Jay Rockefeller

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. Mr. President, I am delighted that $10 million to fund S. 2115, the Department of Veterans Affairs Primary Care Providers Incentive Act, has been provided through a managers' amendment to the VA/HUD appropriations bill. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the VA/HUD Subcommittee, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, for their cooperation in making this possible. The new scholarship and educational debt reduction programs that are contained in S. 2115 are designed to revitalize the Health Professionals Education Assistance Program at VA. This program was originally intended to help VA to recruit and retain health professionals, but it has atrophied in recent years, despite an ongoing demand for educational financial aid by health professionals employed by or interested in working at VA. This funding will help breathe new life into the educational assistance programs, and provide much needed incentives to improve recruitment and retention of primary care providers. The VA health care system is in the midst of a major reorganization that is simultaneously reducing the current workforce and creating the need for more primary care health professionals. VHA's five-year strategic plan includes the activation and/or planning of nearly 400 community-based outpatient clinics, to be staffed by primary care health professionals. Yet hiring of these professionals and retraining of current employees, to prepare for these changes, has lagged behind the planning process. The Primary Care Providers Incentive Programs that will be funded through this amendment will motivate current employees to get training in new areas of need by providing scholarships, and assist in the recruitment of new primary care providers by helping to pay off student loans. VA needs educational assistance programs such as these to effectively recruit and retain trained primary care health professionals. In VA hospitals and clinics, some of the most difficult positions to fill are those of nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. In my own state of West Virginia, for example, at one of the VA hospitals, there has been a vacancy for an occupational therapist for over 12 years! Two of the VA hospitals have no physical therapists at all. This is simply unacceptable. The plain fact is that starting salaries in the VA are not competitive with those in private practice. The Education Debt Reduction Program gives the VA a financial recruitment tool that will be an enormous help in making the VAMCs more competitive for these much-needed and highly skilled individuals. In fact, one of the most frequently asked questions by prospective new employees is whether or not VA has a debt reduction program. Clearly, this program will answer a critical need. But improving recruitment is only half of the story. Retention of trained people is equally important. Funding the employee incentive scholarship program can help solve this very real problem. Eligibility is limited to current VA employees, providing a way for vulnerable individuals to protect themselves against future RIFs by acquiring training in the new areas of need. This will go a long way toward improving staff morale at the VA, which has been severely undermined in the last few years due to the necessary streamlining that resulted from significant budget cuts. The educational assistance programs in S. 2115 are a valuable investment, enhancing morale of the VA health care providers in the short term, while building a workforce that matches VA's needs and improves veterans' health care in the long run. In the coming months, I will be working with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs to authorize these worthwhile programs.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator notes it is after 10 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. I had very much hoped that the argument of politics would not be used in discussing this. I agree with much of what my distinguished colleague over these many years has said. But I think, frankly, that on the question of product liability tort reform there has been enough, sort of acting and sort of wanderlust faith on both sides of the aisle that we don't need to point fingers at each other. My view towards this is that I would like to see, as the Senator from Washington indicated, a very modest bill which would be signed by the President to go forward. And I, after 11 years of working on this, am not willing to give up. I am not willing to say that I am going to put product liability to death. I am not going to be a part of that. I will, therefore, vote no on this cloture vote because I still think that, arguments about politics to the contrary, neither side having totally clean hands on all of this, the controlling factor ought to be the substance of the bill, which I think is good, and that the controlling factor on a vote ought to be how one feels about whether or not one can continue to debate product liability and hope that the leadership will come together in some kind of an arrangement, as, indeed, in this sort of Kabuki dance there has been. The majority leader last night vitiated cloture for today. The minority leader objected. The majority leader yesterday said there would be a period for filing of votes. A Democrat objected. On the other hand, there have been many problems on the other side. So what I am trying to do is to promote product liability in a very modest form which will be signed by the President. And, therefore, I hope my colleagues will vote no on the pending cloture motion so we might have a chance to continue this discussion and hopefully work out something on this modest but helpful bill. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would the Senator not agree that if the Senator from Washington prevailed on her point, that, in fact, it would not vitiate the IRS bill, but would simply mean that the conferees would have to go back, the conferees themselves, and do this work and perhaps straighten out the veterans situation and then come back to us?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This Senator believes that is incorrect. It would simply be the reestablishment of the conference committee, which could then clear up this matter which the Senator from Washington is trying to clear up.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. I happened to be upstairs in the Hart Building working on something else and listening to Senator Patty Murray from the State of Washington raising this very strong argument about veterans. I previously spoke on veterans; therefore, one might think I wasn't going to come down and give the same speech again. But when I heard the powerful argument from the Senator from Washington and I heard some of the responses, the Senator from West Virginia had to come down, because this is really the only way that we can protect veterans. We have no other choice. I believe the Senator from Rhode Island--although I didn't hear him say it, I know he said it in the past--this is somehow expansion of the benefit, this is some new benefit that goes to veterans. I don't know how to make this clear, but what we are talking about here is that, through however it worked, the legislators who were working on this particular piece of legislation, that started out with ISTEA and now has come to the IRS conference report, rescinded current law. They took current law which says that if you go through all the steps that you have to go through in the VA to prove that you are a disabled American veteran by virtue of your addiction to nicotine and that it was caused and continued and it was because of your service, and all of these steps that you have to go through, that you are entitled to appropriated funds. I will agree it is not money that comes from highways. I have always said this is not money that comes from highways, either ISTEA I or ISTEA II. But we have rescinded current law and, therefore, veterans are being denied and will be denied--unless as the distinguished Senator from Washington is trying to do in making a point of order-- disability benefits which are rightfully theirs under current law. How do we come to this point? How do we allow ourselves not to correct this? It is not a matter of spending money. It is not a matter of taking money away from this or that highway project. It never has been. It is simply reinstating current law which, in fact, at this particular moment only affects 300 veterans throughout the United States of America, because out of the 8,000 who have applied for this disability, only 300 to this point have made it. Now, I think we are probably talking about $200 or $300 million total. The administration, of course, participated in this sham by coming up with this $17 billion. Then it was $10.5 billion. And who knew what it was, which was basically to pay for programs which they wanted. Unfortunately, the majority party joined in on this. So here are the veterans with nobody to speak for them, with no legislative tools available to them, left on an unamendable conference report on IRS which has nothing to do with veterans. And the Senator from Washington is doing the only thing that she can do in her desire to protect veterans, keeping their current law ability to use appropriated funds to pay for their disability benefits. That is what the Senator from Washington is trying to accomplish. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would the Senator yield----

