Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation that will authorize provision of care to veterans treated with nasopharyngeal radium irradiation. This bill, requested by the Department of Veterans Affairs, will provide priority health care to a group of veterans that have so far been excluded from access to VA services. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Let me take you back over 40 years, to the 1940's and 50's, when thousands of military personnel (primarily Navy submariners and Army Air Corps pilots) received nasopharyngeal radium treatments to treat and prevent inner ear problems that developed due to the inadequate pressurization of their respective vessels. These treatments were considered the standard in the medical community at the time for children with severe middle ear obstructions and infections, often with accompanying deafness. To adapt the treatments to healthy adults, the Navy and Army conducted experiments on small groups of submariners and pilots. Subsequently, between 8,000 and 12,000 servicemen were irradiated for military purposes. The treatments were halted in the early 1960's as a result of two developments: pressurized planes and submarines became available (thus obviating the need for the treatments), and the clinical dangers associated with radiation were becoming apparent. Looking back, we now know just how dangerous these treatments can be. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that tissues at the exact site of radium placement were exposed to 2000 rem of radiation. That is 400 times greater than the maximum ``safe'' level of radiation exposure established by the Atomic Energy Commission many years ago. Parts of the brain received 24 rem, five times the accepted limit of exposure. Studies that have analyzed the health effects of external irradiation of the head and neck conclude that there is an increased risk of tumors of the brain, and of the thyroid, salivary, and parathyroid glands. One study done on individuals who had received nasopharyngeal radium treatments concluded there was an increased risk of developing head and neck tumors associated with the childhood treatments. Unfortunately, the health effects of the treatments that were given to our veterans is unknown. Careful scientific studies cannot be done because the records documenting the treatments are incomplete or nonexistent. However, when such high levels of exposure are sustained, we must be concerned about long-term health effects, and thus, we have a responsibility to ensure access to health care by these veterans. Simply put, it is the right thing to do. This legislation is a step in the right direction in helping these individuals. As Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am well acquainted with the difficulties experienced by veterans who were exposed to radiation during service to their country and later sought help from the VA. The willingness of the VA to include this group of veterans is clearly demonstrated by the fact that VA initiated this legislation, and that is good. In summary, this legislation grants veterans who received nasopharyngeal radium treatments the same status as other atomic veterans who served in the occupational forces in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or who were present at the atmospheric test sites in Nevada and the Pacific. These veterans will now be able to enroll in the ionizing radiation registry, which entitles them to a full and complete physical examination. They will also gain access to medical care, to treat cancerous conditions detected during this examination that are associated with exposure to ionizing radiation. It is especially important to provide physical examinations and health care to these veterans because documentation of the nasopharyngeal radium treatments was poorly done, if it was done at all. Thus, the relevant clinical information is not in their civilian or military medical records to alert a physician to potential problems. The appalling lack of documentation has proved to be a constant problem in ongoing efforts to grant benefits to atomic veterans of all types, and continues to plague us in this effort as well. We will continue to study the plight of all atomic veterans, but this legislation offers eligible health care to a group of atomic veterans that have up to now been closed out of the VA. It is reasonable, compassionate, and long overdue.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to introduce the Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998. I believe this legislation, with its special emphasis on the enforcement of medical child support orders, will improve the financial security and health of thousands of American children. This bill also takes careful steps to ensure that vital Federal health programs such as Medicaid and the new Children's Health Insurance Program are not misused by parents who are able but unwilling to live up to their health care responsibilities. I want to take this opportunity to share my special thanks with Senator Snowe, who has shown a long-standing commitment to this important issue. I would also like to thank Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, Jeffords, and Chafee for their work on the issue of child support. As a nation, our most fundamental measure of success is how effectively we provide for our children. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that our children have the financial resources they need to live happy, healthy and stable lives. At the same time, the responsibility for addressing many of children's daily needs fall squarely at the feet of their parents. In my state of West Virginia and elsewhere, too many parents neglect their financial responsibilities, maintaining that because they are no longer living in the same house as their children, they no longer have to support them. With so many parents refusing to provide their children with adequate financial support and health care, between $15 and $25 billion dollars in child support remains uncollected each year. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998 takes several steps to make child support a dependable part of the continuum of private and public benefits available to American children. Since the child support enforcement system was created in 1975 to centralize state government collections, Congress has authorized Federal funding to improve and broaden state child support programs. In addition to general financial support, the Federal government also makes annual incentive payments to the states based on the cost effectiveness of their child support collections. That is, dollar for dollar, do the states show a significant return for the money they spend on child support collections. For several years, there has been a consensus among both state child support agencies and child advocates that basing incentive payments on cost effectiveness alone does no justice to the many other areas of state performance. Two years ago, the welfare reform law took a positive step forward by commissioning a task force composed of child support experts from the Department of Health and Human Services and state agencies to come up with a new set of incentives that would keep states on the road to more effective child support collections in a variety of areas. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998 incorporates the consensus findings of this work group. For the first time, the new incentives structure takes into account not only a state's cost effectiveness but its ability to establish paternity and child support orders and to collect current and back child support payments. This legislation also increases the emphasis on a State's collection of medical child support and eliminates some of the barriers the States face in their efforts to enforce medical child support orders. With one out of seven American children unable to access basic health coverage, medical child support or ``medical support'' has become a vital part of child support enforcement. Medical support can take many forms including an order to a non-custodial parent to provide health insurance, to cover a portion of an insurance co-payment or a deductible, or to pay past medical bills. Since 1984, federal law has required state child support enforcement agencies to petition for and collect medical support as part of any general child support order if health care coverage is available to the non-custodial parent at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, however, medical child support is still only collected in about 30% of all child support cases. If we fail to use this prime opportunity to re-establish medical support as a priority, enforcement of medical support might be even more dismal in the future. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998 will improve the collection of medical support in two significant ways. First, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a sixth medical support criterion upon which Federal incentives payments will be based. This sixth medical support incentives factor will not only ensure that States do their best to collect medical support, but it will also send a message to the States that when creating and improving their overall collections systems, medical support is a top priority. Many of us have worked hard to make sure that all American children receive appropriate health care coverage through both public and private programs such as the newly-created Children's Health Insurance (or ``CHIPS'') Program. Although this and other Federal programs are vital, they were never intended and should not be used as a parachute for parents who could afford to cover their own children, but refuse to do so. This bill also helps improve medical support collections by eliminating some of the procedural barriers that the states face when they try to enforce medical support orders through health plans governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Once a court issues a medical support order, the state child support enforcement agencies sends a notice of that order to the non- custodial parent's health plan. Over 50 percent of American employers offer health plans that are governed by ERISA. As a result, there are over 700,000 children who are dependent on a medical support order through an ERISA-governed plan. Currently, there is a lack of uniformity in the way that state child support enforcement agency and the health plan administrators communicate with one another. Despite the fact that ERISA already defines the elements a medical support order must contain in order to be valid under federal law, there is still a lot of confusion by the state agencies and the plan administrators about what is required. After consultation with dozens of ERISA plan administrators, state agencies, and child advocates, this bill removes this procedural barrier by requiring the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor to create and implement a standardized national medical support notice that states would be required to use and employers would be required to accept under ERISA. This standardized form will take into account the respective administrative needs of both states and employers. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, to submit recommendations for any other necessary improvements to the medical child support provisions of ERISA. Finally, the bill commissions a work group composed of medical support experts from state agencies, employers, plan administrators and child advocates to identify and make recommendations for the elimination of any remaining medical support barriers. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998 is designed to improve States' overall child support collections with a special emphasis on the effective enforcement of medical support orders, so that all qualified children receive the health coverage that they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation that will authorize provision of care to veterans treated with nasopharyngeal radium irradiation. This bill, requested by the Department of Veterans Affairs, will provide priority health care to a group of veterans that have so far been excluded from access to VA services. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Let me take you back over 40 years, to the 1940's and 50's, when thousands of military personnel (primarily Navy submariners and Army Air Corps pilots) received nasopharyngeal radium treatments to treat and prevent inner ear problems that developed due to the inadequate pressurization of their respective vessels. These treatments were considered the standard in the medical community at the time for children with severe middle ear obstructions and infections, often with accompanying deafness. To adapt the treatments to healthy adults, the Navy and Army conducted experiments on small groups of submariners and pilots. Subsequently, between 8,000 and 12,000 servicemen were irradiated for military purposes. The treatments were halted in the early 1960's as a result of two developments: pressurized planes and submarines became available (thus obviating the need for the treatments), and the clinical dangers associated with radiation were becoming apparent. Looking back, we now know just how dangerous these treatments can be. