Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the ``Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 1999'' with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins. We introduce this legislation to ask Congress to take action that responds directly and humanely to the needs of the elderly and others during some of their most difficult and traumatic times of their lives. The time I refer to is the end-of-life. Our perceptions of illness, end-of-life care, and death are changing in response to advances in medical technology, a shift from treating acute care illnesses to managing chronic care conditions, improvements in palliative care, and a greater respect for patient involvement and autonomy in end-of-life decisions. Patients want to maintain a sense of control of their lives throughout their last days. But studies show that tremendous variation exists in the medical care that Medicare beneficiaries receive in the last few months of their lives. This sort of analysis highlights that patient preferences have little to do with the sort of care patients receive in their final months of life. Where you live determines the sort of medical care you will receive more so than what you might prefer. Our bill addresses this issue by calling for an evaluation of current standards of care and promoting better communication between health care providers and their patients. Unfortunately, while people do worry about end-of-life issues, the truth is that patients, families, and physicians have difficulty talking about them. People have an endless list of reasons for not talking about end-of-life care, for not making decisions to prepare for it. Some are afraid of jinxing themselves by planning their end-of-life care, and many have faith that their families will know the right thing to do when the time comes. Not talking about death does not stop it from occurring. We all know it is a natural, inevitable part of life. But by not talking about end- of-life care, we hamper our ability to learn about the options that are available to relieve suffering, promote personal choice, and obtain greater care and comfort in our final months. End-of-life care is a major--and growing--issue in the future of health care. Unfortunately, in recent years, debates on end-of-life care have focused almost exclusively on the subject of physician- assisted suicide. Mr. President, I have spent considerable time delving into the concerns and dilemmas that face patients, their family members and their physicians when confronted with death or the possibility of dying. In almost all such difficult situations, people are not thinking about physician-assisted suicide. The needs and dilemmas that confront them have much more to do with the kind of care and information they need desperately. The legislation we are introducing today builds on bipartisan legislation enacted in 1990, called the Patient Self-Determination Act. As a result of that bill, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, hospice programs, and HMO's participating in the Medicaid and Medicare programs must provide every adult receiving medical care with written information concerning patient involvement in their own treatment decisions. The health care institutions must also document in the medical record whether the patient has an advance directive. In addition, States were required to write descriptions of their State laws concerning advance directives. The first section of the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to develop appropriate quality measures and models of care for persons with chronic, debilitating illnesses, including the very frail elderly who will comprise an increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries. The second part of our bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to advise Congress on an approach to adopting the provisions of the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act for Medicare beneficiaries. The Uniform Health Care Decisions Act was developed by the Uniform Law Commissioners, a group with representation from all States that has been in existence for over 100 years. The Uniform Health Care Decisions Act includes all the important components of model advance directive legislation. A great deal of legal effort went into its development, with input by all the States and approval by the American Bar Association. Medicare beneficiaries deserve a uniform approach to advance directives, especially since many move from one State to another while in the Medicare Program. The tremendous variation in State laws that currently exists only adds to the confusion of health care professionals and their patients. The third section strengthens the previously enacted Patient Self Determination Act in the following ways: First, it requires that every Medicare beneficiary have the opportunity to discuss health care decision-making issues with an appropriately trained professional, when he or she makes a request. This measure would help make sure that patients and their families have the ability to discuss and address concerns and issues relating to their care, including end-of-life care, with a trained professional. Many health care institutions already have teams of providers to address difficult health care decisions and some even mediate among patients, families, and providers. In smaller institutions, social workers, chaplains, nurses or other trained professionals could be made available for consultation. Second, our bill requires that a person's advance directive be placed in a prominent part of the medical record. Often advance directives cannot even be found in the medical record, making it more difficult for providers to respect patients' wishes. It is essential that an individual's advance directive be readily available and visible to anyone involved in their health care. Third, it will assure that an advance directive valid in one State will be valid in another State. At present, portability of advance directives from State to State is not assured. Such portability can only be guaranteed through Federal legislation. The fourth part of this legislation would encourage the development of models for end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries who do not qualify for the Medicare hospice benefit but still have chronic, debilitating and ultimately fatal illnesses. The tremendous advances in medicine and medical technology over the past 30 to 50 years have resulted in a greatly lengthened life expectancy for Americans, as well as vastly improved functioning and quality of life for the elderly and those with chronic disease. Many of these advances have been made possible by federally financed health care programs, such as the Medicare Program that assures access to high quality health care for all elderly Americans. Medicare has also funded much of the development of technology and a highly skilled physician workforce through support of medical education and academic medical centers. These advances have also created major dilemmas in addressing terminal or potentially terminal disease, as well as a sense of loss of control by many with terminal illness. Mr. President, I am learning more and more about the importance of educating health care providers and the public that chronic, debilitating, terminal disease need not be associated with pain, major discomfort, and loss of control. We can control pain and treat depression, as well as the other causes of suffering during the dying process. We must now apply this knowledge to assure all Americans appropriate end-of-life care. And to make sure that Medicare beneficiaries are able to receive the most effective medicine to control their pain, Medicare's coverage rules would be expanded under our bill to include coverage for self-administered pain medications. Mr. President, I realize that there is still a lot of work to be done. I believe our bill represents a significant step towards improving end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries. By advocating changes within the health care system, research community, and national policy, we reaffirm our commitment to quality patient care. In our legislation, we have set forth a broad framework to respond to many of the concerns facing people at the end-of-life. This legislation embodies the fundamental principle of the Patient Self-Determination Act--to involve patients in their own treatment decisions and to respect and follow their wishes when they are no longer capable of voicing them. To conclude, I am proud to offer this legislation with Senator Collins. We hope consideration of this bill will be an opportunity to take notice of the many constructive steps that can be taken to address the needs of patients and family members grappling with great pain and medical difficulties. During this time when physician assisted suicide obtains so many headlines, we are eager to call on Congress to turn to the alternative ways of providing help and relief to seniors and other Americans who only are interested in such alternatives.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will, twenty years after the Staggers Rail Act, finally deliver the benefits of market competition to the railroad industry and its customers--the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 1999. I am joined in this effort by Senators Dorgan, Burns, Roberts and Conrad, and I thank them for their leadership on this bill for the benefit not only of rail customers but also the future health of the railroads themselves. As many of my colleagues know, there are certain issues that I feel especially strongly about, and all of them are issues that have far- reaching consequences for the State of West Virginia and for our nation. Competition--or the lack thereof--in the railroad industry is one of those issues. In the United States we have a railroad industry that has gone from 63 class I railroads in 1976 to 9 class I railroads today, of which only 5 control the vast majority of rail freight across the country: 2 in the East, 2 in the West, and one down the Mississippi River in the middle of the country. We also have a railroad industry with service problems so expansive and so disruptive that grain and chemical and other manufacturers have lost tens of millions of dollars in recent years, must operate with the vulnerability of future service crises, and have no choice but to constantly be on the lookout for better and more reliable transportation options. And we have a railroad industry that seems continually to assert undue and anti-competitive power over its customers in increasing local monopoly situations. I believe the railroad industry is at a crossroads. It's been nearly twenty years since the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which limited the regulation of the railroad industry by allowing government intervention only where a railroad customer has no effective means of competition. By many measures, the railroads are in far better financial health today, and rail freight transportation is far more safe, stable and efficient than in the dire days of the 1970s. Yet despite these apparent gains, shippers across the nation are broadly discontent. As a significant new report from the General Accounting Office confirms, rail shippers believe that in the aftermath of Staggers--and in direct conflict with the intent of Staggers--we have in fact created a system that very heavily, and with tremendous financial consequences, favors monopoly railroads and shuts shippers out of the regulatory process that is supposed to protect