Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago I came to the Senate floor to talk with my colleagues in the Congress about the troubled state of our nation's air traffic control system. After a long summer of dramatically increased congestion in the skies and delays on the ground, I implored my colleagues to join me in putting a new and renewed emphasis on aviation, and to commit ourselves to modernizing, reforming, and, if need be, restructuring our air traffic system in order to meet surging travel demands in the new millennium. Today I am pleased to join with Senator Gorton in offering my colleagues a first step in that process by introducing the Air Traffic Management Improvement Act of 1999--a modest but meaningful bill that would improve current management and operation of the system, without prejudging the ongoing and important debate about whether and how to more fundamentally restructure the air traffic over the long term. The Air Traffic Management Improvement Act of 1999 is focused in two key areas--the first being internal FAA management reforms and the second being modernizing of the nuts and bolts of the system itself. With respect to management reforms, this bill would create a new air traffic control oversight committee, as a subcommittee of the FAA's Management Advisory Committee, and a new Chief Operating Officer (COO) position, with central responsibility for running and modernizing air traffic control services, developing and implementing strategic and operational plans, and putting together a budget for air traffic services. For both the COO and the FAA Administrator, the bill would authorize performance bonuses in order to allow us to attract and retain the highest caliber leadership possible for running this essential national system. The bill also makes clear that the Administrator should use her full authority to make organizational changes to improve the efficiency of the system, without compromising the FAA's primary safety mission, and asks the Administrator to report on and provide milestones for the agency's new cost allocation system. With respect to air traffic modernization, the bill calls for a comprehensive review and redesign of our airspace nationwide, based on input from the aviation community, and provides the resources necessary to get the job done in a timely fashion. The bill also includes an emergency authorization of up to $100 million to speed up the purchase and fielding of modernization equipment and technologies that could have made a difference in the gridlock of this past summer but have been held up by inadequate funding. Finally, the bill would set up an innovative pilot program to facilitate public-private joint ventures for the purchase of air traffic control equipment. It would create a not-for-profit Air Traffic Modernization Association with a three-member executive panel representing the FAA, commercial air carriers, and primary airports. Ten projects for modernization equipment would be selected from among applications made by airlines and airports, or a consortium of interested parties, who are willing to share financial responsibility for FAA-approved modernization equipment--and who can't and don't want to wait for the congressional budget process to catch up with air traffic demands. In effect, the Association would leverage a relatively small amount of FAA seed money to more quickly procure and field ATC modernization equipment through leasing and bond arrangements. The pilot program allows for up to $50 million in FAA funding per project, with a total cap of $500 million. It also allows a sponsoring airport to use a portion of a passenger facility charge to meet their commitment and provides incentives for airport participation. In closing, I want to say how thankful I am for the good and sound leadership of my friend and colleague Senator Gorton and of FAA Administrator Garvey and the outstanding FAA employees who work with her and whose expertise, ideas, and technical assistance are reflected in this bill. To my mind the problems of the current system are shared problems--we all bear some responsibility for them and we all need to step up to the plate to do something to fix them. The FAA does a very commendable job with an incomprehensibly difficult task--and they have a terrific safety record to show for it. But the current system isn't working as well as it could or should, and we can't wait to do something about it. My goal in the Air Traffic Management Improvement Act of 1999 is to give the FAA additional tools to get the job done in today's more challenging aviation environment--and to give the Congress and the country some time to consider in a very deliberate and careful way some of the proposals for more far-reaching change. It is our intention to offer this bill as an amendment to the FAA and AIP reauthorization bill, S. 82, when it comes to the Floor in the near future. I look forward to talking more about the details and great potential of these modest reforms at that time. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to improve our air traffic system for the benefit of the traveling public and of the national economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Graham amendment to restore funding for Title XX, the Social Services Block Grant. This program is critical to the ability of our states to meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens--children, the elderly and the disabled. The present Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill contains a provision to cut funding for the Social Services Block Grant by more than half, from $2.38 billion to $1.05 billion. This program has been under attack for years. In 1996, Title XX was cut by 15%. In 1998, the highway bill used cuts in Title XX to pay for the out years of highway spending in 2001. While I understand the importance of roads for economic development, should we pay for it by cutting basic funding for needy children, disabled Americans, or senior citizens? In the last few years this Congress has sent a message to the states. We have said, ``We trust you to know how to take care of your own people. We want to support you, and help you, and at the same time, give you the flexibility to design your own programs.'' This was one of the clear messages of welfare reform. As one of the members on this side of the aisle who voted for the 1996 welfare law, I have to say that I truly believe that these Title XX cuts will weaken welfare efforts in our states. The Social Services Block Grant is used to provide many important support services that help complement the efforts of welfare reform in helping individuals go to work and continue working--education and training services, employment services, transportation, and child care are all among the important programs supported by this block grant. Indeed, as part of the welfare reform package that I agreed to, we promised the states that we would maintain funding for Title XX at the $2.38 billion level until reauthorization in 2002. How can we take back that promise now? You know, one of the greatest features of the Social Services Block Grant is its flexibility. States, and even communities, can determine how to best serve their poor, their elderly, their children and their disabled citizens. My state provides an excellent example of this. While nationally states used an average of 14% of the Title XX block grant for foster care program for abused and neglected children, in West Virginia we use over 30% of our block grant for foster care and 34% for protective services for abused and neglected children. West Virginia cannot afford such a drastic cut in Title XX. It will undermine our State's commitment to abused and neglected children just when tough, new federal time lines are being enforced to move more children from foster care into safe, permanent homes faster. If we cut this funding by more than half, my state will face enormous challenges in its efforts to keep children safe and stable in their homes and communities. This is intolerable. Nationally, 12% of the Title XX block grant is spent on services for the elderly, including protective services for seniors who are victims of abuse and neglect. In West Virginia, 10% of our block grant--a little over $1.6 million--is spent on these services for seniors. This not only provides them with support and protection, it helps them remain in their own homes, rather than being placed in nursing homes or other institutions. What message are we sending to our poor, elderly neighbors, if we cut these services in half? As a former Governor, I understand why Governors want the flexibility of block grants. But the history of Congress is to push for block grants in the name of ``flexibility'' but then to slowly but surely cut the funding of block grants, leaving states and families in the lurch. As a member who cares deeply about poor children, disabled Americans and needy families, I am worried about how such cuts will effect the small communities and our most vulnerable families. We should not cut these vital funds. There is a unique and strong coalition fighting to protect this vital investment ranging from government groups like the National Governors Association and National Association of Counties, to dedicated service providers like Catholic Charities and the United Way. If we believe in community programs and the importance of non-profit charities, how can we justify cuts to Title XX which will hinder their partnership projects? The Social Services Block Grant is not just good for people, it is also good policy. It gives the states flexibility. It helps communities to be innovative in taking care of their own by supporting local partnerships. It makes sense. These funding cuts undermine many of our priorities. We cannot say we want to invest in children and families, then cut the Title XX Social Services Block Grant. This is worse than many of the budget gimmicks in this legislation because cutting Title XX hurts vulnerable families in communities across America. We should not cut this program.