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that tissues at the exact site of radium placement were exposed to 2000 rem of radiation. That is 400 times greater than the maximum ``safe'' level of radiation exposure established by the Atomic Energy Commission many years ago. Parts of the brain received 24 rem, five times the accepted limit of exposure. Studies that have analyzed the health effects of external irradiation of the head and neck conclude that there is an increased risk of tumors of the brain, and of the thyroid, salivary, and parathyroid glands. One study done on individuals who had received nasopharyngeal radium treatments concluded there was an increased risk of developing head and neck tumors associated with the childhood treatments. Unfortunately, the health effects of the treatments that were given to our veterans is unknown. Careful scientific studies cannot be done because the records documenting the treatments are incomplete or nonexistent. However, when such high levels of exposure are sustained, we must be concerned about long-term health effects, and thus, we have a responsibility to ensure access to health care by these veterans. Simply put, it is the right thing to do. This legislation is a step in the right direction in helping these individuals. As Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am well acquainted with the difficulties experienced by veterans who were exposed to radiation during service to their country and later sought help from the VA. The willingness of the VA to include this group of veterans is clearly demonstrated by the fact that VA initiated this legislation, and that is good. In summary, this legislation grants veterans who received nasopharyngeal radium treatments the same status as other atomic veterans who served in the occupational forces in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or who were present at the atmospheric test sites in Nevada and the Pacific. These veterans will now be able to enroll in the ionizing radiation registry, which entitles them to a full and complete physical examination. They will also gain access to medical care, to treat cancerous conditions detected during this examination that are associated with exposure to ionizing radiation. It is especially important to provide physical examinations and health care to these veterans because documentation of the nasopharyngeal radium treatments was poorly done, if it was done at all. Thus, the relevant clinical information is not in their civilian or military medical records to alert a physician to potential problems. The appalling lack of documentation has proved to be a constant problem in ongoing efforts to grant benefits to atomic veterans of all types, and continues to plague us in this effort as well. We will continue to study the plight of all atomic veterans, but this legislation offers eligible health care to a group of atomic veterans that have up to now been closed out of the VA. It is reasonable, compassionate, and long overdue.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to introduce the Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998. I believe this legislation, with its special emphasis on the enforcement of medical child support orders, will improve the financial security and health of thousands of American children. This bill also takes careful steps to ensure that vital Federal health programs such as Medicaid and the new Children's Health Insurance Program are not misused by parents who are able but unwilling to live up to their health care responsibilities. I want to take this opportunity to share my special thanks with Senator Snowe, who has shown a long-standing commitment to this important issue. I would also like to thank Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, Jeffords, and Chafee for their work on the issue of child support. As a nation, our most fundamental measure of success is how effectively we provide for our children. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that our children have the financial resources they need to live happy, healthy and stable lives. At the same time, the responsibility for addressing many of children's daily needs fall squarely at the feet of their parents. In my state of West Virginia and elsewhere, too many parents neglect their financial responsibilities, maintaining that because they are no longer living in the same house as their children, they no longer have to support them. With so many parents refusing to provide their children with adequate financial support and health care, between $15 and $25 billion dollars in child support remains uncollected each year. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998 takes several steps to make child support a dependable part of the continuum of private and public benefits available to American children. Since the child support enforcement system was created in 1975 to centralize state government collections, Congress has authorized Federal funding to improve and broaden state child support programs. In addition to general financial support, the Federal government also makes annual incentive payments to the states based on the cost effectiveness of their child support collections. That is, dollar for dollar, do the states show a significant return for the money they spend on child support collections. For several years, there has been a consensus among both state child support agencies and child advocates that basing incentive payments on cost effectiveness alone does no justice to the many other areas of state performance. Two years ago, the welfare reform law took a positive step forward by commissioning a task force composed of child support experts from the Department of Health and Human Services and state agencies to come up with a new set of incentives that would keep states on the road to more effective child support collections in a variety of areas. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998 incorporates the consensus findings of this work group. For the first time, the new incentives structure takes into account not only a state's cost effectiveness but its ability to establish paternity and child support orders and to collect current and back child support payments. This legislation also increases the emphasis on a State's collection of medical child support and eliminates some of the barriers the States face in their efforts to enforce medical child support orders. With one out of seven American children unable to access basic health coverage, medical child support or ``medical support'' has become a vital part of child support enforcement. Medical support can take many forms including an order to a non-custodial parent to provide health insurance, to cover a portion of an insurance co-payment or a deductible, or to pay past medical bills. Since 1984, federal law has required state child support enforcement agencies to petition for and collect medical support as part of any general child support order if health care coverage is available to the non-custodial parent at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, however, medical child support is still only collected in about 30% of all child support cases. If we fail to use this prime opportunity to re-establish medical support as a priority, enforcement of medical support might be even more dismal in the future. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998 will improve the collection of medical support in two significant ways. First, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a sixth medical support criterion upon which Federal incentives payments will be based. This sixth medical support incentives factor will not only ensure that States do their best to collect medical support, but it will also send a message to the States that when creating and improving their overall collections systems, medical support is a top priority. Many of us have worked hard to make sure that all American children receive appropriate health care coverage through both public and private programs such as the newly-created Children's Health Insurance (or ``CHIPS'') Program. Although this and other Federal programs are vital, they were never intended and should not be used as a parachute for parents who could afford to cover their own children, but refuse to do so. This bill also helps improve medical support collections by eliminating some of the procedural barriers that the states face when they try to enforce medical support orders through health plans governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Once a court issues a medical support order, the state child support enforcement agencies sends a notice of that order to the non- custodial parent's health plan. Over 50 percent of American employers offer health plans that are governed by ERISA. As a result, there are over 700,000 children who are dependent on a medical support order through an ERISA-governed plan. Currently, there is a lack of uniformity in the way that state child support enforcement agency and the health plan administrators communicate with one another. Despite the fact that ERISA already defines the elements a medical support order must contain in order to be valid under federal law, there is still a lot of confusion by the state agencies and the plan administrators about what is required. After consultation with dozens of ERISA plan administrators, state agencies, and child advocates, this bill removes this procedural barrier by requiring the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor to create and implement a standardized national medical support notice that states would be required to use and employers would be required to accept under ERISA. This standardized form will take into account the respective administrative needs of both states and employers. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, to submit recommendations for any other necessary improvements to the medical child support provisions of ERISA. Finally, the bill commissions a work group composed of medical support experts from state agencies, employers, plan administrators and child advocates to identify and make recommendations for the elimination of any remaining medical support barriers. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1998 is designed to improve States' overall child support collections with a special emphasis on the effective enforcement of medical support orders, so that all qualified children receive the health coverage that they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Frist in introducing legislation to authorize the National Science Foundation to form a commission to review and propose recommendations for assuring the United States leadership in science and mathematics. This bill would require the formation of a 12 member commission of experts in the field of science and mathematics education. The commission is charged with reviewing the recently released Third International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) study results, along with whatever other relevant information they need to assess the state of science and mathematics education in the United States, and reporting back to Congress with a set of recommendations for implementation by public and private agencies; these recommendations would serve to allow United States students to become preeminent among the nations of the world. As everyone in the Senate knows, I have been a long and ardent supporter of education. That is why I read with such dismay the recent TIMSS study results which show United States students behind every major industrialized nation in the study. This is an unacceptable situation. The United States' economy is becoming increasingly dependent on high-technology, information management, and intellectual ability rather than raw materials, natural resources and muscle power. It is imperative that our high-school graduates--whether they go on to college, post-secondary technical training, or move straight into the workforce--have a solid foundation of science and mathematics education. A recent study suggests that 60 percent of positions require some sort of computer skills, while only 22 percent of today's workers have applicable skills. We can not let this inequality continue to future generations. Unfortunately the TIMSS study results show that we are setting up our students to fail. We need to identify, and work diligently to implement, means to correct this situation. The commission formed by this bill is a needed first step. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Frist in introducing legislation to authorize the National Science Foundation to form a commission to review and propose recommendations for assuring the United States leadership in science and mathematics. This bill would require the formation of a 12 member commission of experts in the field of science and mathematics education. The commission is charged with reviewing the recently released Third International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) study results, along with whatever other relevant information they need to assess the state of science and mathematics education in the United States, and reporting back to Congress with a set of recommendations for implementation by public and private agencies; these recommendations would serve to allow United States students to become preeminent among the nations of the world. As everyone in the Senate knows, I have been a long and ardent supporter of education. That is why I read with such dismay the recent TIMSS study results which show United States students behind every major industrialized nation in the study. This is an unacceptable situation. The United States' economy is becoming increasingly dependent on high-technology, information management, and intellectual ability rather than raw materials, natural resources and muscle power. It is imperative that our high-school graduates--whether they go on to college, post-secondary technical training, or move straight into the workforce--have a solid foundation of science and mathematics education. A recent study suggests that 60 percent of positions require some sort of computer skills, while only 22 percent of today's workers have applicable skills. We can not let this inequality continue to future generations. Unfortunately the TIMSS study results show that we are setting up our students to fail. We need to identify, and work diligently to implement, means to correct this situation. The commission formed by this bill is a needed first step. