Jay Rockefeller

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.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a very special occasion for education. I proudly want to share in the celebration as Oglebay Institute announces its new and sophisticated 11,700-square foot Schrader Environmental Educational Center in Wheeling, West Virginia. The incredible opportunities that will be offered by this state-of-the-art facility characterize the Oglebay Institute's dedication to educating students and adults about science, nature, and the environment. The Oglebay Institute in Wheeling, West Virginia is a non-profit organization with a particularly distinguished mission of promoting lifelong learning in a variety of creative ways and areas. The Institute lends its support to the visual and creative arts, sponsoring regional and national artists in two museums as well as a fine arts center. By hosting numerous plays and concerts every year, the Oglebay performing arts department is equally important in adding to the cultural richness of the surrounding community. To promote regional natural history interpretation and preservation, the Institute carefully maintains 4.5 miles of discovery trails and a butterfly and wildflower garden in the 1,650 acre Oglebay Park. Such resources are well utilized in programs for regional wildlife education. The opportunities available range from nature walks to bird observation, and travel programs to celebrations of Earth Week. The environmental education department, whose accomplishments we honor today, caters to a wealth of individual interests while promoting universal environmental literacy and motivation. Particularly noteworthy in such endeavors are the hands-on experiences with various aspects of nature. In the program offerings such options abound; participants choose from among astronomy, maple sugaring and interactive computer simulations. For sixty-eight years, the Oglebay Institute has been a pioneer in this field of nature, science and environmental education, successfully coupling recreation with the promotion of environmental awareness. The new Environmental Education Center, with its exceptional design and ideal location, insures a great contribution to this vision. The Schrader Center's exhibition areas will offer interactive opportunities exploring all issues, ranging from the self-supporting nature of the Earth to our role as its caretakers. At the newly constructed cutting edge learning center, outreach technology will enable adaption of educational programs to extend education to local students and others thanks to distance learning. I have full confidence that the proximity of the Environmental Education Center to the expansive Oglebay Park, where many outdoor activities take place, will serve as further incentive to enjoy the remarkable opportunities available. West Virginians and tourists from across the country visit Oglebay Park and learn from the Oglebay Institute. For seven decades, the Oglebay Institute has provided education, culture, and recreational activities for crowds throughout the region. Among the eager participants are school groups who can gain hands-on experience at the new center. The Oglebay Institute's efforts to educate and fully engage are critical to an environmentally-conscious future, and worthy of our attention and praise. The Schrader Environmental Education Center will undoubtedly prove to be an enormous asset to West Virginians and the entire region as a way to improve our understanding of science and our nature. This is a special day for the Oglebay Institute and the entire Wheeling area.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999'' with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. Our legislation seeks to assist Medicare beneficiaries with their single largest out-of-pocket expense for health care services--prescription drugs. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in bringing this issue to the forefront of the health care debate. I have long admired Senator Kennedy's commitment and dedication to improving the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. This is not the first time prescription coverage has been discussed seriously in the United States Senate. The debate around providing prescription drug coverage was first discussed while the creation of the Medicare program was being considered. Unfortunately, in the end, drug coverage was not included. Medicare has not been updated substantially since its enactment and we know that a lot has changed in health care since 1965. The program was modeled after employer-sponsored health plans--most of which, at the time, did not offer prescription drug coverage. Now, almost all employer-sponsored health plans recognize the important role that prescription drugs play in modern medicine. Additionally, the value of drug therapy was unclear in 1965. Today, medical and technological advances in drug safety and effectiveness have created more pharmaceutical products that can treat disease and manage chronic illnesses. A decade ago, the Senate sought to redress that error and provide prescription drug coverage to all--but politics overwhelmed a much- needed policy change and the benefit was forfeited. I believe it is time to reenergize the debate. Today, we have the opportunity to build on successful private sector initiatives to provide Medicare beneficiaries with much needed prescription drug coverage. Pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) have the information infrastructure, claims experience, and detailed understanding of drug management to provide a strong, stable benefit structure. By taking advantage of their management skills, we can update the Medicare program, make it stronger, make it more competitive, and more able to meet the challenges presented by the approaching retirement of the baby boom generation. Mr. President, I am constantly in touch with West Virginians who describe the dilemmas they face about paying for the prescription drugs. These are people who have worked hard all their lives, raised families, contributed to their communities, and paid their taxes. Now, in the twilight of their lives, a time that they should be enjoying with their children and grandchildren, they are struggling to make ends meet. And health care expenses, especially prescription drug costs, are breaking their budgets. A West Virginia senior has an average income of $10,700 and spends $2,600 annually on average in out-of-pocket health care expenses. Prilosec, a popular anti-ulcer drug, costs about $1000 a year. Lipitor, a drug that controls cholesterol levels, and Rezulin, an anti-diabetic drug, each cost over $800 a year. But the rent, electricity, phone, and groceries also have to be paid. And there is only so much that can be cut when a person is down to choosing between basic necessities. Mr. President, I'd like to share some examples of West Virginians who would truly apppreciate the enactment of the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act.'' I know of an elderly woman in West Virginia who relies solely on Social Security for her monthly income of $800 but spends over $100 a month for her heart medication. I know of another elderly widow in West Virginia who has monthly income of $760 but spends $500 a month in prescription drug costs. She constantly worries about her future, especially if her health takes a turn for the worse. West Virginians are not alone. Between one-third and one-half of all Medicare beneficiaries--that's roughly between 13 and 19 million seniors--have little or no prescription drug coverage. The seniors who are the most vulnerable are the lowest income beneficiaries and those suffering from chronic illnesses. Eighty percent of the elderly suffer from one or more chronic diseases, many of which could be controlled by drug therapy. The chronically ill spend $400 more annually on average than seniors without a chronic illness. Seniors in West Virginia are disproportionately hurt by chronic illness. Heart disease, cancer, strokes are the leading causes of death in my state. Low-income seniors are especially at risk for developing chronic illnesses. Unfortunately, low-income seniors are also not likely to have prescription drug coverage--only 36% of those with incomes less than $10,000 had drug coverage--but they spend a greater percentage of their income to pay for prescription drugs than do higher-income beneficiaries. Those who do have access to prescription drug coverage rely on patchwork of public and private measures that usually offer very limited coverage with high premiums, coinsurance rates, and deductibles--making the lifesaving coverage they need hard to maintain. The most comprehensive coverage sources of prescription drug coverage are Medicaid and employer-sponsored retiree insurance. However, recent trends indicate that fewer firms are offering retiree benefits that include drug coverage because of the cost. Seniors who do not have prescription drug coverage and have to buy medication on their own are the hardest hit by the steep increases in prescription drug costs. A recent Congressional study found that seniors may pay as much as double what HMOs, insurance companies and other bulk purchasers pay. The price difference is due