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Simply because it is this Senator's judgment that what the Senator from New Mexico has said is in two respects incorrect. This Senator would like to simply give his opinion, and that would be that, No. 1, the ISTEA bill would in no way be affected. That is signed. It would in no way be affected. Second, the IRS bill would in no way be affected at all. It is simply a matter that the conferees-- again, new conferees--would come back, not debating the IRS bill, but simply clearing up this matter which is of extreme importance to this country's moral obligations to veterans.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That does not mean there could not be new conferees. I mean, this is an important point.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am very happy to be making comments while the Senator from the State of Wyoming is presiding. Mr. President, I wish to say that there may hopefully be some encouraging news with respect to the negotiations going on about product liability. As you know, the majority leader came to the floor and said that a cloture vote would continue as planned for tomorrow morning, and that amendments would be allowed up until 5 o'clock, which collectively allowed for about 4 hours of amendments. I think it is very important, in the relationship between the majority and the minority, for the minority to be able to make amendments. And I think there has been some--no, not some, but a great deal of concern from our side about the pattern of using cloture motions, rather than as a chance to shut off debate, as simply a chance to shut off amendments. But now I understand that there is some consideration being given to perhaps postponing the cloture vote for a period of days so that there can be some discussion on the subject of amendments on the product liability bill. It is actually very interesting. In all the years--I was reflecting on it this morning with Senator Gorton--that this Senator from West Virginia has been working on product liability, there has really been no debate about product liability, only speeches. There have been speeches on the topic or a filibuster would commence and continue, and a series of speeches, but really never debate, never questions and answers back and forth, people probing each other. So I hope, anyway, that this possibility will come to pass. I think we do need debate. I think we do need a chance to offer amendments. Having said that, however, the Senator from West Virginia wishes to reiterate his position that I reached an agreement with the White House. It was an arduous, long process, but one in which honor and faith was kept on both sides, and I feel bound by the position of the White House as it stands now, or however it develops--and it probably won't develop--but that has to be my position. I am a defender of the faith, so to speak, in terms of the negotiation that I carried out with the White House to produce a rather minimal bill with respect to product liability but, on the other hand, a bill which moves the subject forward. Mr. President, my real purpose today is to speak about veterans' rights. I should start out by saying that I very much respect the chairman of the Finance Committee, whom I specifically and directly remove from any criticism which I might be about to make, because it should not be directed at him at all. That goes also for the ranking member, Mr. Moynihan, for his part in bringing the IRS debate and bill to a conclusion. But I am not happy and I think my colleagues know that. Veterans' rights have been bartered away, in deals without the full scrutiny of the Senate or even the authorizing committee. There are many here who believe very strongly in the authorizing process; not everything is appropriating. Authorizing has to come first. That is the way of the Senate. That has been quietly and very definitely thrown aside in this whole process. I am referring to the denial of veterans' disability rights which were enacted as part of TEA 21, and in the process now going on with regard to the technical corrections bill needed to amend drafting errors which were admittedly made in that bill. America's veterans, indeed, all Americans, are being subjected to what amounts to an unprecedented power play, conducted behind closed doors, as part of the highway reauthorization process. This is a kind of process which one can talk about on the Senate floor and very few choose to listen to it, because it sounds like what everybody doesn't like about Washington and, in fact, it is what everybody should not like about Washington. This is an example of a process run amok, where any provision, no matter how heinous or unrelated, can be added in conference under cover of darkness. Now, of course, if you add something in conference, all of us understand that the conference report is unamendable. So you vote yea, or you vote nay on the report, but you cannot amend it; thus the power to use this process is a formidable power, and thus we need to do things correctly in this body. I think the process that has gone on here is a process all Members are going to come to lament. This process is backroom, back-door politics. It is not democracy, and, Mr. President, veterans have earned better than this. Veterans have earned more from their government than a process that denies their rights without any accountability. Veterans have earned more than a process where the denial of veterans' rights can be inserted into unamendable conference reports, under the cover of darkness. They have earned more than a process where, in the name of expediency, extraneous provisions are placed in conference reports to avoid accountability, and where the majority has, in effect, destroyed the normal protections. Why is it, I ask myself time and time again, why is it that this Senate is willing to look the other way on this? Why is it that we are allowing such an abuse of power to go on? It is clearly unfair. I do not think that it was the original purpose of the conferees or the original people doing ISTEA to deny benefits that are in the current law for tobacco-addicted veterans who have disabilities, veterans who have gone through an unbelievably difficult process at the Department of Veterans Affairs to qualify for service connection for their disabilities. But, in fact, under the highway bill, current law has been rescinded, wiped from the books, and nobody has done anything about it, and nobody can do anything about it. And we sit here, stand here, talk here, silently, knowingly doing nothing about it at all. Now, IRS reform, highway spending, these are two things that I very much favor. I voted for the underlying bills. In terms of the IRS reform conference report, had that come up clean, I would have voted for it now. I voted for it in committee. I am on the Finance Committee. However, I cannot support its passage at the expense of America's veterans. You say, well, but that is just one group of people and this is a very large issue. Well, veterans are more than just one group of people, Mr. President. They are symbolic of the tenor of a nation, the moral attitude of a country towards its citizens who have maintained its freedom. Veterans are at all times to be taken very seriously because of the sacrifices that many of them have made, and in this case in particular, where their disability has been fostered by the Government's actions in a number of ways. My colleagues know I have been fighting for many months to correct the injustice that we did to veterans. It is my duty, it is my honor to do so, and I am going to continue to do so here. But I must stop and ask, why, why is it that the majority continues to use their power to deny full Senate consideration of H.R. 3978, the highway corrections bill? If we brought it up, we could have a time agreement of a half hour, divide it in two, 15 minutes each side, and we could have an up-or-down vote. But, of course, all of that is just talk at this point, because we are on a conference report and it cannot happen, and I understand that. But that will not keep me from standing here and voicing my outrage at a process which so undoes veterans who have suffered, and does it so unfairly. Why has the leadership endorsed, in fact induced, conferees to take such action? Why have they decided to totally ignore the needs of America's veterans on the way to what amounts to a 44-percent increase in highway spending over the last budget cycle. I am all for highway spending. I remind my colleagues I come from the State of West Virginia, where only 4 percent of the land is flat, so if you don't have a highway somewhere around you, you are in pretty big trouble pretty quickly. So highways are important to me. But instead of bringing this bill to the floor for debate and a single amendment, the majority simply said they would find another way to pass this bill, quietly, covertly, out of the light of day. And it turned out that the other way of doing this was the IRS conference report, which we are debating today. We are evading the usual process that would have allowed this to be fully aired and debated in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over veterans compensation matters. People say, well, jurisdiction, who cares? Well, jurisdiction matters, and there are a lot of people in this body who place great weight on jurisdiction. Authorizing committees have jurisdiction for some things; the Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction for other things, but jurisdiction is important. Jurisdiction has been bypassed, abrogated, tossed aside in this whole process, and now we are taking away a benefit which was granted to disabled veterans under existing law. Some are going to argue we are giving veterans a new benefit. That is absurd. We have removed a benefit which was there under the current law for veterans who are tobacco addicted to the point of disability, after going through a series of VA tests which are so rigorous that at this point, only a relatively few hundred have been able to qualify for those benefits. So it is extremely unfair. Once again, we sidestep the regular process. The IRS conferees failed to restore the benefits. Once again, I exempt the ranking member of the Finance Committee and the chairman of the full committee. I exempt them from blame for this. We failed to restore the cuts. And this is at the direction of the majority. This has been a complete mockery of our budget process and of regular order in the Senate. So, this is what I have called a ``midnight raid'' on veterans' benefits. To put it bluntly, America's veterans have been wronged, deeply wronged, by backdoor trickery. Funding for veterans' benefits has been cut; imaginary savings have been diverted to pay for highways; and veterans' disability rights have been placed in jeopardy, to say the least. I had hoped to offer an amendment to the corrections bill that would have struck the veterans' disability compensation offset from the underlying conference report. But that was all pushed aside. I no longer have that option. I will say that the IRS restructuring conference report has slightly improved the language pertaining to veterans. I will give them credit for that, since credit must be given where credit is due. The conference report strikes references to smoking being ``willful misconduct.'' You understand I am talking about a veterans population, for the most part older, which was encouraged to smoke by the Government, told to take a smoking break, where they were sold cigarettes at a reduced price, and where the warnings about the dangers of tobacco were not even produced or shown on cigarettes used in the military until 5 years after that was happening as a routine matter for the civilian population in the United States. So, this is another nail in the veterans' benefits' coffin. I am very, very angry about it. America's veterans will not be fooled by backroom, backdoor legislating, no matter how anybody chooses to try to clean up the record on this. They will see through this charade. They will remember it on Veterans' Day, on Memorial Day, on the Fourth of July, when we all give our speeches about veterans. And then we come in, in the darkness of night, and take away benefits from disabled veterans, who under current law have disability compensation rights, and we take them away. We take them away and will not restore them. I cannot be a part of that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to oppose the IRS reform conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will briefly run through a list of the bill's major provisions for my colleagues in the hope that some of them and some of their staff they work with are listening. No. 1, the bill, as the Senator from Washington indicated, protects product sellers, renters, and lessors from suits that should be brought against manufacturers, not the product sellers, renters, or the lessors. Product sellers, renters, or lessors will be held liable for their own negligence, make no mistake. For their own negligence they will be held accountable, or their failure to comply with express warranty, but not for the negligence that is beyond their own control. That comports, it seems to me, with common sense. The product seller, renter, or lessor remains liable if the manufacturer cannot be brought into court. So, again, a consumer protection. Or they remain liable if the manufacturer is unable to pay judgments. All of this is in order to ensure that consumers retain a source of recovery. So, product sellers, renters, or lessors, et cetera, are protected, but they are not protected in the ultimate sense. That is, if manufacturers don't show up, are broke, can't pay, they--the consumer, injured consumer--will still get recovery. No. 2, this bill will create a defense in a product liability case if a plaintiff is found to have been under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol and was responsible for more than 50 percent of his or her own injuries. That has always struck me as a commonsense idea. We should help discourage abuse of illegal drugs or alcohol. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But in any event, if people are responsible for their own use of alcohol or drugs and responsible for more than 50 percent of their injury, there should be an absolute defense against that. No. 3, if a claimant's harm is attributable to the misuse or alteration of a product, defendant's liability will be reduced by whatever extent the harm is due to that misuse or alteration. No. 4, consumers will have 2 full years to file a complaint from the time he or she discovers or should have discovered the harm and--this is new--the cause of the injury. A lot of States have the harm, the discovery of the harm, but there are not as many that have the cause. So, this is very, very strongly in favor of the consumer. This is particularly true--on the veterans committee, I have worked very hard on a variety of issues, including the Persian Gulf War Syndrome, all kinds of things in the world we are moving into, like toxic harm, et cetera, where the cause becomes much more important, because often things don't show up until much later. No. 5, the bill's 18-year statute of repose applies to only durable goods in the workplace, and only in those situations which are covered by State worker compensation laws, and specifically excludes injuries caused by toxic harm. I just mentioned toxic harm. Well, toxic harm has no place, there is no remedy for it, in this bill. This means that only people who can recover for their injuries under State worker compensation laws are subject to the statute of repose. The statute of repose does not begin until after the product's express warranty expires. This provision is good for consumers, and, frankly, it is good for business. Businesses are relieved of unlimited liability, and consumers have a source of recovery. No. 6, alternative dispute resolution--this is not the most potent part of the bill that I can imagine--we have an alternative dispute resolution that avoids protracted legal battles. That is encouraged under this bill. Either party can request alternative dispute resolution using existing State ADR procedures. No. 7, one of the main provisions of this bill limits punitive damages for truly small businesses (under 25 employees with $5 million in revenue), individuals (with incomes of $500,000 or less), and local governments. It creates a Federal standard for awarding punitive damages which are reserved for the most egregious cases--clear and convincing. We simply take the Federal standard, uniform standard, and put it, frankly, where I think most people agree it should be. The bill sets the limit for these punitives for small businesses to $250,000, or two times the economic and noneconomic damages. This limit means that businesses will still have to pay punitives, should that be the judgment of the court, but they are less likely to be bankrupted by the cost of the penalty. This bill does not create punitive damages in States that do not permit punitive damages. That needs to be said clearly. If the State does not have it, this bill will not create it. The bill includes a workplace safety incentive by affecting an employer's right to recover worker compensation benefits from a manufacturer whose product harms a worker if the employer's fault was a substantial cause of the injury. Finally, Senator Lieberman's biomaterials access assurance bill is the second title of product liability reform. I should say, in all due candor, this was something that was worked out between the White House, Senator Lieberman, and other parties. I concentrated, as did Senator Gorton, on the products aspect of this. Senator Lieberman did the biomaterial section of that and did a very good job. The White House has accepted it and it is part of the bill. This provision is designed to alleviate the shortage of certain biomaterials due to biomaterials suppliers who are increasingly unwilling--as those who would wish to do basic research--to supply products that produce very little revenue, but which would have high litigation costs attached to them. It should ensure the availability of life-saving and life-enhancing medical devices. Specifically, the provision will protect suppliers of biomaterials by allowing them to seek early dismissal from claims against a medical device manufacturer, so long as the supplier did not manufacture or sell the device and met its contract requirements. In sum, then, Mr. President, this bill, I think, is balanced in its treatment of consumers and business. Again, it is not a large bill. I think it should have strong, bipartisan support. I believe in the need to develop a Federal-level framework. To me, the free flow of interstate commerce demands some form of a rational and fair approach. I think that involves, to a certain extent, Federal standards. We are, after all, in a global economy, and the world has changed almost totally in the last 10 years as regards to this product liability subject, and the need for the legislation is greater than ever. I am not naive. As we head into this debate, there is long experience--over a decade--of filibusters and vetoes on products legislation. That is why I am so pleased that we have succeeded in negotiating a new bill with the President and his team. This bill has a firm commitment from the White House that it will be signed if it is unaltered. My colleagues do not like to hear the phrase ``if it is unaltered.'' The Senate does have a right to work its will, but if the Senate works its will and the White House is displeased, of course, there will be no bill. That is a choice the Senate will have to make. So to hit the highlights again--one gives this speech only once during the course of debate--we would gain strong protections for product sellers, renters, lessors and suppliers; strong protections for biomaterials suppliers; uniform Federal statute of limitations and workplace durable goods statute of repose; uniform Federal rules on alcohol and drugs; uniform Federal rules on misuse or alteration; uniform Federal legal and evidentiary standard for punitive damages-- the key word being ``uniform''--strong protections for small business from punitive damage awards; States' advances on joint and several liability determination would remain in place; more uniform rules of preemption (punitive damages and statute of repose changes). And then, as I indicated, there are incentives to resolve litigation, although they are not mighty in their nature. Nevertheless, they are there. I am fully aware that some have reservations about the limited nature of the product liability compromise that we secured with the White House, believing that it does not go far enough. That is a view that in other places or at other times, perhaps, might have my concurrence. But we are not in other places and in other times; we are here and now. It is not my view that we will move forward toward enactment of anything if we make changes to this bill. For the Record, let me acknowledge that we will face amendments that go beyond the compromise that Senator Slade Gorton and I have now secured with the White House. That was true in the last attempt to move product liability reform, and it resulted in--guess what? A veto, and no law. Those expansions will not have my support. I will not support them, and they cannot be signed into law. As I have stated many times before, I don't intend to support product liability reform provisions for the sake of doing it, so that I can say I did it. I want to see a law. I want to see something come from this process after all these years. As the Senate proceeds with debate on product liability reform, I sincerely hope and believe that the majority leader will take advantage of what I consider to be virtually the last opportunity to enact limited Federal reform of our product liability laws in the foreseeable future. Mr. President, that is all I have to say at the present time. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. (Exhibit 1)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, here we are again. As always, I am very proud to be standing across the aisle from my dear colleague, Senator Gorton. Senator Lieberman is very much a part of this. There are many who are very much a part of this. I can report that we are in a position, as the Senator from Washington has indicated, to pass and to have signed a product liability bill for the first time in my living memory, at least, in the Senate. This is, I guess, my 11th year on this subject. We have a chance to have the bill signed, however, by the President, only if we maintain the bill in its current very limited form. I, obviously, congratulate Senator Gorton--who does a prodigious job in all events--on this subject and many others, but he has also been extraordinary in the way that he has accepted and rejected and negotiated not only with myself, but also with the White House in his discussions with the majority leader to, in effect, finally bring a product liability bill to the floor which actually can pass, and if it does pass, will be signed by the President, provided that it is in its current limited form. It is a good feeling to have a bill that can be signed. I am much more accustomed to being here promoting a bill that I know would be a good bill, but, on the other hand, which I know in the end isn't going to be signed. When you know something is going to be signed, that says two things: One is that you are dealing with some folks in the White House who have been very honorable and consistent; and, second, you have a very limited bill. The Senator from Washington used a much more tactful phrase. He said a ``somewhat more limited bill.'' I will be more direct and say that it is a very much more limited bill. The logic for that is very simple. If it was other than its current form, we might be able to pass it, but it would not be signed. I just somehow fail to see the logic or the wisdom of, once again, passing a bill that is vetoed. I don't see the point in that. It takes up a lot of our time. We have all worked at this for years and years. If we are going to do something, let's get what we can. I think that is one of the lessons we learned from health care reform--one which I myself did not learn easily--that when we try to do the whole job, or at least a large chunk of the job, the Congress is not willing to accept it. I now refer to myself on health care reform as a ``raging incrementalist.'' I have had to accept that position. On product liability reform, I now think the more limited approach makes a great deal more sense. I say again to my colleagues and those who work with them, that when I say there is not a lot of room for deviation in this bill, the Senator from West Virginia really means that. This is a process in which I worked for a very long period of time negotiating with the White House, knowing that it was fruitless to come forward with a bill which would not meet with their approval. In essence, we had to look at all of those things which were displeasing to the White House last year when the veto took place and then simply excise all of those or anything related to those, and proceed to craft a bill which did not meet their objections. They were very tough about it, but they were very fair about it. They were very consistent. I really respect them for that. I can name the people who did that, and I will at the appropriate time, but I really honor them for their consistency and their willingness to let it be known where they stood. Then, my obligation is to let my colleagues know that this is not one of those bills where we can come in and do all kinds of things to it or else it will be vetoed, and only the President holds the pen. He always does, but sometimes there is more room for movement. On this one, I think there is very little room for movement. Senators know our legislative calendar is growing very short. That is why I have been so adamant about urging floor consideration for the reform agreement that has been reached with the White House and which will be signed if passed. Senator Gorton and I recently completed work on some technical changes which the White House had agreed to accept but, again, technical, no substantive changes. No substantive changes were contemplated by the White House; no substantive changes were agreed to by the White House, only some technical changes. Why? Because they are the controlling element here. They are the ones who have the pen. They can veto it, or they can sign it. Therefore, their leverage is considerable. I can pretend we are otherwise, but it doesn't do me much good. That is the case. Therefore, if we are going to have some form of bill, then let's proceed to get what we can. That is the way Senator Gorton and I have proceeded on this bill. I reemphasize to my colleagues that the White House has publicly committed to signing this bill if it remains in this form. That will grate on some of my colleagues. I have also had private assurances this bill will be signed if it is unamended. It is now up to the full Senate to decide if they want a campaign issue or if they want to pass a moderate, balanced, responsible reform bill that helps small business, product sellers, renters, lessors, as well as consumers, but which, in the end, is a fairly modest bill. My colleagues know there are many of us who have worked very hard to gain a meaningful and fair reform. I have taken on this task, not because I am a lawyer, which I am not; not because I am heavily involved in following these matters in the trade press, but for a very simple reason. And that is I genuinely believe that in an international global economy, we have to keep up with the competition. I just returned from 10 days in China with the President. It is just absolutely stunning to see what is going on there, the way that economy, in spite of the Asian troubles, is leaping ahead. This is true all over Asia. The Asia crisis is going to pass. It is going to be a couple of years. It is going to pass. They are going to come back. The Asian countries are predestined to be successful economically. All the European Union nations have a single product liability law. I know, just as a matter of common sense, that when something is manufactured in a State, if it is an average State, 70 percent of the manufactured products will be exported on an interstate, if not international, basis. Therefore, State law, having had meaning at some point, has much less meaning when it comes to interstate commerce, much less international commerce. Again, it is not just a question of the laws, but it is also a question of are we being competitive or not. What is the added cost for liability insurance to our products as we compete in Europe and Japan now, for example, which has also taken on a single national uniform product liability law. All of these things are extremely important. I also think having 50 States with separate laws is confusing. It means that people forum shop. They go to the State where they can get the best deal. I think it is true--I am not sure it is true this year--but it is true that last year, 85 percent of all of the punitive damages awarded in this country came out of Alabama, Texas, and California. That means that people knew where to go to get into a court system which would, in a sense, respond sympathetically. I don't think that is a wise way to carry on the business of our country or the commerce of our country. All of these States having different laws is very, very complex and very difficult in allowing us to compete, and in fact, in even allowing us to adjudicate in product liability cases where people have, in fact, been injured and do, in fact, deserve payment and, in some cases, punitive damages. The plain fact to this Senator's way of thinking is that our current system is simply unable to handle this problem in the modern marketplace and much less--or more so, really--in the global marketplace. States cannot deal with product liability problems that occur out of their borders. They can't do that. In contrast to the circumstances that existed when our tort system was evolving, most goods, as I indicated, move outside of the State. That is important. When our tort system was evolving, the States could handle it. The States did handle it. Exporting from McDowell County, WV, to Braxton County, WV, was the way life went on some time ago. Now if you export to Ohio, much less the State of California, much less Indonesia, Japan, or China, you have to be much more sophisticated in the way you handle these problems. I think a Federal product liability law does make sense. That does not mean in all respects, and this bill does not do that in all respects, and I think that is an important point. I was a member of the National Governors' Association for 8 years, and, like other companies, I was protective of States rights on all issues. But they have fairly consistently recognized the importance of establishing a Federal statute on product liability. I think that is very significant and deserves the consideration of my colleagues. There is another bipartisan group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of over 3,000 State legislators from all over the country. They have repeatedly urged Congress to enact Federal product liability reform--Federal product liability reform. The bill we are proposing would address the problems in our product liability reform system which we know exist. It would provide increased predictability for business. It would improve the system for consumers at the same time. Is it gigantic on any side? No, because it is not a big bill. That we constantly bear in mind, because if it were a bigger bill, it would not get signed. We want to get the bill signed. This is not the ``nose under the tent'' theory. It simply would be nice to get some sort of uniform Federal standards on product liability going. Under today's product liability system, companies have a disincentive to invent, to innovate. That means there are a lot of beneficial upgrades that are not done. People do not undertake certain kinds of biomedical research or pharmaceutical production or other things just because they fear the result of getting sued. It isn't really so much the number of suits. Those who oppose this Senator's position are always talking about, ``The Senator from West Virginia is always talking about the explosion of litigation.'' I have never talked about explosion of litigation. There is no explosion of litigation. But the psychological factor of a company sitting down and trying to decide whether it will go into a line of research and development which could lead to a cure for some disease, the present laws pull them back. Look at Viagra. It now has had about 300 deaths. I don't know what will happen with Viagra. Maybe they deserve to get sued, maybe they don't, I don't know. But you can see when people are looking at doing some kind of research that they want to pull back. In the case of Viagra, maybe they should have in the first place. Or maybe their warnings were not adequate. I am not here to defend Viagra, as I was never here to defend Ford Pinto--that was always the example. Ford Pinto is undefendable. They should have been sued, they were sued, and that was the right thing to do. Keeping products off the market that can do remarkable good for people is not in the American tradition; protecting consumers is in the American tradition. But we have always managed to find a balance where we both protect consumers and we move forward, strongly, in terms of innovation. We have always been the country of basic research. Other countries have been the countries of applied research. Basic research is not undertaken unless you can foresee it ending up someday in the marketplace. If you don't, then you don't do it. We can help all of this by establishing a set of Federal rules for product liability cases. The compromise bill that Senator Gorton and I were able to work out with the White House, and which was introduced on June 25, creates a national framework for a more rational process for litigation regarding products, and products alone. If a manufacturer was, in fact, responsible for injury, it would remain accountable. If the seller of a product failed in its responsibility, it would be held accountable. The legislation is limited, meaningful, and signable. I ask unanimous consent a section-by-section analysis of the bill appear in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rosalind Wood, of my staff, be accorded floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the pending product liability bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to offer my support for S. 2168, the FY 1999 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriation bill, and most particularly for Title I, the section outlining funding for VA. Once again, the chair of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, Senator Bond, the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, and the other members of the Subcommittee, have taken a reduced allocation and tremendous limitations on funding, and have miraculously created a bill which adequately addresses the needs of America's veterans. While I would always want to increase support for veterans programs further, I am enormously pleased with the result of their efforts. I would like to highlight several accomplishments in particular. On the health care side of the ledger, the Committee on Appropriations recommended $17.25 billion for VA medical care, a substantial increase of $222 million over the President's request and $192 million above the FY 1998 level. When these funds--$17.25 billion--are coupled with receipts collected under the Medical Care Cost Fund, the Veterans Health Administration will have access to $17.92 billion in discretionary resources to care for sick and disabled veterans. I am also particularly gratified by the Committee's report language on the need for community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in the Eastern Panhandle of my home state of West Virginia. Indeed, the Committee noted that clinics in Petersburg and Franklin will benefit approximately 2,000 veterans who have been forced to drive long distances and spend the entire day at VA medical center for routine health care. I am hopeful that VA will begin providing needed health care services by the end of this year, if not sooner. I must also mention the extraordinary work done by the Committee to appropriate substantial funds for the VA medical and prosthetic research account. For the first time in many years, the Administration had proposed funding this account at the level of $300 million. Although this amount represents an increase compared to last year, unfortunately, this level of funding is not sufficient even to keep up with inflation, much less provide for any real growth. For many years, the VA research program has suffered from flatline funding that has hampered its ability to improve the quality of care provided to veterans, attract well-trained physicians, and advance medical treatments that can benefit the nation as a whole. In light of this, the Committee has gone beyond the $300 million mark and allocated an additional $10 million. These additional funds will produce research discoveries which will benefit veterans and non-veterans alike. The bill before us also includes a substantial increase for grants for construction of state extended care facilities. The Committee recognized the important role State Veterans Homes play in providing domiciliary and nursing home care to veterans and chose to recommend $90 million for this program. This recommendation is $10 million more than the fiscal year 1998 funding. The Committee also included report language which emphasizes the need for VA to ensure funding for grants and per diem payment assistance to community-based providers of services to homeless veterans. In the past three years, VA has closed approximately 4,500 acute mental health and substance abuse beds. At the same time, the number of unique patients receiving outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment has increased by 8 percent. There is no question that outpatient based treatment for homeless veterans with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders can be effective, but such treatment must be coupled with safe, supervised transitional housing programs. VA grant programs help to fill the void caused by the closure of inpatient services. On the benefits side, I was very pleased to see that the Committee included an increase of $5 million for the Veterans Benefits Administration and tied the release of these funds to submission of a plan implementing the recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration. VA continues to struggle to correctly adjudicate veterans' benefits claims in a timely manner, and faces a backlog of pending cases and an increase in new claims being filed. Additional funding, spent in a targeted manner, should greatly improve VA's decisionmaking ability. The Committee has also recommended a $2.2 million increase in funds allocated for the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), Professional Group VII, which represents the Secretary before the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. There is a growing backlog of cases at the Court created by the loss of experienced attorneys and increased productivity of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). Our veterans should not have to wait additional time for a decision because the OGC does not have the staff to litigate their cases. Mr. President, in closing, I am pleased with what the Committee on Appropriations has been able to do for VA. I applaud the leadership of all the members of the Appropriations Committee, and especially those members on the VA-HUD Subcommittee. Amendment No. 3057

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I withdraw the request. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the session be put into recess until after the caucuses.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. It is my firm belief that this legislation will significantly improve the financial stability, health and well-being of millions of American children. My most sincere thanks to Senators Snowe, Kerry, Jeffords and Dodd, who co-sponsored the Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1997, the bill that laid much of the groundwork for this legislation in the Senate. I would like to thank Senator Jim Jeffords in particular for his help in securing the inclusion of vital medical child support enforcement provisions in this legislation. I would also like to express my appreciation to my colleagues Senators Ted Kennedy and Dan Coats for their unwavering commitment to children and for their work on securing better medical child support enforcement. There is no doubt that child support penalties and incentives payments simply do not generate the flash and natural interest that other children's issues do. The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 addresses some very complicated financing formulas, complex interactions between the Federal government and state child support enforcement agencies and hidden budget implications. Despite its plain wrapping, however, effective child support enforcement is one of the most important roles the Federal government plays in facilitating a real continuum of quality benefits and services for children in this country. In my role as Governor of West Virginia and later as Senator and Chairman of the National Commission on Children, my ultimate goal has always been the same: to make sure that all children receive the specialized supports necessary to address a wide range of financial, emotional and medical needs. Child support is one of the most vital sources of support for millions of American children, and the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 strengthens state enforcement of these obligations in a variety of areas. I am proud of the fact that my state works hard to enforce its child support obligations and does an excellent job. It is my hope that this legislation will encourage West Virginia and other states do their job even more effectively. One of the most important and, unfortunately, overlooked areas of child support is the enforcement of medical child support (that is, health insurance or medical costs covered by the non-custodial parent). Since 1984, Federal law has required state child support enforcement agencies to pursue medical support as part of every child support order. Despite this requirement, only 60% of national child support orders contain a medical support component. In its 1996 review of state child support enforcement programs, GAO found that at least 13 states were not consistently petitioning to include medical support in their general support orders, and 20 states were not enforcing existing medical support orders at all. Such limited enforcement of medical support is dismal, particularly in light of the fact that health insurance and premiums provided through a non-custodial parent's health plan are often a child's only chance for comprehensive medical care. My colleagues and I have worked very hard to make sure that Federal programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program provide quality health care for children whose families cannot afford to cover them. While no one could care more about these Federal programs than I do, they are not designed to be and should not be misused as a backdoor for parents who shirk their medical support responsibilities. Unfortunately, effective medical child support enforcement is thwarted by a lack of standardized communication between state child support enforcement agencies and the employers and plan administrators responsible for the non-custodial parent's health plan. This is particularly true for health plans that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which represent 50% of all employer health plans. With 700,000 children dependent on medical support through ERISA-governed plans and an additional 1,000,000 children dependent on medical support through non-ERISA governed medical plans, it is essential that communication between states, employers, and plan administrators be as efficient as possible. The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 seeks to improve enforcement of medical support in two ways. First, it orders the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a medical support incentive measure which would base a percentage of each qualified state's annual Federal incentives payment on its ability to establish and enforce medical child support. If implemented by Congress, this sixth performance measure would be added to the first five already included in this legislation: (1) establishment of paternity; (2) establishment of child support orders; (3) enforcement of current child support orders; (4) enforcement of back child support (or ``arrearages''); and (5) cost effectiveness. Once HHS develops this medical child support incentive measure, Congress has the responsibility to make sure it becomes part of the overall incentives program. The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 also takes another important step towards effective medical support enforcement by requiring the Secretaries of the Department of Human Services and the Department of Labor to develop a National Medical Support Notice as a means of enforcing the health care provisions of a child support order. Under this new requirement, all states would be required to use and all employers and plan administrators would be required to accept the National Medical Support Notice as a qualified medical child support order under ERISA. This standardization is an essential step in ensuring that everyone is on the same page when it comes to providing eligible children with the health care coverage they deserve. The legislation also requires HHS and DoL to bring together a Medical Child Support Work Group composed of employers, plan administrators, state child support directors, and child advocates which will recommend additional ways to remove the remaining barriers to effective medical support. We have also required that HHS and DoL submit their recommendations for further legislative solutions to improve medical support, including any necessary changes to ERISA. With $15 to $25 billion each year in uncollected child support, we have a long way to go to strengthen our national and state child support systems. I am hopeful, however, that the changes brought about in this legislation make significant progress towards the ultimate goal of ensuring child support for every child who is entitled to it. In that regard, I am particularly pleased that medical child support enforcement is finally receiving the attention it deserves in the context of these broader changes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues Senators Frist, Lieberman, Domenici, Bingaman, Burns, Gramm, and Breaux 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. This is a very important time in our history. 