Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to explain why I missed the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 2285, the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday bill, and more importantly, to explain why I would have voted against cloture on this bill. I had to be absent for this vote because I was traveling to Taiwan, where I became the first Member of the U.S. Congress to visit its newly elected leadership. I made the trip to discuss and reinforce Taiwan's close economic ties with my state of West Virginia, and to relay our country's interest in Taiwan and its continued stable relations with China. Had I been in Washington, DC, for this vote, I would have most assuredly voted against it. I would have opposed cloture for a number of reasons, including my philosophical opposition to the frequent use of the cloture procedure by the majority to foreclose Democratic initiatives. However, I was happy to see that this cloture motion failed because of more substantive concerns. Quite simply, this bill represents bad tax policy, bad energy policy, and bad transportation policy, all dressed up in an election year wrapper. Proponents of the gas tax ``holiday'' would have us believe that this bill--which would have cut more than $200 million in federal highway money for West Virginia--was offered to do something about the recent price increases for gasoline and other fuels. Petroleum products are taxed at the refinery, not at the pump, and consumers would not have seen any of the savings passed through to them. Consumers in some states would even have seen their state gasoline tax go up in response to the federal tax going down. The effect of this bill would have been the creation of a windfall for oil companies and middlemen, with West Virginians still paying much more than the national average for a gallon of gas. Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss some of the problems with this legislation. The proposed 4.3 cent reduction would translate to more than $4 billion in lost revenue that would otherwise go to the Highway Trust Fund. The complete elimination of fuel taxes that would have been triggered by the price of gas going above $2.00 would explode that shortfall to more than $20 billion--all to be made up from a surplus that some would argue does not exist. These funding reductions would have put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, jeopardized projects to upgrade our aging transportation infrastructure, and put millions of highway users at risk. In addition to the severe cutback in the highway funding mechanism, which we were so happy to put in place two years ago with the passage of TEA-21, the impact of the fuel tax repeal would have left the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under-funded to the tune of about $700 million a year. The effect on airline passenger safety, and on airport construction and maintenance projects, would be devastating. Repeal of the gasoline excise tax would have eliminated the tax incentives we in Congress have instituted to expand the use of alternative fuels. Without the general excise tax from which to partially exempt alternative or blended fuels, there would be no realistic means of bringing our nation into compliance with fuel diversity standards we have previously worked to put in place. As this temporary worldwide shortage of gasoline demonstrates so painfully at the pumps, the United States needs an energy policy that weakens the grip of foreign suppliers. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to comment on an earlier cloture vote on this issue. On March 30 I voted for the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to this bill. I voted this way not because I supported the gas tax repeal, but precisely because I thought the Senate should proceed to consideration of the bill, so that its many faults could be debated, and the bill could be voted down.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will not suggest that people vote against the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, but it is interesting to me that in his original amendment, he said that Congress ``should'' pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. He changed it to the budget resolution ``assumes that among its reform options, Congress should explore a Medicare prescription drug.'' That is a very different content statement regarding the seriousness about prescription drugs. I do not, however, oppose his amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Robb's amendment to insist that tax cuts do not take priority over ensuring that tens of millions of seniors receive affordable outpatient prescription drug coverage. This is a commonsense amendment about priorities. If we have hundreds of billions of dollars in the next several years to spend on tax reductions that will primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans--and that's what my Republican colleagues are saying when they voted for $250 billion over 5 years in tax cuts for some married people just last week--then we should certainly enact a meaningful Medicare out-patient drug benefit first. It's important to note that when it comes to tax cuts for married people, the Republican proposal doesn't even focus on eliminating the marriage penalty, but rather, gives large bonuses to only certain upper-income married couples. The cost of the Senate Finance marriage bonus proposal explodes in the out years. And yet, when it comes to finding a way to offer Medicare beneficiaries a prescription drug benefit there are all kinds of ifs and conditions. Senator Robb is right to say let's do first things first. I urge my colleagues to vote for his amendment that makes a statement about our order of priority. I know too many West Virginia seniors who too frequently go without food, or heat, or other necessities because they are forced to make the terrible choice between the drugs they need and other necessities of life. This is just plain wrong. We should provide all Medicare beneficiaries with a health care benefit that meets their needs. It is ludicrous that the Medicare program doesn't currently offer this critical component of health care today. We should change that, and we have the resources to do it this year. We have the resources if we don't fritter them away by picking favored constituencies for special tax breaks. Let's look at the facts about how the Republican budget treats tax cuts and how it treats the real hope of many Americans that we will find a way to provide a Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit. The Republican budget's statement of purpose is to provide $150 billion in tax cuts over 5 years. It provides the money to the Senate Finance Committee to do it. It is a certainty. It will have the protection of reconciliation. The Republican budget resolution on Medicare prescription drugs does nothing more than suspend existing budget rules to allow for a Medicare drug benefit should the Senate meet its moral responsibility to provide one. It doesn't say do it. It says you can do it. It includes only a $20 billion placeholder to finance a drug benefit. Most people agree that won't be sufficient to offer a decent drug benefit to all Medicare beneficiaries. Moreover, the Republican budget resolution puts a 3-year time limit on a possible Medicare drug benefit--with absolutely no guarantee that the benefit would be continued after 2005. The Republican budget resolution also conditions 2004 and 2005 funding of a possible Medicare drug benefit on Medicare reform. Congress clearly has not reached any consensus on how to approach Medicare reform. Mr. President, we have a unique window of opportunity to do something good for millions of seniors and disabled Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to do what is right and vote for the Robb amendment to provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act. This Act would create a tax credit for companies that invest in providing broadband telecommunications services available in rural areas. The convergence of computing and communications has changed the way America interacts and does business. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of networked communications more and more each year. However, where in the past access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications needs, today many people and organizations need the ability to transmit and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites. In some areas of the country companies are building networks that meet this broadband need as fast as they can. Technology companies are fighting to roll out broadband facilities as quickly as they can in urban and suburban areas. They are tearing up streets to instal fiber optics, converting cable TV facilities to broadband telecom applications, developing incredible new DSL technologies that convert regular copper telephone wires into broadband powerhouses. Other areas are not as fortunate. In rural areas access to broadband communications is harder to come by. In fact, there are only a few broadband providers outside big cities and suburban areas nationwide. This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve. Terrain is difficult. Populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of our broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office-- which is the case for most rural Americans. The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity to continue are alarming. Organizations in traditional robust communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban and suburban communities, will be able to reap the rewards of the so- called ``New Economy.'' Organizations in other areas, often in rural areas, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, will suffer the consequences of being unable to take advantage of the astounding power of broadband networked computing. Just as companies that employ technological advances are decimating their less technologically savvy competitors, businesses in infrastructure-rich areas may soon decimate competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is just as true for rural students and workers trying to gain new skills who are competing against their non- rural peers in the New Economy. The result of this digital divide could be disastrous for rural Americans: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and business failure concentrated in rural areas. Denying rural Americans a chance to participate in the New Economy is also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production environments. Additionally, without adequate infrastructure, the businesses and individuals in these communications infrastructure poor areas are less likely to be integrated into the national electronic marketplace. Their absence would put a damper on the growth of the digital economy for everyone--not just for those in rural areas. Therefore, we must do everything we can to ensure that broadband communications are available to all areas of the country--rural as well as urban. The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act addresses this problem. The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act would give companies the incentive to build broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very focused tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband facilities in rural areas a tax credit over the next three years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in technology I just described. The credit is only available for certain investments. First, investments must be for ``broadband local access facilities.'' Second, investments must support ``high-speed broadband telecommunications services.'' And third, investments must serve only ``rural counties.'' The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act is part of the solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans deserve the chance to participate in the New Economy. Without access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act. This Act would create a tax credit for companies that invest in providing broadband telecommunications services available in rural areas. The convergence of computing and communications has changed the way America interacts and does business. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of networked communications more and more each year. However, where in the past access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications needs, today many people and organizations need the ability to transmit and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites. In some areas of the country companies are building networks that meet this broadband need as fast as they can. Technology companies are fighting to roll out broadband facilities as quickly as they can in urban and suburban areas. They are tearing up streets to instal fiber optics, converting cable TV facilities to broadband telecom applications, developing incredible new DSL technologies that convert regular copper telephone wires into broadband powerhouses. Other areas are not as fortunate. In rural areas access to broadband communications is harder to come by. In fact, there are only a few broadband providers outside big cities and suburban areas nationwide. This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve. Terrain is difficult. Populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of our broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office-- which is the case for most rural Americans. The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity to continue are alarming. Organizations in traditional robust communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban and suburban communities, will be able to reap the rewards of the so- called ``New Economy.'' Organizations in other areas, often in rural areas, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, will suffer the consequences of being unable to take advantage of the astounding power of broadband networked computing. Just as companies that employ technological advances are decimating their less technologically savvy competitors, businesses in infrastructure-rich areas may soon decimate competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is just as true for rural students and workers trying to gain new skills who are competing against their non- rural peers in the New Economy. The result of this digital divide could be disastrous for rural Americans: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and business failure concentrated in rural areas. Denying rural Americans a chance to participate in the New Economy is also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production environments. Additionally, without adequate infrastructure, the businesses and individuals in these communications infrastructure poor areas are less likely to be integrated into the national electronic marketplace. Their absence would put a damper on the growth of the digital economy for everyone--not just for those in rural areas. Therefore, we must do everything we can to ensure that broadband communications are available to all areas of the country--rural as well as urban. The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act addresses this problem. The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act would give companies the incentive to build broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very focused tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband facilities in rural areas a tax credit over the next three years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in technology I just described. The credit is only available for certain investments. First, investments must be for ``broadband local access facilities.'' Second, investments must support ``high-speed broadband telecommunications services.'' And third, investments must serve only ``rural counties.'' The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act is part of the solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans deserve the chance to participate in the New Economy. Without access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope that the Members of this body will support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today the ``Recognition of Physician Assistants in the Department of Veterans Affairs Act of 2000,'' which I am delighted to cosponsor with Senators Jeffords and Hutchison. The bill before us would establish within the Veterans Health Administration an advisory position on physician assistants--an action long overdue. It is baffling to me that the VA--the largest single employer of physician assistants in the country--does not provide direct representation for physician assistants. VA has nearly 1,200 