Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Air Service Restoration Act of 1999, together with my colleagues Senators Dorgan, Wyden, Harkin and Bingaman. In the past several years there has been a growing debate in the Congress and across the nation about the state of our aviation industry. The primary concerns heard again and again are that a decline in air service to small and rural communities and increasing consolidation among airlines and in certain essential markets are hurting consumers and stifling economic development. I know these concerns well from the experience of my home State of West Virginia. By virtually any measure West Virginia is the State that has been hardest hit by air service declines in the twenty years since deregulation. With the notable exception of a few important upgrades and new opportunities in the last year, West Virginia's air service has been far inferior to that provided other communities--the planes are uncomfortable, the prices are high, and the schedules are thin and subject to frequent cancellations. As a result, at a time when the rest of the nation has experienced a 75 percent increase in air traffic, passenger enplanements statewide in West Virginia have declined by nearly 40 percent. The real tragedy of poor air service isn't passenger inconvenience or frustration, however, it's the negative impact on economic development. In today's global marketplace air service has become the single most important mode of transportation. When it comes to economic growth, there is no substitute for good air service, and the lack of quality, affordable service can and does hold us back, stunting economic growth in West Virginia just as it does in small and rural communities across the country. We must act now to stem this tide--to restore and promote air service to under-served areas--or we will never be able to close the gap in a meaningful and sustained way. This legislation is designed not only to build on the successes of airline deregulation but also to take responsibility for its failures. It contains four major provisions: First, the centerpiece of the bill is a five-year $100 million pilot program for up to 40 small and under-served communities, with grants of up to $500,000 to each community for local initiatives to attract and promote service. Second, the Department of Transportation would have the authority to facilitate links between pilot communities and major airports by requiring joint fares and interline agreements between dominant airlines at hub airports and new service providers at under-served airports. Third, to address a key infrastructure concern of small and rural airports, the bill establishes a pilot program allowing communities facing the loss of an air traffic control tower to instead share the cost of funding the tower, on a contract basis, in proportion to the cost-benefit ratio of the tower. Fourth, the bill calls on the Department of Transportation to review airline industry marketing practices--practices which many believe are exacerbating the decline in air service to small communities--and, if necessary, promulgate regulations to curb abuses. The legislation we introduce today should begin to afford small and rural community air service the priority they deserve in our national transportation policy. It is similar to a bill I and my colleagues introduced last year, many provisions of which were adopted by the full Senate in the failed FAA and AIP reauthorization bill of 1998. Variations on some of these provisions have also been included in the 1999 reauthorization bill introduced last month by Senators McCain, Hollings, Gorton and myself. I am hopeful that we will successfully enact this legislation, to protect and restore small community air service, this year. Admittedly, airline deregulation has been a real success story in much of the nation, with lower fares, better service, and more choices for many passengers, as well as tremendous financial success and stability for commercial airlines. But as I have said in the past, airline deregulation has handed out the benefits of air travel unevenly, and we face today an ever-widening gap between the air transportation ``haves'' and ``have-nots''. We in the Congress have a responsibility to foster and maintain a truly national air transportation system, and we fail our small and rural communities when we leave them with the choice between high-cost, poor-quality service or no service at all. This legislation and this year offer a real opportunity to re-double our efforts to connect small and rural communities to our air transportation system in a meaningful way. I commend the efforts of Senators Dorgan, Wyden, Harkin and Bingaman to solve this daunting national problem, and I hope our colleagues will join us in the endeavor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Air Service Restoration Act of 1999, together with my colleagues Senators Dorgan, Wyden, Harkin and Bingaman. In the past several years there has been a growing debate in the Congress and across the nation about the state of our aviation industry. The primary concerns heard again and again are that a decline in air service to small and rural communities and increasing consolidation among airlines and in certain essential markets are hurting consumers and stifling economic development. I know these concerns well from the experience of my home State of West Virginia. By virtually any measure West Virginia is the State that has been hardest hit by air service declines in the twenty years since deregulation. With the notable exception of a few important upgrades and new opportunities in the last year, West Virginia's air service has been far inferior to that provided other communities--the planes are uncomfortable, the prices are high, and the schedules are thin and subject to frequent cancellations. As a result, at a time when the rest of the nation has experienced a 75 percent increase in air traffic, passenger enplanements statewide in West Virginia have declined by nearly 40 percent. The real tragedy of poor air service isn't passenger inconvenience or frustration, however, it's the negative impact on economic development. In today's global marketplace air service has become the single most important mode of transportation. When it comes to economic growth, there is no substitute for good air service, and the lack of quality, affordable service can and does hold us back, stunting economic growth in West Virginia just as it does in small and rural communities across the country. We must act now to stem this tide--to restore and promote air service to under-served areas--or we will never be able to close the gap in a meaningful and sustained way. This legislation is designed not only to build on the successes of airline deregulation but also to take responsibility for its failures. It contains four major provisions: First, the centerpiece of the bill is a five-year $100 million pilot program for up to 40 small and under-served communities, with grants of up to $500,000 to each community for local initiatives to attract and promote service. Second, the Department of Transportation would have the authority to facilitate links between pilot communities and major airports by requiring joint fares and interline agreements between dominant airlines at hub airports and new service providers at under-served airports. Third, to address a key infrastructure concern of small and rural airports, the bill establishes a pilot program allowing communities facing the loss of an air traffic control tower to instead share the cost of funding the tower, on a contract basis, in proportion to the cost-benefit ratio of the tower. Fourth, the bill calls on the Department of Transportation to review airline industry marketing practices--practices which many believe are exacerbating the decline in air service to small communities--and, if necessary, promulgate regulations to curb abuses. The legislation we introduce today should begin to afford small and rural community air service the priority they deserve in our national transportation policy. It is similar to a bill I and my colleagues introduced last year, many provisions of which were adopted by the full Senate in the failed FAA and AIP reauthorization bill of 1998. Variations on some of these provisions have also been included in the 1999 reauthorization bill introduced last month by Senators McCain, Hollings, Gorton and myself. I am hopeful that we will successfully enact this legislation, to protect and restore small community air service, this year. Admittedly, airline deregulation has been a real success story in much of the nation, with lower fares, better service, and more choices for many passengers, as well as tremendous financial success and stability for commercial airlines. But as I have said in the past, airline deregulation has handed out the benefits of air travel unevenly, and we face today an ever-widening gap between the air transportation ``haves'' and ``have-nots''. We in the Congress have a responsibility to foster and maintain a truly national air transportation system, and we fail our small and rural communities when we leave them with the choice between high-cost, poor-quality service or no service at all. This legislation and this year offer a real opportunity to re-double our efforts to connect small and rural communities to our air transportation system in a meaningful way. I commend the efforts of Senators Dorgan, Wyden, Harkin and Bingaman to solve this daunting national problem, and I hope our colleagues will join us in the endeavor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Frist and other distinguished colleagues in introducing the Federal Research Investment Act. This legislation will set a long-term vision for federal funding of research and development programs so that the United States can continue to be the world leader in high-tech industries. One only needs to look as far as the front page of the newspaper to see the effect of high-technology on our country. New drugs are becoming available for fighting cancer; new communication hardware is allowing more people to connect to the internet; and advances in fuel- cell technology are leading to low-emission, high-efficiency alternative fuel vehicles. In fact, seventy percent of all patent applications cite non-profit or federally-funded research as a core component to the innovation being patented. People are living longer, with a higher quality of life, in a better economy due to processes, procedures, and equipment which are based on federally-funded research. What I am afraid of is that many people are not aware that these products do not simply appear out of nowhere. They are the result of a basis of knowledge which has been built up by researchers supported by federal funding. American companies pull from this knowledge base in order to develop the latest high-tech products which you and I read about in the paper and see on our store shelves every day. I view this knowledge base as a bank. The U.S. government puts in modest amounts of funding in the form of support for scientific research. The payback comes from the economic growth which is produced as this knowledge is turned into actual products by American companies. In fact, a large part of the current rosy economic situation is due to our dominant high-tech industries. High-tech companies are currently responsible for one-third of our economic output and half of our economic growth. However, if we are to continue at this pace, we need to support the fundamental, pre-competitive research critical to these industries, at the necessary levels, and in a stable manner from year to year, and we need to do so now. In the last session of the 105th Congress Senators Frist, Bingaman, Domenici, Gramm, Breaux, Burns, and I introduced S. 2217, the Federal Research Investment Act, and previous to that Senators Domenici and Bingaman, introduced S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act. Both S. 1305 and S. 2217 have been extremely successful in galvanizing members of the scientific and engineering community to pull together and work constructively towards a common ideal. In addition, it has brought together the co-sponsors of these bills and moved them forward as a group with their original idea. S. 2217 passed without dissent in the Senate at the end of last session, and gained 36 co-sponsors--18 Democrats and 18 Republicans. Our aim, in re-introducing the Federal Research Investment Act, is to now take the next step in this process, bringing to fruition the goals of our bill. The Federal Research Investment Act is a long-term vision for federal R&D funding. It creates legislative language which stresses the importance of R&D funding to the strength of our nation's innovation infrastructure. It also sets out guidelines for Congress to use in prioritizing funding decisions. Just three years ago, federal science funding was in a serious decline and fewer than half a dozen members of Congress gave it any attention, but now as a significant consequence of both S. 1305 and S. 2217 the trend, at least in the last two years, seems to have reversed and a universal spirit of cooperation for strong R&D funding is developing on all fronts. In the last two years the science budget has increased above inflation. In particular, for Fiscal Year 1999, an unprecedented 10% increase in civilian R&D funding was appropriated. Yet, we appear to be in a crisis situation once again due to unexpected budgetary constraints resulting from last year's appropriations. Thus, we need to continue our fight to implement the R&D budgetary guidelines in our bill. This uncertainty in the level of R&D funding from year to year can be as detrimental to the health of the scientific enterprise as a lack of adequate funding levels. It will be a sad day for our nation, and its future economic prosperity, if we manage to lose what progress we have made to date. Based on a careful review and analysis of our past history, our bill authorizes an annual funding increase of 5.5%, starting in the year 2000 and going through 2010, for federally-funded, civilian, R&D programs. This would increase federal R&D spending to 2.6% of total, overall budget by 2010, a near doubling in R&D funding from 1998 levels. In order to make sure that these increases are fully incorporated into budgetary process we request that the President include these increases in his annual budget request to Congress. We are currently in an economic upturn. This continues to be a perfect time to increase funding for R&D so that we can continue this growth. I have faith that, as long as the economic situation allows it, my thoughtful and wise colleagues will support increasing R&D funding to the levels that we have laid out in this bill. However, I am also a realist. I realize that the economy may not always remain as strong as it is right now. That is why we have introduced a funding firewall. Without this firewall I am seriously concerned that history will repeat itself. In the past, R&D funding is one of the first things that has been cut during times of crisis. This is the wrong approach. I believe that cutting R&D funding levels below a bare minimum level causes serious, long-term harm to the R&D infrastructure in the United States. Our firewall would not allow this to happen. It is not meant as a goal, it is meant as a bare minimum which should only be implemented in the leanest of years. Many, if not most, recent `quantum leaps' in knowledge have occurred at the interface between traditional disciplines of research. Therefore, we legislatively mandate that this funding increase must be macroscopically balanced, so that there is not preferential growth of one agency, program or field of study at the expense of other, equally qualified and deserving agencies. One of the original reasons that I started to get involved with technology issues such as EPSCoR and EPSCoT, was because I believe that technology should be shared by everyone, not just those in Silicon Valley or the Route 128 corridor in Boston. Therefore, this bill should not be seen as a means of promoting elitist science but as a mechanism for allowing for diversity in our national innovation infrastructure. Finally, so that we are able to assure other Members of Congress and the general public that this money authorized by this Act would be well spent, we have included accountability measures which will assure that there is no waste of federal money on out-dated, or ill-conceived projects. This bill puts into place a system of accountability for each affected agency. Our bill institutes a study by the National Academy of Sciences to determine how to effectively measure the progress of R&D based agencies and then have them institute performance measures based on these metrics. This will allow increases in funding without concerns over wasteful spending being generated. In conclusion, with the help of Senators Gramm, Lieberman, Domenici, and Bingaman, Senator Frist and I have put together a long-term vision for federal R&D funding which we hope will instigate real increases in federal funding for research and development. Federally-funded research has been, and will continue to be, a driving power behind our economic success. If we are to maintain and enhance our current economic prosperity we must make sure that research programs are funded at adequate levels in a consistent long-term manner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Frist and other distinguished colleagues in introducing the Federal Research Investment Act. This legislation will set a long-term vision for federal funding of research and development programs so that the United States can continue to be the world leader in high-tech industries. One only needs to look as far as the front page of the newspaper to see the effect of high-technology on our country. New drugs are becoming available for fighting cancer; new communication hardware is allowing more people to connect to the internet; and advances in fuel- cell technology are leading to low-emission, high-efficiency alternative fuel vehicles. In fact, seventy percent of all patent applications cite non-profit or federally-funded research as a core component to the innovation being patented. People are living longer, with a higher quality of life, in a better economy due to processes, procedures, and equipment which are based on federally-funded research. What I am afraid of is that many people are not aware that these products do not simply appear out of nowhere. They are the result of a basis of knowledge which has been built up by researchers supported by federal funding. American companies pull from this knowledge base in order to develop the