Sadly, our seeming inability to have any discussion about guns has kept the conferees on this bill from reporting back to the respective houses with a version for final passage. My purpose here today is to join the Million Moms in calling attention to the bottom line. We live in a society in which the lives of children are tragically at risk because of the virtually unfettered availability of guns. Our respect for the constitutional rights of gun owners should never overwhelm the love and caring we have for our children. I commend the Moms, from West Virginia and around the country, who come to remind us what our priorities should be.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Murray, I wish to introduce a bill, the Children of Women Vietnam Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000, which would amend title 38, United States Code, to provide compensation and benefits to children born with certain birth defects to women Vietnam veterans. This bill is essentially similar, except for minor technical corrections, to S. 2494, the Children of Female Vietnam Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000, which I introduced on May 2, 2000. Mrs. Murray had asked to be an original cosponsor of that bill, but through an inadvertent clerical error, she was not listed as an original cosponsor on the bill when it was printed. I wish to note, for the record, that it was her intent to be an original cosponsor of S. 2494. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Murray, I wish to introduce a bill, the Children of Women Vietnam Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000, which would amend title 38, United States Code, to provide compensation and benefits to children born with certain birth defects to women Vietnam veterans. This bill is essentially similar, except for minor technical corrections, to S. 2494, the Children of Female Vietnam Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000, which I introduced on May 2, 2000. Mrs. Murray had asked to be an original cosponsor of that bill, but through an inadvertent clerical error, she was not listed as an original cosponsor on the bill when it was printed. I wish to note, for the record, that it was her intent to be an original cosponsor of S. 2494. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will maintain the promised health benefits of a small group of retired coalminers and their widows--the Coalminers and Widows Health Protection Act of 2000. Retired coalminers and their widows were promised lifetime health benefits by the companies they worked for and by the federal government more than a half century ago. This commitment goes back to 1946 when President Truman guaranteed miners they would have lifetime health benefits in exchange for their return to the mines. The promise was well understood in the coalfields, and reiterated in successive coal wage agreements throughout the last half century. Congress affirmed that promise when it enacted the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act in 1992 (as part of the Energy Policy Act) to protect the health benefits of about 120,000 retirees and avoid a nationwide coal strike. The Coal Act has ensured that a small group of retirees would continue to get the health benefits that they earned and were promised for eight years now. There are now only about 65,000 miners and retirees remaining in the Fund-- 70% of whom are elderly widows of retired miners. Their average age is 78 years old, and more than 45% of the population is over 80 years old. Once again, in this new century, the health care of this small group of retired miners and widows is threatened due to both significantly increased health care costs and a series of adverse court decisions. Congress must act this year to prevent a reduction in their health care benefits. Last year, we faced the first shortfall in the trust fund that pays for retired miners health benefits, and Congress responded. Senator Byrd and Congressman Rahall's leadership forestalled a health care benefit cut. They included a stop-gap $68 million in last year's final omnibus Appropriations bill to avert a cut. If Congress fails to act this year, retired miners and their widows will be in imminent danger of losing health benefits as early as next Spring. I am glad to report to my colleagues that the Clinton/Gore Administration recognized the need to shore up the retired miners' health fund and included in its budget a number of provisions that together secure miners' benefits well into the next decade. The Coal Act related provisions in the President's budget are based on one premise--these retired miners were promised lifetime health benefits and a promise made must be a promise kept. The Administration strongly reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to retired miners and their widows by proposing to transfer $346 million in new monies over the next ten years to the Combined Benefit Fund to ensure there will be no benefit cuts. The Administration's budget also clarified a few provisions of the Coal Act to avoid unnecessary litigation about the clear meaning of the statute. The Coalminers and Widows Health Protection Act does not include all of the Administration's proposed solutions for jurisdictional and practical reasons, but I am very grateful for their comprehensive solution to maintaining promised benefits, and believe each of their proposed remedies deserve serious consideration by Congress. The Coalminers and Widows Health Protection Act does three things. It provides for an annual mandatory transfer of general funds to the Combined Benefit Fund to maintain its long term solvency and prevent a reduction in miners' health benefits. The annual transfers are set at a level to avoid any reduction in benefits and amount to $346 million over ten years. This bill also clarifies two aspects of the Coal Act to resolve disputed or misunderstood provisions of the law. The first clarification involves the timing of Social Security Administration's assignment of retired miners to the companies that had employed them and promised to finance their lifetime health benefits. The second clarification involves assignments to successors-in-interest of coal companies that had agreed to finance lifetime health benefits, as well as to the successors-in-interest of persons related to those companies, which is explicitly provided for in the Act. These clarifications will avoid further unneeded litigation expenses. These two clarifications do not score for the purposes of determining the cost of enacting them to the federal government. I want to report to my colleagues that there is a bipartisan, bicameral process underway to determine how we can best shore up the miners' trust fund. Staff are meeting regularly. Chairman Roth has informed me that he is committed to finding a way to preserve these promised benefits, and I welcome his strong support, as well as that of Senator Moynihan and several other Members of the Finance Committee who are actively involved in this process. One hundred thousand coalminers were killed while working in the mines last century. Nearly another hundred thousand suffered debilitating job related illnesses. This bill will give retired miners and their widows the health security they were promised and deserve. We owe them that security. They earned it. And you can rest assured that as Congress deals with the priority issues of funding government functions and operations through the annual budget process, and as proposed tax cuts and other legislative items are contemplated, I intend to see to it that we meet our responsibilities to retired coalminers. There are about 20,000 thousand retired miners and their widows living in West Virginia--and tens of thousands of more living in virtually every state of the Union. The Coalminers and Widows Health Protection Act will tell them that they can count on their health care benefits being there for them when they need them, just as they were promised. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will maintain the promised health benefits of a small group of retired coalminers and their widows--the Coalminers and Widows Health Protection Act of 2000. Retired coalminers and their widows were promised lifetime health benefits by the companies they worked for and by the federal government more than a half century ago. This commitment goes back to 1946 when President Truman guaranteed miners they would have lifetime health benefits in exchange for their return to the mines. The promise was well understood in the coalfields, and reiterated in successive coal wage agreements throughout the last half century. Congress affirmed that promise when it enacted the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act in 1992 (as part of the Energy Policy Act) to protect the health benefits of about 120,000 retirees and avoid a nationwide coal strike. The Coal Act has ensured that a small group of retirees would continue to get the health benefits that they earned and were promised for eight years now. There are now only about 65,000 miners and retirees remaining in the Fund-- 70% of whom are elderly widows of retired miners. Their average age is 78 years old, and more than 45% of the population is over 80 years old. Once again, in this new century, the health care of this small group of retired miners and widows is threatened due to both significantly increased health care costs and a series of adverse court decisions. Congress must act this year to prevent a reduction in their health care benefits. Last year, we faced the first shortfall in the trust fund that pays for retired miners health benefits, and Congress responded. Senator Byrd and Congressman Rahall's leadership forestalled a health care benefit cut. They included a stop-gap $68 million in last year's final omnibus Appropriations bill to avert a cut. If Congress fails to act this year, retired miners and their widows will be in imminent danger of losing health benefits as early as next Spring. I am glad to report to my colleagues that the Clinton/Gore Administration recognized the need to shore up the retired miners' health fund and included in its budget a number