Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This is not a matter of selling citizenship, I repeat. I want to be able to explain that. It is not a matter of selling citizenship. You come in, and then for $500,000, if you can produce 10 jobs for West Virginia, for Americans, if you can do that, then after a period of 2 years of that activity, then by three different agencies with an analysis from those agencies, which is extremely tough, if you then pass muster, then you can become a citizen, but not before. If you would ask if I would turn down somebody from England, or if I would turn down somebody from somewhere else, and I worked for 10 years to get the Toyota Motor Company to come to West Virginia--10 years, and they came, do I feel that somehow--I am just making a point--that because the person comes from Japan, or because they come from Taiwan, or because they come from some other place and they have some money and they want to come to this country, which is what the Statue of Liberty is all about, and they are willing to put 10 Americans to work and those 10 Americans turn out to be 10 West Virginians in the case of InterBank, and other companies that are interested in West Virginia in a like manner, I would say bring them on.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from Arkansas, what strikes me as utterly crass is the thought that for the words the Senator used, that I would then take away or deny the opportunity for the people that I love so much in my State, that you love so much in your State in the delta area, or wherever it may be, from having jobs when they have never been able to have jobs before. Let me tell you something very plain and clear. Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia have statistically bound themselves together on the bottom of the charts for a long time. I am absolutely, flat-out sick of it. There are not many principles that will get me over the fact that I am sick of seeing my people not being able to work when my people--if you are a West Virginian and you go down to North Carolina and apply for a job, and they ask--and this is true--``Where do you come from?'' and you say, ``West Virginia,'' you are hired because of the work ethic, because these people have known jobs. There has been a tradition in parts of our State where people have known jobs. When they have had a chance to get those jobs, there is a 1-percent turnover, or less, and absenteeism is 1 percent or less per year. They work. We had AT&T close down a plant employing 450 people in Charleston, WV, the capital of our State. After the workers got their pink slips, I say to the Senator from Arkansas, saying they were fired, and it had been announced in the press, just against hope, I guess, they worked harder, their productivity went up after they got their pink slips. And they kept the plant open. I don't mean to filibuster the Senator's question because it was an honorable question.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If the Senator from Arkansas would yield for this statement. The statement we got is from the official documents, in fact, sent from West Virginia by InterBank in which they declare that the majority of their people are coming here to live, to bring their families and to raise their families. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to my friend from Massachusetts that I certainly do agree with the variety of the application he describes. And I would also say to my friend from Massachusetts the final words of the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, before sitting down were oh, no, these are all people who are living in Hong Kong, which is an odd statement to make. But I want my colleagues to pay very, very close attention when I say that the majority of the people involved in this program are coming to this country, are bringing their families to this country, want to settle in this country, want to educate their children in this country. They are not doing this from long distance like it is totally legal for them to do, for example, to invest in our stock market from long distance. As the Senator from Massachusetts has said, these are people who for the most part plan to come into this country, bring their families, are in this country. That is one of the ways that you can come to this country. You want your children to go to good schools. You want them to have a better life than they do from where they might come--just the wide open spaces, the wide open opportunities of America. So this is one of the vehicles. On the way, by the way, it helps create potentially tens of thousands of jobs in this country, and then 5,000 or 6,000 jobs in my State of West Virginia from people who are for the most part deciding to come to live in this country and to make their money available to put my people to work. I would not argue against that.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No; the only difference we have is maybe broader than that, because I take it philosophically. I grew up in a very lucky fashion, unlike the Senator from Arkansas. Sometimes in private we joke about that, and we have a good laugh about it. But my great-great-grandfather came from somewhere in Germany. Nobody really knows what he was doing. And he came to this country because he wanted to be able to do something better, to have a better life. I find nothing wrong with that. I thought that, again, was what the Statue of Liberty was all about. My family has done well. Other families have done well. People not only do well in this country, they do well in other countries. Often people who do well in other countries want to come to the United States either for their own professional purposes or because they feel they can use the money which they have earned in other countries to better affect this country. That is one reason why people are investing. Is it wrong for foreigners to buy in the stock market? No. They are. It is one of the reasons they are doing so well; we are a good deal. What I am saying is, positively the Senator was wrong in his previous question about California, that the commissioner of corporations was totally unaware of this program. What I am saying is that allowing people to pool money to put West Virginians, or Kansans, or others to work is a principle which is no less evil than allowing 17 people from Boston or 13 people from Magnolia, AR, to pool funds and put people to work in those two States. Citizens of the world want to come to this country. That is why we are so much populated by people who came from other countries, including my own family, and including the Senator's, at some point. That is what is great about this country. If in that process we create jobs for people who in the 34 years that I have been in West Virginia have never held a job before and it brings with it health benefits, then don't expect me to stand in its way.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Let me answer the Senator specifically, returning to what he has read. The reference to InterBank was not accurate. Yes; a desist and refrain order was issued against the bank because it was thought that InterBank was selling securities to Americans in California. I hope my colleagues are listening, because this is important, because the Senator is attempting to put me on the defensive, and therefore his amendment, which I strongly oppose, seems to have more weight. But the Senator is wrong in his criticism, because he has read the New York Times with too much faith. The issue began from an ad in fact that InterBank ran in a Japanese language magazine. This magazine was translated into English and had some circulation in California which is understandable. Although the InterBank program is only available to foreign nationals California's Commissioner of Corporations was unaware of the program and assumed that the ad was an offer for the sale of securities in California to Americans. Since that time the matter has been completely settled, and InterBank is seeking to have the order lifted.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I answer the Senator?