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this bill to amend Chapter 29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to effect the immediate elimination of the special duty rate on Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) imports from Mexico in order that the United States polyester industry can remain competitive in the U.S. domestic market. We're faced with an ironic situation where a single American supplier is the source of substantial harm to the American polyester production industry and American workers. This is a highly unusual situation in which the American supplier has been able to remain a monopolistic producer of PTA, thus controlling the supply of the product and the price U.S. consumers must pay. By eliminating the tariff on PTA from Mexico, this legislation will place the U.S. PTA market on a level playing field with adequate supply and market dictated prices. PTA is the principal feedstock in producing polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a polyester resin produced in West Virginia by Shell Chemical. This feedstock, PTA, comprises nearly two thirds the cost of polyester production. PTA is produced for the U.S. merchant market by one sole supplier, who can control both the price and supply of PTA in the U.S. market. Because the NAFTA tariff makes PTA imports unaffordable, U.S. PET producers, like Shell, are limited domestically to only one source to meet their PTA needs. This domestic source is not providing PET buyers with sufficient quantities of PTA, nor at a competitive price. Subsequently, the combination of the NAFTA tariff on PTA and a single domestic merchant producer of PTA, the U.S. price for PTA is kept the highest in the world. As a result, U.S. polyester producers, like the one in West Virginia, operate in a closed, non- competitive environment. Consequently, a tariff inversion is created which significantly harms U.S. PET production because PET imports made with cheaper, foreign PTA are subject to relatively low tariffs or none at all in the case of GSP countries. This tariff inversion exposes West Virginia's PET production and all U.S. polyester production to unfair competition from foreign competitors. Further, it prohibits any possibility for expansion and new job creation. I understand that the Office of the United States Trade Representative is currently negotiating with their Mexican counterparts various tariff eliminations under the Second Round of Accelerated Tariff Elimination under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The PTA tariff is under consideration. The elimination of the duty for PTA is supported by the majority of the U.S. PTA industry and Mexico. Shell's future economic viability in West Virginia is linked to the elimination of this tariff. If the tariff is not eliminated, the cutback in Shell polyester production could cost as many as 250 full- time jobs that pay on average, $70,000 a year, including direct wages, benefits and retirement. Already 160 jobs have been lost since 1995 as a direct result of the economic disadvantage caused by this inequity. I would add that these jobs provide some of the highest paying salaries in my State. This lack of competitive domestic PTA pricing does not just cause harm to my State of West Virginia--also at risk are nearly 3,500 workers employed by several U.S. polyester producers buying PTA across the country. I urge the Senate to act on this PTA tariff elimination bill so that West Virginians and other domestic workers and producers can fairly compete in this highly competitive global marketplace and to have the opportunity to expand U.S. operations when market conditions permit. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this bill to amend Chapter 29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to effect the immediate elimination of the special duty rate on Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) imports from Mexico in order that the United States polyester industry can remain competitive in the U.S. domestic market. We're faced with an ironic situation where a single American supplier is the source of substantial harm to the American polyester production industry and American workers. This is a highly unusual situation in which the American supplier has been able to remain a monopolistic producer of PTA, thus controlling the supply of the product and the price U.S. consumers must pay. By eliminating the tariff on PTA from Mexico, this legislation will place the U.S. PTA market on a level playing field with adequate supply and market dictated prices. PTA is the principal feedstock in producing polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a polyester resin produced in West Virginia by Shell Chemical. This feedstock, PTA, comprises nearly two thirds the cost of polyester production. PTA is produced for the U.S. merchant market by one sole supplier, who can control both the price and supply of PTA in the U.S. market. Because the NAFTA tariff makes PTA imports unaffordable, U.S. PET producers, like Shell, are limited domestically to only one source to meet their PTA needs. This domestic source is not providing PET buyers with sufficient quantities of PTA, nor at a competitive price. Subsequently, the combination of the NAFTA tariff on PTA and a single domestic merchant producer of PTA, the U.S. price for PTA is kept the highest in the world. As a result, U.S. polyester producers, like the one in West Virginia, operate in a closed, non- competitive environment. Consequently, a tariff inversion is created which significantly harms U.S. PET production because PET imports made with cheaper, foreign PTA are subject to relatively low tariffs or none at all in the case of GSP countries. This tariff inversion exposes West Virginia's PET production and all U.S. polyester production to unfair competition from foreign competitors. Further, it prohibits any possibility for expansion and new job creation. I understand that the Office of the United States Trade Representative is currently negotiating with their Mexican counterparts various tariff eliminations under the Second Round of Accelerated Tariff Elimination under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The PTA tariff is under consideration. The elimination of the duty for PTA is supported by the majority of the U.S. PTA industry and Mexico. Shell's future economic viability in West Virginia is linked to the elimination of this tariff. If the tariff is not eliminated, the cutback in Shell polyester production could cost as many as 250 full- time jobs that pay on average, $70,000 a year, including direct wages, benefits and retirement. Already 160 jobs have been lost since 1995 as a direct result of the economic disadvantage caused by this inequity. I would add that these jobs provide some of the highest paying salaries in my State. This lack of competitive domestic PTA pricing does not just cause harm to my State of West Virginia--also at risk are nearly 3,500 workers employed by several U.S. polyester producers buying PTA across the country. I urge the Senate to act on this PTA tariff elimination bill so that West Virginians and other domestic workers and producers can fairly compete in this highly competitive global marketplace and to have the opportunity to expand U.S. operations when market conditions permit. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am proud to congratulate and honor two West Virginia students for their unselfish and outstanding volunteer service in their communities. Mark Jones of North Marion High School in Farmington and Tasha Daft of Mannington Middle School in Mannington have been named State Honorees in the 1998 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an honor conferred on only one high school and one middle-level student in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These young volunteers, Mark and Tasha are true inspirations to all of us. They are our future, and they are diligently working to ensure the preservation of their communities as insurance for a better tomorrow. The program that brought these young role models to our attention, The Prudential Spirit of Communities Awards, was created by The Prudential Insurance Company of America in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995 to impress upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Mark is seen throughout his community as Cowboy Dave, his stage persona, sending a drug free message to youngsters. Since 1996, he has reached nearly 1,300 students speaking about drug and tobacco prevention. Tasha is the creator of the ``Flower Power,'' ``Trash, Treasure, Recycling,'' and ``Our World is Worth It'' projects. Through these she is able to help protect our earth and its inhabitants. Mark and Tasha should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. As part of their recognition, they will come to Washington in early May for several days of special events including a Congressional breakfast reception on Capitol Hill. I highly applaud Mark and Tasha for their act in seeking to make their home communities a better place to live. I would also like to salute four other young students in my state who were named Distinguished Finalists by the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards for their volunteer service. They are : Lisa Taylor of Ansted; Ryan Donovan of Williamson; Stephanie Cooper of Hambleton; and Heather Phillips of Winfield. All of these young people have demonstrated a level of commitment that is extraordinary and deserve our sincere admiration and respect. Their actions show how important young people are to our community and the valued asset they are to our world and future.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed senior colleague from West Virginia. The junior Senator doesn't believe he will need 11 minutes, but I am grateful to have that opportunity. As needs to be said, Senator Byrd has been remarkable in his fight for roads and infrastructure, and not just for roads for West Virginia, but also as a fighter for roads for Arkansas and every other state in this country. My senior colleague and I--I having been Governor for 8 years, my senior colleague having worked on this problem for many, many years--we are intimately acquainted with the nature of what four-lane highways and federally qualified roads, like route 33 and route 250, can mean. So this is not a minor issue to us. I am here on the floor to ask therefore why it is that the Senate still isn't acting on the highway bill. Why is it? I pick up the Record of yesterday. It is not enormously thick. There is not a lot on our calendar. My senior colleague talked about the Senate sitting idly by. We have cast a handful of votes since reconvening. We had one vote today. It may be our last one for the day. We had a couple votes yesterday. They were not votes, Mr. President, that required enormous amounts of debate. We had time laid out for debate, but they were on individual judges about whom people already felt one way or another. One has a sense that we are filling time. I don't say that in a partisan way, I say that in just a sort of generally frustrated way. In my 13 years in the U.S. Senate, this feels like the slowest start to a year in which we have so many things that we need to accomplish. So the excuse of not moving on the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--an incredible name, I agree, but incredibly important legislation it is--simply escapes me. Why wouldn't we be doing it? I can remember when I was Governor working with my senior colleague, Senator Byrd, and Senator Randolph on an amendment in this area to help West Virginia and other states obtain the matching money they needed to apply for. The people of my State, the people of all the States where roads are needed and construction needs to be finished, where bridges need to be completed, are facing a cut-off of funds that carries no logic to it, as far as I can understand. If there is a formula problem, and there always is because that is the way we classically operate in the Senate, we should set a deadline to resolve the problem. We need to face up to a real deadline--my senior colleague is making this point, Mr. President--because waiting longer doesn't just put off the day when we even start to try to deal with these and the other outstanding issues. But we can resolve those issues. The Senate has resolved far more contentious issues than these. So I don't have any doubt about that. I do have a very strong sense of the damage that failure to act on the highway bill will do to the State that my senior colleague and I represent. It happens to be a State which has almost no flat land. I think about 4 percent of our land is flat. I am very familiar with the Presiding Officer's State, because my uncle was Governor of Arkansas and my first cousin now is Lieutenant Governor, as the Presiding Officer and I have discussed. I know the Ozarks are a part of Arkansas. It is very difficult there. There are also lots of mountains. West Virginia is mostly mountains. It is the oldest mountain system in the world. The Appalachian Mountains are the oldest mountains in the world. They have been worn down over the centuries, but they are very formidable and still blanket the greatest part of our State. So I would say to my senior colleague, I can remember the last year I was Governor, it cost, for about a mile of interstate or a mile of Appalachian corridor highway, about $17 million to build a mile. That was back in 1984. I have to assume that we are talking now $25 million to $30 million per mile--per mile. Completing and upgrading our roads is a terribly urgent situation for West Virginia. We have Corridor H which we have to finish. Some people complain that my senior colleague puts so much emphasis on Corridor H. I would say that we in West Virginia are very grateful that Senator Byrd is doing just that because it is the only way we are going to get this critical road finished. If I can just explain the importance of roads like Corridor H and reflect on the urgent need for this ISTEA reauthorization, is to remind people listening that you still really can't get from the east coast into the central part of West Virginia or any part of West Virginia easily. You know, trucks are not willing to drive on two-lane highways. We wish that they could, but they do not. And we have a very difficult aviation situation which some of us are also working on very hard. We have an ample amount of rivers and barges, but even there, Senator Byrd and some of my colleagues in the House have to work very, very hard to modernize the lock system, many of which were built, 50, 60, 70 years ago. So transportation for us is not what it is, let us say, for some other States which are relatively flat or have very warm climates so that roads last far longer. We not only constantly have to repair our existing roads, but we also have not even completed