of provisions that together secure miners' benefits well into the next decade. The Coal Act related provisions in the President's budget are based on one premise--these retired miners were promised lifetime health benefits and a promise made must be a promise kept. The Administration strongly reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to retired miners and their widows by proposing to transfer $346 million in new monies over the next ten years to the Combined Benefit Fund to ensure there will be no benefit cuts. The Administration's budget also clarified a few provisions of the Coal Act to avoid unnecessary litigation about the clear meaning of the statute. The Coalminers and Widows Health Protection Act does not include all of the Administration's proposed solutions for jurisdictional and practical reasons, but I am very grateful for their comprehensive solution to maintaining promised benefits, and believe each of their proposed remedies deserve serious consideration by Congress. The Coalminers and Widows Health Protection Act does three things. It provides for an annual mandatory transfer of general funds to the Combined Benefit Fund to maintain its long term solvency and prevent a reduction in miners' health benefits. The annual transfers are set at a level to avoid any reduction in benefits and amount to $346 million over ten years. This bill also clarifies two aspects of the Coal Act to resolve disputed or misunderstood provisions of the law. The first clarification involves the timing of Social Security Administration's assignment of retired miners to the companies that had employed them and promised to finance their lifetime health benefits. The second clarification involves assignments to successors-in-interest of coal companies that had agreed to finance lifetime health benefits, as well as to the successors-in-interest of persons related to those companies, which is explicitly provided for in the Act. These clarifications will avoid further unneeded litigation expenses. These two clarifications do not score for the purposes of determining the cost of enacting them to the federal government. I want to report to my colleagues that there is a bipartisan, bicameral process underway to determine how we can best shore up the miners' trust fund. Staff are meeting regularly. Chairman Roth has informed me that he is committed to finding a way to preserve these promised benefits, and I welcome his strong support, as well as that of Senator Moynihan and several other Members of the Finance Committee who are actively involved in this process. One hundred thousand coalminers were killed while working in the mines last century. Nearly another hundred thousand suffered debilitating job related illnesses. This bill will give retired miners and their widows the health security they were promised and deserve. We owe them that security. They earned it. And you can rest assured that as Congress deals with the priority issues of funding government functions and operations through the annual budget process, and as proposed tax cuts and other legislative items are contemplated, I intend to see to it that we meet our responsibilities to retired coalminers. There are about 20,000 thousand retired miners and their widows living in West Virginia--and tens of thousands of more living in virtually every state of the Union. The Coalminers and Widows Health Protection Act will tell them that they can count on their health care benefits being there for them when they need them, just as they were promised. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to be here today to introduce the Telemedicine Improvement and Modernization Act with Senator Jeffords and many other of my Senate colleagues. This bill incorporates two issues that I care about passionately--health care and technology. Telemedicine has the potential to bridge the gap that currently exists between patients and providers. More than 25% of our Nation's senior citizens live in areas where speciality care may not be available. In states like my own where there are very few primary care or specialty care resources and travel is difficult, telemedicine is critical to ensuring that people in remote areas are getting health care they need. By expanding access to health care through telemedicine, we also improve the quality of care available to people living in underserved areas. Personally, I believe that we are just beginning to tap the enormous potential of technology to advance quality health care, especially in rural areas. Yet, Medicare's telemedicine program is inefficient in its current form. These inefficiencies threaten the future of telemedicine services. When we first created this program, our knowledge of the potential of this new technology, or its practical applications was very limited. Today we have a much better understanding of how telemedicine actually works. With this new knowledge, we can repair the inefficiencies of the current system and encourage the use of this highly effective health practice. By accomplishing this goal, we can ensure that quality health care is available to all seniors and disabled Americans regardless of where they live. There are 8 main elements of the bill: (1) Eliminating the provider ``fee sharing'' requirement; (2) Eliminating the requirement for a ``telepresenter''; (3) Allowing limited reimbursement for referring clinics to recover the cost of their services; (4) Expanding telemedicine services to all non-MSAs; (5) Expanding telemedicine services to direct patient care, not just professional consultations; (6) Making all providers eligible for HCFA reimbursement for services delivered via telemedicine; (7) Creating a federal demonstration project that permits telemedicine reimbursement for ``store and forward'' consultations (i.e., x-rays that are sent to another facility for consultation); and (8) Permitting telehomecare. While these changes are relatively minor in the context of the Medicare program, the affect will be far-reaching. The modernizations we are proposing will dramatically improve access to quality health care in rural areas. This legislation will allow us to begin to release the incredible potential of telemedicine. On a final note, I'd like to thank Karen Edison for her expertise and determination in working on this bill. Because Karen is a practicing telemedicine physician, she has been invaluable in developing and advancing this cause. Thank you, Mr. President for your time today. I hope all of my colleagues will join with me in passing this important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000. Congressman Stark is introducing a companion bill in the House. This legislation is, without a doubt, ambitious. It is a deliberate effort to try to ignite a national commitment to the goal of insuring all of our children. For some, that is an idealistic proposition that does not seem achievable. With this bill, I want to call on the public and my colleagues to consider once again the clear and convincing case for investing the necessary resources in the health of our children-- and therefore, in the well-being of their families and our entire country. I will continue to work hard on every possible step to achieve this ultimate goal, but with this legislation, I urge lawmakers, health care professionals, and citizens to recognize the imperative of reaching that goal sooner rather than later. Our children are not only our future, they are also our present. What we do for them today will greatly affect what happens tomorrow. Yet even though we recognize these facts, we still have not found a way to guarantee health coverage for children. Without health insurance, many of these children go without health care all together. Children are the least expensive segment of our population to insure. They are also the least able to have control over whether or not they have health insurance. Yet we now have over 11 million uninsured children in this country. And this number is steadily climbing higher and higher every year. Our success in expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was a meaningful, significant start at closing the tragic gap represented by millions of uninsured children. However, Congress cannot point to these programs and declare that our work is done. We still have much more to do. The percent of children in low-income families without health insurance has not changed in recent years. Even with perfect enrollment in S-CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance. This is partially due to our increasingly mobile society, where parents frequently change jobs and families often move from state to state. When this occurs there is often a lapse in health coverage. Also, families working their way out of welfare fluctuate between eligibility and ineligibility for means-tested assistance programs. Another reason for the number of uninsured children is that the cost of health insurance continues to increase, leaving many working parents unable to afford coverage for themselves or their families. All of this adds up to the fact that many of our children do not have the consistent and regular access to health care which they need to grow up healthy. That is why I am introducing the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000. This bill would automatically enroll every child at birth into a new, comprehensive federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2002. The benefits would be tailored to the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children under Medicaid. A small monthly premium would be collected from parents at tax filing, with discounts to low-income families phasing out at 300% of poverty. The children would remain enrolled in MediKids throughout childhood. When they are covered by another health insurance program, their parents would be exempt from the premium. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. By the year 2020, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage. Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100% health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our nation's seniors and disabled population. It's time we make this investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life. The MediKids Health Insurance Act would offer guaranteed, automatic health coverage for every child with the simplest of enrollment procedures and no challenging outreach, paperwork, or re-determination hoops to jump through. It would be able to follow children across state lines, or tide them over in a new location until their parents can enroll them in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises such as divorce or the death of a parent, it would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to the nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, it would provide an extra boost with health insurance for the children until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. And every child would automatically be enrolled upon birth, along with the issuance of the birth certificate or immigration card. As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Providing health care coverage to children affects much more than their health--it affects their ability to learn, their ability to thrive, and their ability to become a productive member of society. I look forward to working with my colleagues and supporting organizations for the passage of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000 to guarantee every child in America the health coverage they need to grow up healthy. Mr. President, I stand before you today to deliver a message. That is that it is time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill I am introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country. Partial solutions to America's ``uninsured crisis'' lie before Congress, and I recognize the sense of realism and care that are the basis for proposing incremental steps towards universal coverage. As someone involved in the tough battles in years past to achieve universal coverage, I will continue to do all I can to make whatever progress can be made each and every year. But I also believe it is important to not lose sight of the ideal-- and our capacity to reach that ideal--of the United States of America joining every other industrialized nation by ensuring that its citizens have basic health insurance. Until we succeed, millions of children and adults will suffer human and financial costs that are preventable. Therefore, Mr. President, I offer this legislation to both enlist my colleagues in an effort to insist that all of our nation's children are insured as quickly as possible and to lay out the steps that would achieve that goal. At a time when Congress seems stalled by politics and paralysis, and is therefore failing to make any tangible progress in dealing with rising number of uninsured Americans, I hope this bill will help to build the will and momentum so desperately needed by our children for action that will change their lives and strengthen our very nation. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join as co-sponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in highlighting a powerful call to action on science and technology funding issued by our nation's high technology, academic, and labor leaders. On March 22, 2000, forty-seven CEOs of high technology companies, Presidents of our leading universities, and representatives of labor organizations came together in an unprecedented Council on Competitiveness letter petitioning Congress for ``significantly higher long-term investments in our national science and technology enterprise.'' This investment, they stated, should come in the form of increased ``public-sector investments in frontier research'' such as research in the ``[p]hysical sciences, math, and engineering.'' This letter also includes a clear warning--Congressional failure to appropriate more funding for science and technology research will threaten America's competitive advantage in information technology, biotechnology, health science, new materials, and other critical technology-intensive fields. As we all know, many economists, including Alan Greenspan, have asserted that our country's leadership in these areas is an important reason for our current economic success. A refusal to support America's dominant position with adequate appropriations today threatens our economic success tomorrow. The Council on Competitiveness letter also reveals that increased federal funding to science and technology will positively affect another key policy issue--the scarcity of technologically skilled workers. The debate over whether to raise the number of H1-B visas has alerted all of us to the technology industry's critical need for more highly skilled workers. In the New Economy large numbers of ``knowledge-based'' workers are essential to economic growth. Because we are not training enough American knowledge-based workers, high-tech companies have asked Congress to increase the number of H1-B visas granted to skilled workers who are willing to immigrate from other countries. Appropriating more funding for science and technology research will increase the number of technologically trained Americans, thus addressing the current scarcity of knowledge-based workers. The letter explains that: ``Education and training of scientists and engineers are tied to federally sponsored research performed in the nation's laboratories and universities. When federal R&D commitments shrink, so too does the pool of technically trained talent, forcing industry and academia to look abroad for skilled knowledge workers.'' I therefore urge all my colleagues who support increasing the H1-B cap to support increased federal science and technology funding--we must develop more American technology workers. It is important to understand that this letter's signatories are not alone in their recommendation for more substantial funding for science and technology research. The House Science Committee wisely wrote in a 1998 study titled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy'' that ``[t]he federal investment in science has yielded stunning payoffs. It has spawned not only new products, but also entire industries. To build upon the strength of the research enterprise, we must make federal research funding stable and substantial, maintaining diversity in the federal research portfolio, and promoting creative, ground breaking research.'' Similarly, a Business Week editorial on July 26, 1999 stated that ``[b]ecause of productivity gains, the economy can now operate at a higher speed without inflation. . . . [P]romoting the New Economy also requires wise policy from Washington. We need to support basic research and education at all levels, the seed corn of innovation.'' These arguments are supported by noted MIT economist Lester Thurow in a June, 1999 Atlantic Monthly article, where he comments that: ``[a] successful knowledge based economy requires large public investments in education, infrastructure, and research and development. . . . Private rates of return on R&D spending (the financial benefits that accrue to the firm doing the spending) average about 24 percent. But societal rates of return on R&D spending (the economic benefits that accrue to the entire society) are about 66 percent. . . . This result, never contradicted in the economic literature, provides powerful evidence that there are huge positive social spillovers from research and development . . . Because the government doesn't care exactly which Americans reap the benefits, it has a very important role to play in R&D. Rates of return on R&D spending are far above those found elsewhere in the economy. Government now pays for about 30 percent of total R&D, but with a 66 percent rate of return it should be spending much more.'' In recognition of this need for greater public support of science and technology research, last year the Senate unanimously passed the Federal Research Investment Act (S. 296). This bill would double our investment in civilian science and technology over the next decade. The Administration also understands how critical publicly funded R&D is to the country's vitality. Its budget includes a strong and balanced program which will begin to recharge our sagging R&D portfolio. The administration's program is consistent with the spirit and the text of the Federal Research Investment Act and the Council on Competitiveness letter. Unfortunately, our Congressional Budget Resolution calls only for a small increase in federal investments in science and technology. We have a chance to make an important investment in our country's future and to lay the groundwork for continued American high-tech leadership. I urge my colleagues to heed our high-tech, academic, and labor leaders' call to action on federal R&D support and work together to achieve more substantial appropriations for science and technology.