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to draw the attention of Congress and the American people to a very special milestone in the State of West Virginia. Wood County, WV, is celebrating its bicentennial and a two-hundred year history of importance and progress thanks to the continual spirit of its leaders and citizens. Over the past year, through the Wood County Bicentennial Commission, events and activities have taken place to commemorate the county's rich history and install a spirit of excitement about the years to come. People of all ages, throughout the county, have been involved in historic exhibits, contests, and special ways to share the past and prepare for the future. With this statement in the Congressional Record, I will make this my submission to the next major event in the bicentennial celebration--the placing of a ``Time Capsule'' at the Wood County Courthouse. With my fellow West Virginians in Wood County, I envision the day one hundred years from the day this capsule will be stored when a future Senator of West Virginia will be presented this piece of history. I am confident that in October of 2099, Wood County will continue to be a center of economic progress, community spirit and commitment, and other features that have defined this corner of the nation for two hundred years already. Wood County has a long history, in particular, in playing a major role in the development of the oil and gas industry in the State and the county. through its resources and industrial progress, Wood County has been the source of fuel for prosperity and growth way beyond its borders. The county is also proud to house a significant chemical industry, manufacturing the critical components of products world-wide and involved in path-breaking research and development. For example, the largest DuPont facility in the corporate structure resides outside of Parkersburg on the land that George Washington once owned. Wood County has tremendous treasures in the form of both its people and its material assets. I join its leadership and citizens in celebrating this bicentennial year, and playing my part in the time Capsule that will reappear another century from now. And I know that All Americans wish Wood County continued prosperity and progress.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize a volunteer group of West Virginians who have joined together to educate the public on an important issue affecting our state and the nation. These individuals, who have formed Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, CALA, are disseminating information to the public about our civil justice system, and they are working to encourage jury service and personal responsibility in our society. CALA spokespersons based in Huntington, Charleston, Bluefield, Logan, Bridgeport, Fairmont, Morgantown and other cities in our state are educating the public about how lawsuit abuse can affect consumers. The CALA groups in West Virginia have raised funds to provide scholarships to students statewide through essay contests where the students address the important topic of jury service and personal responsibility. Teaching our children the value of civic responsibility is a vitally important component of learning, and CALA's efforts have not gone unnoticed. By emphasizing the virtues of jury service, CALA is helping to give our children a more well-rounded education and is promoting values which will serve these children, and our future, well. I am proud that many of West Virginia's finest students, from our public and private secondary schools, have participated in these essay contests and have been recognized for their efforts in our local media. The winning high school essayists in last year's CALA scholarship contest were Joshua Linville, Sherman High School, Boone County; Amanda Knapp, Pt. Pleasant High School, Mason County; Matthew Walker, St. Joseph Catholic High School, Cabell County; Courtney Ahlborn, Parkersburg South High School, Wood County; Sarah Mauller, East Fairmont High School, Marion County; and Misty Lanham, Tygarts Valley High School, Randolph County. Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse groups have declared September 19 through 25 to be ``Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week'' in West Virginia. I commend the citizens for their dedication and commitment and to acknowledge this week as time of public awareness on the various issues affecting civil justice in our state. Our citizens should be encouraged to educate themselves about our civil justice system and how they can help to make it the best in the world.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am very appreciative and grateful to the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member and minority member of the subcommittee, for this. I am, therefore, very happy with the permission of the Chair, to add myself as a cosponsor to the amendment, as well as Senators Conrad, Akaka, Kerrey, Biden, Bingaman, Leahy, Boxer, Hagel, and Murray.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments, if I might, on this legislation. I cannot tell you how happy I am that Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, under the leadership of Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, made this adjustment, because I came down here with a 17-page speech ready to raise all kinds of trouble. Now I don't have to because the appropriators have understood very clearly what was wrong with the GAO reform which was asked for. The appropriators at one point asked for a GAO report, and we went and looked at that report very carefully. We tried to find out what we could about it. We discovered the GAO report, which was recommending the $600 million cut, was based upon the question that had been asked: What would happen if the veterans budget was flatlined? So it wasn't. Where are there efficiencies that can be achieved? It was the presumption that there would be the $600 million shortfall, and, assuming that, how would the VA make the cuts? That is different than asking where might there be efficiencies? This was saying, what are you going to do, assuming you get this cut? They came back with this list based upon a flatlined budget. The VA managers, in fact, were told to hit a dollar target. The simple fact is that most of the cuts they suggested would reduce access to care would reduce everything that is useful in the veterans budget. The GAO really had no basis to reach the conclusion they reached. They didn't review any of the items on the list to determine what impact they would have on patient care--not one single item. It is extraordinary. You would assume the GAO is going to do that kind of thing. They simply didn't. They reacted as automatons--having been given the figure they have to cut to, they would go ahead and do it. The cuts would have been absolutely extraordinary. We knew Members wanted to have $1.7 billion added, and 51 Senators, as I indicated, have already gone ahead and proposed this. The GAO with sort of an ax went through what they were going to close: the dialysis unit in Salem, VA; they were going to close all in-patient beds at the Beckley, WV, hospital--something those people there have been living in fear of for years because there have always been rumbles and rumors, and all of that. That was going to happen up until a few moments ago, until the two Senators made this amendment. That was going to happen. All in-patient care at Beckley was going to be closed. That would be something obviously this Senator and others could not go ahead with. Salem, VA, was going to lose its PTSD, along with a lot of other things. There were going to be a lot of abolishments. All psychiatric beds in the entire New Jersey VA health care system were going to be closed. That is beyond my comprehension. If we have to get down to a certain number, we tend to do that kind of thing. This has nothing to do with a national understanding of how to save money when we need $3 billion to make the health care system. The $1.7 billion is what I was going to make my amendment for; it has been made already, and I am happy to join as a cosponsor. I am very grateful this amendment was made by the two people who can do the most with the full committee chairman answering questions and asserting his insistence on this. I am happy about that. I point out, in closing, it may surprise some to learn that over the last 20 years while VA health care costs have risen 269 percent--which is a lot--the comparable rise for non-VA health care is almost 800 percent. I think that is interesting for my colleagues to think about: a 270-percent increase in the VA health system for health care; in the non-VA health care, an 800-percent increase. That says a lot about efficiencies being practiced within the VA system. I thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland, both stalwarts in their efforts to protect our veterans. I am happy to add my name as a cosponsor, along with a number of others who are going to join in my amendment which I now do not need to make. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I appreciate what the Senator from Missouri said. But I would further ask, I notice in the amendment it says it is an emergency requirement but it requires a transmittal by the President to the Congress, which would clearly say if the President doesn't--at least I would interpret it--ask for that, then it might not happen. Am I nit-picking at words or is that a fact which is of concern?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I appreciate very much and have enormous respect for the chairman of the full committee. Then it is my understanding it will come back after the bidding point from the conference.