latest high-tech products which you and I read about in the paper and see on our store shelves every day. I view this knowledge base as a bank. The U.S. government puts in modest amounts of funding in the form of support for scientific research. The payback comes from the economic growth which is produced as this knowledge is turned into actual products by American companies. In fact, a large part of the current rosy economic situation is due to our dominant high-tech industries. High-tech companies are currently responsible for one-third of our economic output and half of our economic growth. However, if we are to continue at this pace, we need to support the fundamental, pre-competitive research critical to these industries, at the necessary levels, and in a stable manner from year to year, and we need to do so now. In the last session of the 105th Congress Senators Frist, Bingaman, Domenici, Gramm, Breaux, Burns, and I introduced S. 2217, the Federal Research Investment Act, and previous to that Senators Domenici and Bingaman, introduced S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act. Both S. 1305 and S. 2217 have been extremely successful in galvanizing members of the scientific and engineering community to pull together and work constructively towards a common ideal. In addition, it has brought together the co-sponsors of these bills and moved them forward as a group with their original idea. S. 2217 passed without dissent in the Senate at the end of last session, and gained 36 co-sponsors--18 Democrats and 18 Republicans. Our aim, in re-introducing the Federal Research Investment Act, is to now take the next step in this process, bringing to fruition the goals of our bill. The Federal Research Investment Act is a long-term vision for federal R&D funding. It creates legislative language which stresses the importance of R&D funding to the strength of our nation's innovation infrastructure. It also sets out guidelines for Congress to use in prioritizing funding decisions. Just three years ago, federal science funding was in a serious decline and fewer than half a dozen members of Congress gave it any attention, but now as a significant consequence of both S. 1305 and S. 2217 the trend, at least in the last two years, seems to have reversed and a universal spirit of cooperation for strong R&D funding is developing on all fronts. In the last two years the science budget has increased above inflation. In particular, for Fiscal Year 1999, an unprecedented 10% increase in civilian R&D funding was appropriated. Yet, we appear to be in a crisis situation once again due to unexpected budgetary constraints resulting from last year's appropriations. Thus, we need to continue our fight to implement the R&D budgetary guidelines in our bill. This uncertainty in the level of R&D funding from year to year can be as detrimental to the health of the scientific enterprise as a lack of adequate funding levels. It will be a sad day for our nation, and its future economic prosperity, if we manage to lose what progress we have made to date. Based on a careful review and analysis of our past history, our bill authorizes an annual funding increase of 5.5%, starting in the year 2000 and going through 2010, for federally-funded, civilian, R&D programs. This would increase federal R&D spending to 2.6% of total, overall budget by 2010, a near doubling in R&D funding from 1998 levels. In order to make sure that these increases are fully incorporated into budgetary process we request that the President include these increases in his annual budget request to Congress. We are currently in an economic upturn. This continues to be a perfect time to increase funding for R&D so that we can continue this growth. I have faith that, as long as the economic situation allows it, my thoughtful and wise colleagues will support increasing R&D funding to the levels that we have laid out in this bill. However, I am also a realist. I realize that the economy may not always remain as strong as it is right now. That is why we have introduced a funding firewall. Without this firewall I am seriously concerned that history will repeat itself. In the past, R&D funding is one of the first things that has been cut during times of crisis. This is the wrong approach. I believe that cutting R&D funding levels below a bare minimum level causes serious, long-term harm to the R&D infrastructure in the United States. Our firewall would not allow this to happen. It is not meant as a goal, it is meant as a bare minimum which should only be implemented in the leanest of years. Many, if not most, recent `quantum leaps' in knowledge have occurred at the interface between traditional disciplines of research. Therefore, we legislatively mandate that this funding increase must be macroscopically balanced, so that there is not preferential growth of one agency, program or field of study at the expense of other, equally qualified and deserving agencies. One of the original reasons that I started to get involved with technology issues such as EPSCoR and EPSCoT, was because I believe that technology should be shared by everyone, not just those in Silicon Valley or the Route 128 corridor in Boston. Therefore, this bill should not be seen as a means of promoting elitist science but as a mechanism for allowing for diversity in our national innovation infrastructure. Finally, so that we are able to assure other Members of Congress and the general public that this money authorized by this Act would be well spent, we have included accountability measures which will assure that there is no waste of federal money on out-dated, or ill-conceived projects. This bill puts into place a system of accountability for each affected agency. Our bill institutes a study by the National Academy of Sciences to determine how to effectively measure the progress of R&D based agencies and then have them institute performance measures based on these metrics. This will allow increases in funding without concerns over wasteful spending being generated. In conclusion, with the help of Senators Gramm, Lieberman, Domenici, and Bingaman, Senator Frist and I have put together a long-term vision for federal R&D funding which we hope will instigate real increases in federal funding for research and development. Federally-funded research has been, and will continue to be, a driving power behind our economic success. If we are to maintain and enhance our current economic prosperity we must make sure that research programs are funded at adequate levels in a consistent long-term manner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will help the President deal with the flood of dirt-cheap steel imports from our trading partners. I introduce this legislation with the full knowledge that there are many actions required to respond to the steel import crisis that is corroding the United States' steel industry's ability to compete. This crisis is hurting our steelworkers and our companies. It must be dealt with as a top priority in the 106th Congress. The bill I am introducing today deals with two important aspects of this crisis: monitoring imports and remedying injury to domestic industries under our trade laws. The bill has two main parts. The first section reforms Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to conform its standard of injury to that of our world trading partners. This reform will affect all products which are covered by Section 201 by revising the U.S. standard for injury to the standard used in the World Trade Organization's Safeguards Code. The second section of the bill will help us better track steel imports by requiring an import permit for steel and establishing a monitoring program. This will allow us to track steel imports, as many of our trading partners currently have the ability to do. It will provide import data in a more timely fashion and help us better anticipate future import problems. I am proposing the ``Trade Fairness Act of 1999'' along with my colleague and Senate Steel Caucus co-chair, Senator Specter, in order to strengthen the President's ability to help domestic industries receive the relief they need and deserve when imports are a cause of serious injury, and so we know what when significant amounts of foreign steel are entering our country. Import relief is what the U.S. steel industry desperately needs right now. This bill contains provisions that will help us more effectively deal with future import problems, but it will not provide the immediate assistance that our steel industry needs to survive this crisis. Within a matter of days, we will have the steel import data from the end of last quarter. I fully expect it will show that the United States is still enduring an unprecedented level of steel imports. I also strongly believe that most of those imports continue to be sold at historically low prices; prices which are below the cost of actual production in many instances. American steel manufacturers cannot fight this unfair trade practice without help. West Virginia and other major steel makers deserve help now, before it is too late. This measure addresses some of the structural reforms needed to deal with import surges in the future, but, again, I have to admit it won't do what's needed to stop the flood of steel imports. I firmly believe that a 201 action is what is required, now, to stop the imports. I have strenuously made that case to the Administration, and will continue to make that case to the President and his advisors, as well as my colleagues on the Finance Committee, and in the Congress. I am also likely to submit other legislative remedies to deal with the emergency which faces the United States' steel industry and its workers. This legislation I am introducing today includes reforms we need to improve the way U.S. trade laws function in a crisis. The import licensing will help the steel industry specifically, but the Section 201 reforms will ultimately benefit all products where foreign competitors have dumped their product on the American market. I intend to push these provisions during the Finance Committee's consideration of trade legislation in the 106th Congress. The 201 reforms will improve our ability to remedy harm against domestic industries and at the same time remain consistent with rules we expect our world trading partners to live by. We can be tough and fair on trade at the same time and the bill I am introducing today proves it. In my state of West Virginia, our two largest steel manufacturers, Weirton Steel and Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, have been hit hard by the steel import crisis. Weirton alone has laid off over 900 workers and there is the possibility that their fourth quarter earnings and order book could force these two companies to consider additional lay offs in the near future. Wheeling-Pittsburgh is also worried about the effect of the crisis on their bottom-line. Laying off workers is never easy, but this crisis is forcing hard decisions. West Virginia steel makers are producing world-class products as efficiently as any foreign competitor, but when foreign competitors are blatantly dumping their product at prices which are sometimes actually below the cost of production, it cuts the legs out from under American companies. Such unfair practices are absolutely unacceptable. U.S. industry--the U.S. steel industry and other industries--deserve just remedies when competitors unfairly dump their product on the U.S. market. We want to give the President the policy tools he needs to deal with unfair import competition. Import data tells the story of a worsening steel crisis--the first two quarters of 1998 have shown a 27% increase in imports of hot-rolled steel. Japanese imports increased by an astounding 114% in that same time frame. Steel imports from South Korea increased 90%. There is no end in sight. Russia and Brazil are other prime offenders. A trade case is pending against the imports of hot-rolled steel from Russia, Brazil and Japan. The Commerce Department made a determination of critical circumstances in regard to that case. More cases are expected. The real tragedy of this crisis is that the U.S. steel industry has spent over a decade reinventing itself, adjusting and modernizing, in order to become a top-notch competitor as we approach the 21st century. This industry is a true success story--productivity has shot up and we can beat any producer in the world on price and quality when provided with a level playing field. For decades, I have worked with leaders in the steel industry at Weirton Steel, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Wheeling- Nisshin, and others. I have watched and encourage these steelmakers and unions working together to make the tough, necessary decision to modernize. Unfortunately, just as United States steel manufacturers are realizing the gains of such investments, they are facing a flood of imported steel being sold at rock bottom prices--again, below the cost of production in some instances. We cannot compete against that kind of unfair competition. The legislation Senator Specter and I are introducing today will both allow us to more efficiently track steel imports and give the President an improved tool to ensure that when there is serious injury as a result of imports, the U.S. can respond. Specifically, the legislation I introduce today with Senator Specter will reform Section 201 of our trade law and require import licensing for steel which is classified under Chapters 72 or 73 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Let me lay each of the bill's two major provisions in a little more detail. First, Section 201, which this legislation will strengthen, permits the President to grant domestic industries import relief in circumstances where imports are the substantial cause of serious injury. Under current law, domestic industries must show that increased imports are the ``substantial cause'' of serious injury--which means a cause that is important and not less than any other cause. This imposes an unfair, higher burden of proof on domestic industries than is required to prove injury under World Trade Organization standards. The Safeguards Code of the World Trade Organization was established to make sure that fair trade did not mean countries had to put up with unfair practices. The WTO standard requires only that there be a causal link between increased imports and serious injury. I believe that U.S. law should not impose a tougher standard for American companies of harm than the WTO uses for the international community. Applying the WTO standard is responsible and reasonable. In this bill, we propose to establish the same standard for the U.S. as is used by the WTO. Free trade must mean fair trade. In addition, in this bill we also intend to conform U.S. law to the standard in the WTO Safeguards Code when considering the overall test for judging when there has been serious harm to a domestic industry. We clarify that the International Trade Commission (ITC) should review the overall condition of the domestic industry in determining the degree of that injury by making it clear that it is the effect of the imports on the overall state of the industry that counts, not solely the effect on any one of the particular criteria used in the evaluation. Many of our trade partners, like Canada and Mexico, have more modern systems to track imports than we do in the United States. This legislation addresses that problem and provides us with better and more timely data on imports. Explicitly, this legislation requires that within 30 days of the enactment of this legislation, that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, will establish an import permit and monitoring program which applies to any one importing a product under chapter 72 or 73 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that is initially entered into a bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone. Steel import permits will be required before the merchandise is entered into the customs territory of the United States. These permits will be valid for 30 days. The data collected from this permit program will be compiled in aggregate form and be made publicly available on a weekly basis and posted on an Internet site. The Administration already proposed releasing import data earlier and publicly as part of its January, 1999, report to Congress on steel. This legislation will complement that proposal. The Secretary of Commerce will be able to impose reasonable fees to defray the costs of this program. It is our sincere hope that Congress will enact this legislation as part of trade legislation that moves in the 106th Congress. Passage of this legislation will send the message that the United States will fight for the right of its industries to compete on a level playing field in world trade. If imports flood our markets, we will act to protect American industries against the consequences. I am someone who adamantly believes the promotion of free trade is essential to our country's continued economic growth. If we are to continue to expand the trade base of our economy we need U.S. industry to know that we will keep it fair. American industry and American workers can deal with fair trade, but they shouldn't be asked to sit still for unfair trade practices that hurt workers and their families, while robbing the profit-margins of U.S. companies. I intend to work in the 106th Congress, with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and those in the Administration responsible for trade policy, to give the President better, more effective tools to ensure that our country can insist trade be free and fair. Our steel industry, indeed all U.S. industries, deserve no less. But this legislation alone will not remedy the steel crisis our country faces. Rest assured, I will continue to carefully review my legislative options and take other appropriate actions in the near future to help fight this important crisis.