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 hybrid 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 just `come along.' 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. I view this knowledge base as a bank. The US 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. That is the good news. The bad news is that the United States has been withdrawing more than it has been depositing for several years now. Just this year we are looking at the first budget surplus in 29 years. A large part of the current rosy economic situation is due to our dominate high-tech industries. High-tech companies are currently responsible for one-third of our economic output and half of our economic growth. However, we have not been supporting the fundamental, pre-competitive research which is critical to these industries at the levels necessary to allow us to continue at this pace. We must act now in order to try to correct this situation. Recently, Senators Gramm and Lieberman, along with Senators Domenici and Bingaman, introduced S. 1305 the National Research Investment Act. Their idea was to double R&D funding in 10 years, a very noble and courageous effort. Even more importantly, I think, this bill caused members of the scientific and engineering community to pull together and fight as a whole for an idea. It has certainly caused the co- sponsors of this bill to pull together to try to move forward as a group with their original idea. Our bill is the next step in this process. This bill 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. Based on a careful review and analysis of our past history, our bill authorizes a real funding increase of 2.5% over the rate of inflation for the next 12 years for federally-funded, civilian, R&D programs. This would increase federal R&D spending from the current level of 2.1% to 2.6% of total, overall budget. It would also cause a doubling, in 1998 dollars, of R&D funding in approximately 12 years. 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. Currently, as I have stated previously, we are in an economic upturn. This is the 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. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that this amendment, which authorizes $10 million for the DOD/VA Cooperative Research Program, has been accepted. This program is a valuable, mutually beneficial association between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and funds health-related research specifically designed to benefit both active duty military personnel and veterans. In fact, fostering this collaborative relationship was the original intent of the DOD appropriation, back when this program began in 1987. It has been funded every year since then. The DOD/VA Cooperative Research Program provides an excellent example of interagency cooperation to achieve a common goal. First of all, the VA and DOD jointly designate representatives to oversee the entire process. Before any money is spent, these representatives identify several specific research topics of interest to both agencies. The Departments, working together, then decide the priorities of the research areas and the appropriate funding levels. Research proposals that are received in response to an announcement of the program are reviewed by external experts, to preserve the integrity and credibility of the research. The result is a program which provides a strong, direct link between DOD and VA investigators to pursue high quality research of mutual interest. I am cosponsoring this amendment with Senator Harkin and Senator Durbin who also recognize the tremendous benefits that can be gained from continuing this joint research effort. A collaborative approach like this one allows investigators to follow the natural course of disease or injury from the time of onset during active duty, and afterwards, in the veteran population. In FY 1998, DOD and VA spent the funds provided for this program on studies of combat casualty care including bone healing and wound repair, and mechanisms of emerging pathogens. These kinds of studies are personally important to me, because in my own state of West Virginia, we have the highest per capita population of veterans, many of whom received grievous injuries during combat. This program is funding research on limb regeneration and recovery from burn wounds at VA medical centers that include West Virginia, and offers hope for a better future for combat-wounded soldiers. Last year's program also included the development of new clinical research areas on treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and prostate diseases, including prostate cancer. As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have witnessed the devastating effects of PTSD on the lives of former military personnel, and I am enormously encouraged by research which may prevent the onset of PTSD. Let me stress that this amendment does not specify research areas for focus. That decision rightly belongs with the Departments, because of the collaborative nature of the joint program. They have expressed interest in continuing research in the areas I just mentioned, expanding the studies of emerging pathogens to include host defenses. In addition to these ongoing areas of research, two new research initiatives have been jointly agreed to by both Departments. The first will focus on exercise physiology and combat readiness, while the second addresses traumatic brain and spinal cord injury. I am also pleased to note that the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee has included report language recommending that VA and DOD develop a new cooperative research program on alcoholism. Rates of alcohol abuse are significantly higher in the military than among civilians. These patterns of heavy drinking persist in the veteran population, such that alcoholism is one of the most common illnesses found among hospitalized veterans. As the nature of war changes, the modern military must cope with threats that include environmental hazards and possible biological or chemical warfare, as well as the more traditional hazards of combat. Research is needed to ensure that we are ready to meet these new risks. We must also remember to care for our soldiers after they have suffered the ravages of war, whatever the wounds. We need additional research to find effective ways to help them have healthy and happy lives after service, to repay them for the sacrifices that they make for all of us. amendment no. 3022 (Purpose: Relating to activities of the contractor-operated facilities of the Department of Energy) On page 397, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have an especially strong interest in the history of illnesses and health concerns that follow military deployments. We have all observed the effects of post-conflict illnesses among our Gulf War veterans who returned with poorly understood, undiagnosed illnesses, and our Vietnam veterans with health problems related to exposure to Agent Orange. This legacy is not just a problem of our most recent conflicts; our Atomic-era veterans are still fighting for recognition of health conditions related to radiation exposures they experienced in service to their country 50 years ago. If there is any single lesson to be learned from this history, it is that the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have not always been aggressive enough in pursuing the immediate health consequences of military conflicts. Too many times our veterans have had to wait years before post-conflict illnesses are recognized as real problems that require firm commitments of research and treatment programs. These delays have come at a cost to the veterans who have had to fight for this recognition, and they have come at a cost to the government's credibility on this important issue. I believe it is time to consider establishing an independent entity with the capacity to evaluate government efforts to monitor the health of servicemembers following military conflicts, and to evaluate whether servicemembers are being effectively treated for illnesses that occur following such deployments. There have been suggestions for the need for such an entity within DoD and VA, but I believe that important health expertise outside these agencies is required as well. Indeed, it may be that the best approach is one that pulls together expertise from VA, DoD, and health care professionals and researchers from centers of medical excellence in fields such as toxicology, occupational medicine, and other disciplines. Therefore, I would like to propose an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization to require the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to assess the feasibility of establishing, as an independent entity, a National Center for the Study of Military Health. The proposed Center for the Study of Military Health would evaluate and monitor interagency coordination on issues relating to post- deployment health concerns of members of the Armed Forces, including outreach and risk communication, recordkeeping, research, utilization of new technologies, international cooperation and research, health surveillance, and other health-related activities. 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. The proposed center would 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. 