physician assistants working in hospitals and clinics, yet VA is the only federal health care agency that does not have a physician assistant in a leadership role. Skimming through the VA phone directory, we find much needed representation for social workers, dentists, audiologists and speech pathologists, nutritionists, recreational therapists, and nurses. Physician assistants, however, are hidden within the bailiwick of the Chief Consultant for Primary and Ambulatory Care. This lack of physician assistant leadership has translated into a lack of knowledge about the profession at the national level--which, in turn, has filtered down to the local level. For example, the scope of practice for physician assistants is not uniformly understood in all VA medical facilities and clinics. Practitioners in the field also report confusion regarding such issues as privileging, supervision, and physician countersignature. Some facilities unnecessarily restrict the ability of physician assistants to provide medical care, while others will not hire physician assistants. The unfortunate consequence of these restrictions is to limit veterans' access to quality medical care. In June 1997, the final report of a work group to explore internal practice barriers for Advanced Practice Nurses, Clinical Pharmacy Specialists, and Physician Assistants was issued. To date, we have seen no response regarding what VA plans to do to implement the recommendations contained in the report. Although the work group's report does not contain a specific recommendation for an advisory position, the report clearly states that ``many times unnecessary, inappropriate restrictions have been placed on their [PAs] practice.'' An advisor would be especially helpful in clarifying all issues associated with the profession, including education, qualifications, clinical privileges, and scope of practice. I firmly believe that such an advisor is the key to removing barriers to greater use of these valued health care professionals. I also encourage VA to move ahead with the other recommendations contained in the work group report. I personally understand the huge importance of physician assistants. My own state of West Virginia is highly dependent upon their expertise. We count on them to provide quality health care in a cost-effective way. In closing, I thank the Veterans Affairs Physician Assistants Association, which has always provided me with the most up-to-date information about the state of the physician assistant profession. I hope the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will work expeditiously to pass this bill out of committee. Physician assistants--and their patients-- are depending upon it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today the ``Recognition of Physician Assistants in the Department of Veterans Affairs Act of 2000,'' which I am delighted to cosponsor with Senators Jeffords and Hutchison. The bill before us would establish within the Veterans Health Administration an advisory position on physician assistants--an action long overdue. It is baffling to me that the VA--the largest single employer of physician assistants in the country--does not provide direct representation for physician assistants. VA has nearly 1,200 physician assistants working in hospitals and clinics, yet VA is the only federal health care agency that does not have a physician assistant in a leadership role. Skimming through the VA phone directory, we find much needed representation for social workers, dentists, audiologists and speech pathologists, nutritionists, recreational therapists, and nurses. Physician assistants, however, are hidden within the bailiwick of the Chief Consultant for Primary and Ambulatory Care. This lack of physician assistant leadership has translated into a lack of knowledge about the profession at the national level--which, in turn, has filtered down to the local level. For example, the scope of practice for physician assistants is not uniformly understood in all VA medical facilities and clinics. Practitioners in the field also report confusion regarding such issues as privileging, supervision, and physician countersignature. Some facilities unnecessarily restrict the ability of physician assistants to provide medical care, while others will not hire physician assistants. The unfortunate consequence of these restrictions is to limit veterans' access to quality medical care. In June 1997, the final report of a work group to explore internal practice barriers for Advanced Practice Nurses, Clinical Pharmacy Specialists, and Physician Assistants was issued. To date, we have seen no response regarding what VA plans to do to implement the recommendations contained in the report. Although the work group's report does not contain a specific recommendation for an advisory position, the report clearly states that ``many times unnecessary, inappropriate restrictions have been placed on their [PAs] practice.'' An advisor would be especially helpful in clarifying all issues associated with the profession, including education, qualifications, clinical privileges, and scope of practice. I firmly believe that such an advisor is the key to removing barriers to greater use of these valued health care professionals. I also encourage VA to move ahead with the other recommendations contained in the work group report. I personally understand the huge importance of physician assistants. My own state of West Virginia is highly dependent upon their expertise. We count on them to provide quality health care in a cost-effective way. In closing, I thank the Veterans Affairs Physician Assistants Association, which has always provided me with the most up-to-date information about the state of the physician assistant profession. I hope the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will work expeditiously to pass this bill out of committee. Physician assistants--and their patients-- are depending upon it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the words of my friend from the State of Washington are not justified except if they are returned to him and to his staff. The process of working legislation is extraordinary. This has been a very long process, more or less a 2-year process. Working with Senator Slade Gorton from the State of Washington over the years has been a great privilege for me and continues on this bill, which is the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, which is a long title, but we had to give it a long title in order to be able to give it an acronym, which is FAIR-21. FAIR, that is what the bill is. Wendell Ford, should he be listening, should be very proud. We have had half a dozen temporary extensions on this bill. It has been 2 years in the making. When Senator Gorton talks about the enormous number of hours spent by Sam Whitehorn of the committee staff, Kerry Ates of my own staff, and members of his own committee and personal staff, he is exactly right. It has been an extraordinary and frustrating process but a successful one. There are many Members of the Senate and the House to thank. It was one of those situations where you had the authorizing committees, the budget committees, the appropriations committees, in both Houses, coming to an agreement--which is very rare in something of this sort, and all in a fairly short period of time. Frankly, including obviously Senator Gorton, I think I really want to thank the majority leader, Senator Trent Lott, for stepping in in a most remarkable way, most forcefully, at a critical time, to bring the parties together and make sure we pushed toward a solution. In the end, I think we have achieved a bipartisan House-Senate compromise of which I, for one at least, am very proud. We have a final bill that will set us on an entirely new path in terms of the FAA, and in a larger sense for aviation in this country, which has enormous impact. For the aviation community, and those of us who work with them--and I thank them for their help on this bill, also; not all of them being happy about all aspects of it, but that is in the nature of things--hopefully this good economic news, of the passage of this bill, is, however, entirely overshadowed by fear that most of us have about the state of our system as it is now, of our aviation system particularly in regard to air traffic control and other matters in our infrastructure. At current levels, our system is already so overburdened we are suffocating from congestion and delays. The country suffers through it. Is there a popular uprising? There does not seem to be one. But the fact is, it is a suffocating situation, a dangerous situation. We are increasingly concerned about safety, with every single reason to be, given the doubling of the number of air passengers and many more cargo planes and passenger planes to be built in the future. Whatever you see today, try to double it in your mind and then figure the same number of runways. How on Earth are people going to accept a situation where delays are growing longer and it becomes more dangerous unless we do something about it? This bill does. Delays have increased by 50 percent. Today, one in four flights is delayed more than 15 minutes. That is not what passengers want. That is not what airlines want. To be very blunt about it, if there is no change in the way we are doing business, we will come to a situation before the year 2015 where there will be, somewhere in this world, a major airplane crash every 7 to 10 days. That is the course. It is a terrible course, a dangerous course, and one which this Congress cannot allow to go on and which this Congress, in fact, with this bill, does a great deal about. We have fallen behind. Unless we get started immediately in the effort to modernize our air traffic control system, to fix our airports, we stand a very good chance of never being able to catch up, never catching up to the curve, much less getting ahead of it. That is fundamentally what this bill, FAIR-21, is about. It is about fixing the system. It is about trying to get ahead of the growth curve with our most significant increase ever in airport and air traffic control funding, and some fundamental reforms in the way we do business in our system. It is about improving safety and service for the traveling public and supporting aviation employees under great stress in their challenging jobs. Senator Gorton and I have each seen that on many occasions. These people work under incredible tension all the time. They work with very old equipment. It is about increasing competition. It is about giving a leg up, finally, to small communities such as I have in my State, as does Senator Gorton, as does every Senator in his or her State--small communities that were left behind when we did airline deregulation 20 years ago. So, FAIR-21, this bill, will provide $40 billion for the FAA in fiscal year 2001 until fiscal year 2003. It is a 25-percent increase in total aviation funding. The key investments will be fixing aviation infrastructure, to wit, airport funding will increase by 33 percent, and air traffic control modernization funding will increase by 40 percent. That is so desperately needed. FAA funding operations will also increase by approximately 15 percent over the same period. We are beginning to nudge into the area to start fixing our problems. This bill represents the will of the Congress, hopefully, and the will of the American people, to take a dangerous situation and start to fix it. For the very first time, FAIR-21 establishes that all revenues and interest paid into the aviation trust fund by airline passengers, lo and behold, will be spent on aviation. That seems quite fair to me. That means that $33 billion of the $40 billion will be guaranteed from the trust fund, not taken off-budget, which this Senator would have liked to have seen but was not going to happen; so not taken off-budget but protected through points of order and with a strong commitment from the Appropriations Committee to fully fund all accounts. This was part of the magic of the process that Senator Trent Lott, Senator Gorton, and others worked out to make people satisfied. All told, this represents--and my colleagues should hear this--the biggest total increase in aviation investments ever. I know few problems receive that kind of boost unless the Congress perceives there is a crisis. What we learned over recent years about aviation was that a crisis was coming. I am thankful we have the foresight to take action now. To move beyond the funding issue for a moment, I want to point out a few of the key aviation law and policy changes contained in this bill which I think are very helpful and good: Whistle-blower protection for aviation and airline employees who report safety problems; A $1.50 increase on the cap of the passenger facility charge for airport projects, which is enormously helpful to local airports; An Air Service Development Program, with grants up to $500,000 each for innovative efforts to improve air service in small communities; in other words, small communities can do something and get a match; A ban on smoking everywhere, even internationally; Easing of the slots rule at O'Hare, LaGuardia, and Kennedy Airports. This carries with it some controversy. Compromises were made. Not everybody was happy. But resolution was reached; New criminal background checks and training for airport security personnel as the pressure on all of that continues to increase; Increased funding for the essential air service program is enormously important in my State of West Virginia and every single area where there are rural airports. The State of the Presiding Officer has its fair share of those; Finally, new and increased penalties for airline customer service violations. That goes along with the effort Senator Gorton and I led to have a passenger bill of rights, which the airlines could have first crack at, which seems to be working out very well but, on the other hand, we are watching very closely. We have had a lot of time to work on this bill and, in my view, it has gotten better and better during the process and reached a crescendo in the last several days. It is a bold conference report designed to protect our future. I hope my colleagues will join me and the Senator from the State of Washington in sending this bill to the President. So much of the work is done not just by Senators willing to compromise and House Members willing to compromise but, most importantly, by staff who worked through the night often to make sure things came out very well. When we began the effort to enact meaningful legislation to address the needs of our air transportation system, we knew it would be a difficult process. Even anticipating that, I can tell you that it has been more difficult than any of us could have imagined. This bill has been more than two years in the making, with nearly a half-dozen temporary extensions in the process. There are many Members in the Senate and House to thank for all of the hard work and effort it took to bring this to a conclusion. Members on and off the conference committee have really rolled up their sleeves to work out a very difficult compromise. And above all others, the majority leader stepped in during these critical and delicate last few months to push us toward a final solution. In the end, we've achieved a bipartisan, House-Senate compromise that I am very proud of. We have a final bill that I believe will set us on an entirely new path for the FAA and aviation. Aviation in this country is at a crossroads. Aviation is a critical engine of economic development at the national and local levels, and it has the potential for unprecedented and incomprehensive growth over the next decade. The travel and tourism industry employs 1 in 17 Americans. Air travelers spend over $500 billion each year in the U.S. and generate more than $70 billion in federal, state and local taxes. Aviation is the only U.S. industry that has consistently enjoyed a positive trade balance. By 2009, enplanements are projected to increase to 1 billion people, from 650 million in 1999. In many respects this is good news--it is one of the great success stories of our booming economy. Yet, for the aviation community and those of us who work with them, this good news is entirely overshadowed by fears about the state of our system. At current traffic levels, our system is already so overburdened that we are suffocating from congestion and delays, and we are increasingly concerned about safety. Almost every week, another red flag goes up about the looming crisis in aviation. Scheduled flying times have increased 75 percent on the top 200 routes in the nation. Delays have increased by 50 percent, and today one in four flights is delayed more than 15 minutes, at a cost to the economy of more than $4 billion. Recent data