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary of the initiatives that GAO said would make for efficiencies. I think that ought to be in the Record. As my colleagues see these efficiencies, they are going to be rather stunned. Second, the head of the health part of the VA, Dr. Thomas Garthwaite, has written a letter in which he says many of the proposals are inconsistent with law and VA policies--that is, the GAO suggestions-- and could not be implemented. He said he was personally concerned some would result in a negative impact on quality of care and level of services. I ask unanimous consent to have both of these printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. And any new request by the President of the United States would not be necessary? This simply would be the workings of the Congress.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to make a simpler amendment. It is an amendment in the number of dollars, $600 million, bringing it up to $1.7 billion, as 51 Senators agreed to earlier in a letter. But I have not been given a copy of the amendment itself. I don't know what the offset is and I don't know, therefore, whether the offsets affect other programs within this appropriations matter that would be harmful. I ask either the ranking member or the leader if I could have a copy of the amendment so I could simply see what it says. The numbers we agree on, but where is the offset coming from, et cetera?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, if I might ask the distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey, are we dealing with two amendments or a sense-of-the-Senate resolution?

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution is preferable in that it doesn't become law and is not binding. It also implies, as I would believe, that perhaps the case for the amendments is not as strong as it once appeared to be. I want to speak vehemently against whatever form this takes, whether it is two amendments or a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. There is no question that the Senator from Oregon is concerned with safety. The Senator from Oregon has the luxury of dealing with flights far better than does the Senator from West Virginia. He has a consistent record on that. I also need to say, however, that when he brought up what was to be two amendments--both of which I disagree with and which I ask my colleagues to vote against, whether in amendment form or resolution form--the Senator didn't give any advanced notice about it. He didn't inform those charged with responsibility for aviation issues on the Commerce Committee before he brought this matter up, for example. Customer service is a problem we have been working on in the Commerce Committee. What I need to point out is that on this very day the airlines are coming out with their plans to implement what Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Gorton, and the Senator from West Virginia directed and worked with them to do to improve customer service. Today they are coming out with a plan to address precisely the problems the Senator is bringing up. People talk about Washington intervening and Washington trying to do something on its own because Washington always knows best. This is probably a classic case of that--especially on what looks like a tremendously popular consumer issue that can easily get a lot of attention. But we always have to ask the question, is it the right public policy? My reaction in this case is, no, it is the wrong public policy. We sat down with the airlines and we had a very long series of negotiations. We got them to agree to a whole series of things which they are coming out with today, which we haven't actually seen yet, for improving customer service. They are coming out with their detailed service plans on this very day, at the same time that we are voting here on these resolutions. What is interesting is that in the principles we negotiated with the airlines both of the problems contemplated by these resolutions are specifically addressed, and will be elaborated upon in the specific plans of each airline. Now I don't have the advantage of is having the plans before me because they are being announced today. But we pushed the airlines hard and they came back with suggestions; and then we went to them again and said that is not good enough, and they came up with more. We also informed the airlines that we would be working on legislation to direct the Department of Transportation to exercise oversight and monitoring of airlines customer service plans and how they are implemented. We are also working on legislation to increase penalties--if we can ever get to the FAA reauthorization bill, which a lot of people don't talk about--including increases in baggage liability limits, civil penalties for consumer violations, and fines for mistreatment of disabled passengers. We took a very tough approach with the airlines, saying to them, look, we are going to give you this chance because we think you know better than we do how wide a seat ought to be. We think that when it comes to the cost of the fare, or informing passengers of cancellations or delays, you can do a better job for passengers than if we dictated to you how to do it. And at the same time we said to the airlines: If you don't come forth with meaningful service improvements and if you are not effective in implementing these commitments, then we are going to come back at you with legislation. We were very clear in our message to them. Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Gorton--all of us--were very clear about the consequences. We are committed to considering a legislative solution to make the airlines do these things, but first we are going to give them a chance to clean up their own houses. The main difference between these resolutions and our approach is that we don't want to legislate right out of the gate. We may have to end up legislating, if they don't improve things. But let's give them an opportunity first. Consider the case of Southwest Airlines and the question of overbooking. Routinely 35 to 40 percent of the people who make reservations on Southwest don't show up for the flight. Do they have an overbooking procedure on 90 percent of their flights? Yes, they do. They need to do that since on average 35 to 40 percent of their passengers don't show up for each and every flight. On one hand, it seems as if overbooking is an easy thing to do something about. But in practice it is a more complicated question. So, shall we give the industry that knows it has problems a chance, albeit under pressure and restrictions from the Congress and the DOT, but nonetheless a chance to solve their problems themselves? Or shall we simply say we are going to do it for you, and this is how you are going to do it? Again, if they don't come forward, if they don't do this correctly, then we may very well move legislatively. I have said it frequently to them in private and in public that we move to legislate if they don't take this voluntary approach quite seriously, and we will direct and mandate that these customer service improvements be done. But I think to take the heavy-handed approach right out of the box is the wrong way to go. I think it is also ironic, I have to say, that the focus is on overbooking and access to low fares, without giving equal attention to the problems of air traffic control. We aren't paying any attention at all to the underlying problems--the infrastructure problems that are the root cause of many customer complaints, including overcrowding, scheduling problems, cancellations and no-shows. The airlines have until December 15 to get their detailed plans fully implemented. I think we ought to give them the chance. The inspector general of DOT is monitoring and watching each and every airline for any failure to carry out the principles and promises. If they are not effectuated, that will be considered a violation by the DOT. But is there anything really that wrong with giving the people who know how to do it and who will compete with one another to do it best a chance to self-regulate under this very unusual and extraordinary pressure that they find themselves from myself and Senator Gorton? Or do we simply say, no, we know how to do it best, and we are going to do it for you? I hope my colleagues will understand that this a resolution that doesn't do much good for airline passengers. What will do good by the traveling public is the plan which the airlines are announcing today, and then the oversight and the implementation of those plans, which we will watch very closely and then evaluate how they've done. If they are ineffective in it, then we will move right to legislation. But for heaven's sake, let's not start off that way and pretend we can do all of this better than they can. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, there is a very famous line that we all know from the heroic astronauts of Apollo 13. The line is: ``Houston, we have a problem.'' Today, many of us who have spent the August recess traveling to our home States and various places across the country also realize that we ``have a problem'' in the air. This problem is not only in Houston, it is in Atlanta, it is in Chicago, it is in Cleveland, it is in Detroit and in nearly every other city across the country. Over the last month, there have been very troubling reports of unprecedented increases in congestion and delays in our national air traffic system--long hours of delay. I have not heard a speech in this Chamber about this in the last several months. We spent most of yesterday having, I guess, basically a political debate about the Puerto Rican clemency situation, but this is urgent in a very different way because it involves life and death, the national economy, and congestion which is beyond the scope of thinking of many of our fellow citizens. We are not talking about merely an inconvenience. We are talking about a potential crippling of the national economy and, if ignored, we are talking about extremely serious safety issues. I happen to be an admirer of FAA Administrator Jane Garvey. I think she is very good, and I think she is tough. She ran an airport in Boston. That is a tough thing to do. I have a lot of confidence and faith in her. She canceled her own summer vacation plans because the crisis was so bad. She stayed in Washington to work with the controllers and with the airlines on this enormous congestion problem on which I will elaborate in a minute. Beginning in mid-July, the FAA and the carriers conducted an on-the- spot evaluation of about 33 different facilities across the country in the air traffic control system. That is the one which routes our planes hither and yon; they better be right. In this evaluation, they came up with a short-term plan for reducing delays and for improving some inconveniences. It is really too soon to say how effective it will be. I am glad they did it, but we cannot draw any final conclusions from it. Everybody involved with the plan seems to agree that these short-term fixes are nothing more than that--short-term fixes. They are meant to address symptoms of an underlying problem which we in Congress consistently fail to address, which is an air traffic control system that must be modernized--but we will not do it, nor put up the money for it--restructuring within the FAA and other areas in order to meet surging travel demands and remain viable, as they say, into the next century. Of course, while this serious problem-solving effort was going on at the FAA and its facilities during this summer, we in the Congress, and especially we in the Senate, have largely or virtually--totally, I should say--stood by. We have watched. We have not even commented. We have simply watched or in some cases even looked the other way. Lack of concern? Too complicated? I do not know. We continue in this same vein that we have approached aviation for more than a year now, ignoring the problem, ignoring the cost, ignoring the solutions, ignoring the complexity, by avoiding the issue and refusing to make the time to debate it in a serious way. We left for the August recess without even bringing up FAA reauthorization or the airport improvement program reauthorization. That is our most basic aviation responsibility. That is our bottom line. We failed to do it. In fact, we all went home knowing that the airport funding program was going to lapse. And, of course, on August 6 it did. Some would have you believe that the FAA reauthorization bill is so mired in controversy that we just cannot do it--not a matter of not wanting to do it; we cannot do it. I am here to tell you--and to implore you--that most of the bill is entirely resolved and that the remaining issues require only some healthy debate, a measure of compromise; and if we will only make the time, we can certainly get all of this done and need to this month. I understand that the majority leader and the Democratic leader have been working very closely on this matter, on doing just exactly that, having us work on it, finding the time to bring the FAA bill to the floor. It used to be that an FAA bill did not have all that much significance. Actually, that is probably not a true statement. Today it has overwhelming complexity and significance to it. Senators Hollings, McCain, Gorton, and I are doing our very level best to work out as many of the remaining issues as we possibly can so the bill will go smoothly and quickly on the floor. And we believe that it can, if given a chance. But the important thing is that we get going, is that we do something, is that we bring it here, is that we discuss it, is that we are educated by it, by some of the facts that surround it because the consequences of inaction are growing very dangerous. Some facts: The Air Transport Association reports that air traffic control delays were up 19 percent from January through July of 1999 and 36 percent from May through June of 1999 as compared to the same periods in 1998. With an average of 1,358 aircraft delayed each day from May through July as a result of something called air traffic control, and an average of 106 passengers per aircraft, the Air Transport Association estimates that 140,000 passengers were delayed in America each day from May through July of this year--140,000 passengers each and every day. For the first 5 months of 1999, as compared to the same period in 1998--a 1-year difference--delays increased at Detroit 267 percent; at Las Vegas, 168 percent; at Chicago Midway, 158 percent; at Cincinnati, 142 percent; at Dallas/Fort Worth, 131 percent. ATA reports that 625 million in passenger minutes of passenger delay each year costs the economy over $4 billion annually and results in passengers being delayed 28,500 hours each day on average--with the numbers going up every month. And 72 percent of the delays are weather-related, they say--it may be true, it may not be--but that does not mean that the weather is so bad that we cannot avoid gridlock on our part. We can, and we must, continue to invest money in training and staffing, in paying for advanced automation tools to enable controllers to work around bad weather and minimize disruption to the extent that, in fact, they would be able to if we were willing to fund them and to give them the possibility of doing that. This technology and this capability exists at this instant and should be improved upon for tomorrow. Before we jump to blame the FAA for all these current problems, I should be very clear that I believe the carriers also share some responsibility, as do we in Congress, again, particularly in the Senate. FAA reports that traffic increases are greatest in the Northeast. That is not a surprise; that is where a lot of people live. And it appears to be the result of several factors: a stronger economy; the influx of regional jets, which fly at the same altitude but not nearly as fast as the big jets, so it complicates the way planes can be maneuvered; significant deliveries of new aircraft to major carriers that have to keep them flying--they have no economic choice to begin to recoup their investment, even if fewer flights would meet their customers' actual needs--the efforts by a couple of the major airlines to develop low-cost/low-fare operations along the eastern seaboard to compete with Southwest on point-to-point routes; and in some cases excessive airline scheduling. For example--and I see my good friend, the senior Senator from New Jersey--only 48 arrivals are possible each hour at Newark Airport in very good weather. But for marketing purposes, individual carriers are scheduling 55 to 60 arrivals at Newark Airport during the exact same hours. This happens at hub airports all across the country and effectively guarantees delay no matter what the FAA, no matter what the controllers might want to do. Allow me to begin to finish with a quote from the latest major study of the system, the broad system, by the National Civil Aviation Review Commission in 1998. The Commission's warning is compelling and has been affirmed by the industry, affirmed by the Department of Transportation, the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Gore Commission on Security and Safety, and everybody else who works in or on or with aviation. Their quote: [W]ithout prompt action the United States' aviation system is headed for gridlock shortly after the turn of the century. If this gridlock is allowed to happen, it will result in a deterioration of aviation safety, harm the efficiency and growth of our domestic economy, and hurt our position in the global marketplace. Lives [will] be endangered, the profitability and strength of the aviation sector could disappear, and jobs and business opportunities far beyond aviation could be foregone. So given all of this, I say that we do not just have a problem at Houston but we have a problem all over America. What more do we need to know before we are inspired to act? Must we wait until the gridlock is upon us? Are we waiting for some catastrophic event? Are we waiting to be shot out of our inertia? That is what we have been doing here in the Senate for some time. And does it have to come to unnecessary deaths? Sometimes that happens in America. People don't pay attention until there is something so horrible that they want action. That is not what we want to happen in the Senate. We are given the responsibility for aviation policy--our section of it. We have an authorizing and appropriating process. We have not been exercising it. We have been consistently underfunding the most basic aspects of our aviation system. We know it, we will not change it, and we do not talk about it. We simply cannot continue to sit on our hands, waiting until it is ``convenient'' to start the debate. We are underinvesting in our system to the tune of at least $6 billion each year--$4 billion short on air traffic equipment and technology, an instrument of safety, and $2 billion short on airport infrastructure and capacity improvements. These are just the funds needed to keep us going at the current, entirely unacceptable rate and not to improve our situation but just to keep us where we are. I trust my words have convinced my colleagues that I do not believe that is sufficient. So closing this $6 billion annual funding shortfall doesn't even begin to modernize and do what we need to do in the aviation system. That is a sensitive subject, and $6 billion is a lot of money. We don't like to talk about spending that, but we will get nowhere in aviation without it. Without getting too much into some especially contentious differences between the House and Senate aviation bills, let me state the obvious about this apparent funding gap. We all know there is money in the aviation trust fund that could and should be used. There are any number of ways to do it. We could take the trust