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am grateful to my friend from the State of Michigan. I start out by disputing any thought by the senior Senator from Arkansas that the words ``patriotism'' and ``Bumpers'' don't go side by side--I know the Senator himself knows that to be true--in his service in the Marine Corps, his service in this body, the things he has been through over the years. He is a patriot. He is a marvelous man. He happens, however, to be marvelously wrong on the amendment that he puts forward, which in spite of the larger framework of the immigration bill, is a very specific and very targeted amendment which would do enormous damage to what we are trying to do in areas of my State that need this program desperately, and which do enormous damage to some of the things that I and others I work with--Governor Underwood and others--are trying to do in the State of West Virginia. I refer to the attempt to eliminate the EB5, the immigrant Investor Program. I didn't say that with an abundance of fluency, and there is a reason for that. It is not one of the things that trips off your lips. I confess that it was not until relatively recently, in the last several years, that I, indeed, learned what it was at all because we had not had experience. Let me give a little context. I was Governor of the State of West Virginia for 8 years and I was always very frustrated, and I say to my fellow Governor from the State of Arkansas, of all of the money that was discretionary to the Governor during the 8 years that this Senator was Governor, I spent 75 percent of it on water and sewer, which of course is invisible and never seen. And I put more per capita in one of our poorest counties in southern West Virginia called McDowell County, which used to be referred to as the $1 billion coal field, and now is mostly worked out and people have left. Even when I came to West Virginia as a VISTA volunteer in 1964, I say to the Senator, there were tens of thousands of people in McDowell County, the Senator would remember. Now there are about a handful. I felt that I had not come through properly in spite of efforts for McDowell County, for Wyoming County, for Mercer County, for southern West Virginia, for people who had broken their backs and given their lives, many of them, and who walk around, some of them carrying oxygen tanks. For some it is a 10-minute walk from one side of a room to another side to adjust the television and back because of something called black lung or because of diseases they have accumulated by virtue of being coal miners. These are the areas I am talking about. There are other areas in West Virginia and the State of Arkansas and in the State of Massachusetts and in the State of Michigan and in the State of Maine, all of our States, where people just don't have the opportunity to have jobs because they live in rural areas. It might be a worked-out coal mining area which is called rural, or it might be an area which is mostly trees which would be called rural, but it is rural and jobs don't tend to go there. People don't tend to build the interstates over there. I am old fashioned about it, but the reason that I stayed in West Virginia as a VISTA volunteer, more than anything I wanted to see people go to work. I think my friend from Arkansas understands that. I think he understands it very well. What I found was there were just certain blocks, certain ways, certain impediments that nature put up which just didn't allow some of our good people to be able to go to work by accident of their birth or by the fact they were so close to their families that they didn't leave and go to other places like so many others had done from Appalachia. So they stayed and they can't work and they want to work, and they want so badly to work but there is no work. So that is how I came to know what the EB5 Immigrant Investor Program is. ``Give us your poor,'' the Senator from Arkansas said. Well, our income and our population is increasing, I am happy to say, in West Virginia at a very healthy rate. Things are being done right there. People have caught the flavor of it and there is a sense of optimism which I haven't seen there in 20 or 30 years. But I learned about this program that the Senator wants to eliminate in this amendment. It is just a little thing down here. It says, ``Repeal. . . Section 203(b)(5),'' et cetera--one sentence which nobody can understand, but I know exactly what it does. It would eliminate everything that I am talking about, just eliminate it. It would be gone. I learned about this program because of a company called InterBank. It is a merchant banking company. They run a program which is called Invest in America. Nothing wrong that I can see in that, especially because in this program InterBank has pooled millions of dollars in foreign investments, millions of dollars to establish new operations in teleservicing--telemarketing some call it; I call it teleservices--in exactly the kind of areas in West Virginia I was talking about. I was in Welch, WV, in McDowell County on a freezing-cold day when they announced they were going to create 400 new jobs. The next day they had 1,500 applicants from that county; the word traveled so fast. This was considered the best news that had ever happened to that county. And now they are looking at others. They are looking, in fact, at putting, 10, 12, 15,000 jobs across the State of West Virginia in precisely the kinds of places where nobody else will go to invest, and they want to do it in telemarketing, or teleservicing as I prefer to call it. West Virginia is important in that we are wired very well in terms of fiber optics, so it is a superb place for them to do that. It is like with the telephone system. If you are in Washington, DC, and you call information, you are talking to somebody in West Virginia. Where you live, where you reside doesn't make that much difference anymore. But it makes a tremendous difference in southern West Virginia and in other parts of West Virginia where people do not have work, where people remember having had work because of coal mining or remember when they had an opportunity for work, but they were rejected for work. Now they realize that they could get into these programs and get trained because InterBank is going to put a lot of money into training people, West Virginia people, and I assume people in other parts of the country, other industries like them in other parts of the country. We are talking about $7 or $8 an hour. I don't ridicule that. And I don't ridicule it because it is a company that has benefits particularly when it is a company that provides health benefits, which is something I care about as much as anybody on this planet, and they are included. My people will get them or my people will not get them, depending, and it is true for all the rest of the people in this country who interact with this program as to whether this amendment passes or fails, which is why I hope so much that it fails. Yes, it is true there has been some abuse, and the Senator, I believe, quoted the New York Times. I don't necessarily think because something is in the New York Times and it is printed, it defines what national policy is to be, but I read it every day and I respect it very much, and there was an article saying there had been some abuse. There have been 30 or 40 articles talking about the abuse in Medicare and I don't hear anybody talking of getting rid of Medicare, because HCFA is trying to crack down. There is, I am sure, abuse in the farmers assistance programs which help the Senator and the people he represents from Arkansas, which don't do our people any good at all in West Virginia. All I am saying is that there is always abuse in Federal programs, but it is usually a little bit. In the case of the INS, I have talked with Doris Meissner about the problem of abuse and about these programs. She has put our InterBank program on hold, in fact, even though they have done nothing wrong, because they have the FBI and the INS who looks into this, and the State Department looks into it. They have a total of five separate reviews that are involved in this. The INS is not only taking steps to correct whatever abuse that may exist, but they are so adamant about it that they are taking those programs where there are no problems and making them wait until they have a chance to look at the entire thing. I pleaded with Doris Meissner to approve this program, which had no deficiencies, and she said, ``I can't do it. We have to put it near the end of the line so we can review all of these programs to make sure there is no fraud and abuse, and where there is, we can get rid of it.'' Now, is the idea that somebody would be able to bring some money into the United States to put a West Virginian, or a Washingtonian, or Oregonian, or somebody from Maine, Vermont, or Wisconsin, to work, that they would bring in some money and they would be given a period of a couple of years for review and, after the review, which is a three-agency review, they be allowed to stay because they have brought money, which is then pooled, which puts people to work in areas where nobody else will put them to work, is there something wrong with that? I certainly don't see it. If it is helping my people in southern West Virginia, or from the State of Maine, where there is so