shows a rise in runway incidents (so-called runway incursions), and we read too often about near-misses in the skies. If there is no change in the current accident rate before the year 2015, there is expected to be a major airline accident somewhere in the world every 7-10 days. Yet, from 1998 to 1999, the FAA had to reduce safety inspections by 10 percent and cut 5 percent of its security staff. All of us--the airlines, the airports, and the Congress--have had a difficult time keeping up with the pace of growth. The result is that, as a nation, we've fallen behind. Unless we get started immediately in the effort to modernize our traffic control system and fix our airports, we may never catch up. That's fundamentally what this bill, FAIR-21, is all about. It's about fixing the system and trying to get ahead of the growth curve-- with our most significant increase ever in airport and air traffic control funding and some fundamental reforms of our system. And it's about improving safety and service for the traveling public; supporting aviation employees in challenging jobs, increasing competition, and giving a leg up finally to small communities who were left behind in airline deregulation twenty years ago. FAIR-21 will provide $40 billion for the FAA for FY 2001-2003--a 25 percent increase in total aviation funding. The key investments will be fixing aviation infrastructure--airport funding will increase by 33 percent and air traffic control modernization funding will increase by 40 percent. FAA operations funding also will increase, by approximately 15 percent over the same period. For the first time, FAIR-21 establishes that all revenues and interest paid into the aviation trust fund by airline passengers will be spent on aviation. That means that $33 billion of the $40 billion bill will be guaranteed from the trust fund--not taken off-budget but protected through points of order and with a strong commitment from the Appropriations Committee to fully fund all accounts. The remaining $6.7 billion would come from the General Fund, subject to appropriations. For fiscal year 2001, the bill fully meets the President's budget request for FAA operations and air traffic control equipment, and it exceeds the President's budget request for AIP by $1.2 billion. All told this represents the biggest total increase in aviation investments ever. I know that few programs receive that kind of boost-- unless a crisis exists. What we have learned about aviation is that a crisis is coming. And I'm thankful we have the foresight to take action now. To move beyond the funding issue for a moment, let me also highlight a few of the key aviation law and policy changes contained in this bill that I think are particularly important. I am very pleased that the bill contains: whistleblower protection for airline and aviation employees who report safety problems; a $1.50 increase in the cap on the passenger facility charge for airport projects; an Air Service Development program, with grants of up to $500,000 each for innovative efforts to improve air service in small communities; a ban on smoking on all flights to and from the U.S., including international flights; an easing of the slot rules at O'Hare, LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports; a focus on reducing the number of runway incursions that can result in serious accidents; new criminal background checks and training for airport security personnel; increased funding for the Essential Air Service program; and new and increased penalties for airline's customer service violations. We have had a lot of time to work on this bill, and in my view it has gotten better and better. It is a bold conference report designed to protect our future, and I hope my colleagues will join me in sending it on to the President for his signature. Before we end the debate this morning, I want to say a few things. Again, all of the staff from the Commerce Committee, my office, the offices of the other conferees, and the House staff, deserve our thanks. They spent months working on this bill. In fact, this bill was started almost 2 years ago. Countless hours, late nights, lots of missed family events. We owe all of them our thanks. I also want to thank, and I know Senator Hollings and others share this, Hans Ephramson-Abt. Many of you probably have encountered him. He is a gentleman, first and foremost, who has worked for years to help the families of victims of aviation disasters. The conference report changes the liability laws for accidents offshore, preserving the ability of people like the children of Montoursville, PA, who vanished in the TWA flight 800 tragedy. Hans lost his daughter, Alice, on KAL 007, shot down off of Korea in September 1983. He has done a great service in helping others, and for that we all owe him a debt of gratitude. Finally, I want to say that we have had a long debate over the last several years about FAA reform. For now, that issue has been resolved. Over the next several years, working with Administrator Garvey, or her successor, we will look at other ways to improve the FAA. Today, the bill before you does many creative things for the FAA--giving it the tools to be more business-like, but retaining its crucial role as safety arbiter. The bill, for example, gives the FAA the ability to enter into long-term leases for satellite communications services, something that will save the FAA money. It establishes a public-private funding mechanism to expedite the installation of air traffic control equipment, with the priorities set by the private sector. It structures the FAA after corporate models, establishing one person to be accountable for air traffic control operations and plans. It establishes a Board to oversee those activities. The FAA, because of actions led by the Commerce Committee and Senator Lautenberg, today has procurement and personnel flexibility that no other governmental agency has. We have achieved a lot over the last several years, and with this bill, continue to make progressive changes to the FAA, without compromising safety. I know that there are some in the Administration that are not satisfied, and probably will never be satisfied, but this is a good bill and one that will do a lot for our aviation system. I urge my colleagues to fully support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a more complete listing of staff who spent months working on this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I only make a couple of comments. I indicated this is the largest increase in aviation spending in history. I did that out of a sense of pride because of the urgency of the situation we face. This is not money which is being spent for the sake of money; it is money being spent so we will not walk into the disaster we are now headed towards. I remind my colleagues--the delays, the near misses, the pressure, the outdated equipment, the insufficient time for preparation at work, salaries, money for various purposes--we cannot take an air traffic control system or modernize an FAA in the way they want to do it, we cannot pay the many thousands of people who work to keep it safe in this country, without spending money. It has been said a number of times that the number of people who will be flying in this country will be a billion in less than 10 years. Cargo traffic on a worldwide basis, as well as in our country, will increase exponentially. The number of planes flying in the skies will increase by at least 50 percent in less than 10 years. Think about that. We have the same number of runways; we have 20- to 30-year-old computers trying to figure out what altitudes the planes are flying and figure out how to separate them; we look at all the different tracking systems we have in our aviation system and we would be embarrassed to have that equipment in our own Senate offices. It is a crisis. Therefore, it is a priority. We are talking about the saving of American lives and lives across the world. Money must be spent. It is not that other transportation is any less important. This Senator benefits enormously from the services of Amtrak. An airplane crash does something to the Nation's psychology. It can take 2 or 3 years for an airline to recover from an instant which costs lives. The economic impact and, most importantly, the human impact and the pressure on people who run the aviation system to prevent these things from happening, to have safe skies, is absolutely overwhelming. It is something which is not recognized sufficiently by the American people and which we are, happily, recognizing in this bill. The Secretary of the Department of Transportation is happy with this bill and will recommend to the President that he sign it. Jane Garvey, the FAA Administrator--somebody in whom I have an enormous amount of confidence, who has run Boston's airport by herself and knows the situation cold--is very much in support of this. After all, we have not taken anything off budget. The aviation trust fund is still on budget. We have not built any firewalls. We have acted in a responsible fashion. However, we have applied more money because this is a particularly special crisis which, thank heavens, after a number of years, Congress has finally recognized. In my earlier remarks, I failed to mention Bud Shuster in the House, the chairman of their committee, and Jim Oberstar, dear friends of many years. What they and their colleagues have done is extraordinary. I think we have a superb bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is, as in all things, the result of compromise. I think, generally speaking, we have a bill of which to be extremely proud. I know the Senator from West Virginia believes that very strongly. Unless there are others who wish to speak, I hope our colleagues will vote to pass this conference report when the time comes this afternoon. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. We have known a long time we have been underfunding our aviation system as a whole, particularly our air traffic control system, reforming the FAA--all the rest of it --building airports. Overall, aviation funding is increased by 25 percent in this bill. It is a start. FAA operations funding is increased. Airport money is increased by 33 percent; air traffic control modernization is increased by 40 percent. This is the first shot we have at making the airways safe for the American people. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, I note Senator Lautenberg wanted to have 1 minute in opposition, but I do not see him on the floor. I do not know what to add further to that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am enormously pleased that the Congress has passed this comprehensive bill which would make extensive changes to a wide range of veterans' benefits and services. This legislation is the culmination of extensive oversight and investigation, as well as the normal process of developing legislation--hearings and markups in both the House and Senate. Further, the bill represents compromise on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress. It represents many, many hours of staff and Members' work, and for that, I thank everyone involved. The bill covers a wide spectrum of issues--from long-term care to new educational benefits for servicemembers. I will address some of the more substantive provisions. Mr. President, H.R. 2116, as amended, represents a comprehensive effort to address the long-term care needs of our veterans. We know that there is an expanding need for long-term care in our country, and in the VA, the demand is even more pressing. About 35 percent of the veteran population is 65 years or older, and that number will grow dramatically in the next few years. With this legislation, we are taking an important step forward for our veterans, and I am hopeful that it signals a new concern for providing long-term care for all elderly Americans. For the first time, the VA will be required to provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 directs the VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or more service- connected disabled. In addition, the VA is directed to provide noninstitutional care, such as home care and adult day health care, to all enrolled veterans. This latter provision was included in the Veterans' Long-term Care Enhancement Act of 1999 which I introduced this summer. Within three years of the bill's enactment, VA would evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both of these provisions. Under the bill, the VA is also required to operate and maintain extended care programs so as to ensure that the level of extended care services is not less than the level of such services provided during fiscal year 1998. Finally, in order to offset the cost of this new program expansion, the conference agreement requires new long-term care copayments for services exceeding 21 days in any year. Veterans who have compensably rated service-connected conditions and veterans with incomes below the pension rate are exempted from these copayments. Under this provision, VA would be required to develop a methodology for establishing the amount of copayments, taking into account the income of the veterans, the need to protect the veteran's spouse from financial difficulties, and the desire to allow the veteran to retain a personal allowance. Further, it was the conferees' desire that copayments would not apply to patients who are currently receiving long-term care services. Section 102--also based on the Veterans' Long-term Care Enhancement Act of 1999 which I authored--mandates that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs carry out a series of pilot programs, over a period of three years, which would be designed to gauge the best way for VA to meet veterans' long-term care needs: either directly, through cooperative arrangements with community providers, or by purchasing services from non-VA providers. While VA has developed significant expertise in long-term care over the past 20-plus years, it has not done so with any mandate to share its learning with others, nor has it pushed its program development beyond that which met the current needs at the time. Some experts even believe that VA's expertise is gradually eroding. For VA's expertise to be of greatest use to others, it needs both to better capture what it has done and to develop new learning that would be most applicable to other health care entities. A key purpose of the pilot program would be to test and evaluate various approaches to meeting the long-term care needs of eligible veterans, both to develop approaches that could be expanded across VA, as well as to demonstrate to others outside of VA the effectiveness and impact of various approaches to long-term care. To this end, the pilot program would include specific data collection on matters such as cost effectiveness, quality of health care services provided, enrollee and health care provider satisfaction, and the ability of participants to carry out basic activities of daily living. Another provision based on my veterans' long-term care legislation would authorize the VA to establish a pilot program for assisted living services. Assisted living is the last remaining gap in VA's long-term care continuum, and the Federal Advisory Committee on the Future of VA Long-Term Care recommended that VA be granted the authority to provide assisted living services. I urge VA to undertake this pilot program, as it will provide a basis on which to recommend expanding the authority. Mr. President, earlier this year I joined with Senator Daschle as an original cosponsor to S. 1146, the Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Act of 1999. In June, I offered the provisions included in this bill as an amendment to a veterans omnibus measure being discussed at a Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs markup. The amendment was agreed to by a majority of the Committee members. Just this week I was reminded of the need for better coverage for non-VA emergency care. The wife of a seriously ill veteran in my state of West Virginia called my office. Her husband is a non- service-connected, low income veteran with no health insurance. Recently, severe chest pains sent him to a VA medical center. Because he is a cardiac patient and because he was in so much distress, his family wanted to call the rescue squad to transport him to the VA medical center. The veteran refused. Why? Because he had used the ambulance service before in an emergency situation, leaving the family with a sizeable bill that they are unable to pay. So, this sick veteran almost crawled to the family car, insisting that his family drive him. Once there, the VA medical staff told the veteran and his family that by not calling for an ambulance, the veteran was placed at risk. Section 111 would