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000. Congressman Stark is introducing a companion bill in the House. This legislation is, without a doubt, ambitious. It is a deliberate effort to try to ignite a national commitment to the goal of insuring all of our children. For some, that is an idealistic proposition that does not seem achievable. With this bill, I want to call on the public and my colleagues to consider once again the clear and convincing case for investing the necessary resources in the health of our children-- and therefore, in the well-being of their families and our entire country. I will continue to work hard on every possible step to achieve this ultimate goal, but with this legislation, I urge lawmakers, health care professionals, and citizens to recognize the imperative of reaching that goal sooner rather than later. Our children are not only our future, they are also our present. What we do for them today will greatly affect what happens tomorrow. Yet even though we recognize these facts, we still have not found a way to guarantee health coverage for children. Without health insurance, many of these children go without health care all together. Children are the least expensive segment of our population to insure. They are also the least able to have control over whether or not they have health insurance. Yet we now have over 11 million uninsured children in this country. And this number is steadily climbing higher and higher every year. Our success in expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was a meaningful, significant start at closing the tragic gap represented by millions of uninsured children. However, Congress cannot point to these programs and declare that our work is done. We still have much more to do. The percent of children in low-income families without health insurance has not changed in recent years. Even with perfect enrollment in S-CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance. This is partially due to our increasingly mobile society, where parents frequently change jobs and families often move from state to state. When this occurs there is often a lapse in health coverage. Also, families working their way out of welfare fluctuate between eligibility and ineligibility for means-tested assistance programs. Another reason for the number of uninsured children is that the cost of health insurance continues to increase, leaving many working parents unable to afford coverage for themselves or their families. All of this adds up to the fact that many of our children do not have the consistent and regular access to health care which they need to grow up healthy. That is why I am introducing the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000. This bill would automatically enroll every child at birth into a new, comprehensive federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2002. The benefits would be tailored to the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children under Medicaid. A small monthly premium would be collected from parents at tax filing, with discounts to low-income families phasing out at 300% of poverty. The children would remain enrolled in MediKids throughout childhood. When they are covered by another health insurance program, their parents would be exempt from the premium. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. By the year 2020, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage. Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100% health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our nation's seniors and disabled population. It's time we make this investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life. The MediKids Health Insurance Act would offer guaranteed, automatic health coverage for every child with the simplest of enrollment procedures and no challenging outreach, paperwork, or re-determination hoops to jump through. It would be able to follow children across state lines, or tide them over in a new location until their parents can enroll them in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises such as divorce or the death of a parent, it would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to the nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, it would provide an extra boost with health insurance for the children until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. And every child would automatically be enrolled upon birth, along with the issuance of the birth certificate or immigration card. As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Providing health care coverage to children affects much more than their health--it affects their ability to learn, their ability to thrive, and their ability to become a productive member of society. I look forward to working with my colleagues and supporting organizations for the passage of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000 to guarantee every child in America the health coverage they need to grow up healthy. Mr. President, I stand before you today to deliver a message. That is that it is time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill I am introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country. Partial solutions to America's ``uninsured crisis'' lie before Congress, and I recognize the sense of realism and care that are the basis for proposing incremental steps towards universal coverage. As someone involved in the tough battles in years past to achieve universal coverage, I will continue to do all I can to make whatever progress can be made each and every year. But I also believe it is important to not lose sight of the ideal-- and our capacity to reach that ideal--of the United States of America joining every other industrialized nation by ensuring that its citizens have basic health insurance. Until we succeed, millions of children and adults will suffer human and financial costs that are preventable. Therefore, Mr. President, I offer this legislation to both enlist my colleagues in an effort to insist that all of our nation's children are insured as quickly as possible and to lay out the steps that would achieve that goal. At a time when Congress seems stalled by politics and paralysis, and is therefore failing to make any tangible progress in dealing with rising number of uninsured Americans, I hope this bill will help to build the will and momentum so desperately needed by our children for action that will change their lives and strengthen our very nation. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join as co-sponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to be here today to introduce the Telemedicine Improvement and Modernization Act with Senator Jeffords and many other of my Senate colleagues. This bill incorporates two issues that I care about passionately--health care and technology. Telemedicine has the potential to bridge the gap that currently exists between patients and providers. More than 25% of our Nation's senior citizens live in areas where speciality care may not be available. In states like my own where there are very few primary care or specialty care resources and travel is difficult, telemedicine is critical to ensuring that people in remote areas are getting health care they need. By expanding access to health care through telemedicine, we also improve the quality of care available to people living in underserved areas. Personally, I believe that we are just beginning to tap the enormous potential of technology to advance quality health care, especially in rural areas. Yet, Medicare's telemedicine program is inefficient in its current form. These inefficiencies threaten the future of telemedicine services. When we first created this program, our knowledge of the potential of this new technology, or its practical applications was very limited. Today we have a much better understanding of how telemedicine actually works. With this new knowledge, we can repair the inefficiencies of the current system and encourage the use of this highly effective health practice. By accomplishing this goal, we can ensure that quality health care is available to all seniors and disabled Americans regardless of where they live. There are 8 main elements of the bill: (1) Eliminating the provider ``fee sharing'' requirement; (2) Eliminating the requirement for a ``telepresenter''; (3) Allowing limited reimbursement for referring clinics to recover the cost of their services; (4) Expanding telemedicine services to all non-MSAs; (5) Expanding telemedicine services to direct patient care, not just professional consultations; (6) Making all providers eligible for HCFA reimbursement for services delivered via telemedicine; (7) Creating a federal demonstration project that permits telemedicine reimbursement for ``store and forward'' consultations (i.e., x-rays that are sent to another facility for consultation); and (8) Permitting telehomecare. While these changes are relatively minor in the context of the Medicare program, the affect will be far-reaching. The modernizations we are proposing will dramatically improve access to quality health care in rural areas. This legislation will allow us to begin to release the incredible potential of telemedicine. On a final note, I'd like to thank Karen Edison for her expertise and determination in working on this bill. Because Karen is a practicing telemedicine physician, she has been invaluable in developing and advancing this cause. Thank you, Mr. President for your time today. I hope all of my colleagues will join with me in passing this important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it was my understanding that after the Senator from Nevada spoke and after the Senator from New Mexico spoke, I would be able to speak.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce, on behalf of myself and Senator Murray, legislation that would aid the children born with birth defects to female Vietnam veterans. This legislation, the Children of Female Vietnam Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000, is long overdue. As we commemorate the 25th anniversary of the end of the war, it is a particularly appropriate time for passage of this important legislation. Women played a critical role in Vietnam. As nurses, they provided lifesaving care to the wounded and comfort to the dying. Their compassion and selflessness is legendary. Others served in countless other ways, as clerks, mapmakers, photographers, air traffic controllers, Red Cross and USO workers, and other volunteer roles. Their support was crucial to the war effort. Last year, the VA completed study on women Vietnam veterans which concluded that there was a ``statistically significant increase in birth defects'' in their children. VA generally does not have the legal authority to provide health care and compensation to the children of veterans, except in the case of spina bifida. The legislation we are sponsoring would apply to children of women Vietnam veterans born with birth defects, other than spina bifida, which resulted in permanent physical or mental disability, except for certain birth defects determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to result from genetics, birth injury, or fetal or neonatal infirmities with well-established causes. The benefits would include health care, vocational rehabilitation services, and financial compensation, depending on the degree of disability. In closing, I emphasize that the health care and benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs play a crucial role in supporting the healing process I spoke of earlier. While no amount of remuneration can ever truly compensate for bodily injury and emotional trauma, we have the responsibility to provide the tools for coping and to ease the difficulties of daily life. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. This bill will provide health care and compensation to the children of women Vietnam veterans who were born with permanently disabling birth defects. Though they have waited 25 years for this acknowledgment, this legislation has the ability to significantly improve the lives of women veterans and their disabled children. These women and children have endured incredible and ongoing hardships for this country, and their significance must be realized. We can no longer ignore the responsibility the government owes to women veterans. This bill has its origin in a study the Department of Veterans Affairs did on women Vietnam veterans. In response to the concerns of many women Vietnam Veterans, Congress required that VA perform a comprehensive study of any long-term adverse health effects that may have been suffered by these women. This mandate led to three separate but related epidemiologic studies of women Vietnam-era veterans: 1) a post Vietnam service mortality follow-up; 2) an assessment of psychologic health outcomes; and 3) a review of reproductive health outcomes. This particular study, released in 1999, analyzed the reproductive outcomes of over 4000 women Vietnam veterans, compared with 4000 women Vietnam-era veterans. The study revealed that the risk of a woman Vietnam veterans 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. Upon review of the resulting conclusions, the VA study's task force recommended that the Secretary seek statutory authority to provide health care and other benefits to the offspring of women veterans with birth defects. Secretary West approved of this recommendation. The tragic realization of the birth defects present in so many of the children of women Vietnam veterans brings light to a situation that cries out not only for our sympathy, but for an acceptance of governmental responsibility and action. VA does not have the authority under current law to provide health care or other benefits to the children of women Vietnam veterans disabled from birth defects other than spina bifida. Thus, the enabling legislation that I introduce today is absolutely necessary in order to address the compelling needs of these children. Currently, VA has the authority to compensate and aid veterans, and the dependents of these veterans, for disease or injury to the veteran due to service. Millions of veterans, from every branch of the Armed Forces, have been helped by this benefit. These small amounts of compensation can in no way fully redress the physical and psychological injuries that war has caused these veterans, their children, and their spouses. But it does serve to assist these veterans to live active and fulfilled lives, and it would assist with making up for lost income over the years, due to the injuries. However, no benefits have been extended to the children of veterans, for their own harm. In 1996, VA was given special authority to provide benefits and compensation to the children of Vietnam veterans for their own disease associated with their parent's service--for those children born with spina bifida. The legislation I am introducing today is modeled after that ground breaking spina bifida legislation. We owe that same debt to the children born with birth defects to women Vietnam veterans. My cosponsors and I believe that providing this assistance to children disabled by birth defects associated with their mother's military service would be a fitting extension of the principle of providing benefits for disabilities that are incurred or aggravated as a result of service on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States. I am seeking to aid the children of women Vietnam veterans who have been tragically affected by birth defects. These women fought for their country, and served this Nation with honor and courage. They volunteered to be placed in harm's way, without knowledge of what effects their service may bring later. Many were nurses who cared for wounded soldiers, and offered enormously important support services to all those in active duty. Indeed, these women provided such an incredible nursing service to injured soldiers that less than 2% of all treated casualties during the war died. These women saw death and disease, and they experienced their own forms of disillusionment with the war. These women fought on the front lines; they were not kept away in safe places during the conflict. Further, I want to add that these women performed a service for women who have been in any way involved in the Armed Forces since then, by contributing to the changes in the military structure of the 1970s and since. Women performed critically important roles during the Vietnam war. Their ongoing contributions were recognized as altogether essential. Disastrously, some of their children have suffered because their mothers were so courageous, and it is time for them to begin to be repaid for that suffering. Though long overdue perhaps, now is a particularly appropriate time for passage of this important legislation. As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, we must remember the women Vietnam veterans who served this country so well, all those years ago. These women paid for their service not only with their own bodies, but too often with the bodies of their children who were born years later. It is my opinion that this legislation is late in coming, but there is no time like the present. As we take these recent months to remember the Vietnam War, I can think of no more fitting time than this for this bill. After all, though the fighting in Vietnam came to an end 25 years ago, the consequences of that fighting are still dramatically present. At the heart of this legislation, this bill would apply to children of women Vietnam veterans born with birth defects, other than spina bifida, which resulted in permanent physical or mental disability, except for birth defects determined by the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to result from familial disorders, birth-related injuries, or fetal or neonatal infirmities with well-established causes. The legislation authorizes VA to provide or reimburse a contractor for health care delivered to the disabled children for the birth defect and associated conditions. This health care would include home, hospital, nursing home, outpatient, preventative, habilitative, rehabilitative and respite care. It also includes pharmaceuticals and supplies required by the birth defect, such as wheelchairs, if appropriate. The legislation also provides compensation from the VA to the children at four payment levels. The benefits would be for $100, $214, $743, and $1,272, per month, depending upon the severity of the child's disability. Future cost-of-living adjustments would be based on the Consumer Price Index, just as other veterans and Social Security benefits are adjusted. This bill also authorizes VA to furnish the disabled children with important vocational rehabilitation services. The services would include: VA design of a training plan that is individually designed, accounting for the individual needs of the child; placement and post- placement services, personal and work adjustment training. It may also include education at an institution of higher learning. The programs would generally run 24 months, but if necessary, the Secretary may extend the program for an additional 24 months. This legislation would be effective one year after the date of enactment, in order to allow time for regulations to be established. VA estimates that the costs for this legislation would be approximately $25 million over five years. In conclusion, I believe that we must help the children born with disabling birth defects associated with their mother's service in Vietnam. It is the logical extension of our policy to provide benefits for disabilities that result from service. It's the compassionate thing to do--to ensure that these children have the health care and other benefits they need to survive. As a nation, it is our unwavering responsibility to deal with all the consequences of war, not just the easy and obvious ones. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this past Sunday, April 30, was the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. And that reaches deep into the soul of every Member of this body, all across America, and all across the world. Our involvement with Vietnam was filled with discord, it was filled with anxiety, and it tore sections and generations of our country apart. It began slowly. It gradually escalated and became ``a bottomless quagmire'' for America, ``our longest, costliest, and . . . least popular war,'' until it finally came to an end. Many in our country were very ambivalent about this war. Some thought we didn't fight hard enough, some thought we turned our backs on the South Vietnamese, and some thought we should have fought a lot harder. Many became disillusioned with our Government. I think that experience changed the nature of American politics and public life for at least some time to come. However, there should be no ambivalence whatsoever about those who fought that war. Today I want to pay homage to those who fought that war. It doesn't matter whether you were for or against the war. All who served there deserve our appreciation, our respect, our caring, our compassion. It would have been easier to fight in a popular war. There are such wars, oddly enough. It is obtuse to say that, but it is true. But it took guts, courage, and endurance to fight in that war and survive it; to resist the erosion of the bad morale which overtook at least part of our ground forces in Vietnam. And then, of course, there was the lack of united support from the home front which had to have just overwhelming consequences, not only while the soldiers were there, but even more so when they returned. Those who served did their duty, and they did it under very difficult, trying circumstances. Their motto might