much of the population located in one section--and I am sure some industry will not go into the interior section because the infrastructure isn't there, but they might with innovative thinking such as InterBank has put forward. So I think eliminating a program, just wiping it out for the idea of somehow being able to say I am against waste, fraud, and abuse and I am going to have none of it, when one knows there may be, as in Medicare-- I repeat, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, and the Health Care Financing Administration which is going crazy trying to cure that abuse, most of which comes from the private sector. Here, INS is doing the same thing. They admit it is a good program, but they admit they cannot have a program that has any abuse at all in it. So they are stopping everything until they have a chance to review it. Yes, we need to take steps to prevent abuses in this or any other program--INS, Medicare, crop subsidies, or any other thing that involves the U.S. taxpayers' money--but to eliminate a program that holds out more for the people of my State in terms of areas where people have had a hard time getting jobs, all of a sudden having a $7- or $8-per-hour job with health benefits, I can't imagine doing such a thing. I passionately urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment of the Senator, my friend from Arkansas. I thank the Senator from Michigan, and I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I may answer, as the Senator well knows, the amendment he referred to was in 1989, as my encyclopedic memory comes flashing before me like a billboard here in the Senate. As I told the Senator, on that particular bill, I felt I voted wrong and I have told him since then that I should have voted against him. In reflection, I think my vote at that time was based on too much of a knee-jerk theory on the idea that somehow it was wrong, when, in fact, it was exactly, I think, the right thing to do. The case didn't seem to be as strongly made at that point. If the Senator would put that forward again, I would vote against it in a flash.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee for accepting this amendment which I was rushing to the floor to eloquently and brilliantly explain, and it has been accepted. That is really what one prays for in this institution. I hope it survives the conference. I am sure that it will. Basically, the theory of it was--and I think that the chairman understood it as well as the Senator from North Dakota--that we should be honest with consumers. A lot of people don't know what a lot of the prices are on the telephone long-distance bill. Charges have gone down from an average of 34 cents per minute since deregulation of AT&T to about 16 cents per minute now. We should tell them when we bill them, if the prices go up on certain items, they also go down on others. As an example, recently there was a $1.5 billion access charge reduction, so actually the cost to the consumer on their residential rate bill was going to go down, but the companies only wanted to show the part that had a $675 million increase--$675 million increase, $1.5 billion decrease; obviously, the net of the decrease wins big time, but they are not going to be told that. I think this is a very useful amendment that the chairman of the Commerce Committee has accepted. It isn't about reregulation, it is about treating consumers fairly. It is also, frankly, about something which is very complicated that consumers don't understand, nor should they be expected to understand, nor do many of us understand as we should--things like prescribed interchange carrier charge, called PICC. That is a very big thing in all of this. Even where universal service protects high-cost areas, the whole concept of universal service is not understood by most voters or many in the Congress itself. We have to be fair. We have to level with them. We have to be straight and honest. That is what this amendment attempts to do. That is one of the reasons I am so glad this amendment has been accepted. I thank, once again, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from Arizona, and also my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it probably would not have been within the nature of the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Jennings Randolph, to object to something that was about to be said about one of his departed colleagues. He was not like that. But I need to report to you, as of course our colleagues know, that Senator Randolph has died. My colleague, Senator Byrd, spoke to the subject, and did so very eloquently. I think the sad news, of course, is that he is no longer with us. The good news is, in talking with one of his two sons Jay and Frank--and the Senator from West Virginia talked with Jay--he said he died very peacefully on Friday. He was a great defender of all 13 States in the Appalachian Regional Commission, including the State of Mississippi. It was a very interesting decision, in fact, when Senator Randolph decided to resign. I now can tell a story which I have never told before because it was one of such exquisite sensitivity on the part of the then-senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Randolph. No Governor has ever been elected to the U.S. Senate from the position of Governor of West Virginia. It has never happened in our history. There are reasons for that. In any event, my term was expiring as Governor in 1984, and I wanted very much to run for the Senate, but, on the other hand, Senator Randolph was a very, very formidable Senator, obviously a powerful committee chairman, had been in the Congress longer than anybody. He was the only person to reach back to the original first days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., and he was literally at Franklin Roosevelt's side on a number of occasions when he signed bills. This is an enormous bridge of history and bridge of spirit. I think he wanted to rerun for another term. I don't know that, but it is my feeling that he did, because he was a very young 84. Anyone who knew Jennings Randolph knew him to be hardy, vigorous, strong, and very much in love with his job. He, understanding my interests, and my understanding his interests, he being obviously by far in the stronger position, asked me to come have breakfast with him at his hideaway. Being senior, he had a very nice hideaway. I had never been to a hideaway before, and rarely have been to one since. He had a nice breakfast served there. There was pleasant conversation. He was very relaxed. Then he simply turned to me and he said, ``Jay, would you like to be the next Senator from West Virginia?'' I said ``Senator, yes, I would, but not if you, Senator Randolph, want to run for reelection.'' And I meant that. Without really pausing anymore than I had, he said, ``Well, I think you should be the Senator.'' If one thinks back as a Senator of what one has known over the years, it is very rarely that a Senator who has spent virtually all of his life in public service willingly, generously, and warmly gives up his seat, which probably could have been his again, in order to step aside for somebody somewhat younger. That is not a story I have ever heard told before because I am not sure it has happened before, but it is a story that I am very proud to say today because I told Senator Randolph's son, Jay, that I wanted to tell it today. Jay knew about it because his father had told him about it. It is something that, better than anything I could say, characterizes the nature of the generosity of this man, which was counteracted on the other side by a ferocity of intensity about his work. It is very hard to make any other case, but this man was a giant in legislative history, and one could say for no other reason than he served for as long as he did, simply to say, ``I served with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.'' How many times did I hear him talk about Franklin Delano Roosevelt? He was by nature a man who believed in government--and he was very much a Democrat that way, although he was a conservative Democrat on many social issues--in terms of what is it the people need, what is it the people shall have, what is it that I think I can help them get. In fact, when he made that decision not to run, our unemployment rate in West Virginia was somewhere around 17 or 18 percent. Government was very important to Senator Randolph, and he led his life and his legislative life very much with that in mind. He and Senator Byrd were elected at the same time in 1958 because there was a special vacancy because of a special circumstance. Positive, civil, courteous, and kind he was. I asked, before I arose to make these remarks, where he