to the fact that bulk purchasers can negotiate much lower prices for their drug orders than the retail pharmacies--where seniors buy their drugs--can. Even though 34 million seniors participate in the Medicare program, Medicare beneficiaries have no leverage when purchasing medication. Mr President, the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act" helps seniors in several ways. First, it would provide seniors without existing coverage a basic drug benefit, up to about $1700 dollars a year, under Medicare Part B. Once the benefit has been exhausted, seniors can continue to purchase prescription drugs at the program's discounted price. Next, this bill offers stop-loss protection that is triggered when a beneficiary spends more than $3,000 annually in out- of-pocket prescription drug costs. Finally, this legislation would improve the protections offered by current law to assist the lowest income beneficiaries and those with the highest out-of-pocket drug costs. The ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act'' builds on infrastructure already in place in the private sector. Pharmaceutical benefits managers, networks of retail or community pharmacies, or insurers will have the opportunity to submit competitive bids to manage the benefit. The PBMs would then negotiate discounts and rebates for Medicare beneficiaries just like they do for HMOs and insurance companies in return for a payment from Medicare. Finally, providing prescription drug coverage to seniors is cost- effective in the long-run. Drug therapy, especially in managing chronic illnesses, saves money by keeping seniors out of hospitals and nursing homes. This proposal would also save money by reducing improper use of prescription drugs, which currently costs Medicare $16 billion annually. Mr. President, when Congress created the Medicare program nearly 35 years ago, we made a commitment to provide affordable, quality health care for our seniors. Today, prescription drugs are an essential component of quality health care. The lack of affordable prescription drug coverage in the Medicare program is especially saddening at a time when most Americans are experiencing greater prosperity than ever before. I believe that we have to honor the commitment we made to those who came before us and sacrificed so much to make this nation what it is today. Providing Medicare coverage for outpatient prescription drugs is necessary to update and modernize the Medicare benefit package. Now is the time to enact legislation and so I urge my colleagues to support the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999'' with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. Our legislation seeks to assist Medicare beneficiaries with their single largest out-of-pocket expense for health care services--prescription drugs. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in bringing this issue to the forefront of the health care debate. I have long admired Senator Kennedy's commitment and dedication to improving the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. This is not the first time prescription coverage has been discussed seriously in the United States Senate. The debate around providing prescription drug coverage was first discussed while the creation of the Medicare program was being considered. Unfortunately, in the end, drug coverage was not included. Medicare has not been updated substantially since its enactment and we know that a lot has changed in health care since 1965. The program was modeled after employer-sponsored health plans--most of which, at the time, did not offer prescription drug coverage. Now, almost all employer-sponsored health plans recognize the important role that prescription drugs play in modern medicine. Additionally, the value of drug therapy was unclear in 1965. Today, medical and technological advances in drug safety and effectiveness have created more pharmaceutical products that can treat disease and manage chronic illnesses. A decade ago, the Senate sought to redress that error and provide prescription drug coverage to all--but politics overwhelmed a much- needed policy change and the benefit was forfeited. I believe it is time to reenergize the debate. Today, we have the opportunity to build on successful private sector initiatives to provide Medicare beneficiaries with much needed prescription drug coverage. Pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) have the information infrastructure, claims experience, and detailed understanding of drug management to provide a strong, stable benefit structure. By taking advantage of their management skills, we can update the Medicare program, make it stronger, make it more competitive, and more able to meet the challenges presented by the approaching retirement of the baby boom generation. Mr. President, I am constantly in touch with West Virginians who describe the dilemmas they face about paying for the prescription drugs. These are people who have worked hard all their lives, raised families, contributed to their communities, and paid their taxes. Now, in the twilight of their lives, a time that they should be enjoying with their children and grandchildren, they are struggling to make ends meet. And health care expenses, especially prescription drug costs, are breaking their budgets. A West Virginia senior has an average income of $10,700 and spends $2,600 annually on average in out-of-pocket health care expenses. Prilosec, a popular anti-ulcer drug, costs about $1000 a year. Lipitor, a drug that controls cholesterol levels, and Rezulin, an anti-diabetic drug, each cost over $800 a year. But the rent, electricity, phone, and groceries also have to be paid. And there is only so much that can be cut when a person is down to choosing between basic necessities. Mr. President, I'd like to share some examples of West Virginians who would truly apppreciate the enactment of the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act.'' I know of an elderly woman in West Virginia who relies solely on Social Security for her monthly income of $800 but spends over $100 a month for her heart medication. I know of another elderly widow in West Virginia who has monthly income of $760 but spends $500 a month in prescription drug costs. She constantly worries about her future, especially if her health takes a turn for the worse. West Virginians are not alone. Between one-third and one-half of all Medicare beneficiaries--that's roughly between 13 and 19 million seniors--have little or no prescription drug coverage. The seniors who are the most vulnerable are the lowest income beneficiaries and those suffering from chronic illnesses. Eighty percent of the elderly suffer from one or more chronic diseases, many of which could be controlled by drug therapy. The chronically ill spend $400 more annually on average than seniors without a chronic illness. Seniors in West Virginia are disproportionately hurt by chronic illness. Heart disease, cancer, strokes are the leading causes of death in my state. Low-income seniors are especially at risk for developing chronic illnesses. Unfortunately, low-income seniors are also not likely to have prescription drug coverage--only 36% of those with incomes less than $10,000 had drug coverage--but they spend a greater percentage of their income to pay for prescription drugs than do higher-income beneficiaries. Those who do have access to prescription drug coverage rely on patchwork of public and private measures that usually offer very limited coverage with high premiums, coinsurance rates, and deductibles--making the lifesaving coverage they need hard to maintain. The most comprehensive coverage sources of prescription drug coverage are Medicaid and employer-sponsored retiree insurance. However, recent trends indicate that fewer firms are offering retiree benefits that include drug coverage because of the cost. Seniors who do not have prescription drug coverage and have to buy medication on their own are the hardest hit by the steep increases in prescription drug costs. A recent Congressional study found that seniors may pay as much as double what HMOs, insurance companies and other bulk purchasers pay. The price difference is due to the fact that bulk purchasers can negotiate much lower prices for their drug orders than the retail pharmacies--where seniors buy their drugs--can. Even though 34 million seniors participate in the Medicare program, Medicare beneficiaries have no leverage when purchasing medication. Mr President, the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act" helps seniors in several ways. First, it would provide seniors without existing coverage a basic drug benefit, up to about $1700 dollars a year, under Medicare Part B. Once the benefit has been exhausted, seniors can continue to purchase prescription drugs at the program's discounted price. Next, this bill offers stop-loss protection that is triggered when a beneficiary spends more than $3,000 annually in out- of-pocket prescription drug costs. Finally, this legislation would improve the protections offered by current law to assist the lowest income beneficiaries and those with the highest out-of-pocket drug costs. The ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act'' builds on infrastructure