Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from the State of Rhode Island. My comments on the amendment, this Senator's comments, would echo those of the Senator from Rhode Island. In the present bill before us, there is a requirement that benefits provided be actuarially equivalent to the benefits provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or FEHBP, it sounds good. But, in fact, since there are so many plans out there, you do not know what kind of benefits that is going to get you. Actuarial equivalence simply guarantees a dollar amount that the insurance for each child has to add up to. It does not specify an actual level or set of benefits, which is the true meaning of decent and necessary health insurance. In fact, the child could very well not get inpatient services or not get outpatient services or not receive prescription drugs. Our amendment ties benefits that would need to be provided to a child to a specific health plan that is available under FEHBP. Sixty percent of Federal workers select the BC/BS standard PPO option. Our amendment says that benefits provided to children must be at least up to that level, plus vision and hearing. We want our children to get hospital care, we want them to get primary care, we want them to get preventive care. Basic protections that a majority of Federal workers choose for their own families. The cost sharing requirements in our amendment would also set a standard that would allow nominal cost sharing for families with incomes under 133 percent of poverty. For children in families with incomes above 133 percent of poverty, the Secretary must certify that the cost sharing requirements are reasonable. Mr. President, GAO did a study that found that several States fell short in terms of providing adequate benefits. Alabama only provides outpatient care. Pennsylvania, which has been a national model, provided only limited inpatient care. According to a NGA survey of 30 statewide voluntary programs, only 8 States provide dental care, only 11 States provide hospital care, only 14 provide vision care, and less than half cover physical therapy services. With the fresh infusion of Federal dollars that the Senate Finance Committee is choosing to commit and spend on health insurance for children, there needs to be an assurance that the benefits provided are adequate and geared to meet the health needs of children. Under the proposal before us, the Federal Government will be picking up more than half of the costs of children's health insurance. A GAO report found that Alabama and Pennsylvania and Florida and Minnesota still have a long way to go in addressing the needs of uninsured children in their States. For example, in the case of Alabama they have covered less than 6,000 kids and they have 182,000 uninsured, in New York they have covered 104,000 but there is almost 600,000 they have not covered. Yes, they are trying, but they need the resources we bring to them. The amendment I am offering with Senator Chafee will ensure that children get the benefits they need to grow up healthy.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, tomorrow is a special day for me, as well as my fellow West Virginians. On June 20, 134 years ago, the citizens of West Virginia separated from Virginia and formed the 35th State to join the Union. They had a saying back then, and it was so popular they made it the state motto. Our motto is ``Mountaineers Are Always Free.'' In fact, freedom is what West Virginia is all about, but attaining freedom is often a challenge. I would like to take a moment to recognize our Mountaineer forefathers for their courage in leaving the Old Dominion State and taking up the struggle for the freedom of all Americans. I commend these people as well as all West Virginians who have fought for freedom and liberty by serving our country. I mention this because it is in this spirt that our great State was born and still lives. It is this unbridled love of freedom that is alive in all our people as well as our beautiful environment. One can observe it in the ravishing yet perilous gushing rapids of the New and Gauley Rivers, as well as the snow-covered Appalachian Mountains, which test the resolve of thousands of visitors each year. If one were to have the chance encounter with the majestic black bear or cast a fishing line into one of our crystal clear lakes, they would quickly come to an appreciation of the freedom we West Virginians hold dear. Times also have changed. While the once-rudimentary log cabin has been replaced by the modern home, full of televisions, microwaves, and computers, the values of West Virginians have remained much the same. There is a dedication that can be seen in the work of our miners, who produce an inexpensive energy source that drives not only the economy of West Virginia but the steel mills of Pittsburgh as well as powerplants all across America. Whether it is the extra assistance of a park ranger, or the friendly smile of a checkout clerk, there is no doubt that there exists a pride and dedication in West Virginians second to none. It is for these reasons as well as many more that I'm proud to be a West Virginian. So it is with great honor that I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this 134th West Virginia Day.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Birth Defects Prevention Act and want to urge all of my colleagues to join in support of this important measure. I am especially pleased that the legislative logjam that prevented the Senate's consideration of the bill earlier this week has now been broken, permitting us to do the work of the Senate. In my roles as the president of the National Commission of Children and cochair of the Health Alliance, I have had occasion to learn firsthand of the daily struggles of families of children with birth defects. These parents must be tireless advocates for their children each and every day to ensure that their child's health and education needs are met and to see that their child has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. The struggles that these families face in their fight to get adequate insurance coverage for their children's medical needs are trials that no parent or child should have to endure. Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that in many cases, these birth defects could have been prevented, if only the parents had access to information on adequate nutrition and to quality prenatal care, or if our researchers had adequate funding to pursue their questions. That's exactly why this bill is so important. The Birth Defects Prevention Act would authorize $42 million for the establishment of a comprehensive national system of birth defects prevention programs with oversight by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This would provide for a national, State-based birth defects surveillance system. It would authorize funding and CDC expertise to establish regional prevention research centers, as well as local prevention and intervention programs. It would also establish a national advisory committee on birth defects and a National Information Clearinghouse on Birth Defects. This legislation is important because at the present time, less that half our States have a birth defects surveillance system. This has greatly limited our understanding of birth defects as well as our ability to prevent them. Birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality, responsible for one out of every five infant deaths. Each year, 150,000 children are born with a serious birth defect. Birth defects are also the leading cause of childhood disability. Yet despite the high numbers of babies born each year with birth defects, we still do not know the causes of most birth defects. The establishment of a national tracking system would significantly advance our scientific understanding of birth defects. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have seen the struggles of men and women who worry that exposures to chemical agents they may have encountered in military service in Vietnam or the Persian Gulf may have contributed to birth defects in their children. I have heard testimony of men and women who bravely served in our military and who now are afraid to start a family or have more children because of these fears. The Institute of Medicine reported an association among our Vietnam veterans between exposure to Agent Orange and a greater risk of having a child with spina bifida. Now we are faced with the very difficult and emotional question of whether there is an increased rate of birth defects among gulf war veterans. The studies are underway, but none has provided a clear answer that will adequately address our concerns. The studies will continue, but some of our difficulty in answering questions about veteran populations has to do with our poor understanding of birth defects. This legislation will help with these issues by increasing our scientific understanding of birth defects and increasing current prevention efforts in all populations. Therefore, I am proud to cosponsor this important bill. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I note with great sadness the departure of someone who had become a veritable institution on the staff of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs--minority general counsel, William E. Brew. Bill retired from the Committee on April 4, 1997--19 years and 1 day after he came for what he believed, at the time, was a less than 2-year commitment. How fortunate we all have been that those 2 years stretched out for almost 2 decades! When Bill joined the committee staff as associate counsel in April 1978, the Committee was still fairly young--it had only been established in 1971. So, the fact is, Bill has been with the Committee for almost as long as the Committee itself has been in existence. Ask him about any piece of legislation that came before the committee during his tenure, and he can most likely give you a blow-by-blow description of its legislative history, the major players involved, subsequent modifications, etc. Everyone who has heard of Bill's departure has commented on how great the loss of his institutional memory will be. Bill is truly a fountain of knowledge about veterans legislation. But his is no dry history lesson. Bill is a wonderful storyteller, whose recounting of the past is full of humor and the little details that bring those events to life. And no one shares his knowledge more generously and willingly than Bill. He is a gifted teacher. Countless young--and not so young-- legislative staffers have benefited from his unique expertise. Bill's patience is legendary. No matter how many times he explained something, he was always willing to take time to go over it again. His mentoring of younger staffers was particularly meaningful to many with whom he discussed not only work issues, but life goals and philosophies. Bill anchored the committee through times of change. He saw the committee through several shifts of control from Democratic to Republican Congresses, and although a committed Democrat himself, won the respect and appreciation of both Democratic and Republican chairmen alike. He was tremendously helpful to me at the time I assumed chairmanship of the committee in 1993. He has truly been a mainstay of the committee. Bill is a graduate of Notre Dame (B.A.) and Catholic University School of Law (J.D.), a two-term veteran of the Navy, including 18 months duty in Vietnam, and a devoted family man, the father of five children. He is a role model of old-fashioned values--honesty, integrity, fairness, service to others, modesty. He is a true team player. He never claimed the spotlight, but was always there, behind the scenes, to offer his wise counsel, expert guidance, and astute judgment. Bill thoroughly understood the legislative process and was a highly effective advocate for veterans. He is a master of negotiation, able to sort through complex issues and focus on realistic solutions that weigh the ideal vs. the attainable. Whether or not they agreed with him on an issue, all who dealt with him knew him to be fair-minded, balanced, and an often calming voice of reason in the heat of intense discussions that shaped important legislation. Bill's accomplishments are many. Most significant among them are legislation leading to establishment of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals for judicial review of veterans claims, and the Veterans' Claims Adjudication Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the claims process; expansion of programs relating to the readjustment needs of Vietnam and post-Vietnam veterans, including creation of a National Center on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; implementation of several initiatives to address the problem of nurse shortages at VA hospitals; changes in VA's procedures responding to the needs of women veterans sexually assaulted while on active duty; and revision of VA health care eligibility rules. He also collaborated with the General Accounting Office to design and conduct a study evaluating the supervision of VA surgical residents, and then worked with VA to carry out recommended changes leading to increased quality of surgical care. Bill left behind big shoes to fill. He is enormously missed by all of us who worked with him.