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator McCain, Senator Hollings and others in introducing legislation to authorize spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through fiscal year 2000. As we embark on this new session of a new Congress, it is critical that we begin immediately the process of putting together a comprehensive aviation bill--to ensure that the FAA is fully authorized, to facilitate continued critical airport development, and to address a number of broad aviation policy matters. I want to make clear at the outset that I join as a cosponsor of this bill as a starting point. Senator McCain plans to pursue vigorously a comprehensive bill, and that will be our first order of business, but haste may not allow us to do all that we want and have a responsibility to do, particularly if the House continues to pursue its own clean, 6- month reauthorization bill, and then a long-term bill. I am hopeful that we will accomplish our objectives expeditiously, but I see any number of hurdles in our path and believe that in the Senate, too, we may need to pursue a short-term extension and then give this legislation the consideration it is due. As my colleagues know, I have the honor in this Congress of following in the great foot steps of Wendell Ford, who served this body for 24 years, and served as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee for as long as any of us can remember. In fact, the bill being introduced today, essentially the same bill that passed the Senate last year, honored the Senator by naming it the Wendell H. Ford Air Transportation Safety Improvement Act, at the unanimously-endorsed suggestion of Senator Ted Stevens. In stepping into Senator Ford's shoes, I aim to ensure not only that the aviation needs of West Virginia and other rural states and communities are secured, but also that the needs of the nation and of my colleagues' constituents are addressed. Certainly there will be competing interests and sometimes conflicts, but we all must and share in the fundamental responsibility to maintain safety in the skies, to support fully the needs of the aviation system and modernization effort, to ensure that the industry provides the service our constituents demand and deserve, to facilitate stable funding sources for our airports, and to be vigilant in opening up markets for our air carriers worldwide. These are all daunting tasks but we are up to the challenge, and I look forward to working with the Chairman, and members of the Committee in crafting an aviation bill that we can all take pride in. The bill before you is a place to begin our discussion. Last year, the Congress was able to pass only a six-month extension of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), effectively freezing half of the $1.95 billion allocated to the program. Absent a reauthorization, our airports and our constituents may lose the ability to upgrade a runway or start an expansion project that facilitates new business opportunities for our communities--all because we're having trouble figuring out a way out of the box we are in. Senator McCain's resolve notwithstanding, our House counterparts have already favorably reported a clean, 6-month extension of the program. Even if we can reach agreement about our immediate needs, I do not want the Senate to pass a bill only to see the program lapse because our House colleagues refuse to consider anything other than a clean, short-term extension, before the March deadline, saving the major issues and a long-term bill for later in the year. The blame-game that would ensue would only harm the citizens who sent us here. We can get more slots, we can work to improve service to small communities, we can make sure the FAA has the ability to move forward with its modernization plans, but it will not happen overnight. Let me give you but one example. Senator Gorton last year offered an amendment in the Commerce Committee that would have raised the passenger facility charge (PFC) from $3 per enplanement to $4. I supported Senator Gorton. I expect that he will again try to raise the PFC, and the Administration has indicated that they will propose an increase as well. This is a tough issue, pitting the carriers against the airports, and letting some claim that it is a new tax. However, another dollar could get us a lot more capacity at our nation's airports. In front of us are the daunting future needs of the aviation system. All of the projections show that we will have 300 million more passengers by the year 2009. As much as I would like them all to flow through West Virginia, I know that all of our airports will face constraints--money is tight, and a PFC increase will help. How the PEC is structured, the types of controls possible, and what they are used for, are all difficult choices, and I want to work with the airports and the carriers to try to carriers to try to resolve this issue in a balanced way. The air traffic control system also needs to be revamped. It is a complex system and each new system requires changes in the cockpit, new procedures and new avionics--change, therefore, that cannot happen overnight. GAO recently reported that the FAA is making progress, changing the way it does business and working with the industry to figure out what is needed. GAO also reports that the FAA will need $17 billion to complete the modernization effort. Without that degree of funding, we may not be able to get all we want--new computers, new ways to move aircraft, and more capacity to make the system safer. According to the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, unless we address this problem, we are facing gridlock in the skies. So, funding of the FAA is a critical, critical matter. I know Congressman Shuster wants to take the Airport and Airways Trust Fund off budget, but what I found last year is that the offset for taking trust funds can be devastating to totally unrelated programs. Right now, I know that the FAA is supported not only by the Trust Fund revenues, but also a large contribution from the general fund, which should be continued in recognition of the important public benefits provided by aviation. Finally, I know that the administration will be submitting its legislative proposal to us within the next few weeks. We need to take a careful look at those recommendations, and sit down with Secretary Slater and Administrator Garvey to develop a blue print for the future. We have an opportunity this year to make some real changes. I do not want it to pass us by.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am enormously pleased that the Senate is considering this comprehensive bill which would make valuable changes to a wide range of veterans' benefits and services. This legislation represents the culmination of considerable oversight and investigation, hearings and markups in both the House and Senate, and the normal flow of legislation and compromise which is the basis of reaching consensus. The bill does not represent all that I or others involved would have wanted; but it does represent the best that we could do under the rules and budget constraints within which we operate. Although the bill we consider today addresses many initiatives--from assisting Persian Gulf War veterans to providing educational assistance to health care professionals--I will mention only some of the issues which are of particular interest to me.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today to share my warmest congratulations to the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence Central Service Office on its 10th Anniversary celebration. Through its around the clock support, educational outreach and a network of safe shelters, the WVCADV Central Service Office providers mothers and children with the information and resources necessary to produce ``Peacemaking Partnerships''--statewide cooperation to eliminate domestic violence. Offering support on a 24-hour basis with an exceptionally educated full time staff, corps of volunteers and Americorps workers, the WVCADV has been able to help prevent, and in many cases help heal the scar of domestic violence in the state of West Virginia. Such commitment is essential in the campaign to stop domestic violence which has grown in staggering proportions. Statistics reflect that a woman is assaulted by her husband or intimate partner every fifteen seconds in the United States. Without effective mechanisms for intervention, this number will only continue to grow. The WVCADV plays a vital role in encouraging victims of domestic violence to come forward and tell their stories. Through community education, seminars and conferences designed to broaden public awareness of warning signs and other violence-related issues, the WVCADV is changing the past protocol of `looking the other way' into empowerment, response and prevention. Through the myriad of support services WVCADV has made available, the network of thirteen safe shelters in West Virginia provide a place for women and children as they begin the process of leaving violence-filled homes. With nearly seventy-five percent of fatal attacks occurring after separation, such safe shelters are essential to protect women and children from their abusers. These shelters not only provide a secure, stable environments with educational programs, but also offer direct contacts with legal advocates and law enforcement to ensure the safety of these women and children after they leave. Furthermore, through their collaboration with advocates and policy makers, the WVCADV fosters legislation which is essential to counter domestic violence--setting up mechanisms not only to protect abuse victims but also to increase and provide accountability for abusive behavior. In 1994, I proudly cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act, the first comprehensive piece of Federal legislation to address this important issue. I will continue to work with my collegues in Congress and with the staff of the WVCADV to ensure that the most vulnerable families get the support that they need to remain safe, stable and free of violence. Throughout the month of October, the WVCADV will hold events throughout the State to celebrate the progress they have made in fighting domestic violence. On November 6th a statewide event titled ``In Celebration of Peacemaking Partnerships: Looking Back and Moving Ahead'' will demonstrate the 10 years of success and goals. I cannot think of a more fitting title for this anniversary celebration which recognizes the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence Central Service Office's leadership in forging model partnerships throughout West Virginia and across the nation. Again, Mr. President, I want to express my sincerest congratulations to the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence Central Service Office for the work it has done and for all that it will continue to do in the future. Also, I would like to express my appreciation for all the WVCADV staff and volunteers. Such commitment and dedication that always inspires me in the work that I do on behalf of West Virginia children and families. I look forward to our future endeavors together as we continue to make great strides in creating ``peacemaking partnerships'' throughout West Virginia and across the country.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join Mr. DeWine in his introduction of the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act. I would like to thank Mr. DeWine of this leadership on this bill, another example of his ongoing commitment to our Nation's most vulnerable children and families. I would also like to thank my good friends Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Chafee for their support of and input on this legislation. Last year at this time, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the most sweeping piece of child welfare legislation in more than two decades. For the first time, this law establishes that a child's health and safety must be the paramount consideration when any decision is made regarding a child in the abuse and neglect system. The law promotes stability and permanence for abused and neglected children by requiring timely decision-making in proceedings to determine whether children can safely return to their families or whether they should be moved into safe and stable adoptive homes. More specifically, the law requires a State to move to terminate the parental right of any parent whose child has been in foster care for 15 out of the last 22 months. While essential to protect children, these accelerated time lines increase the pressure on the Nation's already overburdened abuse and neglect courts. Our courts play a vital role in the Nation's abuse and neglect system. Through my discussions with judges in my state of West Virginia and across the country, I have learned that abuse and neglect judges make some of the most difficult decisions made by any members of the judiciary. Adjudications of abuse and neglect, terminations of parental rights, approval of adoptions, and life-changing determinations are not made without careful and sometimes painful deliberation. Despite the courts' commitment to the fair and efficient administration of justice in these cases, staggering increases in the number of children in the abuse and neglect system, have placed a tremendous burden on our abuse and neglect courts. Many abuse and neglect courts have found creative and effective new ways to eliminate their backlogs and move children more efficiently and safely through the court system. In West Virginia, Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman and a dedicated group of judges and attorneys have developed a comprehensive plan to increase the accountability and efficient administration of abuse and neglect cases. In Cincinnati, Ohio, Judge Grossman's abuse and neglect courts have implemented state- of-the-art computer tracking systems which help them smooth the legal paths of children in foster care. The purpose of the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act is to help remove the burdens on an even greater number of abuse and neglect courts by increasing their administrative efficiency and effectiveness. The bill establishes a program which will provide grants to state and local courts for the creation and implementation of computerized casetracking systems, similar to the one that has seen such incredible success in Ohio. Through the establishment of such systems, courts are able to more easily track how long a child spends in foster care and the status of their cases. Such easy-to-access information will allow courts to move children more quickly and efficiently through the foster care system and into adoptive homes and other permanent placements. This grant program will also enable state and local courts to design and use similar computer systems and to allow for the replication of similar models in other jurisdictions. The technical assistance provision in this bill provides additional funds to aid these courts in the design and implementation of their new computer programs. Throughout the debate on the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we heard from dozens of judges who said that the biggest problems facing their courts was the overwhelming backlog of abuse and neglect cases. Without creative ways to eliminate such backlogs, the judges argued, new cases will never move smoothly through the court system. That is why this bill also authorizes a grant program to provide State courts with the funds they need to eliminate current backlogs once and for all. For some courts, that might involve the temporary hiring of an additional judge, a temporary extension of court hours, or restructuring the duties of court personnel. This program will provide grants to those court projects that will result in the effective and rapid elimination of current backlogs to smooth the way for a more efficient courts in the future. The Strengthening the Abuse and Neglect Courts also recognizes the need to improve training, continuing education opportunities, and model practice standards for judges, attorneys and other court personnel who work in the abuse and neglect courts. More specifically, the bill requires that abuse and neglect agencies design and encourage the implementation of ``best practice'' standards for those attorneys representing the agencies in abuse and neglect cases. The Act also extends the federal reimbursement for training currently provided to agency representatives to judges, court personnel, law enforcement representatives, guardians-ad-litem, and the other attorneys who practice in abuse and neglect proceedings. For the first time, such reimbursement would help fund specialized cross-trainings between agency and court personnel and trainings that focus on vital subjects such as new research on child development. In addition to the judges, guardians-ad-litem and attorneys in the abuse and neglect courts, volunteers for the Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program also play a key role in helping abused and neglected children in the court system. CASA volunteers are the eyes and the ears of the courts, spending time with abused and neglected children, interviewing the adults involved in their lives, and helping to give judges a better understanding of the needs of each individual child. Despite the incredible success of the CASA programs, thousands of abused and neglected children do not have the benefit of CASA representation. The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act provides CASA with a $5 million grant to expand its programs into under-served areas and to improve its ability to recruit, train and supervise volunteers in already existing programs. When we talk about child welfare in this country, abuse and neglect courts are too often left out of the discussion. This is an unacceptable mistake, since our courts play a central role in the well- being of our nation's abused and neglected children. I am confident that the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act will be valuable first step in making these courts stronger and more efficient than ever, and I ask my colleagues to join us in this important effort.