sat, and I was informed that he sat in five different desks. One of them, I think, is the desk from which Senator Levin from Michigan just spoke. Over his time here, he insisted on courtesy in the Senate, something which has been paralleled by his colleague, Senator Byrd, for so many years. I am told by my father-in-law, Senator Percy, who was also his very close friend, that he would often get up and insist on order in the Senate. He was very much a stickler for protocol and order and also for voting from his or her desk, which is something that Senator Byrd also feels very strongly about. I remember a Senator of kindness, of good humor who was always in an ebullient mood, who actually bounced sometimes when he talked he was so enthusiastic about what he was doing. But he demanded dignity in the treatment of others. He demanded respect in the treatment of others. He was very old-fashioned in his ways and, thus, I think we miss him even more these days. He did many things. He was always open to new ideas. He actually, more than 50 years ago, flew an airplane for some distance that was powered entirely by methanol. One, he knew how to fly an airplane, which was unusual; two, he flew an airplane which was powered by methanol, which was almost unprecedented. He involved himself at a very early age, and he did so with extraordinary effectiveness. I could talk for an hour, which I will not, about what he accomplished. Everybody knows that he really was the founder of the Appalachian Regional Commission, which has done so much to help not only the State he loved, West Virginia, but 12 other States in addition to that. He was a principal architect of the Interstate Highway System which helps to place him in time, because that was done during, as we know, the middle and late fifties. I think the proudest of all of his achievements, or the one that caused him to talk the most and to be the most enthusiastic about, was the 26th amendment. He was the author and the driver of the 26th amendment which gave 18-year-olds the right to vote in this country. He protected the environment with ferocity. He was tremendously interested in coal, as well as the environment, in worker safety and, as I have indicated, in aviation issues, and in just simply countless other areas. He was prodigious in his volume of output. Of course, that was, in part, because he was chairman of a very powerful committee, and he was chairman of that committee for a very long time. That was in the days when the Senate tended to be more in control by one party than the other for a very long time. He worked with the Scoop Jacksons and the Lyndon Johnsons and all of the others. They were able to accomplish an enormous amount. He did that and he loved it--he simply loved doing that. He simply loved laying pavement out across the wide horizons of our country. There was an interesting aspect to Senator Randolph. He was intense about all of his work, but he was very much of a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia. He accepted full responsibility for the title ``U.S. Senator'' and acted on all matters that related to that with incisiveness and careful thought. But he liked to say--and often said, and said with great pride--quoting him--``I essentially am a West Virginia Senator. I'm not what you'd call a national Senator or international Senator.'' I think if he were here today, I am not sure the words would be that different. And to understand that one has to understand his roots. He was born in this tiny community of Salem, WV, which is now the home of probably as many Japanese students in a Salem-Tokyo University setting as reside anywhere else in this country. His father was the mayor of Salem. He was born with very little money, and he worked his way in farm jobs. He knew agriculture very well. He worked for anybody who would give him a job to put a few dollars in his pocket so he could further his education and improve his possibilities. I liked that about him, because he was utterly a rural Senator, but with an urban reach when it came to the national part of his responsibilities. He started in journalism and was always a prolific writer. He married Katherine Babb and won election to the House of Representatives in 1932 at the age of 30. One can do that these days, although one cannot go much younger than that legally. But then it was extraordinary, it was extraordinary to be able to do that. And I indicated he has two sons, Jay and Frank. So more than 50 years later, I think the occupant of the Presiding Officer's chair will understand that it is quite a feeling for me to have succeeded him, to have been allowed to succeed him by his own gesture of generosity and, frankly, just to be able to succeed him. He is long remembered in this body, as well as in the House, for the very exceptional nature that he had: High optimism, great confidence, enormous belief in country, and his absolute love for his State. He also--and I will say this in closing--he had a great love for his profession. And in that I think many of us join him. He was not one of those who felt being in public service was some kind of a second choice; I think he felt it was the best choice of all. He was somebody who honored his craft, who brought great distinction to his craft, who never compromised on his principles. And when he faced a West Virginia audience or a Senate Chamber, he could stand tall and strong and broad shouldered, as he was, and do his work, because he knew he was doing work which was enormously important for helping the people that he so loved from the State of West Virginia. So this is a day and a time that we have reason to reflect on Jennings Randolph and what made him an exceptional person. It is sad, I think, this tradition in the Senate when we do this about Senators when they die. It would be almost impossible to create a tradition where we did that while they were still living. But it would be nice if they could hear what it was that we say about them. And I suspect that Senator Jennings Randolph is able to hear and to know on this day, and days to succeed, what his colleagues think about him. I personally am grateful to him for many reasons, as I think should be very obvious. I am not sure that I would be here if it were not for Jennings Randolph. And I know that my colleagues join me in our prayers and our thoughts for his family and in thanking Jennings Randolph for his enormous contribution to a craft which we call public service. And we do that with honor and pride. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we might proceed as in morning business.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the Veterans' Equality for Treatment and Services Act of 1998. This bill will authorize a demonstration project to allow VA to bill Medicare for health care services provided to certain dual beneficiaries. The legislation is known as VA subvention, which is a concept that has been discussed over the years by those of us in Congress, by veterans service organizations, and by advisory bodies studying the VA health care system. I join my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Hollings, and Specter in this initiative. Due to budget constraints, many VA hospitals and clinics have been forced to turn away middle income, Medicare-eligible veterans who seek VA care. To truly understand the need for VA subvention, I ask my colleagues to couple these difficulties in accessing the system, with VA's frozen FY 99 budget. The frozen medical care budget obviously cannot cover even salary adjustments required by law, let alone allow for any growth and expansion within the VA health care system. For veterans, enactment of the Veterans Equality for Treatment and Services Act of 1998 would mean the infusion of new revenue and thus, improved access to care. For the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), a VA subvention demonstration project will provide the opportunity to assess the effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and quality of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries in a selected number of sites. Finally, Congress would receive the results of this feasibility study, which, once and for all, would give us the necessary data to make rational policy decisions in the future about Medicare and VA's involvement. The four VA medical centers in my own State of West Virginia spent $4.2 million caring for nearly a thousand Medicare-eligible veterans with middle incomes in 1995. Though this is telling information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the truly crucial piece of the story, that is, the number of these Medicare-eligible veterans who were turned away from the facilities created to serve them because