very well have been what Alexander Pope said: Act well your part, therein all honor lies. Looking back at this war, like the war before it and others, what strikes me with enormous poignancy and tenderness, is how young our soldiers were. Many were teenagers--18- and 19-year-old men and women-- from familiar and comfortable surroundings, leading lives we all might identify with, sent to a completely foreign country, a foreign culture, halfway around the world, not knowing what to expect. They encountered baking heat, torrential rain, fire ants, leeches, and the enemy. They could not imagine the world of horror that awaited them when they got there. Presumably they were trained and told about it, but I think it was unimaginable to them when they got there. There was no clear enemy line. They could be ambushed at any minute. They couldn't tell enemies from allies. Some never came back. The more than 58,000 names on the Vietnam Memorial Wall attest to that. But painful as it is to view those names, it does not begin to encompass the scope of pain caused by that war. Like a pebble thrown in a pool, each single name on the wall is ringed by concentric circles of others touched by that person's death--widows, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, friends. For all in that pool, certain hopes and dreams died as well. We grieve for all of them. Some came back wounded. In an instant, life could change. Soldiers could step on a landmine; they could be killed by friendly fire; they could come under random attack. They never knew from moment to moment. Due to the wonders of modern medicine, many of those who, in earlier wars, would have died, did not and were saved; they survived. But merely surviving posed tremendous burdens on those who did. The process of adapting, accepting, and moving on is easy to say, very hard to do. So I salute the stubborn resilience and perseverance of those who did move on with life after recovering from injury. Some came back suffering from emotional trauma--people call it PTSD-- and many other things. For them, it has been a very hard road to make peace with the past. They are still haunted by it, fighting it in their nightmares, in startle reflexes to sudden noises which bring back memories of perceived danger. They may turn to alcohol to numb the constant pain, to drown the memories. Veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder deserve our most profound compassion, love and caring. As we have discovered, PTSD in fact goes back even to World War I. We are discovering a lot of things about the consequences of war. We have no way of knowing what people have been through, those of us who were not there. But we cannot judge their continuing pain. We cannot judge them. But we can honor them, and we need to do that, to respect them for what they have done, and to hope they will recover as others did. As a Senator from West Virginia, I have more than a personal interest in this war. Statistics show that West Virginia's soldiers suffered more casualties per capita during that war than any other State in the Union. On this day, I salute our West Virginia veterans in particular. I am enormously proud of the sons and daughters of West Virginia, who, as they have done throughout history, volunteered or were drafted, and went to fight and to protect their country and their freedom, mountain men doing what needed to be done. That fighting spirit and strength of character runs incredibly deep in this Senator's State, and this Senator is very proud of it. Lyndon Johnson called the war ``dirty, brutal and difficult.'' It tore apart our country, devastated lives, caused tremendous personal hardship and unbearable pain. Twenty years later, the scars are still healing. I am reminded of the words of Maya Lin, the young architect student who designed the Vietnam Memorial. In conceptualizing the form of her design, she wrote: I thought about what death is, what a loss is. A sharp pain that lessens with time, but never quite heals over. The idea occurred to me there on the site. Take a knife and cut open the earth, and with time, the grass would heal it. With time, the wounds of Vietnam will heal. But we should never forget the courage and bravery of those who served there. Let us always honor our men and women who fought and died in Vietnam. (The remarks of Mr. Rockefeller pertaining to the introduction of S. 2494 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce, on behalf of myself and Senator Murray, legislation that would aid the children born with birth defects to female Vietnam veterans. This legislation, the Children of Female Vietnam Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000, is long overdue. As we commemorate the 25th anniversary of the end of the war, it is a particularly appropriate time for passage of this important legislation. Women played a critical role in Vietnam. As nurses, they provided lifesaving care to the wounded and comfort to the dying. Their compassion and selflessness is legendary. Others served in countless other ways, as clerks, mapmakers, photographers, air traffic controllers, Red Cross and USO workers, and other volunteer roles. Their support was crucial to the war effort. Last year, the VA completed study on women Vietnam veterans which concluded that there was a ``statistically significant increase in birth defects'' in their children. VA generally does not have the legal authority to provide health care and compensation to the children of veterans, except in the case of spina bifida. The legislation we are sponsoring would apply to children of women Vietnam veterans born with birth defects, other than spina bifida, which resulted in permanent physical or mental disability, except for certain birth defects determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to result from genetics, birth injury, or fetal or neonatal infirmities with well-established causes. The benefits would include health care, vocational rehabilitation services, and financial compensation, depending on the degree of disability. In closing, I emphasize that the health care and benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs play a crucial role in supporting the healing process I spoke of earlier. While no amount of remuneration can ever truly compensate for bodily injury and emotional trauma, we have the responsibility to provide the tools for coping and to ease the difficulties of daily life. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. This bill will provide health care and compensation to the children of women Vietnam veterans who were born with permanently disabling birth defects. Though they have waited 25 years for this acknowledgment, this legislation has the ability to significantly improve the lives of women veterans and their disabled children. These women and children have endured incredible and ongoing hardships for this country, and their significance must be realized. We can no longer ignore the responsibility the government owes to women veterans. This bill has its origin in a study the Department of Veterans Affairs did on women Vietnam veterans. In response to the concerns of many women Vietnam Veterans, Congress required that VA perform a comprehensive study of any long-term adverse health effects that may have been suffered by these women. This mandate led to three separate but related epidemiologic studies of women Vietnam-era veterans: 1) a post Vietnam service mortality follow-up; 2) an assessment of psychologic health outcomes; and 3) a review of reproductive health outcomes. This particular study, released in 1999, analyzed the reproductive outcomes of over 4000 women Vietnam veterans, compared with 4000 women Vietnam-era veterans. The study revealed that the risk of a woman Vietnam veterans 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. Upon review of the resulting conclusions, the VA study's task force recommended that the Secretary seek statutory authority to provide health care and other benefits to the offspring of women veterans with birth defects. Secretary West approved of this recommendation. The tragic realization of the birth defects present in so many of the children of women Vietnam veterans brings light to a situation that cries out not only for our sympathy, but for an acceptance of governmental responsibility and action. VA does not have the authority under current law to provide health care or other benefits to the children of women Vietnam veterans disabled from birth defects other than spina bifida. Thus, the enabling legislation that I introduce today is absolutely necessary in order to address the compelling needs of these children. Currently, VA has the authority to compensate and aid veterans, and the dependents of these veterans, for disease or injury to the veteran due to service. Millions of veterans, from every branch of the Armed Forces, have been helped by this benefit. These small amounts of compensation can in no way fully redress the physical and psychological injuries that war has caused these veterans, their children, and their spouses. But it does serve to assist these veterans to live active and fulfilled lives, and it would assist with making up for lost income over the years, due to the injuries. However, no benefits have been extended to the children of veterans, for their own harm. In 1996, VA was given special authority to provide benefits and compensation to the children of Vietnam veterans for their own disease associated with their parent's service--for those children born with spina bifida. The legislation I am introducing today is modeled after that ground breaking spina bifida legislation. We owe that same debt to the children born with birth defects to women Vietnam veterans. My cosponsors and I believe that providing this assistance to children disabled by birth defects associated with their mother's military service would be a fitting extension of the principle of providing benefits for disabilities that are incurred or aggravated as a result of service on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States. I am seeking to aid the children of women Vietnam veterans who have been tragically affected by birth