our basic road system. And that is terribly disadvantageous. You can track the economy of West Virginia, how well certain places are doing, and others are not doing, based upon how close they are to a four-lane highway. That is not unique to West Virginia, but it is West Virginia at this moment for which I speak and this Senator speaks. And, therefore, I feel very strongly about this situation. Roads supply jobs. Why can't we look at it that way? I can remember when we were building what we call the turnpike in West Virginia, which was meant originally to be a four-lane highway and ended up to be a two-lane highway. How that happened is a mystery which has been shrouded in the history of West Virginia for many years of speculation. But the point is, building that highway involved going through some of the worst, steepest part of the beautiful, gorgeously beautiful southern mountains. And that was an enormous project. I mean, it is not like building roads in many other parts of the country--you have to build huge abutments of towering concrete walls as you cut into the side of mountains. The work involves phenomenal engineering feats. It is like building the Panama Canal to put an Appalachia corridor or interstate in most parts of West Virginia. The construction jobs that stem from roads are tremendously important to us. The Nation's unemployment is low. But in West Virginia, our rate is approximately twice the Nation's unemployment. Every job is important to us. There is not a single job in West Virginia that anybody takes for granted. There is not a single job in West Virginia, the potential for a job, that people do not clamor for, try for. Toyota recently moved some of their production to West Virginia. And they are going to make half of all of their engines in North America and Canada in West Virginia. They had a need for 300 workers, and they got applications from 25,000 people. What does that tell you? Obviously some were from Ohio, some from Kentucky, some perhaps from Virginia, but we want the work. We want the work, we want the roads, and we want the roads so then we can further create the jobs. In fact, to make the point, Toyota would not be in West Virginia if it were not for Interstate 64. They openly declare themselves to locate their plants close to where Interstate 64 is whether it be Kentucky, West Virginia or wherever. So the economic need for turning our attention to the ISTEA reauthorization bill is obvious and clear-cut to my constituency. Our States wait to know whether they can go ahead with their infrastructure plans. They watch us approve a couple of judges and work on a couple things. We had a vote on a cloning bill this morning. It wasn't cloning, it was what leads up to cloning. Maybe we will get around to another vote this afternoon; maybe we will not. But, good grief, this highway bill has to be done, Mr. President. It has to be done. This is the people's will. We made them a promise with the 6-month extension. And we are not keeping that promise. And there is no reason not to. It is a bill which does good. And again, there may be argument about the formula, but however it comes out, it is going to do every single State an enormous benefit. And I have to say one last time that our State will benefit enormously from this legislation and needs this legislation to pass. We have not finished our road system. We do not have the prosperity that we deserve in West Virginia for which our people have struggled for a hundred years or more. Coal is diminishing. Only 6 percent of our work force is involved in coal. We need to have manufacturing and we need to expand our intellectual and technological activity. We need to have all kinds of things. We cannot rely on coal and steel as much as we used to. So I make the point that Corridor H has to be finished. It is absolutely a requirement for the State. Corridor D needs to be finished. As my senior colleague knows better than anybody, that has been nearly finished except for a few miles, but those miles are enormously expensive miles, and they have been languishing now for 2 decades or more. And that is what connects the western part of our State with Ohio and the rest of the Nation. West Virginia is enclosed by enormous States: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland. People cannot get out or cannot get in unless they can drive out or in or fly out or in. And they cannot fly out or in easily, so they have to drive. You cannot canoe down the Ohio River and up the Little Kanawha. You have to be able to drive. So I simply say, in lending my very, very strong support to Senator Byrd's efforts, and as somebody who was a Governor for 8 years and understands the economic significance of our infrastructure, that there is no reason to go on with this uncertainty. There is simply no excuse. I join my senior colleague, and praise him for all he has done in carrying the fight over the years and carrying it almost single- handedly. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Byrd and join with Senator Dorgan, who was speaking earlier, and others, so that we can get immediate consideration of ISTEA. It is the right thing for the Nation. It will benefit our State and the Presiding Officer's State. And we have no reason at all not to be doing the people's business in this critical area. I thank my senior colleague, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Frist in introducing legislation to authorize the Next Generation Internet (NGI) Program for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. This bill funds the NGI program, which actually involves six agencies, at $102.5 million for FY99 and $115 million for FY2000. It would also require the Advisory Committee on High Performance Computing and Communication Information Technology and Next Generation Internet to oversee the program and report to the President and the Congress on its activities. As everyone in the Senate knows, I have been a long and ardent supporter of the Internet and Internet-related research. In fact, I would point to the current Internet as an example of what the government can do right. When the Internet was started, it was a government funded network for researchers and military personnel. It was expected to grow, but not into the commercially supported network with a $250 billion market base that it is today, and it is still growing. This rate of return on a rather modest government investment is something that any investment banker would love to achieve. An added benefit is that this modest government investment has allowed U.S. industry to become the world leader in most Internet-related markets. I also want to commend the Clinton Administration for their steadfast commitment to a clearly needed leadership role in charting the future of the Internet, and yet in also working closely with the affected industries, the academic community, and many others whose contributions to future applications and possibilities are almost endless. I am pleased to now work with Senator Frist, the dedicated chairman of the Senate's Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, to provide a further foundation for this important work through this legislation. The current Internet is a victim of its own success. As more and more people come on-line, the network gets more and more crowded. People are beginning to think that the ``www'' in Internet addresses stands for ``world-wide wait'' rather than ``world-wide web''. Therefore, I fully support the idea of increasing the speed, reliability and usefulness of the Internet. With increases in speed and efficiency of data transfer, hopes of distance learning with real-time video and audio, remote access image libraries, and more use of telemedicine, will become practical realities. In addition, with increases in bandwidth, I am sure that U.S. researchers will come up with new applications that we cannot even think of today. Do not think that it is a coincidence that all the applications I just listed have to do with remote access to data. The ability to give those that do not have easy physical access quick and reliable electronic access to resources is, I feel, one of the Internet's greatest benefits to society. As history has shown us, it would be extremely easy for a situation to arise in which there are states with NGI capabilities and states without, if there is not balanced representation in the decision-making process. Due to the increased computing power and ability to collaborate with other NGI network institutions, NGI states could have a large advantage over non-NGI states when applying for grants and participation. With this in mind, I am glad to point out that this bill formally addresses geographic concerns for rural institutions and users. As I stated earlier, I have always been a firm supporter of the Internet, and will continue to support research in this area. This bill authorizes an innovative inter-agency program to increase the speed, reliability and usefulness of the Internet. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Frist in introducing legislation to authorize the Next Generation Internet (NGI) Program for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. This bill funds the NGI program, which actually involves six agencies, at $102.5 million for FY99 and $115 million for FY2000. It would also require the Advisory Committee on High Performance Computing and Communication Information Technology and Next Generation Internet to oversee the program and report to the President and the Congress on its activities. As everyone in the Senate knows, I have been a long and ardent supporter of the Internet and Internet-related research. In fact, I would point to the current Internet as an example of what the government can do right. When the Internet was started, it was a government funded network for researchers and military personnel. It was expected to grow, but not into the commercially supported network with a $250 billion market base that it is today, and it is still growing. This rate of return on a rather modest government investment is something that any investment banker would love to achieve. An added benefit is that this modest government investment has allowed U.S. industry to become the world leader in most Internet-related markets. I also want to commend the Clinton Administration for their steadfast commitment to a clearly needed leadership role in charting the future of the Internet, and yet in also working closely with the affected industries, the academic community, and many others whose contributions to future applications and possibilities are almost endless. I am pleased to now work with Senator Frist, the dedicated chairman of the Senate's Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, to provide a further foundation for this important work through this legislation. The current Internet is a victim of its own success. As more and more people come on-line, the network gets more and more crowded. People are beginning to think that the ``www'' in Internet addresses stands for ``world-wide wait'' rather than ``world-wide web''. Therefore, I fully support the idea of increasing the speed, reliability and usefulness of the Internet. With increases in speed and efficiency of data transfer, hopes of distance learning with real-time video and audio, remote access image libraries, and more use of telemedicine, will become practical realities. In addition, with increases in bandwidth, I am sure that U.S. researchers will come up with new applications that we cannot even think of today. Do not think that it is a coincidence that all the applications I just listed have to do with remote access to data. The ability to give those that do not have easy physical access quick and reliable electronic access to resources is, I feel, one of the Internet's greatest benefits to society. As history has shown us, it would be extremely easy for a situation to arise in which there are states with NGI capabilities and states without, if there is not balanced representation in the decision-making process. Due to the increased computing power and ability to collaborate with other NGI network institutions, NGI states could have a large advantage over non-NGI states when applying for grants and participation. With this in mind, I am glad to point out that this bill formally addresses geographic concerns for rural institutions and users. As I stated earlier, I have always been a firm supporter of the Internet, and will continue to support research in this area. This bill authorizes an innovative inter-agency program to increase the speed, reliability and usefulness of the Internet. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I secondly thank my colleague from West Virginia. I wish the Presiding Officer a happy new year as we start off on what I think, based upon what we heard last night, ought to be a very optimistic and productive year. I thought it was really quite an extraordinary speech. Even at the time there seemed to be so much in it that we could do that I worried, was it too much? And I came to the conclusion, no, it was all perfectly sensible--not all of it huge, some of it incremental, some of it large and challenging--all of it doable, and I think that is our challenge. I think our country ought to be very happy about the fact that we have a balanced budget. It really was extraordinary, $357 billion down to $10 billion. We will present a balanced budget to the President for the first time in 30 years. That is an extraordinary accomplishment. We all share in that. The Democrats probably get the lion's share of the credit for the 1993 part, but the Republicans and Democrats did it together last year and, therefore, sealed what is a remarkable accomplishment in being fiscally prudent--and I think surprising, in a good way, the American people. I think that is probably a good thing because the markets rallied by our action. The markets are now troubled because of what is happening in Asia, and our President last night held out challenges to us on that matter, too, very boldly and I thought very correctly. The point is we really have to go forward. We have, according to whoever you listen to, somewhere between 70 days and 100 days in which to enact legislative affairs. I haven't counted it up. I don't know exactly how that works, but I will take their word for it. In any event, there is really not much time, which means we have to reach across the aisle. The Presiding Officer and I often don't agree on subjects. On the other hand, we agreed on something of monumental importance when it came to the adoption bill at the end of the last session, and that is the way things get done around here, and that is the way things ought to get done around here. Republicans can't succeed without Democrats. Democrats, obviously in the minority, cannot succeed without Republicans. Yet we often succeed and do ourselves proud here, and I feel very comfortable in saying that. I think the President made very clear that parents want their children to have the best kind of education. He put a program on the line. It is not an extravagant program. It is a sensible program. On our side, we have been grumbling about crumbling schools for quite a long time, and now I think we have a chance to do something about that. The President put forward some money for that. I think workers have reason to feel--workers of all ages--have good reason to feel good about last night because I think the President is very concerned particularly about those between 55 and 65 years old who don't have health insurance. We have all watched the phenomenon as American companies, reacting to principles that I'm not prepared to argue with, which I regret I am not prepared to argue with, as they decrease coverage, as coverage becomes more expensive or they decrease coverage, perhaps, of the dependents of the worker, even if they hold on to the coverage for their worker, and often it is the coverage of the worker's children that is really the matter most at stake. I think he wants that to be solved. He wants people to be able to buy into the Medicare Program between 55 and 65. Interestingly enough, that is a group which has an enormous amount of dependency on health care because right now 15 percent of those older Americans are completely uninsured. So that is the time in life when things begin to get more difficult in terms of health, and the President understands that and reacted to that. I really did like, Mr. President, what he talked about in health care. I liked the idea of pushing us further than we have been on children's health care. We did a very good job last year on a bipartisan basis, and that is exactly what it was. I remember the Finance Committee meetings. They were an absolute model, Senator Byrd, of bipartisan cooperation. All staff, everybody left the room, and then there were just the 20 Senators--11 Republicans, 9 Democrats--facing each other. And rather rapidly, perhaps because there was no glare, an enormous amount of cooperation just exploded in that cooperation, and all of a sudden we had the children's health care bill which is being put to good use. Fifteen States have already asked Donna Shalala for a waiver to be able to proceed. West Virginia has not at this point concluded what it will do. Governor Underwood presented a good program to the State legislature. The State legislature is going to come back with a good program. There will be a compromise reached. The legislature is Democratic. The Governor is Republican. They both want the same thing. They both want to see children insured. So does the President, and he wanted to see more of that. I will express a concern to the Presiding Officer that a large number of those 5 million children that we included in our bill last year are children who are already eligible for Medicaid but simply don't know it because their families are detached from the system, because somehow through the school lunch program they just have not found out they are eligible, they don't want to fill out the paper forms, or they are afraid. That is a phenomenon that one finds in the hills and hollows of various parts of this country. I worry a great deal about being able to get out to those children. In the case of West Virginia there are some 30,000 children who are already eligible for Medicaid. But the President was challenging us to do that and to do more, and well he should because there are 10 million uninsured children in this country. No other industrial nation on Earth has to go through the pain of saying that. He pushes us forward. I think he cares very much, as I indicated, about the workers in the 55- to 65-year-old range. They worry about their future. The baby boomers, the younger generation, wonder whether there will be Social Security and Medicare for them, and they have reason to worry. I think the President, therefore, said, look, let's take the money which is going into a surplus, should there be one, and put that into Social Security. He said, ``Social Security first.'' That is strong stuff. I think the American people really identify with that. That means that, no, there cannot be some of the tax cuts which some on both sides of the aisle may want to see, some of which may be very useful. But in a sense he was saying we can't have it all. We have to make priorities. Social Security comes first. There is also, as the Presiding Officer knows, a commission on Medicare which I am very proud to serve on. That is a huge problem that we will have to solve. Last year we bought ourselves about 10 years, but let's face it, in the buying of those 10 years we took some of the pressure off, the decision that we will have to make in the next 2 years, and we cannot allow that to happen. The Social Security Commission of 1983 succeeded because Social Security was in the act of collapsing and the commission knew it and therefore they acted. The commission on Medicare, which affects so many in our country, is not going to be faced with that kind of immediate pressure so we will have to bring it on through our own energies, our own intellectual and moral commitments, and I believe we will be able to do that. The other thing that the President said among many that I liked very much was the whole concept of people dealing for the first time with managed care. He pointed out the enormous number of Americans that are in managed care now and he wants to see basic rights for people that have that available to them. I think he is quite right. We will see, as we have before, insurance companies and their lobbyists talking about mandates and big Government and all kind of things like that, but I don't sign on to that. I think the President is right, that confidentiality ought to be a right, and managed care patients ought to be able to see a specialist. Just because it is the cheapest doesn't mean it is the best. Patients should not be herded into something because it is cheap. It ought to be as cheap as possible, but it has to be very, very good. All in all, I thought the President had a lot to say. I thought he said it with eloquence. I thought he said it with strength. I thought he said it with a very, very strong vision. Health care is hard. No. 1, it is hard just as a subject, but it tends to automatically send people scurrying one direction or another direction. People either say too big Government or people say that is not enough. Somehow we have to find in this Chamber a way of understanding that the world's greatest economy can afford, even if it is on an incremental basis, that all of our citizens be insured. We really can do that and we can work together to do that. There has been marvelous cooperation--Senator Chafee and myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch--on children's health last year. There have been so many examples of that over the recent years. I think part of the lesson that he preached last night was, ``Let's do this together.'' It wasn't just ``I, a Democratic President of the United States.'' It is ``we,'' representing all of us, representing Republicans and Democrats all across this country. I am ready to fight for a good solution for Medicare. I want to see parents satisfied that their children are getting the best education. I want to see baby boomers have a sense of security about Social Security in the future because we dedicate surpluses to that area, and I also want to see retired workers who are either kicked out of jobs or retired from jobs during the vulnerable period of their older lives, 55 to 65, to have a basic sense of being able to buy into Medicare. I think that is sound health care policy and I congratulate the President on doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) has been added as a cosponsor to S. 1293, the Child Support Performance Improvement Act. Senator Snowe and I introduced this legislation last year to call for critical ways to strengthen child support enforcement, including an effort to address the critical need for medical support among children with absent parents. It is an honor to have Senator Kerry, a long-time child advocate and leader, join Senator Snowe and me in our effort to promote effective and efficient child support enforcement. Senator Kerry's commitment to this issue is well known, and he has been aggressive pushing for action through previous legislation. Today, we are joining forces to promote our bill, S. 1293, and to work together on a new initiative to resolve the lingering barriers that prevent enforcement of medical child support, a crucial aspect of support and stability for children and families. Senator Kerry's special commitment to medical support is clear. Working with him and other colleagues, we want to eliminate the barriers which hinder state agencies from effectively implementing the 1984 federal law that requires states to petition for medical child support, if it is available from non-custodial parents. Our law says children should not be discriminated against in health care coverage in cases of divorce, but we need to work together to ensure that this obvious principle works in practice. Public health coverage, through Medicaid or the new children's health initiative, should not be a substitute for private insurance from parents when such insurance is available. We hope to ensure that children get coverage they need and deserve. To achieve our goals, we want to work with congressional colleagues, child advocates, state leaders, interested business groups and the Administration to ensure that we forge consensus on ways to tear down existing barriers to health care coverage that is fair and streamlined. The technical nature of this issue is complicated. But the reality for children and families is clear--medical coverage means that parents have the peace of mind that their children can obtain the health care that is so vital for a healthy, successful childhood. I welcome Senator Kerry's support and urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud and pleased to be part of the successful effort to pass the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Having worked to achieve the objectives of this bill for many years, I am very grateful to everyone involved in reaching today's result--the final passage of a significant bill that will help children and families in true need across the country for many years to come. This legislation is the culmination of extensive bipartisan negotiations between the House and Senate over the course of this year to enact the most effective ways to ensure the health, safety, and stability of America's most vulnerable population: abused and neglected children. The product of intense debate and sometimes difficult concessions on all sides, this bill has emerged as a positive first step in fixing our Nation's broken child welfare system. At the same time this process has demonstrated the undeniable benefits of bipartisan cooperation and compromise, it has also highlighted the mountain of work still left to be done on behalf of abused and neglected children. In that regard, I hope the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 will be a cornerstone for future efforts on behalf of abused and neglected children, especially those children whose special needs present formidable barriers to their safe adoptive placement. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 is most significant in its focus on moving children out of foster care and into adoptive and other positive, permanent placements. If American child welfare policy does not succeed in providing a real sense of belonging and identity to children living in the foster care system, we will be denying these young people the fundamental supports they need to become satisfied and caring adults. It would be a tragedy to write these children off as a lost generation, just another group of children from broken homes and a broken system who just didn't get enough support to make a difference. In my role as chairman of the National Commission on Children, I had the unique opportunity to travel across the country and speak with hundreds of children, parents, and caregivers about how to effectively address their most basic needs and about how the Government can help to foster their most fundamental aspirations. Because of that commission, I spent a day in LA juvenile court and saw the system at its worst, overwhelmed and ineffectively serving children. But I also met a dedicated advocate, Nancy Daly, and she introduced me to the Independent Living Program and other efforts that can work to serve children. We've stayed in touch, working on these issues together ever since. At the heart of the recent debate about the best policy for adoption and child welfare, dozens of complex questions have been raised about how Federal taxpayer dollars should be spent and who is worthy of receiving them. As we struggle with these difficult issues, which often pit social against fiscal responsibility, I keep returning to the same fundamental lesson I have learned from the families with whom I have spoken over the years: If we cannot build social policy that effectively protects our children, we have failed to do our job as a government and a society. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friends and colleagues, John Chafee and Larry Craig for their unflagging leadership in bringing the legislation this far. My partnership with Senator Chafee on children's issues is one of the most fulfilling aspects of my legislative work, and I thank him for his leadership. Senator Craig also provided tremendous help and fortitude in achieving the final consensus and action needed to produce results. There have been a series of premature reports about the collapse of negotiations. Without their efforts and the rest of our bipartisan coalition, the naysayers might have triumphed over the needs of almost a half a million children in foster care. I would also like to share my sincere appreciation with the other Members of the Senate adoption working group who have worked so hard to create a solid bipartisan package: Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Coats, Bond, Landrieu, Levin, Moynihan, Kerrey, and Dorgan. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Finance chairman, Senator Roth, who has made it possible for the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 to become a reality. I also want to pay special tribute to the First Lady, Mrs. Clinton, for her longstanding and intense dedication to the goals pursued in this legislation. She has told me of the public's deep concern for children who are barred from becoming part of permanent, loving families. Her interest and encouragement have been invaluable to me and to others involved in this effort, and I know she will help ensure the administration's commitment to turning this new law into reality. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 will fundamentally shift the focus of the foster care system by insisting that health and safety should be the paramount considerations when a State makes any decision concerning the well-being of an abused and neglected child. This legislation is designed to move children out of foster care and into adoptive and other permanent homes more quickly and more safely than ever before. For the first time, this legislation requires States to use reasonable efforts to move eligible foster children toward adoption by introducing a new fast-track provision for children who have been subjected to severe abuse and other crimes by their parents. In such severe cases, this bill would require that a permanency hearing be held within 30 days. In the case of an abandoned infant where reasonable efforts have been waived to reunite the family, that child could be moved into a safe and permanent home in a month's time. While this legislation appropriately preserves current Federal requirements to reunify families when that is best for the child, it does not require the States to use reasonable efforts to reunify families that have been irreparably broken by abandonment, torture, physical abuse, murder, manslaughter, and sexual assault. In cases where children should not be reunited with their biological families, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 requires that the States use the same reasonable efforts to move children toward adoption or another permanent placement consistent with a well thought-out and well- mentioned permanency plan. In addition, the act encourages adoptions by rewarding States that increase adoptions with bonuses for foster care and special-needs children who are placed in adoptive homes. Most significantly, the legislation takes the essential first step of ensuring ongoing health coverage for all special-needs children who are adopted. Without this essential health coverage, many families who want to adopt children with a range of physical and mental health issues, would be unable to do so. I am delighted to see that medical coverage, which has always been a vital part of any program that substantively helps children, is also a key component of this bipartisan package. Ensuring safety for abused and neglected children is another significant goal of this legislation. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 seeks to accomplish this goal by ensuring that the safety of the child is considered at every stage of the child's case plan and review process. Moreover, the bill requires criminal background checks for all potential foster and adoptive parents. The legislation also substantially cuts the time a child must wait to be legally available for adoption into a permanent home by requiring States to file a petition for termination of parental rights for a child who has been waiting too long in a foster care placement. At the same time that it speeds adoptions where appropriate, it also gives States the discretion to choose not to initiate legal proceedings when a child is safely placed with a relative, where there is a compelling reason not to go forward, or where appropriate services have not been provided in accordance with the child's permanency plan. At the same time that this bill imposes tough but effective measures to decrease a child's unnecessary wait in foster care, it reauthorizes and provides $60 million in increased funding for community-based family support and court improvements over the next 3 years, collectively referred to as the ``Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.'' As part of a balanced bipartisan package, these programs will support a range of fundamental State services to help children and families and to provide necessary services to adoptive families. This legislation also takes care to assure that children who have gone through adoptions that have been disrupted or whose adoptive parents die will remain eligible for Federal support. For West Virginia, and every State, this legislation means positive change. Our State currently has about 3,000 children in foster care. Under this new legislation, the emphasis will shift the primary focus to their health and safety and to finding them a stable, permanent home. Throughout these debates, I have listened to West Virginia leaders, including Chief Justice Margaret Workman, who testified before the Senate Finance Committee, and Joan Ohl, our West Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Resources. I have visited agencies in my State that provide the full range of services from family supports to adoption, and I have been in touch with social workers and families. I know that the provisions of this legislation will challenge my State, but I am equally confident that its leaders are ready to make the necessary changes to do more for the thousands of children in West Virginia who are depending upon us. I am pleased to have been a part of this tremendous effort on behalf of abused and neglected children, and am hopeful that the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 will bring about real and positive improvements in the lives of the half a million American children living in foster care.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am happy to engage in a colloquy with the Democratic leader. Can the leader tell me what constitutes the primary impediment to Indian children and tribal government access to the Federal foster care program and Federal adoption assistance program?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. Unfortunately, there are many provisions and new investments that Members wanted to include. But we are running out of time in this session, and securing new funding and appropriate revenue offsets is an overwhelming challenge. I appreciate the concerns the Senator has raised and would like to work with him in the future. As my colleagues know, Indian children are covered under a special law, known as the Indian Child Welfare Act. We should work together to ensure that this law and other Federal programs for abused and neglected children are better coordinated. Let me assure my colleagues, though, that this package will help Indian children. Within the Promotion of Adoption, Safety, and Support for Abused and Neglected Children, the PASS Act, is a provision to extend the 1993 law to provide funding for family preservation and family support for 3 additional years. This program is designed to support community-based programs to help innovative projects invest in prevention and programs to strengthen families. Within the existing law is a 1-percent set aside for the tribes. This will be extended 3 more years, and I hope this funding will enable the tribes to continue ongoing efforts to help Indian children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to express my enormous delight that Judge William P. Greene, Jr., was recently confirmed for the position of associate judge for the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. Judge Greene brings to this job a lifetime of experience in the armed services and the law, and I believe President Clinton made an excellent choice in nominating him for this position. Bill is extremely qualified to serve on the court. After graduating from Howard University School of Law in 1968, he joined the U.S. Army, where he proudly served for 25 years. Bill was an officer in the U.S. Army Judge Advocates Group Corps, and earned the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, and Army Commendation Medal more than once. Since 1993, Bill has served as an immigration judge for the Department of Justice in Baltimore. His leadership skills and ability to make clear, decisive, and just decisions have been well tried--and well proven. In addition to his many other fine attributes, Bill has another that makes me especially proud of him--he is a native West Virginian. Bill was born in Bluefield, WV, and lived there until he was 10. He grew up in a military family and although they moved around to many different places, Bill always considered West Virginia home, and returned to West Virginia to attend West Virginia State College. Bill's father was a veteran of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and was awarded the Silver Star for valor. So it is no surprise to me that Bill possesses an enormous sense of patriotism and pride in his country. The learning experience of growing up in a military family, combined with the experience of his own military career, will be enormously helpful to him in the job that lies ahead. Everyone who has worked with me on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs knows that I have long been a supporter of the court, so you can be sure that the quality of those who serve there is important to me. I am confident that Judge Greene will bring to the court the wisdom, judgment, and sensitivity so necessary for the court's vital work. In doing so, he will serve both our country and his fellow veterans well.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am enormously pleased that the Senate is considering S. 714, as amended, a bill that would make valuable changes to a number of veterans benefits and services. In the waning days of this session, the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees were able to reach compromise on a wide range of programs and services for veterans--from programs to assist homeless veterans, to providing home loans to Native American veterans, and I urge my colleagues to give their unanimous support to this measure. It is particularly fitting that we make these improvements for veterans programs now, since tomorrow is Veterans Day. Mr. President, because all the provisions of this measure--which I will refer to as the compromise agreement--are set forth in the joint explanatory statement which Senator Specter will place in the Record, I will discuss here only some of the issues which are of particular interest to me. The explanatory statement was developed in cooperation with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and that committee's chairman, Bob Stump, will insert the same explanatory statement in the Record when the House considers this measure.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader, and I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be able to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes, and I further ask unanimous consent that at the completion of my remarks Senator Boxer be recognized.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, there has been a lot of debate on the floor over the last several days about fast-track authority, and a lot of it has run against my grain. I don't think it has been at a very high level. What I would like to do is respond to a few of the main arguments that have been used against it that I have heard from some of my colleagues about both the nature of fast-track authority and the need for fast-track authority. Before I begin I would like to say that West Virginia's economy depends and will continue to depend enormously on strong growth in its exports. So any vote which is taken which does not support the proposition of promoting exports from West Virginia is one that I would question. Indeed, the U.S. economy is moving very strongly forward. I don't believe myself that the growth will continue in West Virginia as strongly as it might have if fast track does not pass this Congress, if we do not give that authority to the President. West Virginia had $1.3 billion in exports in 1996. That's about a 35-percent increase in exports since 1992. That is quite remarkable. West Virginia's specific exports to Japan, which is our second-largest export market, went up 128 percent in 3 years. Just think about that, Mr. President--a 128 percent in 3 years; increasing exports increases West Virginia--and that dramatic increase has been with just one country--Japan. And, in fact, that means West Virginia exports to Japan totaled about $116 million in 1996, which is not a lot in some States, but it is a lot in West Virginia. U.S. exports increased by $125 billion last year alone-- a lot of this because of trade arrangements. One thing is undeniably true--denying the President fast-track authority will not create a single new job in West Virginia. Nobody can make that argument with a straight face. It won't save a single job either to deny the President fast-track authority. It will only hamper our ability to sell goods to new markets, which is what this is about, and hurt the growth of a critical sector of our economy, and one that I have personally been working on very hard over the last 10 to 15 years. I think most of the arguments about the revolutionary provisions of fast track are highly overstated, and highly dramatized. Fast-track authority isn't anything new. And, because it is a procedural mechanism, I don't think there is anything to be feared about it. I recognize that others don't