Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I just simply say this. This is not small, this legislation, Mr. President. It is not universal health coverage, but it is going to affect between 25 and 30 million Americans, and about 300,000 West Virginians. And it is extraordinary that it is being done. Usually, in the past, we have passed a bill or tried to, and then failed. We have backed away from action. This year we did not. Because of Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy, we came forward and we took on a hard job. And they did it. And they deserve enormous praise. It means that I am going to be able to call Karen McPeak, who I spoke with today. She and her husband have two children, two boys. They have hepatitis and hemophilia. They were making $80,000 a year between them, had two cars, a house, savings, the rest of it. Because they could not get their two boys insured because they had preexisting conditions, they went through their savings, they then lost their house, they lost both their cars, they then gave up their jobs. They went on Medicaid in order to take care of their two sons, all of this because they are good parents. And that is the only way open to them in the system today. This bill will change forever what will happen with the McPeak family. The children will be covered. The parents will be able to go back to the life that they knew. This couple is only one of those in West Virginia. And I rejoice along with them. I close by simply saying this. I can report back to West Virginians now that we have branded a preexisting condition something which insurance companies will insure. The portability of health insurance from one job to another is something which we will vote on and make the law of the land. I know there have been difficulties. I know there have been disputes. But today I think it is important to celebrate what it is that we in fact have actually done. And then tomorrow let us move on to the broader field of universal health care coverage in one way or another. But let us do that. I have no way of expressing my respect to the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Kansas, both of them giants on this. And America and West Virginia are better off. And I am very proud to be associated with voting for this bill. I thank the senior Senator from Massachusetts and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a West Virginian who serves as a model and inspiration for the entire Nation. On June 26, 1996, Denice Reese, of Hendricks, WV, was named ``National School Nurse of the Year'' by the National Association of School Nurses. Along with all the people of West Virginia, I am proud of the accomplishments of Denice Reese. She is an example of dedicated and skilled school nurses everywhere, and especially of the 127 school nurses of West Virginia. I join her colleagues in recognition and praise for her service to the children and families of the Tucker County, WV, school system. Denice Reese is the first--and only--school nurse for the 4 schools and 1,400 students of Tucker County, whom she has served for the past 8 years. By naming her the ``National School Nurse of the Year,'' her peers have recognized her outstanding work in this rural school district with many needs but few resources. Among her professional accomplishments, she helped get the Tucker County system designated as a pilot area for the Healthy Schools project. She has been an innovative leader, and has created model student and faculty health education programs. She has collaborated with other professionals to optimize the use of school system resources for health promotion and disease prevention. At a time when health, nutrition, and education programs for our Nation's children are in jeopardy, the work of the country's school nurses stands as an inspiration and reminder that our children are our future. On behalf of all Americans who are working to ensure that the Nation maintains its investment in the health and well-being of its children, I express gratitude for the partnership of our school nurses. Mr. President, I congratulate Denice Reese on her accomplishments, and wish her all the best as she continues her important work on behalf of the people of Tucker County.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on June 6 of this year, the Department of Veterans Affairs presented four very prestigious awards recognizing excellence in nursing. I am proud to congratulate all of these nurses, but I am especially proud of a fellow West Virginian, Sharon Shade, the recipient of VA's 1996 LPN of the year award. Sharon's performance in the nursing home care unit of the Martinsburg, VA Medical Center is truly outstanding. As a member of the Martinsburg community, she has made a great difference. Sharon has made many changes, both big and small, that have improved the lives of her patients. Because she works with the patients on a one-on-one basis, she learns about their interests while determining their needs. For example, she found out that a reclusive patient had an interest in music. With her help and encouragement, he began to DJ at the noon meals and is now a thriving member of the high-level communication group. A bedridden patient now joins the noon dining group with the help of a walker, due to Sharon's special attention. These are just a few examples of the changes Sharon has made in the lives of individual patients. Sharon is truly creative and original in her approach to care, with ideas that benefit the entire program. One of her more innovative techniques includes an Adopt-A-Plant program. Here patients can adopt a plant to take care of, giving them a sense of hope. Another program includes a reminiscence group in which the patients talk about days gone by. Sharon also arranged to move wheelchair-bound patients nearer to the windows in the dining hall where they can get a better view of the outdoors. These simple, yet thoughtful acts have made an enormous difference in the overall morale of both the residents and staff. Sharon is known for her dedication to her profession. She is constantly working to make things better for her patients and for the staff. In addition to attending meetings and training seminars, she took initiative in developing her own survey to evaluate the program. To lend support to her coworkers, she has implemented a monthly restorative LPN meeting where she shares ideas and literature. She is praised by fellow members of the staff, her patients, and their families for her tireless efforts. The human spirit needs support and encouragement, both of which Sharon has generously given. I am proud to recognize Sharon Shade and her remarkable talent for making the lives of the veterans at Martinsburg better. It is clear that Sharon is a valuable asset to her staff, her profession, her patients, and our State of West Virginia. Her commitment to her profession and her community makes me enormously proud to say that she is a fellow West Virginian.