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues an opinion piece from Eric Behnamou, Chairman and CEO of 3Com Corp., regarding the Federal Communications Commission's [FCC] May 7th decision regarding universal service and the Snowe- Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey amendment. While this op-ed piece speaks for itself, I think it is good to note the interest and support of business leaders for education technology and the specific initiative to link classrooms and libraries to the information superhighway. Thoughtful business leaders understand the importance of computer literacy. A California study estimated that 60 percent of the new jobs by the year 2000 will require skills possessed by only 22 percent of workers--clearly we must do better. I believe that linking up our classrooms will help a great deal. I ask that the article from the May 7, 1997, Los Angeles Times be reprinted in the Record. The article follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, May 7, 1997] Jump-Start the Urban Classroom Networks (By Eric A. Benhamou) Just as cars aren't particularly useful without roads and freeways, the same is true of an information highway without well-planned onramps and offramps. This is particularly evident in our schools. While classroom connectivity increased from 6% to 14% between 1994 and 1996, most of these networks are low-speed analog connections, the computer equivalent of unpaved roads. President Clinton advocates connecting all classrooms to the Internet, and this message has been heard by principals, administrators and school boards anxious to have their students log on. However, this presidential mandate has been largely unfunded, with private money/state projects and volunteer efforts substituting for systemic programs. Poor schools have suffered or been relegated efforts substituting for systemic programs. Poor schools have suffered or been relegated to the slow lane or no lane. The Snowe-Rockefeller amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 corrected this deficiency by funding the necessary telecommunications infrastructure. But the Federal Communications Commission must still approve it. This is critical if we're going to solve the problem of getting all U.S. classrooms hooked up by 2000. The amendment's plan to provide the largest hookup discounts for ``have-not'' schools will help jump-start connectively. Today, 47% of schools with more than 70% of their students qualifying for federal lunch subsidies have no Internet access; only 22% of the schools where less than 11% qualify for free lunches are not hooked up. This gap must be closed. Studies from pilot programs show higher test scores in English and math from Internet-enabled classrooms. More important, technology raises test scores more for underprivileged kids than for wealthy kids, more for kids who have interactive hands-on experience (e.g. the Internet) and more where schools invest in teacher training. Unfortunately, only 7% of urban schools mandate advanced telecommunications and networking skills training for teachers. President Eisenhower's conception and subsequent implementation of the U.S. highway system fostered our mobile society, creating industries and jobs. President Clinton's vision of a nation of learners benfiting from the Internet offers similar return. Companies like Netscape and America OnLine are already providing jobs for American youth. The amendment isn't perfect, but it provides for much broader and systematic introduction of networking into our schools. It earmarks $2.25 billion annually for communications and networking equipment. The FCC commissioners should make the tough trade-offs and approve this highway construction project.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I was listening to his speech. It was very interesting. Mr. President, I should say at the beginning, I am an original cosponsor, of Senator Kerry's bill, and proud to be the second on a distinguished list. I think there is a tendency in this body, when we do something for children--let's say we do a tax credit or we do something in Head Start or where we do something in health care--to say that we made a dent and we can go on the next issue in the next year. I think of all the areas of life that we deal with in the Senate, that is the most inaccurate assessment and approach. When it comes to what our children need to prepare for their futures and what they are going to be like as adults, we need to follow through. And we must begin in the earliest years. I spent a number of years in Japan. In Japan, when a baby is born, and while the baby is growing to a certain age, they do not have cribs. They do not have cribs, because in Japan the baby sleeps between the mother and the father. Why is that so? That is so because they, as a matter of culture and history and instinct, know that bonding has to start at the beginning. That is about the clearest form of bonding that there can be. But even before that, there is a Japanese word called taikeo, in which the pregnant mother talks to--and this is standard in Japan--they talk to the baby in the womb on a regular basis. That would make a fairly strange sight, I guess, walking down the streets of Washington, DC, or West Virginia. But the Japanese understand something that Senator Kerry showed with his graphics there about the two brains, that we clearly don't. They understand when you are looking at the raising of children and their future, you have to take a holistic approach. You have to start with early childhood development. You have to follow through, and keep providing the support, education and development support. And you must keep at it. That is both enormously frustrating, but, in a nation which purports to care about its children, it is absolutely essential that we understand that helping children and strengthening families is an unending job. The work on behalf of children is never finished, no matter how much we do. In the private sector, as individual parents, it is not good enough. No matter what we do in the public sector, there will be more that could and should be done if we are serious about the real definition of children's future-- and we must be for their sake, and the sake of our society. I spent, as I have said before, as this Senator said before on this floor, 4 years as the chairman of the National Commission on Children. We took a comprehensive look at children's needs--income security, health care, education, values, and the effects of media. We did everything, and we came out of it with a unanimous report. I picked the name for the publication that we put out. I liked it. It was called Beyond Rhetoric. That is what we have to come to terms with in this body, that we are very good at the rhetoric. In fact, on children--our rhetoric tends to be more bipartisan than other subjects which is good. And we actually do some good things, insofar as the public has any role in that, as apart from parental responsibility and even children's responsibility to themselves. But we are in a huge new world of responsibilities as parents, which I am as a private citizen and concerned father. I am also public citizen and a Member of the Senate. I have obligations to children as both a private citizen and member of my community, and as a public official as well. We are just not going to get off easily if we accept the challenge to move beyond rhetoric and really do something for children. So I think on this floor, we are going to have to start thinking about those graphs, about those two brains. They are studies of contrasts--both kids' brains, one kid getting attention, one kid not getting attention. What a difference it makes. I will say another final thing. We do not purport or believe that we are doing everything for the future now with this amendment. What we are trying to do here is a reserve clause to capture the attention of the people. An argument that gets used here often, but not very effectively, is extremely compelling in this case--we need to take action because of the children, but we also need to act to save money for the taxpayers in the future. We hear that a lot. People discount it. They say, ``That's nice that for Head Start, you save $10 for every dollar you put in now.'' But, we have to spend the money now, to save the long-term costs of neglecting our children's early development. That is what our problem is. We are in a budget resolution here. But in the case of children, we are talking about spending billions and billions of dollars more on crime and remedial education, if we do not do the right thing in the early years for children. Senator Kerry has focused on the zero-through-6 period. He is doing that with an intensity, with a passion which is absolutely unmatched and which attracted me. I tend to be a Member who votes against amendments on this floor to protect the integrity of this budget deal, which I think we have to adopt. But I feel so strongly that he is on the right track and he is doing the right thing and that I support the Kerry amendment. We have to learn to discipline ourselves to exempt children from the way we ordinarily look at problems: Pass legislation, get the private sector to do something, and then go on to the next thing. Children, their problems, their growth, their development are vital and with us forever. The time to start thinking about children and their futures is right now. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of a historical milestone in my state of West Virginia. In 1797, Brooke County, named after Gov. Robert Brooke of Virginia, was officially born. I take this opportunity to congratulate Brooke County on its bicentennial celebration. Brooke County, located in the northern Panhandle of West Virginia, was created from part of Ohio County. The first session of the Brooke County court took place in the home of William Sharpe on May 23, 1797. Since that day, the residents of Brooke County have played a vital role in the development of West Virginia and the Nation. Its residents fought to protect our Nation in the War of 1812 and to keep it intact in the Civil War. They founded Brooke Academy, the first educational institution on the Ohio River, south of Pittsburgh and west of the Alleghenies. However, they are not only sound in body and mind, but also in their souls, as the Christian Church, the Disciples of Christ, and the Church of Christ all have their early roots in 19th century Brooke County. From the Duval Glass House, the first glasshouse in West Virginia, to the delicious Grimes golden apples, the residents of Brooke County have been steeped in a tradition of innovation. Their accomplishments are numerous and far-reaching. Part of the highly industrialized Ohio Valley, Brooke County has seen its innovation at work, as their industries have grown from early paper bag and marble manufacturers to a variety of steel industries including the most modern steel coating mill in the world. On behalf of all citizens from the Mountain State, I would like to once again commend Brooke County on its 200th birthday and ask that my distinguished colleagues join with me in recognizing its rich history of accomplishments and innovation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have made the decision to vote in favor of the budget resolution before us to achieve a balanced budget and invest in key priorities for the country. This is not a vote to claim that this budget plan is perfect or a replica of the specific way I would best like to see the budget balanced and my own State's needs addressed. However, as a result of President Clinton working with Congress to reach this agreement, this plan represents a responsible course for completing the job of deficit reduction and launching essential steps for our future. This budget plan is also a victory against the dangerous and reckless efforts we have seen over the past 2 years in the name of balancing the budget, reforming Medicare, and other attractive but misleading labels. I am extremely proud and now relieved that some of us succeeded in defeating the extreme cuts proposed in the budget plans offered by Republicans that would have done such grave damage to Medicare, education, infrastructure, and other priorities. The Republican plans literally raided Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, and would have put crushing burdens on working families and our communities that were totally unnecessary and wrong. This budget plan now before us is possible because of the tough choices and hard work done by President Clinton, with the sole help of Democrats and not a single Republican vote, in 1993 to enact a historic package of deficit reduction and economic growth measures. Instead of the horrors predicted by opponents, that 1993 budget and economic plan cut the deficit from $290 billion to $67 billion. Over the past 4 years, we have watched the economy grow steadily, interest rates come down and stabilize, inflation remain low, and unemployment reach record lows. Some of the critics of the bipartisan budget agreement before us now seem to be upset because this plan doesn't hurt enough. Since when is pain or sacrifice the goal of a Federal budget? The goals should be fairness, balance, priority-setting, and investment as we hammer out a budget that also adheres to fiscal discipline. And the reason we can now proceed to finish the job of balancing the budget is because some of us have been hard at work over the past years to limit spending, set priorities, and make the real choices. This budget agreement is a plan with the necessary spending cuts and reform to balance the budget, with investments in urgent needs that Americans want us to address. This means accepting tradeoffs and limits. In fact, I have been obligated to vote against certain amendments in the past few days to increase spending in areas that I have a strong commitment to, from childrens programs to highway spending. But in order for this agreement to go forward, and enable us to fill in the details and even work out revisions, I feel a responsibility to help the bipartisan leadership maintain the fabric of this agreement. Mr. President, I am especially pleased that this agreement includes $16 billion for expanding health care coverage for children. My hope is that this will translate directly into enacting the legislation introduced by Senator Chafee and myself, with broad, bipartisan support, to use the Medicaid Program to insure up to 5 million children with the most urgent needs. Our approach would build on a foundation that serves children and families well, in a cost-effective and targeted manner. As the former chairman of the National Commission on Children, I view this budget agreement as the bipartisan commitment needed to fulfill other parts of the agenda we recommended to make children a higher priority in deeds, not just rhetoric, in America. With the education tax cuts promised for families, a children's tax credit, and more investment in early childhood and education, along with the childrens health care initiative promised, we can make sure this country prepares more of the next generation to