Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, yesterday, I talked to a 56-year-old woman I have known for a long time in West Virginia. She has a rare heart disease. She has been struggling with it. She has now discovered that the operation she is potentially going to need is not available for her in West Virginia. She is going to have to go to another State far south in order to get that operation. The problem is that her insurance company said they will not pay for her operation. They said she will either get her operation in West Virginia, where this kind of operation is not readily available because it is rather rare or she won't get it at all, or she has to pay for it herself. She is not a corporate giant. She runs a small business and has six people working for her. This kind of thing should never happen. The Democratic bill would prevent that from happening. She would be able to go to that southern State where they do this kind of operation constantly and get that operation. That should happen in the United States of America. Secondly, I talked with the physician of an 8-year-old girl 4 days ago. She has growth problems, seizure problems, and development problems, and she is under the care of a pediatric specialist in endocrinology and neurology at Western University. If you have a pediatric endocrinologist and somebody says you have to use an adult endocrinologist because that is in our plan, well, then people say, well, an endocrinologist is an endocrinologist. Not true. She will be denied care, and that is wrong.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Downs, a health care policy fellow, be given privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 1344.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, regular order.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is an extraordinary discussion, and it is one of those things where I believe we ill serve the American people because points are made too extremely. The Senator from Idaho was making the point about driving people out of health care because of rising costs, and that is just flat out undeterminable. GAO says so. CBO says so. He quotes things that say they do. I say they do not. I will be happy to show him the language if he is interested in seeing it. I do not know if this is about ideology or not or if it is about preaching. I have no idea. But I do know this, Mr. President: Clinical trials are incredibly important. This has been a battle a number of us, cancer groups and others, have been fighting for many years. My friend, the Senator from the State of Iowa, will expand on this more eloquently. It is a terribly important fight. It is a question of, can people have access to clinical trials? Insurance companies used to pay for them. Insurance companies now do not pay for them. Some people have come to a point where they have exhausted--and they might be in their thirties and forties; we are not talking necessarily about people in their eighties or nineties but people in their thirties, forties, and fifties--every possible approach trying to do something about their very dreadful disease, which could be any number of things, not just cancer but any number of things. The insurance companies used to pay for that. Now the HMOs will not, and they will not for a very good reason: because those things tend to be costly sometimes. It comes down to the classic choice: Does the HMO get the advantage at the bottom line or does the patient get the advantage? That is the basic decision and the difference between Members on the two sides of the aisle who are otherwise informed and are trying to do the right thing on this subject. All of us are trying to do our best. We have to have clinical trials. The usual and ordinary expenses associated with that have to be paid; otherwise, people will not be able to afford it; they will not get clinical trials; therefore, they will die or they have a chance of dying. Finally, of course, clinical trials often are the best experiment and research that can possibly be done because they lead to new discoveries and new opportunities. I hope very much the Dodd amendment can be adopted. It is an extremely important amendment. When people hear ``clinical trials,'' they are not sure what we are talking about. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans at this point who have given up on regular therapies, but there is something out there on the cutting edge and they are ready to use it, but now the insurance companies will not pay for it, and the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights will do that.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Chafee and a bipartisan group in the introduction of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on behalf of vulnerable young people, including our bipartisan work on this legislation. I also wish to thank the other co- sponsors of this legislation--Senators Reed, Bond, Landrieu, Moynihan, Breaux, Kerrey, Mikulski, and Jeffords. Work on this legislation is based on the foundation created by the bipartisan 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. 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. In 1997, a unique bipartisan Senate coalition formed to promote adoption and find ways to help our most vulnerable children, those subjected to abuse and neglected. After months of hard work, we forged consensus on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). This law, for the first time ever, establishes that a child's health and safety are paramount when any decisions are made regarding children in the abuse and neglect system. The law also stressed the importance of permanency to a child, and it imposed new time frames as goals for permanency. While this law was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, more work and resources will be crucial to truly achieve the goals of safety, stability and permanence for all abused and neglected children. We have been pleased to learn that one of the desired outcomes of the 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. Yet, at the same time, we find that there continue to be approximately 20,000 young people each year who turn 18 and ``age out'' of the foster care system with no home, no family, no medical coverage and no system of support in place. In my own state of West Virginia, over 1000 of our foster children are over the age of 16. 185 of these children, in the last year, received services through the state's Independent Living program. How do such teens in West Virginia and throughout the country fare? A Wisconsin study shows us that 18 months after leaving foster care, over one-third 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 Wendy or James: Wendy had been in foster care since the age of 6. She had been moved again and again, and at the age of 14 was placed in a Wilderness Program for teens with challenging behaviors. At 16 she was moved to a locked residential facility. Her 18th birthday, in December, was a cold day in more ways than one. Early in the morning, a knock came on her door and she was told to get dressed and gather her things, as she was moving. This was not unusual for her, so she did as she was told. She went, with her meager possessions, to the front desk and asked, ``Where am I going?'' The staff person jingled the large key ring, opened the front door, looked out into the snowy day and said, ``Anywhere you want--you are 18 and you are on your own.'' One year later, Wendy was addicted to drugs, homeless and pregnant. She had no access to health care until she became pregnant--Her baby was now her ticket to care. James had been in foster care since the age of 10. He had been moved ``only'' five or six times and when he turned 18, all services stopped. The foster family he had been living with could not afford to care for him any longer, but they agreed to allow him to sleep in their garage. He had to drop out of school in order to work full time at a pizza restaurant and attempt to support himself. When he turned 19, he had an opportunity to be adopted with some of his younger siblings. He immediately said, ``Yes!'' and when asked by the judge why he would want to be adopted at his age, he replied, ``I will always need a family, and someday, I hope my children will be able to have grandparents.'' James was able to re-enroll in school, graduate with a trade and is now a self-supporting married man. Oh, and his 3 children do have grandparents. This legislation will provide resources and incentives to states so that more of our young people will have stories that end like James, and fewer that end like Wendy's. One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. The Foster Care Independence Act is an essential next step in this ongoing process. This important legislation will ensure that health care coverage for our foster care youths does not end when they turn 18. All states who wish to receive the new Independent Living Program money must provide assurance that they will provide health care coverage to these young people through to the age of 21. 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 ASFA 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 permanent 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 Senate version of the 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, particularly health care, to continue until age 21 for those teens who are lucky enough to become adopted after 16 years old. 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 supports to make them successfully. This bill requires that states improve their Independent Living programs, by requiring youth involvement at every level, requiring youths to participate in on-going education and career development activities, and requiring that those youths for whom room and board services are provided also have adult supervision and support. In short, this bill assists a very vulnerable group of young Americans by ensuring that they have access to: Health Care up to the age of 21; continued efforts to locate a permanent family; a quality Independent Living program providing a broad array of skills, resources and services; and a program that focuses on critical outcomes, especially in the areas of education, career development, and positive lifestyle choices. These will be valuable steps in our efforts to be more able to 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 co-sponsoring and passing this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Chafee and a bipartisan group in the introduction of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on behalf of vulnerable young people, including our bipartisan work on this legislation. I also wish to thank the other co- sponsors of this legislation--Senators Reed, Bond, Landrieu, Moynihan, Breaux, Kerrey, Mikulski, and Jeffords. Work on this legislation is based on the foundation created by the bipartisan 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. 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. In 1997, a unique bipartisan Senate coalition formed to promote adoption and find ways to help our most vulnerable children, those subjected to abuse and neglected. After months of hard work, we forged consensus on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). This law, for the first time ever, establishes that a child's health and safety are paramount when any decisions are made regarding children in the abuse and neglect system. The law also stressed the importance of permanency to a child, and it imposed new time frames as goals for permanency. While this law was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, more work and resources will be crucial to truly achieve the goals of safety, stability and permanence for all abused and neglected children. We have been pleased to learn that one of the desired outcomes of the 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. Yet, at the same time, we find that there continue to be approximately 20,000 young people each year who turn 18 and ``age out'' of the foster care system with no home, no family, no medical coverage and no system of support in place. In my own state of West Virginia, over 1000 of our foster children are over the age of 16. 185 of these children, in the last year, received services through the state's Independent Living program. How do such teens in West Virginia and throughout the country fare? A Wisconsin study shows us that 18 months after leaving foster care, over one-third 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 Wendy or James: Wendy had been in foster care since the age of 6. She had been moved again and again, and at the age of 14 was placed in a Wilderness Program for teens with challenging behaviors. At 16 she was moved to a locked residential facility. Her 18th birthday, in December, was a cold day in more ways than one. Early in the morning, a knock came on her door and she was told to get dressed and gather her things, as she was moving. This was not unusual for her, so she did as she was told. She went, with her meager possessions, to the front desk and asked, ``Where am I going?'' The staff person jingled the large key ring, opened the front door, looked out into the snowy day and said, ``Anywhere you want--you are 18 and you are on your own.'' One year later, Wendy was addicted to drugs, homeless and pregnant. She had no access to health care until she became pregnant--Her baby was now her ticket to care. James had been in foster care since the age of 10. He had been moved ``only'' five or six times and when he turned 18, all services stopped. The foster family he had been living with could not afford to care for him any longer, but they agreed to allow him to sleep in their garage. He had to drop out of school in order to work full time at a pizza restaurant and attempt to support himself. When he turned 19, he had an opportunity to be adopted with some of his younger siblings. He immediately said, ``Yes!'' and when asked by the judge why he would want to be adopted at his age, he replied, ``I will always need a family, and someday, I hope my children will be able to have grandparents.'' James was able to re-enroll in school, graduate with a trade and is now a self-supporting married man. Oh, and his 3 children do have grandparents. This legislation will provide resources and incentives to states so that more of our young people will have stories that end like James, and fewer that end like Wendy's. One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. The Foster Care Independence Act is an essential next step in this ongoing process. This important legislation will ensure that health care coverage for our foster care youths does not end when they turn 18. All states who wish to receive the new Independent Living Program money must provide assurance that they will provide health care coverage to these young people through to the age of 21. 