think so. Some have good arguments. Most have rather poor arguments, I think. Fast track is a mechanism simply that helps the United States keep up with the changing world economy and deal with our trading partners in 21st century management. So, let me take a moment to respond to a few of the persistent arguments which are used against fast track. These are just a few of them. Is there sufficient congressional consultation accompanying fast- track authority: Very big contentious deal. Right? We are ceding all of our authority to the President of the United States. We will no longer be a Senate. We will just be a tool of the Presidency. That is ridiculous. Congressional consultation is required in order for the administration to have and to retain fast-track authority and it has been significantly strengthened, I would say powerfully strengthened, from what was required under the legislation granting the last fast-track authority in 1988. New requirements for the administration are imposed under this bill which the House, and some Democrats in particular, don't seem to have the guts to be able to vote for it. It has all been passed through the Senate Finance Committee in order to ensure the administration carefully coordinates and consults with Congress at every stage of the process. Listen to me on this. The 1988 act required that the President provide written notice to the Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee of bilateral trade agreements at least 60 days before providing notice to the Senate and the House of his intention to enter into an agreement-- and, remember, this is the last fast-track authority--and to consult the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee regarding the negotiations. The bill that we passed out of the Senate Finance Committee and which the Senate has voted by a vote of 69 to 31 to take up, the President to provide written notice to the Congress as a whole of his intention to begin multilateral and bilateral negotiations at least 90 days in advance. That notice, Mr. President, must specify the date the President intends to begin such negotiations, the specific objectives of the negotiations, and whether the President intends to negotiate a new agreement, or, on the other hand, to modify an old or existing agreement. Any failure of the President to provide notice can result in the introduction and consideration of a ``procedural disapproval resolution'' which would deny fast track for the trade agreement, if the resolution were approved. This bill also requires the President to consult with the Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, and with other committees, before and after providing the notice of his intention to begin negotiations. Already we are in advance of where we were in 1988. The President must consult with all other committees that have any jurisdiction or participation in this matter that request consultations if a committee wants to be consulted. If it wants to be consulted, it can request consultation, and the President must consult with them in writing. In addition, the Senate Finance Committee's fast-track bill requires the President to consult with the private sector advisory committees established under the 1974 Trade Act, as the President deems it appropriate, before beginning negotiations. This consultation takes place before the trade negotiations have even begun. Before the President is permitted to enter into a trade agreement, the President must consult with the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, as well as other committees of jurisdiction over legislation involving subjects that would be affected by the trade agreement, in addition to the consultation requirements of the 1988 act, which includes discussions about the nature of the agreement and a detailed assessment of how the agreement meets the objectives and purposes of the act. Now the Senate Finance Committee bill requires the President to consult the Congress on all matters related to the implementation of the agreement. Free trade agreement negotiations must include an overview of the macroeconomic environment of the countries with which the President intends to negotiate and a discussion of effects on exchange rates--on exchange rates. It is a good idea included in response to concerns raised by certain Members--and it is in the fast-track authority. These consultations must be continuous as negotiations of the trade bill are continuous. What additional requirements for consultation do the opponents of this want? Another new consultation requirement was added in response to Senate Members' concerns about side agreements that were entered into during previous free trade agreements, like NAFTA and the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The new requirement mandates the President consult with respect to any other agreement he has entered into, or intends to enter into with the countries party to the agreement. This would include all kinds of agreements: Formal side agreements, exchange of letters, and any preagreed interpretations of the provisions of a trade agreement entered into in conjunction with a trade agreement. Advisory committee reports are required. What provision of the extensive consultation requirements am I on? No. 7, No. 8? I have no idea what number I am on of all these new provisions which give strength to the congressional role in forging trade agreements. Advisory committee reports are required to be submitted not more than 30 days after the President notifies Congress of his intention to enter into a trade agreement. I know going through this amount of detail sounds arcane. But I just want to in a sense ridicule the arguments that are being used that somehow we are ceding all power to the President. Is it the U.S. Senate which is important in this, or is it jobs for workers in West Virginia and across the country which are important in this? What comes first here? Further, the Senate Finance Committee fast-track bill requires the USTR to consult regularly, promptly, and closely with congressional advisors for trade policies and negotiations, and with the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committee whole membership, and to keep both the advisors and the committees fully informed every step of the way through the negotiations process. Ambassador Barshefsky is over there doing negotiating, which is really done in secrecy--most of it. No. 9. We have to be consulted on the progress of the negotiations of any trade agreement eligible for fast track so the Congress can evaluate the negotiations at each stage virtually at each hour. I do not know what more Members might require in the form of consultation. Because negotiations traditionally become most intense at the conclusion of the negotiation process, the Senate Finance Committee further expects that the USTR will enter into a formal agreement in the form of procedures similar to those agreed by the executive branch in 1975 that will ensure that congressional advice and committee advice will be able to be fully taken into account as in the past. Again, this next provision must be the tenth or eleventh requirement for consultation---- As a condition of fast track authority, the U.S. Trade Representative will commit to a set of procedures that afford Members and cleared staff--not just Members but cleared staff--with necessary documents, classified, or unclassified. They will have access to things such as cables, statements of executive branch position, and formal submission from other countries. The USTR staff will work with the Senate Finance Committee to set up a system of briefings for Members during these negotiations, and appropriate staff to be included in the final rounds of the trade negotiation agreement. And the President is required to notify Congress before initialing a trade agreement which might even be eligible for fast-track authority. He can't even put his initials on it before he consults with Congress. Once the agreement is initialed by the President, the President then has 60 days to provide the Congress with any and all changes required to U.S. law to implement the agreement. Well, I have another two pages on that, all of them, Mr. President, simply showing that the Senate has adequate consultation--the question is how much negotiating room the President has with all these consultation requirements. No problem with the Senate. Now, some people make this argument. Some argue fast-track authority is not needed to move trade agreements. It is absolutely true that there have been hundreds of trade-related agreements and declarations which the U.S. Trade Office has concluded during this administration. From January 1993 to just last month that has been the case. But, let me give my colleagues some examples of these many trade deals that the opponents of this bill point to to suggest that trade agreements continue to be made and that fast-track authority is not really necessary; in other words, you don't have fast track authority to have trade agreements. Well, a lot of these agreements which have been agreed to and negotiated are very peripheral in nature. One, a bilateral investment treaty with Albania. Great. And then an agreement regarding processed chicken quotas with Canada. A memorandum of understanding on trade in bananas with Costa Rica. Wonderful. A trade and intellectual property rights agreement with Estonia. Historic. An agreement on a temporary waiver of Hungary's WTO export subsidy schedule. Wow. Harmonized chemical tariffs with Japan. All right, that's good. An agreement on trade in textiles and textile products with Lesotho. Wonderful. And it goes on and on and on. I hope that my colleagues will agree that as important as having bilateral agreements with any given country may be--and some of the examples I listed have, in fact, real economic impact; they have real impact on important industries in my State and other States--not many of these agreements are major trade deals. That is my point. In fact, very few are major trade agreements in the sense they are not opening up new markets. Here rests my argument. What we are talking about is opening up new markets. What the opponents are talking about is totally removed and off base. I do not mean to say that negotiating with individual countries and establishing bilateral agreements isn't a very important part of improving the trade environment. These individual product or industry- specific agreements with different countries do help improve U.S. trade. I have no doubt about that at all. But they do not make significant expansions in our export markets that America and West Virginia need desperately in order to improve. Ensuring that U.S. goods and services can be available on a level playing field to the 96 percent of consumers in this world who are not Americans happens to be very important. Trade agreements make sure that we have access to new markets under reasonable conditions. In our increasingly global world, that means we have to have multilateral agreements like GATT and the Uruguay round, and free trade agreements with areas like Latin America and Asia are needed. Why? Because they are growing enormously, and their middle class is growing and their ability to purchase goods is growing. An up-or-down vote on a multilateral trade agreement makes sense to me because it how we expand our markets. As the U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, told the Finance Committee, in the two fastest growing regions of the world, Latin America and Asia, governments are seeking preferential trade agreements. ``They are forming relationships around us, rather than with us, and they are creating new exclusive trade alliances to the detriment of U.S. interests.'' Then Ambassador Barshefsky goes on to say, ``In Latin America and Asia alone over 20 such agreements have been negotiated since 1992, all of them without us.'' Well, I can't imagine that doesn't bother the opponents of fast track. I care about the effect of trade on jobs in my State. And there is plenty of protection for the Senate and the Congress in this fast- track authority. You cannot negotiate a trade deal with 100 Members of the Senate and a foreign country or set of countries. It cannot be done. Fast track makes sense. Can you imagine people coming in and saying, well, we have to. What are other countries doing on trade agreements while the U.S. debates fast track? Where is the United States at a disadvantage if we don't pass fast track, as they may not in the House? Again, primarily due mostly to my own party. I have talked about the fact that major markets are negotiating trade agreements and the United States is not in the picture. Let's just look at the major world markets: No. 1, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay have formed a common market called MERCOSUR. MERCOSUR has a GDP of about a $1 trillion and includes a population of 200 million people. It wants to expand its market to the rest of South America. The sheer numbers of people and dollars in this market makes it the largest economy in Latin America. MERCOSUR has agreements with Chile and Bolivia, and is talking with Colombia and Venezuela, in addition to Caribbean nations. The EU and MERCOSUR plan to complete a reciprocal agreement by 1999. We are on the outside of all that. No. 2, Latin American nations are meeting with members of the Central American Common Market [CARICOM] to discuss free trade negotiations. No. 3, Chile, with one of South America's leading economies has already signed agreements with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Granada, Venezuela, and MERCOSUR countries. That means Chile has a preferential trading relationship with every major trading country in our hemisphere except the United States. How do the opponents of fast track feel about that? There are seven members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation [SARC]--Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, and Maldives--they have set 2001 as the date they would like to create a free-trade area. Right now, SARC is only 1 percent of world trade, but it has 20 percent of the world's population which means this is another important market to the United States in the future. I talked about Latin America earlier and want to underscore why that market is so important to our trading future. Projections are that Latin America will exceed Western Europe and Japan combined as an export market for the United States in the next decade--and that's under current conditions where tariff barriers average three to four times the average United States tariff. Put simply, Latin America is one of the largest emerging markets, of the 30 million people who join the middle class annually, three-fourths of those 309 million people are currently in emerging markets and low- and middle-income markets. I am almost at an end. The Asian Pacific Rim is our second fastest growing export market. Meanwhile, our industrial competitors continue to make agreements that put U.S. goods at a disadvantage. Canada has a new trade agreement with Chile. The EU is in a position to take better advantage of the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe. The EU is also working on getting a free-trade agreement with MERCOSUR. China is zeroing in on Latin America and Japan is working on its ties to Asia and Latin America through closer commercial ties and a greater commercial presence. Mr. President, I simply make these remarks because I think it will be such high and deep folly if the House declines to vote on--or if voting, votes down--fast-track authority. I think some of the arguments made in this body have made it easier for Members of the House to say, ``Look what so-and-so said in the U.S. Senate.'' It is a question: Do we want to expand trade? Or do we want to just keep all inside of ourselves? This has been an age-old problem with the United States. We cycle back and forth from one view to another. This is the time to cycle for an expansionist trade point of view.