authorize the VA to make non-VA emergency care reimbursement payments on behalf of enrolled veterans in all priority groups, provided the veteran has received VA care within a two-year period prior to the emergency and has no other health insurance options. While this emergency care provision is significantly more restrictive than I had wanted, it is a valuable first attempt at ensuring that veterans who do not have other health insurance options--like the seriously ill West Virginia veteran who refused when his family tried to call for an ambulance--will be reimbursed for their non-VA emergency care services. In negotiating this provision, I was resolute in pushing for all enrolled veterans to have this coverage. I will be watching closely to ensure that this more limited emergency care provision is working for our veterans. Section 112 is based on legislation introduced by Senator Robb. It would establish a specific eligibility for VA health care for veterans who were awarded the Purple Heart. This provision is designed to provide priority for enrollment to these veterans who have no other special eligibility for care. According to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, there are about one-half million veterans with this award. Roughly half of these honored veterans already would qualify for high priority care based on a service-connected disability or because of income. The recipients of the Purple Heart award are American heroes, and I thank Senator Robb for his leadership on this measure, which will ensure that the remaining 500,000 Purple Heart veterans will have unfettered access to VA health care services. Military retirees have had a difficult time accessing various health care programs. Reductions in military treatment facilities, in particular, have restricted military retirees' health care options. Section 113 attempts to improve their situation. Under the bill, the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs will be directed to enter into an agreement to allow for VA reimbursement for health care services provided to military retirees. Veterans who have retired from military service and who are not otherwise eligible for VA care will not be responsible for copayments. In order to protect current enrollees, the Secretary must document that VA--in a given area--has the capacity in such an area to provide timely care to enrollees and has determined that VA would recover its cost of providing such care. I am very pleased that House and Senate conferees were able to reach agreement on this provision to improve care for military retirees. Section 117 is of particular interest to me as it addresses VA's specialized mental health services for veterans. Last year, I directed my staff on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to undertake a study of the services the Department of Veterans Affairs offers to veterans with special needs. Earlier this summer, I received the report my Committee staff wrote based on their 8-month oversight investigation, which sought to determine if VA is complying with a Congressional mandate to maintain capacity in five of the specialized programs: Prosthetics and Sensory Aids Services, Blind Rehabilitation, Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD), and Substance Use Disorders. I was dismayed to learn that because of staff and funding reductions, with the resulting workload increases and excessive waiting times, the latter two programs are failing to sustain services at the needed levels. With specific regard to PTSD, VA has been moving to reduce inpatient treatment of PTSD, while expanding its use of outpatient programs. VA's decision has been fueled in part by studies of the cost effectiveness of various treatment approaches. The potential to stretch limited VA dollars to be able to treat more veterans is appealing. However, VA needs to be cautious before subscribing to the idea that outpatient care is as good as inpatient care for all veterans with PTSD. For some of the more seriously affected veterans--those who have not succeeded in shorter inpatient or outpatient programs, are homeless or unemployed, or have dual diagnoses--longer inpatient or bed-based care may be a necessity. Substance use disorders also present complex treatment problems and have taken the brunt of reductions in specialized programs. Some substance use disorder programs have terminated inpatient treatment completely, except for veterans requiring short detoxifications in extreme situations. While some medical centers have closed inpatient substance use disorder beds, they have worked to provide alternative, sheltered living arrangements. Unfortunately, not all facilities have made these efforts. Many have moved directly to the closure of inpatient units without first developing these other alternatives. As an outgrowth of this oversight effort, I developed legislation to require that VA provide better care for veterans in need. I thank Chairman Specter for accepting this legislation and including it in S. 1076, the Veterans Benefits Act of 1999. Under section 117, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is required to carry out programs to enhance the provision of specialized mental health services to veterans. The conference agreement specifically targets services for those afflicted with PTSD and substance use disorders. The legislation also requires that $15 million in funding will be made available, in a centralized manner, to fund proposals from the VISNs and the individual facilities to provide specialized mental health services. The legislation specifically ensures that this $15 million in grant funding will be over and above what VA currently spends on these programs. The focus of Section 117 is on expanding outpatient and residential treatment facilities, developing better case management, and generally improving the availability of services. Though not specifically mentioned in the legislation, I encourage VA to carry out programs for the following: (1) additional outpatient and residential treatment facilities for PTSD in areas that are underserved by existing programs; (2) short-term or long-term care services that combine residential treatment of PTSD; (3) dedicated case management services on an outpatient basis for veterans suffering from PTSD; (4) enhanced staffing of existing PTSD programs; (5) additional community-based residential treatment facilities for substance use disorder programs; (6) expanded opioid treatment services; and (7) enhanced substance use disorder services at facilities where such services have been eliminated. In my view, VA's mental health treatment programs, in general, have been cut back to the point that veterans in some areas of the country are suffering needlessly. That is why I am so pleased that H.R. 2116 includes provisions to prompt VA to begin to rebuild some of what has been lost. Section 201--based on the House bill--would allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to set copayments, both for pharmaceuticals and for outpatient treatment. Currently, all veterans who are below 50 percent service-connected disabled, and veterans whose income is below the pension level, are required to pay $2 for each 30- day supply of medication. And all ``category C'' veterans are required to pay copayments based on the estimated average cost of an outpatient visit--currently $45.80. The outpatient copayment rate needs to be adjusted. This charge is incurred each and every time a category C veteran receives outpatient care, regardless of the services provided. There is no doubt that $45 for a routine outpatient visit is unreasonable at best, and at its worst, may, in fact, discourage veterans from getting the primary care they need. I am confident that VA will study this issue closely and will set the outpatient copayment to be more in line with managed care plans which charge either $5 or $10. While I am supportive of adjusting the outpatient copayment, I have serious concerns about increasing the pharmaceutical drug copayment. The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs was adamant that the Senate recede to this increase to help offset the Senate-sponsored program expansions in long-term care and emergency care. And although the $2 per prescription charge that veterans are paying now may seem like an insignificant amount to some, I can assure my colleagues that to the veteran and his family living on a very limited income, it is quite significant. I hear from a number of veterans whose income hovers just above the pension level, who must pay the assigned copayment for their pharmaceuticals. Many of them are older veterans who are on a number of different medications for multiple medical conditions. It is critically important that we do not place this segment of our veteran population in the same situation as many of our aging population receiving care in the private sector--having to choose between buying their medication or putting food on the table. In an effort to prevent this from happening, I strongly urge the VA to set maximum monthly and annual copayment amounts which are sensitive to the financial situation of veterans for those who have multiple outpatient prescriptions. I will be closely watching the implementation of this provision to ensure that it does not impose an undue burden on our veterans. While the Senate was not able to stave off the House in increasing prescription copayments, we were able to flatly reject a House provision to require copayments for hearing aids and eyeglasses. Such a provision would penalize veterans who are taking advantage of a needed benefit. Section 206 extends the VA's program for the evaluation of the health of spouses and children of Gulf War veterans for four years. I pushed for the original legislation providing for these health evaluations after hearing about Gulf War veterans and their families who reported miscarriages, birth defects, and other reproductive problems. Last year, the Congress modified this program to allow VA to use fee- basis care. It seems that these modifications are working well, as many new dependants have applied and are now waiting to be seen. I am delighted that this program has been extended because the need for assessments continues. By this time last year, 2,800 dependents had applied for the program, and this year that total is up to 4,000. However, although 4,000 dependents have applied for the evaluations, VA has only completed 1,140 examinations. I urge VA to process these examinations as rapidly as possible. These dependents of servicemembers should not be delayed in their quest for answers. Section 208 contains provisions to improve VA's enhanced use lease authority. I am delighted with these provisions, because I believe enhanced use leases are a critical component of VA's management strategy for its property. Many terrific projects that better serve veterans and assist the VA have been developed under this authority. By way of this legislation, we are encouraging VA to develop more enhanced use lease projects to leverage its assets, rather than begin to dispose of irreplaceable property. Since VA received enhanced use authority, it has been used in a variety of ways. One approach has been to lease land to companies that build nursing homes where VA can place veterans at discounted rates, resulting in savings of millions of dollars. Another use has been to provide transitional housing for homeless veterans. Other projects have created reliable child care and adult day care facilities for VA employees' families, so that they can care for veterans without having to worry about the health and safety of their loved ones. In other locations, VA regional offices are moving onto VA medical center campuses, resulting in more convenient access for veterans and better cooperation between the Veterans Benefits Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Section 208 of H.R. 2116 would remove many of the current barriers preventing VA from having an even more successful enhanced use lease program. It would allow VA to enter into leases with terms of up to 75 years, rather than the current 20 and 35 years, while eliminating the distinction in lease terms that exists between leases involving new construction or substantial renovation, and those involving current structures. I am very interested in seeing VA engage in more of these projects, so I am pleased to see that H.R. 2116 would require the Secretary to provide training and outreach regarding enhanced use leasing to personnel at VA medical centers. The bill also requires the Secretary to contract for independent assessments of opportunities for enhanced use leases. These assessments would include surveys of suitable facilities, determinations of the feasibility of projects at those facilities, and analyses of the resources required to enter into a lease. I hope that more training--which until now has been sporadic and provided primarily on a by-request basis--and a more systematic and centralized approach would assist the VA in maximizing its enhanced use lease opportunities. While VA currently has a policy which allows for fee-basis care for chiropractic care, section 303 of H.R. 2116 requires the VA Under Secretary for Health, in consultation with chiropractors, to establish a wider VA policy on chiropractic care. While conferees have agreed that VA should establish a policy regarding chiropractic care, they have remained silent on mandating that VA furnish veterans with chiropractic treatment. Indeed, it is Congress' intent that this provision not be read as an endorsement for chiropractic care. Complementary and alternative medicine, including chiropractic care, are important aspects of health care. I urge VA to use this opportunity to develop a policy on all forms of complementary and alternative medicine. In particular, the report ``VHA Complementary and Alternative Medicine Practices and Future Opportunities'' recommended that VHA consider providing acupuncture, following guidelines set forth by the National Institutes of Health, since NIH has already approved acupuncture as an effective treatment for back pain. I am extremely disappointed that the House would not move the Senate Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) enhancement legislation. The Senate passed MGIB enhancements on three occasions this year, but the House did not respond. S. 1402, the education bill reported out of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, contained a provision, among others, to increase the monthly benefit provided to current servicemembers from $528 to $600. This more than 12 percent increase would have followed on the heels of a 20 percent increase last year. Additionally, the Senate bill would have allowed servicemembers to elect to contribute up to an additional $600, in exchange for receiving four times their contribution. Although these increases fall short of the full tuition recommended by the so- called Transition Commission, they would have provided a substantial assistance to veterans. The costs of tuition and fees for public and private educational institutions rose approximately 90 percent from 1980-1995, while the MGIB benefit rates only increased 42 percent from 1985 to 1995. The statistics regarding education and employment for veterans are also revealing. Despite almost full enrollment in the program by servicemembers, the number of eligible veterans who take advantage of their MGIB benefits is startlingly low, around 50 percent. Less than 20 percent of those who use the MGIB attend private institutions. And the Transition Commission reports that the unemployment rate for veterans ages 20-24 and 35-39 is higher than their non-veteran counterparts. All these are reasons why I believe that there is more that we can and must do. Unfortunately, we will need to wait until at least next year to tackle these issues. H.R. 2116 does provide for two provisions--relating to test preparation and Officer Candidate Training--which while small, can make a significant difference to the individual veterans affected. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently has authority to provide MGIB benefits for post-graduate exam preparatory courses that are required for a particular profession, such as CPA exam or bar review courses. However, it does not have authority to provide for pre-admission preparatory coursework. Nevertheless, studies by national consulting companies have shown improvement of over 100 points on the SAT exam and an average improvement of seven points in LSAT scores for students who take exam preparatory courses. An article in the April 13, 1998, New Republic stated, ``[t]horough, expertly taught preparation can raise a student's ability to cope with, and hence succeed on, a particular exam. In many cases, then, test prep can make the difference between getting into a top-flight law school and settling for the second tier.'' At some of the nation's top schools, scores on entrance exams can count for half of the total application. The problem is that many of these exam preparatory courses are quite costly. One national provider charges as much as $750 for a two-month, part-time, SAT preparatory course. One educational advocacy group, Fairtest, argues that ``[t]he SAT has always favored students who can afford coaching over those who cannot . . .'' To be able to compete, it is critical that veterans have access to such courses. That is why I am pleased that section 701 corrects that disparity by allowing veterans to use their MGIB benefits for preparatory courses for entrance examinations required for college and graduate school admission (``test prep''). By giving veterans the opportunity to better their admissions test scores, this amendment would expand the choices available to veterans in their course of higher education. It will also improve access to the top educational institutions for veterans. Section 702 allows servicemembers who failed to complete their initial period of service--because of entry to Officer Candidate School or Officer Training School (``OCS'')--to retain their eligibility for MGIB benefits. This would allow their OCS service to count toward that initial obligated period of service (generally three years total). In most instances, these servicemembers had already made a $1,200 contribution to the MGIB, which cannot be refunded, by law. Rather than refund this money, the House and Senate agree that we should allow these men and women to retain their MGIB eligibility and further their education. Like the test prep provision, it should be our policy to always encourage servicemembers and veterans to strive for greater achievement. This provision corrects an oversight in the MGIB statutes that penalizes servicemembers for seeking promotions. As we are all sadly aware, the veteran population is aging rapidly. In 1997, 537,000 veterans died. Projections of the veteran death rate show an increase through the year 2008, when the death rate of the WWII and Korea-era veterans will peak at 620,000 veterans. Unless expanded, 21 national cemeteries are scheduled to close to inground burial or close completely by FY 2005. National cemeteries take an average of seven years to open. That is why I felt it was critical to address now VA's plan to provide burial sites for our nation's veterans. VA conducted studies in 1987 and 1994 that identified the top 10 veteran population areas that are not served by a national cemetery. Pursuant to those studies, VA has begun, and in some cases completed, construction of six cemeteries in: Cleveland (OH), Chicago (IL), Seattle (WA), Dallas (TX), Saratoga (NY), and San Joaquin Valley (CA). However, there has been no activity in the remaining six locations contained on the 1987 and 1994 lists: Detroit (MI), Sacramento (CA), Miami (FL), Atlanta (GA), Pittsburgh (PA), and Oklahoma City (OK). That is why I am pleased that H.R. 2116 authorizes VA to build cemeteries in the top areas in need. I am hopeful that the Appropriations Committee will fund construction of these cemeteries, particularly in light of their direction of advanced planning funds in this year's VA-HUD Appropriations bill. Sections 601-603 authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission to borrow funds from the Treasury Department to construct the WWII memorial on the Mall if it is unable to raise sufficient funds through private donations. It also extends the authority to break ground for four years. This will ensure that the veterans who are to be honored by this memorial will be able to see it constructed. I have agreed to a study, based on a House provision, of the current state of cemeteries to assess repair needs, ways to improve appearance, and the number of cemeteries needed to serve veterans who die after 2005. Finally, section 621 requires that the VA study the adequacy and effectiveness of burial benefits that a veteran's dependents receive, as well as options to better serve veterans and their families. In light of inflation in the cost of burials, as well as the increase in options such as cremation and burial at sea, it is appropriate that VA reevaluate this program. This bill contains a number of benefits provisions that will aid veterans. For example, section 503 will add bronchiolo-alviolar carcinoma to the list of presumptive conditions associated with exposure to ionizing radiation. Bronchiolo-alviolar carcinoma is a type of lung cancer. The Senate has passed provisions adding lung cancer to the list of presumptive conditions on several occasions, but the House has not moved similar legislation. Section 711 will extend the reservist home loan guaranty authority to December 31, 2007. The current authority is set to expire in 2003. However, a reservist must serve six years before being eligible for the home loan guaranty. Therefore, in order for it to be used as a recruiting incentive, the authority must be extended beyond 2006. I am extremely gratified that section 501 authorizes payment of dependency and indemnity compensation (``DIC'') to the surviving spouse of a former POW veteran who dies of a non-service-connected condition if the former POW was rated totally disabled due to a POW-related presumptive condition for a period of one or more years immediately prior to death. In the case of former POWs, this reduces the 10-year period prior to death that a veteran must be rated 100 percent service- connected for the spouse to receive DIC if the veteran dies of a non- service-connected condition. This provision recognizes that former POW's suffered extreme hardships and that their spouses cared for them throughout the years that VA did not recognize their health conditions as being service-related. I am proud that we named this provision of the bill the ``John William Rolen Act.'' John passed away this year. He was a tireless advocate for America's former POWs, and I will miss him. Section 502 of H.R. 2116 corrects an oversight in last year's transportation bill (TEA 21) that reinstated DIC to remarried widows of veterans whose remarriages have now been terminated. The benefit had previously been cut off as a budget reconciliation item. While reinstating DIC payments, however, the transportation bill failed to restore the limited ancillary benefits that accompany the receipt of DIC: CHAMPVA, home loan guaranty, and educational benefits. This bill restores those ancillary benefits. Finally, I am so glad that we will maintain our commitment to homeless veterans by reauthorizing the Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program (HVRP). Section 901 authorizes increased funding levels for job training for veterans for four consecutive years, beginning with $10 million additional in the first year, $15 million additional in the second year, and $20 million additional in each of the third and fourth years. We have also required, in section 903, that VA formulate a comprehensive plan that includes the Departments of Labor and Housing and Urban Development, to conduct a cross-cutting report evaluating the effectiveness of homeless programs beyond six months of placement or service delivery. Title XI of H.R. 2116 provides VA with authority to offer voluntary separation incentives through December 31, 2000, to a specified number of FTEE. As is well known, inadequate VA budgets in the last several years have forced VA to make sweeping changes, (many of which were warranted, including the downsizing of employees. VHA has already eliminated thousands of employees via ``reductions in force'' (``RIFs''). VHA FTEE staff now stands at 182,000, down from 218,000 in 1994. VBA FTEE has also declined, from 13,500 in 1994 to 11,200 today. All this is occurring at a time when VA is treating more patients and deciding more claims. Usually, a condition of voluntary separation incentives--or buyouts as they are known--is that the FTEE slot is eliminated in a one-for-one reduction, i.e. downsizing. But I believe that VA has already reached the precipice of staff reductions--the point beyond which we should not go if quality of VA health care is to be maintained. However, VA says that it still requires buyouts in order to ``rightsize.'' That is, VA must let go of employees who do not have the needed skills, in order to free up FTEE positions so that VA can hire the most appropriately qualified people. The buyout language in this bill prohibits VA from eliminating the FTEE positions of employees who have received buyouts. If we do not provide VA with buyout authority, VA will proceed down the path of reductions regardless. For example, VHA will RIF thousands of employees next year. However, RIFs are an inexact management tool. RIFs would not necessarily result in the skills mix VA needs, due to the civil service employment rights that allow senior employees to take the job of junior employees. I believe that buyouts offer a better option, but one that must still be used wisely and monitored carefully--which is why H.R. 2116 allows only limited buyouts under very strict conditions. I am very disappointed that we were unable to move the Senate provision overturning the ``$1,500 rule.'' Since 1933, the law has required VA to suspend the compensation or pension benefits of incompetent veterans who have no dependents and are hospitalized at government expense. This suspension is triggered when the veteran's estate exceeds $1,500, and VA benefits are cut off until the veteran's estate is spent down to $500. At that time, the VA commences reinstating the veteran's compensation, until such time the veteran is hospitalized again and the estate exceeds $1,500, when the benefits are cut off again. No similar suspension is made for competent veterans or for incompetent veterans who are not hospitalized. The rationale for cutting off benefits was that these veterans might have been institutionalized for years, and that it was not good policy to allow their estates to build up when they have no dependents to inherit them. There was also a fear of fraud on the part of the veteran's guardian or fiduciary. The dollar amounts have not changed since 1933, when $1,500 equaled almost three years' worth of VA benefits at a 100 percent rating level. In today's dollars, this is less than one month's benefit at a 100 percent rating level. Although veterans are generally being hospitalized for shorter periods of time, based on the low dollar limit, the rule may be applied very quickly, sometimes immediately, when it does apply. Further, it takes VA an average of 66 days to restore the benefits to incompetent veterans once their estates have been spent down. Since incompetent veterans are no longer routinely institutionalized for years at a time, it is very difficult for a non-Medicaid eligible veteran (which would be any veteran receiving any significant amount of VA compensation) to be released from the hospital and placed in either a private assisted living or group home with only $500 in his bank account. I fear some of these veterans may end up on the streets because of this policy, despite the best efforts of VHA to place them at discharge. I believe that this outdated and indefensible policy discriminates against incompetent veterans--those who are least likely to be able to fight for themselves. The fact is, we are means testing VA compensation for this one class of veterans. Why is a competent veteran with no dependents entitled to receive his compensation, but an incompetent veteran not entitled? There is no justification for this discrimination. It may also have some harmful effects for a small population of veterans, facilitating their downward spiral into homelessness. That may be too much of a price to pay for the government to save some money from reverting to the state if that veteran died while hospitalized. While we were not successful in addressing this issue in this bill, I plan to readdress this policy until it is corrected. Mr. President, in closing, I want to acknowledge the work of our Committee's Chairman, Senator Specter, in developing this comprehensive legislation. Through his efforts, and that of his staff--especially the former Committee Staff Director, Charles Battaglia, and the new Committee Staff Director, William Tuerk--the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs has fully met its responsibilities and can be proud of the legislation we consider today. I appreciate the willingness of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, especially Chairman Bob Stump and Ranking Member Lane Evans, to work together to reach compromise on so many vital issues. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the efforts of my own staff, Minority Staff Director, Jim Gottlieb, Professional Staff Member, Kim Lipsky, and Counsel, Mary Schoelen. I am enormously grateful for their diligence, and for their commitment to the work we do in this Committee on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join a bipartisan group of my colleagues in support of the John H. Chafee--Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. My friend and colleague John Chafee will be honored numerous times in the coming years for his extraordinary public service to both the state and country that he so loved. He should be. There will be many fitting ways to pay him tribute by advancing the many causes important to him. Enacting the fundamental principles of his bill into law today will be one small way that we can all honor a man who was an outstanding member and statesman in a way that I think he would appreciate because it helps some of our citizens who are most in need. Senator Chafee has been a tireless champion for children and young people who need a voice, and occasionally some muscle, for many years. I had the privilege to work with him on just some of his efforts to help children, and in particular, to help repair and improve our adoption and foster care policies. Senator Chafee's unflagging commitment to vulnerable young people was exemplified by his work on the legislation now before the Senate. Just a few days before his death, he approached me personally to talk about what we could do to ensure that this legislation would pass into law this year. I also believe that John himself would not agree with honoring him as a motive--he would expect us to pass this legislation for the teens in foster care who need and deserve more help. On October 13th, Senator Chafee and I held a subcommittee hearing on this bill, and it was our last hearing together. John was engaged in talking to the teens at the hearing and after listening to them, he knew that fighting to get this bill done was the right thing to do. Since John cannot fulfill this vision, I am grateful to the Republican leadership for carrying forward in his name. Senators Nickles, Lott, and other members of the leadership have worked very hard to make this one of the final bills we will pass in 1999. Our First Lady, Mrs. Clinton, has also been a special leader on behalf of vulnerable children. In 1997, she helped focus the national spotlight on the need to promote adoption. This year, she has helped to focus much needed attention on the challenges facing teenagers who age out of foster care, and has challenged us to improve the system for such teens by expanding the Independent Living program. I am keenly aware of the child welfare work that remains. I have worked closely this year with Senator Grassley and understand the concerns that he has about the need for greater accountability and independent oversight for our nation's child welfare system. Senator Grassley believes that there must be independent review of the foster care system, and he is advocating that every state establish Independent Foster Care Review Boards composed of volunteers. I have agreed with Senator Grassley that this is a worthy strategy and I am committed to continue working with him next year as we seek innovative and effective ways to better serve all of our nation's abused and neglected children. In addition to Senator Grassley's concerns, there are other issues in child welfare that need continued work. That is why I have also worked with Senators DeWine, Landrieu, and others on a bill that will strengthen our child abuse and neglect courts, and another that will ensure that all abused and neglected children with special needs are eligible for adoption subsidy. These are just a few of the steps we need to take in 2000 and beyond. While we still have much to do, we have made some progress. We have been pleased to learn that one of the desired outcomes of the 1997 Adoption Act, moving children more swiftly from foster care into permanent homes, has begun to become a