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 ASFA 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 permanent 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 Senate version of the 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, particularly health care, to continue until age 21 for those teens who are lucky enough to become adopted after 16 years old. 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 supports to make them successfully. This bill requires that states improve their Independent Living programs, by requiring youth involvement at every level, requiring youths to participate in on-going education and career development activities, and requiring that those youths for whom room and board services are provided also have adult supervision and support. In short, this bill assists a very vulnerable group of young Americans by ensuring that they have access to: Health Care up to the age of 21; continued efforts to locate a permanent family; a quality Independent Living program providing a broad array of skills, resources and services; and a program that focuses on critical outcomes, especially in the areas of education, career development, and positive lifestyle choices. These will be valuable steps in our efforts to be more able to 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 co-sponsoring and passing this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Alternative Minimum Tax Reform Act of 1999'' with a bipartisan group of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, Senators Nickles, Robb, Hatch and Mack. This bill is designed to improve the way the corporate alternative minimum tax works for capital intensive and commodity based companies. It is relatively modest in scope and I hope it will be part of any discussion we have about how we might deliver appropriate tax relief. Even though this bill does not change the fundamentals of the corporate AMT, it would eliminate some of the unfairness of current law by allowing companies with long term AMT credits to recover those credits faster. I think this bill should be part of the Finance Committee's discussions about constructive ways to provide corporate tax relief. The alternative minimum tax imposes a significant long term tax burden on capital intensive industries --it is not a minimum tax, but is, in fact, a maximum tax which requires companies to calculate their taxes two different ways and pay the higher of the two calculations. It hits our manufacturing sector hard because these businesses are most likely to have to make large investments in plants and equipment. Manufacturing businesses that make commodity products often have slim profit margins and must contend with fierce international competition. The coal and steel industry are perfect examples of these types of industries. Other businesses with tight profit margins such as start up companies are also negatively affected by AMT. Today, a taxpayer's AMT may be reduced by foreign tax credits and net operating losses, but they are limited to 90% of the alternative minimum tax. Under present law, if a taxpayer pays alternative minimum tax in any year, the amount of that payment is treated as an alternative minimum credit for future years. This was intended to ensure that companies did not wind up paying more under the AMT than was owed under the regular income tax. However, under current law, AMT credits may be used to reduce regular tax but not alternative minimum tax. No carryback of credits is permitted. The provisions of the ``Alternative Minimum Tax Reform Act of 1999'' would allow a corporation with AMT credits that are unused after three or more years to reduce its tentative minimum tax by a maximum of 50% using those credits. The portion which would be allowed would the lesser of the aggregate amount of the taxpayer's AMT credits that are at least three years old; or 50% of the taxpayer's alternative minimum tax. The taxpayer would use its oldest AMT credits first under both current law that allows a company to use its AMT credits, and under the provisions of this bill. The bill would enhance a company's ability to use AMT credits to reduce its regular tax. Finally, the bill would allow a taxpayer with AMT net operating losses in the current and two previous years to carry back AMT net operating losses up to 10 years to offset AMT paid in previous years. First-in, and first- out ordering would apply. This provision would help companies in the toughest financial shape. The ``Alternative Minimum Tax Reform Act of 1999'' is designed to help prevent companies from being trapped permanently into AMT status. Recovering more AMT credits sooner will help ease the position of many companies who are now stuck with excess and unusable AMT credits. Too many companies have paid AMT for years and see no possibility of using their AMT credits without this reform. Moreover, a great many U.S. companies have had to deal with sharply decreasing commodity prices due to the collapse of markets in Asia and around the world over the last few years. Without some assistance it will be very hard for American companies to continue to modernize and remain competitive. Their position of accumulating excess AMT credits hurts their cash flow and their bottomline profitability. The Alternative Minimum Tax Reform Act of 1999 is something reasonable we can do to help companies that are the backbone of our manufacturing base. I look forward to discussing this issue with my colleagues and to a score of how much this proposal would cost from the Joint Tax Committee to inform our discussions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join what I suspect are one or two Democratic colleagues of mine who have come out to the floor to speak about the Patients' Bill of Rights and the need to move forth with that. I think I am correct, but in listening to National Public Radio this morning, I heard that the American Medical Association was meeting and that one of the matters under discussion was the right of physicians to unionize. Since you cannot replay NPR, or ask for a repeat, I had to just hear what I heard; I think I heard it correctly. That is an amazing thing. I know physicians have been unionizing in Arizona and places where one would expect it. But to have the American Medical Association actually considering that, and the President, Dr. Dickie, a woman, discussing the frustration of physicians with their ability to give health care to their patients in a way that they believe and, in fact, were trained to do is extraordinary. I could name any group in the world that would be looking for a place to find a union and I would put physicians among the very last. But, evidently, it is not that way. That in itself is an extraordinary call for this Congress to move forward with health care. The call comes from the American people also. They are calling for action on our part because of their sense of deep dissatisfaction. Last year, we were told there wasn't enough time to take up a Patients' Bill of Rights. I don't think that could be the case this year, since time seems to be mostly what we have, and therefore one might conclude there might be a lack of willingness to take up a Patients' Bill of Rights this year. So we have to keep our priorities straight. I intend to, and I think a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel that way. Every single day that passes without enactment of patient protections is another day that millions of Americans, and thousands of the people I represent from West Virginia, are subject to the denial of needed treatments because of the instinct of insurance companies to go to their bottom line and stay there. Every single day that we, as a Congress, fail to act on the Patients' Bill of Rights is another day that Americans are left vulnerable to health care decisions that are made perhaps not by their doctors, as they wish, but by business executives, or by boards, or people at the end of 1-800 numbers. We used to talk about this years ago, and we agreed it was a terrible thing and it had to stop. We were all going to do that, except that we have not. We just haven't. Every day we don't act, Americans are refused, No. 1, the specialty treatments they need and deserve; No. 2, the ability to use any emergency room. Imagine that. The Senator from Illinois is here. This Senator remembers being in Chicago a number of years ago, for whatever purpose, and I was told that six emergency rooms in the city of Chicago were closed, and there were relatively few left. That is one of the largest cities in all of America. Emergency rooms are the most expensive form of health care, and they are always the things closed down when business decisions are dominating hospitals. On the other hand, the only way, having 43 million, 44 million, 45 million uninsured Americans, they can get health insurance is by going to emergency rooms. They have to have that right. It has to be accessible to them, not just somewhere out in the next State, or on the other side of the Mississippi River but accessible so they can get to it. Third, they have to have the right to appeal the decision of their health care plans. It is a basic right. I will talk more about it. Fourth, they should have the ability to ensure that medical decisions are made by their doctors, not by a board of executives. We all know that managed care has changed the way health care is done in this country. We started saying that in the Finance Committee 10 or 12 years ago. The question was, Does managed care save money for 1 year or 2 years? The general consensus was that managed care would save money for about 2 years, then it would come up against a hard wall and people would have to start cutting. That was the general consensus then. It is clearly showing itself to be even more the case now. That is for both delivery and the payment of health care in our country. Obviously, a lot of problems have been created along the way. Americans are very dissatisfied with the quality of their health care. They make their feelings about that very clear. They don't like their lack of choice. They don't like the indiscriminate nature of insurance company decisionmaking. Meanwhile, physicians often have, from their point of view --and from my point of view--much too little input into health care decisions, and hence the NPR story this morning. They believe so strongly that they are doing something, which is an anathema, it would seem to me, to any physician. But they are evidently doing this, or they are voting on that as a matter of ``doctor rights,'' or whatever, at the American Medical Association meeting. I think doctors think they face too much interference from the insurance companies. Patients and doctors alike see health care decisions driven by the financial concerns of something called health plans. What do we have to do? We have to guarantee access to specialty care. I hear it all the time. We all hear it all the time in our homes and wherever we go. Under managed care plans--most of them, not all of them--the patient's primary care physician may refer a patient to a specialist if they determine that specialty care is necessary. However, things may change, if the specialist is not on the list of the plan. Then you come to this amazing situation of trying to ask a consumer of health care to understand that they are allowed to go to a specialist, but they cannot because that specialist is not on their plan. Even the much criticized Clinton health care plan allowed that. You could always go outside your HIPAA. You could always go to your specialist, no matter where your specialist was. You could always go to your specialist. Under the present system of health care, you can't do that. Then somebody from the ``administrative office,'' or some other division, takes over this whole question of whether you can or whether you can't. Suddenly, the patient asks to see a specialist and finds out that the executives in charge are not doctors. They are not medical people. They refuse the right to go see a specialist. They refuse payment for the specialist who in fact was recommended by the patient's original primary care physician. That is wrong. We must put an end to insurance company ``gag rules.'' That is another point. Patients need to trust the providers--that they are acting in the best interests of the patients. There cannot be a situation where HMOs preclude doctors from prescribing necessary treatments or making referrals to a specialist in the name of preserving the company's bottom line. There is a sacred trust between a patient and a doctor. I don't have to elaborate on that. It is Norman Rockwell stuff. In fact, there are many, many. He did many pictures of it. It is the classic American situation--the trust between, the bond between, the patient and the doctor. For the doctor to be second-guessed by an insurance company bureaucrat just doesn't make sense. I have listened to literally hundreds of patients