already in place in the private sector. Pharmaceutical benefits managers, networks of retail or community pharmacies, or insurers will have the opportunity to submit competitive bids to manage the benefit. The PBMs would then negotiate discounts and rebates for Medicare beneficiaries just like they do for HMOs and insurance companies in return for a payment from Medicare. Finally, providing prescription drug coverage to seniors is cost- effective in the long-run. Drug therapy, especially in managing chronic illnesses, saves money by keeping seniors out of hospitals and nursing homes. This proposal would also save money by reducing improper use of prescription drugs, which currently costs Medicare $16 billion annually. Mr. President, when Congress created the Medicare program nearly 35 years ago, we made a commitment to provide affordable, quality health care for our seniors. Today, prescription drugs are an essential component of quality health care. The lack of affordable prescription drug coverage in the Medicare program is especially saddening at a time when most Americans are experiencing greater prosperity than ever before. I believe that we have to honor the commitment we made to those who came before us and sacrificed so much to make this nation what it is today. Providing Medicare coverage for outpatient prescription drugs is necessary to update and modernize the Medicare benefit package. Now is the time to enact legislation and so I urge my colleagues to support the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would establish the authority to provide a duty drawback on imports of two commercially interchangeable rubber vulcanization accelerators known commonly as CBS and TBBS. CBS and TBBS are the major primary accelerators used in the production of tires and other rubber products. Both CBS and TBBS belong to the same class and subclass of rubber vulcanization chemicals, and can be used interchangeably with one another to perform the same function and to achieve the same end results. They can be manufactured by similar industrial processes using the same raw materials and identical process steps; and for all practical purposes, it is not possible to tell if CBS or TBBS were used in the final rubber product. In short, the two chemicals are commercially interchangeable in both function and use, and therefore, I believe they meet the specified circumstances required under Section 202 of U.S. trade law to receive duty drawback benefits based on a substitution basis. More specifically, this bill is extremely important to a West Virginia company, Flexsys, that produces both CBS and TBBS, and employs 230 West Virginians with an average annual salary of $42,000. Passage of this bill will preserve these jobs in an increasingly competitive chemical market, and will permit American-made products to compete more effectively in world markets. Because of the competitive nature of the chemical business, American companies must constantly look for new opportunities to improve efficiency, strengthen U.S. operations and cost position, and provide benefits to their customers. I believe the Congress had these goals in mind when we passed the duty drawback provisions in the Customs Modification Act of 1993. Flexsys meets the conditions set forth under the duty drawback provision that two products must be ``commercially interchangeable'' to claim a drawback credit, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would establish the authority to provide a duty drawback on imports of two commercially interchangeable rubber vulcanization accelerators known commonly as CBS and TBBS. CBS and TBBS are the major primary accelerators used in the production of tires and other rubber products. Both CBS and TBBS belong to the same class and subclass of rubber vulcanization chemicals, and can be used interchangeably with one another to perform the same function and to achieve the same end results. They can be manufactured by similar industrial processes using the same raw materials and identical process steps; and for all practical purposes, it is not possible to tell if CBS or TBBS were used in the final rubber product. In short, the two chemicals are commercially interchangeable in both function and use, and therefore, I believe they meet the specified circumstances required under Section 202 of U.S. trade law to receive duty drawback benefits based on a substitution basis. More specifically, this bill is extremely important to a West Virginia company, Flexsys, that produces both CBS and TBBS, and employs 230 West Virginians with an average annual salary of $42,000. Passage of this bill will preserve these jobs in an increasingly competitive chemical market, and will permit American-made products to compete more effectively in world markets. Because of the competitive nature of the chemical business, American companies must constantly look for new opportunities to improve efficiency, strengthen U.S. operations and cost position, and provide benefits to their customers. I believe the Congress had these goals in mind when we passed the duty drawback provisions in the Customs Modification Act of 1993. Flexsys meets the conditions set forth under the duty drawback provision that two products must be ``commercially interchangeable'' to claim a drawback credit, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am with my colleague Senate Frist introducing the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999. This bill would make technical changes and clarifications to the legislation which governs the transfer of intellectual property from the federal government to the private sector. The original Technology Transfer Improvements Act (TTIA), which I was author of in 1995, allowed for easier and quicker access to intellectual property which the government owns and private industry wants. It created a win-win situation. The government gets royalties from these licenses, private industry gets the intellectual property that it needs, and Americans get jobs from the production of inventions based on this intellectual property. This bill builds on the strong positive response from TTIA. It reduces the requirements for obtaining a non-exclusive license in order to allow as many companies and individuals as possible access to the information. It also addresses private industry's concerns about maintaining confidential information within applications. However, this does not come at the expense of the government being able to keep control of its property. This bill also clarifies the ability of the licensing agencies to terminate a license if certain criteria are not met. Furthermore, it allows the government to consolidate intellectual property which is developed in cooperation with a private entity so that the package can be relicensed to a third party. Technology transfer is a vital part of our national economy. It is what allows our industries to remain at the leading edge in their field. This bill clarifies and adjusts current legislation to allow for an even better working relationship between the federal government and private industry. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am with my colleague Senate Frist introducing the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999. This bill would make technical changes and clarifications to the legislation which governs the transfer of intellectual property from the federal government to the private sector. The original Technology Transfer Improvements Act (TTIA), which I was author of in 1995, allowed for easier and quicker access to intellectual property which the government owns and private industry wants. It created a win-win situation. The government gets royalties from these licenses, private industry gets the intellectual property that it needs, and Americans get jobs from the production of inventions based on this intellectual property. This bill builds on the strong positive response from TTIA. It reduces the requirements for obtaining a non-exclusive license in order to allow as many companies and individuals as possible access to the information. It also addresses private industry's concerns about maintaining confidential information within applications. However, this does not come at the expense of the government being able to keep control of its property. This bill also clarifies the ability of the licensing agencies to terminate a license if certain criteria are not met. Furthermore, it allows the government to consolidate intellectual property which is developed in cooperation with a private entity so that the package can be relicensed to a third party. Technology transfer is a vital part of our national economy. It is what allows our industries to remain at the leading edge in their field. This bill clarifies and adjusts current legislation to allow for an even better working relationship between the federal government and private industry. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the ``Medicare Cancer Clinical Trials Coverage Act of 1999'' with my colleague from Florida, Senator Mack. This legislation would establish a demonstration project to assure Medicare beneficiaries with cancer that Medicare will cover their routine patient costs when part of a clinical trial. I would like to thank Senator Mack for his leadership and dedication on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Mack, a tireless champion for cancer patients throughout his years of service in the Senate. With 1,500 deaths due to cancer each day and 1.3 million new cancer diagnoses this year, there is a clear and urgent need for this legislation. Our senior population is especially at risk--Medicare beneficiaries make up half of all cancer diagnoses and 60% of all cancer deaths. Yet, Medicare's policy toward covering quality cancer care is ambiguous and its enforcement practices are unpredictable. Our legislation represents a significant step forward in the fight to prevent, detect and treat cancer quickly and effectively. It is based on a very simple premise: given the disproportionate impact that cancer has on older Americans, Medicare should be responsible for the routine patient care costs associated with approved clinical trials. Cancer clinical trials often represent a cancer patient's best hope for survival, especially when their cancer fails to respond to traditional therapies. Yet, under current law, Medicare beneficiaries can be denied coverage for the routine patient care costs associated with clinical trials. However, if the same care is provided outside of a clinical trial setting, it is covered by Medicare. It is a tragedy that the costs of participating in a clinical trial are discouraging patients from using what might be their best weapon in a battle with cancer. Medicare beneficiaries who are cancer patients are left with only two choices: pay the costs out of their own pocket, or forgo treatment all together. It is unfair, and unconscionable, that we force cancer patient to make this decision. There are other compelling reasons to cover these costs. By paying for these routine costs, we provide incentives for researchers to include more Medicare beneficiaries in cancer clinical trials. Researchers know that patients who are at different stages physically, mentally, and emotionally will react very differently to treatments-- even if they are fighting the same cancer. But what they don't know is how age and health interact with the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and treatments. Our bill helps them find the answers to those critical questions. Our bill saves money in the long-run by ensuring the Medicare program pays for treatments that work. Clinical studies can determine which interventions work the best, and when they are the most effective. Finally, in establishing a demonstration project, this bill will also provide valuable information about the costs and benefits of providing coverage for clinical trials for other life-threatening diseases. We started with cancer first because cancer is a major affliction of Medicare beneficiaries. In addition there is a well-established national clinical cancer trial system to deliver this patient care. Mr. President, our legislation does not create a new benefit. It merely ensures that patients enrolled in clinical studies receive Medicare coverage for the same type of routine patient care costs, such as hospital and physician fees, that would be covered outside of a trial setting. We are not asking Medicare to pay for the cost of research. These expenses will still be covered by trial sponsors, including pharmaceutical companies. The ``Medicare Cancer Clinical Trials Coverage Act'' is a modest proposal, but it has the potential to become a new weapon in the fight against cancer. But we must act now. We have fought for this proposal in previous sessions of Congress, and I believe the momentum is building to get the legislation passed this year. I look forward to working with Senator Mack and others to take an important step forward for cancer patients. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the issue of international satellite reform. First I want to thank Senator Burns for holding this important hearing. International satellite reform is critical to consumers across the United States. Yesterday I agreed to become a cosponsor of this bill--along with Senators Burns, McCain, Bryan, Brownback, Cleland, Frist and Dorgan. I support Senator Burns' bill because I believe that it is in the consumer interest to have a private INTELSAT. Such a competitive entity will lead to lower prices, better service, and more efficiency across the globe. Additionally, removing ownership restrictions on COMSAT will help to bring new services to American consumers. I believe that broadband satellite services will play a very important role in West Virginia's future, and this bill will lead to further deployment of these services by lifting the ownership restriction on COMSAT. I am excited by the possibility of a new competitor in domestic satellite services, and the resulting advances in these satellite services. Our mountainous terrain and the high cost of providing traditional telecommunications services make satellite services particularly important to West Virginia. Furthermore, INTELSAT has a history of serving all parts of the world at reasonable prices. We have an interest in making sure that developing nations are part of the global information infrastructure. I will work to make sure that this bill will allow a privatized INTELSAT to continue to serve these areas at reasonable prices. I must state, however, that while I support this bill, we are still in the middle of the legislative process. I am eager to continue working with Senators Hollings, Breaux, and other Senators who are working on important ideas with great promise. I want to stress that while I agree that this bill is the right platform for international satellite reform, I intend to keep working hard on this issue.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from West Virginia would like to have 10 minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I understand the point of the Senator. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from North Dakota. This particular Senator from West Virginia was a member of the Medicare Commission and I know, undoubtedly, several have spoken. But whatever amendments may be remaining, there cannot be many as important as the disposition of Medicare. Medicare is something that is not that well understood even though everybody knows what it is, and therefore it is subject to easy amendments and easy resolutions, and facts are entirely often lost. There is, I understand, a resolution or whatever praising the Medicaid Commission for its bipartisan efforts and the rest of it. Those of us who were on that Commission know that isn't and wasn't the case. It was not a bipartisan Commission; it was a Commission that was divided from the very beginning. It was a Commission in which there was really no give and take. Just so my colleagues can understand, the plan, which was being changed every 5 minutes, as certain Members sought to get votes here and there, was not even finally given to my office until 4 o'clock the day before the vote. I was in West Virginia so I didn't see the plan until an hour before the vote. It was really kind of a shambles of an operation. But that isn't nearly as important as the fact that beneficiaries pay more under this plan for the same or fewer benefits. It isn't nearly as important as the fact that the sick and the disabled were probably going to have to pay the most. The fact that this plan contemplates and its authors contemplate the numbers of years that 50 to 75 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries will belong to HMOs--of course, I don't believe that is ever going to happen. They do it, and it is reflected in their plan. Just imagine for a moment what that would mean, because HMOs would naturally attract the most wealthy and the most healthy. So what would that mean for the people in my State who are left in fee-for-service medicine? Fee-for-service would be a very small pot of money which would have to cover an enormous amount of people. The philosophy of the Medicare Commission fundamentally was that free enterprise can solve the problems of Medicare, and that is why they said 50 to 75 percent will join HMOs over the next 15 to 20 years. Of course, free enterprise had its chance to work with respect to people over 65 and did it so badly, that is the reason we created Medicare, in order not to leave it up to the market system in its entirety and to make sure that every senior had health care coverage. There was a lot of ideology involved in the Commission. There were a lot of people there primarily because of an ideological commitment, a commitment that was there from the very beginning. It was very obvious. There never really was any discussion of issues. There were speeches, but not much discussion. Seniors, I think, had very little idea of what was in the plan. Those who remember catastrophic health care--if Congress puts forward a plan and doesn't consult seniors and seniors aren't knowledgeable about it, you can have it thrown right back in your face. Medicare is not something you can fool around with. Speaking for my own point of view, representing the State of West Virginia, the average senior in West Virginia has a total gross income from all sources, of $10,763. Then, from that amount you subtract $2,000 to pay for