defects. These women fought for their country, and served this Nation with honor and courage. They volunteered to be placed in harm's way, without knowledge of what effects their service may bring later. Many were nurses who cared for wounded soldiers, and offered enormously important support services to all those in active duty. Indeed, these women provided such an incredible nursing service to injured soldiers that less than 2% of all treated casualties during the war died. These women saw death and disease, and they experienced their own forms of disillusionment with the war. These women fought on the front lines; they were not kept away in safe places during the conflict. Further, I want to add that these women performed a service for women who have been in any way involved in the Armed Forces since then, by contributing to the changes in the military structure of the 1970s and since. Women performed critically important roles during the Vietnam war. Their ongoing contributions were recognized as altogether essential. Disastrously, some of their children have suffered because their mothers were so courageous, and it is time for them to begin to be repaid for that suffering. Though long overdue perhaps, now is a particularly appropriate time for passage of this important legislation. As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, we must remember the women Vietnam veterans who served this country so well, all those years ago. These women paid for their service not only with their own bodies, but too often with the bodies of their children who were born years later. It is my opinion that this legislation is late in coming, but there is no time like the present. As we take these recent months to remember the Vietnam War, I can think of no more fitting time than this for this bill. After all, though the fighting in Vietnam came to an end 25 years ago, the consequences of that fighting are still dramatically present. At the heart of this legislation, this bill would apply to children of women Vietnam veterans born with birth defects, other than spina bifida, which resulted in permanent physical or mental disability, except for birth defects determined by the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to result from familial disorders, birth-related injuries, or fetal or neonatal infirmities with well-established causes. The legislation authorizes VA to provide or reimburse a contractor for health care delivered to the disabled children for the birth defect and associated conditions. This health care would include home, hospital, nursing home, outpatient, preventative, habilitative, rehabilitative and respite care. It also includes pharmaceuticals and supplies required by the birth defect, such as wheelchairs, if appropriate. The legislation also provides compensation from the VA to the children at four payment levels. The benefits would be for $100, $214, $743, and $1,272, per month, depending upon the severity of the child's disability. Future cost-of-living adjustments would be based on the Consumer Price Index, just as other veterans and Social Security benefits are adjusted. This bill also authorizes VA to furnish the disabled children with important vocational rehabilitation services. The services would include: VA design of a training plan that is individually designed, accounting for the individual needs of the child; placement and post- placement services, personal and work adjustment training. It may also include education at an institution of higher learning. The programs would generally run 24 months, but if necessary, the Secretary may extend the program for an additional 24 months. This legislation would be effective one year after the date of enactment, in order to allow time for regulations to be established. VA estimates that the costs for this legislation would be approximately $25 million over five years. In conclusion, I believe that we must help the children born with disabling birth defects associated with their mother's service in Vietnam. It is the logical extension of our policy to provide benefits for disabilities that result from service. It's the compassionate thing to do--to ensure that these children have the health care and other benefits they need to survive. As a nation, it is our unwavering responsibility to deal with all the consequences of war, not just the easy and obvious ones. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am here to talk about our Nation's most vulnerable children--those innocent kids who are in the child protection system because they have been abused or neglected by parents, many of whom have drug or alcohol problems. Over 500,000 children are in foster care nationwide and 3,000 children are in West Virginia. Each one deserves a safe, permanent home according to the fundamental guidelines set by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. National statistics range between 40 percent and 80 percent of families in the child welfare system struggling with alcohol or drug abuse, or both. One recent survey noted that 67 percent of the parents involved in child abuse or neglect cases needed alcohol or drug treatment, but only one-third of those parents got the appropriate treatment or services to deal with their addiction. In my own state of West Virginia, over half of the children placed in foster care have families with alcohol or drug abuse problems, and we know even more children are at risk of neglect, but are not in foster care yet because of their parent's substance abuse problems. Another sad, stunning statistic is that children with open child welfare cases whose parents have substance abuse problems are younger than other children in foster care, and they are more likely to be the victims of severe and chronic neglect. Once such children are placed in foster care, they tend to stay in care longer than other children. I believe the only way to achieve the critical goals of a safe, healthy, and permanent home for every child is to tackle the problem of alcohol and drug abuse among parents. What happens to parents who abuse alcohol or drugs ultimately will decide that child's fate. To help the child, we must address the addiction of their parents. The issue of alcohol and drug abuse is difficult. Part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to study this problem within the child welfare system. This important report, Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground, outlines our challenges. There is a lack of appropriate treatment and services, especially services designed to meet the needs of parents in the child protection system. Unfortunately, there is poor communication and collaboration between alcohol and drug abuse agencies and child protection agencies. Issues such as confidentiality, different definitions of who ``the client'' is, and different time frames for decisions make collaboration harder. For example, under the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, state agencies and courts are expected to consider termination of parental rights if a child has been in foster care for 15 of 22 months. Treatment programs designed for single clients have different time frames. To address the challenge, we must find new ways to encourage these two independent systems to work together on behalf of parents with an alcohol or drug problem and their children. In addition to treating the patient's addiction, we must also provide for the needs of their child. Therefore, we need to create incentives for both agencies to consider the total picture--What are the child's needs? What are the parent's needs? How can we effectively serve both, and meet the fundamental goals of the Adoption Law that every child deserves a safe, healthy, permanent home. The HHS report sets five priorities. First, it calls for building collaborative working relationships among agencies. It stresses that addiction is a treatable disease, but access to timely, comprehensive substance abuse treatment services is key. Keeping clients in treatment is crucial, but serving parents is harder because services must also be available to their children. As mentioned, children of abusing parents need special services. The final priority in the HHS study is for research and more information on the interaction between substance abuse and child maltreatment. Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senator Snowe, DeWine, and Dodd to introduce legislation to address this troubling issue. We have worked for months with state officials, child advocates and officials in the substance abuse community to develop the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000. This bill builds on the foundation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997-- fundamental goals of making a child's safety, health, and permanency paramount. To accomplish these bold goals, we need to be bold by investing in partnerships that will respond to the needs and priorities outlined in the comprehensive HHS study. I believe a new program and a new approach are essential. A new system is needed to address the special concerns of this unique population--parents with alcohol and drug problems who neglect their children. A program designed to serve a single male with drug problems doesn't respond to the needs of a mother and her child. To be effective, we must link child protection workers with those involved in alcohol and drug treatment programs. Forging new partnerships takes time--and it takes money. That is why our legislation invests $1.9 billion over 5 years to combat the problems of drugs and alcohol abuse in families in the child welfare system. I understand this is a large sum, but alcohol and drug abuse is a huge problem. Before reacting to the cost of the bill, consider what the costs are if we do nothing. If we do not invest in alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment for such families, children will be neglected or abused. Young children will be placed in foster care, at a wide range of costs, and they will linger there longer than other children without family substance abuse problems. In 1997, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee received testimony from Professor Richard Barth who noted that many newborns in substance abuse cases already had siblings placed in foster care. Barth estimated that if only one-third of the mothers with substance abuse problems got successful, early treatment upon the birth of their first child, instead of waiting until later, many years of foster care placements could be prevented and millions of dollars could be saved. Our bill is designed to tackle this tough issue so agencies do not wait too long to help vulnerable children. Our bill will promote innovative approaches that serve both parents and children. It will offer funding for screening and assessment to enhance prevention. It will support outreach to families and retention so that parents stay in treatment. It can support joint training, and educate alcohol and drug counselors about the special needs of children and the importance of a safe, permanent home. It can support out-patient services or residential treatment. It allows investments in after-care to keep families and children safe. If we do invest in such specialized alcohol and drug treatment programs for families, we can achieve two things. For many families, I hope, treatment will be successful and children will return to a safe and stable home. But for others, we will have tried, and learned the important lesson that some children need an alternate place--some children need adoption. 