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I oppose the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and I would like to share some of my reasons with my colleagues. First, the Senate should not be ramming through a bill to designate an interim storage site just when a comprehensive, sophisticated process is well underway to come up with a permanent site or solution. This legislation basically says the Senate knows better--it says the Senate should take the place of scientists and experts, choosing Nevada as the so-called interim site and presumably paving the way for the same location to be used forever. I do not think this is the time whatsoever for the Senate to make this decision--it's a misuse of power, it contradicts other policies that Congress has put on the books, and it could trigger all kinds of unfortunate consequences, including the possibility of a very serious accident. This bill, S. 1936, violates current law, the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments. Under the 1987 law, DOE is not allowed to begin construction of an interim storage facility until the NRC has granted a construction license for the permanent site. Also, that law stated that no more than 10,000 metric tons of waste could be stored at the interim site before the permanent site began operating, and no more than 15,000 metric tons after that. But S. 1936 authorizes an interim site storage capacity far greater than either of these levels--40,000 metric tons after phase two, which will be increased to 60,000 metric tons if Yucca Mountain falls behind schedule. In 1987, Congress was saying that it would be unwise to ship nuclear waste across the country to a temporary above-ground storage site until a permanent site gets built. The same is true now. It still isn't smart. But, under this bill, the waste would be shipped to the Nevada interim storage site anyway, before the studies have been completed to certify whether or not Yucca Mountain is the place to be a permanent repository of nuclear waste. Some say this isn't true, that there is a safeguard in the bill. But, while the bill requires DOE to stop construction on the interim site if the President determines that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable as the permanent repository, there's a catch. If Yucca Mountain isn't found suitable, the bill will require that the interim site be built in Nevada anyway unless the President picks an alternative site within 18 months. This alternate site must then also be approved by Congress within 2 years after that. Leaving aside the idea that we should designate nuclear waste sites on objective criteria rather than strict timetables, does anybody believe another site will be found in 18 months? Or that Congress will approve another site 2 years after that? I'm not betting on it. Why all this pressure to act on the bill before us, S. 1936? From everything I have seen, there is no overwhelming case, for safety or related reasons, to force the transportation and placement of this waste into an interim site. The nonpartisan Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board issued a report saying that there is no compelling technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to a centralized facility for the next few years. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said that the waste could safely remain at the current sites for far longer than that in dry cask storage facilities. In short, this waste doesn't have to be moved now. In fact, it is even conceivable that science may ultimately lead to the rejection of a single repository, because of the dangers of transporting waste and progress being made in developing alternatives. The Senate should not be intervening, singling out Nevada, and short- circuiting what could be a safer, sounder, and less costly solution. And there are a number of safety concerns that argue against this bill. Experts have raised concerns about the radiation exposure standard in this bill, and I think we should question the preemption of several key environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Transportation of this waste also is a major concern, and reason enough to reject this legislation. If the plan in this bill goes forward, we will see the transport of up to 60,000 tons of nuclear waste by road and rail from nuclear facilities around the Nation to this interim storage site. These mobile nuclear waste sites will travel through West Virginia and 42 other States. I have been told that 50 million people live within 1 mile of the proposed transportation routes that would be used. In West Virginia, we have no nuclear facilities. We have no spent fuel. We have no nuclear waste. And we have no storage problem. But, under this bill, West Virginians will have nuclear waste being shipped through the State. I do not want to be alarmist, but I do have concerns that West Virginia and the other 42 States have not had adequate time to develop the necessary transportation safety plans, and are not ready to handle the possible accidents that may occur. I don't know how many of my colleagues have spent time in southern West Virginia, but the mountains and roads there will not be friendly to rescue efforts if one of these trains goes off the tracks. Under this bill, the zeal of some to force this premature interim storage facility into Nevada may raise risks for protecting the people and the environment in places like West Virginia. Mr. President, this is an unnecessary bill that forces Nevada to prematurely take the Nation's nuclear waste and become America's so- called interim storage site. It looks like a set-up to becoming the permanent storage facility, not as a result of the promised objective and scientific process, but as a result of political pressure and an eagerness to dump a problem onto a lone State. It uses a radiation exposure standard that looks questionable and undermines environmental laws in ways that could be dangerous. It threatens to expose millions of Americans to the risks of transporting and storing this waste. The Senate has no business passing this bill. The President has made it clear he will veto the bill, wisely insisting on the completion of the kind of process that should be used to make decisions as monumental as where, when, and how to transport and locate nuclear waste. The Senate should defer to that process as well, and resist this idea of singling out one State in such an insensitive and heavy-handed manner.