them. We have put in place a system that leaves 70 percent of shippers with poorer rate and service options than they need to run their businesses cost-efficiently, and a system in which nearly 60 percent of shippers fear retaliation from the railroads should they access the rate relief process--a process which costs between $500,000 and $3 million per complaint and can take up to 16 years to get a resolution. The GAO makes crystal clear that the rate relief process for shippers with no competitive rail options is too costly and too time-consuming to be effective. Now some would say that customers always want more and better service, always want lower prices, and always are unhappy--so we should discount their railroad customer concerns and leave the system alone. They would say that the railroads are happy with the status quo, so Staggers must be working well. To my mind, that's a cop-out. The ``shipping community'' is the backbone of our nation--they are our farmers, our auto and chemical manufacturers, our utilities, our coal miners, our forest products workers--and they're not just crying wolf. They have legitimate problems with a skewed system, and they deserve the Congress' full attention and a commitment to deal with increased concentration and a developing pattern of service problems by infusing some degree of real and effective competition into the railroad industry as a whole. The legislation we introduce today is designed to do just that: it will jump-start competition and uphold the common carrier obligation by requiring railroads to quote a rate on any given segment; it will reduce monopoly routing by facilitating terminal access; it will streamline the rate relief process by simplifying the market dominance test; it will restore the integrity of the Surface Transportation Board by eliminating its annual revenue adequacy pronouncements; it will bolster rail access for small farmers by creating a targeted rate relief process; and it will require the railroads to file monthly service performance reports with the Department of Transportation, similar to what we require of the airline industry, so that rail customers have access to the information they need to make good railroad and transportation choices. We intend to offer this legislation as an amendment to the Surface Transportation Board reauthorization legislation later this year, and we especially look forward to working with our colleagues on the Commerce and Agriculture Committees to that end. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will, twenty years after the Staggers Rail Act, finally deliver the benefits of market competition to the railroad industry and its customers--the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 1999. I am joined in this effort by Senators Dorgan, Burns, Roberts and Conrad, and I thank them for their leadership on this bill for the benefit not only of rail customers but also the future health of the railroads themselves. As many of my colleagues know, there are certain issues that I feel especially strongly about, and all of them are issues that have far- reaching consequences for the State of West Virginia and for our nation. Competition--or the lack thereof--in the railroad industry is one of those issues. In the United States we have a railroad industry that has gone from 63 class I railroads in 1976 to 9 class I railroads today, of which only 5 control the vast majority of rail freight across the country: 2 in the East, 2 in the West, and one down the Mississippi River in the middle of the country. We also have a railroad industry with service problems so expansive and so disruptive that grain and chemical and other manufacturers have lost tens of millions of dollars in recent years, must operate with the vulnerability of future service crises, and have no choice but to constantly be on the lookout for better and more reliable transportation options. And we have a railroad industry that seems continually to assert undue and anti-competitive power over its customers in increasing local monopoly situations. I believe the railroad industry is at a crossroads. It's been nearly twenty years since the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which limited the regulation of the railroad industry by allowing government intervention only where a railroad customer has no effective means of competition. By many measures, the railroads are in far better financial health today, and rail freight transportation is far more safe, stable and efficient than in the dire days of the 1970s. Yet despite these apparent gains, shippers across the nation are broadly discontent. As a significant new report from the General Accounting Office confirms, rail shippers believe that in the aftermath of Staggers--and in direct conflict with the intent of Staggers--we have in fact created a system that very heavily, and with tremendous financial consequences, favors monopoly railroads and shuts shippers out of the regulatory process that is supposed to protect them. We have put in place a system that leaves 70 percent of shippers with poorer rate and service options than they need to run their businesses cost-efficiently, and a system in which nearly 60 percent of shippers fear retaliation from the railroads should they access the rate relief process--a process which costs between $500,000 and $3 million per complaint and can take up to 16 years to get a resolution. The GAO makes crystal clear that the rate relief process for shippers with no competitive rail options is too costly and too time-consuming to be effective. Now some would say that customers always want more and better service, always want lower prices, and always are unhappy--so we should discount their railroad customer concerns and leave the system alone. They would say that the railroads are happy with the status quo, so Staggers must be working well. To my mind, that's a cop-out. The ``shipping community'' is the backbone of our nation--they are our farmers, our auto and chemical manufacturers, our utilities, our coal miners, our forest products workers--and they're not just crying wolf. They have legitimate problems with a skewed system, and they deserve the Congress' full attention and a commitment to deal with increased concentration and a developing pattern of service problems by infusing some degree of real and effective competition into the railroad industry as a whole. The legislation we introduce today is designed to do just that: it will jump-start competition and uphold the common carrier obligation by requiring railroads to quote a rate on any given segment; it will reduce monopoly routing by facilitating terminal access; it will streamline the rate relief process by simplifying the market dominance test; it will restore the integrity of the Surface Transportation Board by eliminating its annual revenue adequacy pronouncements; it will bolster rail access for small farmers by creating a targeted rate relief process; and it will require the railroads to file monthly service performance reports with the Department of Transportation, similar to what we require of the airline industry, so that rail customers have access to the information they need to make good railroad and transportation choices. We intend to offer this legislation as an amendment to the Surface Transportation Board reauthorization legislation later this year, and we especially look forward to working with our colleagues on the Commerce and Agriculture Committees to that end. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, I missed the second cloture vote on S. 280, the Education Flexibility Act. I fully intended to be in the chamber for the vote yesterday, and had I been there I would have voted against cloture. While I support the concept of flexibility for education, I also believe that Democrats deserve right to offer education amendments on key priorities such as reducing class-size, providing after-school care, addressing the concern of crumbling schools, and a few other major priorities. Senate Democrats have offered in good faith to accept time agreements and limited debates on our education priorities. It is disappointing that instead of voting on education priorities for American students, teachers, and parents, we are debating procedural motions and closure petitions. Instead of using the time wisely to discuss the major education issues facing our schools, we are facing gridlock on procedure. That is not what the American people sent us to the Senate to do. We are willing to have our debate and cast our votes to reduce class sizes, to fix crumbling schools and to provide after-school care for children that need it to learn and be safe while parents work. If our Democratic amendments prevail, we strengthen the Education Flexibility Act and help schools. If our amendments do not get a majority, then we had the opportunity to debate and we can move forward on the underlying bipartisan legislation. I wish I had been here on Tuesday to participate. Unfortunately, I got trapped in Charleston, West Virginia when the Ronald Reagan National Airport closed at 11 a.m. on March 9, 1999 due to the snow storm in Washington, DC. I had been in Charleston, West Virginia to vote in the mayoral election and to participate in the United Airlines announcement of two Mileage Plus Service Centers in my state which will create 600 new jobs. The new centers will be located in Charleston and Huntington. This is exciting news for my state, and I have been in touch with officials for months about this economic opportunity. At the time, I felt that I could personally vote in the local election, attend this exciting announcement and return in plenty of time for the 2:45 vote on the Senate floor. Due to the snow storm, I missed the vote.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Hollings, I am introducing the Administration's legislative proposal for reauthorizing the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration. I do so at the request of Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater who is eager to have the Senate consider his key initiatives. Among other provisions, the bill includes a number of initiatives that will be beneficial to small communities, modeled in part after S. 379, the Air Service Restoration Act, which I introduced earlier this year, along with Senators Dorgan, Wyden, Harkin, and Bingaman. Several of these provisions also have been incorporated into the FAA reauthorization bill, S. 82, which has been favorably reported by the Commerce Committee. Many of my colleagues share my own commitment to addressing the critical needs and concerns of small communities--the challenges they face in general, and the lack of air service in particular. I am very pleased that the Secretary's bill offers leadership in this area. I must also point out, however, that there are other areas of the Administration's bill that I am reserving judgment on and may not be able to support. The Secretary is aware of my concerns, and I want to work with him and my colleagues on crafting a meaningful legislative package to reform the FAA, strengthen the Airport Improvement Program, enhance aviation competition and address the needs of small communities.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair very much, as I always do, for his uncanny ability to maintain order in the Senate, which is unparalleled. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have an especially strong interest in issues that improve the quality of life for the men and women who now serve and have already served in our Nation's military forces. These brave men and women often face extreme hardships in their service to our country, and later, in their efforts to successfully transition back to civilian life. S. 4, the ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999,'' goes far to address some of these hardships. I believe that a major impetus of S. 4 is to enhance the military's ability to attract and retain the best young men and women to the ranks of America's Armed Forces. But S. 4 also has the collateral effect of improving the lives of servicemembers by providing them with a much- needed pay increase and eliminating the $1,200 contribution that servicemembers must make to the Montgomery GI bill during their first year in service, while their salaries are at their lowest. S. 4 will also improve these servicemembers' transition to civilian life by increasing the basic monthly allowance of the MGIB from $528 to $600. This 12 percent increase follows on the heels of a 20-percent increase last year. The Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance--the ``Transition Commission'' or ``Commission''--recommended such an increase in its report to Congress, last month. The Commission was inspired by our former colleague, Senator Bob Dole, and provides data and recommendations on ways to improve the transitional period. The Commission's report highlights the fact that costs of tuition and fees for public and private educational institutions rose approximately 90 percent from 1980-1995, while the MGIB benefit rates only increased 42 percent from 1985 to 1995. The statistics regarding education and employment for veterans are revealing. Despite almost full enrollment in the program by servicemembers, the number of eligible veterans who take advantage of their MGIB benefits is startlingly low, only 48 percent. Less than 20 percent of those who use the MGIB attend private institutions. And the Transition Commission reports that the unemployment rate for veterans ages 20-24 and 35-39 is higher than their non-veteran counterparts. All these are reasons why I believe that there is more that we can and must do. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently has authority to provide MGIB benefits for post-graduate exam preparatory courses that are required for a particular profession, such as CPA exam or bar review courses. However, it does not have authority to provide for pre- admission preparatory coursework. The amendment I am offering would correct that disparity by allowing veterans to use their MGIB benefits for preparatory courses for entrance examinations required for college and graduate school admission. It would not increase a veteran's basic entitlement or affect eligibility for benefits. By giving veterans the opportunity to better their admission test scores, this amendment would expand the choices available to veterans in their course of higher education. It will also improve access to the top educational institutions for veterans who sometimes were not the best students in high school, but are now better focused and committed to their education. Studies by national consulting companies have shown improvement of over 100 points on the SAT exam and an average improvement of seven points in LSAT scores for students who take exam preparatory courses. At some of the Nation's top schools, scores on entrance exams can count for half of the total application. An article in the April 13, 1998, New Republic stated, ``Thorough, expertly taught preparation can raise a student's ability to cope with, and hence succeed on, a particular exam. In many cases, then, test prep can make the difference between getting into a topflight law school and settling for the second tier.'' That is why it is critical that veterans have access to such courses. However, many of these exam preparatory courses are quite costly. One national provider charges as much as $750 for a two-month, part-time, SAT preparatory course. One educational advocacy group, Fairtest, argues that ``[t]he SAT has always favored students who can afford coaching over those who cannot . . .'' The Transition Commission urged Congress to enact legislation that would fully fund a veteran's education at a college of their choice, so that veterans would not be limited by cost, but only by their own abilities. I believe that we should also assist veterans to enlarge the boundaries of their abilities. This is an investment in America's veterans and in America. Data from the VA shows that during the lifetime of the average WWII veteran, the U.S. Treasury received from two to eight times as much in income taxes as it paid out to the veteran in GI Bill benefits. Just imagine the return on investment from this small change in law. It is simply a matter of common sense. The government provides veterans the opportunity to get a higher education. We should now do what we can to make sure that veterans are getting the best education that they possibly can, by helping them to get into the best school possible. I am proud to offer this amendment to improve our veterans' ability to transition successfully from military to civilian life, and would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee for their support. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my distinguished colleague from the State of Virginia. Amendment No. 21 (Purpose: To provide for the availability of Montgomery GI Bill benefits for preparatory courses for college and graduate school admission exams)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would also ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone's name be included, as well as Senator Kennedy.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I understand there are 5 minutes equally divided. I just came from the Medicare commission. What I would prefer to do, in that I am offering the amendment and I was not here when the chairman gave his comments about it, is to be able to respond to the 5 minutes and therefore be the closing speaker.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There is no reason to do that. Let me make a few comments and maybe the Senator can expedite the business of the Senate and we can go to the vote. I want to bring up one matter, Mr. President. The Senator from West Virginia wishes to bring up one matter which was, in fact, not discussed, but which is of some aggravation to me since it comes from the Congressional Budget Office, and it was addressed to me, but I never got it. I had to go to the Finance Committee staff to get it. In that, they sort of attacked the whole idea of what this was going to cost and all the rest of it. I want to respond to that. This is the cost estimate that Senator Roth was able to get from CBO just 1 hour ago. In fairly strong terms, I want to say that CBO ought to be embarrassed by their efforts, they ought to be ashamed, and I want to tell you why. First, my amendment is not based on a more costly House bill, as the CBO estimate claims. It is based on the DOD subvention bill that Congress enacted and that DOD beneficiaries are already enjoying. So it is already out there. It is also based on a subvention proposal which moved through the Finance Committee, moved through the Senate, and then was killed in conference by presumably the House, dropped in conference by the House. Second, the Congressional Budget Office claims that my amendment does not attempt to limit the erosion of what VA is paying now. That is not true. They cannot be allowed to get away with that. The VA currently carries a substantial burden for caring for medical-eligible veterans. There are substantial provisions in my amendment with Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy and others that they will continue to do so. Every possible safeguard is littered throughout our amendment--for example, to protect the Medicare trust fund; to be selected as a pilot site. That is what I am suggesting in this amendment--only a pilot program, not full scale; just a pilot. If the veterans who have Medicare took it to the VA system right now for health care, they would have to pay out of pocket because they can't get reimbursed under Medicare law. What I am trying to do is let them make the decision if they want to stay where they are or if they want to go to the VA hospital; let them make the decision. It is budget neutral. But to get back, to be selected as a pilot site--I am not talking about the whole program; just a pilot site. VA hospitals must receive certification that they have reliable cost- accounting systems in place to ensure that the VA will know that their current level of effort to provide health care to Medicare-eligible veterans is good. HHS can come in and squash it. We also have exactly the same data-match requirement in my amendment that is in the DOD bill, which is in effect. Maybe the Congressional Budget Office didn't read this. Also, just as a final backup position, in case in some way I am wrong, we have specifically in this amendment that Medicare payments to the VA are capped at $50 million a year. Medicare spent $207 billion a year last year. It will spend $470 billion 10 years from now, if we don't do something in the commission, which I just had to leave. But they are wrong to suggest what they do. That has to go on the Record. I will simply conclude. I also say to the distinguished ranking member and the chairman that this has been through the process. This is a very, very good amendment, which everybody in my 15 years of experience in this body, all the Medicare commissions, all the VA commissions, all the future health commissions that are replete--that have looked at this problem have all suggested we do Medicare subvention to give the veterans the choice of where they want to take their health care. Since they are already getting paid Medicare anyway at a private hospital, if perchance they were to go to a veterans hospital, that would be fine, because it might be geographically or more collegially helpful. Medicare would be paying 5 percent less to that VA hospital than they would be to wherever they are going now. You tell me how we lose on that in the Medicare trust fund. We do nothing but win in terms of veterans. We have been discussing this for years. We discussed it in the past before the chairman of the committee corrected me on the year. He is quite right. I was quite wrong. But it was 2 years ago--not last year. DOD is doing this. I would simply ask that my colleagues vote against the amendment to table, because I think this is a truly significant amendment. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield to me for a moment?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I understand what the distinguished chairman is saying. I would only counter that in the veterans committee we are rather accustomed to having our jurisdiction violated. And although, it has caused me to lose some sleep at night, I tend to make that a little less important as to what is happening to the veteran, in which case I think this is enormous consideration. I further point out that in this DOD bill already the VA and the veterans committee are already substantially compromised. I am not objecting to that, because there are substantial VA things in it. I think this is a powerfully important piece of legislation. I appreciate the Senator's forbearance.