reality. Adoptions throughout the country are up dramatically, far exceeding expectations. In September, the President announced that 35 states had exceeded their goals for adoption placements and received bonus payments as a result. This is wonderful news for America's foster children. Yet, at the same time, it's disturbing to know that approximately 20,000 young people each year who turn 18 and ``age out'' of the foster care system suddenly face the cold and often cruel consequence of no home, no family, no medical coverage and no system of support in place. In my own state of West Virginia, only 185 of the more than 1000 foster children over the age of 16 were able to get additional help through the state's Independent Living program. A Wisconsin study tells us that 18 months after leaving foster care, over one-third of the teens leaving foster care had not graduated from high school, half were unemployed, nearly half had no access to or coverage for health care, and many were homeless or victims or perpetrators of crimes. These are not just numbers, each of these statistics represents a real person, like the young people who testified before the Finance Committee, Terry and Percy. When Terry turned 18 she was still in high school. She quickly became homeless, and shared with us the horrifying stories of sleeping in alleys, laundry-mats and hospital waiting rooms, brushing her teeth in MacDonald's restrooms so she could complete high school. She developed several medical problems including chicken pox and kidney problems for which she had no access to health care. Her problems worsened, and today, she has permanent kidney damage as a result of the lack of care. Like Terry, Percy aged out of foster care while still in high school. He did not become homeless, thanks to the support of a local Independence Living program, he was assisted in obtaining an apartment and a job. Still, it was a big challenge to be totally on his own while still finishing school. He graduated and was motivated to go to college, but soon had to drop out because of his lack of health care coverage. Today, Percy is a successful and popular police officer, who still has a dream of finishing college one day. This legislation before the Senate will provide resources and incentives to states so that fewer of our young people will become stories as horrific as Terry's, and more will receive the types of support that Percy received. One of the most significant provisions of the 1997 Adoption Act was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. This bill will establish, the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, as the essential next step to expand vital access to health care for vulnerable youth. This important legislation will make it possible for health care coverage for our foster care youths not to end when they turn 18. Young people who have survived the many traumas that led to their placement in foster care, and their journey through the foster care system often have special health care needs, especially in the area of mental health. Providing transitional health coverage at this crucial juncture in their lives can make the difference between successfully moving on to accomplish their goals, or becoming stuck in an unsatisfying and unhealthy way of life. Another key focus of the 97 Adoption Act is on moving children from foster care to permanent homes, and when possible adoption. Older teens in foster care have a great need for a permenant family. Although we propose to improve the Independent Living program and increase eligibility for services to the age of 21, it does end at that time. And yet a youth's need for a family does not end at any particular age. Each of us can clearly recall times when we have had to turn to our own families for advice, comfort or support long after our 18th or 21st birthdays. Many of us are still in the role of providing such support to our own children who are in their late teens or 20s. Therefore, an important provision in this Foster Care Independence Act states that Independent Living (IL), programs are not alternatives to permanency planning--young people of all ages need and deserve every possible effort made towards permanence, including adoption. It would be counterproductive to create any disincentive for adoption of teenagers. Therefore, our legislation would allow any enhanced independent living services to be carried out concurrent with adoption services for older teens, and involves adoptive parents in assisting these teens in becoming successfully independent. Independent Living programs were designed to provide young people with training, skill-development and support as they make the transition from foster care to self-sufficiency. In some states, with creativity and innovation, these programs have seen remarkable success in that effort. In other localities, the programs have provided minimal support, and young people have faced an array of challenging life decisions and choices without the skills or support to make them successfully. This bill will provide the resources to improve Independent Programs so that they can achieve the basic goal. Funding is provided for national evaluation and for technical assistance to states to promote quality, and reports back to Congress so we can follow the progress of these efforts. These will be valuable steps in our efforts to more effectively address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable young people, on the brink of adulthood. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this bill for foster teens and in memory of John Chafee's long career dedicated to the children and others in need of his immense dedication and caring heart.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my senior colleague and I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my distinguished senior colleague who has been daunting and relentless in his pursuit of his amendment, which is a very good amendment, an amendment which deserves to be passed. What is fascinating to me has been said before by others. I will go back to the letter from John Podesta at the White House, the Chief of Staff to the President. He said that any solution that would undercut water quality protection under the Clean Water Act, or under SMCRA, the Surface Mining Control and Recreation Act, simply is unacceptable, and that the President's opposition to appropriations riders that would weaken or undermine environmental protections under current law would be unacceptable. I emphasize as strongly as I possibly can he is wrong in that statement. The fact that he is wrong in that statement is of the utmost importance to our colleagues if they or their staffs are listening as they come to a decision about this amendment. If he were right, that would be an entirely different matter. However, he is not right. To make it perfectly clear, we have included that in the legislation that Senator Byrd and Senator McConnell put forward. I will read it again for those who may not have been listening before: Nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines, displaces or amends any requirement of or regulation issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Surface Mining Control Reclamation Act of 1977. It would be law. It is the case, in any event. We added this not because we thought it would be fortuitous to add it, not because we needed to add it, but because it was true at the outset. We did it to make the point even clearer for those who would raise this point. Senator Byrd made the points most clearly and most powerfully. This amendment, on which we are asking for support, simply puts into law the memorandum of understanding which I hold in my hand, which has been signed off by the Environmental Protection Agency, by the Office of Surface Mining in the Department of Interior, and by the Corps of Engineers. The signatures are here--the signature from the Environmental Protection Agency, a very high senior official, the signature from the Regional Director at the Office of Surface Mining, the signature from the brigadier general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the signature from an official in West Virginia. The point is the Environmental Protection Agency has approved, and the OSM and the Corps of Engineers have approved and given their official written stamp of approval in writing, right here. This equals this amendment. There is no difference therein. I am not one who either baits or ridicules the environmental movement nor do most of my colleagues. This country is constructed under the republican nature of its form of government as a system of checks and balances. I have a tremendous interest in health care public policy. I spend a lot of time being upset with the Health Care Finance Administration called HCFA. There are people, obviously, who are upset by EPA. By and large, I think EPA tries to do within its own understanding the best job it can. By and large, I think one of the reasons the environmental condition of our country is gradually improving, although slowly, is because some of those people take positions which are not popular with members of this body or the other body or with Governors or with the public. I do not ridicule what they do. However, I do think they know in their hearts that what Senator Byrd and Senator McConnell and some of the other Members are trying to do is completely consistent with the intent of Congress, in fact, in the case of SMCRA, for over the last 20 years. Let me say this before I talk about the importance of mining in West Virginia and the problems of simply potentially eradicating coal mining--not just across West Virginia and Kentucky but, if this were to be extended and this were to catch fire, eradicating the potential for the 57 to 60 percent of electricity which is fueled by the use of coal across this country--that there is a balance. I recognize, sometimes when people say that, people say that is a word they use to get out of this situation or that situation. But this country has to run on a balance. One cannot simply say to southern West Virginia, to central West Virginia, to northern West Virginia, to other parts of our country: We are going to make these enormous changes, very radical in their content today because tomorrow will be a new day, because transition in America somehow just simply happens, and we move from one sort of a core industry type of economy in West Virginia to a modern, totally smokeless type of economy, and there does not need to be any interruption. So we will come in and we will stop this business called mountaintop mining. In the process of that, we are probably, unless this amendment is agreed to, going to stop much of the underground mining of West Virginia and Kentucky and the 13 to 16 States in this country that produce coal because the effect under the law, under the judge's rule, says this can happen. I want my colleagues to understand something about my State of West Virginia. We are not on the coasts. We do not have the advantage of the trade that flows to the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast. We do not have the advantage yet, entirely, of the access that comes from the interstates that cut through our mountains and would allow us to become part of the flowing economy that so much of the rest of the Nation simply takes for granted. But most importantly, let me say to my colleagues, and let them hear this, please, with understanding: Only 4 percent of the land of West Virginia is flat. Only 4 percent of the landmass of West Virginia is flat. All of the rest of it is going uphill or going downhill, either at great steepness, very great steepness, or somewhat lesser steepness; it is not flat. Only 4 percent is flat. Imagine, then, trying to construct an economy, an economy developing, much less the life of schools, the life of families, the life of recreation, the life of a State, on 4 percent of the land and then moving up the side of hills, where one can do that, and hoping the winter will pass quickly because it is very hard to plow those roads. It becomes a very difficult situation in the southern part of our State. You cannot simply say we mine coal today and we do biotechnology and information technology tomorrow. You cannot walk across the Grand Canyon in one step. Senator Byrd and the junior Senator from West Virginia, together, in different ways, have been trying very aggressively, over the last number of years, to modernize the economy of West Virginia. We have been doing so with a respect for our basic industries--steel, chemicals, coal, wood, natural gas, et cetera--but also understanding that the world is changing, that we are globalized. This Senator has spent the last 15 years making trips back and forth to various Asian countries, trying to globalize the economy of West Virginia through reverse investment and through the increase of exports. Indeed, the increase of exports in the last 5 years has gone up by 50 percent in West Virginia. So we are making progress. But we do not start from the base that so many other States have. So what happens in southern West Virginia if the Senate or the Congress turns its back on this amendment is something I would like people to think about. We would lose approximately $2 billion in wages. Senator McConnell, in his very good remarks, mentioned 4.1 percent of people are unemployed in this Nation. That is not true in the part of the State that we are talking about, in West Virginia. The counties I would mention would be six. In McDowell County there is over 14 percent unemployment today. The reason it is not higher is because so many of the people who were there have left. If they had stayed there, the figure would be much higher. In Mingo County, which has a lot of coal reserves of very high quality--that is high Btu, low-sulfur-content coal--it is over 14 percent, over 14 percent. The national average is 4.1 percent--that is terrific, in Connecticut, Colorado, other places. I am proud of that, happy for that. But in Mingo County it is 14 percent. In Boone County it is less than that; it is 13.9 percent. A lot of our low-sulfur, high Btu, highly desirable for the making of steel coal is produced in that county; Logan County, 13.5 percent; Lincoln County, almost 11 percent; Wyoming County, almost 11 percent. Can one understand what that means to me as a human being, much less as a U.S. Senator, when one struggles in land which is so steep, so desperately steep, land which used to be, many millions of years ago, higher than Mt. Everest? Because that is what the Appalachians were; they were the tallest mountains in the world. Over these millions of years, they have been ground down, but they have not been ground down to a level where economic activity is readily accessible. We cannot put the great big highways so easily into that kind of terrain. Senator Byrd has done a remarkable job in trying to do that. But not all those roads have been built, and only a couple of those have been built in southern West Virginia because the cost per mile is so prohibitively high. Even if the Federal Government provides the money, the State can't match it. So progress is slow. I also want to say something that is very important to me personally. This Surface Mining Act goes back to when I was Governor. The Senator from Idaho made those comments. I did not agree with everything the Senator from Idaho said, incidentally, about either the Environmental Protection Agency or other things, but I agree with the thrust on what he wants to do with this amendment. But I was Governor of West Virginia at that time. We were faced with this question of what we were going to do about surface mining and the Federal act. I will say two things. One is that I have known for a long time, and I have been told by many people in and out of government, that a good deal of the Federal act was based upon what it was that we were doing, what it was I was causing to happen as Governor in West Virginia, in the way that surface mining was carried out. In other words, West Virginia, I will then say from that statement, has a higher level of requirements of surface mining than do other States and higher, in general terms, I might say, than the Federal Government. But I also want to say Cecil Andrus, who is from the West and was tough--he was a tough Department of Interior Administrator, Secretary of the Interior--gave West Virginia something called primacy on surface mining. All of this we are talking about--surface mining being the opposite of underground mining; anything that is not underground is surface; whether it is mountain mining or surface mining, it is all up above the ground--he gave us primacy. We were the first State in the Nation and the only State for quite a period of time to receive primacy. What he was saying by that