and doctors complain that managed care plans are making decisions about care, about what types of procedures are allowed and are not allowed, and this decision just creates a division between the patient and the doctor. The patient is confused. The doctor is angry. It is not right. Another point: Real access to emergency room care 24 hours a day has to be. It has to be 7 days a week. Wherever they are, it has to be. They cannot be concerned about their insurance company second-guessing their health concerns. Americans must be able to go to the nearest emergency room without the fear that they will not be able to afford it, and they must be able to receive all necessary care in that facility to take care of their situation. In the United States of America we have been through this before. We are the only country in the world that doesn't have universal health insurance. If we don't have that, at least let's allow a Patients' Bill of Rights so that people can have--including those who are not insured--certain rights. Another point: We must let people challenge the decisions made by HMOs and seek retribution when HMO decisions lead to harm. Is that radical? No. That is a standard part of American life, except it is more important in a lot of American life because of the actual health and physical safety of a patient. When Americans go to a doctor, they should get the care they need. If they don't get it, they should have the means and the right to address disputes. They should not have to worry about insurance companies cutting that off. A central element of the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights is that point--the ability to hold health care plans accountable for the medical decisions that lead to harm. The Republican plan fails to hold HMOs accountable. Under the Republican plan, the only remedy available when a patient is harmed by an HMO decision is recovery of the actual cost of a denied procedure, even if the patient is already dead or disabled for life. Make no mistake. If we don't respond quickly and forcefully enough, more and more Americans are going to lose confidence in our system and in us. Already 90 percent of Americans are unhappy with their plan. Shocking, shocking. We can do something about it. I think we have a moral obligation to take up the Patients' Bill of Rights. We certainly have the time because we are not doing a whole lot of other things around here that I can put my hands on. I think it is time that Congress take up and pass these patient protections this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, who equally has been a distinguished leader on this issue. Mr. President, the previous speaker, my esteemed chairman of the Finance Committee, talked about voting on a quota bill. We are not voting on a quota bill today. We are voting on a motion to proceed. This whole steel situation is very complex. Most States do not produce steel, and a lot of people do not know about some of the complexities. We deserve debate on this. Traditionally, in the Senate we do that. That is what we are here for, to iron out issues in a rational way. The steel crisis is not over. It is not over at all. You talk to any steel CEO. They know it is not over. I will just give one statistic. That is all I will give. If you take the first 4 months of 1999, which brings us almost up to today, versus the first 4 months of 1998, which was the worst of the steel crisis, yes, the steel import crisis has abated a little bit, but only 5 percent from the all-time historic high in the dumping of subsidized steel. It has decreased by a total of 5 percent across the steel front. So the crisis remains with us. It is a very serious matter. It disrupts and undoes communities, sections of States across this country, not just West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Utah, but the rest of them. I do not think we have done what we could have done to enforce our trade laws. They are very clear. The administration has not done what it could have done. But that day is past. So we have to do what we have to do, and that brings us to the quota bill. This is not the bill itself; this is the motion to proceed to discuss what we are going to do as a result of that vote. I think we have a moral obligation to our steelworkers and to ourselves to honorably and fairly discuss something that is very complex and which needs our very closest attention. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will not even take that amount of time. Senator Gramm and Senator Nickles and others, have said vote against this bill. You will have a chance to vote against this bill. That is not what we are about today. We are voting on the motion to proceed to discuss an extraordinarily complex issue, the ramifications of which a lot of people do not know. It has been pointed out we are in violation of WTO. It has not been pointed out we are trying to follow our Trade Act, which we ourselves passed in the Congress and which was signed by a previous President. Please, this is the motion to proceed. We traditionally are fair about these things. This is a complex subject. Steel is only produced in 16 States in a major way. A lot of people have a lot to learn. We are not voting on the quota bill. We are voting on the motion to proceed to simply talk about it. We have had a very high barrier to reach. Finally, I say the crisis is not over. I repeat that. The first 4 months of this year compared to the first 4 months of last year--last year being the worst year in history in terms of imports--steel imports were only down by 5 percent. The crisis lives. The time to vote for an honest discussion of the issue is now. We can do that by voting yes on the motion to proceed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask that we take a moment today to recognize the State of West Virginia. One hundred thirty-six years ago, on June 20, 1863, West Virginia assumed its proud position as the 35th State of the Union. Since that time West Virginia's natural resources and its citizens have and will continue to play a positive role in our Nation. The phrases: ``the mountain state,'' ``wild, wonderful,'' and ``a welcome change'' are always reminders of West Virginia. Indeed, there are countless rolling hills dotted with horses, cows, sheep and their young. The State is home to memorable valleys, known for their rushing streams and rivers filled with bass and trout. Then there are the beautiful colors throughout the fall and spring that bedeck our glorious mountains, attracting tourists from across the globe. West Virginia is a combination of rural farming communities, coal towns, resorts, and growing cities. It is unquestionably a State in which there is a place for everyone. I believe it is this diversity that attracts many to the State and causes numerous children raised in West Virginia to remain and invest in the State as adults. West Virginians are proud of their State. As we stand at the dawn of the 21st century symbols of West Virginia pride and achievement can be heard, read, seen, and touched throughout the world via locally produced music, literature, works of art, and crafts. West Virginians are also proud of their people. Almost two centuries, ago, the State was known as the fighting place of the Hatfields and McCoys. Since that time, West Virginia has been the home of such remarkable people as, educator Booker T. Washington, pilot Charles ``Chuck'' Yeager, gymnast Mary Lou Retton, authors Pearl S. Buck, John Knowles, and Denise Giardina, singer and song writer Kathy Mattea, artists Barrie Kaufman, and Susan Poffenbarger, former astronaut Jon A. McBride, scholar Henry Louis Gates, countless athletes, and numerous others. Today we have the opportunity to honor 136 years of statehood. I ask that we celebrate the people of West Virginia, that we honor the courage of their endeavors and achievements. I ask that we take strength from the majesty of the mountains as do the constituents of West Virginia, and finally that we, as members of this distinguished body, remember the broader message of freedom recognized by West Virginia's logo: Montani Semper Liberi, Mountaineers are Always Free. I am proud of this State and its people and am honored to represent them.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Veterans' Long-Term Care Enhancement Act of 1999.'' 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. The numbers are staggering. About 34 percent of the total veteran population is 65 years or older, compared with about 13 percent of the total United States population. In the year 2000, the number of veterans aged 65 or older will peak at 9.3 million. In my state of West Virginia alone, we have approximately 57,000 World War II veterans. Because VA has already faced considerable demand for long-term care, it has been forced to become a leader in this field. I am proud of VA's work in developing geriatric evaluation teams, home-based primary care, and adult day health care. Our older veterans are leading richer lives because of these innovations. 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.'' Frequently I hear from families of World War II combat veterans who need long-term care because of a debilitating disease, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a stroke. A number of these families do not have the money to place the veteran in a private nursing home for the necessary long-term care; and because of the veteran's sacrifices during World War II, they turn to the VA. Or I will get a call from a wife of an aging, sick veteran who wants desperately to keep her husband at home with her, but in order to do that she needs home health care services, so she turns to the VA. But when these West Virginian families are told by VA that the services they need are not available to them, they simply cannot understand how they could be denied, and they turn to me in despair. The challenge for all of us, of course, is to find a way to furnish the appropriate array of services, in a cost efficient way, to all those needing extended care. As the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs noted in its March 15, 1999, letter to the Budget Committee with the Committee's views on VA's budget for FY 2000, ``The health care issue that VA must face over the intermediate term--indeed, the health care issue that the Nation must face over the next decade--is the need for long-term care among the aging World War II generation. WWII veterans saved Western civilization. We cannot turn our backs on them now.'' 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 legislation I am introducing today is 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 are three key elements in the bill. First, are 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 eligible for and 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 aide visits. Second, the bill 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 provision in the bill would provide express authority to furnish this modality of care to older veterans, thereby expanding the continuum of extended care services offered by VA. Third, VA would be mandated to 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. 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, in nursing homes, and in domiciliary care facilities--to comprehensive noninstitutional services, which include hospital-based home care, adult day health care, personal assistance services, 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. Some form of assisted living services for veterans and their families would be provided, as well. 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. As part of the pilot program, VA would be encouraged to seek the involvement of State Veterans Homes, so as to draw them into noninstitutional approaches to long-term care. Our State Veterans Homes are valuable assets. 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 in the ``Veterans' Long-Term Care Enhancement Act of 1999'' 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. From this effort, a number of things would result. First, VA would gain more precise information on exactly which services to offer, how best to coordinate those services, and the relative cost and effectiveness of various services. There is no doubt that our veterans would benefit from such findings. Second, there would be a concrete demonstration of the feasibility of furnishing a coordinated range of long-term care services, which in turn could lead to a greater likelihood that such an approach would be shared with, and replicated by, others. Third, the value of such an approach, measured in quality of care, quality of life, cost effectiveness, and patient and provider satisfaction would be demonstrated, thereby promoting its use by others. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the chairmen and the members of the Committees on Veterans' Affairs--in both the House of Representatives and the Senate--to advance the cause of long-term care in VA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Veterans' Long-Term Care Enhancement Act of 1999.'' 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. The numbers are staggering. About 34 percent of the total veteran population is 65 years or older, compared with about 13 percent of the total United States population. In the year 2000, the number of veterans aged 65 or older will peak at 9.3 million. In my state of West Virginia alone, we have approximately 57,000 World War II veterans. Because VA has already faced considerable demand for long-term care, it has been forced to become a leader in this field. I am proud of VA's work in developing geriatric evaluation teams, home-based primary care, and adult day health care. Our older veterans are leading richer lives because of these innovations. 