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Presiding Officer. Just three comments: No. 1, I think it is really important to remember that the Department of Defense now has Medicare subvention. DOD has Medicare subvention. And they have it on a test basis. The VA is asking for Medicare subvention on a test basis. I ask my colleagues, is it really fair in that this is basically a no-cost item and perhaps a cost savings for the DOD people to have it and for VA not to have it when ultimately this is an enormously important test for the future of veterans' health care policy and where they are going to get it. Second, the point has been made--not on this floor by the people here but referring to others--that this has not gone through the regular process. This has been through the regular process. Senator Jeffords and I introduced this yesterday. And it was introduced last year. It passed through the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee last year, and it went through the reconciliation process last year. This has been through the process. It was dropped in conference. It has been through the process. That needs to be made. Third, that a veteran ought to have the right to decide where he or she wants to get their health care service with their Medicare dollars--and it is a superb way to find out, in fact, what veterans think of VA and/or their present health care service systems. It has to happen. It is good policy. And it is probably a cost saving policy. When the time comes for the vote, I hope that my colleagues will vote ``no'' on the motion to table. We do a lot of talk about supporting veterans, and we do the best we can. But this is a very important basically no-cost health care way to give veterans something they desperately need and deserve. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly last year. Senator Jeffords and I offered it, and, with the full concurrence of the Senate, we passed this amendment which I now offer to this very excellent bill, S. 4. The amendment would authorize a pilot project. One of the criticisms of people from my side of the aisle is we try to do everything full scale. I happen to believe if you have something which you think is a good idea but which is not yet necessarily fully tested, that it is a good idea to test it. Therefore, I think the idea of demonstration sites is a very good idea. My amendment would authorize a pilot project to allow the Veterans' Administration to do something which boards and advisory commissions have been advising for years and which many of us have been supporting for years and which the veterans groups all support. That is to allow the Veterans' Administration to bill Medicare for health care services provided to certain dual beneficiaries--people who qualify for both. Senator Specter and I are together offering, as chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, an amendment. What we basically do in this amendment is authorize a pilot project, as I indicated before, to allow the VA, for the first time, to bill Medicare for health services provided to certain dual beneficiaries. It is known as the VA Medicare subvention amendment or concept. And it has been around for a very long time, as I indicated. Our services organizations have been for it. Virtually every advisory body that has ever taken a look at the Veterans' Administration and its health care has suggested that this has to happen. In the past, many VA hospitals and clinics have been forced to turn away middle-income Medicare-eligible veterans who sought VA care. Last year we made VA open to everybody. On the other hand, people who have Medicare, if they wanted to go to a VA hospital, they would have to pay out-of-pocket costs because Medicare would not pay for it. So Medicare is paying for them at one place but they are not paying for them at a veterans hospital where they might prefer to go, either for professional reasons, medical reasons, geographic reasons, or whatever. So these VA hospitals simply did not have the resources to care for them. Now, due to changes in the law, all enrolled veterans will have access to a uniform, comprehensive benefit package. Yet, resources for veterans' health care have not increased and, in fact, in the budget have remained absolutely flat. That is another subject which I will not get into today. For veterans, approval of this veterans subvention amendment would mean the infusion of new revenue to their health care system--not more cost--because remember that the Medicare which they are now getting is already being paid out. It is being paid out to wherever they are going. But if they choose to go to the VA hospital, it will actually be Medicare, but, as I will explain in a moment, less. It will be Medicare minus about 5 percent. So the cost factor is very favorable. For the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, a VA subvention demonstration project would provide the opportunity to assess the effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and quality of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries in a selected number of sites-- let's say, 8, 9, 10, 6, whatever it might be. Congress would receive the results of this test study, this demonstration project. You do it in various States or parts of States, and then you would know, how do veterans react? Do they want to keep their Medicare at the hospital they are going to already, which is not a VA hospital, or now, if we pass this amendment as was passed in the reconciliation bill last year, will they decide, no, we want to go to the veterans hospital because it is closer to our home, we feel more comfortable there, we are among our colleagues there? And Medicare would pay for it. In either event, Medicare is paying. But if they go to the VA hospital, under our demonstration, Medicare would pay 5 percent less in fact. So Congress would then get the results of this test study, Mr. President. And then, once and for all, it would give us the really necessary data, the experiential data, the medical data, to make rational policy decisions in the future about Medicare and VA's involvement: Are they going to cross fertilize in a useful way or are they not? In my own State of West Virginia, there are four centers of the Veterans' Administration. They spent nearly $5 million caring for middle-income, Medicare-eligible veterans last year. Although this is useful information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the really interesting piece of the story; and that is, the number of these Medicare-eligible veterans who are out there. Remember, there are 27 million of them. And except for about 3.3 million of them, all of them, if they now go to a VA hospital, will have to pay out of pocket; they cannot use Medicare. That is what this amendment is about. So what we want to find out is, how many veterans are there, who are out there now in this test area, who cannot bring their Medicare coverage with them to the VA hospital because it does not do them any good and therefore they have to pay out of pocket? This demonstration project would encourage, hopefully, these eligible veterans who have not previously received care at VA hospitals to be able to make the decision whether or not that is what they want: Do they want to go to Beckley or Martinsburg or Clarksburg or Huntington to get their health care, or do they want to stay with their present health care situation? As in years past, this amendment is designed to be budget neutral. To that end, the Veterans' Administration will be required to maintain its current level of services to Medicare-eligible veterans already being served and would be effectively limited to reimbursement for additional health care provided to entirely new users. Payments from Medicare would be, as I said, at a reduced rate--about 5 percent less than their ordinary rate. Disproportionate share hospital adjustments would be excluded from all of this. Graduate medical education payments would be excluded from this, not a part of it. A large percentage of capital-related costs would be excluded from all of this. So, in effect, the Veterans' Administration would be providing health care to Medicare-eligible veterans at a deeply discounted rate. It is a pretty good deal. It is a pretty good deal. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Veterans' Administration would have the ability to adjust payment rates, and, frankly, they would have the ability to shrink or in fact to terminate the program if they did not like the direction that Medicare costs were going. In the event that all of these safeguards included in the proposed amendment fail, an event which the VA does not anticipate will happen, then Senator Specter and I, specifically in our amendment, propose caps to all Medicare payments to the VA at $50 million for an entire year. A HCFA representative testified before the last Congress and stated that the proposal will provide quality service to certain dual-eligible beneficiaries and ``at the same time, preserve and protect the Medicare Trust Fund for all Americans.'' In 20 minutes I am going to the President's Commission on Medicare. We are very closely looking at all of these kinds of things, although Medicare subvention I do not think is going to be brought up. The VA subvention proposal is a very small effort compared to other recent changes made to the Medicare Program and changes yet to come which may come from the President's Commission. We will see. But it is enormously important for our veterans, Mr. President, and the health care system that they depend upon. Regardless of any policy changes resulting from the President's Commission, an excellent opportunity will remain for VA to test the idea of Medicare subvention. I want to remind my colleagues that during the first session of the 105th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I successfully pushed a similar, precisely similar proposal, virtually similar proposal, through the Senate Finance Committee and the full Senate. Over the last couple of years, I have tried a variety of ways to enact this proposal. We have constantly met resistance. Others who favor the subvention concept have tried to turn this, the narrow concept of Medicare subvention, into some sweeping policy changes for the delivery of VA health care. That is not my goal. My goal is simply to get Medicare subvention without any extraneous amendments and additions. Again, it is a very easy concept. Let's say there are 24 million veterans out there now who are eligible for Medicare, and they are in effect eligible also to go to a VA hospital but in effect they are really not, because if they go to the VA hospital they are going to have to pay for their health care out of pocket. So they do not go. So if you want to find out how veterans feel about the hospital that they are at or the VA hospital and the health care that they are receiving, the stimulus that this would cause to happen for all involved--competition in the marketplace is one way of looking at it-- Medicare subvention makes an enormous amount of sense to the American taxpayer and an enormous amount of sense to veterans. This VA proposal is a way to provide quality health care to veterans who are also eligible for Medicare while at the same time, as I say-- and I am very aware of this because I am very closely connected to it-- protecting the Medicare trust fund. So let's not delay this any longer. The veterans have wanted this a long time, as I say. No group that has studied this has not suggested this as an easy, obvious solution. It is extremely low budget. It is capped and has all kinds of audits built into it. As I say, Medicare is only going to be reimbursing the VA hospitals at 95 percent of what they would ordinarily reimburse for similar services. I think it is an enormously important