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Readjustment Counseling Service (RCS) within the Department of Veterans Affairs recently named five Vet Centers--from 206 across the country--as ``Vet Centers of Excellence.'' I note with great pride that the Morgantown Vet Center, in my State of West Virginia, was one of the Vet Centers selected for this distinguished award. RCS Vet Centers, mandated by Congress in 1979, are community-based service centers staffed by highly qualified professionals. Vet Center services include individual and group counseling, family/marital counseling, sexual trauma counseling, substance abuse counseling, vocational and employment assistance, VA claims and benefits information, help for the homeless, and social service and health care referrals. They provide readjustment counseling to combat veterans and their families--veterans who served during Vietnam, Korea, and World War II--as well as veterans involved in combat hostilities in Panama, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, and the Persian Gulf. Mr. President, many veterans suffer from psychological injuries as a result of their service in the Armed Forces, especially service in combat. But unlike those injuries that can be bandaged, sewn, or cast, psychological battle wounds are typically unseen and left untreated. Many veterans struggle for years to find peace within themselves, often turning to VA for help years after they've come home from war. So, the work being done at our Vet Centers is enormously important. And Vet Center services become even more vital when they are the only VA presence for hundreds of miles, as is the case in some parts of the country. The criteria used in selecting the ``Vet Centers of Excellence'' included quality of clinical care, administrative management, outreach to high-risk veteran populations, and cost effectiveness. I am truly delighted that the Morgantown Vet Center has been recognized among those which best represent the spirit and mission of RCS. The Morgantown Vet Center catchment area is mostly rural, with a widely dispersed population covering 16 counties in North Central West Virginia and two counties in Pennsylvania. Since opening its doors in 1982, it has provided service to over 7,000 veterans. To the Morgantown Vet Center staff--Johnny Bragg, Melody Johns, Ronald Jones, and Sandra Calvert--I say thank you for a job well done, and for always going above and beyond what is required in your positions. I am very proud of you. In addition, I congratulate the staff of the other Vet Centers selected as ``Vet Centers of Excellence''--Vista, California; Tucson, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; and White River Junction, Vermont. But I also want to note my appreciation for the other Vet Centers in West Virginia, and those others around the country. All provide a vital service--in many cases, literally a lifeline to troubled vets. I am reminded of the many times my Senate staffers have contacted a Vet Center employee somewhere in the country after hearing from a veteran in crisis--or a family member--and been able to secure the help needed to avert an emergency. And I am reminded of the number of veterans and family members in my State of West Virginia who tell me how positively their lives have changed after contact with a Vet Center. So, to all 206 Vet Centers and the dedicated staff who work there-- your good deeds have not gone unnoticed. Keep up the good work. Our Nation's combat veterans are lucky to have you, and I am enormously proud of what you have been able to accomplish.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will help the President deal with the flood of dirt-cheap steel imports from our trading partners. The Section 201 reform bill I am proposing with my colleague and Senate steel caucus co-chair, Senator Specter, will strengthen the President's ability to help domestic industries receive the relief they need and deserve when imports are a cause of serious injury. Import relief is what the U.S. steel industry desperately needs right now. West Virginia steel makers deserve help now, before this crisis worsens, as I fear it will. All U.S. steel manufacturers deserve that assistance. That's why I am introducing this legislation before Congress recesses. I intend to push to improve our ability to remedy harm against domestic industries and at the same time remain consistent with rules we expect our world trading partners to live by. We can be tough and fair on trade at the same time and the bill I am introducing today proves it. In my state of West Virginia, our two largest steel manufacturers, Weirton Steel and Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel have both already begun to suffer the effects of the steel import crisis. Weirton has laid off 200 workers and reports that their fourth quarter earnings and lack of pending orders could force the companies to consider additional lay offs in the near future. Wheeling Pittsburgh is also worried about the affect of the crisis on their bottomline. Laying off workers is never easy, but this crisis is forcing such hard decisions. West Virginia steel makers are producing world-class products as efficiently as any foreign competitors, but when foreign competitors are blatantly dumping their product at prices which are sometimes actually below the cost of production, it cuts the legs out from under American companies--but such unfair practices are absolutely unacceptable. U.S. industry, the U.S. steel industry and other industries, deserve just remedies when competitors unfairly dump their product on the U.S. market. We want to give the President the policy tools he needs to deal with unfair import competition. Import data tells the story of a worsening steel crisis--the first two quarters of 1998 have shown a 27% increase in imports of hot-rolled steel. Japanese imports increased by an astounding 114% in that same time frame. Steel imports from South Korea increased 90%. There is no end in sight. Russia and Brazil are nations who are other prime offenders. The tragedy of this crisis is that the U.S. steel industry has spent over a decade reinventing itself, adjusting and modernizing, in order to become a top-notch competitor as we approach the 21st century. This industry is a true success story--productivity has shot up and we can beat any producer in the world on price and quality when provided with a level playing field. For decades, I have worked with leaders in the steel industry at Weirton Steel, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Wheeling-Nisshin, and others. I have watched and encouraged these steelmakers and unions working together to make the tough, necessary decision to modernize. Unfortunately, just as United States steel manufacturers are realizing the gains of such investments, they are facing a flood of imported steel being sold at rock bottom prices-- again, below the cost of production in some instances. We cannot compete against that kind of unfair competition. The legislation Senator Specter and I are introducing today will give the President an improved tool to ensure that when there is serious injury as a result of imports, the U.S. can respond. Specifically, our legislation will reform Section 201 which permits the President to grant domestic industries import relief in circumstances where imports are the substantial cause of serious injury. Under current law, domestic industries must show that increased imports are the ``substantial cause'' of serious injury--which means a cause that is important and not less than any other cause. This imposes an unfair, higher burden of proof on domestic industries than is required to prove injury under World Trade Organization standards. The Safeguards Code of the World Trade Organization was established to make sure that fair trade did not mean countries had to put up with unfair practices. The WTO standard requires only that there be a causal link between increased imports and serious injury. I believe that U.S. law should not impose a tougher standard for American companies of harm than the WTO uses for the international community. Applying the WTO standard is responsible and reasonable. In this bill, we propose to establish the same standard for the U.S. as is used by the WTO. Free trade must mean fair trade. In addition, in this bill we also intend to conform U.S. law to the standard in the WTO Safeguards Code when considering the overall test for judging when there has been serious harm to a domestic industry. We clarify that the International Trade Commission (ITC) should review the overall condition of the domestic industry in determining the degree of that injury by making it clear that it is the effect of the imports on the overall state of the industry that counts, not solely the effect on any one of the particular criteria used in the evaluation. It is our sincere hope that Congress will act on this legislation and send the message that the United States will fight for the right of its industries to complete on a level playing field in world trade. If imports flood our markets, we will act to protect American industries against the consequences. I am someone who adamantly believes the promotion of free trade is essential to our country's continued economic growth. If we are to continue to expand the trade base of our economy we need U.S. industry to know that we will keep it fair. American industry and American workers can deal with fair trade, but they shouldn't be asked to sit still for unfair trade practices that hurt workers and their families, while robbing the profit-margins of U.S. companies. I intend to work in Congress, with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and those in the Administration responsible for trade policy to give the President better, more effective tools to ensure that our country can insist trade be free and fair. Our steel industry, indeed all U.S. industries, deserve no less. I will carefully monitor the steel import crisis and consider other appropriate actions as we see how this situation develops.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will help the President deal with the flood of dirt-cheap steel imports from our trading partners. The Section 201 reform bill I am proposing with my colleague and Senate steel caucus co-chair, Senator Specter, will strengthen the President's ability to help domestic industries receive the relief they need and deserve when imports are a cause of serious injury. Import relief is what the U.S. steel industry desperately needs right now. West Virginia steel makers deserve help now, before this crisis worsens, as I fear it will. All U.S. steel manufacturers deserve that assistance. That's why I am introducing this legislation before Congress recesses. I intend to push to improve our ability to remedy harm against domestic industries and at the same time remain consistent with rules we expect our world trading partners to live by. We can be tough and fair on trade at the same time and the bill I am introducing today proves it. In my state of West Virginia, our two largest steel manufacturers, Weirton Steel and Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel have both already begun to suffer the effects of the steel import crisis. Weirton has laid off 200 workers and reports that their fourth quarter earnings and lack of pending orders could force the companies to consider additional lay offs in the near future. Wheeling Pittsburgh is also worried about the affect of the crisis on their bottomline. Laying off workers is never easy, but this crisis is forcing such hard decisions. West Virginia steel makers are producing world-class products as efficiently as any foreign competitors, but when foreign competitors are blatantly dumping their product at prices which are sometimes actually below the cost of production, it cuts the legs out from under American companies--but such unfair practices are absolutely unacceptable. U.S. industry, the U.S. steel industry and other industries, deserve just remedies when competitors unfairly dump their product on the U.S. market. We want to give the President the policy tools he needs to deal with unfair import competition. Import data tells the story of a worsening steel crisis--the first two quarters of 1998 have shown a 27% increase in imports of hot-rolled steel. Japanese imports increased by an astounding 114% in that same time frame. Steel imports from South Korea increased 90%. There is no end in sight. Russia and Brazil are nations who are other prime offenders. The tragedy of this crisis is that the U.S. steel industry has spent over a decade reinventing itself, adjusting and modernizing, in order to become a top-notch competitor as we approach the 21st century. This industry is a true success story--productivity has shot up and we can beat any producer in the world on price and quality when provided with a level playing field. For decades, I have worked with leaders in the steel industry at Weirton Steel, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Wheeling-Nisshin, and others. I have watched and encouraged these steelmakers and unions working together to make the tough, necessary decision to modernize. Unfortunately, just as United States steel manufacturers are realizing the gains of such investments, they are facing a flood of imported steel being sold at rock bottom prices-- again, below the cost of production in some instances. We cannot compete against that kind of unfair competition. The legislation Senator Specter and I are introducing today will give the President an improved tool to ensure that when there is serious injury as a result of imports, the U.S. can respond. Specifically, our legislation will reform Section 201 which permits the President to grant domestic industries import relief in circumstances where imports are the substantial cause of serious injury. Under current law, domestic industries must show that increased imports are the ``substantial cause'' of serious injury--which means a cause that is important and not less than any other cause. This imposes an unfair, higher burden of proof on domestic industries than is required to prove injury under World Trade Organization standards. The Safeguards Code of the World Trade Organization was established to make sure that fair trade did not mean countries had to put up with unfair practices. The WTO standard requires only that there be a causal link between increased imports and serious injury. I believe that U.S. law should not impose a tougher standard for American companies of harm than the WTO uses for the international community. Applying the WTO standard is responsible and reasonable. In this bill, we propose to establish the same standard for the U.S. as is used by the WTO. Free trade must mean fair trade. In addition, in this bill we also intend to conform U.S. law to the standard in the WTO Safeguards Code when considering the overall test for judging when there has been serious harm to a domestic industry. We clarify that the International Trade Commission (ITC) should review the overall condition of the domestic industry in determining the degree of that injury by making it clear that it is the effect of the imports on the overall state of the industry that counts, not solely the effect on any one of the particular criteria used in the evaluation. It is our sincere hope that Congress will act on this legislation and send the message that the United States will fight for the right of its industries to complete on a level playing field in world trade. If imports flood our markets, we will act to protect American industries against the consequences. I am someone who adamantly believes the promotion of free trade is essential to our country's continued economic growth. If we are to continue to expand the trade base of our economy we need U.S. industry to know that we will keep it fair. American industry and American workers can deal with fair trade, but they shouldn't be asked to sit still for unfair trade practices that hurt workers and their families, while robbing the profit-margins of U.S. companies. I intend to work in Congress, with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and those in the Administration responsible for trade policy to give the President better, more effective tools to ensure that our country can insist trade be free and fair. Our steel industry, indeed all U.S. industries, deserve no less. I will carefully monitor the steel import crisis and consider other appropriate actions as we see how this situation develops.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to President Lee Teng-hui and the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of their National Day which will occur October 10. It is a deep honor for me to join in the celebration of this momentous occasion. The remarkable achievements of Taiwan continue to tell a powerful story of how democracy can grow in Asia, and that it is compatible with a commitment to capitalism. Taiwan's ability to survive the Asian financial crisis better than any other free economy in the region is just another example of the significance of Taiwan's leadership. Quite simply, Taiwan's economic and political miracles never cease to amaze me. It is a true honor for me to have a long-standing, very personal friendship with Taiwan. My own state of West Virginia has benefitted from Taiwan's commitment to the U.S. in profound and long-lasting ways. I am more committed than ever to the people of Taiwan to keep building on a relationship that holds so much more promise in the years ahead. I know that we will continue to look to Taiwan to continue setting an example in their commitment to democracy, to vibrant economic ties with the U.S. and the rest of the world, and to peace.