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.'' Frequently I hear from families of World War II combat veterans who need long-term care because of a debilitating disease, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a stroke. A number of these families do not have the money to place the veteran in a private nursing home for the necessary long-term care; and because of the veteran's sacrifices during World War II, they turn to the VA. Or I will get a call from a wife of an aging, sick veteran who wants desperately to keep her husband at home with her, but in order to do that she needs home health care services, so she turns to the VA. But when these West Virginian families are told by VA that the services they need are not available to them, they simply cannot understand how they could be denied, and they turn to me in despair. The challenge for all of us, of course, is to find a way to furnish the appropriate array of services, in a cost efficient way, to all those needing extended care. As the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs noted in its March 15, 1999, letter to the Budget Committee with the Committee's views on VA's budget for FY 2000, ``The health care issue that VA must face over the intermediate term--indeed, the health care issue that the Nation must face over the next decade--is the need for long-term care among the aging World War II generation. WWII veterans saved Western civilization. We cannot turn our backs on them now.'' 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 legislation I am introducing today is 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 are three key elements in the bill. First, are 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 eligible for and 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 aide visits. Second, the bill 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 provision in the bill would provide express authority to furnish this modality of care to older veterans, thereby expanding the continuum of extended care services offered by VA. Third, VA would be mandated to 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. 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, in nursing homes, and in domiciliary care facilities--to comprehensive noninstitutional services, which include hospital-based home care, adult day health care, personal assistance services, 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. Some form of assisted living services for veterans and their families would be provided, as well. 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. As part of the pilot program, VA would be encouraged to seek the involvement of State Veterans Homes, so as to draw them into noninstitutional approaches to long-term care. Our State Veterans Homes are valuable assets. 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 in the ``Veterans' Long-Term Care Enhancement Act of 1999'' 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. From this effort, a number of things would result. First, VA would gain more precise information on exactly which services to offer, how best to coordinate those services, and the relative cost and effectiveness of various services. There is no doubt that our veterans would benefit from such findings. Second, there would be a concrete demonstration of the feasibility of furnishing a coordinated range of long-term care services, which in turn could lead to a greater likelihood that such an approach would be shared with, and replicated by, others. Third, the value of such an approach, measured in quality of care, quality of life, cost effectiveness, and patient and provider satisfaction would be demonstrated, thereby promoting its use by others. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the chairmen and the members of the Committees on Veterans' Affairs--in both the House of Representatives and the Senate--to advance the cause of long-term care in VA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my friend from New Mexico. Mr. President, in a sense what we have now is the torch being passed. Any number of Senators have described--and I will not, therefore, try to repeat any of that--how this whole steel crisis, not to mention the oil patch crisis, has developed. It started in 1997. In the history of recorded trade statistics, as long as our country has been keeping trade statistics, there has never been an import surge of the magnitude, in any commodity at any time, as there has been in the last 2 years in steel. It started off with three countries; it is now all over the world. The Secretary of Commerce put out a release saying it is wonderful the steel crisis is over. I wonder where he has been. We should understand that the steel crisis is deep. If you take the first quarter of 1999, the first 3 months of 1999, and compare that to the worst possible months of the steel crisis, the first quarter of 1998, last year, the total improvement which the administration keeps trying to talk about--I think they know it is wrong and the administration realized it hasn't done anything about this problem and it will be paying a price for it--the total decline from the 1998 first quarter to the 1999 first quarter is a total of 5 percent worldwide on all steel. That is going from the worst steel statistics in history and a 5-percent decrease. That could go right back up. The torch has to pass from the administration protecting our national trade laws, protecting free and fair trade, to us. Now we have to do something about it because they have declined to. I have been to everybody all the way up to the President and Vice President on a number of occasions. Expressions of interest but no results, no action taken. This affects the lives of my people; it affects the lives of people in many States. I hate to see that. I used this analogy on the Finance Committee. Football is a rough sport, as is international trade. International trade is a rough sport. Everybody is trying to get the advantage of everybody else and undersell. In football, you can get hurt--any individual player, a large or small player. They have rules. That is why we have rules. That is why they have referees. If you are a linebacker and you charge through the line and you get through and you hit the quarterback on the helmet with your elbow, you are penalized. You know that beforehand and you may get thrown out of the game for that. If you are inbounds and you are a pass catcher and you run out of bounds, that is no good. You jump offside, you get penalized. Everybody knows the rules. The more they play the game, the more they know what the rules are. That is what has kept the integrity of the game, because of its predictability. Secondly, it kept a lot of people from getting their heads taken off and knees broken. Football is tough anyway, as is international trade. So, there are rules. We have rules in international trade too. And we set them; the Congress set them and the administration set them in previous years. It is the Trade Act of 1974. It sets out a whole series of these rules. The administration keeps saying we are going to abide by the rules; we are abiding by the rules; we plan to abide by the rules. Of course, they are not. So the torch is passed to us. And there are a couple of points there I need to make. The bill is incredibly important. There is also a bill going to be taken up on a cloture vote next week, on steel quotas, which is incredibly important. It is very important for my colleagues and their staffs to understand; the vote this afternoon on this excellent bill of Senator Byrd and Senator Domenici and the bill next week which deals with imports are totally separate and different; that if you vote for this one, it does not mean it solves the import problem, or if you vote for that one, it doesn't solve the financial problem that this bill helps with. They are separate bills. So anybody who says, I voted today for Byrd-Domenici; therefore, I do not have to worry about next week because we have taken care of the problem, does not understand there are two totally different subjects. I cannot make that point strongly enough. This one is about the finances of companies that are going under, giving them a chance at commercial rates, repayable--to go to banks, because they cannot now borrow, and to be able to borrow a little bit, to survive a little bit longer--whether it is the steel mill or the oil patch. That is terribly important for the viability of those industries. Then, equally important, since this bill has nothing to do with the import problem which created all of this--that is what next week's vote has to do with, the problem of the imports and how do we adjust the import problem on a short-term basis to bring some fairness to what we like to call free trade but which is practiced virtually only by us. It used to be practiced by Hong Kong. I don't know how they are on it now. But it is practiced by nobody else in the world. So all the steel comes into us: India, up 72 percent; Indonesia, 60-something--it doesn't matter where you go, the numbers are up, because they know, the word is out, if you want to dump subsidized or underpriced steel in the United States, they will take it. So it puts people out of work. It does not matter to them. They will go ahead and take it. That is what I call the best way to destroy the possibility of a national coalition for a trading system, which I believe in. I am somebody who has always voted for fast track and somebody who believes in engaging the world. I have worked very hard within my own State-- which is not particularly an international State in its viewpoint, being landlocked in the mountains, so to speak--to make my people understand the global economy is part of their economy, we are all part of each other's economies, and we can sell products to other countries and they can invest in West Virginia, and this is all good; so we are all part of an international trading system. But there have to be rules in that. If you allow the quarterback to have his head given a concussion, it is very important the referee be there. But the referee usually does not have to be there, because people know what the price will be: You will get tossed out of the game or you will get a penalty of 15 yards. So all kinds of fair play is carried on on the football field, because people know what the rules are. Again, the torch is passed to us, and I think we have two duties. One is, we have to pass this excellent bill this afternoon. We should have passed it much earlier when it was the subject of earlier consideration. Then it got done in, in conference. I am terribly glad Senator Byrd, my senior colleague, and Senator Domenici, have combined forces to help on this. Frankly, it is important to combine forces sometimes on bills around here, because there are only 16 States that are major producers of steel. I do not know how many States produce oil, but I suspect there are not that many. So this is a very good opportunity for us to give those companies a chance to go to the bank, to get some money to be able to exist for a few more months or another year or so. It is not going to do anything about the import problem, which is the real cause of the devastating human crisis in steel. So we, as a legislature, as a Congress, have to decide, as the House has already decided by an overwhelming margin, that steel is important to America. This is not just a question of West Virginia or Ohio or Minnesota or other places; this is a national crisis. Senator Domenici has said, I don't know how many times: When Members on my side of the aisle--the other side of the aisle--come up to me and say I have this milk support problem, I have this farm support problem, I have this food support problem, I have whatever it is, I am always there. I am always there, because I believe it is as if you built the interstate system in this country and, because Pennsylvania is bigger than West Virginia, you made it four lanes in Pennsylvania but you only made it two lanes in West Virginia and then it went back to four lanes in Ohio. That would not be very smart. No. 1, it wouldn't fulfill the work of a national defense highway system. No. 2, it would cause massive traffic jams. So we understand we are all part of each other's destiny. West Virginia, insofar as I have been able to determine, has no oceans on our boundaries, but we pay taxes to support the Coast Guard. That is as it should be, because we have an obligation to each other, as West Virginia does to those who use the Coast Guard on coastal areas in different parts of the country. So that is part of our compact in America. It is part of our contract with each other, that when a region needs help, when an industry needs help, if there is a reason and possibility of doing so, you try to do that. This one is particularly good because it helps companies get money they cannot otherwise get. The international trade situation is more complex and, in the longer run, will probably do more to solve the problem, because it actually deals with the level of imports. It says to other nations, we are not going to be Uncle Sucker forever, or, in this case, at least for a period of 3 years. It is not radical. People think, what are we doing this for? What is interesting is that over the years the average foreign imports of steel into the United States--over the last 30 years, let's take it--is probably less than 20 percent. Less than 20 percent is usually what foreign countries export into this country, what we therefore import into this country; less than 20 percent of all the steel we use comes from other countries. That is the way it has been. That is perfectly acceptable as a figure. Interestingly enough, in the bill coming up next week, that figure can range as high as 23 percent, certainly no lower than 18 or 19 percent. It is only for 3 years. But it is a way of saying we in America, if we are going to get into this, deeper and deeper into the international trading system, we really do care about our rules. We really do think about our quarterback's head. We think the chop blocking, which can break a young man's knees or legs, is wrong, and there are rules about that. We actually passed those rules in the Congress, and the President signed them all in a previous era, and they apply today, and we all live by them--except that we do not. So, in closing, I want to say these are two distinctly important decisions we are going to be making in separate weeks on separate bills. The one today is filled with merit. It is tremendously important. It is part of the comprehensive solution to the problem. But, then again, the one next week is the one that deals with imports, and it is the only one that deals with imports. So we need to do both of those so no Senator thinks that, because that Senator has made a particular vote on one day, he does not have to face up to the same situation on another day, because they are entirely different problems that each bill addresses. This is a matter of high urgency in the part of the country I come from. I was Governor of West Virginia for 8 years, and I dealt in 1982 and 1983 with 21-percent unemployment. That is not a whole lot of fun, when 1 out of every 5 people you pass does not have work. There is not a family in West Virginia that is not accustomed to not having work or has not dealt with it. We are on the way back, but we are going to get knocked down if this steel import crisis continues. I do not want that to happen to Ohio. I do not want that to happen to Pennsylvania. I do not want to have that happen to Arkansas, Utah, Texas, or any other State. I do not want that to happen. It does not have to happen, and it is not even a budget matter. It is a matter of fair trade, fair play, rules that we have passed and by which we should live. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last week, President Lee Teng- hui of Taiwan announced that Taiwan would be giving $300 million in an aid package to the Kosovars. I want to rise today and pay tribute and thank the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan for this very generous gift of economic assistance. This aid includes emergency support for food, shelters, and medical care which is so desperately needed to return a sense of normalcy to the Albanian Kosovars. Also included in the aid package is funds for job-training and rehabilitation programs to help promote the reconstruction of Kosovo in the long run. This is just another remarkable example of the thoughtfulness and generosity of the people in Taiwan and should serve as a model for the entire international community. I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our deep appreciation to President Lee and the people of Taiwan for this compassionate offer. Hopefully, this act will encourage other nations to aid in rebuilding the Balkans so that the people there can move past the horrible atrocities that have been committed over the past few months and begin rebuilding their lives and families in peace.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the overriding point to be made today is that the vast majority of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and the White House, agree on the need for legislation to encourage Y2K readiness and to prevent frivolous litigation. We all agree that there is likely to be a surge in Y2K related complaints and lawsuits and that everyone will benefit if many of those cases can be dealt with outside the courtroom. We agree on the need to encourage consumers and businesses to use remediation to fix Y2K problems and to use negotiation to settle disputes. Where we differ is on the details of how to get there. And let me assure you from my 11 years of experience as a proponent of product liability reform--the details matter. And the details should matter. In liability reforms, and especially tort reforms, what's at stake is the basic balance between plaintiffs and defendants, consumers and business, injured and responsible parties. Our state courts and legislatures have struggled for several hundred years to get that balance right. If we're going to change their work then we have a responsibility to work hard at getting the details right, too. Senators Kerry and Daschle deserve a great deal of credit for wading into the middle of the Y2K liability reform issue. I've been in their shoes before, and I know how hard it is to try to find the middle ground. It is no easy feat to craft a bill that protects consumers, gives business the predictability and relief from frivolous suits they deserve, wins the support of the majority in Congress, and would secure a presidential signature. Senators Kerry and Daschle came up with a bill that gives the high- tech community about 80 percent of what they want, that meets every one of the objections outlined by the White House, and that won 41 votes in the Senate last week. I voted for that bill. Forty-one votes, including the votes of many Senators who hold strong reservations about federalizing any part of our tort liability system at all. Forty-one votes shows us in plain terms that there is obvious overlap on the core issues and principals of this bill, and on a good many of the details. What is so regrettable is that even after our negotiating a bill that gives most stakeholders most of what they say they need, my Republican colleagues and much of the business community would rather have an issue than a bill. A negotiated compromise that gives them 80 percent of what they want but also keep the courts open to legitimate claims apparently isn't enough. So rather than achieve a major portion of their goals for the year 2000, they've decided to put all of us through an exercise that will result in nothing. Believe me, I've been down this road before. I know these issues, I know these stakeholders, I know the vote counts, and I know this White House on liability reforms. And I know what the outcome will be if we continue down this dead-end path. What baffles me is to see the business community, once again, choose nothing. Haven't we learned from years of legislating on liability reforms that purists come away emptyhanded? The bottom line is that the bill before us today is simply too far afield of what's doable. And the best way to get back on course for enacting a Y2K law is to vote against this bill and sit down at the negotiating table. Unlike the never-ending products liability debate the opportunity to deal with Y2K suits won't last long. We can't afford to get it wrong. And we don't have time to pass a bill that we know will be vetoed and then come back to the drawing board. I urge my colleagues not to squander this opportunity.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Character Counts! initiative introduced by Senator Domenici and others on May 6, 1999. I avidly support education in West Virginia and the United States, and I believe this should include an emphasis on basic character and good citizenship. In the words of Theodore Roosevelt: ``To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.'' Character Counts! recognizes and addresses that there is a connection between one's personal life and one's business or political abilities. Character Counts! understands that morals and character development go hand in hand, and that it is never too late to teach the tools to help develop personal character. The promotion of healthy character development is a necessary precursor to reaching the ultimate goal of teaching people to take personal responsibility. The Character First! training series is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Character Bulletin Series provides a flexible system that is designed to meet any needs or schedule. It uses a monthly four-step program to teach necessary tools for character development. The first step of every month is a Character Bulletin. This provides a character quality, such as virtue, along with tools to help build it. The second step contains Supplements, including the Introducing ``Character'' Leadership Supplement, which provides additional resources for teaching others about the character quality, and Building ``Character'' Leadership Notes, which challenges those in positions of leadership to hold themselves to higher standards. The third step is called Character at Home, and provides ways to use the Character Bulletin Series at home. This step is particularly helpful for parents who want to play an active role in their child's development. The final part of the series is a Character Poster, a full color poster to remind people of the quality of the month. Recently a cooperative effort to promote Character Counts! began in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Their city-wide effort involves government personnel, businesses, churches, schools, and others in the community. We should celebrate this city-wide effort to educate people about character and implement the Character Counts! program in other communities nationwide. Educating people about character and citizenship is crucial to create healthy communities. Years ago, as Chairman of the National Commission on Children, I worked hard to include an entire chapter in our comprehensive report called Creating a Moral Climate because I felt strongly about the issue. Everyone of us has an obligation to create such a climate for our family, our friends, and especially children in our communities. Character Counts! provides this type of leadership and resources to support character education which will promote continuous growth and development. It is our responsibility to educate people, and I commend Character Counts! for providing a much needed educational service.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my honor to commend the West Virginia Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) for its outstanding compliance monitoring program. The exceptional quality of this program has been recognized by Attorney General Janet Reno and the Department of Justice as an example of how a monitoring program should work. All new Juvenile Justice Compliance Monitors will travel to West Virginia to be trained by DCJS staff. The West Virginia Division of Criminal Justice Services has an admirable track record of meeting or surpassing the goals set for juvenile justice systems by federal and state regulations. In August 1998, a five-year compliance audit of the DCJS reported a faultless monitoring system for its juvenile justice and delinquency programs (JJDP). West Virginians are right to be proud of the efficient, organized system in use by DCJS, and we can take even more pride in the fact that the DCJS compliance monitoring program will serve as a guide for compliance monitors throughout the country. West Virginia expertise and innovation will be instrumental in streamlining juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs. The recent acclaim for West Virginia's compliance monitoring program is a reflection of the many other virtues within the Division's purview. The success of the Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition plan has prompted other states' juvenile justice agencies to model their programs after West Virginia's. In her speech, Attorney General Reno noted our state's Underage Drinking Plan as a possible approach for other jurisdictions. To their credit, the staff and management of DCJS do not invest these laurels with more importance than they have. The hard-working people of DCJS understand that one of their agency's greatest strengths is the sharing of responsibility and expertise among DCJS, state juvenile justice facilities, and other state agencies in complying with regulations. Rather than imposing its will on the agencies with which it works, DCJS builds lasting relationships with correctional facilities to help meet statutory and administrative mandates in a cooperative fashion. Further, DCJS operates with a definite purpose and an open mind. The agency is firmly grounded in law, yet remains flexible with respect to improvements and changes in regulations. Such a balance is particularly important in the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention context, where frequent governmental experiments result in the involvement of new agencies and new personnel, and increased societal vigilance adds even more members to the pool of at-risk youth. Finally, through its carefully organized and straightforward monitoring program, DCJS strives to teach while it continues to serve. In so many respects, the West Virginia DCJS juvenile justice program is a model for the nation. I wish to express my sincere admiration and heartfelt thanks to the Division of Criminal Justice Services for making juvenile justice services in West Virginia, and now the rest of America, more efficient and effective.