proposal. And at the proper time I will ask for the yeas and the nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment, which I believe is No. 26, which is at the desk, be taken up for immediate consideration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act. This bill will authorize a pilot project to allow VA to bill Medicare for health care services provided to certain dual beneficiaries. The legislation is known as VA Medicare subvention, which is a concept that has been discussed over the years by those of us in Congress, by veterans service organizations, and by virtually every advisory body that has studied the VA health care system. I join my colleague Senator Jeffords in this initiative. In the past, many VA hospitals and clinics have been forced to turn away middle income, Medicare-eligible veterans who sought VA care. These hospitals simply did not have the resources to care for them. Now, with eligibility reform, all enrolled veterans will have access to a uniform, comprehensive benefit package. Yet, resources for veterans' health care have not increased, and, in fact, have remained flatlined. During the first session of the 105th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I successfully pushed a similar proposal through the Senate Finance Committee and the full Senate. The basic tenets of the current bill remain the same. For veterans, enactment of the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act would mean the infusion of new revenue and, thus, improved access to care. For the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), a VA subvention demonstration project will provide the opportunity to assess the effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and quality of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries in a selected number of sites. Finally, Congress would receive the results of this feasibility study, which, once and for all, would give us the necessary data to make rational policy decisions in the future about Medicare and VA's involvement. The four VA medical centers in my own State of West Virginia spent nearly $5 million caring for Medicare-eligible veterans with middle incomes last year. Although this is telling information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the truly crucial piece of the story--that is, the number of these Medicare-eligible veterans who had been turned away over the years from the very facilities created to serve them because of lack of resources. This demonstration project would encourage these eligible veterans who have not previously received care from the Huntington, Beckley, Martinsburg, and Clarksburg VA Medical Centers to do so, while providing Medicare with cost-savings opportunities. As in years past, the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act is designed to be budget neutral. To that end, the VA would be required to maintain its current level of services to Medicare-eligible veterans already being served, and would be effectively limited to reimbursement for additional care provided to new users. Payments from Medicare would be at a reduced rate and would exclude Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustments, Graduate Medical Education payments, and a large percentage of capital-related costs. In effect, the VA would be providing health care to Medicare-eligible veterans at a deeply discounted rate. The Department of Health and Human Services and VA would have the ability to adjust payment rates, or to shrink or terminate the program if Medicare's costs increase. In the event that these safeguards included in the proposal fail--an event which the VA has declared unlikely--this proposal caps all Medicare payments to the VA at $50 million. A HCFA representative testified before the last Congress and stated that this proposal will provide quality service to certain dual- eligible beneficiaries and, ``at the same time, preserve and protect the Medicare Trust Fund for all Americans.'' I believe this. Although the VA subvention proposal is a small effort compared to the other recent changes made to the Medicare program and the changes yet to come, it is enormously important to our veterans and the health care system they depend upon. And regardless of any policy changes resulting from the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, an excellent opportunity will remain to test the idea of Medicare subvention to VA. Over the last couple of years, we have tried to enact this proposal. Unfortunately, we have continually met resistance. Others who favor the subvention concept have even tried to turn this Medicare-cost saving proposal into a way to make sweeping policy changes about the delivery of VA health care. My goal this session is to overcome this resistance and enact this proposal without any extraneous measures. Truly, this VA/Medicare proposal is a way to provide quality health care to veterans who are also eligible for Medicare, while at the same time preserving and protecting the Medicare Trust Fund. With a signed Memorandum of Agreement between VA and HCFA, VA is ready to move ahead with this demonstration project. Finally, the Department of Defense Medicare Subvention test program--TRICARE Senior Prime--is progressing. Let us not delay VA any longer. Mr. President, veterans deserve the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their care and bring their Medicare coverage with them. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committees on Finance and Veterans' Affairs to make this long sought-after proposal a reality.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act. This bill will authorize a pilot project to allow VA to bill Medicare for health care services provided to certain dual beneficiaries. The legislation is known as VA Medicare subvention, which is a concept that has been discussed over the years by those of us in Congress, by veterans service organizations, and by virtually every advisory body that has studied the VA health care system. I join my colleague Senator Jeffords in this initiative. In the past, many VA hospitals and clinics have been forced to turn away middle income, Medicare-eligible veterans who sought VA care. These hospitals simply did not have the resources to care for them. Now, with eligibility reform, all enrolled veterans will have access to a uniform, comprehensive benefit package. Yet, resources for veterans' health care have not increased, and, in fact, have remained flatlined. During the first session of the 105th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I successfully pushed a similar proposal through the Senate Finance Committee and the full Senate. The basic tenets of the current bill remain the same. For veterans, enactment of the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act would mean the infusion of new revenue and, thus, improved access to care. For the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), a VA subvention demonstration project will provide the opportunity to assess the effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and quality of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries in a selected number of sites. Finally, Congress would receive the results of this feasibility study, which, once and for all, would give us the necessary data to make rational policy decisions in the future about Medicare and VA's involvement. The four VA medical centers in my own State of West Virginia spent nearly $5 million caring for Medicare-eligible veterans with middle incomes last year. Although this is telling information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the truly crucial piece of the story--that is, the number of these Medicare-eligible veterans who had been turned away over the years from the very facilities created to serve them because of lack of resources. This demonstration project would encourage these eligible veterans who have not previously received care from the Huntington, Beckley, Martinsburg, and Clarksburg VA Medical Centers to do so, while providing Medicare with cost-savings opportunities. As in years past, the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act is designed to be budget neutral. To that end, the VA would be required to maintain its current level of services to Medicare-eligible veterans already being served, and would be effectively limited to reimbursement for additional care provided to new users. Payments from Medicare would be at a reduced rate and would exclude Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustments, Graduate Medical Education payments, and a large percentage of capital-related costs. In effect, the VA would be providing health care to Medicare-eligible veterans at a deeply discounted rate. The Department of Health and Human Services and VA would have the ability to adjust payment rates, or to shrink or terminate the program if Medicare's costs increase. In the event that these safeguards included in the proposal fail--an event which the VA has declared unlikely--this proposal caps all Medicare payments to the VA at $50 million. A HCFA representative testified before the last Congress and stated that this proposal will provide quality service to certain dual- eligible beneficiaries and, ``at the same time, preserve and protect the Medicare Trust Fund for all Americans.'' I believe this. Although the VA subvention proposal is a small effort compared to the other recent changes made to the Medicare program and the changes yet to come, it is enormously important to our veterans and the health care system they depend upon. And regardless of any policy changes resulting from the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, an excellent opportunity will remain to test the idea of Medicare subvention to VA. Over the last couple of years, we have tried to enact this proposal. Unfortunately, we have continually met resistance. Others who favor the subvention concept have even tried to turn this Medicare-cost saving proposal into a way to make sweeping policy changes about the delivery of VA health care. My goal this session is to overcome this resistance and enact this proposal without any extraneous measures. Truly, this VA/Medicare proposal is a way to provide quality health care to veterans who are also eligible for Medicare, while at the same time preserving and protecting the Medicare Trust Fund. With a signed Memorandum of Agreement between VA and HCFA, VA is ready to move ahead with this demonstration project. Finally, the Department of Defense Medicare Subvention test program--TRICARE Senior Prime--is progressing. Let us not delay VA any longer. Mr. President, veterans deserve the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their care and bring their Medicare coverage with them. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committees on Finance and Veterans' Affairs to make this long sought-after proposal a reality.