of lack of resources. This demonstration project would encourage these eligible veterans who have not previously received care from the Huntington, Beckley, Martinsburg, and Clarksburg VAMCs to do so. The Veterans Equality for Treatment and Services Act is designed to be budget neutral. To that end, the VA would be required to maintain its current level of services to Medicare-eligible veterans already being served and would be effectively limited to reimbursement for additional care provided to new users. Payments from Medicare would be at a reduced rate and would exclude Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustments, Graduate Medical Education payments, and a large percentage of capital-related costs. In effect, the VA would be providing health care to Medicare-eligible veterans at a deeply discounted rate. HHS and VA would have the ability to adjust payment rates, or to shrink or terminate the program if Medicare's costs increase. In the event that these safeguards included in the proposal fail--an event which the VA has declared unlikely--this proposal caps all Medicare payments to the VA at $50 million. A HCFA representative testified before Congress and stated that this proposal will provide quality service to certain dual-eligible beneficiaries and, ``at the same time, preserve and protect the Medicare Trust Fund for all Americans.'' Although the VA subvention proposal is a small effort compared to the other recent changes made to the Medicare program and the changes to come, it is enormously important to our veterans and the health care system they depend upon. Last year, Senator Jeffords and I successfully offered a similar VA/ Medicare proposal at a Finance Committee markup because we saw it as a way to provide quality health care to veterans who are also eligible for Medicare, while at the same time preserving and protecting the Medicare Trust Fund. The Senate later passed the provision, which was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. However, rather than enacting a modest VA demonstration project which would yield the information we need to make rational decisions in the future, budget conferees only approved a Department of Defense subvention plan. To put it bluntly, veterans got shortchanged. Since that time, VA and HCFA have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement which closely outlines the terms by which Medicare will pay for certain veterans receiving care at participating sites in the same manner as other fee-for-service providers and health maintenance organizations. I had hoped that the House of Representatives would have acted by now to approve a VA subvention proposal. Unfortunately, this has not occurred. Mr. President, veterans deserve the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their care and bring their Medicare coverage with them. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committees on Finance and Veterans' Affairs to make this long sought-after proposal a reality.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the Veterans' Equality for Treatment and Services Act of 1998. This bill will authorize a demonstration project to allow VA to bill Medicare for health care services provided to certain dual beneficiaries. The legislation is known as VA subvention, which is a concept that has been discussed over the years by those of us in Congress, by veterans service organizations, and by advisory bodies studying the VA health care system. I join my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Hollings, and Specter in this initiative. Due to budget constraints, many VA hospitals and clinics have been forced to turn away middle income, Medicare-eligible veterans who seek VA care. To truly understand the need for VA subvention, I ask my colleagues to couple these difficulties in accessing the system, with VA's frozen FY 99 budget. The frozen medical care budget obviously cannot cover even salary adjustments required by law, let alone allow for any growth and expansion within the VA health care system. For veterans, enactment of the Veterans Equality for Treatment and Services Act of 1998 would mean the infusion of new revenue and thus, improved access to care. For the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), a VA subvention demonstration project will provide the opportunity to assess the effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and quality of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries in a selected number of sites. Finally, Congress would receive the results of this feasibility study, which, once and for all, would give us the necessary data to make rational policy decisions in the future about Medicare and VA's involvement. The four VA medical centers in my own State of West Virginia spent $4.2 million caring for nearly a thousand Medicare-eligible veterans with middle incomes in 1995. Though this is telling information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the truly crucial piece of the story, that is, the number of these Medicare-eligible veterans who were turned away from the facilities created to serve them because of lack of resources. This demonstration project would encourage these eligible veterans who have not previously received care from the Huntington, Beckley, Martinsburg, and Clarksburg VAMCs to do so. The Veterans Equality for Treatment and Services Act is designed to be budget neutral. To that end, the VA would be required to maintain its current level of services to Medicare-eligible veterans already being served and would be effectively limited to reimbursement for additional care provided to new users. Payments from Medicare would be at a reduced rate and would exclude Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustments, Graduate Medical Education payments, and a large percentage of capital-related costs. In effect, the VA would be providing health care to Medicare-eligible veterans at a deeply discounted rate. HHS and VA would have the ability to adjust payment rates, or to shrink or terminate the program if Medicare's costs increase. In the event that these safeguards included in the proposal fail--an event which the VA has declared unlikely--this proposal caps all Medicare payments to the VA at $50 million. A HCFA representative testified before Congress and stated that this proposal will provide quality service to certain dual-eligible beneficiaries and, ``at the same time, preserve and protect the Medicare Trust Fund for all Americans.'' Although the VA subvention proposal is a small effort compared to the other recent changes made to the Medicare program and the changes to come, it is enormously important to our veterans and the health care system they depend upon. Last year, Senator Jeffords and I successfully offered a similar VA/ Medicare proposal at a Finance Committee markup because we saw it as a way to provide quality health care to veterans who are also eligible for Medicare, while at the same time preserving and protecting the Medicare Trust Fund. The Senate later passed the provision, which was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. However, rather than enacting a modest VA demonstration project which would yield the information we need to make rational decisions in the future, budget conferees only approved a Department of Defense subvention plan. To put it bluntly, veterans got shortchanged. Since that time, VA and HCFA have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement which closely outlines the terms by which Medicare will pay for certain veterans receiving care at participating sites in the same manner as other fee-for-service providers and health maintenance organizations. I had hoped that the House of Representatives would have acted by now to approve a VA subvention proposal. Unfortunately, this has not occurred. Mr. President, veterans deserve the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their care and bring their Medicare coverage with them. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committees on Finance and Veterans' Affairs to make this long sought-after proposal a reality.