be ready for the incredible challenges ahead of us. Mr. President, while I generally support the provisions of the balanced budget resolution, I want to make a special point of the fact that I take strong exception to the proposed funding for veterans. It is my view that veterans, who have sacrificed for this country, are carrying a disproportionate share of the burden to balance the Federal budget. As the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, this part of the budget is the area that I have a special responsibility to review in great detail. In addition, it affects West Virginians in countless ways. It is a sad statement that spending for veterans was not included in the list of protected programs by the President or congressional leadership. The result is that veterans benefits and services have been cut. In fiscal year 1998, discretionary veterans programs covering medical care, construction, and general administrative expenses will be decreased by $132 million in fiscal year 1998. To me, this represents a serious cut in veterans programs. Veterans groups and their advocates have agreed over the years to pull their weight in a concerted effort to balance the budget. However, this agreement does not reflect a sense of fairness. Aside from the deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and receipts from spectrum sales, veterans face the largest cuts in programs, and this is unacceptable. The budget resolution effectively flatlines the Department of Veterans Affairs' [VA] medical care appropriation to $16.959 billion over the next 5 years, and in an attempt to supplement this funding shortfall, builds in a new revenue stream. For the first time, VA will retain all third-party payments collected from insurance companies, and the budget agreement assumes that these fees will be available to support discretionary spending for VA medical care. In policy, I have always supported retention of these so-called Medical Care Cost Recovery [MCCR] collections on the basis that these collections would enhance medical services for veterans. Unfortunately, even with these new funds--$604 million in fiscal year 1998--the resulting level of funding would not be sufficient to support current services in fiscal year 1998. Projected outyear medical care spending would rise by less than one-half of one percent, while at the same time, the number of unique patients VA treats is projected to rise at an average annual rate of over 3.5 percent. If this same growth rate were applied to Medicare, America's seniors would rightly be marching on the Capitol. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know that when we speak of the funding level for VA medical care, we are really talking about such concerns as the long-term care needs of our World War II and Korean war veterans, the health care needs of ailing Vietnam and Persian Gulf war veterans, specialized services provided to veterans who are catastrophically disabled, and basic health and preventive care services provided to all our veterans. Under the budget agreement, veterans seeking medical care from the VA would be dependent upon uncertain funding, including a base appropriation which is $54 million less than the previous year; an untested plan to secure funding from insurance companies; and another controversial proposal, Medicare reimbursement, which will require congressional approval. I believe that the Government can be fiscally responsible and reduce the Federal deficit and debt, and still fulfill our commitment to our Nation's veterans. Asking veterans to rely upon tenuous funding mechanisms for their medical care does not meet this basic criteria. This proposed level of funding will also be particularly troublesome in those areas of the country which are losing VA health care funding as part of VA's new resource allocation model. Those facilities which are already slated to lose resources, including the Clarksburg VA Medical Center in my home State, will be hit even harder by the low level of fiscal year 1998 funding. Mr. President, some have viewed this budget agreement as a victory for veterans. This is simply a misunderstanding of the facts. Veterans groups know and understand that a frozen appropriation coupled with cuts in other programs will translate into a reduction of services and benefits, and I understand that they will be opposing the resolution. I will be working throughout the appropriations process to assure that these cuts are diminished. In sum, the appropriators will have to do better if we are to honor our commitment to veterans. Before concluding, I also warn my colleagues who are such strong proponents of capital gains and estate tax relief that these requirements are going to be subject to intense scrutiny by Americans who have every right to ask some tough questions. When working families struggle as hard as they do to make ends meet and give their children opportunities to succeed, they want to see a Federal budget with priorities that make sense. Every year, when faced with the budget process and debate, I have to weigh the various principles and goals that guide me in all of my work as the Senator of West Virginia. I have fought certain plans and proposals strenuously, because of their tilted and unfair approaches. In the case of the budget agreement before us, I believe it is an effort that should go forward. It is a work-in-progress, and I will be working hard to improve it. But at the same time, it captures the basic goals that the people of West Virginia and the country are asking us to pursue. We need to complete the job of balancing the budget. We also need to take new steps to address the opportunities and needs of Americans, in education, health care, research, and other key areas. With a bipartisan budget agreement resolved to pursue these goals, I will vote to get the job underway.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Hatch-Kennedy bill, I am extremely hopeful that this amendment will pass. If this amendment passes it will enable us to come very close to achieving universal coverage for all of America's children. However, like Senator Chafee, if the Hatch-Kennedy amendment fails, then we simply must target our efforts in the Finance Committee at strengthening the Medicaid Program to achieve health care coverage for the children who should be our most urgent priority. The Medicaid Program has a proven track record in providing cost effective care and it has served as a vital safety net for millions of working families. Because of past bipartisan legislation that delinked the Medicaid Program from the welfare program, the vast majority of children on Medicaid have at least one working parent. In other words, these are children in families who are struggling to avoid welfare, play by the rule, pay taxes--but they are the ones who don't get health insurance for their children through their jobs and cannot afford it on incomes where ends barely meet. So I look forward to working with Senator Chafee, Senator Jeffords, Senator Breaux, and the majority of my colleagues on the Finance Committee who have already signed on to our bill, to expand coverage for millions of children in the most cost-effective, targeted way possible through the Medicaid Program.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. A couple of quick points that ought to be made. This amendment, the amendment of Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch, reduces the budget deficit. I hope that point has been made. It does reduce it by $10 billion. That is specifically the amount. It does not change a single spending cut or tax cut that has been proposed in the budget agreement. It does none of that whatever, and it is consistent with what is already in the budget agreement. It would help children that do not have health insurance. It is very complementary to the budget resolution. Let me say this. When I went to West Virginia 33 years ago, I went as something called a VISTA volunteer, sort of an untrained social worker trying to do good in West Virginia. I worked in a small coal mining community, and my life at that point was involved entirely with children who did not have any health insurance, or any education, for that matter, because the schoolbus would not come to pick them up. Something that has stayed with me forever, since I was a VISTA volunteer, which I have acted on in terms of moral angst and fervor since then, has been the condition of children, particularly regarding health care. I have to report that the children of the children with whom I was a VISTA volunteer do not have health insurance. In fact, 12 percent of our children in West Virginia do not have any health insurance. We talk about the most industrialized nation in the world, and that is true, but when you think of certain situations on a case-by-case basis, how can it be that, as a society that has our resources and our capacity, that takes 10 million children, and says they cannot have health insurance even though the majority of their parents are working, it is not fair. America and democracy are based like the progressive income tax, on a concept of fairness. To take 10 million children, most of whom have a parent or parents working, playing by the rules, paying taxes, and saying you cannot have health insurance because the person for whom your parent works does not provide health insurance and you, on your own, cannot afford it, and therefore you--this particular child--are not going to have health insurance, is fundamentally morally repugnant. I think every Senator, in fact, would agree with that. So here we have a marvelous opportunity to help them, and not only to help them in this amendment, but to help them in the budget agreement. Mr. President, if your heart does not persuade you to this position, your head ought to. That point has been made. That is, we are talking about preventive medicine for the budget in the future, as well as preventive medicine for children in our immediate time. How can we expect these children to excel at school; how can we expect them to perform at school and learn the skills they need if they do not have basic health insurance? Between 1987 and 1995 the percentage of children with job-based insurance actually declined from 67 to 50 percent. Every minute that goes by, another child loses his or her private insurance. This is the year that can make history for Republicans and Democrats alike. It can be the year remembered as the one we prove that we can do something, together, about a problem we all acknowledge, we all know doesn't make sense, and we all say needs a response. I want to congratulate the Hatch-Kennedy amendment because it takes the next step. Senators Hatch and Kennedy once again have paved the way for true bipartisan, common sense action in an area where Americans are very clear. Children count. Even better news is that this partnership of two Senators reflects broadening support and momentum that now must build into real results. The budget resolution before us includes $16 billion to expand health care. Money that can fund the Medicaid-based bill that Senator Chafee and I have proposed to expand coverage for children, with the bipartisan support of many of our colleagues. This amendment should pass. The Hatch-Kennedy amendment takes the next step, with the money to make it possible to get most or all uninsured children the health care they need. I am in the leadership on the Democratic side over here, and I am voting against virtually all amendments to protect the integrity of the budget agreement. But this amendment, as Senator Hatch said, is a big daddy. It is a big, big daddy. We are discussing health care, again, on the Senate floor, and we are discussing it for children, which is the place where we ought to be beginning. I have spent too many years in a State that I love, in a country that I love, as president of the National Commission on Children, going around this country, going around my State, seeing children who do not have health insurance, seeing what happens to them, to not be extremely supportive of an opportunity to pass an amendment and to cure that problem.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with a mixture of happiness and sadness that I pay tribute to Edward P. Scott, VA's Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs, as he retires from Federal service--happiness for Ed and his family as they embark on a new phase of their lives, and sadness for those of us who will miss Ed's wise counsel and assistance as we carry on our work on veterans issues. Mr. President, Ed has had a long and distinguished career, including 16 years here in the Senate where he served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee as general counsel, minority general counsel, and in the 102d Congress, as chief counsel and staff director. I first became familiar with Ed's work when I joined the Veterans' Affairs Committee in 1985 when I first came to the Senate; I have recognized and relied on his great professionalism and integrity ever since. I particularly appreciated his assistance in 1993 when he worked tirelessly to ensure that my transition to the chairmanship of the committee went as smoothly as possible. For the past 4 years, Ed has served ably in the often challenging job of Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He is enormously knowledgeable about veterans' programs and laws, and both the committee and the Department have relied heavily on his expertise and keen insight. He has worked hard to keep his various constituencies--most particularly, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown and the authorizing and appropriating committees of both the House and Senate--informed and working together. On any number of occasions, Ed has kept the train on the tracks when it was threatening to tumble off. During these 4 years, Ed has played an important role in working with Congress to ensure passage of significant legislation to improve benefits and services for the service men and women who have sacrificed so much for our great country. He was particularly instrumental in working with the Congress last year to enact health care eligibility reform legislation, Public Law 104-262. Ed has also been in the middle of efforts to make sure that the Congress understood what the administration was doing in response to the concerns of veterans of the Persian Gulf. Ed's high standards--in doing the job and doing it right, in being a person of unassailable integrity, and in working with all parties concerned to find solutions that all could embrace--have inspired all who have worked with him. Mr. President, Ed's earlier career was equally distinguished. He graduated cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he was an editor of the law review. Following a clerkship with a justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, he entered active duty in the Air Force and served as assistant staff judge advocate at Keesler Air Force Base, MS. He then served with the Peace Corps, first in the Office of General Counsel, where he served as the deputy general counsel, and then as the Peace Corps country director in Korea. Ed also worked at the Mental Health Law Project here in Washington, an experience that gave him significant expertise on mental health issues which he has brought to bear on any number of VA mental health matters. Mr. President, I am certain that all in the Senate who have had the privilege of knowing and working with Ed Scott join me in wishing him well as he retires from a distinguished career of Government service. We will be the poorer for his going, but the richer for his having worked among us.