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am enormously pleased that the Senate is considering S. 714, as amended, a bill that would make valuable changes to a number of veterans benefits and services. In the waning days of this session, the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees were able to reach compromise on a wide range of programs and services for veterans--from programs to assist homeless veterans, to providing home loans to Native American veterans, and I urge my colleagues to give their unanimous support to this measure. It is particularly fitting that we make these improvements for veterans programs now, as Veterans Day is just a few days away. Mr. President, because all the provisions of this measure--which I will refer to as the ``compromise agreement''--are set forth in the joint explanatory statement which Senator Specter will place in the Record, I will discuss here only some of the issues which are of particular interest to me. The explanatory statement was developed in cooperation with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and that Committee's Chairman, Bob Stump, will insert the same explanatory statement in the Record when the House considers this measure. extending and improving the native american housing loan pilot program Mr. President, section 201 of the compromise agreement will extend for four years the authority for the Native American Housing Loan Pilot Program, under section 3761, title 38, United States Code. This pilot program was created in 1993 to provide loans to eligible Native American veterans to purchase, build, or improve dwellings on Native American trust lands. This program is so important because commercial lenders will not finance the purchase of homes on Native American lands, as lenders cannot foreclose in the event of default. Therefore, the traditional VA loan guaranty program is not, in effect, available to Native American veterans residing on tribal lands. This program has been very successful in financing purchases of homes by Pacific Islanders. However, it has been somewhat underutilized by other Native American populations. Therefore, this bill would also provide for enhanced outreach by VA to inform Native American veterans of the availability of this program. It further tasks VA with analyzing what is working and what could be improved in its administration of the program. I would like to commend Senators Akaka and Campbell for their tireless advocacy on behalf of Native American veterans. reinventing va's eeo system Title I of the compromise agreement will establish a new employment discrimination complaint system of the VA. This provision ensures that the employees who perform equal employment and opportunity (EEO) counseling and investigations are professional and independent by creating a new office to adjudicate complaints, separate from line management. The Committee has had grave concerns about how VA has handled several high profile EEO complaints filed against senior staff members. Therefore, this bill also provides for VA to submit a separate report regarding complaints filed against senior level employees, based on their personal conduct. I believe it is critical that VA's actions be subject to Congressional scrutiny, in order to assure accountability. I want to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this important issue. spina bifida eligibility clarified Mr. President, section 404 of the compromise agreement will clarify the eligibility--for compensation, health care, and educational assistance--of the children with spina bifida born to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. Currently, the eligibility of the child is determined by looking to the veteran father. However, under title 38 of the United States Code, a former service member who received a dishonorable discharge is generally not considered a veteran, and is therefore not eligible for veterans benefits from the VA. It was Congress' intention to provide benefits to all Vietnam veterans' children with spina bifida. Congress did not mean to exclude the children of veterans with dishonorable discharges. This provision will clarify the eligibility criteria to include the child with spina bifida of a Vietnam veteran regardless of the character of his discharge. This is a minor modification in the law, but to the children who suffer from spina bifida, these benefits can make a significant difference in their lives. These benefits can improve their quality of health care, provide educational opportunities, and enhance their quality of life. It would be great injustice if these children were denied these benefits because of their father's discharge status. mammography policy Section 208 of the compromise agreement seeks to address a discrepancy between VA's stated principles and their clinical practice with respect to breast cancer programs. Though a guiding principle of the Veterans Health Administration states that ``the quality of care in VHA must be demonstratively equal to, or better than, what is available in the local community,'' in my view, VHA's breast cancer detection policy fails to achieve community standards because it only targets women between the ages of 50 to 69. Mr. President, it is very important that veterans have access to preventive diagnostic tests to protect their health. Because breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women, I look forward to receiving VA's national policy on breast cancer detection. I thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, at least half a million American children are living in this country's foster care system--a system that was never designed and never intended to provide a permanent home for children who have been abused and neglected by their parents. Tragically, many of these children could be adopted, but are forced to wait to become a part of a new family because the current child welfare system has become tired and broken. Most vulnerable among this already fragile population are those children with special needs--children who, without help and strong governmental support, will never have the opportunity to become a part of an adoptive family. Acknowledging our collective obligation to let no child fall through the cracks of the system--especially those facing severe emotional, physical, and other circumstantial limitations--I am pleased to have the opportunity to lend my vote and full support to the Promotion of Adoption Safety and Support for Abused and Neglected Children [PASS] Act. This legislation, the produce of a series of hard-fought and sometimes painful compromises, represents a positive first step in a long journey of essential work to be done on behalf of abused and neglected children. While many of us properly acknowledge that the journey is by no means over, we would not have been able to come this far had it not been for the unflagging leadership of my good friends and colleagues Senators John Chafee and Larry Craig. They are the reason that this unique bipartisan coalition has been able to bring this bill forward. I would also like to express my special thanks to the other hard-working members of the Senate adoption working group who have made this first step possible: Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Coats, Bond, Landrieu, Levin, Moynihan, Kerrey, and Dorgan. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the work of Senator Roth who has made it possible for this legislation to be fairly considered here today. The PASS Act will fundamentally and positively shift the focus of the current foster care system by insisting, for the first time in Federal law, that a child's health and safety and the opportunity to find a loving, permanent home, should be the paramount considerations when a State child welfare agency makes any decision regarding the well-being of an abused and neglected child. The main objective of this bill is to move abused and neglected kids into adoptive or other permanent homes and to do so more quickly and more safely than ever before. While PASS appropriately preserves current Federal requirements to reunify families when that is best for the child and family, it does not require the States to use ``reasonable efforts'' to reunify families that have been irreparably broken by abandonment, torture, physical abuse, murder, manslaughter, and sexual assault. Thanks to Chairman Roth, the legislation includes a new fast track provision for such children in cases of severe abuse. Under the new provision, when reasonable efforts are not appropriate, a permanency planning hearing would be held within 30 days. In practice, this change could yield tremendous results. For example, in the case of an abandoned infant where reasonable efforts are waived, a permanency hearing would be scheduled within the month, and that child could be moved swiftly into a safe and permanent home. To provide balance, the PASS Act requires that the States use the same ``reasonable efforts'' to move children towards adoption or another permanent placement consistent with a well- thought out and well-monitored plan. In addition, PASS encourages adoptions by rewarding States that increase adoptions with bonuses for foster care and special needs children who are placed in adoptive homes. Most significantly, the legislation takes the essential first step of ensuring ongoing health coverage for all special needs children who are adopted. Without this essential health coverage, many families who want to adopt children with a range of physical and mental health issues would be unable to do so. I am happy to see that medical coverage, which has always been a vital cornerstone of any program that substantively helps children, is also a key component of this bipartisan package. Ensuring safety for abused and neglected children is another significant goal of this legislation. PASS seeks to accomplish this goal by ensuring that the ``safety of the child'' is considered at every stage of the child's case plan and review process. Moreover, the bill requires criminal background checks for all potential foster and adoptive parents and other adults living in the same household. PASS also cuts by one-third the time a child must wait to be legally available for adoption into a permanent home by requiring States to file a petition for termination of parental rights for a child who has been waiting too long in a foster care placement. At the same time that it speeds adoptions where appropriate, it also gives States the discretion to choose not to initiate legal proceedings when a child is safely placed with a relative, where necessary services have not been provided to the family, or where the State documents a compelling reason not go forward. At the same time that this bill imposes tough but effective measures to decrease a child's unnecessary wait in foster care, PASS continues investments in strengthening families at the community level by reauthorizing the 1993 budget provision for family preservation and family support for 3 years, with an extra $60 million in funding. This is an innovative prevention program, and this bill's new language encourages States to ensure that adoptive families are also served by the program. As part of a balanced bipartisan package, these programs will support a range of fundamental State services to help parents, children, adoptive families and to improve the court system. This legislation also takes care to assure that children who have gone through adoptions that have been disrupted or whose adoptive parents die will remain eligible for Federal support. PASS provides a strong foundation for the work that is yet to be done on behalf of abused and neglected children. Years ago, as chairman of the National Commission on Children, I was proud to issue a bold, bipartisan report called Beyond Rhetoric. This report included bold recommendations to reform our current, inadequate system to help abused and neglected children. I am committed to the agenda laid out in this plan and will keep working until we achieve all of its goals for children and families. The PASS Act is a bold step forward. It has been extremely rewarding to forge such a strong bipartisan consensus to promote adoption and to take key steps in helping every child find a safe, stable, and permanent home.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes. Crisis nurseries help reduce child abuse incidents and, ultimately, reduce the necessity for foster care placements. Crisis nurseries can save a family.