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Dr. Madan Bhasin for being awarded the 1999 Industrial Chemistry Award by the American Chemical Society. This honor is annually bestowed to recognize outstanding contributions to industrial chemistry that have resulted in the commercialization of an economically significant new product or process. I am always proud when West Virginians are recognized for their outstanding contributions to society. However, this is an especially nice case since Dr. Bhasin's work also demonstrates how great ideas can improve a company's profit margin and save resources at the same time. Dr. Bhasin received his B.Sc. from the University of Delhi and his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame in 1958 and has been with Union Carbide since 1963. During his 35 year career at the Union Carbide Technical Center in South Charleston, West Virginia, he has devoted his efforts to researching and applying catalysts to create new production methods and help improve existing industrial processes. His invention and implementation of nine generations of ethylene epoxidation catalysts led to his recognition by the American Chemical Society. The catalysts that Dr. Bhasin invented allow for the more efficient conversion of ethylene epoxidation to ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol, which are components in products such as polyester and anti-freeze. Billions of pounds of ethylene epoxidation are used each year so increasing the conversion efficiency has allowed Union Carbide to remain one of the world leaders in this market as well as save energy and reduce by- products. This is obviously a win for Union Carbide, the environment and the state of West Virginia. Again I would like to take this opportunity to publically recognize and congratulate Dr. Bhasin for this great accolade and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize today the efforts of a group of West Virginia citizens who have joined together to address an important issue affecting our state and the nation. These individuals, who have formed Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), are working to educate the public about how excesses in our civil justice system can be harmful. CALA volunteer spokespersons are speaking out about how lawsuit abuse means people pay through higher prices for consumer products, higher medical expenses, higher taxes and lost business expansion and product development. I should note that my own concerns relate to abuse of the system which comes in the form of frivolous suits and inappropriate delays--not legitimate use of our tort system. CALA reports that recent studies of liability costs have found that our State has a high lawsuit and liability cost relative to our economic output measured as gross state product. As another example of the effect of lawsuit abuse, CALA's own survey of all West Virginia municipalities last year found an estimated annual lawsuit-related cost for our municipal taxpayers to be more than $9 million. Nationally, it has been estimated that the costs of our civil justice system averages $1200 per person per year. Legal reform of any kind is not a simple issue. The legal system is essential to provide justice to every American. But that does not mean that the status quo is perfect. When lawsuits and the courts can be used in excess or result in imposing costs without reason on the other parties, from individuals to not-for-profit agencies to businesses, the system should be reviewed and reformed if possible. I often have spoken about the problems of our product liability system. We see the terrible consequences of our country's confusing patchwork, slow, and often unfair system of product liability rules that need to be properly and fairly reformed. The leaders of West Virginia's CALA movement should be commended here today. Volunteers such as Robert Mauk of Huntington; Jim Thomas, Sid Davis and Mac McJunkin of Charleston; Cuz Blake of Bridgeport; Phyllis Garner of Clarksburg; Rick Pruitte of Fairmont; and Sam Chico of Morgantown are all working hard to ensure that our State has a strong, fair and effective civil justice system that will serve all West Virginians and grow our economy and job base. These people give their time to speak to community groups, organize educational activities and distribute materials to help us all be conscious of lawsuit costs and excesses of the system. Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse groups have declared September 21 through 26 to be ``Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week'' in West Virginia. I want to commend these citizens for their dedication and commitment and to acknowledge this week as time of public awareness on the serious issues associated with lawsuit abuse.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today the Committee on Veterans' Affairs released the final report of its Special Investigation Unit (SIU) on Gulf War Illnesses. The report represents the culmination of the unit's year-long, 20-member staff investigation into issues surrounding the illnesses that have affected many veterans of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War. The Gulf War ended over seven years ago, but the aftermath of this military victory will remain with us for years to come. This brief war represented a critical turning point in our concept of modern warfare. For the first time since World War I, we faced the possibility of widespread use of chemical warfare agents. Previously, concerns about the use of ``weapons of mass destruction'' focused on the threat of nuclear warfare, increasingly possessed by the more developed nations of the world, but still limited in availability. But in the Gulf, we came face-to-face with the threat of the ``poor man's atomic weapons''--chemical and biological weapons. Chemical and biological weapons have been around for a long time. The United States and its allies abandoned the use of chemical weapons many years ago. In April 1997, the United States Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, joining many other nations in the international disarmament of chemical weapons. But for terrorists and rogue nations, chemical and biological weapons remain the weapons of choice, and they are likely to play a significant role in the battlefields of the future. According to Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, just as we faced this threat in the Gulf War, we are likely to face it again. In hearings before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, military heroes such as General Norman Schwarzkopf and General Colin Powell recounted their fears about the potential use of chemical or biological weapons in the Gulf War. They described the dilemmas they faced as they realized that vaccine supplies were inadequate to protect the 697,000 men and women who were deployed to the Gulf, forcing our leaders to decide who would be protected and who would not. They recalled the anguish associated with making those decisions. But fortunately, the widespread use of chemical weapons and the massive casualties that had been predicted for that war did not occur. After the Gulf War, it was generally agreed that we must be better prepared to meet this threat in the future. We needed to develop new technologies for the detection of chemical and biological weapons in the battlefield; to make sure that we had adequate supplies of vaccines and medical antidotes, and other protective equipment, especially masks and suits; and to ensure that our troops received adequate training to carry out their mission in the event of use of chemical/biological warfare. Given the crisis our military faced during the Gulf War as our leaders realized that we were not well prepared then, you might expect it would be high priority to make sure we are not caught unprepared again. Sadly, this has not been the case. The SIU report finds that almost eight years after the Gulf War, our military is still not prepared to fight in a chemical or biological warfare environment. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense corroborated these findings in a recent report which states that with the exception of Navy surface ships, our armed forces are unable to assess unit chemical and biological defense readiness because unit commanders have not made this training a priority. Of the 232 units reviewed by the Inspector General, 80 percent were not fully integrating chemical and biological defense into unit mission training. This is completely unacceptable. The SIU also found that training for chemical and biological warfare is still inadequate, and that the technology for battlefield detection of chemical warfare agents has not improved since the Gulf War. Although the threat of chemical and biological warfare has increased since the Gulf War and hangs heavy over the potential battlefields of the 21st century, the military still has inadequate supplies of vaccines and chemical/biological protective equipment. It is imperative that we be prepared to face these very real risks. Moreover, we must be ready for the possibility that the next terrorist attack on U.S. civilians may include such weapons. The task of domestic defense and preparedness poses an even greater challenge. Recent events underscore the need to make this defense and readiness issue a national priority. Eight years after the Gulf War, United Nations inspectors still have not been able to fully assess Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capabilities. We have all seen the roadblocks that Saddam Hussein has succeeded in placing in the path of this international effort to inspect for these weapons. Fortunately, we did not have to send in military personnel in the recent U.S. attack to destroy the chemical plant in Sudan. Had we needed to, however, and if these terrorists had chemical and biological weapons, I fear our ground troops would have been ill-prepared to function in such an environment. My concerns here are not new. In 1994, when I was chairman of the Committee, my staff issued a report that called attention to many of the long-term health concerns arising from our soldiers' exposures to environmental hazards. Many of the concerns raised then remain today. Senator Specter and I will call upon Secretary Cohen to carefully consider the findings of this report and provide an emergency action plan to address these shortcomings. I am confident that he is as concerned about our military's preparedness for this threat as we are, and we look forward to his response. Our military men and women must be protected and they must be prepared to fight in a chemical/biological warfare environment. That means that they need ongoing, quality training in chemical/biological defense and detection systems that will work quickly and reliably on the battlefield. It means that they need adequate supplies of the required chemical protection masks and suits, and training in how to properly use them under battlefield conditions. It means they need sufficient supplies of vaccines, antibiotics, and medical antidotes. And it means that they need well-trained medical personnel who are prepared to respond to chemical and biological warfare casualties, and the medical equipment needed to care for such casualties. All of this means a commitment of time and funding across all the service branches, and the support and leadership of commanders everywhere to guarantee this commitment. Most of all, this requires a solid commitment from this Congress and President Clinton. We have had enough talk of readiness--it's time to make it a reality if we are to fight on the battlefields of the 21st century. Mr. President, I request that a summary of the report's findings prepared by my staff be printed in the Record. The summary follows: Report Summary The report of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' Special Investigation Unit (SIU) on Gulf War Illnesses is thematically divided into 4 major sections or chapters. Chapter 1 addresses DoD and CIA intelligence operations during the War and the destruction of the Khamisiyah munitions depot. It reviews some of the communication problems that existed with poor transfer of critical intelligence information between DoD and CIA on the locations of Iraqi chemical weapons facilities. It also critically reviews DoD's efforts to ``model'' the events that transpired at the U.S. demolition of the Khamisiyah munitions depot in March 1991. The SIU report is particularly critical of the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses' (OSAGWI) efforts to research the weather conditions that existed on the day of the demolition, as it related to estimates of the numbers of U.S. servicemembers who would have potentially been exposed to low levels of chemical warfare agents, such as sarin. The report points out that the OSAGWI modeling report does not integrate crucial weather information provided by a division of the Air Force that is typically viewed as expert on such issues. Further, the OSAGWI report was largely an internal document, and it was not subjected to the scientific rigors of the peer review process. The Special Investigation Unit (SIU) also contracted with a scientific consultant who supported these criticisms and found that the estimate of approximately 100,000 servicemembers who may have been exposed to be a grossly overestimated figure. The defense and intelligence chapter also details the SIU's investigation of the question of whether there are additional Khamisiyahs or chemical weapons exposures to be found. On the basis of extensive review of classified and unclassified documents, interviews with military officials in Great Britain, France, the Czech Republic, and our Arab allies, and an interview with inspectors of the United Nations Inspection Team, the SIU found no evidence to either prove or disprove that the Iraqis offensively used chemical weapons during the Gulf War. The SIU did find that during the Gulf War, our military was not adequately prepared to deal with the threat of chemical or biological warfare, and our military continues to be inadequately prepared today. Chapter 2 is an ``Assessment of Gulf War Veterans' Health Care Services and Compensation at the Department of Veterans Affairs.'' The SIU team found that VA has often inadequately monitored a number of Persian Gulf War health and benefits programs. As a result, VA demonstrates inconsistent compliance with their own regulations and policy directives, and inadequate implementation of services and benefits for Gulf War veterans. This chapter concludes that too many Gulf War veterans are dissatisfied with the health care that they are receiving from VA, and too few are receiving timely responses to their compensation benefits claims. The SIU report states that ``although VA purports to operate as a single entity on behalf of veterans, in practice it is a loosely linked group of bureaucracies that operate largely in isolation from one another.'' This organizational structure contributes to problematic communication and bureaucratic hurdles that affect VA's ability to provide effective and efficient service to Gulf War veterans. The greatest problems were seen in VBA's handling of Gulf War compensation claims, and their processing was characterized as ``inconsistent and counterproductive.'' While the report notes problems with the health care provided to Gulf War veterans, the SIU staff also found a number of very caring and competent health professionals who were delivering appropriate health care, despite obstacles such as limited information and resources. Chapters 3 and 4 focus specifically on health concerns and health research. This chapter reviews the chronology of health-related events, the assessment of the range of possible exposures in the Gulf War, the nature of the health problems that have emerged, and the government research response on this issue. This information is presented in Chapter 3, ``Evaluations of Wartime Exposures, Gulf War Veteran Health Concerns, and Related Research, and Unanswered Questions.'' Chapter 4, ``Possible Long Term Health Consequences of Gulf War Exposures: An Independent Evaluation,'' contains the brief reports of scientists the SIU contracted with for independent reviews. These prominent scientists reviewed scientific literature on a variety of exposures including pesticides, PB, chemicals, stress, and other wartime and environmental hazards, and the health consequences that follow such exposures. Both health chapters conclude that there is no single ``Gulf War Syndrome'' characterized by a single disease entity or diagnostic label. Instead, there is a significant proportion of Gulf War veterans who returned home with a number of chronic, poorly understood symptoms such as headaches, joint pains, rashes, fatigue, gastrointestinal difficulties, and other symptoms that are potentially disabling in some cases. In studies that have compared the rate of these symptoms among Gulf War veterans to the rate of symptoms in veterans of the same era who were not deployed to the Gulf, significantly more symptoms are reported by the Gulf War veterans. It is clear that many veterans are ill, and it is also clear that we may never know why. There are many reasons why the question of ``why are Gulf War veterans ill?'' cannot be answered. First, DoD deployed many reservists and active military personnel to the Gulf without adequate pre-deployment medical evaluations; as a result, we do not know what preexisting illnesses or health conditions they may have had. In any health investigation, such information would serve as an important baseline from which to assess the pattern of emerging illnesses. Second, DoD's medical recordkeeping for the Gulf War was grossly inadequate. There are no clear records of even basic information, such as the vaccine records of the men and women who served in the Gulf. It is unclear whether such records were ever kept or whether they were destroyed because they were not felt to be a high enough priority to warrant space on the military cargo planes returning to the United States after the war. Many of the medical records from the war are also missing, hindering any efforts to review information on the numbers of troops who were hospitalized or received medical care in the Gulf. Finally, there was no DoD recordkeeping on the range and extent of exposures present in the Gulf. All these factors seriously hinder any research efforts to establish a cause and effect for the health problems that followed the Gulf War. Also, in addition to the broad range of possible exposures--heat, pesticides, PB, smoke from oil well fires, petroleum products, ultra-fine sand particles, stress, and others --and their individual health effects, there is also the issue of the potential effects of an almost infinite number of possible combinations of such agents. Health research today is often not designed or conducted in ways that allow us to fully understand the interactive effects of such agents and their subsequent health consequences. All these issues complicate, and in fact hamper, current examinations of the events of the Gulf War while trying to answer the question of ``why are Gulf War veterans ill?''