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I'm delighted to join the Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Specter, in bringing before the Senate the nomination of Togo D. West, Jr., to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs and urging his confirmation. Mr. President, Togo West has a long history of serving his country and America's service members. He began his career as an Army lawyer from 1969 to 1973, first as part of the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps and later with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. He left the Army in 1973, but never strayed far from public service. In 1975, he served in the Department of Justice as Associate Deputy Attorney General. In 1977, he was appointed to serve as the Department of the Navy's General Counsel. From there, he also served as the Special Assistant to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, and in 1980 he was appointed General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Most recently, Togo West served our country as Secretary of the Army, a position he held beginning in 1993, until President Clinton appointed him Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs on January 2, 1998. As Secretary of Veterans Affairs, West will be responsible for safeguarding and improving the VA's system of delivering health care and benefits to America's 26 million veterans. VA is the second largest federal agency, employing almost 235,000 people, many of them veterans themselves. Togo West will be filling the vacancy left by Jesse Brown, the former Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Jesse Brown has always been a tireless veterans advocate, and his leadership and energy are missed by veterans and others who also fight on behalf of veterans. Mr. President, Togo West has a wonderful opportunity to serve the veterans of our Nation in this new capacity. He has demonstrated himself to be a person of the highest integrity with extraordinary leadership skills. President Clinton has shown great confidence in him, his work, and his commitment to veterans by nominating him to serve in this important position. I concur with the President who has said that Togo West ``has always understood the special responsibility we owe to our men and women in uniform both during and after their years of service.'' His unique perspective and experience will serve him well in meeting the challenges that lie ahead. Mr. President, I am proud of the confirmation of Togo West. I thank my colleagues for their unanimous support of this nomination.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as someone who has had a tremendous interest in Japan throughout my life, I have gained a great deal by maintaining direct and meaningful contact with Japan as a country, a people and a fascinating culture since my days as a student there in the 1950s. And although it is tested constantly, I truly believe the relationship between Japan and the United States continues to be strong. It is a relationship based on shared interests in democracy and the market economy, as well as mutual respect and fundamental friendship. It is from that perspective--as a friend of the Japanese people--that I feel it is so important to introduce this resolution today with my esteemed colleagues. It was not very long ago that Americans were up in arms about the trade deficit and Japan in particular--blaming the Japanese and other foreign countries bitterly for plant closings, job losses and our long list of economic ills. It was a very difficult time for our relationship with Japan, and a very difficult time for America as we struggled to get our own economic house in order. It was, however, also a cathartic time that I think was both inevitable and ultimately healthy for both countries. During that time, the United States was going through its own banking difficulties with the S&L scandals that saw many of our banks close their doors. Unemployment was way up and wages were stagnating. Our federal deficit was exploding and our national debt was climbing into the trillions. And corporations, many of which had traditionally employed their workers throughout their lifetime, were shedding employees by the thousands. The pressure to change intensified, as the American people watched our edge in certain industries and technologies slip and our people's anxieties and personal pain grow. The pressures strained our political system. In a nation of great diversity, ideas were born and rejected, consensus embraced, then rejected. While the U.S. still has plenty of room for improvement, I think there would be a large consensus that would agree that the United States has effectively tackled many of our ``structural problems''--the ones that Japan was right to point out to us so often. Today, Japan faces a similar crisis. A creeping economic crisis that has profound and dangerous implications for all of Asia, and the world. At stake, in my opinion, is Japan's leadership in the world and the stabilization of the Asian economies. This world and the United States cannot move forward successfully, without Japan's leadership. I feel so strongly about this and that is why this resolution is so very important. It is not to speak harshly of Japan, but to push for an honest, frank discussion, among friends, to talk about the very serious issues facing Japan that could lead to problems around the world. I would remind my colleagues that this crisis is not a recent phenomenon. For more than six years, we have had warnings of problems on the horizon. Many Japanese have told me the biggest mistake that Japan could make would be to continue to delay action and postpone reform. One of the things I and many Japan watchers worry about is that because of Japan's strong financial reserves, they will somehow get through this crisis, and there will be those who say, ``see everything is OK. The system works fine;'' that Japan will get through this crisis without learning anything from it. By turning inward and ignoring the need for change, at the moment that Japan is challenged to lead, Japan risks abdicating its long term global and regional security and economic responsibilities to emerging powers like China or even India. This has serious implications for the United States, as well. In terms of Japan, it is hard to not believe that Japan will once again face the problems that require action, and come out stronger as a result. The Japanese know more than anyone that many so-called ``Japan watchers'' in the United States and elsewhere are more pessimistic-- saying that the talk in Japan of reform, adjustment, and stimulating the economy from within is not real. But when I think of Japan's history and what Japan's leaders in government and business know about economic success, I still personally choose to be more optimistic. I recall 1973, with the oil shock and the end of the Bretton Woods system, when it led the Japanese to a national commitment to reduce energy consumption and to increase energy efficiency. The overall effect on Japan as a whole was dramatic and impressive. Again, in 1985, with the Plaza Accord, when the yen began its dramatic strengthening--resulting in a commitment from Japanese industry to become much more efficient and squeeze out enormous waste and costs. The result was an incredibly competitive manufacturing machine. Now it is 1998, when the problems of other Asian countries require plans for international bail-outs and very harsh measures. President Clinton has called on Japan to become the engine of growth and recovery in Asia. I agree with him and encourage him to continue pushing Japan. Frankly put, Japan's future depends on a prosperous Asia and world. And America's future does as well. But, we also need to be realistic about what can and cannot work in Japan. American or European solutions to problems will not necessarily work there. If Japan is to lead Asia out of this crisis, Japan needs to move more quickly to recognize the extent of this problem and to find the uniquely Japanese solutions to them. But, only Japan can chart Japan's future. Japan needs to continue to work toward the reforms in their regulatory system which Prime Minister Hashimoto has begun. While there has been some small movement on this front, still, many more regulations remain that are a strait jacket on competition and free commerce. Telecommunications, housing and distribution are all sectors ripe for deregulation. In a similar vein, opening Japanese markets to more products, particularly products from Asia, is critical to the Asian recovery. This won't be easy--and that's where leadership comes in--especially as Japan itself struggles to regain its balance. Open markets, over the long term, will position Japan to become the leader of a reborn Asian miracle. One extremely important foundation in a Japanese recovery, and in promoting Japanese economic leadership in an Asian recovery, is the fostering of a new pluralism of ideas in their political system. Every nation goes through times of introspection. America often does. Certainly, a national dialogue in Japan on this crisis and how to emerge from it stronger than ever, can't hurt. And efforts to institute significant political reform here should not be slowed. Diet Members, as the most direct representatives of their