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleagues, Senators Jeffords, Frist, Harkin, and Kennedy, and all the others that worked so long and hard to develop this bipartisan legislation. This is a carefully crafted compromise to balance the rights and concerns of school administrators and teachers as well as students and parents. Because of attending a family memorial service in New York City, I could not be here for the final votes. Had I been in Washington, I would have supported the leadership and voted for final passage of the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Our country should be proud of our efforts to provide education and opportunities to individuals with disabilities. Thanks to the IDEA, we opened schools to disabled children over 20 years ago and everyone in our society benefits from such inclusion and education. In forging this legislation, leaders had to deal with difficult issues, including discipline problems sometimes involving weapons or drugs. Groups worked long and hard to develop an approach that would ensure that our schools are safe but that a disabled student's rights and education are are also protected. Classroom teachers will now be included in the planning and process which is a major change and important improvement. Federal funding and leadership on IDEA is crucial, but this program is a partnership with States and local schools. West Virginia, like other States, assumes the lion share of education funding but Federal funding provides incentives and leadership. As always with a comprehensive reauthorization package, there are some lingering issues and questions. On balance, this legislation is a tremendous achievement that continues our Federal commitment to help disabled students in West Virginia and every State in our country.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the end of a significant week in our Nation. May 4 through May 10 was National Arson Awareness Week around the country. This year's theme was ``Target Arson.'' The Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], along with local law enforcement officers, firefighters, and teachers chose a tremendously important and vulnerable group close to my heart for special emphasis in their crusade to promote safety and crime prevention--children. Their mission was and is to educate children on the dangers of fire by asking parents to control their children's access to matches and cigarette lights, and asking all adults to set a good example for our Nation's youth. Arson affects all Americans. It accounts for more than 700,000 deaths nationwide and causes more than $2 billion worth of property damage. The cost to the community as a whole is great when we consider that the taxpayer must foot the expenses for the fire, police, and medical personnel who are needed when a fire occurs, and not to mention the losses to a community when a church, business, or home is destroyed. That is why it is imperative that we work together to prevent arson from destroying another community, and most important, another life. Today I commend FEMA and communities across the country for their laudable efforts in raising awareness about the tragic consequences of arson and its devastating effect on our communities.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Senate Finance Committee colleague, Senator Nickles, in introducing an Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] reform bill. Our bill will: first, allow businesses to use the same depreciation system for AMT as they do under regular tax, and second, permit businesses to use their AMT credits more easily than under current law. It will help make it easier for U.S. businesses to compete and reduce the unintended inequity of current law. For several years, I have looked for an opportunity to fix the problems that AMT creates especially for capital intensive industries. Two years ago, I introduced my own bill to reform the aspects of AMT that I believe are most detrimental to businesses for which AMT is frequently their method of tax payment. Unfortunately, with the controversies and difficulties that made it impossible to enact a budget plan in the last Congress, there was no ability to move that effort forward. This year, I am pleased to work with Senator Nickles to make the AMT fairer. I hope this means we have a real chance of working together in a bipartisan manner to compel Congress, the Finance Committee in particular, to figure out a way to deal with some of the unintended consequences of AMT as part of this year's budget deal. I think previous efforts at AMT reform have failed in the part because it is very tough to focus on the merits of certain corporate tax changes. That remains true today in the context of a larger budget agreement, but if we keep our perspective, I think AMT reform will win support on its merits and Congress can responsibly find a way to finance it. I am well aware of the fact that as we introduce this legislation, there is no specific provision for AMT relief in the budget deal which the President and Congressional leadership have struck in outline form. As I have noted, the constraints of balancing the budget will require us to carefully examine how much AMT relief is practical this year, as part of an agreement to balance the budget over the next 5 years. I understand that very well, as does Senator Nickles. I think that means we will have to zero in on the aspects of AMT relief that are most doable this year--and which can be financed without harming other priorities. I am prepared to do that and recognize that it also means the scope of the AMT bill we submit today will have to be tailored accordingly. That does not mean that we should put off AMT relief for another day, it just means we will have to be honest about what is critical to do and what portions of this bill will have to remain on the to-do list. I say all this because it is important to understand the context for our introducing this relief bill now, and as the budget agreement places some high hurdles on what can realistically be accomplished. I also would like to say that it is my strong belief that the excruciating specifics of the budget agreement which relate to matters under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee are best left to the expertise on that Committee. The Finance Committee serves an extremely important role in the legislative process. That role cannot and should not be supplanted by private negotiations between the administration and congressional leadership--however worthwhile the overall purpose. Reaching consensus on the approach to balancing the budget and protecting priorities of the administration and both sides of the aisle in congressional leadership provides the Finance Committee with the framework for its detailed work. The Finance Committee will soon have to work its will within the appropriate parameters of its reconciliation instructions. When that happens, I think the committee must address AMT relief, and I intend to work to build support for it as we wend our way through the committee process. Let me return to the substance of the bill we submit for our colleagues' consideration today. First, I want to make it absolutely clear--this bill does not repeal AMT. AMT has created during the 1986 Tax Reform Act in response to the problem raised when companies would report profits to stockholders and yet claim losses to the IRS. However, in an effort to simplify the code depreciation under AMT was treated as an adjustment--which amounts to an increase in income. This penalizes low-profit, capital intensive companies, like steel companies. Compared to other countries, after 5 years, a U.S. steelmaker under AMT recovers only 37 percent of its investment in a new plant and equipment. The recovery of investment in other countries is much higher--for example, in Japan it's 58 percent, in Germany companies recover 81 percent, Korea is 90 percent, and in Brazil it's 100 percent. The problem is not unique to the steel industry though. Other capital-intensive industries that also have long-lived assets lose under the current AMT. The chemical industry has 9\1/2\ years to depreciate under the AMT, as opposed to 5 years under the regular tax. And for paper, they have 13 years to depreciate under the AMT, as opposed to 7 years under the regular tax. We need to fix the AMT so that industries with very high capital costs which they cannot recover for years are not put at such a disadvantage. Today's AMT discourages investment in new plants and equipment, while under our regular tax system depreciation investments are encouraged. The need to improve our tax system to make it fairer to capital intensive industries is clear--fixing the AMT is one way to do that. U.S. companies have to be able to compete in an increasingly competitive global market--that's almost an adage. It's what our trade laws and agreements seek to ensure. We'll never be able to sufficiently promote U.S. exports if we don't being to equalize the effects of our tax laws on American companies as well. This bill would eliminate depreciation as an adjustment under AMT-- treating AMT taxpayers the same as those companies that pay under our regular tax system. It would also allow tax payers who have not used their accumulated minimum tax credits which are at least 5 years old to use those credits to offset up to 50 percent of their current year AMT liability--with a provision to ensure that taxpayers could not reduce their current payment below their regular tax liability for that year. AMT has become the standard method of tax payment for many of our Nation's capital intensive industries and it is not working the way Congress initially intended. It's time to fix it. The bill Senator Nickles and I submit for your consideration today will fix the AMT so it works the way I believe Congress originally intended. It will have the consequence of improving the competitiveness of American business. It is time to stop talking about AMT and do something that figures out how to address this real problem. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with me and my Finance Committee colleagues to find a way to act on this important issue in this year's budget bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Senate Finance Committee colleague, Senator Nickles, in introducing an Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] reform bill. Our bill will: first, allow businesses to use the same depreciation system for AMT as they do under regular tax, and second, permit businesses to use their AMT credits more easily than under current law. It will help make it easier for U.S. businesses to compete and reduce the unintended inequity of current law. For several years, I have looked for an opportunity to fix the problems that AMT creates especially for capital intensive industries. Two years ago, I introduced my own bill to reform the aspects of AMT that I believe are most detrimental to businesses for which AMT is frequently their method of tax payment. Unfortunately, with the controversies and difficulties that made it impossible to enact a budget plan in the last Congress, there was no ability to move that effort forward. This year, I am pleased to work with Senator Nickles to make the AMT fairer. I hope this means we have a real chance of working together in a bipartisan manner to compel Congress, the Finance Committee in particular, to figure out a way to deal with some of the unintended consequences of AMT as part of this year's budget deal. I think previous efforts at AMT reform have failed in the part because it is very tough to focus on the merits of certain corporate tax changes. That remains true today in the context of a larger budget agreement, but if we keep our perspective, I think AMT reform will win support on its merits and Congress can responsibly find a way to finance it. I am well aware of the fact that as we introduce this legislation, there is no specific provision for AMT relief in the budget deal which the President and Congressional leadership have struck in outline form. As I have noted, the constraints of balancing the budget will require us to carefully examine how much AMT relief is practical this year, as part of an agreement to balance the budget over the next 5 years. I understand that very well, as does Senator Nickles. I think that means we will have to zero in on the aspects of AMT relief that are most doable this year--and which can be financed without harming other priorities. I am prepared to do that and recognize that it also means the scope of the AMT bill we submit today will have to be tailored accordingly. That does not mean that we should put off AMT relief for another day, it just means we will have to be honest about what is critical to do and what portions of this bill