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. While some have argued that it is time to take some of these responsibilities away from existing agencies, I would suggest that this is a matter for careful study and thoughtful deliberation. Therefore, this amendment would require the National Academy of Sciences to assess the feasibility of such an independent health entity. In their report to the Secretary of Defense, the Academy should provide a recommendation of the feasibility of such an entity and justification for such a recommendation. If such a center is recommended by the Academy, their report should also provide recommendations regarding the organizational placement of the entity; the health and science expertise that would be necessary; the scope and nature of the activities and responsibilities of the entity; and mechanisms for ensuring that the recommendations of the entity are carried out by DoD and VA. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, there have been too many times when I have heard agency officials testify that poorly understood, unexplained illnesses are a common, inevitable occurrence of every military conflict. With the tremendous advances achieved elsewhere in medical and military technologies, I find the acceptance of these illnesses as an inevitability to be unacceptable. I hope that this amendment will offer an initial step to better prevention and treatment of these post- conflict illnesses.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this Senator asks unanimous consent to be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about veterans' rights being bartered away. And I hope that my colleagues both here on the floor and in the various parts of the Capitol will listen to what I have to say, because it may be the last time this can be said. These rights for veterans are being bartered away in back room deals; they are being done without full Senate consideration; they are being done without amendments; they are being done without the public's knowledge; they are being done in a way which is, to me, shocking. I am referring to the denial of veterans' disability rights that was enacted as part of TEA 21 and the process which is now going on with regard to the technical corrections bill, which is needed to amend drafting errors that were made to TEA 21. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate now for 13 years. I have been very honored to serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It is part of my Senate service that has truly made me proud. I am proud to be helping real people with genuine human needs. Coming from a great State like West Virginia, which, like the Presiding Officer's State, places great honor on military service, and in serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, both of these things have allowed me the opportunity to learn a lot about the sacrifices that millions of our brothers and sisters have made to preserve the freedoms that we too often take for granted. They have earned our respect in ways that many of us will never know, God willing. I am proud to serve veterans, and I hope to continue to serve them however I can. But I am not so proud of the way this Congress--this Senate--is treating disabled veterans this year, and I wish to talk about it. I am, in fact, ashamed for all of us in the Senate. It is not a pretty story. It makes me very angry, and it makes me very sad. America's veterans--indeed, all Americans--are being subjected to an unprecedented money grab, a shell game, conducted behind closed doors, as part of the highway reauthorization process. Mr. President, veterans have earned better treatment than they are getting. They have earned more from their Government than a process that denies them their rights without any accountability--They have earned more than a process that is out of control. I repeat, this is a process in which all of the American people are being harmed by what is being done to veterans behind closed doors. My colleagues all need to know the truth of this. Why is it that we are now willing to look the other way when a conference report grossly exceeds the scope of the underlying original legislation? As my colleagues know, I have been fighting for many months to correct the injustice that we do this year to veterans. It is my duty, Mr. President; it is my right to do so as a single U.S. Senator; and it is my obligation. Mr. President, we bestow upon the Republican leader the power to control the matters that are brought before this body. If the Democrats control, then the Democratic leader does it. If the Republicans control, the Republican leader has that authority. It is awesome authority. It is an awesome responsibility. But the leader has failed veterans this year. Why does the Republican leader continue to use his power to deny full Senate consideration of H.R. 3978, the highway corrections bill? What is he afraid of? Why has the leadership turned a deaf ear to America's veterans who have been calling and writing to all of us to petition to have this bill brought to the floor? Why is it that the Republican leader will not give us the opportunity to offer an amendment to H.R. 3978 which would restore veterans' disability rights that were cut off to pay for unprecedented increases in highway funding? Instead of bringing this bill to the floor for debate and for a single amendment--30 minutes; that is all I ask for, 30 minutes equally divided--the majority leader has simply said that he will find another way to pass this bill--quietly, covertly, out of the light of day and out of the sight of veterans. It is not a pretty sight. That other way, we are now told, will probably be the Internal Revenue Service restructuring conference report that is slated to come to the floor soon. Now, as all of my colleagues know, when a conference report comes, it is unamendable. So it is a winning tactic. You want to get something passed, you put it into a conference report--and nobody knows about it; and nobody even knows where the conference committee is getting its directions--you put it in, then you bring it to the floor. Nobody can amend it, because it is called a conference report. It is sacred on this floor. It is unamendable, evading the usual process that would have allowed this issue to be fully aired and debated in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the authorizing committee which has jurisdiction over veterans' compensation matters. The highway bill conferees this spring took away a benefit that had been granted to disabled veterans under existing law--there is no new program here, it is under existing law. The conferees took something away from disabled American veterans--found disabled because of their inservice smoking addiction, having passed through a terrific series of tests which eliminate virtually all of them. Now, once again sidestepping the regular process, the Internal Revenue Service restructuring conferees will fail to restore the benefits cut in the highway bill. It will be done at the direction of the Republican leader. And I know something whereof I speak, because I have talked with some of the conferees. That is why I am here to share my sense of outrage with my colleagues. This is a critical issue of justice and fairness to people who are addicted because of the efforts of the U.S. Government in part, and in some cases in full. And every moment that we wait to correct this injustice, veterans and their families are irreparably harmed. Right now, the Department of Veterans Affairs is holding veterans' smoking-related disability claims in abeyance, just holding them until this corrections bill is passed. And when I say this ``corrections bill,'' I am talking about a corrections bill we will probably never see, we will never have a chance to debate; there will be no 30 minutes equally divided; there will be no up-or-down vote so Americans will know where people in the Senate stand on this matter--because it is being done in quiet. All of this means that the VA is not deciding any of these claims. Some were filed over 5 years ago and those folks have already been waiting all of this time for decisions. Their lives are on hold. Some claimants will have died. In fact, I suspect a lot of them will have died waiting for a decision. Some of their widows will have lost their homes since they did not have a VA check to make ends meet because the veterans' disability compensation has been cut off in secret. Every day that we wait, another veteran or a widow is irreparably harmed. We can't go back, but we can help those who are still waiting. Let's review the history of what happened here. I understand the Senate wishes to do other things. That is of no concern to me at this moment. What I am concerned about is these people and their future. In a disingenuously conceived fiction, the Clinton administration and the Budget Committee this year created some imaginary ``savings.'' It was a lovely scheme. I had all the OMB people in my office coming to tell me about the wonderful things that they were going to do with this money and that it would be used to help pay for all the President's projects in his budget, but they were doing it at the expense of disabled American veterans who, until recently, under current law, had the right to file disability claims if they are addicted to nicotine because of the U.S. Government. So they create imaginary savings. The Clinton administration did this, first, by increasing the budget baseline by an artificially inflated, absolutely unrealistic, ridiculous estimate of the cost of disability claims of veterans suffering from smoking- related diseases, and then at the same time by proposing to change existing law to bar disabled veterans from receiving this compensation. Well done, well done. The paper savings they created were then used to fund a huge increase in the highway bill. Now, these savings, Mr. President, you have to understand, are not real. This is a big shell game. They exist on paper only. They are based on an estimate of 500,000 veterans who would file tobacco-related claims each year. As I have said, so far a total of 8,000 have applied and only 300 claims have been granted. So you can now grasp the ridiculousness of the estimates on the part of the Clinton administration--but still, they came over and argued this. There were calls from the White House, calls from OMB, visits from the White House, visits from OMB. Experience indicates there is no factual basis for this ridiculous estimate. The reality, as I will say again, is that only 8,000 veterans have filed such claims over the past 6 years. So you can see these numbers are totally pie in the sky, merely a self-interested guess, a self-promoting guess by OMB. Make no mistake about this, the huge increase in highway spending is, in fact, being paid for by make-believe savings, paid for by a devious fiction which is really spending of the surplus which we all so jealously claim to be protecting. Shame on every one of us, all 100 of us. Shame on us for perpetrating the fiction and then for cutting off of the current law for disabled American veterans who are disabled due to tobacco-related illnesses. Although based on fiction, the impact of this number shuffling is very hurtful and real. The benefit that has been granted to disabled veterans under