districts, need to become actively engaged in finding solutions. At all levels of government, accountability is key. Ministers need to have the power to lead their departments, and become responsible for their success and failure. Bureaucrats need to take orders, as easily as they give them. Over and over again, my Japanese friends point to the fact that Ministry of Finance and its bureaucracy has a far greater influence on policy than is appropriate and prudent in a parliamentary democracy. This has been said to me by Japanese time and time again over a number of years. It would seem to me, and not to be idealistic here, that the ministry ought to reflect the views of the Prime Minister and those elected to represent the people, and not the reverse. In our country this is a subject of extensive discussion and complaint by people who care about Japan. Accountability in a democracy is paramount. Why should it be that when I meet the Minister of Finance, or any Minister for that matter, that I know that I'm not speaking to the person who makes the decisions? How can that be in a democracy? In Great Britain they share Japan's Parliamentary system, but their cabinet agencies reflect the views of the Prime Minister and the people who elect the parliament, and they run the agency. Of course the Ministers consult with the bureaucrats, but they are held accountable for reflecting the Prime Minister's views and the national will. Unfortunately, that can't be said about today's Japan. I also find it ironic that the political reforms, such as single delegate districts, that were supposed to open up Japan's democracy and decision making, have not brought about the fundamental change in the system that everyone expected. The lack of a strong multi-party system, with a strong and viable opposition party remains a barrier to reform and serves as a wall through which ideas and change cannot penetrate. Just as Americans still have much to learn from Japan's successes, my point must also be to emphasize that we are affected by how Japan handles the challenges now posed by the weaker parts of their economy. Our relationship is not just a matter of the ties between our leaders, the tremendously important military alliance we share or the many forms of business and investment we transact between one another. We are increasingly connected through currencies, our banking systems and loan policies, the value of stocks, and whether Japan puts too much emphasis on exporting its way out of the problems rather than internal measures. We in the U.S. hope that our economic condition will insulate ourselves from the downturns in Asia. But we have to worry about markets shrinking for our products and especially any growth in our sizable trade deficit with Japan. My biggest fear is that if the Asian crisis remains unchecked, and average Americans begin to feel the impact of the succeeding market collapses on their incomes, they will begin to question Japan's national resolve and political will to deal with these problems. I especially don't want to see any further reasons for Americans to turn within or fear an active role in world trade. Throughout my political career, I have pushed very hard in my state of West Virginia for open markets, a global economy and fought against the forces of isolation and protectionism. Competition has served both my state and my country, and they will Japan as well. So, the actions Japan takes, or does not take, will affect America, as surely as they will their neighbors in Asia. I hope both our nations' leaders will continue to place the utmost importance on the U.S.-Japan relationship. Its strength is the basis for honesty with one another, for the ability to address problems together, and to pursue regional and shared objectives. We also must maintain and nurture this strength, which especially requires us to appreciate the role that our economies have on one another--because of their effect on our people and our sense of ourselves as nations. And this is a time when steps are more urgently required to ensure progress and prevent any kind of setback. I pledge to do my part in continuing to promote the importance and the potential of a strong, close U.S.- Japan relationship at all levels.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues, and most especially Senators Hollings, Ford, and Dorgan, in introducing the ``Air Service Restoration Act of 1997.'' This legislation is the result of many months of effort, first, to understand what has happened to air service in small and rural communities in the last twenty years and, then, to develop a comprehensive strategy for restoring and promoting air service to these areas--many of which have suffered such a dramatic decline in service and increase in fares that the U.S. Department of Transportation refers to them as ``pockets of pain.'' By most accounts the 1978 deregulation of the airline industry has been a huge success--with lower fares, better service, and more competition enjoyed by most of the nation, as well as an airline industry that has reached unprecedented levels of financial success and stability. But for all its successes, airline deregulation has one, potentially fatal, flaw--the creation of an ever-widening gap between the air transportation ``haves'' and ``have-nots'', with small and rural communities across the nation left to choose between high-cost, poor-quality service or no service at all. Clearly we have not and are not meeting our responsibility to foster and maintain a truly national air transportation system. West Virginia's communities are unquestionably among the hardest hit in the nation when it comes to air service declines. Prior to deregulation, West Virginia was served by at least five major commercial air carriers. We enjoyed a comprehensive route structure and comfortable levels of jet service at competitive prices. In the twenty years since, every major carrier, with the notable exception of U.S. Airways, abandoned its direct service to West Virginia. Jet service all but disappeared. Three airports--Elkins, Martinsburg, and Wheeling-- lost commercial passenger service altogether. At the same time, West Virginia passengers experienced fare increases of 20-30 percent, in real terms, with service from regional or commuter airlines using smaller, turboprop planes. Some of these are solid airlines and offer good service, and we are thankful that they have stayed with us. But for many years their West Virginia product has been far inferior to that provided other communities--their planes are small, their schedules thin and their prices high. Not surprisingly, West Virginia businesses and passengers have responded by flying less or going elsewhere. At a time when the rest of the nation has experienced a 75 percent increase in air traffic, passenger enplanements in our state have declined at every airport, with a statewide decrease of nearly 40 percent. My top priority over the past twenty years--the same twenty years as airline deregulation--has been to bring good jobs and opportunity to West Virginia. Whether it's a specific project or a broad policy issue, from trade to connecting schools to the information highway, most of my work is about creating economic growth in my home state. In the last several years I have begun to see and hear more and more that the lack of convenient and affordable air service is holding us back, stunting economic growth in West Virginia just as it is in small and rural communities across the country. And unless we act now to restore and promote air service to under-served areas, we will never be able to close the economic development gaps in any meaningful and sustained way. Part of the change that I believe needs to take place can and must occur at the state and local level, where business and community leaders know what their needs are and can develop a real stake in the future of their airports by educating consumers, attracting air service, and filling airplanes. But aviation is a national issue, with global implications. No small or rural community should be expected to overcome the cumulative effect of twenty years of deregulation on its own. They need help, they've asked for help, and they deserve help. The legislation that we introduce today is part of what I hope will be a new era in our national aviation policy--an era that builds on the successes of deregulation and takes responsibility for its failures. The centerpiece of the bill is a five-year $100 million pilot program for up to 40 communities, with grants of up to $500,000 to each community for local initiatives to attract and promote service. Communities would provide local matching funds of up to 25 percent, and could do so directly or indirectly, through mechanisms