is that you in West Virginia do your surface mining reclamation so well that we are going to give you the authority to go ahead, and we will back out of it completely; we have no jurisdiction anymore; you have jurisdiction unless you start to do things which are wrong. Then we will take it back. I was very proud of that. That caused me to have some of the views I have today. When we talk about not gutting the Clean Water Act or not gutting SMCRA, we in West Virginia cannot afford to gut, so to speak, those Federal acts in a far more intense way than most other States because if we do, we are hurt by them much more than other States because of the enormously mountainous, hilly nature of our State, with only 4 percent of it being flat. All the rest of it goes up or it goes down at one level or another. We have to respect the laws. Mountain mining has changed a bit over the years in the sense that it has gotten rather larger in the area it covers. Most of us in Congress understand that mountaintop mining in West Virginia is never going to be the same. In fact, the congressional delegation in the House and the Senate wrote an article in the West Virginia papers in which we said it is true, it never is going to be the same. It may be possible we cannot afford to have, as far as the mountains are concerned, these enormous areas that are mined all at once. But when somebody comes along and says, oh, you should do that, you should restrict the size because you can't fill valleys, they are wrong. Under the Federal law, they are wrong. The Federal law specifically provides for that. I will not read it. I will simply hold it up. Here it is in SMCRA. It specifically provides for being able to do valley fill. If the Federal judge who made this decision in West Virginia wants to eliminate that--but then again, in his opinion recently, he said: Nothing I am saying here is anything on the basis of merit; it is all on the basis of saying we want a little peace and calm so that the Federal Government, the Congress, can litigate on this matter and decide what needs to be done, which is why Senator Byrd, Senator McConnell, and a number of us went ahead with this amendment. We did have a system whereby the two sides--I do not even like to use the words ``two sides''--the environmental community and the industrial community, could come together and work together. We had a system in which one of the people who works with me spent 5 weeks in the coal fields working with the environmental people, working with the State people, working with the mining people, working with the union people. They came very close to almost a total agreement on what should be done. There was only one area on which they could not reach final agreement. It was something called a buffer zone. They could have reached a final agreement. Then the Corps of Engineers came along and blew the whole thing out. I appeal to my colleagues to understand there is a role and a place for reason, compromise, balance, and sensible action in all of this. This world is not divided between people who are strictly environmental in their purposes and people who are strictly for jobs in their purposes. There has to be that balance. Global warming is a fact. I do not dispute the science. I look around me; I feel the temperature; I understand what is going on. On the other hand, at the same time I have those feelings in my bosom, having to speak grown up as an adult, as a VISTA volunteer in the southern coal fields of West Virginia, that these people who are mining coal--the coal miners Senator Byrd talks about so eloquently--are doing what they know how to do and doing it the best way they possibly can. If we are not able to get our amendment accepted, if the judge lifts the stay, if his decree goes into effect, mining will more or less cease to exist in West Virginia because nobody will invest; nobody will say: All right, let's just wait for a couple of years and then we will come back and look at West Virginia. That will not happen. It will be more or less the end of mining in West Virginia, not just in southern West Virginia, but it will probably be all over West Virginia because everywhere there are effects of the judge's opinion. We have to have both. We have to have a way for people to provide the electricity the Senator from Idaho talked about to turn on those computers. We have to have a way to light up this Senate and to light up the homes of people all over America. As I indicated, 57 to 60 percent of all the electricity in this country is made by coal. It is not made by nuclear power. It is not made, at this point, by natural gas. It is made by coal. It is a fact of life. Reasonable people understand that. You cannot just obliterate that and pretend there are not going to be consequences. Nobody wants economic devastation. I do not think any of our colleagues want economic devastation on the State of West Virginia. I do not think that is in their hearts; I do not think that is what is in their minds; but that is what is in the process of happening unless this Byrd-McConnell amendment is, in fact, agreed to and becomes part of the national law. All it will do is put into law precisely what the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Surface Mining, and the Corps of Engineers have officially signed off on as policy. The stakes are tremendously high in West Virginia, and the stakes are tremendously high not only in Kentucky but all across this country. This is kind of a watershed decision we are about to make. Are we going to find some kind of a compromise, a way of working things through, or are we going to deem each other to be enemies, one to another, one on one side, one on the other--one environmentalist, who either feels or is deemed to feel they have no interest in jobs--which I doubt because environmentalists are people, too--or on the other side coal miners who then turn on environmentalists as being totally hostile people. All that does is degrade the content of public discussion and degrade the possibility of a reasonable resolution. I hope very much this amendment will be adopted. I regret very much the White House has been so difficult on this whole matter, having given their word to the senior Senator from West Virginia and then reversed it the next day, having given their word on matters of steel during the course of a campaign in the northern part of our State and then reversed their view on that. One almost wonders whether or not there is an assault that is taking place on West Virginia. But we are struggling. We know that along with two or three other States, we have more economic problems than any other State in the country. We live with that. We live with that every day. We try our very best. Senator Byrd, and this Senator, and our congressional delegation, try our very best every single day to try to improve the economic situation of our State, bringing in new industry that does not create any kind of pollution or industries that are entirely smokeless and entirely of a new order. But it cannot be done, as Senator Byrd said, overnight. So you cannot have a crashing decision which descends on the good people of southern West Virginia and northern West Virginia that deprives them not only of their self-respect but of their ability to eat, to get medical care, or to exist as human beings. We have not distinguished ourselves in this country in taking men or women in their 40s or 50s or 60s, and saying: All right. You are finished as a coal miner. Now we are going to train you to do something else. We talk about it all the time, but we do not do it. We do not know how to do it. The Canadians do; we do not. So to banish people into oblivion is not something which is common with the practices of the soul of America, any part of the soul of America, or any part of the soul of this body. That is what would happen, however, were this amendment to fail. I commend to my colleagues the integrity of the Byrd-McConnell amendment; I commend to my colleagues the honesty and the environmental soundness of the Byrd-McConnell amendment; and I commend to my colleagues the enormous crisis which potentially will take place if it fails because, as has been said, what starts in West Virginia--because this has now been picked up by the national movement--will move from State, to State, to State, to State.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I certainly will.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I note the presence of the Senator from Louisiana on the floor. I inquire if the Senator wishes to speak at some point on this subject.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will speak, then the Senator from Texas will speak, and then I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana be permitted to speak.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor three West Virginia individuals who have recently been awarded ``Adoption Angel'' awards by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption. Larry and Jane Leech and Judge Gary Johnson are truly ``angels'' in adoption. President Clinton recently proclaimed November ``National Adoption Month''. It is a good time to re-commit ourselves to doing all we can to ensure that all children have the opportunity to grow up in safe, stable and permanent homes. During Adoption Month in 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, a bill I sponsored, was signed into law. This act, for the first time ever, made children's safety, health and opportunity for loving, stable families the paramount factors to consider when planning for children in foster care. The act provided incentive bonuses for states successful in increasing adoptions. My state of West Virginia has made a lot of progress in moving kids out of foster care and into permanent homes. When the adoption bonuses for 1999 were announced, I was proud that West Virginia, because three of our state's children. Brian, Shawn and Sarah Keane, had the honor of introducing President Clinton the day the bonuses were announced. The 3 Keane children along with 208 more West Virginia foster children moved in with their adoptive families in 1998. Our State is working hard to increase public awareness of adoption and children needing homes. A quarterly newsletter, ``Open Your Heart, Open Your Home'' features stories of waiting children and successful adoptive families. In May, Dave Thomas came to West Virginia for the third annual Foster and Adoptive Parent Recognition Day, to recognize adoptive parents who provide homes for children with special needs. We have been able to make this progress largely as a result of the efforts of the individuals who were honored by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, and other dedicated and hard-working West Virginians like them. Let me tell you a little about these ``angels''. Larry and Jane Leech have been foster parents for many years, opening their home and their hearts to children in need of both. Working with the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, the Leeches adopted a sibling group of three young boys, twins age 4 and an older brother, age 6, in 1998. Now, a year later, the Leeches are again in the final stages of adopting another sibling group--this time, three older girls. Mr. and Mrs. Leech also have three biological children. They have a tremendous amount of love and a strong commitment to all nine of their children. Recently, the Leeches and their children visited the West Virginia Governor's mansion where they were honored by First Lady Hovah Underwood, for their commitment to children in need. Judge Gary Johnson believes that all children in the foster care system deserve permanent homes. As the 28th Judicial circuit judge, elected in 1992, Judge Johnson has worked closely with the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. He meets with them quarterly to review problems or identify issues that prevent children in West Virginia from achieving permanence in their lives. Judge Johnson continually increases his own knowledge of the issues by attending conferences on child welfare. The progress we have made since the passage of the 1997 Adoption Act is significant. Certainly the 211 West Virginia children who found families last year, including the six children who now call Larry and Jane Leech ``Mom'' and ``Dad'' know that. But over 400 West Virginia children are still waiting and hoping to be adopted--over 100,000 children in our nation are still waiting and hoping to be adopted. Too many of these chilldren are growing up in the insecurity of foster care. Too many of them are becoming teenagers without a permanent family. And that is why we need ``National Adoption Month''. We need opportunities to honor the angels in adoption like the Leeches and Judge Johnson. And we need the opportunity to publicly re-new our commitment to ensuring that all children have the opportunity for permanent adoptive homes. I am pleased to join the other members of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption in honoring more than 50 ``Angels of Adoption'' from around the country. I am doubly pleased that 3 of these angels are from West Virginia. And I pledge to continue to work on legislation that will help all of West Virginia's, and America's foster children have the opportunity that the Leech children now have, the chance to grow up in a permanent, loving family. I urge my colleagues to dedicate themselves to this effort as well.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I salute the veterans of this nation. On this Veterans Day, I want to pay tribute to the brave American soldiers who fought long and hard battles so that we may all have our freedom today. Veterans Day is about honoring and remembering these men and women who served our Nation, and it is for their families. I am very fortunate to represent a state where military service is held in such high esteem. And well it should be. I can't tell you how proud I am of all West Virginia veterans. Whether they served in wartime or peace, all made great sacrifices. Indeed, West Virginia has one of the highest percentages of veterans of any state. As I have often said, it was knowing and understanding West Virginians' deep patriotism and loyalty to their state and their country that first led me to seek a seat on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, where I am now the Ranking Member. I am proud to serve veterans there. The very fabric of our nation is wound through our veterans. Iwo Jima and Hamburger Hill, defeating Nazism and turning back Communism, punishing the brutality of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Milosevic. Our nation is truly a beacon to the world for freedom and for opportunity because our men and women in uniform held that beacon aloft. And many of those men and women in uniforms were West Virginians. It is not enough to take a day to commemorate these veterans, however. We owe them more than that. It is our responsibility to refuse to turn our backs on veterans who need health care, education benefits, and compensation for injuries incurred in service. It would be truly disgraceful for these veterans, who have served our country so well and so valiantly, to feel that they have been forgotten except for this one day per year. That is why I take my work with and for veterans so very seriously. I have fought very hard this year for veterans not only in West Virginia, but across the Nation. A critical need for veterans is long- term care. Our veteran population is aging rapidly and it is our responsibility to care for them. We owe them good long-term care now. I am dedicated to this need, and have been working hard to achieve this provision for all veterans. And there are other battles to be fought as well. Although veterans who enroll with VA for their health care receive a very generous standard benefits package, there is no provision for comprehensive emergency care. This is a serious gap in coverage for veterans, which is unacceptable. Large and unexpected emergency medical care bills can present a significant financial burden to veterans. Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg of dedication to ``unfinished work . . . thus far so nobly advanced.'' Indeed, it is true that we have work to complete. In order to truly commemorate our veterans, I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in my continuing battles for veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on Hollings amendment No. 2379, the junior Senator from West Virginia voted ``aye'' and wishes to change his vote to ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent to be able to change my vote. My change of vote would have no effect on the outcome of the vote.