fund off budget; we could firewall the revenues; we could simply spend more on the discretionary side for critical and growing needs in our aviation infrastructure. The point is that we have to make a commitment to fix and improve this system, and it is going to take money to do it. We cannot avoid that. So today, I say to colleagues, it is time to talk about the needs of the FAA, time to talk about the needs of the aviation system. We cannot simply go on to conference on a blank bill, and I don't think that is the intention anymore. We can't write the bill in conference. We can't do this without debate or without input from this body. Thankfully, this week I am beginning to feel cautiously optimistic about our ability to work together to get this bill to the floor. Frankly, we owe it to the traveling public and to the tireless air traffic controllers. I don't know how many of you have watched these folks work and looked at the equipment with which they have to work. It is a shocker. In some cases it is stunningly wonderful, and in some cases it is shockingly poor. At some point, underinvestment in something as important as what will carry a billion passengers in 6 or 7 years--our aviation system--will catch up with us. I fear that day is already upon us. The consequences of continued inaction are terribly real--real for public safety and real for our national economy. So let's go forward and take the work that our majority and minority leaders are now talking about and get to this bill. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a great patriot from my wonderful State of West Virginia, Mr. Robert ``Bob'' Ferrell. Bob retired from the U.S. Air Force with more than 21 years of active duty service. He bravely served his country during the Vietnam conflict on the C-130 Spectre Gunship as a gunner and instructor gunner. Over the course of many years of service, the Air Force honored Bob with numerous prestigious awards, including the coveted Distinguished Flying Cross. After completing his tour in Vietnam, Bob returned to his lifelong home of Logan County, and began the hard work of a coal miner to support his family. Bob was an exemplary citizen and participated in many community activities. He was a lifetime member of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. After retiring from the mines in the mid 1980's, Bob traveled all over our State seeking the opportunity to speak to our school children about the importance of service to our country and to our state. A devoted husband and father, Bob raised four wonderful and productive children, two boys and two girls. The example he set for his sons resulted in both of them following in his footsteps and enlisting in the armed forces. The eldest, Mike, is serving in the 101st Airborne division of Fort Campbell, KY, and Steve is a full-time member of the West Virginia Army National Guard. His daughters also are respected members of their communities. The oldest, LaRue, is a chiropractor, and her younger sister, Anitra, is a loving mother and housewife. Bob passed away in May of this year, and was buried, so appropriately, on the day which commemorates the lives of all those who sacrificed so much for our nation, Memorial Day. Mr. President, as you know, I am the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I take great pride in recognizing this wonderful and patriotic man from my state of West Virginia. Bob was one of more than 200,000 veterans from my home State, and represents the millions of Americans who served our country with pride and distinction. One of the best ways we can honor Bob's memory is to work diligently to ensure that the promises made by our government to all veterans are kept. I would like to close by saying--thank you, Bob. Your outstanding attitude and unselfish lifestyle are an inspiration to the people of our State. You attained the goal all men strive for, in that, you left the world a better place for all of us.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to support this comprehensive bill, which would make valuable changes to a wide range of veterans' benefits and services. The bill we consider today, S. 1076, the Veterans Benefits Act of 1999, addresses many initiatives--from ensuring that the surviving spouses of ex-POW's will be provided for compensated to furnishing job training to homeless veterans. I will mention here only a few of the issues which are of particular interest to me. The first is long-term care for veterans. S. 1076, as amended, represents a comprehensive effort to address the long-term care needs of our veterans. Title I includes provisions based on the ``Veterans' Long-Term Care Enhancement Act of 1999,'' which I introduced earlier in the session. In my view, we must take a first step to reach out to veterans who presently need long-term care services, or will in the future. I am glad that we have done so. At the outset, I want to say that my wish would be for VA to provide long-term care to all veterans who need and want it. While the provisions now included in S. 1076 are only one step toward determining what VA should be doing to meet the needs of veterans for long-term care, I believe that it is an important step in that regard. There is no doubt that demand for long-term care--for veterans and non-veterans alike--is increasing. In the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), however, we face an even more pressing demand. I am proud of VA's work in responding to current demand for long-term care services. VA has developed geriatric evaluation teams, home-based primary care, and adult day health care--all cost-effective ways to assess and care for veterans. But to quote from the Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Future of VA Long-Term Care, despite VA's high quality and long tradition, ``VA long-term care is marginalized and unevenly funded.'' There are three key elements to Subtitle A of Title I. The first includes provisions which clarify that long-term care is not only nursing home care, and that existing differences in law between eligibility for institutional long-term care and other types of care offered by VA do not affect VA's ability to furnish a full array of noninstitutional long-term care services. Specifically, the provision would add ``noninstitutional extended care services'' to the definition of ``medical services,'' thereby removing any doubt about VA's authority to furnish such services to veterans enrolled in VA care. The term would be defined to include the following: home-based primary care; adult day health care; respite care; palliative and end-of-life care; and homemaker or home health care aide visits. Veterans would have unfettered access to these needed and cost-effective long-term care services. Second, S. 1076, as amended, would add clear authority for VA to furnish assisted living services, including to the spouses of veterans. VA already furnishes a form of assisted living services through its domiciliary care program, but the provisions in the bill would provide express authority to furnish this modality of care to older veterans within the confines of a demonstration project at a Veterans Integrated Service Network. The Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Future of VA Long-Term Care specifically notes that while many state programs are moving in the direction of assisted living--to cut costs and to provide the most appropriate level of care--VA cannot do so. The results of the demonstration project will provide VA and Congress with a rational basis from which to proceed to authorize assisted living for all veterans. Third, VA would be mandated to carry out a series of pilot programs, over a period of 3 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. Those who would benefit by further action to develop and capitalize on VA's long-term care expertise include older veterans, primarily our honored World War II veterans; those health organizations, including academic medicine and research entities, with which VA is now connected; and finally, the rest of the U.S. health care system, and ultimately all Americans who will need some form of long-term care services. Each element of the pilot program would establish and carry out a comprehensive long-term care program, with a full array of services, ranging from inpatient long-term care--in intermediate care beds, nursing homes, and domiciliary care facilities--to comprehensive noninstitutional services, which include hospital-based home care, adult day health care, respite care, and other community-base interventions. In each element of the pilot programs, VA would also be mandated to furnish case management services to ensure that veterans participating in the pilot programs receive the optimal treatment and placement for services. Preventive health care services, such as screening and patient education, and a particular focus on end-of-life care are also emphasized. In my view, VA must have ready access to all of these services. Finally, 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 within S. 1076 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. I look forward to working with the chairman and the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the House of Representatives to advance the cause of long-term care in VA. And I thank Senator Specter for his willingness to undertake these advancements in veterans' long- term care programs. Another major issue of great interest to me which S. 1076 addresses are 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 released 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. In summary, my staff determined that field personnel have just barely been able to maintain the level of services in the Prosthetics, Blind Rehabilitation, and SCI programs, but that the PTSD and substance use disorder programs are not being maintained in accordance with the mandates in law. Because of staff and funding reductions, and the resulting increases in workloads and excessive waiting times, the latter two programs are failing to sustain services at the needed levels. This is particularly troubling because from its inception, the Department of Veterans Affairs' health care system has developed widely recognized expertise in providing services to meet the special needs of veterans with spinal cord injuries, amputations, blindness, and post- traumatic stress disorder. 