existing law has been summarily eliminated by a sleight- of-hand action, without consideration by the authorizing committee-- which has jurisdiction, I might add, over compensation issues--in a complete mockery of our budget process and of regular order in the Senate. We have created new ways of doing things in this body in order to avoid this issue. Now this is what I have called a midnight raid on veterans' benefits. I have used these and other words in the past and I could use stronger words. To put it bluntly, America's veterans have been wronged by back-door trickery. Funding for the veterans' benefits have been cut; imaginary savings have been diverted to pay for highways; and veterans' disability rights have been placed in jeopardy. No, it is not too late to correct this. It is not too late to correct this injustice done to disabled American veterans. The necessity of passing a technical corrections bill to the highway bill provides the opportunity to do just that. Those interested in the highway projects listed in the corrections bill are very interested in passing this bill. So believe me, we are going to pass it. It is probably going to come to the floor attached to the IRS Restructuring conference report. Or it will come attached to something else. In any case, there will be no chance for the disabled veterans, but plenty of chances for more Federal dollars for highways. The amendment I offer would strike the veterans' disability compensation offset from the underlying conference report on H.R. 2400. I have requested that it be put to an up-or-down vote so that America's veterans can see, in the light of day, where their elected representatives choose to stand on this issue. Now, let me be clear what my amendment would and would not do. First and foremost, be assured my amendment strikes no highway project. These projects are already in law. My amendment would fully preserve each and every highway dollar and project that was included in the highway bill. I voted for the highway bill. I support highway funding. I come from West Virginia. Only 4 percent of the land is flat. You think that we don't need roads? Not a single project in West Virginia or any other State will be affected in any way, shape or form by this. Why? Because the projects will be funded through the appropriations process. Second, my amendment would not trigger a sequester. That is one of the contentions of those who would deny disability benefits to veterans. It is untrue. My amendment is protected by the same budget trickery, to be honest, that covered the TEA 21 bill and that waived certain provisions of the Gramm-Rudman Act. Third, the amendment I propose does not provide any new benefit to any veteran. It merely restores the state of the law prior to the enactment of the highway bill. The law was based on interpretation of VA's existing obligation to veterans to provide compensation for smoking-related illnesses. Veterans who file claims for smoking-related illnesses would have to meet the same legal and evidentiary requirements as claimants for any other service-connected disability. The test to establish these claims is, as I have indicated, very tough. I remind you, only 300 have passed so far. The veteran must prove that the addiction to use tobacco began in the military service, that the addiction continued without interruption, and that the addiction resulted in an illness, and that the addiction resulted in a disability. He must prove all of that. Eight-thousand have tried and 300 have been successful. Easy test? Not quite. It is imperative that the correction bill be brought to the floor where it can be debated and amended. If TEA 21 is permitted to stand uncorrected, an entire category of veterans' disability rights will be eliminated. Even claims of veterans who became ill with tobacco-related illnesses while on active duty will be cut off. And smokers' claims for conditions that may be associated with tobacco use, but are also presumptively service connected--please hear this--based on exposure to Agent Orange or radiation, may also be cut off. What are we doing here? Moreover, in a provision that truly adds insult to injury, the conference report makes tobacco use in the military an act of ``willful misconduct.'' Do you know what that means, Mr. President? It means that veterans are justifiably outraged that smoking could be considered ``willful misconduct,'' equating smoking with alcohol or substance abuse. They feel betrayed by a Government that encouraged smoking during their service, and now would turn its back on the health problems that resulted. If H.R. 3978, the corrections bill, is allowed to go forward as drafted, and unamended, veterans and their survivors will forever lose their ability to seek compensation for tobacco-related deaths or illnesses resulting from nicotine dependence that was incurred in service. These veterans will lose their ability to get VA health care. Veterans with service-connected conditions receive priority free health care. If you add it up, if service connection for compensation purposes is barred, using CBO numbers, there will be about 700,000 veterans who will very possibly be turned away from access to VA health care. The Government's role in fostering veterans' addiction to tobacco during their military service is well known and much ``untalked'' about in current weeks. Smoking was thought to calm the nerves. I had lunch with one of my best friends the other day, and he told me that back in World War II he was given free cigarettes in C rations and K rations, and discounted cigarettes--cigarettes which didn't have any warning on them until 5 years after the FDA required that they be put on civilian packs of cigarettes. No; they were encouraged to ``take a smoke break, relax, calm yourself. Sure, this is battle and training and it is stressful, but this cigarette will help you.'' The voice of the U.S. Government was speaking. So all of this represents a shameful abuse of the trust of our young service members. How can we now turn around and call a behavior encouraged by our Government ``willful misconduct''? How do we do that? How can we turn our back on these veterans' need for health care? Well, we are doing it by ignoring the consequences of the highway bill and by ignoring America's veterans. There has been a lot of talk about veterans and smoking in the last few months. As you know, this Chamber adopted an amendment to direct a portion of the proceeds from the tobacco bill--if we can remember that far back--to VA health care. That action, of course, is now meaningless. Senator McCain was for the amendment and so was I. The amendment was for health care, not compensation for the disability of veterans made ill by tobacco that was foisted upon them by the U.S. Government in service to their country. So we have no tobacco bill now. Those of my colleagues who sought refuge in the tobacco legislation now are going to have to look for some other place for refuge. Some may also point to the provisions in the highway bill that provide enhancements to some very important VA programs. It was said to me early on, ``Senator Rockefeller, you have to understand that we put a lot of things in this technical corrections bill that are for veterans. You can't be against these, because that will cut those things out.'' And so they put in some enhancements to the GI bill, grants for adaptive automobile equipment, and a few other programs. I am sorry, but veterans are not to be bought off. Veterans are unanimous in their view of this. This is $1.6 billion in benefits that veterans could have. But the price is the abolition of the right for disabled veterans to seek compensation for tobacco-related illnesses--I am sorry, Mr. President, that price is too dear. Our friends in the veterans community speak with one voice on this issue, and I agree, they cannot support the increase in benefits to one set of veterans, to be paid by the cutting of essential benefits to another class of veterans who already have those benefits under law. Veterans across this Nation reject this attempt to buy them off. So I repeat--and I am not ordinarily this partisan, and I hope that the Presiding Officer understands that--what is the majority leader scared of on this? Why can't we have a vote on this? This is a basic, moral issue--to determine the way that the U.S. Government chooses to present itself to the American people. There is a fundamental, moral principle involved--undoing current law, under a budget fiction, started by the Clinton administration, and joined in by the majority. So the result of all of that power is that veterans are shut out, dumped, and then cut out of the law from this point forward. Why does the Leader not bring this bill to the floor so it can be debated and amended? Why does he have to move this in the dark of night? Once again, I urge the majority leader to bring this corrections bill to the floor. I participated in a conversation at the back of this Chamber with one of the conferees on the IRS bill, describing how, oh, yes, it was probable that this technical corrections bill would be put into the IRS conference report. That sounds positive, doesn't it? No, it is highly negative. That means that when it comes to the floor, it cannot be amended or debated. It can only be voted up or down, and the veterans lose on all fronts from that action. My colleagues need to understand that there is a huge problem with the majority leader's tactic. American veterans will not be fooled by what he and others do here. American veterans are not stupid, and they are angry. They will see through this charade, but most of the Members of the Senate do not see through this charade--the charade of how the funding process began and how the highway money comes out of the surplus and the phony savings. I bet there wouldn't be 12 Senators on this floor, who would understand exactly what happened, how absurd the whole thing is, how embarrassing the whole thing is, and how wrong it is for veterans to not even be given a chance. America's veterans are justifiably losing their faith in Government. This will accelerate that process for American veterans. They no longer believe that the Government that they fought to preserve intends to meet its obligation to them. I share their fear. What is obscene about all of this is that this denial of disabled veterans' benefits occurred just before Memorial Day, when everybody on this floor and in the other body was pouring out words of patriotism, appreciation, love, respect, reverence to veterans for all they have done for their country. But in the Halls of Congress, actions often belie these words. If we do not take care of America's veterans now, one might say, who will take care of us in the future? To secure the soldiers we will need in the future, we must maintain the promises made to those who protected us in the past. Thirty minutes equally divided up or down, Mr. President, I submit is a fair request on behalf of disabled American veterans. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.