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. David S. Liederman, the outgoing Executive Director of the Child Welfare league of America. Throughout his long, distinguished career, David Liederman has fought hard to make a difference in the lives of families and children, especially some of the most vulnerable children who are at risk of abuse and neglect. Over many years, I have been privileged to work directly with David Liederman and the extraordinary team of dedicated professionals whom he has assembled at the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). David has the unique ability to be a leader on a variety of levels--within his own organization, throughout the country with many CWLA affiliates, and in Washington as a policy maker and advocate. Early in his career, he had the vision and the determination to seek bold policy answers by helping to creating the original Independent Living Program. We worked closely together in 1993 to secure over a billion dollars in new investments in prevention services for abused and neglected children. In 1997, David was an effective ally and advocate in the effort to enact the Adoption and Safe Families Act which ensures that a child's health and safety are paramount, and continues the investments in prevention to deliver on this promise. Those who know David Liederman's personal history are not surprised by his commitment, or his successful record of accomplishments. David began his career working directly with families and serving disadvantaged youths living in public housing in the Boston area. These years in the trenches instilled in him a sense of compassion and the challenges wrought by the harsh realities many of our Nation's citizens face. After working in direct services, he went on to serve the people of Massachusetts first in the State Legislature and then as Chief of Staff to Governor Michael Dukakis. After years of service in Massachusetts, David decided to focus on National issues when he accepted the helm of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) and began to lead national discussions setting the agenda on policy issues facing children and families. For fifteen years, he led CWLA and was a well-known advocate and spokesman for needy children and families. In honor of his many achievements, David Liederman won the 1996 Award for Excellence in national Executive Leadership and the 1997 National Lifetime Achievement Award from the national Association of Social Workers. I am proud to have worked with David Liederman over so many years, and am proud to call him a friend. His voice will be truly missed on child welfare issues in Washington, But he has our best wishes as he seeks new challenges and opportunities in public service.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Act of 1999. This bill will authorize VA to cover emergency care at non-Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities for those veterans who have enrolled with VA for their health care. I join my colleague, Senator Daschle, in cosponsoring this valuable initiative and thank him for his leadership. Currently, VA is restricted by law from authorizing payment of comprehensive emergency care services in non-VA facilities except to veterans with special eligibility. Most veterans must rely on other insurance or pay out of pocket for emergency services. I remind my colleagues that VA provides a standard benefits package for all veterans who are enrolled with the VA for their health care. In many ways, this is a very generous package, which includes such things as pharmaceuticals. Enrolled veterans are, however, missing out on one essential part of health care coverage: the standard benefits package does not allow for comprehensive emergency care. So, in effect, we are asking veterans to choose VA health care, but leaving them out in the cold when it comes to emergency care. Mr. President, we have left too many veterans out in the cold already. When veterans call their VA health care provider in the middle of the night, many reach a telephone recording. This recording likely urges that veterans who have emergencies dial ``911.'' Veterans who call for help are then transported to non-VA facilities. After the emergency is over, veterans are presented with huge bills. These are bills which VA cannot, in most cases, pay and which are, therefore, potentially financially crushing. We cannot abandon these veterans in their time of need. Let me tell my colleagues about some of the problems that veterans face because of the restriction on emergency care. In January of this year, a low income, non-service-connected, World War II veteran with a history of heart problems, from my State of West Virginia, presented to the nearest non-VA hospital with severe chest pain. In an attempt to get the veteran admitted to the VA medical center, the private physician placed calls to the Clarksburg VA Medical Center, where the veteran was enrolled, on three separate occasions, over the course of three days. The response was always the same--``no beds available.'' Ultimately, a different VA medical center, from outside the veteran's service area, accepted the patient, and two days later transferred him back to the Clarksburg VA Medical Center where he underwent an emergency surgical procedure to resolve the problem. By this time, however, complications had set in, and the veteran was critically ill. The veteran's wife told me that ``no one should have to endure the pain and suffering'' they had to endure over a five-day period to get the emergency care her husband needed. But in addition to that emotional distress, the veteran now also faces a medical bill of almost $800 at the private hospital, the net amount due after Medicare paid its portion. This is an incredible burden for a veteran and his wife whose sole income are their small Social Security checks. In another example from my state, in February 1998, a 100 percent service-connected veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder suffered an acute onset of mid-sternal chest pain, and an ambulance was called. The ambulance took him to the nearest hospital, a non-VA facility. Staff at the private facility contacted the Clarksburg VA Medical Center and was told there were no ICU beds available and advised transferring the patient to the Pittsburgh VA Medical Center. When contacted, Pittsburgh refused the patient because of the length of necessary transport. A call to the Beckley VAMC was also fruitless. The doctor was advised by VA staff that the trip to Beckley would be ``too risky for the three hour ambulance travel.'' The veteran was kept overnight at the private hospital for observation, and then was billed for the care--$900, after Medicare paid its share. Two more West Virginia cases quickly come to mind involving 100 percent service-connected combat veterans, both of whom had to turn to the private sector in emergency situations. One veteran had a heart attack and as I recall, his heart stopped twice before the ambulance got him to the closest non-VA hospital. The Huntington VA Medical Center was his health care provider and it was more than an hour away from the veteran's home. This veteran had Medicare, but he was still left with a sizeable medical bill for the emergency services that saved his life. The other veteran suffered a fall that rendered him unconscious and caused considerable physical damage. He also was taken to the closest non-VA hospital--and was left with a $4,000 bill after Medicare paid its share. Both contacted me to complain about the unfairness of these bills. As 100 percent service-connected veterans, they rely totally on VA for their health care. I can assure you that neither of them, nor the other two West Virginia veterans I referred to, ever expected to be in the situation in which they all suddenly found themselves--strapped with large health care bills because they needed emergency treatment in life-threatening situations, when they were miles and miles from the nearest VA medical center. 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.'' This ``prudent layperson'' standard is included in the Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Services Act of 1999 and is intended to protect both the veteran and the VA. To my colleagues who would argue that this expansion of benefits is something which the VA cannot afford, I would say that denying veterans access to care should not be the way to balance our budget. The Budget Resolution includes an additional $1.7 billion for VA. I call on the appropriators to ensure that this funding makes its way to VA hospitals and clinics across the country. Truly, approval of the Veterans' Access to Emergency Services Act of 1999 would ensure appropriate access to emergency medical services. Thus, we would be providing our nation's veterans greater continuity of care. Mr. President, veterans currently have the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their care, but they lack coverage for the one of the most important health care services. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs to make this proposal a reality.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Act of 1999. This bill will authorize VA to cover emergency care at non-Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities for those veterans who have enrolled with VA for their health care. I join my colleague, Senator Daschle, in cosponsoring this valuable initiative and thank him for his leadership. Currently, VA is restricted by law from authorizing payment of comprehensive emergency care services in non-VA facilities except to veterans with special eligibility. Most veterans must rely on other insurance or pay out of pocket for emergency services. I remind my colleagues that VA provides a standard benefits package for all veterans who are enrolled with the VA for their health care. In many ways, this is a very generous package, which includes such things as pharmaceuticals. Enrolled veterans are, however, missing out on one essential part of health care coverage: the standard benefits package does not allow for comprehensive emergency care. So, in effect, we are asking veterans to choose VA health care, but leaving them out in the cold when it comes to emergency care. Mr. President, we have left too many veterans out in the cold already. When veterans call their VA health care provider in the middle of the night, many reach a telephone recording. This recording likely urges that veterans who have emergencies dial ``911.'' Veterans who call for help are then transported to non-VA facilities. After the emergency is over, veterans are presented with huge bills. These are bills which VA cannot, in most cases, pay and which are, therefore, potentially financially crushing. We cannot abandon these veterans in their time of need. Let me tell my colleagues about some of the problems that veterans face because of the restriction on emergency care. In January of this year, a low income, non-service-connected, World War II veteran with a history of heart problems, from my State of West Virginia, presented to the nearest non-VA hospital with severe chest pain. In an attempt to get the veteran admitted to the VA medical center, the private physician placed calls to the Clarksburg VA Medical Center, where the veteran was enrolled, on three separate occasions, over the course of three days. The response was always the same--``no beds available.'' Ultimately, a different VA medical center, from outside the veteran's service area, accepted the patient, and two days later transferred him back to the Clarksburg VA Medical Center where he underwent an emergency surgical procedure to resolve the problem. By this time, however, complications had set in, and the veteran was critically ill. The veteran's wife told me that ``no one should have to endure the pain and suffering'' they had to endure over a five-day period to get the emergency care her husband needed. But in addition to that emotional distress, the veteran now also faces a medical bill of almost $800 at the private hospital, the net amount due after Medicare paid its portion. This is an incredible burden for a veteran and his wife whose sole income are their small Social Security checks. In another example from my state, in February 1998, a 100 percent service-connected veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder suffered an acute onset of mid-sternal chest pain, and an ambulance was called. The ambulance took him to the nearest hospital, a non-VA facility. Staff at the private facility contacted the Clarksburg VA Medical Center and was told there were no ICU beds available and advised transferring the patient to the Pittsburgh VA Medical Center. When contacted, Pittsburgh refused the patient because of the length of necessary transport. A call to the Beckley VAMC was also fruitless. The doctor was advised by VA staff that the trip to Beckley would be ``too risky for the three hour ambulance travel.'' The veteran was kept overnight at the private hospital for observation, and then was billed for the care--$900, after Medicare paid its share. Two more West Virginia cases quickly come to mind involving 100 percent service-connected combat veterans, both of whom had to turn to the private sector in emergency situations. One veteran had a heart attack and as I recall, his heart stopped twice before the ambulance got him to the closest non-VA hospital. The Huntington VA Medical Center was his health care provider and it was more than an hour away from the veteran's home. This veteran had Medicare, but he was still left with a sizeable medical bill for the emergency services that saved his life. The other veteran suffered a fall that rendered him unconscious and caused considerable physical damage. He also was taken to the closest non-VA hospital--and was left with a $4,000 bill after Medicare paid its share. Both contacted me to complain about the unfairness of these bills. As 100 percent service-connected veterans, they rely totally on VA for their health care. I can assure you that neither of them, nor the other two West Virginia veterans I referred to, ever expected to be in the situation in which they all suddenly found themselves--strapped with large health care bills because they needed emergency treatment in life-threatening situations, when they were miles and miles from the nearest VA medical center. 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.'' This ``prudent layperson'' standard is included in the Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Services Act of 1999 and is intended to protect both the veteran and the VA. To my colleagues who would argue that this expansion of benefits is something which the VA cannot afford, I would say that denying veterans access to care should not be the way to balance our budget. The Budget Resolution includes an additional $1.7 billion for VA. I call on the appropriators to ensure that this funding makes its way to VA hospitals and clinics across the country. Truly, approval of the Veterans' Access to Emergency Services Act of 1999 would ensure appropriate access to emergency medical services. Thus, we would be providing our nation's veterans greater continuity of care. Mr. President, veterans currently have the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their care, but they lack coverage for the one of the most important health care services. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs to make this proposal a reality.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to comment today on the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program which my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, worked so hard to have included in the Senate-passed Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. Despite his tireless efforts, the measure was stripped from the bill at the eleventh hour for reasons which are beyond me. I take umbrage with the misleading moniker that some Members of the House Leadership have shamelessly placed upon this vital program for partisan political purposes. This program, far from being a handout for any one company in my state of West Virginia or anywhere else, would provide emergency relief for more than a dozen American steel producers who have been stricken by the effects of the unprecedented surge in steel imports into the U.S. over the last year. This crisis, which has caused as many as 10,000 layoffs at steel factories across the nation and threatens as many as 100,000 more jobs, has unfairly injured the credit ratings of America's steel manufacturers by forcing them to compete with dirt cheap foreign steel, which is often being sold in the U.S. at costs below that of production. If you ask me, this important crisis, without question, is appropriately classified as an ``emergency''. If you ask the steelworkers who've either been laid off or who are the next to go, I bet they say the same thing. Ask their families and communities if this is an emergency, and you'll get the same answer. The emergency is that our American steel industry is being pummeled by illegal foreign competition, and that the imports are taking a very real and devastating toll on the people who depend on steel for their livelihood. The program that Senator Byrd proposed in the Senate-passed version of the Supplemental Appropriations bill would have made it possible for many of the most financially-unstable steel producers in this country to persevere until we in the Senate can take decisive and comprehensive action to address the underlying cause of our domestic steel industry's current predicament--imports. The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program would have made much-needed capital available to those companies who have been the hardest hit by the import surge, and it would have done so at minimal expense to the American taxpayer. The program just made good sense, and I was extremely disappointed to hear that Members of the House Leadership insisted that it be eliminated. The argument was, from what I hear, that Senator Byrd's provision was too expensive and of benefit only to Weirton Steel Corporation in West Virginia. The fact is, Mr. President, that Weirton was just one of more than a dozen companies which the Department of Commerce determined would be eligible for loans under this program. All of these distressed companies have been doing everything in their power to survive the current crisis. I know first hand the great lengths to which Weirton Steel has gone through simply to keep its head above water. In my state alone we've had nearly 1,000 layoffs as a direct result of the import surge. The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program would have made it possible for companies across the nation to make upcoming debt payments which many steel producers are in jeopardy of defaulting on because of the current crisis. Moreover, the cost of the program was $140 million to leverage $1 billion in loans--that's a good investment. I deeply regret that the unwillingness of some Members of Congress to open their eyes to the plight of America's steelworkers has resulted in the loan program being removed from this vehicle. That is very bad news for the many steel companies who stood to benefit from the program. Some of them are now that much closer to joining the other four major American steel producers who have already been forced into bankruptcy by this crisis. However, there remains time to reverse this mistake. I hope that the Members of Congress, who did not understand the details of how this loan program functions or the benefits that it would bestow upon a large number of steel companies across the nation, will reassess their position. We still have an opportunity to support this important program. I intend to work with Senator Byrd in moving this program on another legislative vehicle. Each of my colleagues knows how strongly I believe that this body must act to address the import surge in a comprehensive way. However, I also know how vital the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program is to many U.S. steel producers. It is a critically important stop-gap measure which would allow companies like Weirton steel to remain in business long enough for the United States Senate to take the tough and comprehensive action which is necessary to protect our domestic industry from unfair foreign competition. Mr. President, I truly hope that we seize the opportunity to take up this measure again. Without it, steel companies in a number of different states may soon find themselves the next victims of our failure to aggressively enforce our unfair trade laws.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on behalf of vulnerable children, including our bipartisan work on this legislation. He joins me today as an original co-sponsor of this legislation as do Senators DeWine, Collins, Levin, Landrieu, Moynihan, Breaux, Kerrey, Dorgan, Conrad, Inouye, Durbin and Torricelli. Work on this legislation is based on the bipartisan work of the Senate coalition that supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. A unique bipartisan coalition formed in 1997 worked hard to forge consensus on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). This law, for the first time ever, establishes that a child's health and safety must be paramount when any decisions are made regarding children in the abuse and neglect system. While this law was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, more work needs to be done to truly achieve the goals promoted in the Act of safety, stability and permanence for all abused and neglected children. Senator Chafee and I and all of the other co- sponsors I have named committed ourselves to continuing that work and that is why we are here today. Throughout the process of developing the Adoption Act we heard about the challenging circumstances facing children described as having ``special needs''. These include children who are the most difficult to place into permanent homes, often due to their age, disability or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together. I spent time learning about the special needs children in my own state of West Virginia. Prior to the passage of ASFA, there were 870 children, most with special needs, awaiting adoption in West Virginia. Today, I am proud to report that this number has been reduced to 621. The dedication of our state adoption staff, when combined with the incentives and focus on permanence provided in ASFA have successfully effected the placement of nearly a third of the waiting children. One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. The Adoption Equality Act is an essential second step in this ongoing process. This important legislation will promote and increase adoptions by making all children with special needs eligible for Federal adoption subsidy. The bill is designed to ``level the playing field'' by ensuring that all children with special needs, and the loving families who adopt them, have the support they need to grow and develop. Current law provides for the payment of federal adoption subsidies to families who adopt only those special needs children whose biological family would have been qualified for welfare benefits under the old 1996 AFDC standards. Federal adoption subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily costs of raising these special children (food, clothing) and also special services (equipment, therapy, tutoring, etc.). Federal adoption subsidies are a vital link in securing adoptive homes for special needs children who by definition would not be adopted without support. Under current law, a child's eligibility for these important benefits is dependent on the income of his or her biological parents even though these parents' legal rights to the child have been terminated, and these are the parents who either abused or neglected the child. This is, simply, wrong. The Adoption Equality Act will eliminate this anomaly in Federal law by making all special needs children eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. First, the bill removes the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, whom the child is leaving, thereby allowing Federal adoption subsidy to be paid to all families who adopt children who meet the definition of special needs. Second, the bill gives States flexibility in determining their own criteria, which may, but need not, include judicial determination, to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the safety or welfare of the child, as well as their own definition of which of the children in their state are children with special needs. Third, the bill requires that states re-invest the monies they save as a result of this bill back into their state child abuse and neglect programs. When we talk about how to help abused and neglected children in this country, many complex questions are raised about what constitutes best policy, and how Federal tax dollars should be spent. Yet, at the heart of it all are the children who desperately want a family to call their own, and the families who want to adopt them. The lack of adequate financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving and permanent home. With the numbers of abused and neglected children rising dramatically--in West Virginia alone child abuse reports have doubled--from 13,000 in 1986 to over 26,000 in 1996--we need to remove every barrier in our efforts to make a difference. A West Virginia family recently told me: I knew we had enough love to give a child with special needs--even siblings. But could we afford it? More children means more of everything. This obstacle was removed through the adoption subsidy program and we now have four children in our lives. Our lives have truly changed. Special needs for us was a very special way to adopt a waiting child. Federal adoption subsidies are designed to encourage adoption of children with special needs--those children who have the hardest time finding permanent, adoptive families. It is an absurd policy to discriminate against thousands of children with special needs based upon the income of their biological (and often abusive) parents. It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. I am confident that the Adoption Equality Act will do just that, and at the same time, with the re-investment requirement, states should have the incentive to make additional improvements in their child welfare systems. These will be valuable steps in our efforts to be more able to effectively address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable children. I urge my colleagues join us in co-sponsoring and passing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on behalf of vulnerable children, including our bipartisan work on this legislation. He joins me today as an original co-sponsor of this legislation as do Senators DeWine, Collins, Levin, Landrieu, Moynihan, Breaux, Kerrey, Dorgan, Conrad, Inouye, Durbin and Torricelli. Work on this legislation is based on the bipartisan work of the Senate coalition that supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. A unique bipartisan coalition formed in 1997 worked hard to forge consensus on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). This law, for the first time ever, establishes that a child's health and safety must be paramount when any decisions are made regarding children in the abuse and neglect system. While this law was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, more work needs to be done to truly achieve the goals promoted in the Act of safety, stability and permanence for all abused and neglected children. Senator Chafee and I and all of the other co- sponsors I have named committed ourselves to continuing that work and that is why we are here today. Throughout the process of developing the Adoption Act we heard about the challenging circumstances facing children described as having ``special needs''. These include children who are the most difficult to place into permanent homes, often due to their age, disability or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together. I spent time learning about the special needs children in my own state of West Virginia. Prior to the passage of ASFA, there were 870 children, most with special needs, awaiting adoption in West Virginia. Today, I am proud to report that this number has been reduced to 621. The dedication of our state adoption staff, when combined with the incentives and focus on permanence provided in ASFA have successfully effected the placement of nearly a third of the waiting children. One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who move from foster care to adoption. The Adoption Equality Act is an essential second step in this ongoing process. This important legislation will promote and increase adoptions by making all children with special needs eligible for Federal adoption subsidy. The bill is designed to ``level the playing field'' by ensuring that all children with special needs, and the loving families