. Some of the scientific experts the SIU contracted with were able to provide very sound criticism of some of the hypotheses about Gulf War illnesses, such as discounting the role of a possible infectious agent, such as mycoplasma. They were also able to clarify issues such as the possible health effects of PB or pesticides, as well as the links between stressful exposures, such as combat, and long-term physical health. These experts also made a number of important recommendations regarding future research directions and better prevention of unnecessary health risks which were integrated into the report. A number of the report's recommendations will be used to develop additional legislation. Many of the major legislative issues have been covered already in S. 2358, the legislation that was introduced by Senators Rockefeller, Byrd, and Specter. Specifically, S. 2358, the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Act of 1998: Calls for the Secretary of VA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide a scientific basis for determining the association between illnesses and exposures to environmental or wartime hazards as a result of service in the Gulf War; Authorizes VA to presume that illnesses that have a positive association with exposures to hazards during the war were related to service even if there was no evidence of illness during service; Extends VA's authority to provide health care to Gulf War veterans through 2001; Requires the Secretary to task NAS with the identification of additional research issues that the government should conduct to better understand the adverse health effects of exposures to environmental or wartime hazards associated with Gulf War service; Tasks NAS with assessing potential treatment models for chronic, undiagnosed illnesses that have affected Gulf War veterans; Establishes a system to monitor the health status and health care utilization of Gulf War veterans with chronic, undiagnosed illnesses within VA and DoD health care systems; Requires that VA, in consultation with HHS and DoD, carry out an ongoing outreach program to provide information to Gulf War veterans; Extends and improves upon VA's Persian Gulf Spouse and Children Evaluation Program, and; Requires the Secretary of VA to enter into an agreement with NAS to study the feasibility of establishing, as an independent entity, a National Center for the Study of Military Health. Such a center would evaluate and monitor interagency efforts and coordination on issues related to post-deployment and would look at issues of how to better prevent and treat post-conflict illnesses. In addition to these important issues addressed by S. 2358, the report highlights further a number of shortcomings within VA's and DoD's current policies. They include: The need for DoD to place a higher priority on training and preparedness for the threat of offensive use of chemical and biological weapons (CBW) in today's warfare scenarios, including better CBW detection systems, adequate supplies of protective masks and suits, adequate numbers of vaccines for protection, and medical isolation units for treatment of such casualties; The need for greater prevention of unnecessary health risks in the battlefield (and on domestic military bases), such as unnecessary exposures to inappropriate use of and inadequate monitoring of environmental agents such as pesticides, solvents, depleted uranium, and other identified health hazards, to include coordination and consultation with EPA and CDC on identifying and managing such risks; The need for DoD to participate in the proposed national, state-based birth defects registry in order to better assess the relative risks of birth defects in military populations; Given VA's history with environmental health issues such as Agent Orange, atomic veterans, and Gulf War veterans' health concerns, the need for VA to create the position of an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Deployment- Related Health Matters, with responsibilities to include oversight of issues such as battlefield illnesses; The need for DoD and VA to improve monitoring of health care to Gulf War veterans, to include identification of any barriers to care currently in the system and the need to develop methods for early detection of illnesses with delayed onset, such as cancer; The need to ensure comprehensive pre- and post-deployment medical examinations of Reservists who are placed on active duty for deployment for military operations; and The need for the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to implement doctrine that reflects and builds upon the lessons learned from the Gulf War in order to avoid repeating many of these same mistakes with future military deployments and veteran populations.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize the extraordinary work and dedication of our Secretary of Education, the Honorable Richard Riley. I am quite proud to call Secretary Riley a good friend. Over many years, I have had the privilege of working closely with the Secretary to promote quality education and help children and families. I believe everyone in the Senate understands the importance of quality education for every child, even if we may sometimes disagree on the best ways to achieve this fundamental goal. I believe that education technology provides enormous promise for strengthening education, enhancing choice, and helping every child gain access to the wealth of information and educational resources on the Information Superhighway. In my our state of West Virginia, distance learning has provided access to advance courses in math, science, and even foreign languages like Japanese in some of the poorest, most rural areas. And this is just one example. There is much we can do, as noted by the Secretary's speech to the National Conference of Young Leaders about the role of technology and education. I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Riley's remarks be printed in the Record so that all of my colleagues can review these compelling remarks. The remarks follow: Technology and Education--An Investment in Equity and Excellence (By Richard W. Riley) Thank you Senator Glenn. I am so grateful that you could take the time out of your busy schedule--between being a Senator and preparing to return to space--to be here with us today. I am especially delighted by your presence because I can think of no American who better exemplifies the link between education and technology--and whose life has been a constant quest of new challenges, new experiences and, perhaps most importantly, new knowledge. On that note, let me say what a great delight it is to address the many students who are taking part in the National Young Leaders Conference who are here in Washington to study our government. I also want to welcome those education and technology leaders who are with us today--as well as the students, teachers, librarians, and others who are joining us across the country on the Internet. I am very pleased--and I think it is so appropriate--that this event, which focuses on the critical relationship between education and technology, is being Webcast via the Internet. It is an example of the kind of opportunity available to those who might not otherwise be able to participate in these kinds of discussions. My friends, I come before you to talk about the promise and the possibilities of technology in education. I want to assure you that this future can be a rich and limitless one, full of opportunity for students of all ages. But I also want to make clear that to achieve this kind of bright future requires a real commitment by this nation to end the great disparity that exists between those who have, and those who do not have these exciting tools for learning. We have the potential to do great things with technology in our schools, but it is a potential still largely unrealized. Right now, if I had to describe the application of technology in our nation's schools, I would say that it is a tale of two worlds. One world is a world of families and communities that have the best in educational technology and are reaping the benefits. In the other world, the use of technology in schools to achieve maximum educational benefit is usually little more than a dream. Figures from the Commerce Department--just released--confirm that we are in the midst of a severe digital divide--a gap between those who have access to computers and the Internet--and those who do not. The figures show that it is a divide centered largely on racial, economic, and other demographic lines. But it is a divide that does not have to be. The Commerce numbers show, for instance, that White Americans are more than twice as likely to own a computer as African Americans or Hispanics, 41% to 19%. Households earning more than $75,000 have more than 75 percent computer ownership, while households with incomes under $10,000 have 11 percent or less computer ownership. And Americans with a college degree are almost ten times more likely to own a personal computer than those with eight years of school or less. The statistics are equally disappointing in our schools. Too many of our nation's classrooms lack the resources and connections to hook into these effective learning technologies. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, although 78 percent of our public schools are now connected to the Internet, thanks to communities and schools working together, only 27 percent of classrooms have access. What is more, in low income communities and minority neighborhoods, only 13 percent of classrooms have such access. Now, it doesn't take a statistician to figure out what all these numbers mean. We, as a nation, are missing the opportunity of a lifetime. It is the opportunity it offers a student living in a rural area to experience the greatest museums and libraries in our cities and around the world. It is the chance a student with a disability has to gain access to all kinds of information. It is the ability of all students--no matter whether rich or poor, or whether they are from a small town, a city, a rural area, or a suburb--to learn at the highest levels with the greatest resources and have the promise of a future of real opportunity. This is the potential of technology. Quite simply, technology can be one of the greatest equalizers of opportunity that has existed since the first textbook was distributed in our nation's public schools. But a single computer in the principal's office won't allow kids to benefit from these learning technologies. We need to get the technology to where kids learn--in the classroom. I believe it is time to think seriously about the direction in which we want to go and the kind of investment we want to make in our nation and our children's future. It is time to break the cycle of technological inequity--not perpetuate it. Today's students are the first generation that will be expected to have technology skills for careers and future success. These skills are the ``new basics.'' By the year 2000, 60 percent of all jobs will require high tech computer skills. Over the next seven years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is estimated that there will be a 70% growth in computer and technology related jobs--jobs with a real future. In this Information Age, information is the currency that drives the economy. If people do not have access to information or the necessary tools, they cannot participate in this economy. In some schools, students already are getting this kind of training. Covington High School in Covington, Louisiana, for instance--and I understand that Stephanie Piranio is here from that school today--has integrated technology into almost every aspect of learning to help students further their development of basic and advanced skills like reading, writing, mathematics, science, and geography. In one environmental science class, students focused on cleaning up and restoring a local stream. They conducted research on restoration, worked at improving water quality and analyzed results. They wrote reports, prepared multimedia presentations, and met with local and state leaders. The Army Corps of Engineers even awarded a grant to the city, in large part due to the students' work, which it said was the equivalent of more than $50,000 in research and preparation. The ``Do-It Scholars'' program at the University of Washington, is another exciting program that used technology to expand learning opportunities. High school students with disabilities who have interests in science and engineering are provided with special tools and training to use the Internet to explore academic and career interests. One student, who was totally blind used a computer with speech output to explore the fields of biology and computer science. That student commented, ``I have all of the information for school projects. I no longer have to get help from fellow students to do my research papers. In fact, a few have even asked me for help.'' But it's not just students who can reap these benefits. Teachers can spend more individual time with students; they can communicate with each other and be exposed to new and engaging methods of teaching; and they can communicate with parents about their children's schoolwork. I think a science teacher in Florida explained it best when she said that using technology to learn is ``the difference between looking at a picture of a heart in a textbook, and looking at a beating heart and being able to slow it down and analyze it to see exactly how it works, step by step.'' Research by David Dwyer and others shows significant links between computer-assisted instruction and achievement in traditional subject matter. Students with access to these technologies have shown better organizational and problem- solving skills when compared with students who do not have access to these technologies. Perhaps even more important, research shows that students in schools that integrate technology into the traditional curriculum have higher attendance and lower dropout rates-- which leads to greater academic success. This can be seen at one of our Blue Ribbon schools, Westwood High School in Austin, Texas, which has developed a comprehensive program to use technology to enhance teaching and learning. I believe Stephanie Pan is here today from that school. Westwood's SAT and ACT test scores are among the highest in the state, and the school's AP placement programs rank 20th in the nation. The use of computers has also been shown to be an especially effective way to improve learning and educational opportunities for at-risk students, as a recent study by City University of New York demonstrates. Significant academic improvement was found, especially in reading, when computers were provided in the homes of at-risk middle school students. The greatest improvement was shown by those who spent the most time on their computers because it helped them learn to think and express themselves, and use their time more productively. The strong connection between technology and learning only serves to highlight the utter injustice of the continuing inequity in computer ownership and access that was confirmed so clearly in the Commerce Department statistics I mentioned earlier. President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been working hard to end this digital divide--and to give all young people in poorer communities the chance to use these kinds of resources and build stronger schools. One of the most important of these initiatives is called the E-Rate, or Education Rate. Now ``E'' could also stand for equality or equal access-- because the fastest way I know to help close the ``digital divide'' is by providing significantly discounted telecommunications services for schools and libraries. This initiative is critically important because it guarantees affordable telecommunications access to all schools--public and private. Curiously, in spite of the great benefits it would bring to communities around the country, the E-Rate has faced a number of serious challenges. This offers a good example of how even the best ideas can get sidetracked or derailed by powerful special interests. Let me tell you what happened. Two years ago, after months of public hearings and with bipartisan support, Congress passed, and the FCC implemented, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This law deregulated the industry and provided telecommunications companies with broad new opportunities for growth. Linked to this opportunity was a responsibility to continue Universal Service--a 60-year old program that has provided affordable telephone services to some rural communities and other areas with unusually high telephone costs. The Congress also expanded this critical program to provide schools and libraries with more affordable telecommunications services through what is referred to as the E-rate. It was a win-win situation. In exchange for their continued support of Universal Service, the long distance telephone carriers were given significant reductions in their costs through reduced access fees. Unfortunately, after the plan was enacted, some of the long distance companies sought to change the way it was funded, jeopardizing the E-rate. And some members of Congress have sought short term political gain by trying to pull the plug on the program. The long distance companies added a surcharge to phone bills purportedly to recover the cost of Universal Service. But we argue that they already had been reimbursed through the reduced access fees. They also failed to distinguish between all Universal Service charges and the E-Rate. One large long distance company put a 95 cent surcharge on telephone bills. But only 19 cents of that was for the school and library program-- which amounted to less than a penny a day. I can think of no more worthwhile investment for our children. Now, I am pleased to say that grass roots groups and student organizations have fought diligently for this effort. As a result, we were able to save the E-rate, but attacks on it continue. If the E-rate is taken away or reduced any further, as a recent report by the National School Boards Association clearly demonstrates, students in schools and people in libraries across the country will be left high and dry. That is wrong and people need to speak out about it. Let me tell you in no uncertain terms--President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and I will continue to fight any efforts to dismantle the e-rate and widen the digital divide. What good is it to be the richest nation in the world--with the greatest technological resources in the world--if the ability to benefit from technology is dependent on whether a student goes to a particular school? There are many who criticize the use of technology in our schools. The irony is that those who belittle this use of technology are those who already have access to computers and the preparation to participate fully in today's Information Age. This debate has never been about technology. It has been about what our children have the opportunity to do. It's about much more than just giving a young person a computer or connecting that person to the Internet. It's about connecting students to a whole new world of learning resources and offering the mind the opportunity to expand and take on a new and challenging future. As I'm sure many of you already know, the web is a wondrous resource for those of you thinking about college. A recent survey of college-bound high school seniors found that 78% had used college web sites during their hunt for campus information--up from 4% just two years earlier. The Department of Education's own web site provides publications such as ``Getting Ready for College Early,'' the ``Student Guide to Financial Aid'' and ``Funding your Education.'' You can even get and fill out your financial aid forms for college (FAFSA) via the web. I am delighted to announce that today we are unveiling our ``Think College Early'' web site. This new site (www.ed.gov/ thinkcollege) will provide middle school students, parents, and teachers critical information they need to know to begin to get prepared for college. If parents are not computer literate, I would encourage students to download a copy of the Department's own ``Parents Guide to the Internet''--so that parents and children can discuss and research these issues together. We also need to improve opportunities for teachers to use technology--so that