will have to remain on the to-do list. I say all this because it is important to understand the context for our introducing this relief bill now, and as the budget agreement places some high hurdles on what can realistically be accomplished. I also would like to say that it is my strong belief that the excruciating specifics of the budget agreement which relate to matters under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee are best left to the expertise on that Committee. The Finance Committee serves an extremely important role in the legislative process. That role cannot and should not be supplanted by private negotiations between the administration and congressional leadership--however worthwhile the overall purpose. Reaching consensus on the approach to balancing the budget and protecting priorities of the administration and both sides of the aisle in congressional leadership provides the Finance Committee with the framework for its detailed work. The Finance Committee will soon have to work its will within the appropriate parameters of its reconciliation instructions. When that happens, I think the committee must address AMT relief, and I intend to work to build support for it as we wend our way through the committee process. Let me return to the substance of the bill we submit for our colleagues' consideration today. First, I want to make it absolutely clear--this bill does not repeal AMT. AMT has created during the 1986 Tax Reform Act in response to the problem raised when companies would report profits to stockholders and yet claim losses to the IRS. However, in an effort to simplify the code depreciation under AMT was treated as an adjustment--which amounts to an increase in income. This penalizes low-profit, capital intensive companies, like steel companies. Compared to other countries, after 5 years, a U.S. steelmaker under AMT recovers only 37 percent of its investment in a new plant and equipment. The recovery of investment in other countries is much higher--for example, in Japan it's 58 percent, in Germany companies recover 81 percent, Korea is 90 percent, and in Brazil it's 100 percent. The problem is not unique to the steel industry though. Other capital-intensive industries that also have long-lived assets lose under the current AMT. The chemical industry has 9\1/2\ years to depreciate under the AMT, as opposed to 5 years under the regular tax. And for paper, they have 13 years to depreciate under the AMT, as opposed to 7 years under the regular tax. We need to fix the AMT so that industries with very high capital costs which they cannot recover for years are not put at such a disadvantage. Today's AMT discourages investment in new plants and equipment, while under our regular tax system depreciation investments are encouraged. The need to improve our tax system to make it fairer to capital intensive industries is clear--fixing the AMT is one way to do that. U.S. companies have to be able to compete in an increasingly competitive global market--that's almost an adage. It's what our trade laws and agreements seek to ensure. We'll never be able to sufficiently promote U.S. exports if we don't being to equalize the effects of our tax laws on American companies as well. This bill would eliminate depreciation as an adjustment under AMT-- treating AMT taxpayers the same as those companies that pay under our regular tax system. It would also allow tax payers who have not used their accumulated minimum tax credits which are at least 5 years old to use those credits to offset up to 50 percent of their current year AMT liability--with a provision to ensure that taxpayers could not reduce their current payment below their regular tax liability for that year. AMT has become the standard method of tax payment for many of our Nation's capital intensive industries and it is not working the way Congress initially intended. It's time to fix it. The bill Senator Nickles and I submit for your consideration today will fix the AMT so it works the way I believe Congress originally intended. It will have the consequence of improving the competitiveness of American business. It is time to stop talking about AMT and do something that figures out how to address this real problem. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with me and my Finance Committee colleagues to find a way to act on this important issue in this year's budget bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my great honor today to rise to congratulate Kelly L. George of Cabell County in West Virginia. Kelly has been selected by American Mothers, Inc., as the West Virginia Mother of the Year, and I commend them for their choice. As a father of four children, I know how important it is to have a strong mother figure in the family, and Kelly is exactly that for her family. She continues to instill the value of high academic achievement to her children Vincent, Victor, Valerie, Von, and Vanessa. She works very hard to provide a spiritual foundation for her children, and she also takes on the enormously important task of teaching strong family values. But this is not all that Kelly George does. Like my wife Sharon, Kelly balances her tasks as a mother with her duties in an active career. Kelly has an impressive list of accomplishments outside the household. She is on the Thomas Hospital Board of Trustees, is a Kanawha County Parks and Recreation Commissioner, and chair of the West Virginia Board of Risk and Insurance Management. She is also a life member of General Federation of Women's Clubs and the National Committee of State Garden Clubs, as well as international chair for the Pilot International World Association. On top of all this, she is a legislative analyst, a historian, and the author of ``Rhythms, Remembrances and Recipes.'' Imagine combining all of these activities with her educational background in the West Virginia public schools, Marshall College, Cambridge School of Radio and Television, and Drake School of Drama and with the tremendous job of being a mother. Most of us would find difficulty in staying active just in these tasks outside the home, but Kelly is able to balance those with her role as a mother. I know Kelly personally and know that she is a phenomenal person who is enormously talented. I am proud to say that Kelly George is the West Virginia Mother of the Year for 1997-98. And I congratulate her on this tremendous achievement.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to pay a tribute to an individual who, in his service as a staff member in the U.S. Senate, has exemplified the qualities we all look for in a public servant, colleague, and human being. Patrick H. Windham just completed well over a decade of service in the Senate, always in some association with the Senator of South Carolina, Senator Hollings, whom he holds in such obvious and deep esteem. Pat and his family are relocating to California to begin new professional opportunities. He will be sorely missed here by a wide range of admirers and colleagues in the Senate, the Clinton administration, and the extensive circle of people and organizations concerned with the issues that Pat has been so intensely involved with. Educated at Stanford and Berkeley, and dubbed the ``Godfather of Science and Tech'' by colleagues, Pat began his public service career in 1982 as a legislative assistant to Senator Hollings. Two years later, Pat was assigned to the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space and since has served as a invaluable senior advisor on this extensive range of issues to various members of the committee. Over the years, Pat has served with strong loyalty to the Senate and dedication to the public policy interests of the country as a whole. My relationship with Pat stems from my own service as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and when I became chairman of the Science Subcommittee. With Pat assigned to the subcommittee, we have worked closely for years on legislative endeavors and the issues that fall in this jurisdiction. No one matches Pat's breadth of expertise, professional dedication, and personal commitment. I feel highly fortunate to be the beneficiary of his extensive talent and contributions. Pat Windham's involvement in science and technology policy and legislation could fill volumes. Pat was instrumental in the 1988 conversion of the National Bureau of Standards [NBS] into the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. He strongly advocated expanding the mission of the old NBS. Thanks in large part to Pat Windham, NIST's mission now explicitly includes enhancing the competitiveness of American companies by providing appropriate governmental support for industry's development of precompetitive generic technologies and diffusing Government-developed technological advances to use in all segments of the American economy. Pat has tirelessly continued his involvement in framing NIST's role in U.S. policy in today's era of cutbacks. Pat also contributed heavily to the development of The Advanced Technology Program [ATP] and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership [MEP]. Each of these programs grew out of real concerns over the competitiveness of American companies in the global marketplace. Created by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, ATP encourages public and private cooperation in the development of precompetitive technologies with broad application across industries. Pat argued fiercely for retaining this successful program in the face of last Congress' attempt at eliminating this public-private industrial partnership. His dedication to these issues certainly contributed to the President's support of the ATP program, and its continued success. The Clinton administration's strong support of a program led to an increase in ATP funding in fiscal year 1997. And, today, the ATP awards almost 300 public-private partnership projects. Pat Windham's contributions do not end here. He has been involved in technology-related projects including efforts promoting national metric conversion. He has steadfastly encouraged and promoted the translation of Japanese scientific and technological documents for use by scientists and engineers across the globe. His public policy concerns also have included legislative efforts to ensure that foreign-component parts meet U.S. standards for quality. The Senate, and that includes me in particular, will miss Pat and his superb abilities as we address the vital issues in which he has been part. His dedication and loyalty have served as a role model for all those around him. On behalf of my own staff and myself, I offer good wishes to him and feel confident Pat will continue making a vital contribution to his fellow citizens and the country in his next chapter.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a private relief bill that is based on careful reflection and a sincere desire to help a family of importance to me and my State of West Virginia. This is an effort to assist an individual named Jack Sun who is a prominent international businessman and multinational manager with permanent residence status in the United States. Mr. Sun sought and obtained permanent residence in the United States to enable him to pursue economic business and ties between his native Taiwan and the United States. Of great significance to West Virginia, in his capacity as Chairman of Taiwan Aerospace Corp., Jack Sun has been instrumental in forging a Taiwan/United States joint venture named Sino Swearingen, Inc., that will build state-of-the-art business jets in my home State of West Virginia. Taiwan Aerospace Corp., and its Taiwanese coinvestors have to date committed an amount in excess of $150 million to finance this joint venture. Sino Swearingen, Inc., is expected to employ around 800 people at this West Virginia site when it becomes fully operational. As someone who knows Jack Sun personally and has worked closely with him to pursue this new investment and jobs opportunity for West Virginia, I know him to be an honorable individual. He is an internationally respected business leader, well known to the American business community. Jack Sun has worked extremely hard to develop and maintain strong personal and business ties in the United States. In addition to his business activities, Jack Sun is active in the cultural and academic life of both Taiwan and the United States. He also sits on the University of Southern California School of Business Administration's CEO board of advisors. Jack Sun, in his capacity as president of Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co., Ltd, has, over the past 10 years, directed significant investments into the United States and has created thousands of jobs for Americans. Mr. Sun is the president of Pacific USA Holdings Corp. headquartered in Dallas, TX. Pacific USA Holdings Corp. is a diversified holding company whose business activities encompass commercial banking, home building, mortgage and investment banking, property development, insurance and technology services, to name but a few. Pacific USA Holdings Corp. and its subsidiaries now employ more than 2,000 U.S. workers. Jack Sun also serves as director of the Iridium project which is an international alliance sponsored by Motorola, Inc., whose purpose is to create a global network of telecommunications systems through the use of low-orbiting satellites. The purpose of this private bill is to attempt to assist Jack Sun in expediting the completion of the permanent residence process that is well underway through conventional procedures for his two youngest children, Ching-Jou Sun, age 8, and Ching-Hsun Sun, age 6. Jack Sun's three eldest children received their permanent residence status on April 28, 1992. Regarding this bill, in July, 1995, a petition for alien relative was filed on behalf of ching-jou and Ching-Hsun Sun. The Immigration and Naturalization Service approved the petitions on January 30, 1996. Upon approval of the petitions, the children were assigned a priority date of July 26, 1995. However, Jack Sun and his attorney have been informed by the Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs, that in the preference category for which Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun have been approved, the number of people approved for issuance of visas far exceeds the number of visas currently available for actual issuance. Consequently, the children have been assigned a priority date that is a place on the waiting list. The National Visa Center states that based upon the current conditions and backlog, the priority date held by Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun will not be reached for more than 4 years. Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun are now in the process of waiting for their green cards which would enable them to live and go to school in the United States with their sisters and brother. To add to the problem, during this waiting period, the children cannot even travel with their father and family in the United States. The children cannot obtain even a visitor's visa because they have already indicated their immigration intent. Although the petitions were approved on behalf of Ching-Hsun Sun and Ching-Jou Sun, the prolonged continuation of the waiting period has created personal hardships for Jack Sun, and his family. Jack Sun's three oldest children permanently reside in Pasadena, CA. The two oldest daughters presently attend the University of Southern California. Jack Sun simply would like his family to be together as much as possible. This means he wishes to be able to travel with his children to the United States, and to unify his family. Under the present circumstances, the family is split, three children holding permanent residence status and living in the United States, while the two youngest children have to remain in Taiwan during this prolonged waiting period and the potential 6 year delay before achieving visas for permanent residence status. This forced separation creates a particular hardship because of the ages of the children. The children are not permitted to travel with their father and are separated from their father and siblings for years to come. Jack Sun frequently and extensively travels to the United States to oversee his business operations. There is simply no further administrative procedure to use to resolve this situation for the Sun family and these two children. They are confronted with an extraordinarily long delay waiting for visas already approved to actually become available. No administrative remedy exists to cure this situation. No further relief is available from the Immigration and Naturalization Service or any other agency. The relevant administrative agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the National Visa Center at the State Department, have informed Jack Sun and his attorney that there is no administrative vehicle to expedite conclusion of the permanent residence process. Therefore, I have decided to seek a legislative remedy for Jack Sun's family. After carrying out all the steps needed to obtain approval for resident status, they face a 6-year waiting period that now condemns a father and children to prolonged periods of separation. Because of my respect for Jack Sun and deep appreciation for the role he has played in locating a major new source of jobs and opportunity for West Virginians, I am asking Congress to take the legislative action required to relieve a family of undue hardship and separation solely resulting from the grim reality that two children would otherwise have to wait 6 years to get visas they already have been approved for. I believe this is just the example of an extraordinary personal situation that merits congressional assistance and action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a private relief bill that is based on careful reflection and a sincere desire to help a family of importance to me and my State of West Virginia. This is an effort to assist an individual named Jack Sun who is a prominent international businessman and multinational manager with permanent residence status in the United States. Mr. Sun sought and obtained permanent residence in the United States to enable him to pursue economic business and ties between his native Taiwan and the United States. Of great significance to West Virginia, in his capacity as Chairman of Taiwan Aerospace Corp., Jack Sun has been instrumental in forging a Taiwan/United States joint venture named Sino Swearingen, Inc., that will build state-of-the-art business jets in my home State of West Virginia. Taiwan Aerospace Corp., and its Taiwanese coinvestors have to date committed an amount in excess of $150 million to finance this joint venture. Sino Swearingen, Inc., is expected to employ around 800 people at this West Virginia site when it becomes fully operational. As someone who knows Jack Sun personally and has worked closely with him to pursue this new investment and jobs opportunity for West Virginia, I know him to be an honorable individual. He is an internationally respected business leader, well known to the American business community. Jack Sun has worked extremely hard to develop and maintain strong personal and business ties in the United States. In addition to his business activities, Jack Sun is active in the cultural and academic life of both Taiwan and the United States. He also sits on the University of Southern California School of Business Administration's CEO board of advisors. Jack Sun, in his capacity as president of Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co., Ltd, has, over the past 10 years, directed significant investments into the United States and has created thousands of jobs for Americans. Mr. Sun is the president of Pacific USA Holdings Corp. headquartered in Dallas, TX. Pacific USA Holdings Corp. is a diversified holding company whose business activities encompass commercial banking, home building, mortgage and investment banking, property development, insurance and technology services, to name but a few. Pacific USA Holdings Corp. and its subsidiaries now employ more than 2,000 U.S. workers. Jack Sun also serves as director of the Iridium project which is an international alliance sponsored by Motorola, Inc., whose purpose is to create a global network of telecommunications systems through the use of low-orbiting satellites. The purpose of this private bill is to attempt to assist Jack Sun in expediting the completion of the permanent residence process that is well underway through conventional procedures for his two youngest children, Ching-Jou Sun, age 8, and Ching-Hsun Sun, age 6. Jack Sun's three eldest children received their permanent residence status on April 28, 1992. Regarding this bill, in July, 1995, a petition for alien relative was filed on behalf of ching-jou and Ching-Hsun Sun. The Immigration and Naturalization Service approved the petitions on January 30, 1996. Upon approval of the petitions, the children were assigned a priority date of July 26, 1995. However, Jack Sun and his attorney have been informed by the Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs, that in the preference category for which Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun have been approved, the number of people approved for issuance of visas far exceeds the number of visas currently available for actual issuance. Consequently, the children have been assigned a priority date that is a place on the waiting list. The National Visa Center states that based upon the current conditions and backlog, the priority date held by Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun will not be reached for more than 4 years. Ching-Jou and Ching-Hsun Sun are now in the process of waiting for their green cards which would enable them to live and go to school in the United States with their sisters and brother. To add to the problem, during this waiting period, the children cannot even travel with their father and family in the United States. The children cannot obtain even a visitor's visa because they have already indicated their immigration intent. Although the petitions were approved on behalf of Ching-Hsun Sun and Ching-Jou Sun, the prolonged continuation of the waiting period has created personal hardships for Jack Sun, and his family. Jack Sun's three oldest children permanently reside in Pasadena, CA. The two oldest daughters presently attend the University of Southern California. Jack Sun simply would like his family to be together as much as possible. This means he wishes to be able to travel with his children to the United States, and to unify his family. Under the present circumstances, the family is split, three children holding permanent residence status and living in the United States, while the two youngest children have to remain in Taiwan during this prolonged waiting period and the potential 6 year delay before achieving visas for permanent residence status. This forced separation creates a particular hardship because of the ages of the children. The children are not permitted to travel with their father and are separated from their father and siblings for years to come. Jack Sun frequently and extensively travels to the United States to oversee his business operations. There is simply no further administrative procedure to use to resolve this situation for the Sun family and these two children. They are confronted with an extraordinarily long delay waiting for visas already approved to actually become available. No administrative remedy exists to cure this situation. No further relief is available from the Immigration and Naturalization Service or any other agency. The relevant administrative agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the National Visa Center at the State Department, have informed Jack Sun and his attorney that there is no administrative vehicle to expedite conclusion of the permanent residence process. Therefore, I have decided to seek a legislative remedy for Jack Sun's family. After carrying out all the steps needed to obtain approval for resident status, they face a 6-year waiting period that now condemns a father and children to prolonged periods of separation. Because of my respect for Jack Sun and deep appreciation for the role he has played in locating a major new source of jobs and opportunity for West Virginians, I am asking Congress to take the legislative action required to relieve a family of undue hardship and separation solely resulting from the grim reality that two children would otherwise have to wait 6 years to get visas they already have been approved for. I believe this is just the example of an extraordinary personal situation that merits congressional assistance and action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased and proud to be introducing legislation today with my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee. As my colleagues in the Senate already know, Senator Chafee has long been a leader in the area of health care, especially when it comes to the health care of children. I am also extremely pleased to be introducing this bill with the help of Senator Breaux and the newest member of the Finance Committee, Senator Jeffords. We are excited to be joined by so many of our colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Moynihan, D'Amato, Baucus, Hatch, Bryan, Kerrey, and Moseley-Braun, and with so many of our other colleagues who have joined us as original cosponsors, including Senators Collins, Bingaman, Snowe, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Robb, Hutchinson, Inouye, Daschle, and Specter. Mr. President, our legislation already enjoys broad bipartisan support because it meets a serious need and it meets that need in a very cost-effective manner. Our legislation builds on an existing program and employs an approach that the Finance Committee has used repeatedly over the past decade to expand health coverage to children and pregnant women. Our legislation is, therefore, not new, original, or terribly innovative. But, we know it works. For me personally, this legislation fulfills another part of my promise to work tirelessly to turn the recommendations of the National Commission on Children, which I was honored to chair, into reality. That blue ribbon panel of children's leaders from many fields, representing a wide spectrum of views, successfully developed a unanimous report to recommend an action plan to give America's children a real shot at becoming productive, healthy citizens. During our deliberations, we recognized that ensuring basic health care for children should be one of the country's highest priorities. The bill we are introducing today challenges Congress to make the commitment to this basic objective that is so vital for the entire country's future. Our legislation is complementary to many of the other children health bills that have been already proposed this year. That is one reason why I am also a cosponsor of other health bills that have been introduced by Senators Hatch and Kennedy and Senator Daschle. These bills are not competing bills. They all seek to expand the number of children with health insurance and they could all easily fit together to meet a large, and I am sad to report, a growing need in this country. A total of 10 million children in the United States do not have health insurance and as a result, the vast majority of them do not get necessary health care. Numerous studies have shown that uninsured children do not receive basic preventive care and immunizations. They are less likely to see a doctor for both acute and chronic illnesses and are more likely to delay seeking necessary care. Uninsured sick newborns receive fewer services in the hospital than those with health coverage. Children without insurance are less likely to have a regular source of medical care. This means that these children miss out on getting properly screened for problems that could be easily treated early or that need to be monitored on a routine basis. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, having a regular source of medical care could reduce per-child health care costs by 22 percent. Those are the facts. But let us not forget the emotional turmoil a parent goes through trying to figure out when, or if, to get an earache treated or a rash checked out. Imagine how hard it must be for a mother and father to decide to wait just one more day in hopes that a troubling symptom will disappear only to have those symptoms worsen in the middle of the night. Some families don't even allow their children to play sports for fear of an injury. Having millions of families and children in these types of situations is just plain wrong, and we must try to help. Mr. President, the vast majority of uninsured children live in families where a parent works. Unfortunately, many of these families are unable to afford coverage offered by their employer when it is offered. In too many instances working parents don't even have that option. The trends for job-based insurance are very disturbing. Between 1987 and 1995 the percentage of children with job-based insurance declined from 67 to 59 percent. But this downward trend is not new. Between 1977 and 1987 job-based insurance declined by 5 percent. Every minute that goes by another child loses his or her private health insurance. Mr. President, our bill is very simple. We encourage States to expand coverage for children by offering them an enhanced Federal match. Under our bill, the States would be eligible to receive a 30-percent increase in their current Federal matching rate if they choose to expand coverage for pregnant women, infants, and children up to 150 percent of poverty. We cap the Federal match at 90 percent so that all States would be required to contribute some additional funding. Under our bill, Rhode Island would be eligible to receive an enhanced Federal match rate of 70 percent up from 54 percent. West Virginia would be eligible to receive a 90 percent Federal match, up from 72 percent. Our legislation targets those families earning less than one-and-one- half times the poverty level or about $24,000 a year for a family of four. Only a quarter of families at or below this income level have job-based insurance. By comparison, 81 percent of families earning wages above 150 percent of poverty have job-based insurance. The concern of replacing private insurance with public coverage--the so called crowding out effect--is minimized when so little job-based coverage even exists for families at these income levels. Under current law, Medicaid eligibility varies based on a child's age and a family's income level. Our legislation aims to establish uniform level of eligibility. I recently heard from a West Virginia mother desperate for health insurance for her 1-year-old. She and her husband work and earn about $22,000 a year. When their daughter turned 1, she lost her Medicaid coverage. She qualified for Medicaid when she was an infant but because Medicaid's income standard for eligibility is different for a 1-year-old she no longer qualified after her first birthday. The mother's employer offered health insurance, but at a cost of $289 a month or $3,500 a year. They could not afford to buy it. This mother was absolutely desperate for assistance because she knew her daughter needed immunizations and other well child care services. Mr. President, our legislation seeks to end instances of children losing their Medicaid coverage just because they have a birthday. Our legislation seeks to end instances of children in the same family having to meet different income standards. We do this not by mandating States to expand their Medicaid Program. We believe that by providing additional Federal money States will be able to move beyond their current eligibility levels. Our legislation would also allow those States that have already exceeded 150 percent of poverty to receive an enhanced Federal match. This match would be for those children they are already covering between 100 percent and 150 percent of poverty. We did not think it was fair to penalize those States who have already tried to improve coverage for children. A key way to expand the number of children enrolled in Medicaid is to guarantee eligibility for 12 months. Some 3 million children are currently eligible but not enrolled in the Medicaid Program. Some of these children qualify for a few months of Medicaid coverage. But because of slight changes in their parents' income, they lose coverage over the course of the year. Our bill would require States to guarantee 12 months of eligibility for all children on Medicaid as a condition of receiving an enhanced Federal match. Expansions of Medicaid in the late 1980's resulted in a decreased number of low birthweight babies, improved access to health care, a decline in infant mortality rates, and millions more children in working families with health insurance. We can build on these successes with this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House in advancing this bill. I am excited at our opportunity to meet a very real and vital need of millions of America's children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased and proud to be introducing legislation today with my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee. As my colleagues in the Senate already know, Senator Chafee has long been a leader in the area of health care, especially when it comes to the health care of children. I am also extremely pleased to be introducing this bill with the help of Senator Breaux and the newest member of the Finance Committee, Senator Jeffords. We are excited to be joined by so many of our colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Moynihan, D'Amato, Baucus, Hatch, Bryan, Kerrey, and Moseley-Braun, and with so many of our other colleagues who have joined us as original cosponsors, including Senators Collins, Bingaman, Snowe, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Robb, Hutchinson, Inouye, Daschle, and Specter. Mr. President, our legislation already enjoys broad bipartisan support because it meets a serious need and it meets that need in a very cost-effective manner. Our legislation builds on an existing program and employs an approach that the Finance Committee has used repeatedly over the past decade to expand health coverage to children and pregnant women. Our legislation is, therefore, not new, original, or terribly innovative. But, we know it works. For me personally, this legislation fulfills another part of my promise to work tirelessly to turn the recommendations of the National Commission on Children, which I was honored to chair, into reality. That blue ribbon panel of children's leaders from many fields, representing a wide spectrum of views, successfully developed a unanimous report to recommend an action plan to give America's children a real shot at becoming productive, healthy citizens. During our deliberations, we recognized that ensuring basic health care for children should be one of the country's highest priorities. The bill we are introducing today challenges Congress to make the commitment to this basic objective that is so vital for the entire country's future. Our legislation is complementary to many of the other children health bills that have been already proposed this year. That is one reason why I am also a cosponsor of other health bills that have been introduced by Senators Hatch and Kennedy and Senator Daschle. These bills are not competing bills. They all seek to expand the number of children with health insurance and they could all easily fit together to meet a large, and I am sad to report, a growing need in this country. A total of 10 million children in the United States do not have health insurance and as a result, the vast majority of them do not get necessary health care. Numerous studies have shown that uninsured children do not receive basic preventive care and immunizations. They are less likely to see a doctor for both acute and chronic illnesses and are more likely to delay seeking necessary care. Uninsured sick newborns receive fewer services in the hospital than those with health coverage. Children without insurance are less likely to have a regular source of medical care. This means that these children miss out on getting properly screened for problems that could be easily treated early or that need to be monitored on a routine basis. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, having a regular source of medical care could reduce per-child health care costs by 22 percent. Those are the facts. But let us not forget the emotional turmoil a parent goes through trying to figure out when, or if, to get an earache treated or a rash checked out. Imagine how hard it must be for a mother and father to decide to wait just one more day in hopes that a troubling symptom will disappear only to have those symptoms worsen in the middle of the night. Some families don't even allow their children to play sports for fear of an injury. Having millions of families and children in these types of situations is just plain wrong, and we must try to help. Mr. President, the vast majority of uninsured children live in families where a parent works. Unfortunately, many of these families are unable to afford coverage offered by their employer when it is offered. In too many instances working parents don't even have that option. The trends for job-based insurance are very disturbing. Between 1987 and 1995 the percentage of children with job-based insurance declined from 67 to 59 percent. But this downward trend is not new. Between 1977 and 1987 job-based insurance declined by 5 percent. Every minute that goes by another child loses his or her private health insurance. Mr. President, our bill is very simple. We encourage States to expand coverage for children by offering them an enhanced Federal match. Under our bill, the States would be eligible to receive a 30-percent increase in their current Federal matching rate if they choose to expand coverage for pregnant women, infants, and children up to 150 percent of poverty. We cap the Federal match at 90 percent so that all States would be required to contribute some additional funding. Under our bill, Rhode Island would be eligible to receive an enhanced Federal match rate of 70 percent up from 54 percent. West Virginia would be eligible to receive a 90 percent Federal match, up from 72 percent. Our legislation targets those families earning less than one-and-one- half times the poverty level or about $24,000 a year for a family of four. Only a quarter of families at or below this income level have job-based insurance. By comparison, 81 percent of families earning wages above 150 percent of poverty have job-based insurance. The concern of replacing private insurance with public coverage--the so called crowding out effect--is minimized when so little job-based coverage even exists for families at these income levels. Under current law, Medicaid eligibility varies based on a child's age and a family's income level. Our legislation aims to establish uniform level of eligibility. I recently heard from a West Virginia mother desperate for health insurance for her 1-year-old. She and her husband work and earn about $22,000 a year. When their daughter turned 1, she lost her Medicaid coverage. She qualified for Medicaid when she was an infant but because Medicaid's income standard for eligibility is different for a 1-year-old she no longer qualified after her first birthday. The mother's employer offered health insurance, but at a cost of $289 a month or $3,500 a year. They could not afford to buy it. This mother was absolutely desperate for assistance because she knew her daughter needed immunizations and other well child care services. Mr. President, our legislation seeks to end instances of children losing their Medicaid coverage just because they have a birthday. Our legislation seeks to end instances of children in the same family having to meet different income standards. We do this not by mandating States to expand their Medicaid Program. We believe that by providing additional Federal money States will be able to move beyond their current eligibility levels. Our legislation would also allow those States that have already exceeded 150 percent of poverty to receive an enhanced Federal match. This match would be for those children they are already covering between 100 percent and 150 percent of poverty. We did not think it was fair to penalize those States who have already tried to improve coverage for children. A key way to expand the number of children enrolled in Medicaid is to guarantee eligibility for 12 months. Some 3 million children are currently eligible but not enrolled in the Medicaid Program. Some of these children qualify for a few months of Medicaid coverage. But because of slight changes in their parents' income, they lose coverage over the course of the year. Our bill would require States to guarantee 12 months of eligibility for all children on Medicaid as a condition of receiving an enhanced Federal match. Expansions of Medicaid in the late 1980's resulted in a decreased number of low birthweight babies, improved access to health care, a decline in infant mortality rates, and millions more children in working families with health insurance. We can build on these successes with this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House in advancing this bill. I am excited at our opportunity to meet a very real and vital need of millions of America's children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thought it would be helpful to share some thoughts about other important issues that I hope the Congress will address once action is taken on the bill before us to prohibit Federal funding for physician-assisted suicide. Because of my involvement in health care issues and the Medicare Program specifically, I have spent some time in recent months taking another look at the concerns and dilemmas that face patients, their family members, and their physicians when confronted with death or the possibility of dying. In almost all such difficult situations, these people are not thinking about physician-assisted suicide. The needs and dilemmas that confront them have much more to do with the kind of care and information that are needed, sometimes desperately. I am learning more and more about the importance of educating health care providers and the public that chronic, debilitating, terminal disease need not be associated with pain, major discomfort, and loss of control. We need to focus on the tremendous amount that can be done to control a wide range of symptoms associated with terminal illness, to assure that the highest