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Chief Justice, I rise today to announce, or simply declare, that I will vote not guilty on both articles of impeachment and to urge my colleagues to spare the country the injustice of removing a President who has been twice elected to his office by the American people, and whom they continue to trust to lead them. As a Senator, I have taken my trial oath very, very seriously. For my part, I have listened intently to the presentations, carefully considered the evidence, read everything that I could get my hands on, and thought about those matters carefully. I have read, and reread, the key language of our Constitution, and thought long and hard about the words of our Founding Fathers. In fact, the Constitution, in many ways, came alive for me for the first time. I am humbled by the wisdom and foresight of our founders as I struggle through some of the most profound questions that our democracy can present to us. What is the balance of power between the three branches of Government? How do we measure public trust, and under what circumstances may the Senate exercise its most devastating power--the power to overturn a popular election, and a power, therefore, to remove a President from office? As I confront these questions, I am acutely conscious of the terrible disappointment of our Nation in the personal and public behavior of our President. No one of us would defend his actions. No one of us would say that he is free of serious fault. I have condemned in the strongest possible terms that I know how to do--and I have done it to him directly--the conduct of the President in the Lewinsky matter. And I share the sense of outrage that so many of my constituents from West Virginia have shared with me. When first confronted with this shameful affair, the President deliberately misled his family, his friends, and his staff. He went on national television, and, as far as I am concerned, lied to the American people, and he walked a troubling line between truth and deception in his sworn testimony, all in an effort to keep this scandal out of the humiliating glare of public scrutiny. It is without question a very serious moral matter. But the ultimate power of the U.S. Senate--the power to convict and remove the President for high crimes and misdemeanors--is not a power to pass moral judgment or render moral punishment. It is not even a power to render a judicial conviction or judicial punishment. The power of the Senate is drawn carefully and narrowly by the Constitution of the United States, and it is a power to sit in judgment of a President only as a means of protecting our Nation from great harm. It is a power to remove a President only if he has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state. As U.S. Senators, the Constitution must be our predominant guidepost. It must be the compass we come back to at every point of hesitation or ambiguity or doubt. ``Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors''--these words are powerful, extraordinary, and carefully crafted. We know how very grave treason and bribery are, and we know that they involve a fundamental corruption of public office. But what about high crimes and misdemeanors? The words, ``or other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' on its face means high crimes and high misdemeanors. Borrowing from my good friend, Senator Biden, the word, ``treason,'' was defined in the Constitution itself. The word, ``bribery,'' was not. It was a definition fixed at common law. These are both relatively definite terms. But ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' are indefinite. In this setting, two rules of construction led us to add the word-- Madison and Mason to add the word--``or other,'' in their famous colloquy. The word, ``other,'' is, to me, fascinating, because what it does is essentially return us to the previous clause, which is ``treason and bribery.'' It says that ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' must necessarily be interpreted at the same level of, even though less definite than, ``bribery and treason.'' I think that is clear. I think that is uncontested. As U.S. Senators, the Constitution must be, as I said, our guidepost. We know from the statements of our founders that the phrase was intended in a very careful way--``high crimes and misdemeanors''--to cover only very grave and threatening abuses of Presidential duty and public office. The House managers contend, as did Independent Counsel Ken Starr before them, that in the course of hiding his illicit affair from the world, the President committed perjury, obstruction of justice, and those crimes are so serious that they constitute, by definition, high crimes and misdemeanors, demanding conviction and immediate removal from office, something that has never happened before in the history of our Nation. Most of this body are lawyers. And I think that most would agree--all of us would agree--the questions that must be answered by all of us in this Senate are: First, did the President commit perjury or obstruction of justice as charged by the articles of impeachment? Second, did the President's conduct rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors requiring removal? The answer to both of these questions must be yes in order for the President to be removed from office. If either one of these questions fails, then by definition the Constitution demands that the President be acquitted. On the basis of the case presented over the last several weeks, on the basis of the evidence and the deposition testimony, which I reviewed carefully and in full, and on the basis of the constitutional arguments made by each side, I have concluded unequivocally that the answer to both questions is no, and that the articles of impeachment are not well founded and must be rejected. First and foremost, the House managers have utterly failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed perjury or obstructed justice. Their case is speculative, circumstantial, and contradicted by facts. Admittedly, the burden of proof on the House managers is a very heavy one. We have a presumption in this country of innocence until proven guilty. And we have a presumption that national elections should be upheld. With the fate of a twice-elected President before us in this Senate, I believe that the evidence must be the universally accepted standard of proof that is applied to other criminal cases. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What does that mean, to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt? It means that it is proven to a moral certainty, that the case is clear, that the case is concise. It means that, if there are doubts about the evidence, about the case, then he must be acquitted. In the case presented by the House managers in the managers' version of the Clinton-Lewinsky story, there are many, many reasonable doubts. There are the doubts about the articles themselves, which are ambiguous, and what conduct actually purported to be criminal. There are serious doubts about the perjury charge in which the President openly acknowledges his inappropriate behavior--and his effort to keep it secret from the Nation. There are doubts about the obstruction charges in which the President is accused of a vast conspiratorial scheme to influence witnesses and testimony, even though everyone involved has denied that any such effort occurred. No person, regardless of the stature or position, could, or should be, convicted on evidence that is so ambiguous and so questionable, and to my way of thinking ultimately, weak. Second, and equally important, no matter how deplorable the President's conduct, the charges clearly do not meet the constitutional test for conviction. They simply do not rise to the level of treason, bribery or other high crimes and high misdemeanors, as I would put it. Any other conduct, any other charges, are left to the judgment of the people in casting of their votes, and to the judgment of the courts once the President has left office. Despite the anger that we feel at the President, despite misgivings that we have about his honesty, despite his lies to the American people, we cannot allow emotions--or, I might say, homilies--or partisanship to interfere with our judgment. The Constitution alone puts us in the box from which we dare not venture. On impeachment, our constitutional history is well established. And we in the Senate and across the Nation must abide by it, and abide by it strictly. We may remove a President only for using his great office to commit high crimes against the Nation, against the state, and against the people. There is no question in my mind that the President has not done this. We would be derelict in our duties as Senators if we removed him for anything less. So, given the weakness of the evidence supporting the charges made by the House, given the serious doubt in the Senate that the charges rise to the level of demanding removal from office, how do we find ourselves so far down this dangerous constitutional path? How do we in the Senate find ourselves so close to the brink of removing a President from office without clear and compelling evidence that crimes against the state were committed? How was an independent counsel investigation allowed to turn into a five-year, $50 million crusade against the President? And, why have we not been able to debate the real issues for the future of our nation--strengthening Medicare, reforming Social Security, ending the steel import crisis so West Virginia steelworkers can get their jobs back? It is clear that, in the end, justice will be done, and the Constitution will have protected the nation. I have been dismayed by growing partisanship, but the bottom line is that the President should not be removed from office, and he will not be removed from office. With the greatest respect for each of my colleagues, I must say there is something very wrong with the fact that we have been forced to take this so far, and that the Senate has been rendered impotent for so long. Even in the face of unceasing calls to end this investigation-- from people in every state, from every background and political party-- it has marched on relentlessly. I do not believe that it was ever the will of the House of Representatives or the Senate to pursue these charges against the President to such great and absurd lengths. Yet we have--and in the process, a growing crack in the civil and moral foundation of our government has been revealed. It has become clear to me that a destructive momentum has taken hold, and supplanted the better judgement of some in this Congress and in this country. From the start, there has been a core of political interests that has sought every opportunity and pursued every tactic to attack this Presidency. Every President faces critics who will go to great lengths to fight his policies. But this President has faced unprecedented and unyielding attempts by a small group of determined activists to destroy him, his family, and his work. Unfortunately, these efforts at destruction have been aided by a media inside the beltway that has accepted nearly every rumor--proven or unproven--and splash it across the front page or put it at the top of the evening newscast. Ratings and revenues too often have taken priority over sound and judicious coverage of the news. Far from serving the public interest, this has only fueled the efforts of those who have sought to undermine the reasoned pursuit of truth and justice. As I made clear earlier, none of this diminishes my belief that the President's actions were wrong and indefensible. His personal failures in this matter deserve our condemnation. But his failures do not deserve--and have never deserved--the relentless attempts at political and personal destruction that he has been subject to. His failures do not deserve--and have never deserved-- the triggering of a constitutional process that our Founding Fathers reserved for the most serious crimes against the nation. I do not say this to fan the flames of partisan division. After all, each of us--Republican or Democrat--has and will make mistakes, and each of us must be held accountable for our mistakes. But no member of