who adopt them, have the support they need to grow and develop. Current law provides for the payment of federal adoption subsidies to families who adopt only those special needs children whose biological family would have been qualified for welfare benefits under the old 1996 AFDC standards. Federal adoption subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily costs of raising these special children (food, clothing) and also special services (equipment, therapy, tutoring, etc.). Federal adoption subsidies are a vital link in securing adoptive homes for special needs children who by definition would not be adopted without support. Under current law, a child's eligibility for these important benefits is dependent on the income of his or her biological parents even though these parents' legal rights to the child have been terminated, and these are the parents who either abused or neglected the child. This is, simply, wrong. The Adoption Equality Act will eliminate this anomaly in Federal law by making all special needs children eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. First, the bill removes the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, whom the child is leaving, thereby allowing Federal adoption subsidy to be paid to all families who adopt children who meet the definition of special needs. Second, the bill gives States flexibility in determining their own criteria, which may, but need not, include judicial determination, to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the safety or welfare of the child, as well as their own definition of which of the children in their state are children with special needs. Third, the bill requires that states re-invest the monies they save as a result of this bill back into their state child abuse and neglect programs. When we talk about how to help abused and neglected children in this country, many complex questions are raised about what constitutes best policy, and how Federal tax dollars should be spent. Yet, at the heart of it all are the children who desperately want a family to call their own, and the families who want to adopt them. The lack of adequate financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving and permanent home. With the numbers of abused and neglected children rising dramatically--in West Virginia alone child abuse reports have doubled--from 13,000 in 1986 to over 26,000 in 1996--we need to remove every barrier in our efforts to make a difference. A West Virginia family recently told me: I knew we had enough love to give a child with special needs--even siblings. But could we afford it? More children means more of everything. This obstacle was removed through the adoption subsidy program and we now have four children in our lives. Our lives have truly changed. Special needs for us was a very special way to adopt a waiting child. Federal adoption subsidies are designed to encourage adoption of children with special needs--those children who have the hardest time finding permanent, adoptive families. It is an absurd policy to discriminate against thousands of children with special needs based upon the income of their biological (and often abusive) parents. It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. I am confident that the Adoption Equality Act will do just that, and at the same time, with the re-investment requirement, states should have the incentive to make additional improvements in their child welfare systems. These will be valuable steps in our efforts to be more able to effectively address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable children. I urge my colleagues join us in co-sponsoring and passing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with my colleagues Senators Hatch, Crapo, and Bryan the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act. This is an important bipartisan piece of legislation providing tax incentives to help stimulate the still fledgling alternative fuel vehicle industry. It creates a $0.50 per gasoline equivalent gallon tax credit for natural gas, methanol, propane and hydrogen, thus almost leveling the tax treatment for all alternative fuels. The bill also contains provisions for extending the electric vehicle tax credit and augmenting it to encourage advanced technology vehicles. It also expands the existing tax deduction for alternative fuel fueling infrastructure to include the cost of installation. Finally, the bill gives states the authority to allow single occupant alternative fueled vehicles on high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. I introduce this bill today because I believe that it is time for the next automobile revolution. I say revolution because as Webster's tells us, the word can mean ``a fundamental change in the way of thinking about something.'' One compelling argument for pursuing fundamental change when it comes to automobiles is the fact that we still need to reduce this nation's dependence on imported oil, for obvious reasons. After all, Saddam Hussein didn't invade Kuwait to increase his supply of sand. We are at an historic high in our dependence on imported oil. Currently, we import approximately one half of the oil consumed in this nation. According to the Energy Information Administration, that level is expected to increase to more than sixty percent within the next decade, unless we do something dramatic to reverse the current trend. Even more foreboding is the fact that most of the oil we import is from the Middle East. It makes no sense for us to stand idly by as this volatile region of the world increases its potential stranglehold over the world's economy. It is also critical that we reduce the transportation sector's negative impact on air quality. We are in the midst of an alarming increase in reported asthma and other respiratory diseases. This problem is esepcially acute among children and senior citizens. While the automobile industry has made great strides in reducing emissions from cars and trucks, the improvement has been largely offset by the dramatically increasing number of cars, sport utility vehicles and trucks on the road and the increasing number of miles these vehicles are driven each year. Clearly, doing something to cut air pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example, requires enormous change in transportation. The options for bringing about change in the transportation sector are limited. We can pursue punitive new taxes, mandates, or regulations. This approach, I believe, would result in job losses and economic stagnation, situations that are not acceptable to either the American people or the Congress. I believe the best way to bring about the change we need is to provide incentives--to manufacturers to develop and sell clean technology--and to consumers to buy and use that technology. The domestic automobile manufacturers have been developing a full menu of clean, efficient vehicles for the 21st century. And unlike before, these vehicles are much closer to their gasoline-powered counterparts in terms of performance, safety, comfort, and cost. Just recently, two of our biggest automobile manufacturers unveiled their latest fuel-cell-powered vehicles--the alternative fuel vehicle considered by many to be the car of the 21st century. Much of the technology incorporated into such advanced transportation technologies--hybrids, electric vehicles with advanced batteries, fuel cell vehicles as well as bi-fuel and flex-fuel vehicles--are a direct result of the work government and industry have done together, in full partnership, through programs like the United States Advanced Battery Consortium and the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. Perhaps most exciting is that some of these ``cars of the future'' are available today. Electric vehicles are being sold, albeit in small numbers, to fleets nationwide, and to select target markets in California and Arizona. Also, most major automakers have alternative fuel vehicles available for either fleet or private purchase. And there is encouraging news on the infrastructure front as well. Alternative fuel providers and electric utilities throughout the country are putting the infrastructure in place to support alternative fuel and electric vehicles in operation. By the end of 1998, nearly 300 public charging sites with more than 600 chargers, as well as hundreds of home chargers, and a number of fleet installations, were established throughout California and Arizona. We need more of this to happen nationally. There are also more than 110 methanol stations nationwide supporting alternative and flex fuel vehicles. Also, compressed natural gas and other natural gas-based fuels are developing infrastructure as well. For example, in my state of West Virginia alone there are over 40 compressed natural gas fueling stations. I think this is all evidence that we have indeed initiated an automotive revolution. Unfortunately, the market hasn't developed as quickly as we thought it would when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992 with such high hopes. And perhaps we were too optimistic about what would be required by both government and industry to build a sustainable market for the technology. So, what can we do to speed things up? How can we make sure there are more vehicles available, get more people to buy them, and develop the infrastructure to sustain them? First, as I mentioned earlier, the alternative fuel and electric vehicle markets started more slowly than I think many of us expected. Therefore, we need to extend the phase-out dates of current tax credits. This would continue to help us ``jumpstart'' the market for electric vehicles, and lay out a longer-term incentive policy. Also, I feel that hard work and progress should be encouraged. Electric vehicles with extended range capability are the result of additional investments in research and technology. This behavior needs to be rewarded. Second, there needs to be more support for the development of an effective alternative fuel fueling infrastructure. For too long, we been caught in a `chicken and egg' cycle, with the infrastructure not available to support alternative fuel vehicles, and consumers not interested in the vehicles because there's not support infrastructure. We need to break this cycle by creating better tax incentives to help develop alternative fuel infrastructure. The current tax deductions for capitol equipment is not sufficient since a large portion of the overall cost may be associated with the actual cost of installation. Finally, we must make alternative fuels, like natural gas, methanol, propane and hydrogen, economically attractive to producers, distributors, marketers and buyers. If consumers see affordable new fuels available at their local fueling stations, they will be much more likely to actually use an alternative fuel vehicle. Tax incentives have traditionally been very effective in encouraging consumers to try new technology. While changing consumer's behavior is not easy, I am confident that if people begin to see that alternative fuels are available and affordable, they will soon begin to use them. Without the economic drive at every link in the fuel chain any alternative fuel effort will not succeed. This is why today I along with my colleagues are introducing the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act. This bill contains provisions for extending the $4,000 tax credit for electric vehicles until 2010. It also grants an additional $5,000 tax credit for electric vehicles that meet a 100 mile range requirement. These provisions will help electric vehicle commercialization and research to move forward at a faster pace, and will mean that more people will be able to buy electric vehicles. However, few people will buy electric vehicles and other alternatively fueled vehicles if there is nowhere to refuel them. I want to encourage the development of these stations. Therefore, my bill expands the current tax deduction for alternative fuel fueling capital equipment to include the cost of installation. This will allow more infrastructure for electric and alternative fuel vehicles to be installed and used. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act also makes clean-burning alternative fuels economically attractive. The bill provides a $0.50 per gasoline equivalent gallon tax credit to the seller of compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, methanol, propane or hydrogen. This will allow these non-petroleum fuels to become more economically favorable to the consumer through lower prices at the pump. It also places these fuels on tax parity with other alternatives. By giving the tax credit to the seller of the fuel, it reduces the paperwork burden on the individual consumer, and allows for easier dispersal of the credit throughout the production/delivery/marketing chain so that all parties are interested in increasing the consumption of alternative fuels. Finally, the Alternative Fuel Promotion Act gives states the ability to decide if they want to allow single occupant alternative fuel and electric vehicles in HOV lanes. This is, I feel, a strong incentive that states should be allowed, but not required, to give to owners of these special vehicles. We know that when national policy works in support of the energies and potential of the private sector, far more progress can be made at a far faster rate. The private sector is leading the way in developing alternatives fuel vehicle technology. We need to provide consumers with a strong financial incentive to use this technology. Certainly, our continued dependence on foreign oil and the contribution of conventionally powered vehicles to air pollution should drive us to try. In my case, I see exciting prospects for new uses of West Virginia's natural resources and other economic benefits for my state-- along with other states. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.