their Medigap or their out-of-pocket expenses for health care which they can't get from Medicare, primarily prescription drugs. That means the average senior in the State has a gross income for a year of about $8,500. I will guarantee you, this Senator isn't fooling around with chances on Medicare. There is no way that I am taking a chance on Medicare, that I am betting on something that did not work prior to 1965, that suddenly people say will work after this Medicare Commission presented its plan which did not pass and which was basically defeated on a partisan vote, which was very, very sad. It was fated from the beginning, and it was very, very sad. I have chaired four national commissions. This was the fifth one I have been on. It was probably the worst experience I have had since I have been in the Senate. I say that with regret, because I care enormously about health care, and I care enormously about the people who ran the Commission. I thought they tried their very best, but it was fated to fail from the very beginning because of the ideological bent that it carried with it. I think a measure here to praise it is totally out of place. I mentioned prescription drugs. Everybody understands that when the President was wise enough to put aside 15 percent to pay down the debt so the money would become available because of the lack of higher interest payments for Medicare, that that was a very wise thing to do. That also allows us to contemplate prescription drugs. The Medicare Commission wouldn't even consider the use of that 15 percent. They wouldn't consider it. As a result, prescription drugs are not uniformly available. Some seniors already have prescription drugs. They get it through Medigap. This would say, well, you would have to be up to 135 percent of poverty, but that just came in in the last week or so. That would disappear, I think, on the floor of the Senate, because I do not think, frankly, that the majority would want to see prescription drugs, because they would say it would cost too much. Well, they might be right. I think they are wrong. Seniors are now paying for it. Under this plan, they purport that prescription drugs are covered, but they are, indeed, not covered. Many beneficiaries would not have it. They talk about prescription drugs for low-income beneficiaries, but most would not have them. On one of the most extraordinary things that I think would very much affect the senior Senator from New Mexico, they punt. They don't even punt. They kick at the ball and miss it on the subject of graduate medical education. We do not have doctors in this country by accident. We have doctors in this country because their residencies and their postgraduate experiences are paid for, 50 percent by Medicare. Some people may not think that it should come out of Medicare, but if it doesn't come out of Medicare, then it should come out of some designated fund, an au pair trust fund or something of that sort. What is incredible about the Medicare Commission is that it simply says, we will leave graduate medical education or direct medical education up to the appropriations process, which is like saying goodbye to all foreign doctors, which are as important in New York City as they are in southern West Virginia, because foreign doctors are well trained and they get further training in their own country. Fifty percent of their expense is being paid for by Medicare. Under the appropriations process, they would disappear. So will many others. So will many others, because there will be no constant way of funding a very obscure program called Graduate Medical Education, which is the heart and soul of the training of good doctors and, therefore, good health care in our country. The Federal savings in this matter--and I won't talk on forever here--but the Federal savings in this are generally a sham. I think only about $95 to $96 billion out of the $346 billion or $347 billion that the Commission says they are saving actually comes out of what they call premium supports. All the rest comes out of cutting benefits, out of the Balanced Budget Act, which we passed in 1997, out of a whole series of other things, cutting doctors and hospitals, once again. The savings are made at the expense of the beneficiary, at the expense of good health care. I have very, very strong feelings. Just consider for one instance that 71 percent of the counties in this country have no medical plan, no HMO whatsoever. I represent a whole State. We have one. So where is the choice? There is no choice.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I hope when that resolution comes up for a vote, Senators will vote no.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will use my minute in response to simply say this is not a ``bipartisan'' Commission. The Finance Committee may very well take it up. But people, before they praise what the Bipartisan Commission has done, should understand the sick and disabled are going to have to pay the most. Mr. President, 71 percent of all counties in this country have no HMOs whatsoever. The costs of beneficiaries are going to go up. Medicare prescription drugs are not in any way, shape, or form universal.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will continue by saying rural seniors and urban seniors are going to be hurt in this process because there will be fewer physicians who are trained because the training of doctors is completely removed from Medicare. It was turned over to the appropriators. I think you will see a diminution of personnel. The numbers of uninsured seniors are going to be increased, some estimate by 1.4 million. Medicare was begun because the private sector was not able to handle the insurance, was not willing to handle it. I hope Members will vote against this nonbipartisan Commission.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would like to comment on S. Con. Res. 20, the Concurrent Resolution on the FY 2000 Budget. Specifically, I will address the funding allowances for Function 700--Veterans Benefits and Services. At the outset, let me note that this budget resolution is a departure from past budget resolutions which have cut veterans' spending. The resolution emanating from the Senate Budget Committee includes total spending for an additional $0.9 billion in new budget authority and $1.1 billion in outlays for FY 2000. I am grateful for this increase. It is a valid attempt to infuse the VA with badly needed resources. However, the spending needs of the Veterans Health Administration exceed this recommended level. I believe we can and should do better. The VA health care system is being squeezed by lack of funding. It's high time that we realized that if this track continues, we will see the closure of VA hospitals. Many VA hospitals are already on the brink; another year of no-growth budgets will close hospitals. Small rural hospitals in New York State and Arizona will be closed. Large urban hospitals, like the ones in Illinois and California, will not be immune and will be shut down. Various estimates exist about what amount VA would need to simply maintain the level of current services. Conservatively, we are talking about an increase of $850 million to cover payroll inflation, increases in the costs of goods, and other increases beyond the control of VA. So despite VA's efforts to mitigate the increasing cost of pharmaceuticals, for example--efforts which have been lauded by others as the model for Medicare to follow--VA must budget for $850 million just to maintain current services. The concurrent budget resolution before us today fully addresses these uncontrollable costs. It does not, however, make allowances for increased growth of any kind. In our Committee Views and Estimates, Chairman Specter and I outlined the costs associated with unanticipated VA spending requirements, as well as those costs linked to unmet needs. I refer my colleagues to Committee on Veterans' Affairs Views and Estimates for a more complete listing of these substantial costs. However, I do want to highlight some of these areas. Caring for veterans with the Hepatitis C virus is certainly one of those unanticipated spending requirements. VA studies now indicate that at least 20 percent of hospitalized veteran-patients test positive for the virus. This is twice the rate reported in the general population. VA anticipates that to fully screen and treat these patients, $625 million will be necessary in FY 2000. A second priority is to provide veterans with access to the same health care services as other Americans. VA cannot now provide emergency care services to all veterans. Many veterans have gone to community emergency rooms believing that VA would reimburse them. Of course, in most cases, VA would not and they were left with substantial medical bills. Providing emergency care and the subsequent hospital admission to veterans would cost the VA $548 million in FY 2000. Third, a funding need which should not be overlooked is long-term care. We know that the percent of veterans over the age of 65 years will grow from 35 percent of the total veteran population to approximately 42 percent of the total population over the next ten years. Does VA have the necessary resources to care for this influx of aging veterans? Under the