the Senate, no member of the House, no elected official who serves this country to his or her best ability deserves the sort of insidious venom that has become such a common part of our political discourse. Let me also be clear that I say this not solely in defense of President Clinton--but principally in defense of civility and fairness in our political society. I say this with sincere hope that we can bring to an end the destructive momentum that has gripped this nation and this city. Because, as disturbing as the President's actions are, I am far more concerned by the fanaticism of those who have driven our great nation so close to the precipice. For our system of Democracy to be successful for another two centuries, it must be driven by people's best instincts--not their worst. It must be founded in moral strength and guided by civil discourse. We must, as Minority Leader Gephardt has so eloquently stated, end the politics of personal destruction. I have great hope that we can do this, because as I look around, I see a vast majority of Americans who are tired of good leaders being destroyed by a vindictive minority. I see a majority of Americans who understand clearly that President Clinton should not be removed from office for his deep personal failings. I see a majority of Americans who know better than to believe everything and anything they hear in the media. The American people want us to seek the truth--they, in fact, demand it. But with equal vigor, they demand that we cast fair judgement; and they demand that in seeking the truth, we do not seek to destroy lives and careers. I believe that this Senate is prepared to cast a fair judgment on the President. We have been through a trying time in our nation's history-- a time that not one of us has relished or gained the least bit of satisfaction from. We have all done our best to seek impartial justice, and I am certain that history will judge us well in this pursuit. But history will cast a very severe judgement if we do not go forward with the purpose of healing the wounds that this episode has caused, and restoring the moral and civil foundation of our political society. I leave my colleagues with the wisdom of James Madison in Federalist Paper 62 when he addressed the important role of the Senate in tempering the actions of the House. ``. . . a senate,'' he wrote, ``as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government.'' By dismissing these charges against the President, we will have done our duty to provide that salutary check, and we will have taken the first step in restoring the trust and faith of the people of this nation. It is time to do as the American people have asked: end this sad episode and get back to work.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am taking a major step to force action to help the American steel industry through the current import crisis. Today, I propose that Congress legislate a solution to the problem of illegal steel dumping. I believe that without swift action, the United States' steelworkers will continue to be laid off in near record numbers, and our steelworkers will--not unlike the late 70s and early 80s--permanently lose jobs and that the industry's long term viability will be threatened. The difference between 1998 and what happened a decade or two ago is that this time our steel industry has invested in itself and become the most efficient steel producer in the world. We can take on all comers if we are given a level playing field. Sadly, the strength of our steel industry is now jeopardized, despite its own successful efforts to retool for the next century, because of unfair trade practices and unprecedented levels of imports. I firmly believe the ongoing devastation of our steel industry is unnecessary and a direct result of massive import surges from countries who are seeking to make America the world's importer of last resort. We cannot continue to let our nation's steelworkers bear the brunt of the financial shocks caused by financial mismanagement in Asia or elsewhere in the world. I am joined in introducing this legislation today by my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes, Byrd and Hollings. The bill is the ``Stop Illegal Steel Trade Act of 1999.'' This legislation would place restrictions on steel imports for a period of three years in order to return steel imports to a fairer, 20% share of the United States' market. The bill provides the President with the authority to take the necessary steps to ensure that we return to this pre-crisis level--he can impose quotas, tariff surcharges, negotiate enforceable voluntary export restraint agreements, or choose other means to ensure that steel imports in any given month do not exceed the average of steel imports in the United States for the three years prior to July 1997. The bill would be effective within 60 days of enactment. The Secretary of the Treasury, as the head of the United States' Customs Service, and the Secretary of Commerce are charged with implementing, administering, and enforcing the restraints on steel imports. The Customs Service is explicitly authorized to deny entry into the United States any steel products that exceed the allowable level of imports. Volume will be determined on the basis of tonnage. This bill would apply to the following categories of steel products--semifinished, plates, sheets and strips, wire rods, wire and wire products, rail type products, bars, structural shapes and units, pipes and tubes, iron ore and coke. The bill's provisions will expire after 3 years (beginning 60 days from enactment). Right now, imports comprise roughly 30-35% of all steel sold in the United States. Imports of steel mill products in 1998 are expected to exceed 41 million net tons. Over the last year and a half, steel imports have increased by 47%. That high percentage of imports is unsustainable and without quick action I think they will effectively undermine our steel industry's ability to survive. The industry and its workers have responded to this import surge by filing international trade cases against Japan, Russia, and Brazil. The Department of Commerce found critical circumstances exist with respect to those cases and has expedited their consideration. I commend them for doing so, but the trade case only deals with hot-rolled steel. Import surges have occurred in a wide variety of steel imports and if the hot-rolled problem was adequately addressed I think we would just see a new problem with cold-rolled, or plate. I think Congress must act to deal comprehensively with this problem. It should make sure that one category of imports isn't controlled only to find we have a new problem with a new category of steel products. Under the legislation we are introducing today, Japan would be forced to reduce its imports to 2.2 million tons per year down from the approximately 6.6 million tons of steel they sent to the United States in 1998. Russia, which sent about 5.2 million tons of steel to the United States in 1998, under this bill would be forced to dramatically reduce the amount of steel it ships to the United States. Stemming the import flood from Russia is especially important because the numbers show that the Russians have steadily and significantly increased their exports to the United States over the last several years. Russia exported 1.4 million tons to the United States in 1995, 1.6 million tons in 1996, and 3.3 million tons in 1997. Japan and Russia are two countries which provide a clear illustration of why we need to limit steel imports. Job losses and unfilled order books of steel companies across the country tell us we need to act to stop the flood of imports. But these numbers, which give you an idea as to how much tonnage has increased, make it clear why the United States must guard against the continued import surges in our market from foreign countries seeking to sell to the United States market. Currently, there is no cost for foreign countries to violate our trade laws other than the threat of suit, but our steelworkers, their families and communities are paying a steep price every day for our failure to step in and effectively address the problem. I should note to my colleagues that legislation restricting the level of steel imports was introduced last week in the House of Representatives and it has already garnered over a quarter of its membership as cosponsors. Congressman Visclosky is leading this effort in the House of Representatives and I look forward to working with him and all the House cosponsors who are eager to stand up for steel. Frankly, I have watched and waited for months as this crisis has continued, and as more and more workers have been laid off or placed on short weeks. The number of workers who have been directly affected by this crisis stands at over 10,000 today, but I believe that number could escalate to as many as ten times that figure if we all we continue to do is hope that the crisis will abate on its own. I think it is time to take a leadership role in this crisis and move aggressively to stop the dumping. Under current U.S. law, only the President has the full authority to act immediately to begin the process of an International Trade Commission investigation into this problem of import surges and steel dumping. The ITC's work takes time-- anywhere from 120 to 150 days depending on the complexity of the case. I believe what my steelworkers have told me, our industry doesn't have the luxury of time to wait. That's why I have taken this extraordinary step of suggesting that Congress substitute its judgement for Executive action. Effective Executive action could eliminate the need for this Congressional action, but I cannot sit idly by and watch our steel industry take a beating because of unfair foreign competition. For the record, you all should know that West Virginia has a proud history as one of our nation's foremost steel manufacturers. We are the home of Weirton, Wheeling Pittsburgh, Wheeling Nisshin, and Follansbee Steel. West Virginia and its neighboring states are the birthplace of our modern steel industry--an industry that built an industrialized America and launched our nation's prosperity in the beginning of this great century. They forged the metal that brought us through two world wars, built the American economy's manufacturing base and allowed us to lead the world in the transition to the new economy. That is why, when Weirton Steel has laid off 20% of its workforce and is facing losses that it cannot sustain over time, I cannot just hope that trade cases will take care of part of the problem caused by some of the worst offenders. Wheeling Pittsburgh, Wheeling Nisshin, and Follansbee, are making it through these hard times, but they would be that much more prosperous if they weren't dealing with unfair competition. Today I want to share a quote with my colleagues that I believe will provide my colleagues with some important context for this matter and which underscores why I believe that Congress should act: So, Mr. President, it is an extremely timely occasion that my colleagues and I rise to address the Senate on this issue. It is also timely, Mr. President, because the American steel industry is in the midst of its most serious crisis in the postwar era. Yet, at the same time, the steel industry is fundamental to the American economy. It supplies virtually every sector, from automobiles, construction, railroads, shipbuilding, aerospace, defense, oil and gas, agriculture, industrial machinery and equipment, the appliances, utensils and beverage containers. The fortunes of this