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--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 perhaps the hardest hit of all the specialized programs. It is not surprising that treatment has shifted from an emphasis on inpatient to outpatient care. 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. Section 132 of S. 1076, as amended, mandates that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs carry out programs to enhance the provision of specialized mental health services to veterans. The ``Veterans Benefits Act of 1999'' specifically targets services for those afflicted with PTSD and substance use disorders. The legislation before us also requires that funding will be available, in a centralized manner, to fund proposals from the Veterans Integrated Service Networks and the individual facilities to provide specialized mental health services. Qualified mental health personnel at the VA who oversee these programs shall conduct an assessment of need for the funds. I must stress that these provisions are not aimed at rebuilding the traditional inpatient infrastructure. Instead, the focus is on expanding outpatient and residential treatment facilities, developing better case management, and generally improving the availability of services. In my view, VA's mental health treatment programs, in general, have been eroded to the point that veterans in some areas of the country are suffering needlessly. That is why I am so pleased that S. 1076 includes provisions to prompt VA to begin to rebuild some of what has been lost. The third major issue of particular concern to me which S. 1076 addresses is emergency care for veterans. I am very pleased that it includes provisions drawn directly from the ``Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Act of 1999,'' which would authorize VA to cover emergency care at non-VA facilities for those veterans who have enrolled with VA for their health care. I thank my colleague, Senator Daschle, for his leadership on this issue. While VA provides a very generous standard benefits package for all veterans who are enrolled with the VA for their health care, enrolled veterans do not have comprehensive emergency care. This is a serious gap in coverage for veterans, as large and unexpected emergency medical care bills can present a significant financial burden. That is why I offered this proposal at a Committee meeting. I am gratified that my colleagues on the Committee chose to support it. Coverage of emergency care services for all veterans is supported by the consortium of veterans services organizations that authored the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2000--AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The concept is also included in the Administration's FY 2000 budget request for VA and the Consumer Bill of Rights, which President Clinton has directed every federal agency engaged in managing or delivering health care to adopt. To quote from the Consumer Bill of rights: Consumers have the right to access emergency health care services when and where the need arises. Health plans should provide payment when a consumer presents to an emergency department with acute symptoms of sufficient severity-- including severe pain--such that a ``prudent layperson'' could reasonably expect the absence of medical attention to result in placing their health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. S. 1076 adopts this ``prudent layperson'' standard, which is intended to protect both the veteran and the VA. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Committees on Veterans' Affairs to make this proposal a reality. Through their service to our country, our veterans have earned comprehensive, high quality health care, and that must include emergency care, as well. The final issue contained in S. 1076 to which I wish to draw attention is a provision to improve VA's enhanced use lease authority, because I believe it is 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. I believe it is vital for VA to develop more enhanced use lease projects to leverage its assets, before it begins to dispose of irreplaceable property. I thank Senator Specter for accepting these provisions. Since VA received enhanced use authority, it has been used 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 111 of S. 1076 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 of up to 55-year terms, 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. Section 111 would also authorize VA to use appropriated funds from its minor construction account for contributions to capital activities in order to secure the best lease terms possible. Current authority for VA to enter into enhanced use leases is set to expire on December 31, 2001. Projects that are currently in development face the possibility of negotiations not being completed prior to the expiration date. Therefore, S. 1076 extends VA's authority by a sufficient length of time--until December 31, 2011--so as not to chill negotiations in the near future. I am very interested in seeing VA engage in more of these projects, so I am pleased to see that S. 1076 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 an independent assessment of opportunities for enhanced use leases. This assessment would include a survey of suitable facilities, a determination of the feasibility of projects at those facilities, and an analysis of the resources required to enter into a lease. I hope that more training--which until now has been sporadic and primarily on a by-request basis--and a more systematic and centralized approach would assist the VA in maximizing its enhanced use lease opportunities. In conclusion, I believe that S. 1076 represents a real step forward in providing veterans with the type of care that they require, and in giving VA the legislative tools to carry out that care--be it emergency care, long-term care, or specialized mental health treatment. When Congress passed VA health care eligibility reform in 1996, we told veterans that VA would be their comprehensive health care provider; but since its enactment, we have found significant limitations and barriers to providing the types of care veterans need. S. 1076 tears down many of those barriers. I urge my colleagues in the House to carefully examine these critical provisions and to work with Senator Specter and me to implement them. America's veterans deserve nothing less.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to voice my support for the Arts in general, and specifically for the National Endowment for the Arts. I also want the Senate and my constituents to know that I would have demonstrated this support with my vote if I had not been engaged in an important meeting at the White House while the vote was taking place. This meeting today concerned the future of the steel industry and the Administration's commitment to work with Congress, the industry and labor to ensure that unfair and illegal imports are returned to pre- crisis levels. As my colleagues and constituents know, my commitment to the future stability and viability of our domestic steel industry-- which is critical to the economic well-being of West Virginia--is unwavering, and for that reason I felt it necessary to remain at the White House for this important meeting. Unfortunately, the vote on the Smith Amendment was called earlier than anticipated, and I missed the vote. I would have voted against the Smith Amendment if I could have been in the chamber because I believe in funding for the arts, including the National Endowment for the Arts. I take comfort in the fact that the lopsided margin meant that my vote was not necessary to ensure funding for the NEA. I understand that some have challenged NEA's funding decisions in recent years, but I believe the agency has done an admirable job in modifying its policies and decision making process to respond to concerns. Thanks to these efforts, the NEA is a stronger organization. The arts and the NEA contribute greatly to our culture, and it is a valuable investment in my view.