such as seat guarantees. The Department of Transportation would have the authority to facilitate links between pilot communities and major airports by requiring joint fares and interline agreements between dominant airlines and new service providers. To administer the grant program and provide a resource for small communities both in and out of the pilot program, the bill creates a new Office of Small Community Air Service Development at the Department of Transportation dedicated to promoting and restoring air service to small communities. Among other tasks, this office would be responsible for ensuring that accurate and meaningful passenger traffic data is available regarding service to small communities, as it is today for larger communities. To clarify the priority for small communities in receiving and retaining service to slot-controlled airports, the bill directs the Department to ensure that any slots given to air carriers for small community air service will be withdrawn if the carrier fails to provide the service. To address a major infrastructure concern of small and rural airports, the bill establishes a pilot program allowing communities that face the loss of an air traffic control tower to instead share the cost of funding the tower, on a contract basis, in proportion to the cost-benefit ratio of the tower. Finally, the bill calls on the Department to review the airline industry's current marketing practices--practices which many believe are exacerbating the decline in air service to small communities--and, if necessary, promulgate regulations to curb abuses that inhibit market entry. The legislation we introduce today will begin to afford small and rural community air service the priority they deserve in our national transportation policy. It is my hope and intent to pursue this legislation in the context of the 1998 reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and Airport Improvement Program, and I look forward to working together with others of my colleagues, several of whom have shown a real commitment to achieving needed solutions in this area. In the global marketplace of today air service has become perhaps the single most important mode of mass transportation. When it comes to economic growth, there is no substitute for good air service. If we are to ensure that all communities throughout the nation are prepared to compete in the next century, we have no choice but to improve their transportation options.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed in morning business.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to talk today about a subject called universal service, and the threat it faces because of the Federal Communication Commission's--the FCC's-- policy regarding Internet service providers. When we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a number of us--a bipartisan group called the Farm Team-- fought hard to include Section 254, the section that ensures our nation's continued commitment to universal service. This section is the heart and soul of this new law, because without this fundamental commitment, telecommunications service in rural areas would not be affordable. Without it, we will watch a new world of haves and have- nots when it comes to telecommunications and access to the Information Age. When I deal with this issue, I am painfully reminded of another example of deregulation: the airlines. West Virginia and other rural states got the short end of the stick on airline deregulation, and we continue to pay the price for it. That's what made me and others so determined not to let this happen under the Telecommunications Act. We knew we had to make sure that the idea of universal service was not simply expressed as a goal or listed in some weak section--we made sure it was a statutory obligation explicitly stated in the Act. Maintaining universal service involves a number of issues. Senator Stevens took on most of these by demanding a major report from the FCC on their progress regarding universal service, in a provision in last year's appropriations bill that funded the FCC. That report is due April 10, and many of us are looking for serious answers from the FCC to the many questions we have about the direction they are heading with regard to universal service funding. Two big concerns are, (1) the FCC's ill-advised decision to provide only 25 percent of the costs of universal service, leaving the remaining 75 percent to the states; and (2) their decision to only fund the FCC's portion of the high-cost fund from interstate revenues. I do not believe that rural states can live with either of these proposals, because what we'll get are higher rates and dwindling investment in our local telecommunications networks. This simply does not square with the Act's promise of delivering comparable services at comparable rates. Section 254 was designed to ensure a national standard of affordability for telecommunications services, and that is a standard we simply must live up to. In the 1996 law, we recognized that the maintenance of the nation's telecommunications network is a shared responsibility--and one that provides shared benefits. It is in our national interest that everyone be able to affordably make calls from anywhere and to anywhere in the United States. This isn't a radical concept. As a nation we share responsibility in many areas. My colleague Senator Dorgan points out that land-locked states like West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana all help pay for the Coast Guard, even though our citizens use those services far less than others. I certainly wouldn't advocate that we stop supporting the Coast Guard, and the same principle applies here. Shared Responsibility. I will have more to say on these subjects as the FCC moves forward on implementing universal service. Today I want to focus on the subject of internet telephony, and how the FCC's current regulatory policy threatens the promise of universal service. The problem is that the FCC's current policy is basically a policy of letting so-called information service providers avoid paying for their fair share of universal service, even though these companies are delivering services that are clearly telecommunications services and which burden the local network. Senator Stevens has been the most vocal leader on this issue, and I want to praise him. We both come from high- cost states, and we both know the importance of changing the FCC policy so that their mission to maintain universal service can be fulfilled. Where this problem is most clear is in the current offerings of long distance telephone service over the Internet. It's a very real trend and a rapidly rising trend. In fact, I will submit two articles for the Record that tell this part of the story, one from Businessweek and one from the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico if he wishes to speak. I would like to maintain my right to close the debate on my amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will there be opportunity tomorrow to speak as in morning business?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I do.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues understand that by voting for the Domenici amendment--which I hope they will not--they will simply completely reverse the vote which they have just made and wipe it all out. That will seem strange, I think, to veterans. This is an up-or-down vote on veterans and their disability benefits. A 1-year study, in the humble opinion of the junior Senator from West Virginia, is a farce, because it is going to be made by exactly the same three groups that came up with the $10.5 billion cut out of the veterans account to put the money into highways. I doubt that they are going to be any different next year, because they will need the money. They will have to go get the money in the next year. This cuts veterans. A ``no'' vote is what I would ask of my colleagues.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the budget resolution would take $10.5 billion of ``savings,'' which is in the baseline of the Veterans Administration budget, and remove it, excise it, and put it into more highway funds. There are $217 billion of highway funds over 5 years. What this would effectively also do is bar any veteran's claim for disability from a tobacco-related illness at a time when the test for getting a tobacco-related illness in the VA is incredibly difficult. Only 278 Americans, to this point, have achieved that. The whole issue on tobacco and the military has changed in the last 3 or 4 years. We want to restore the money, keep the money in the VA budget and not have it taken out and given to highways, which could find a different offset.