current financial construct, the answer is a resounding ``no.'' A funding increase of at least $1 billion is required to meet this unmet need. It should come as no surprise to my colleagues that the financial constraints that have been placed upon the VA are also having a negative effect on the health care provided to our veterans. Through our oversight efforts on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, we have documented serious problems with quality which are the result of staffing shortages. The increase of dangerous pressure ulcer sores in VA nursing homes is only one example of deteriorating inpatient care. A recent report issued by the VA Medical Inspector's office clearly states that at the DC Medical Center, ``bedside patient care, such as turning patients at frequent intervals to prevent pressure ulcers, was affected by the shortage of staff.'' These staffing shortages exist at medical centers all across the country. With regard to outpatient treatment, the trend points to a disturbing lack of access. VA is rightly moving more patients into ambulatory care settings; however, the system as it is currently funded cannot handle the increased workload. In some cases, waiting times for routine clinic appointments--like cardiology and gastroenterology--reach 100 days or longer. Mental health services are simply unavailable at 60 percent of VA's outpatient clinics. Finally, while other health care providers and payers are seeing increased per patient costs, the VA must live within forecasts which assume a drop in per patient expenditures. This cannot continue without drastically impacting quality. I think many of my colleagues would also be disturbed to learn that VA's specialized health care services--blind rehabilitation, traumatic brain injury care, post traumatic stress disorder services, spinal cord injury care, and mental health services--have buckled under the strain. We have spent a tremendous amount of time visiting hospitals and looking deeply into these mandated programs. We have seen budgets for VA PTSD services in Ohio and New York cut at the expense of services. We have found VA substance abuse programs in Delaware, Alabama, New Jersey, and Ohio virtually decimated. In my home State of West Virginia, we have four small, rural VA medical centers. And I can tell you that simply covering the cost of current services won't help much. In fact, the continued financial stress of the VA budget will have devastating effects on services and veterans at each of these VA hospitals in my State. In one hospital alone we could be faced with the elimination of audiology and speech pathology, the reduction of dental services, the complete closures of the inpatient surgery, outpatient surgery, and the outpatient mental health programs. I believe that West Virginia veterans, and veterans across the country, deserve quality health care--and I, for one, will not allow these reductions and program closures. And I can assure you, my friends, that if these situations exist in the small VA hospitals in my state of West Virginia, then they exist in other VA hospitals--whether they are small rural VA hospitals or large urban VA hospitals. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on another aspect of the VA budget. On the benefits side, I was very pleased to see the President request and the Budget Committee accept the increase of $49 million in the General Operating Expenses account to provide for an increase of 164 FTE in FY 2000. These new 164 FTE will join FTE shifted over from other duties to provide an additional 440 adjudication FTE. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has experienced an increase in pending compensation and pension workload of close to 50,000 cases per year, over the last two years. This is a reversal of the downward trend from FY 92-96. The age of those cases is also growing, with an average in FY 98 of 168 days to process original compensation claims, resulting in 33 percent of cases pending over six months, up from 26 percent in FY 97. This increase in the backlog is in spite of a small decrease in the number of claims being filed. VBA also has real problems with the quality of their decision making. Their own review (STAR) revealed an error rate of 36 percent. VBA is taking measures to address its quality and workload problems, but they need more resources to deal with some of their biggest challenges, such as: the loss of their most experienced decision makers as they become retirement eligible; the lack of training and the lack of uniformity of that training; the struggle to improve customer service through case management and the reduction of blocked call rates. It is critical that VBA not only improve their quality and timeliness, but also ensure the integrity of the measures of those factors. They must require accountability in the effort or failure to achieve those goals. These are things that VBA has not been particularly motivated or driven to do in the past. I look to VBA to strive for data integrity and accountability and hope that additional staffing resources will aid in these efforts. In conclusion, Mr. President, we must do more to restore quality and access to health care for America's veterans today and those service members who will be veterans tomorrow. federal r&d investment

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, that is correct.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I may have the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, our senior citizens in the United States deserve a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The amendment that I am offering, together with Senator Kennedy, creates a credible reserve fund to accommodate such if a bill which reforms Medicare, in fact, passes. This will not add to the debt. There are no unacceptable conditions. There is no uncertainty about whether the funds will be there. The idea is clear and simple, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join Mr. DeWine in his introduction of the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act. I would like to thank Mr. DeWine for his leadership on behalf of vulnerable children, including our bipartisan work on this legislation. 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. 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. The law was the most sweeping and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade. It promotes safety, stability and permanence for all abused and neglected children and requires timely decision-making in all proceedings to determine whether children can safely return home, or whether they should be moved to permanent, adoptive homes. More specifically, the law requires a State to move to terminate the parental rights of any parent whose child has been in foster care for 15 out of the last 22 months. Throughout the process of developing the Adoption Act we heard about the vital role the Nation's abuse and neglect courts play in achieving the goals of safety and permanence for children. We also heard that these courts were seriously overburdened and challenged by insufficient resources. Now, nearly a year and a half after the passage of the law, courts are struggling to meet the guidelines. Judges and child welfare professionals in my state of West Virginia tell me that the law is helping move children through the system more quickly, that the accelerated timelines are, indeed, essential for the protection of children, and that the effect of this is that the courts are becoming even more overburdened. We are hearing this same type of feedback from other judges and child advocates around the country. These courts--and the judges, lawyers and other court personnel--make some of the most difficult and important decisions made by any members of the judiciary. Adjudications of abuse and neglect, terminations of parental rights, approval of adoptions, and life-changing determinations require the appropriate level of information, thoughtfulness and care. Judges throughout the country, like West Virginia's Chief Justice Margaret Workman, are committed to the fair and efficient administration of justice in these cases. In 1987, just over 2 million children, nationally, were reported or neglected. By 1997, this number had swelled to well over 3 million children. During this period, my own state of West Virginia experienced a 100% increase in child abuse cases. These staggering increases in child abuse have placed an unconscionable burden on these courts. Working within their own communities, judges, attorneys, volunteers from the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs and others have found creative and effective new ways to eliminate their caseload backlogs and move children more efficiently and safely through the court system. In West Virginia, Judge Workman and others have developed a comprehensive plan to increase the accountability and efficient administration of abuse and neglect cases. In Cincinatti, Ohio, Judge Grossman's abuse and neglect courts have implemented state-of-the-art computer tracking systems which help them smooth the legal paths of children in foster care. Even when courts have the dedication and initiative to implement these innovative reforms, they simply cannot do it without