level of comfort care is provided to those who are dying or have chronic, debilitating disease. The tremendous advances in medicine and medical technology over the past 30-50 years have resulted in a greatly expanded life expectancy for Americans, as well as vastly improved functioning and quality of life for the elderly and those with chronic disease. Many of these advances have been made possible by federally financed health care programs, especially the Medicare Program that assured access to high quality health care for all elderly Americans, as well as funding much of the development of technology and a highly skilled physician work force through support of medical education and academic medical centers. These advances have also created major dilemmas in addressing terminal or potentially terminal disease, as well as a sense of loss of control by many with terminal illness. I believe it's time for Medicare and other federally funded health care programs to assure that all elderly, chronically ill, and disabled individuals have access to compassionate, supportive, and pain-free care during prolonged illness and at the end of life. As we discuss restructuring Medicare during the present session of Congress, this will be one of my primary goals. Much of the knowledge necessary to assure individuals appropriate end-of-life care already exists. Much needs to be done, however, to assure that all health care providers have the appropriate training to use what is known already about such supportive care. The public must also be educated and empowered to discuss these issues with family members as well as their own physicians so that each individual's wishes can be respected. More research is needed to develop appropriate measures of quality end-of-life care and incorporate these measures into medical practice in all health care settings. And finally, appropriate financial incentives must be present within Medicare, especially, to allow the elderly and disabled their choice of appropriate care at the end of life. I will soon be introducing legislation that addresses the need to develop appropriate quality measures for end-of-life care, to develop models of compassionate care within the Medicare Program and to encourage individuals to have open communication with family members and health care providers concerning preferences for end-of-life care. These are the issues that truly need to be addressed by Congress and encouraged through Federal financing programs for health care, and I am very committed to promoting the action that Americans and their physicians are looking to us to help them with. By addressing end-of- life issues in this manner, there may be a day when the divisive debate over physician-assisted suicide will become unnecessary.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, children who are at risk of abuse and neglect are among the most vulnerable group in our society, and we have a compelling obligation to do a better job in protecting such children. I am proud to join Senator Chafee and others in a bipartisan effort to improve our federal child welfare programs. Almost a decade ago, I had the opportunity and privilege to serve as the Chairman of the bipartisan National Commission on Children. Our diverse group spent several years traveling the country to meet with families, officials and advocates to delve into the needs of children and families. We issued a unanimous report in 1991 with a comprehensive strategy to help children and strengthen families. One of the chapters of our report was directed toward helping children at risk of abuse and neglect. Since the Children's Commission, I have been working to convert our bipartisan recommendations into policy and programs. The Children's Commission basic recommendations called for a more comprehensive strategy for child protective services. The panel noted the need for a range of services so that children and families could get what was needed on a case-by-case basis. Our report call for intensive family preservation services when appropriate. If children must be removed from their homes, reunification services need to be available to prepare children and parents for a safe return. There should be better training for foster parents and child welfare staff. Adoption can be the best option for some children so adoption procedures should be streamlined. The SAFE Act--Safe Adoptions and Family Environments--follows through on the Children's Commission recommendations. Our bill stresses that a child's safety and a child's health must be a primary concern by clarifying current law known as ``reasonable efforts.'' It is designed to encourage states to move children into stable, permanent placements quickly. For some children, this will be adoption. For others, appropriate intervention and support services can enable children to return home safely. This bill will direct states to establish a permanency planning hearing for a child in foster care within 12 months, instead of the current 18 months which will cut by one-third the amount of time a child is without a plan for a stable home. Our bill also offers states incentives to reduce the backlog of children waiting for adoption. I have fought for children and family programs throughout my career, and will continue to do so. Last Congress, I argued strongly that there is a fundamental difference between welfare reform and child welfare and foster care. I opposed a block grant approach to foster care because abused children should not be placed at further risk or face time-limits. Ultimately, I voted for the block grant of welfare reform. While I opposed attempts to convert child welfare and foster care into a block grant last year, I acknowledged the problems in the system and pledged to work on ways to strengthen and improve programs for abused and neglected children outside the context of welfare reform. Today, we are delivering on that commitment and working in a bipartisan manner to encourage reform. Reform is desperately needed. Reports indicate that more than 1 million American children suffered some type of abuse and neglect. Over 450,000 children are in foster care in our country. In my home state of West Virginia, referrals to Child Protective Services are expected to increase from 12,500 reports in 1991 to 17,000 this year. Foster care placements in West Virginia has jumped to 3,113 children in January 1997, up from 2,900 children in January 1996. Clearly, we must work together with the states to address the complicated needs of abused and neglected children. While our legislation may seem technical in nature, its goals are focused on protecting children and ensuring that every child moves swiftly into a safe, permanent placement where they can grow up healthy and secure. To achieve such basic goals, we need to invest in a range of services--from prevention of abuse, family reunification, and adoptions. Protecting children and helping families should be a bipartisan, community based effort. We must forge partnerships with states and advocates. This legislation reflects this spirit and commitment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I come here to echo the words that I caught of my predecessor in speaking, and that is Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey, who is the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. I, too, am frustrated. I mean, there are lots of things to be frustrated about this year. The pace has been slow. There are things we should have been doing. There are distractions hither and yon. One thing we should be doing is the budget. The budget is the statement of priorities of the Congress, representing to the American people what needs to be done in this Nation. The budget, although it comes in a very thick book and has a very sterile appearance, in fact is a powerful and humane document about what our priorities are. It is the ultimate statement of what you believe in. I do not want to see a Government furlough, and I do not want to see a shutdown. I know the Presiding Officer does not want to see that. The American people certainly do not. In fact, it had a rather devastating consequence, far beyond what I thought would be the case, in States not only close to Washington, DC, but around the country. There is another reason I worry, and that is what we do know about the Republican budget, which to this point basically is tax cuts. It is not just a question of tax cuts, but the fact that the tax cuts are not paid for. There is no statement or sense or hint of where the money will come from. So, first, there is not a budget, and, second, to the extent there is a budget, it only relates to tax cuts. The Republican tax cuts add up to $526 billion over a 10-year period. They backloaded it so that, to the public, the more reasonable approach to a tax cut would be the first part, and then at the end the tax cut really bulges and the beneficiaries of that really benefit. What is interesting is that we have been through this exercise. The American people, and I thought the Republicans themselves, had rejected the idea that we could do the kinds of tax cuts that we were talking about and that we are now talking about, and that is tax cuts that favor the rich, tax cuts that do not favor working American families, the American middle class. Yet here they are back again. That is frustrating to me. I do not understand that. I am not being partisan in saying this. I am genuinely perplexed by it. I am more than perplexed, I am annoyed by that. But, first of all, I am perplexed. Why this statement of $526 billion? Incidentally, $526 billion--in the last 4 years of the 10 years, 325 billion of those dollars flow into the back pockets of those who benefit. So, therefore, those who benefit and those who do not is obviously very important. And I will get to that in a moment. There is a child tax credit the Republicans have put forward and a child tax credit the Democrats have put forward. That is something I feel very, very positively about, both in terms of Republicans and Democrats--with one exception. There was a policy that I helped advance, along with at that time Gov. Bill Clinton, on something called the National Commission on Children and Families, which I chaired for 4 years. We put forward the idea of the $1,000 child tax credit. It is put forward really by both parties to the extent of $500, but there is a difference. The Democrats adjust theirs, change theirs, with inflation. It is very expensive to bring up a child in this country. People do not think of it that way. You know, they do not quantify so much per child. But it costs about $7,000 a year on average to bring up an individual child in this country. If you have four, then it costs $28,000 a year. That is averaging in from the time that you are buying Pampers to the time you are paying college tuition. Obviously, it is an average, but it is a very expensive average. So it is a very good proposition, the idea of a tax credit, but it ought to be indexed to inflation. The Democratic tax cut is. The Republican tax cut is not. So, if my colleagues would just listen for a moment about what the experts found out about the Republican tax cut proposals and who gains and who does not, more than 75 percent of the Republican tax cuts would go to the top 20 percent of taxpayers. Well, that does not ring right. And it should not ring right. I mean, this is a country which is constantly--we have all watched, hopefully, the public broadcasting thing on Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence. In that he talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There was a sense of equality. People were created to be equal, to have equal opportunity. Well, that does not mean that all people work as hard as others. But does it mean that if you are in the middle class and you are a working family, much less a two-parent working family, and you are working very, very hard and you are working at a job that pays a lot less money, then should you be treated substantially differently than somebody who works hard but makes a whole lot of money or somebody who does not work hard and who makes a whole lot of money through unearned income? The fact of the matter is that only 8.6 percent of the benefit of the $526 billion in Republican tax cuts would go to the bottom 60 percent of the American people. Let us call it 9 percent. Nine percent of the benefit of $526 billion would go to 60 percent of the American people who happen to be at the bottom of the economic scale, that is, to the extent that you are within the 60 percent. It ranges, obviously. This means that middle-income Americans with an average income of $26,900, which is high cotton in West Virginia, would get a $186 tax cut from the Republican tax package. That is just the fact. But the top 1 percent of Americans, myself included, I suppose, and people whose incomes average $645,000, would get $21,000--actually $21,306 in tax cuts. That is not the American way. That is not why we are what we are as a country. I understand that some people do better than others in life. And I understand that some people are propelled, through good fortune or through exceptional brain power, to be in a position to make more money. Often that is a circumstance of birth and often that is a circumstance of education, often that is simply a circumstance of life. And sometimes it is simply a matter that you really did it and you deserve it. But you cannot take something called the working middle class, people who work in steel mills, who work in factories, who work in grocery stores but who work all the time and work every day and pay taxes, and for whom every $10 or $100 is important, and say to them, ``You don't count.'' You do not do that in a budget. We do not do that, at least in a Democratic budget. So, Madam President, I appreciate your courtesy in listening to these short pronouncements on my part. But I think the budget process should begin. I think we should take the crazy idea of trying to cut $526 billion of taxes, much less figure out how to pay for it, take it and sort of lay it outside the door and let it rest there for time immemorial. In the meantime, let us do a budget. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.