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to join Senators Frist and Lieberman and other distinguished colleagues to commend the Senate for passing the Federal Research Investment Act. This legislation will set a long-term vision for federal funding of research and development programs so that the United States can continue to be the world leader in the research and innovation upon which our high-tech industry is based. One only needs to look as far as the front page of the newspaper to see the effect of high-technology on our country. New drugs are becoming available for fighting cancer; new communication hardware is allowing more people to connect to the Internet; and advances in fuel- cell technology are leading to low-emission, high-efficiency alternative fuel vehicles. According to a 1998 National Science Foundation study, over seventy percent of all patent applications in America cite non-profit or federally funded research as a core component to the innovation being patented. Even at IBM, an industry leader in R&D, only 21 percent of its patent applications were based on company research. People are living longer, with a higher quality of life, in a better economy due to processes, procedures, and equipment which are based on federally funded research. New technologies and products do not appear out of thin air. They are the result of a basis of knowledge which has been built up by researchers supported by federal funding. American companies draw from this knowledge base in developing the high-tech products which you and I read about in the paper and see on our store shelves everyday. I view this knowledge base as an investment. The US government puts in modest amounts of funding in the form of support for scientific research. The dividends come from the economic growth which is produced as this knowledge is turned into actual products by American companies. A large part of the current rosy economic situation is due to these high-tech industries. High-tech companies are responsible for one-third of our economic output and half of our economic growth. Alan Greenspan has said that new technologies are primarily responsible for the nation's phenomenal economic performance, low unemployment, low inflation, high corporate profits and soaring stock prices. If we want continued economic growth, we therefore need to support the fundamental, pre-competitive research critical to these industries, at the necessary levels, and in a stable manner from year to year--and we need to do so now. Just three years ago, federal science funding was in a serious decline and fewer than half a dozen members of Congress gave it any attention. Now the connection between a healthy research enterprise and our nation's strong economic growth is widely understood. In the last two years the science budget has increased above inflation. In particular, for Fiscal Year 1999, an unprecedented 10 percent increase in civilian R&D funding was appropriated. Yet, somehow we appear to be once again in a situation where the future outlook for R&D funding is either declining, stagnating, or barely keeping pace with inflation. We must not only pass the Federal Research Investment Act, but we must continue our fight to actually implement the R&D budgetary guidelines set forth in this bill. Finally, let me just say that one of the original reasons that I became involved in technology issues, such as the EPSCoR and EPSCoT programs, was because I believe that technology should be shared by everyone, not just those in Silicon Valley or the Route 128 corridor in Massachusetts. Therefore, this bill should be seen as a means of allowing for diversity in our national innovation infrastructure-- research must be allowed to flower in Montana, Alaska, West Virginia as well as the traditional centers of science. In conclusion, we have put together a long-term vision for federal R&D funding which we hope will lead to real increases in federal funding for research and development. Federally funded research has been, and will continue to be, a driving power behind our economic success. If we are to maintain and enhance our current economic prosperity we must make sure that research programs are funded at adequate levels in a consistent long-term manner. I thank my colleagues for their support of this bill and ask unanimous consent that both my comments and the news article from the Wheeling News-Register, ``Congress Must Act to Ensure That Vital Research Doesn't Lapse in U.S.,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a new tool, the ``New Markets Tax Credit,'' to be used to expand economic development opportunities in low-income communities in West Virginia and across this country. I'm very pleased that my good friends, Senator Robb, Sarbanes, Kennedy, and Kerry, are joining me in this effort. Despite the unprecedented period of expansion of the U.S. economy, many urban and rural areas continue to be held back by stubborn problems such as high unemployment and underemployment, insufficient affordable housing, shortages of services such as day care and shopping centers, and perhaps most importantly, by a chronic shortage of the private investment capital needed to stimulate and support community development. For example, in West Virginia, we have counties where the official unemployment rate is as high as 14%. Counties like Mingo, McDowell, Logan and Boone have seen devastating job losses in the past two decades. For these rural communities, the nation's current economic boom is a distant echo. It's not that these people do not want to work, or that the entrepreneurial spirit is lacking. A major factor is the lack of private sector equity investment for business growth. I have been pursuing economic development opportunities for my state for over 30 years, and perhaps the largest problem I've encountered is the lack of venture capital. America's most depressed economic areas desperately need private investment. They get very little not only because they are unattractive, but also because of misperceptions and market failures. A lack of information, for instance, means that many companies may have an exaggerated idea of the risk of investing in deprived areas, and often have no idea of potential markets. Yes, it is true that private venture capital investment rose 24% in 1998, 76% of the total went to technology-based companies--primarily in California's Silicon Valley and New England's high-tech corridors. But only 5.7% of all venture capital in 1998 went to South Central, Southwest and Northwest regions combined. Obviously, this is a huge disparity that needs to be corrected. The New Markets Tax Credit is designed to encourage $6 billion in private sector equity investment for business growth in low and moderate income rural and urban communities. It would do that by providing tax credits for investments of $1.2 billion annually. The investments would be made by banks, foundations, companies or individuals. These investors would acquire stock or other equity interests in selected community economic development entities whose primary mission is serving distressed communities. Urban and rural communities with high poverty and low median income would be targeted. The tax credits would be issued by the U.S. Department of Treasury to the selected entities. These entities in turn would sell or syndicate the credit to investors. The tax credit ultimately delivered to the investor would be in the amount of 6 percent annually of the amount of the investment, for an approximate aggregate value to the investor of 25 percent of the ``present value'' of the original investment over the 7 years. A ``qualified investment'' by an investor would be a cash purchase of stock or other equity in a selected entity, which must be held for at least 7 years. Substantially all of the investment would be required to be used by the community economic development entity to make ``qualified low-income community investments,'' which would be equity investments in, or loans to, qualified active businesses in the low-income communities. The goal of this tax credit will be to encourage private investors who may have never considered investing in high-risk areas to do so. By investing in the community through local businesses private investors can explore new markets and improve the quality of life for the people in the area. Community development organizations may use the funds from private investors to develop micro-enterprise, manufacturing businesses, commercial facilities, communities facilities, like child care facilities and senior centers and co-operatives. It has the potential to encourage $6 billion in venture capital to these high-risk areas. And because community development vehicles may not redeem the equity interest for at least seven years, capital stays in the community. The New Markets Tax Credit will create new relationships between investors, community development vehicles, and small businesses, which will foster continued support and lasting investment. Mr. President, I believe that the New Markets Tax Credit may be one of the most promising and viable new idea for genuine economic development in distressed urban and rural communities in recent years. President Clinton has highlighted this proposal as part of his FY2000 budget, and just last month took the case to people across the country, those parts of our country which have been too long ignored can experience real benefit from this type of initiative. Communities, businesses, and investors are responding enthusiastically. Hope that is backed up by a strong program of economic investment is needed in West Virginia and urban and rural communities throughout America. We have all heard the talk in the recent weeks as proponents of massive new tax breaks argue that we should send even more money back to those who have benefited the most from our historic economic expansion. I believe it would be irresponsible for us to create ways to provide additional tax relief to those in our society who need the least assistance before we make a concerted effort to revitalize the parts of our country, and to help the people of our country, who have been noticeably left out of the prosperity that went elsewhere. If we're going to do more for those who need it least, let us also commit to do what we can to propel those most in need of a helping hand into the future with real hope of economic success. The New Markets Tax Credit is one solid way to do just that. I urge my colleagues to examine this proposal carefully and give it their full support. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a new tool, the ``New Markets Tax Credit,'' to be used to expand economic development opportunities in low-income communities in West Virginia and across this country. I'm very pleased that my good friends, Senator Robb, Sarbanes, Kennedy, and Kerry, are joining me in this effort. Despite the unprecedented period of expansion of the U.S. economy, many urban and rural areas continue to be held back by stubborn problems such as high unemployment and underemployment, insufficient affordable housing, shortages of services such as day care and shopping centers, and perhaps most importantly, by a chronic shortage of the private investment capital needed to stimulate and support community development. For example, in West Virginia, we have counties where the official unemployment rate is as high as 14%. Counties like Mingo, McDowell, Logan and Boone have seen devastating job losses in the past two decades. For these rural communities, the nation's current economic boom is a distant echo. It's not that these people do not want to work, or that the entrepreneurial spirit is lacking. A major factor is the lack of private sector equity investment for business growth. I have been pursuing economic development opportunities for my state for over 30 years, and perhaps the largest problem I've encountered is the lack of venture capital. America's most depressed economic areas desperately need private investment. They get very little not only because they are unattractive, but also because of misperceptions and market failures. A lack of information, for instance, means that many companies may have an exaggerated idea of the risk of investing in deprived areas, and often have no idea of potential markets. Yes, it is true that private venture capital investment rose 24% in 1998, 76% of the total went to technology-based companies--primarily in California's Silicon Valley and New England's high-tech corridors. But only 5.7% of all venture capital in 1998 went to South Central, Southwest and Northwest regions combined. Obviously, this is a huge disparity that needs to be corrected. The New Markets Tax Credit is designed to encourage $6 billion in private sector equity investment for business growth in low and moderate income rural and urban communities. It would do that by providing tax credits for investments of $1.2 billion annually. The investments would be made by banks, foundations, companies or individuals. These investors would acquire stock or other equity interests in selected community economic development entities whose primary mission is serving distressed communities. Urban and rural communities with high poverty and low median income would be targeted. The tax credits would be issued by the U.S. Department of Treasury to the selected entities. These entities in turn would sell or syndicate the credit to investors. The tax credit ultimately delivered to the investor would be in the amount of 6 percent annually of the amount of the investment, for an approximate aggregate value to the investor of 25 percent of the ``present value'' of the original investment over the 7 years. A ``qualified investment'' by an investor would be a cash purchase of stock or other equity in a selected entity, which must be held for at least 7 years. Substantially all of the investment would be required to be used by the community economic development entity to make ``qualified low-income community investments,'' which would be equity investments in, or loans to, qualified active businesses in the low-income communities. The goal of this tax credit will be to encourage private investors who may have never considered investing in high-risk areas to do so. By investing in the community through local businesses private investors can explore new markets and improve the quality of life for the people in the area. Community development organizations may use the funds from private investors to develop micro-enterprise, manufacturing businesses, commercial facilities, communities facilities, like child care facilities and senior centers and co-operatives. It has the potential to encourage $6 billion in venture capital to these high-risk areas. And because community development vehicles may not redeem the equity interest for at least seven years, capital stays in the community. The New Markets Tax Credit will create new relationships between investors, community development vehicles, and small businesses, which will foster continued support and lasting investment. Mr. President, I believe that the New Markets Tax Credit may be one of the most promising and viable new idea for genuine economic development in distressed urban and rural communities in recent years. President Clinton has highlighted this proposal as part of his FY2000 budget, and just last month took the case to people across the country, those parts of our country which have been too long ignored can experience real benefit from this type of initiative. Communities, businesses, and investors are responding enthusiastically. Hope that is backed up by a strong program of economic investment is needed in West Virginia and urban and rural communities throughout America. We have all heard the talk in the recent weeks as proponents of massive new tax breaks argue that we should send even more money back to those who have benefited the most from our historic economic expansion. I believe it would be irresponsible for us to create ways to provide additional tax relief to those in our society who need the least assistance before we make a concerted effort to revitalize the parts of our country, and to help the people of our country, who have been noticeably left out of the prosperity that went elsewhere. If we're going to do more for those who need it least, let us also commit to do what we can to propel those most in need of a helping hand into the future with real hope of economic success. The New Markets Tax Credit is one solid way to do just that. I urge my colleagues to examine this proposal carefully and give it their full support. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to vote for the Harkin-Daschle farm crisis aid amendment. This legislation is the desperately needed response for many thousands of American farmers and their families whose survival is threatened. This is precisely the situation that obligates us to use our authority to enact emergency spending, and to provide enough funding to save our farmers and their livelihoods. This is a crisis that demands the Senate's immediate approval of emergency spending, and the Harkin- Daschle amendment is the step we must take now to respond to a genuine and severe crisis. My plea is for the farmers I represent in West Virginia. Yesterday, the President declared all 55 counties of West Virginia a federal drought disaster area, along with over 30 counties from neighboring states. In West Virginia, the relentless drought has dried up our crops, drained our streams, and brought death to livestock and despair to thousands of farmers suffering these horrendous losses. Yesterday, with the senior Senator of West Virginia and Agricultural Secretary Glickman, I visited the farm of Terry Dunn in Charles Town, West Virginia. We witnessed the tragic effects of the drought on his farm, and sat down with farmers across the state to hear their similar stories. The drought has devastated agricultural production in West Virginia in a way that even old-time farmers have never seen. Because of the desperate situation, Senator Byrd has once again stepped in to ensure that help will be on the way. Through his dogged efforts working with the sponsors of the Harkin-Daschle amendment, there are various sources of funds that will be available for West Virginia's farmers--and, I emphasize this point, funds that will also be available to farmers in similar straits in Kentucky, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. There is nothing partisan or parochial about voting for this amendment and the drought assistance included. All of us have a responsibility to respond to crises like the one created by the drought. I share the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have risen to extol the virtues of family farmers and rural America. I truly believe that farmers may be the hardest working people--day in, day out, morning, noon and night--in all the land. Now, these farmers are being hurt by acts of nature totally beyond their control. We have a choice to make today that will decide just how willing we are to help our farmers when they are in such dire need. We can decide that we owe it to our farmers to stand with them in this time of severe crisis, and adopt the Harkin-Daschle amendment that will truly address their needs. Or we can settle for the far smaller level of funding provided by the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, that won't be nearly enough help. For anyone who represents a drought-stricken state, there really is no choice. The Harkin-Daschle amendment is the humane and right thing to do. And for anyone who represents states and counties that have received disaster assistance after a tornado or hurricane or sweeping fires have struck, or following a crippling flood, this is the time to extend the same kind of immediate help to a different but very real disaster. We have heard for some time that rural America is in crisis. I doubt that many people in this body think of West Virginia when agriculture and farming are the topic. But in fact, in West Virginia thousands of farmers and their families labor hard to grow a variety of crops and raise livestock. They are farmers who have rarely asked for help from anyone, but today they are facing the crisis of a lifetime, and they do not want to give up the life and work they love. I am asking my colleagues to vote for the Harkin-Daschle amendment because it will help the West Virginia farmers who have been the victim of two years of historic drought conditions that have ravaged their fields, orchards, and herds. Some of these families have run the same farms since before West Virginia was admitted to the union, and now they are in danger of losing everything. Farmers in my state and many others need the Senate to act and to provide a level of assistance that matches the magnitude of the crisis. We have the means to do that today--in the form of the Harkin-Daschle amendment. We have the authority to do that today--by voting for emergency funding in a time of real crisis. We have the obligation to respond, not along partisan lines and not only if we represent farmers in need--but because a disaster has struck that requires the entire Senate to respond.