it is just as easy as it is for most teachers to use a chalkboard today. The best high tech learning equipment is of little value if a teacher doesn't know how to use it effectively in the classroom. Colleges of education need to incorporate technology resources and training into their curriculum. Some already use this, most do not, and all of them should. This Administration has proposed a number of initiatives designed to strengthen teacher training, with an emphasis on application of technology in the classroom. One such effort would provide $75 million to help ensure that all new teachers entering the workforce can integrate technology effectively in the curriculum. This is particularly important, given the expected need over the next 10 years for more than two million new teachers. And I hope when the full House of Representatives takes up this issue, it will reverse the decision of the House Appropriations Committee, which refused to fund this important initiative. Now before I close, I want to emphasize another very important point. While we know that technology makes a very real difference in helping teaching and learning, it is not-- I repeat--it is not a panacea for fixing all of the challenges that our schools face. It is a not a substitute for solid teaching and learning, but an opportunity to enhance and build upon it. The benefits of technology in schools can only be achieved by entire communities coming together. And this Administration is fighting to make the investment to improve education and our schools. We want to give every community more resources--through efforts to raise standards, lower class size, strengthen teaching, improve reading, build and modernize schools, and expand after-school programs. And technology is an important part of this. The majority in Congress has so far been only negative and opposed full investment in these initiatives. But I hope with the new school year they will get the education spirit. Quite simply, we need to work together--in our local communities and with national leadership and assistance--to make sure that all schools have the hardware, software, wiring, and teacher training they need and every child has the opportunity to click into the educational promise of technology. We have it in our power to make sure that this tool for learning not only does not exacerbate the divide between rich and poor--but also works to close it. Most parents and educators understand the value of technology even if they don't understand the technology itself. It is a reflection of Americans' overall deep feeling about the promise and the power of education--its enormous capacity to open doors, create opportunities and help make people better citizens. Americans understand that without education, we can have neither excellence nor equity. I hope Congress will hear the voices of America. As President Clinton said recently, ``We can extend opportunity to all Americans--or leave many behind. We can erase lines of inequity--or etch them indelibly. We can accelerate the most powerful engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever know--or allow that engine to stall.'' I say it is time we take on the challenge and commit ourselves to ending the digital divide. I challenge this nation to work to ensure that every young person in America has the opportunity to sign on to the Internet, to conduct research, look for information about colleges, and just express a natural curiosity and strengthen a love for learning. What we can not do is let this opportunity pass us by. We must fulfill the promise of this new age of education and information.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I support the introduction of The Adoption Equality Act of 1998. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of The Adoption Equality Act of 1998, part of a continuing effort to improve the lives of abused and neglected children in my state of West Virginia and across the nation. I would like to begin by sharing my special thanks with my colleague and good friend, Senator Chafee, not only for his work on this important legislation, but for his ongoing commitment to bringing about meaningful change for America's most vulnerable children. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to the other cosponsors of this bill, Senators DeWine, Kerrey, Bond, Levin, Landrieu, Dorgan, and Moynihan. I am so pleased to see that the strong and unique bipartisan coalition forged during the adoption debate last fall is continuing the job yet to be done on behalf of abused and neglected children. Last fall, our bipartisan coalition introduced--and the Senate unanimously passed--The Adoption and Safe Families Act. That legislation, signed into law on November 19, 1997, fundamentally shifted the focus of the American foster system by insisting for the first time that health and safety should be the paramount consideration when a State makes any decision regarding the well-being of an abused and neglected child. That legislation is designed to move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes more quickly than ever before. I am also proud to report that West Virginia is launching its own special initiative to promote adoption. This June, state officials reported that there were 3003 children in the custody of West Virginia. 870 of these children have adoption as the goal of their permanency plans, and 95% of these children have special needs. The State has committed to hiring additional specialists to provide adoption services and is seeking federal support to enhance these efforts. It is wonderful to know that West Virginia and other states are so enthusiastic about moving forward to promote adoptions and to help children find safe and stable homes. The Adoption and Safe Families Act took into account the unique circumstances of ``special needs'' children--those children who, for whatever reason, are difficult to place in adoptive homes. States now receive a special bonus for each special needs adoption. Most significantly, the Adoption and Safe Families Act took the first essential step in ensuring ongoing health coverage for all special needs children who are adopted into new families. While I am satisfied that The Adoption and Safe Families Act will strengthen the American foster care system, I made it clear that it was only the first step in many to make things significantly better for abused and neglected children. The Adoption Equality Act is an essential second step in this ongoing process. This important legislation will promote and increase adoptions by making all special needs children eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. This bill is designed to ``level the playing field'' by ensuring that all loving adoptive families have the support they need to address the fundamental needs of the children they raise. Federal adoption subsidies, already authorized under section IV-E of the Social Security Act, usually take the form of monthly payments provided to families who adopt special needs children. These payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily costs of raising these children and to cover the expense of special services. Federal adoption subsidies play a vital role in the lives of thousands of special needs children. Many families that I have visited in West Virginia and across the country have told me that without this essential support, they would not have been able to afford to take in the children who have become such an important part of their family. This bill will fix the one remaining barrier that keeps many adoptive families from accessing precious Federal adoption subsidies. Under current law, a special needs child is only eligible for Federal adoption subsidies if his biological family was poor enough to qualify for welfare benefits under the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC). If his family doesn't qualify under 1994 AFDC standards, even the hardest to place child cannot receive federal adoption subsidies. In other words, a special needs child's eligibility for federal adoption subsidies is dependent on the income of the parents that abused or neglected him. This is simply wrong. The Adoption Equality Act will eliminate this tragic anomaly in Federal law by making all special needs children eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. This is a responsible way to make sure that willing adoptive families have the support that they need to take care of all the needs of their new child, whether those include food and clothing, therapy, tutoring, or a new addition to their home. Throughout my travels as the Chair of the National Commission on Children and my meetings with families in West Virginia, I have observed a recurring theme. I have come to understand that in many cases, a family wants to adopt a child more than anything. And yet, there is often a barrier that stands in its way. The lack of adequate financial resources is at the top of that list. This legislation help alleviate this unnecessary burden. In closing, I want to reiterate a point that I made during the debate over the Adoption and Safe Families Act. At the heart of the ongoing discussions about what is the best policy for abused and neglected children, there have been many complex questions raised about how Federal taxpayer dollars should be spent and who is worthy of receiving them. As we struggle with these difficult issues--which often pit social against fiscal responsibility--I keep returning to the same fundamental lesson I have learned from the families I have met: if we cannot build social policy that not only protects our children, but gives them the best possible chance to succeed in life, we have failed to do our job as a government and a society. The Adoption Equality Act is designed to make sure that all abused and neglected children, even the most vulnerable special needs kids, have this real chance for security and happiness.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to change a vote. On the last vote, I voted ``nay.'' I meant to vote ``yea.'' The vote will not affect the outcome. I did not realize it was a tabling motion. I ask unanimous consent to change my vote.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the Energy Express Americorps for their contributions to local West Virginia communities. In 1994, several studies demonstrated conclusively that many low-income children were not receiving proper nourishment and we all understand how this hurts a child's healthy development. Further research has suggested that not only did low-income students lack proper nutrition, but they also faced academic set backs while their more fortunate classmates made academic gains during summer recess. Inspired by such disturbing statistics, West Virginia Americorps created Energy Express, a unique program, which offers six-week summer program for low-income, elementary children to promote reading skills, to create strong partnerships with mentors, and to provide nutritious meals. Energy Express is an innovative Americorps program that helps low-income children with a healthy, safe environment, and promotes reading skills in a community environment. Energy Express formed an effective partnership with the existing Summer Feeding Program that provides nutritious meals and education to promote proper eating habits. The Energy Express summer camps go beyond the call of duty to simply prepare and provide; they create a family- style atmosphere where the children learn how to make decisions, engage in conversation, assume responsibility, and cooperate with one another and others.. The mission of Energy Express also goes beyond just child nutrition to promote further education. Recognizing the need to increase reading skills and to encourage retention of lessons from school, Americorps provides four hours of tutorial time that always remains fun. Weekly themes of ``myself,'' ``family,'' ``friends,'' ``home place,'' ``community,'' and ``ideal world'' guide the mentors and children in their work. The curriculum includes creating books, performing stories, reading both silently and out loud, and immersing the children in creative art activities, all of which are pertinent to a designated theme. At the end of each week, the child is able to take home a book relevant to the theme to keep in his or her personal library. The design of Energy Express organizes six to eight children per one college student mentor. These mentors serve as tremendous role models for maturity, educational development and also as wonderful community volunteers committed to West Virginia. Each mentor receives an extensive eight week training program led by on-site educators who teach them positive feedback, how to productively discipline and the basic fundamentals of tutoring. Through preliminary visits and weekly contact concerning their child's progress, the mentor reaches out to the parents in ways which encourage involvement and support. The program's growth in the past four years characterizes one of its successes. In 1994, Energy Express reached two counties, 85 students and 13 college mentors. This summer the program reaches 38 counties, 68 sites, 2721 students, 425 Americorps college mentors and approximately 25 Americorps VISTA Summer Associates. In 1997, Energy Express received national recognition as it won the Joint Council of Extension Professionals Award for Excellence in Teamwork and the Council of State Governments Innovations Award. Energy Express also serves as a national model for many other states attempting to duplicate such programs. Most important, however, is the success of the children. In 1997, studies indicated that many of the students not only retained previous knowledge, but gained one month in word identification and three months in comprehension. 124,990 nutritious meals were served and the children received 12,930 books to add to their personal library. Many states as well as other communities in West Virginia hope to duplicate these same results. Their hands are somewhat tied by the lack of needed funds available. Each site costs approximately $25,000, but the rewards passed on to the children, communities and mentors are immeasurable in return. Energy Express demonstrates the incredible work and success of Americorps. The commitment of its volunteers not only helps the community, but also provides growth for the volunteers themselves. My experience as a VISTA worker gave me a similar experience, and I continue my dedication to our Mountain State. I see that today's volunteers show that same dedication, and I extend my sincere gratitude to all of them. These persons have committed themselves fully to public service, both as volunteers and employees. It is through their hard work that the people of West Virginia benefit from the world's myriad of opportunities.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, along with Senator Byrd and Senator Specter, I am proud to introduce today the ``Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998.'' This bipartisan legislation establishes a clear framework for the compensation and health care needs of Gulf War veterans. This bill would create a permanent statutory authority for the compensation of ill Gulf War veterans. It builds upon the system of scientific review and determinations for presumptive compensation that currently exists for veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and builds upon S. 1320, which I introduced last October. The bill we introduce today is an even more comprehensive effort to address the needs of our Nation's Gulf War veterans. Senator Byrd's and Senator Specter's many contributions have served to make this an even stronger bill that will help to expedite the process of scientific review of possible wartime hazards and exposures that may have contributed to illnesses in our Gulf War veterans, which in turn expedites compensation to ill veterans. It will also help ensure health care for these men and women in the years to come, and improves the current program for evaluating the health of families of Gulf War veterans. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have witnessed firsthand the struggles of many of our Nation's Gulf War veterans. The Persian Gulf War will undoubtedly go down in history as one of our country's most decisive military victories. Despite our fears of potentially huge troop injuries and losses, the careful planning and strategy of our military leaders paid off. The ground war lasted only four days, and the casualties we experienced, while deeply regrettable, were fortunately few. But as with any war, the human costs of the Gulf War have been high, and the casualties have continued long after the battle was over. Many of the men and women who served in the Gulf have suffered chronic, debilitating health problems. Unnecessarily compounding their pain has been their difficulty in getting the government they served to acknowledge their problems and provide the appropriate care and benefits they deserve. This legislation will go a long way to address some of these concerns. We can't wait the 20 years we waited after the Vietnam war to assess the effects of Agent Orange, or the 40 years we waited after World War II to concede the problems of radiation-exposed veterans. We must learn from the lessons of the past and act now. We have already waited too long. For the past seven years, we have looked to the leaders of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs for a resolution of these difficult issues. While they have made some progress, I think we can all agree there is much more to be done. This legislation will require VA to enlist the National Academy of Sciences--an independent, nonprofit, scientific organization--to review and evaluate the research regarding links between illnesses and exposure to toxic agents and wartime hazards. Based on the findings of the NAS, VA will then determine whether a diagnosed or undiagnosed illness found to be associated with Gulf War service warrants a presumption of service connection for compensation purposes. This will provide an ongoing scientific basis and nonpolitical framework for the VA to use in compensating Persian Gulf War veterans. Mr. President, I will now highlight some of the provisions contained in this legislation. First, this legislation calls for the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide a scientific basis for determining the association between illnesses and exposures to environmental or wartime hazards as a result of service in the Persian Gulf. The NAS will review the scientific literature to assess health exposures during the Gulf War and health problems among veterans, and report to Congress and the VA. This bill tasks the NAS with first reviewing a list of likely exposures. Such a step will jump start their review and provide NAS with an initial blueprint to build upon. This is important because it will speed up the process of providing compensation to veterans, and our veterans should not have to wait any longer. Second, this legislation authorizes VA to presume that diagnosed or undiagnosed illnesses that have a positive association with exposures to environmental or wartime hazards were incurred in or aggravated by service even if there was no evidence of the illness during service. Having that authority, VA will determine whether there is a sound medical and scientific basis to warrant a presumption of service connection for compensation for diagnosed or undiagnosed illnesses, based on NAS' report. Within 60 days of that determination, VA will publish proposed regulations to presumptively service connect these illnesses. Third, this bill extends VA's authority to provide health care to Gulf War veterans through December 31, 2001. After the war, DoD and VA acknowledged that they couldn't define what health problems were affecting Persian Gulf War veterans. Nonetheless, we did not want to make these veterans wait for the science to catch up before we could provide health care and compensation for their service-related conditions. That is why, back in 1993, we provided Persian Gulf War veterans with priority health care at VA facilities for conditions related to their exposure to environmental hazards. Gulf War veterans' access to health care through VA must be continue to be ensured. Fourth, this bill requires NAS to provide recommendations for additional research that should be conducted to better understand the possible adverse health effects of exposures to toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards associated with Gulf War service. The VA, in conjunction with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), will review and act upon the recommendations for additional research and future studies. Fifth, this legislation tasks NAS with assessing potential treatment models for the chronic undiagnosed illnesses that have affected so many of our Gulf War veterans. They will make recommendations for additional studies to determine the most appropriate and scientifically sound treatments. VA and DoD will review this information and submit a report to Congress describing whether they will implement these treatment models and their rationale for their decisions. In addition, this legislation calls for the establishment of a system to monitor the health status of Persian Gulf War veterans over time. VA, in collaboration with DoD, will develop a plan to establish and operate a computerized information data set to collect information on the illnesses and health problems of Gulf War veterans. This data base will also track health care utilization of veterans with chronic undiagnosed illnesses to better evaluate these veterans' health care needs. VA and DoD will submit this plan for review and comment by NAS. After this review, VA and DoD will implement the agreed-upon plan and provide annual reports to Congress on the health status of Persian Gulf War veterans. Also, this legislation requires that VA, in consultation with DoD and HHS, carry out an ongoing outreach program to provide information to Gulf War veterans. This information will include health risks, if any, from exposures during service in the Gulf War theater of operations, and any additional services or benefits that are available. This bill also extends and improves upon VA's Persian Gulf War Spouse and Children Evaluation Program to allow VA greater flexibility in the implementation of this important program and to allow for greater access for the families who seek medical evaluations. Finally, this bill requires the Secretary of VA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to study the feasibility of establishing, as an independent entity, a National Center for the Study of Military Health. The proposed center would evaluate and monitor interagency coordination on issues relating to post-deployment health concerns of members of the Armed Forces. In addition, this center would evaluate the health care provided to members of the Armed Services both before and after their deployment on military operations. It could also monitor and direct government efforts to evaluate the health of servicemembers upon their return from military deployments, for purposes of ensuring the rapid identification of any trends in diseases or injuries that result from such operations. Finally, such an independent health center could also serve an important role in providing training of health care professionals in DoD and VA in the evaluation and treatment of post-conflict diseases and health conditions, including nonspecific and unexplained illnesses. We will continue to retrace the steps and decisions that were made in deploying almost 697,000 men and women to the Persian Gulf in 1990. Hopefully, we will learn from the lessons of this war to prevent some of these same health problems in future deployments, where our troops will again face the threat of an ever changing and increasingly toxic combat environment. But we also must address what our ill Gulf War veterans need now. We need to provide a permanent statutory authority to compensate them. We need to be able to answer the questions of ``How many veterans are ill?'' and ``Are our ill veterans getting sicker over time?" Mr. President, this legislation targets these important issues. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join Senator Byrd, Senator Specter, and me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in June 1997, President Clinton announced his Initiative on Race, One America in the 21st Century. His Initiative was created to encourage all Americans to work together in understanding and dealing with our racial differences. In the course of the past year, President Clinton has traveled around the country hosting several events to pursue these goals and foster a national dialogue on the subject. I am proud to tell you that West Virginia not only listened to President Clinton's announcement but answered his call to join him in taking action on this important effort. The Contemporary American Theater Festival (CATF), located in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, commissioned a play on Asian racism entitled Carry the Tiger to the Mountain, and Governor Cecil Underwood formed his own Initiative on Race, One West Virginia. Together, they planned a Town Hall Meeting on the Performing Arts and Race which was held this past weekend in Shepherdstown and will be broadcast by West Virginia Public Television this coming Thursday and Sunday. Over 300 people attended the afternoon performance of Tiger and the Town Hall Meeting which followed and was narrated by Kwame Holman, of The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. The panelists for the event included choreographer Garth Fagan, who recently won a Tony Award for The Lion King; Angelo Oh, a member of the President's Advisory Board on Race; Molly Smith, the Artistic Director of Arena Stage; George Takei, a theater and television actor from Star Trek; Helen Zia, contributing editor to Ms. Magazine; Christian McBride, a jazz artist and composer; Abel Lopez, president of Non-Traditional Casting Project; Dr. Simon Perry, a faculty member from Marshall University; and Liz Lerman, artistic director of Dance Exchange. The audience included local community members of various backgrounds, West Virginia NAACP activists, and over 100 members of the Organization of Chinese Americans. This impressive list of panelists and audience gathered in this small town and produced a level of dialogue on the arts and race to further enhance President Clinton's vision for One America. The afternoon discussion brought forth many ideas and questions in regard to the arts and race. The panelists discussed the role of the performing arts in society, how the depiction of minorities as stereotypes can further intensify racial misunderstandings, and how if we as a society would think of culture more than race, then perhaps we could succeed more. As George Takei mentioned, the performing arts are ``a forum for understanding and communication.'' Yet so much depends on who does the articulating and who has access to the art being presented. In its most truthful essence, the arts can allow ``cultures to touch each other,'' as Molly Smith of Arena Stage pointed out. And if we can ``touch each other'' or understand each other, then we can begin easing the tensions that separate us. These are but a few of the ideas discussed in Shepherdstown at the Town Hall Meeting, but you can see the wealth of communication that transpired on the subject in just a few short hours. Imagine if a community in every state hosted a similar event to foster and promote honesty and understanding of our racial differences. I am very proud of my fellow West Virginians' efforts and success in answering President Clinton's challenge to work towards living as One America in the 21st Century. And I congratulate Ed Herendeen, the producing director of CATF, and Cherylene Lee, the playwright of this commissioned work, for bringing Carry the Tiger to the Mountain to West Virginia for its world premier season. CATF is dedicated to promoting live, provocative theater that challenges us to think about issues in our society, and once again it has achieved that goal.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I support my colleagues, Senator Wellstone and Senator Murray, in their efforts to restore the veterans benefit that was unjustly cut to pay for unprecedented increases in the highway bill. Adoption of this amendment would restore the former state of the law, by reinstating disability rights for veterans, while still fully preserving each and every highway project that was included in the highway bill and in the corrections bill that was covertly attached to the IRS Restructuring bill. Prior to the enactment of the highway bill, the law required the payment of disability compensation to veterans who could prove that they became addicted to tobacco use while in military service, if that addiction continued without interruption, and resulted in an illness and in disability. The conference report on the highway bill rescinded this compensation to disabled veterans, generating $17 billion in ``paper savings'' to fund an unprecedented increase in ISTEA. Of course, anyone familiar with these claims for compensation for tobacco-related illnesses knows that OMB's cost estimate is just a guess. Since 1993, VA has received less than 8,000 claims, and has only granted between 200-300. In arriving at its $17 billion estimate, the Administration, for some unexplained reason, estimated that 500,000 veterans would file tobacco-related claims each year. The actual cost to VA for claims filed over the last six years has been a few million dollars, not anywhere near the $17 billion estimate. I will again remind my fellow Senators who think that subsequent actions have discharged any further responsibility to these veterans, that so far, the Congress has done nothing to undo this wrong. An amendment was adopted to direct a portion of the proceeds from the tobacco bill to VA health care--but it was only for health care, and not for compensation, that is, monthly disability benefits for tobacco- related illnesses. But now there is no tobacco bill. So that effort is meaningless. There were also some provisions in the highway bill that provided enhancements to some very important VA programs--the GI Bill, grants for adaptive automobile equipment, and reinstatement of benefits to surviving spouses, to name a few. But the veterans community was not bought off by the spending of only $1.6 billion on veterans programs, with the remaining $15.4 billion going to highway increases. Finally, the text of H.R. 3978, the highway corrections bill, was covertly attached to the IRS Restructuring Conference Report. Although this Report contains some improved language, as it strikes references to smoking being ``willful misconduct,'' it still cut off compensation for tobacco-related illnesses for the overwhelming majority of veterans. It does not truly help veterans. Instead, it is another nail in their benefits coffin. The amendment that Senators Wellstone and Murray put forth today is our only real opportunity thus far to right this wrong and correct the injustice done to America's veterans. The issue before the Senate now is simply whether we are going to continue to wrongly deny disabled veterans the rights they had under law. It is a simple choice--and I hope my colleagues will now choose to ``do right'' by veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues, and most especially Senators Grassley, Baucus, and Breaux, in introducing the ``Home Health Care Access Preservation Act of 1998.'' This legislation seeks to prevent many reputable home health agencies from going out of business and it will ensure that patients continue to have access to quality home care in the future. I would like to talk about the importance of health care in the lives of our Nation's seniors and why we must take action to protect their access to home care. Some people question why we need to make these changes. I think they ask because when we talk about providing care, sometimes we forget that it is about taking care of someone. Home care is not just about giving people their pills and checking their blood pressure. It's about giving people who need a little help the ability to stay at home, surrounded by their family and friends. It's about preserving the dignity of people who've worked hard their entire lives to provide for their families and serve the community they live in. Mr. President, our seniors should not lose their right to live life in the way they want because of their age. They want to stay at home. They can get the care they need at home. We can provide it for them. And if we can do it, I think we should. There are also financial reasons to provide home health care. When managed properly, home health care can save the health system money. Homes care can often be substituted for more expensive care provided in hospitals and nursing homes. Last year, the Congress made needed reforms to the Medicare Program through the Balanced Budget Act, including moving to a prospective payment system (PPS) for home care. Everyone, including the home health industry, agrees that the Medicare Program should move away from a retrospective payment system and PPS to encourage all providers to be more cost-effective. The move toward PPS was included among many other reforms to Medicare. We, however, knew that we couldn't move directly into PPS--we needed time and more information to create a workable system. Therefore, the Interim Payment System (IPS) was also established in the BBA to transition home care from fee-for-service to prospective payment. But, in making these changes, the future viability of home health care has been threatened. Already, at least four home health agencies have gone out of business in my home State of West Virginia. In rural states like West Virginia, sometimes there is only one agency to provide these services in the area. We cannot afford to lose providers without endangering the well- being of our citizens. Therefore, it is imperative that we again take action to make sure that the home health care problems we're facing today do not become a crisis that we'll have to face in the near future. This legislation will help do just that. This bill attempts to accomplish three critical goals: 1. Keep agencies viable by providing a badly needed bridge between the old home health payment system and the new system due to be implemented in the next several years. 2. Level the playing field in the home care industry, ensuring that efficient, low cost providers are able to continue providing services as Medicare transitions to a new payment system. 3. Make certain that patients with chronic health needs have continued access to quality care. Many members of the home health industry are particularly concerned about this issue of providing quality health care to patients with chronic conditions. Under current law, caring for the chronically ill pushes home health agencies closer to the brink of bankruptcy. We share that concern and realize that IPS does not address this issue. As a result, our bill creates supplemental payments to compensate home health agencies for the added costs they incur caring for the chronically ill. While this bill would address the immediate concerns faced by the home health care industry, and is an important step toward protecting access--there is still more that needs to be done. While the BBA intended for IPS to be a temporary system, it now looks like it may be in place longer than we expected. I have recently learned that HCFA may have to postpone the implementation of the prospective payment system. They will have their hands full restructuring their computer systems to prepare for the year 2000. I remain concerned that if we do not move to PPS quickly, all agencies will face an additional 15 percent across the board cut. Certainly, this will place an undue financial burden on the agencies and force many to close their doors. Mr. President, I am not advocating going back in time and undo the BBA. However, we must address the inequities that resulted from its enactment, particularly when it comes to making certain our seniors get the care they need. To do this, we must level the playing field so that all reputable home health care agencies can remain competitive. Our legislation will accomplish this by providing a bridge between the old Medicare payment system and the new one. We have to remain watchful of the situation to make sure that home health care continues to be a viable option for so many in need. We have a commitment to those who came before us and sacrificed so much to make this Nation what it is today. I believe that we have to honor that commitment, and I urge my colleagues to do so by supporting the Home Health Care Access Preservation Act.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. While you are correct that I have concerns about specific provisions in the amendment, I also have concerns about the process by which we have taken up this issue. One of my top legislative priorities since coming to Congress has been the promotion of alternative fuels, and I am concerned that today's action is only a band-aid on a program which needs major surgery. However, I am prepared to accept the amendment today with the commitment to work together in the coming weeks to find a compromise to address my concerns.