sufficient resources. The purpose of the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act is to help remove the burdens on an ever greater number of courts by increasing both their efficiency and their effectiveness. The bill provides much needed resources and allows state and local communities the flexibility to develop their own solutions to administrative problems and caseload backlogs. In January of this year, the General Accounting Office released a report conducted at the request of Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources Chairman Shaw, which concluded that there are three essential ingredients for successful court reform, all of which are incorporated in this Act. There are four ways this bill will help abuse and neglect courts better serve children and families. The bill first provides a program of grants to states and local courts for the implementation of computerized case-tracking systems, similar to the one Judge Grossman created in Ohio. Through the establishment of such systems, courts are able to more easily track how long a child spends in foster care and the status of their cases. When courts have such ``user-friendly'' access to vital case information children truly benefit--they move more quickly through foster care and on to adoptive homes or other permanent placements. This grant program will enable state and local courts to design similar computer systems, to replicate models that have proven successful in other jurisdictions and to receive technical assistance as they implement their new programs. A second important provision of the bill is the grant program that provides State and local courts the resources they need to eliminate the backlog of abuse and neglect cases. Throughout the discussions on the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we heard from dozens of judges and advocates who said that far and away the biggest problem facing their courts was the overwhelming backlog of these cases. Without creative ways to eliminate these backlogs, and with the tightened timeframes we created with the new law, the judges emphasized that children's cases will simply not move through the court system in a timely manner. Each court may have their own effective approach to eliminating such backlogs. For some, hiring additional staff may be necessary. For others, creating a ``Night Court'' or ``Saturday Court'' to hear these cases would work. Still others may need to restructure duties of court personnel. This bill will provide grants to those court projects that are designed to result in the effective and rapid elimination of current backlogs to smooth the way for more efficient courts in the future. The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act also recognizes that judges, attorneys, court personnel, law enforcement representatives, guardians-ad-litem and all others who participate in abuse and neglect proceedings can benefit from continuing education opportunities, improved training and the development of models for effective practice in these settings. The Act, therefore, extends federal reimbursement for training that is currently provided to agency caseworkers to judges, attorneys and key court personnel who must make decision effecting the lives and future of vulnerable children. In addition to this basic, necessary training for court personnel, we hope it will also foster between cooperation between child welfare agencies and court personnel that is imperative to make system work to ensure the health and safety of children. Finally, the bill provides for an expansion of the successful CASA-- Court Appointed Special Advocates--volunteer program. This superb volunteer program has demonstrated its ability to improve outcomes for abused and neglected children. CASA are volunteers specially trained to speak for the best interests of children who have been abused or neglected. There are over 710 CASA programs nationwide, whose volunteers represented nearly 200,000 children last year alone. Recently, the Department of Justice recognized CASA as an ``Exemplary Program''. CASA has been operating in West Virginia since 1991 with programs currently serving children in 13 of our counties. Of course, there is more work to be done so that children in all 55 West Virginia counties, and all under-served areas throughout the country can benefit from the services of these trained and dedicated volunteers. In fact, despite CASA's phenomenal volunteer commitment and national praise by courts, and community leaders, 70% of the children in foster care are still without CASA representation. This bill will begin to address this gap by providing a $5 million grant to expand its programs into under- served areas and to improve its ability to recruit, train and supervise volunteers. When we talk about how to help abused and neglected children in this country, our abuse and neglect courts are too often left out of the discussion. 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 include every system in our efforts to make a difference. The courts play a crucial role and I am confident that the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act will be a valuable step in making our courts stronger, more efficient and more able to effectively address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable children. I ask that my colleagues join us in this important effort. I ask that a fact sheet about the bill be printed in the Record. The material follows: Fact Sheet--Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Act of 1999 A bill to improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation's abuse and neglect courts and the quality and availability of training for judges, attorneys, and volunteers working in such courts, and for other purposes consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. section 1, 3, & 3: title, findings, and definitions The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 1999 Section 4: grants to courts for computer automation and case tracking systems A program to provide competitive state and local grants to abuse and neglect courts to create computerized case tracking systems, and to encourage the replication and implementation of successful systems in other court systems. Grant will be awarded based on eligibility criteria designed to encourage applications from both state and local courts, and a balance of urban and rural courts. Guidelines will also ensure that successful models can be disseminated to other courts. Applicants will need to include evaluation plans as part of the grant request. Grant program is $10 million, with a 25% state matching requirement, but a hardship exemption. section 5: grants to reduce backlogs of abuse and neglect cases A program to provide grants to court systems to reduce pending backlogs of abuse and neglect cases so that courts are able to comply with the time frames established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Competitive grants will be awarded to court systems to reduce backlogs by using night court sessions, hiring additional personnel to manage reduce caseloads, or other innovative strategies. Grant program is $10 million, and courts can use funding for up to 3 years. section 6: training for judges and court personnel A provision to allow judges, attorneys, and court personnel to qualify for training under Title IV-E's existing training provisions, which is a federal-state matching program set at 75%-25%. CBO to score provision. section 7: state standards for agency attorneys States shall develop and encourage by January 1, 2001, basic guidelines for education and training needed to handle abuse and neglect cases within the state and local court systems. section 8: technical assistance for child abuse, neglect and dependency matters A program for competitive grants, administered by HHS in coordination with the Attorney General, to provide technical assistance to state and local courts to carry out their new responsibilities, including efforts to speed the process of adoption of children. Technical assistance will be $5 million for each year, from 2000 to 2004, for a five year total of $25 million. section 9: grants to expand the court-appointed special advocates (casa) program in underserved areas A special grant program to expand the well-respected CASA program to the most needy areas, including the 15 largest urban areas and regional programs for rural areas. A single start up grant of $5 million in 2000.