industry--good or ill--will have a major impact on the rest of the economy. But the purpose a number of us have in speaking today, Mr. President, is to discuss trade; for it is the major component of the current crisis and may prove to be the factor most difficult to control, inasmuch as it is not totally a domestic issue. Trade is also not a new problem. Steel import restraints have been proposed in one form or another since the 1960's. The trigger price mechanism was in effect from 1978 to 1980 and then again in 1981. Although these programs achieved some short-term results, mostly in terms of improving price levels, none of them provided long-term solutions to the growing problems of global overcapacity and the failure of noncompetitive steel industries to adjust. The latter problem has become more and more a factor in the difficulties of the past several years. While we have continued to practice the ethic of the free market system, the Europeans, quite plainly, have not. Subsidies and dumping have increased as European governments attempt to stay in power and forestall social unrest and unemployment by maintaining steel jobs and production at any cost. Hence the tremendous Government subsidies. In the beginning those were social policy decisions any government is entitled to make for itself. However, it has become apparent in the past few years that maintaining steel production through subsidies require substantial exporting in order to unload the excess supply. The chief victim of that export has been the United States, meaning that the European steel process has been at our expense. And that, Mr. President, is unacceptable. It is all well and good for European Community governments to say their steel industry is in bad shape--which it is; or to argue they need time for adjustment--which they do. But their adjustment plans have consistently been behind schedule thanks to foot-dragging by member nation governments, while exports here have increased. I have no intention of explaining to the steelworker in Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Gary or East Chicago that has to give up his job in order to help his Belgian, French, or Italian colleague to keep his. My responsibility, the responsibility of the Senate, the responsibility of the administration, is to our own people-- to take those actions which will be good for them both in the long term and in the short term. That responsibility does not preclude compromise, and it does not preclude a recognition that steel is a global industry where multilateral solutions may be necessary and appropriate. In fact, I think there is much to be said for an international steel agreement which would include limits on financing new capacity in third countries, guidelines on adjustment, and, if necessary, global import restraints. But progress in that direction must begin with a recognition of where the problems are and whose responsibility it is to begin fixing them. And, as I said in this Chamber last Thursday, the responsibility in this case--both legal and economic--is clear. European steel subsidies violate both U.S. law and international agreements which the European Community member nations have signed. We went through five years of negotiations to produce those agreements. On our part we made significant, substantive, concessions, like the abolition of the American selling price, the wine-gallon-proof-gallon system, and the acceptance of an injury test in subsidy cases. What we seem to have received in return was a lot of promises. Promises to adhere to the discipline of the codes that had been negotiated. Promises to reduce or eliminate subsidies, dumping, and other unfair trade practices. Promises to open up Government procurement. We accepted all those promises. Mr. President, because they contained the hope of greater discipline over unfair trade practices and the hope of more markets for American products. And we accepted them because we believe in a free market system that functions according to the prescribed rules that all parties adhere to. Promoting those rules has been the essence of our trade policy ever since, and I for one believe that should continue to be our policy. But I must say, Mr. President, that in the intervening years since 1979 when we finished negotiating the Tokyo round and enacted the Trade Agreements Act of that year, I have heard a lot from the people in this country injured by the concessions we made in the Tokyo round and very little from anyone who has gained by those agreements. And now, the system we sought to establish at that time faces its most serious test. Simply put, the European Community and its member states do not want to accept the responsibilities they agreed to undertake in 1979. They do not want the rules enforced. They do not want to make the hard economic decisions about their own steel industry that the market requires them to make. They would rather export their unemployment to the United States. They are screaming very loud about our efforts to hold them not only to their word, but to the letter and spirit of international law. Mr. President, despite the screams, despite the alleged serious consequences to trade relations, this is a test we must meet, because both our own industry and the international trading system, one based on the concept of free and fair trade, are at stake. I need say no more about the desperate situation in our steel industry. Those of us with steel facilities in our State see it every time we return home. Not to defend our own industry, particularly when it is consistent with our own law and with our international obligations to do so, is to turn an already serious situation into a major disaster. It is also to abandon the people who elected us. There is an issue here beyond the survival of the American steel industry, Mr. President. That is the survival of a fair and equitable trading system based on mutually acceptable rules of the game. Some people in this country bemoan the revival of the days of the Smoot-Hawley tariff or a return to the ``begger-thy-neighbor'' policies of years ago every time anyone in Congress starts to talk about imports being a problem. Mr. President, no one, including me--most specifically me-- wants to return to that era of depression, but to avoid it, we must understand the reason for it. That reason, in my judgement, was the failure at that time to develop an international trading system based on free market principles, based on the theory of comparative advantage, based on universally accepted rules for participation in that system. Mr. President, this country was a great leader in during and after World War II. In 1943, our leaders of the free world went to Bretton Woods, N.H., and at Bretton Woods, we developed a system with exactly those goals in mind that I just mentioned. At Bretton Woods, we developed that system and we have maintained it ever since, at least up to now. Now we face problems more intractable, a world more complex, and power more diffused than ever before. The old solutions seem to be losing their attractiveness in favor of even older solutions, a return to the mercantilist policies of the past. Mr. President, that is what is at stake in this controversy. Not just our steel industry, and not just the European steel industry, important though they both are. It is the survival of a free world trading system that is the issue, because it cannot survive unless nations are willing to accept their responsibilities and their subsidies. Mr. President, I state this not only to send a message to the European Community, but also to make it clear to others in our own Government that we in Congress hold very strong views on this matter. We in Congress wrote this law. We in Congress made it tough on purpose--precisely to prevent the kind of devastating unfair trade practices and actions that we are experiencing right now in steel. Today it is steel, tomorrow, it may be some other product, it may be some other set of States, it may be some other industries. I say, Mr. President, that it is terribly important that the law continue to work now against those kinds of unfair trade actions. So far the law is working to stop that action. It is absolutely essential that we let it continue to work and not seek some expedient end to the matter that might make for short-term peace at the bargaining table but will produce long-term chaos in the international trading system. It is not ``protectionist'' to take action against such patently unfair practices. In fact, to fail to do so would compromise the principles of free trade which are central to the international trade agreement both we and the Europeans signed. We must send a strong message to our trading partners that the United States expects fair trade in our markets and the vigorous enforcement of our trade laws, and I urge the Secretary of Commerce to hold to that course. That quote is from a statement delivered on the Senate floor on July 26, 1982 by the late Senator John Heinz from the great steel state of Pennsylvania. He made it when he introduced legislation to deal with the problems facing the steel industry during the early 1980s. We've heard a lot about Yogi Beara lately, but I think this statement says ``the more things change, the more they remain the same.'' Our trade dilemma remains the same today. We survived the crises in the late 70s and 80s because our industry, its workers, and their elected representatives acted. The industry needed to streamline and heavily invest in capital improvements. It needed to become leaner, and more efficient. The hard transitions we made as a direct result of action and sacrifice by our steelworkers and their families. Steel technology dramatically improved because the industry invested $50 billion of its own money. Cost of production decreased. The United States' steel industry has the lowest number of man hours per ton of any steel producer in the world. Today, we can make steel better, cheaper, and cleaner than any of our competitors, bar none. But it cost 300,000 steelworkers their jobs. After all that, the one thing we cannot compromise is that we have to have a level playing field on which we can compete. No one can compete when the competition sells below the cost of production and dumps steel in massive amounts onto our market--not even the American steel industry. Short of a handful of trade cases, and tough talk to trading partners who have shown little intention of caring what our stance will be, little has been done to stop the illegal dumping. If after all that agony of transforming itself into the most efficient steel producer in the world we are still trying to tell our industry that they have to take it on the chin against illegal imports--that our unfair trade laws can't protect their ability to compete on the world market--then many who hope to continue to grow our economy through expanded trade will be sorely surprised by the reaction of an American public that does not see the benefits of trade. I want the United States to push to continue to open new markets for our exports. I think that only makes good economic sense. I very much want a fair and free international trading system. But I think we have to insist that everyone has to play by the rules. This bill says that if our trading partners won't play by the rules, then Congress will see to it that our industry isn't unduly disadvantaged--to me, that only seems fair. I urge all my colleagues to join on as cosponsors. We can do this, together. Mr. President--I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.