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 must follow it. Therefore, to move some children towards adoption, services must be tried for their families. We want a responsible approach that will include accountability. It requires annual reports to assess how much progress is made each and every year. Reports should measure success in treating parents, but equally important will be measures of children's safety and family stability. Over the years, we have worked on child welfare issues in a positive, bipartisan manner. I am proud to continue the bipartisan approach as we grapple with such tough controversial issues as alcohol and drug abuse among parents in the child welfare system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and section- by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am here to talk about our Nation's most vulnerable children--those innocent kids who are in the child protection system because they have been abused or neglected by parents, many of whom have drug or alcohol problems. Over 500,000 children are in foster care nationwide and 3,000 children are in West Virginia. Each one deserves a safe, permanent home according to the fundamental guidelines set by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. National statistics range between 40 percent and 80 percent of families in the child welfare system struggling with alcohol or drug abuse, or both. One recent survey noted that 67 percent of the parents involved in child abuse or neglect cases needed alcohol or drug treatment, but only one-third of those parents got the appropriate treatment or services to deal with their addiction. In my own state of West Virginia, over half of the children placed in foster care have families with alcohol or drug abuse problems, and we know even more children are at risk of neglect, but are not in foster care yet because of their parent's substance abuse problems. Another sad, stunning statistic is that children with open child welfare cases whose parents have substance abuse problems are younger than other children in foster care, and they are more likely to be the victims of severe and chronic neglect. Once such children are placed in foster care, they tend to stay in care longer than other children. I believe the only way to achieve the critical goals of a safe, healthy, and permanent home for every child is to tackle the problem of alcohol and drug abuse among parents. What happens to parents who abuse alcohol or drugs ultimately will decide that child's fate. To help the child, we must address the addiction of their parents. The issue of alcohol and drug abuse is difficult. Part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to study this problem within the child welfare system. This important report, Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground, outlines our challenges. There is a lack of appropriate treatment and services, especially services designed to meet the needs of parents in the child protection system. Unfortunately, there is poor communication and collaboration between alcohol and drug abuse agencies and child protection agencies. Issues such as confidentiality, different definitions of who ``the client'' is, and different time frames for decisions make collaboration harder. For example, under the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, state agencies and courts are expected to consider termination of parental rights if a child has been in foster care for 15 of 22 months. Treatment programs designed for single clients have different time frames. To address the challenge, we must find new ways to encourage these two independent systems to work together on behalf of parents with an alcohol or drug problem and their children. In addition to treating the patient's addiction, we must also provide for the needs of their child. Therefore, we need to create incentives for both agencies to consider the total picture--What are the child's needs? What are the parent's needs? How can we effectively serve both, and meet the fundamental goals of the Adoption Law that every child deserves a safe, healthy, permanent home. The HHS report sets five priorities. First, it calls for building collaborative working relationships among agencies. It stresses that addiction is a treatable disease, but access to timely, comprehensive substance abuse treatment services is key. Keeping clients in treatment is crucial, but serving parents is harder because services must also be available to their children. As mentioned, children of abusing parents need special services. The final priority in the HHS study is for research and more information on the interaction between substance abuse and child maltreatment. Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senator Snowe, DeWine, and Dodd to introduce legislation to address this troubling issue. We have worked for months with state officials, child advocates and officials in the substance abuse community to develop the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000. This bill builds on the foundation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997-- fundamental goals of making a child's safety, health, and permanency paramount. To accomplish these bold goals, we need to be bold by investing in partnerships that will respond to the needs and priorities outlined in the comprehensive HHS study. I believe a new program and a new approach are essential. A new system is needed to address the special concerns of this unique population--parents with alcohol and drug problems who neglect their children. A program designed to serve a single male with drug problems doesn't respond to the needs of a mother and her child. To be effective, we must link child protection workers with those involved in alcohol and drug treatment programs. Forging new partnerships takes time--and it takes money. That is why our legislation invests $1.9 billion over 5 years to combat the problems of drugs and alcohol abuse in families in the child welfare system. I understand this is a large sum, but alcohol and drug abuse is a huge problem. Before reacting to the cost of the bill, consider what the costs are if we do nothing. If we do not invest in alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment for such families, children will be neglected or abused. Young children will be placed in foster care, at a wide range of costs, and they will linger there longer than other children without family substance abuse problems. In 1997, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee received testimony from Professor Richard Barth who noted that many newborns in substance abuse cases already had siblings placed in foster care. Barth estimated that if only one-third of the mothers with substance abuse problems got successful, early treatment upon the birth of their first child, instead of waiting until later, many years of foster care placements could be prevented and millions of dollars could be saved. Our bill is designed to tackle this tough issue so agencies do not wait too long to help vulnerable children. Our bill will promote innovative approaches that serve both parents and children. It will offer funding for screening and assessment to enhance prevention. It will support outreach to families and retention so that parents stay in treatment. It can support joint training, and educate alcohol and drug counselors about the special needs of children and the importance of a safe, permanent home. It can support out-patient services or residential treatment. It allows investments in after-care to keep families and children safe. If we do invest in such specialized alcohol and drug treatment programs for families, we can achieve two things. For many families, I hope, treatment will be successful and children will return to a safe and stable home. But for others, we will have tried, and learned the important lesson that some children need an alternate place--some children need adoption. 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 must follow it. Therefore, to move some children towards adoption, services must be tried for their families. We want a responsible approach that will include accountability. It requires annual reports to assess how much progress is made each and every year. Reports should measure success in treating parents, but equally important will be measures of children's safety and family stability. Over the years, we have worked on child welfare issues in a positive, bipartisan manner. I am proud to continue the bipartisan approach as we grapple with such tough controversial issues as alcohol and drug abuse among parents in the child welfare system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and section- by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.