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus in introducing legislation to permanently extend the research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit. This credit provides a major incentive to the private sector to invest in long-range, high-risk research. It has played, and continues to play an important role in fostering private-sector investment in research, driving innovation in our technology-based industries. Economic studies have shown that for each dollar of lost tax revenue, the tax credit stimulates an additional dollar of R&E in the short term and two additional dollars in the long term. These research investments promote technological innovation, enhance job growth, and increase productivity, helping to maintain our nation's quality of life and economic strength and well-being. The R&E tax credit was enacted in 1981, and since then has been temporarily extended nine times, for periods as brief as six months, and has been allowed to lapse at least three times before being renewed retroactively. This is simply not an acceptable situation, especially if we mean to create a business climate which encourages the private sector to fund as much R&E as possible in the U.S., and not to move these activities off shore to countries that offer more substantial tax and financial incentives. This is a particularly critical concern for our high-growth, research-intensive industries, such as those in the computer, telecommunications, and biotechnology sectors. These companies depend on the R&E tax credit to undertake and continue long- term research projects. To ensure the success of such projects it is essential that our support for industry research is both continuous and predictable--our future competitiveness in the world marketplace depends upon it. The federal government is reducing its commitment to research and development. We therefore need to encourage the private sector to expand its investment in this area. By making the R&E tax credit permanent, so that companies can count on its availability from year to year in planning their research investments, we create an environment conducive to promoting investment in R&E. We must not allow a system characterized by the uncertainty of frequent expirations and renewals to continue. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation to make the R&E tax credit permanent.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus in introducing legislation to permanently extend the research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit. This credit provides a major incentive to the private sector to invest in long-range, high-risk research. It has played, and continues to play an important role in fostering private-sector investment in research, driving innovation in our technology-based industries. Economic studies have shown that for each dollar of lost tax revenue, the tax credit stimulates an additional dollar of R&E in the short term and two additional dollars in the long term. These research investments promote technological innovation, enhance job growth, and increase productivity, helping to maintain our nation's quality of life and economic strength and well-being. The R&E tax credit was enacted in 1981, and since then has been temporarily extended nine times, for periods as brief as six months, and has been allowed to lapse at least three times before being renewed retroactively. This is simply not an acceptable situation, especially if we mean to create a business climate which encourages the private sector to fund as much R&E as possible in the U.S., and not to move these activities off shore to countries that offer more substantial tax and financial incentives. This is a particularly critical concern for our high-growth, research-intensive industries, such as those in the computer, telecommunications, and biotechnology sectors. These companies depend on the R&E tax credit to undertake and continue long- term research projects. To ensure the success of such projects it is essential that our support for industry research is both continuous and predictable--our future competitiveness in the world marketplace depends upon it. The federal government is reducing its commitment to research and development. We therefore need to encourage the private sector to expand its investment in this area. By making the R&E tax credit permanent, so that companies can count on its availability from year to year in planning their research investments, we create an environment conducive to promoting investment in R&E. We must not allow a system characterized by the uncertainty of frequent expirations and renewals to continue. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation to make the R&E tax credit permanent.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in the couple of moments remaining before the 4:15 vote, I rise in strong support of the 2-month extension of the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program. The AIP, as it is known, Airport Improvement Program, is absolutely basic to virtually all of our Nation's airports, and in rural States it is particularly important. We were unable to complete our work on this last year for a variety of reasons that I am not going to dwell on, but I do want to emphasize how important it is that we pass this 2-month reauthorization extension. Airports in West Virginia, South Dakota, I would presume Wyoming, and all other places are going to need this money in the planning of runway projects, in terms of resurfacing and repairing runways, infrastructure. And all of that is tremendously important. I think people often tend to underestimate the power of the growth of the aviation industry and the enormous consequences that go along with that. We tend to think that it is a large industry, but we do not really know whether it is growing or not that much. It is one of the most dynamic. It is not up there quite with the Internet in its growth, but it is not that far behind. Americans are flying in absolute record numbers, and the growth in air traffic alone will be just under 4 percent for each of the next 12 years. People are getting on airplanes; 600 million people this year in this country. That is going to go up to 820 million in several years. When you get that kind of growth, you cannot just leave what you have been using in place unchanged and unrenovated. It has to be modern. It has to work. It has to be safe. This year the FAA, and in particular its Airport Improvement Program, is being forced to do this kind of improvement work in a very piecemeal fashion. That is not good. That is not safe. It is not modern and, when you are playing around with the world of aviation, it is very, very unwise. The short-term extension is what we are doing, frankly, because that is the best we can do. It doesn't mean it is the best that we could do; it is the best that we can do. In Congress, sometimes, you have to do that. I am very committed, as I know Chairman McCain is, Senator Hollings, and Senator Gorton, to enacting a full and comprehensive reauthorization of the FAA and airport improvement bill this year. That will come. There will be discussions and controversy, but that will come. We passed a bill out of the Commerce Committee, so we are on our way on that. We have other things we have to look at. We have to look at the modernization of the FAA system itself, our air traffic control system. We happen to have an absolutely superb individual, Mr. President, running the FAA in the person of Jane Garvey--absolutely superb. In working with her, you can just see all kinds of good things happening. But we have to reauthorize so that we can get on to modernizing our air traffic control system, modernizing certain parts of the FAA itself, its institutional structure, and dealing with the whole question of how we allocate aviation dollars. For the moment, what we need is what we have at hand, the pending measure, a 2-month extension of the reauthorization. I hope soon my colleagues will go along with that. I thank my friend, the distinguished Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which elevated the Veterans Administration (previously an independent federal agency) to cabinet- level status. This move capped the gradual evolution of a governmental response to the needs of veterans--beginning with the Plymouth colony's first pension law in 1636, and proceeding through a variety of federal bureaus with shared responsibility for ministering to veterans, before those agencies were unified into one. The creation of the Department of Veterans Affairs has both a real and a symbolic meaning. By raising the agency to cabinet level, the Nation's chief veterans' advocate--the Secretary of Veterans Affairs-- was literally given a seat at the table with all other major executive agencies, and direct access to the President. Symbolically, veterans were accorded ``a voice at the highest level of government,'' in the words of former VA Secretary Jesse Brown. This is as it should be for the second largest agency of the federal government, whose sole mission is to serve those whose sacrifices are the very backbone of the freedoms we all enjoy. As current VA Secretary Togo D. West, Jr., has said, ``Cabinet status has brought many benefits; but is has also brought increased obligations.'' The VA plays a major role nationally in the fields of health care, education, insurance, and housing. As the Nation's budget is divided up, it is important that VA be on a level playing field with other federal departments to effectively safeguard our veterans' interests. I want to take this opportunity to salute the many talented, caring, and dedicated employees of the Department who are at the heart of its operations. I know they labor under a heavy workload, particularly in this era of tightening budgets. We must ensure they have the resources they need to carry out their mission. The Department's 10th anniversary marks a happy milestone, a decade of growth and accomplishments. My warmest congratulations to all who share in this achievement.