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced the Phone Bill Fairness Act. Consumers across this country have to deal on a regular basis with telephone bills, and one thing they do understand is that telephone bills are very complicated and frustrating. But what they may not know is that telephone bills are, to them, more than just an annoyance--they may be costing them quite a lot of money. I want to address that issue very briefly. When the average consumer receives their phone bill, they don't get a sheet of paper; they get dozens of pages, with very small type, filled with confusing acronyms, complicated payment schemes, and sometimes even services they have not signed up for at all but for which they are being asked to pay. I imagine most consumers not only don't understand everything they have received, but after reading a few pages into their bill--if they do that--they give up and just hope, so-to-speak, they are getting what they want. Now, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was based on the idea competition and market forces would lead to lower prices and better service. We have begun to see the benefits of that act in certain respects. New companies and newly competitive incumbents have begun to reduce rates and offer innovative new services. That is to the good. The main beneficiaries of these improvements, however, have been business consumers. They have the expertise to analyze the bewilderingly complicated telecommunications market and to find out what are the best deals for them. That is exactly what they wanted because they have the size and scope to figure out what is going on and proceed to do what is in their best interest. But your average phone user does not have a team of lawyers or accountants who can pour over his or her phone bill to determine the plan or the company that will save them the most money, which is what competition is about; thus, they cannot use the market system to their financial advantage. Unfortunately, phone bills become so complicated, and the array of services and phone plans so bewildering, that it really does take lawyers and accountants to understand and maximize the benefits that are intended. So, on the one hand, the Telecommunications Act is working because it has created the opportunity for consumers to get lower rates and better service, but it is not working because it requires consumers to walk through a complicated and highly uncertain maze to finally get to that opportunity. Once simple choices about telephone service have become so complicated that even the Chairman of the FCC, Bill Kennard, who was our foremost expert on telecommunications matters, himself has expressed frustration over reading his own phone bill, I think we have something we need to consider. We may not be able to reduce the complicated nature of telecommunications competition, but at the very least we can provide residential consumers with a roadmap that leads them through the maze of telecommunications. We must give consumers help, guidance, and be helpful to them in making sure they can understand their telephone bills and the options they have in telephone service so they can take advantage of the benefits of competition in the telecommunications world, just as businesses can do on a very regular basis. Therefore, the Phone Bill Fairness Act tries to do this by the following: First, we require all telephone companies to accurately describe charges that appear on bills. No one should be able to misidentify so- called line items, especially by claiming they are ``federally mandated'' when they are not federally mandated. Secondly, our bill would require all telephone companies to tell their customers exactly what their average per-minute rate is for a month, so they can compare it to the rates of other companies. Is that so strange? Not at all. When a customer goes to a supermarket, they can look at unit prices for groceries and, thus, they can shop and compare. That allows them to buy what is best for them in terms of what they want, in terms of price and quality, and that is competition. Why can't we do this for telephone customers? The answer is, of course, we can. Thirdly, we would require that all telephone companies inform customers of their calling patterns in an understandable way. If customers know what they are paying and know what types of calls are most frequent, they will then be able to compare all of the different company plans and find the one that is right for them. Again, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was about competition. This bill is about competition. Finally, the bill gives the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission the power to explore how to make phone bills easier to read so that we don't do it here in Congress, and to determine whether any telephone companies are committing fraud in their billing practices. I don't mean to suggest this is the common practice, but there are some small phone companies that do something called ``slamming,'' and that is fraud. They charge people for things they have not, in fact, signed up for. That is fraud. The best defense against fraud is an informed consumer. Consumers cannot be well- informed if they do not understand their phone bills. So this is all fairly logical and straightforward and, I think, in the interest of the Telecommunications Act and, more important, of the American people. Consumers are terribly frustrated with how confusing phone bills are today. When consumers get frustrated, they assume the worst. I believe we have an obligation to try to do something about all of this, and I believe we can. I still very much believe in the Telecommunications Act. I voted for it and participated in shaping it. I believe in the benefits of competition, but we need to make sure the benefits of competition reach everybody in the country--business consumers, residential consumers, and everybody. The first step to achieving this goal is making sure every consumer not only has the opportunity to get better rates and services but that they also have the knowledge and the power to actually get what they want at the lowest price. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Phone Bill Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I come to the floor, after many of my colleagues have already said magnificent things, to say a word about a man I revered, worked with, and cherished both in personal and professional terms. That is, of course, John Chafee. There are so many reasons I respected and, in a sense, really loved John Chafee, and do to this minute and always will. Many of them had to do with what it was that he didn't say and what it was that he didn't find a need to do. There was an interesting article in the Washington Post this morning by Mary McGrory that made me think back to the time I was in the Peace Corps. I served with a man who has since died by the name of Marty Grobli. We were working on the Philippines program together. He was an enormous hero of the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. He had done works of heroism which I never learned about because whenever as a young person in my early twenties I tried to ask him, because I wanted to learn about it, he said he didn't want to talk about it. I think that is the way of many who have been through searing emotional and physical experiences of danger, of patriotism, of great personal risk--they simply keep it to themselves. There isn't a need to tell others. War is not pleasant. War is destructive; war is carried out in the interests of the Nation or of many nations against one or several others. John Chafee never felt a need. In fact, in all the years I knew him, I never heard him talk about serving in two wars, World War II and the Korean war, or the fact he was a marine. If one looked at John Chafee, particularly in the latter years, one wouldn't necessarily--unless you looked at that chiseled face--say this was a marine in the sense that one thinks about it in classical terms. He was not into looking tough, acting tough, or being tough--he just was tough. But he was tough on behalf of people he loved, whom he represented in Rhode Island, those he didn't directly represent, although he did as a Senator in the form of children and women and the inheritance of whatever quality of environment we will inherit in our country. He was a steward of all of those things. He was ferocious in the way he fought for them. He never pushed himself forward. It always seemed, watching him on the Finance Committee when he was in a hearing conducting questioning, he was searching for truth, not either to show knowledge, of which he had a deep, deep repository, or to show special seniority. It was always that he was interested in what the witness was saying, reflecting on what the witness was saying, being courteous to the witness, tough on the witness where the witness might be withholding information or not fully disclosing some of the other arguments that might have been brought through that witness' answers. I loved him for those qualities. I had no idea, I think as no one did, that this was going to be his fate. I didn't look forward to the fact he was going to retire, but since he announced he was going to retire I looked forward to the fact he would go back to Rhode Island, his beloved Northeast, to prowl his State, to be with the people who stood by him in all the years. As the Senator from South Carolina knows, John Chafee was also a Governor. I was a Governor, and I think Governors bring to this body a particular ability and desire to want to reach a compromise to find a solution. The Presiding Officer was a Governor. And Governors often can't allow themselves to tarry because of an ideology. They can't tarry on simply a petulant feeling about this situation or that person because they are the only person in that State, be they man or woman, who can resolve the situation. Therefore, they have to seek a compromise. They have to seek a solution. I love that quality in a Senator. It is a quality John Chafee had in just an unparalleled amount. So he never got to go back home. I feel very sad about that. I wanted to think about John Chafee at home, enjoying the fact he was looking back on all of his years of national service and public service and enjoying his grandchildren, his children, Ginny, his beloved State of Rhode Island, and all of the Northeast. He was a remarkable person. I quote another thing Mary McGrory said which I liked so much: In an institution that calls every man a gentleman, he really was one. That kind of puts us in our places. But it also very much says something accurate about John Chafee. I have heard him talk to people sharply. But it was always on substance. It was always on issues. It was always on what it was between himself and a resolution to a policy problem that he cared about. In the leader's chair sits the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. He and I will remember, because we were both there, it was only last week--which is the heartbreaking part of it--that Senator John Chafee, as the senior member of the Finance Committee, was conducting a hearing on independent living. That is the problem caused when children are brought up, often abused by their parents or by others, through a foster care system, and then all of a sudden at the age of 18 they are declared independent. Our colleague, the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio, is also very interested in this problem. John Chafee was quizzing the young people who were there, who had come through the system--many, many foster parents, some of whom had worked, some of whom had not--but they had been, at the age of 18, declared independent. They were just cast out. They lost their health insurance. They didn't know how to open a bank account, not necessarily even how to operate a washing machine, and they said that to us in very clear and compelling ways. I thought it was in situations such as that--I think my friend from Iowa will agree with me--that John Chafee was at his best. He was in his 70s. Yet he focused so much of what he did heavily on children who were in their fourth and fifth year, or in their teens. It was a burden and a passion that never relented. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and I are working very hard with our staff and the Finance Committee staff to try to complete that independent living bill, not simply--because that would embarrass him-- as a way of honoring John Chafee, but, frankly, because John Chafee would be on us to do it. Knowing he is not here to do it himself, we intend to do that and we will do that. We hope it will pass this body and the other body and be signed by the President. John Chafee's health is something I have to comment on because I always thought of him, and do think of him, as so strong. I wondered, as many of us did in the last several months, what was it that caused him to seem to become so fragile so quickly? But because I knew John Chafee and had known John Chafee, I always believed it would pass because John Chafee always came back. He was always there. He was frail because he had back surgery, but that was not going to lead to something else. It was simply something he was going to get over and come back and take his place over there, behind where the flowers are placed on his desk, and resume his work. That is what John Chafee did. He did not retire when he was in his late 60s. He certainly was financially independent enough to do so, but he didn't retire because he wanted to work. He loved public policy. He loved helping children and families. He loved health care. I can remember during the Clinton health care debates, it was classic John Chafee because we would go on Sunday television shows and he and I would have a wonderful conversation--before. We had different views on the legislation. We would have a very warm conversation before and then he would, during the course of the interview, proceed to shred me mercilessly, in good Marine fashion; you know, using good facts and good examples. Then, as soon as it was over, he would go back and we would be amiable. I commented to him on that several times, and he just would sort of brush it off. He was doing his work. He was doing the work he was here to do. When we think of children in this country getting health insurance, let us remember John Chafee because it was John Chafee who drove that. It was called the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIPs. And Laurie Rubiner, his staff person, drove that. They were driving this independent living bill. There were so many things he did for people of all sorts. I haven't even mentioned, except very briefly at the beginning, the environment. John Chafee was also a very independent person. I do not say this as a Democrat; I say this as a Senator. I liked so much the fact that he was so ferociously independent of his own party when he chose to be; of his own party when they applied pressure on him; from his constituents, presumably, when they applied pressure on him. He always did what he thought was right. In the longer day of life, if you are who you are and you stay who you are, people will come in your direction. If you bend to other people's wills and people have a sense of that, then there will never be a need for them to come in your direction because they will sense, if they outwait you, they will prevail. You could not do that with John Chafee, whether it was because he was this incredible person from Rhode Island and Northeast, this son of early America; whether it was because he was a marine; whether it was because of his own particular and unique nature--he never backed away from anything. John Chafee was a great figure of the Senate. I am not in the position at this point to rate great figures in the Senate over eras. But I certainly start with the idea that John Chafee was and is one of those. I think he was an inspiration. He inspired me. I felt better when I saw him, when I was in his presence. I felt more motivated. I felt better about everything because he just did that to you, whether he was on his cane, as he was in the last month or so, or whether he was vigorous, as he was always before that. He enriched the lives of so many. He seemed to care very little about his own comforts, but, on the other hand, he was so devoted to his family. In closing, I want to think about Ginny; I want to think about his children; I want to think about his grandchildren; I want to think about his staff, people who must be absolutely devastated now, all of them, each of the categories of people close to him, whom I have mentioned. I want them to know they were related to, married to, children of, grandchildren of, and working for, a really very great American. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Phone Bill Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.