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Grams amendment. It would be a mistake to cut funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, a small and valuable agency that has earned strong, bipartisan support here in Congress and in the 13 States it serves. Some Senators may think this is an amendment that only affects those of us representing Appalachian States. I want to explain why everyone in this body has reason to reject this amendment and its call for another cut in the ARC. The people of every State have a stake in the economic strength of the rest of the country. When floods ravage the Midwest or the Gulf States; when a major defense installation or space center is located in a State like Texas or Alabama; when payments are made to farmers for crop support or losses; when California, Colorado, or some other Western State needs water to survive; when Federal research labs are placed in New Mexico or Massachusetts--when any of this support and assistance is extended, it is the country's way of investing in each region and in the future of Americans everywhere. The Appalachian Regional Commission is the Federal Government's principal means of helping one distinct part of the country overcome some very real barriers. Its mission is to act as a Federal partner with the States of the Appalachian region--to overcome barriers from geography to infrastucture to poverty, and to lay the foundation for economic growth and prosperity. The ARC has not exploded in size or scope or funding. Quite the opposite. In fact, as the dividends of its work have come through, Congress has been able to reduce its budget in the recent years. This agency is a success story, and it is in the national interest to keep its work going to get the job done. In many parts of the region, major progress has been achieved. But the ARC's job is not quite finished, and the agency needs adequate funding to continue its partnership with West Virginia and the Appalachian region to finish the foundation we need for more growth, more jobs, and more hope for our people. In the bill before us, ARC's budget is cut by $5 million from last year's level. And more importantly, Senators should know that last year's level was set after ARC was cut by close to 40 percent from its fiscal year 1995 funding. The ARC and the States served by this small agency are doing their share of sacrifice for deficit reduction. The appropriation in this year's bill is fully consistent with the budget resolution, which assumed the continuation of the ARC. Its funding should not be further reduced. The Grams amendment would cause real damage to the agency and to the parts of the Appalachian region where ARC's resources and expertise are still needed. As a former Governor, and now as a U.S. Senator from West Virginia, I know vividly the value of the ARC and how it improves the lives of many hard-working citizens. Whether the funding is used for new water and sewer systems, physician recruitment, adult literacy programs, or the Appalachian corridor highways, it has made the difference in West Virginia, Kentucky, and the other Appalachian States. The highways are the most visible and best known investments made by the ARC for the people of Appalachia. As of today, over two-thirds of the ARC highway system have been completed. But if the ARC is further cut, the job of bringing the Appalachian States up to the level of non- Appalachian States will be further delayed or never achieved at all. At this very moment, some of these highways are called highways halfway to nowhere, because they are just that--half built, and only halfway to their destination. The job has to be completed, so these highways become highways the whole way to somewhere. And that somewhere is called jobs and prosperity that will benefit the rest of the country, too. Appalachia simply wants to be connected to our national grid of highways. Parts of the region weren't lucky enough to come out as flat land, so the job takes longer and costs more. But it is essential in giving the people and families in this part of the United States of America a shot--a chance to be rewarded for a work ethic and commitment with real economic opportunity and a decent quality of life. I won't speak for my colleagues from other Appalachian States, but West Virginia was not exactly the winner in the original Interstate Highway System. And Senators here represent many States that were. As a result, areas of my State have suffered, economically and in human terms. Without roads, people are shut off from jobs. That's obvious. But without roads, people also can't get decent health care. Dropping out of school is easier sometimes than taking a 2-hour bus ride because the roads aren't there. Long before it was fashionable, ARC used a from-the-bottom-up approach to addressing local needs rather than a top-down, one-size- fits-all mandate of the type that has become all too familiar to citizens dealing with Federal agencies. It works, too. I urge everyone in this body to keep a promise made to a region that has been short-shrifted. Each region is unique. Solutions have to differ, depending on our circumstances. When it comes to Appalachia, a small agency called the Appalachian Regional Commission should finish its work. Cutting its budget further will only create more problems and more costs that should be avoided. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Grams amendment, and again, I remind everyone that it is in the entire Nation's interest to invest in each region and each State in ways that deal with their needs and their potential.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that is the result of the calendar. I appreciate, therefore, the cooperation from the bill managers in allowing us to use the Energy-Water appropriations bill as a vehicle for drawing attention to an important issue for Americans. Today is July 29, and in 2 days, on July 31, the Semiconductor Agreement between the governments of the United States and Japan expires. That is why I rise, on behalf of myself, and Senators Craig, Byrd, Kempthorne, Bingaman, Domenici, and Boxer to offer a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that if our negotiators are unable to reach a compromise on this important issue with the Government of Japan, that we should continue calculating the foreign share of the Japanese semiconductor market--with or without their formal cooperation. We need to do this in order to ensure continued access to the Japanese market, and to prevent illegal dumping into our market. Since 1986, when the first Semiconductor Agreement was signed, the U.S. share of the Japanese market has grown from 8.5 percent to a little more than 17 percent. The United States share of the world market, excluding Japan, is about 54 percent. Mr. President, each point of the Japanese market is worth about $420 million in sales to the American economy and jobs, which translates into about $46.2 million in increased research and development, and $63 million in new capital investment. With numbers like that, I think it is clear how important it is that we ensure continued American access to the Japanese semiconductor market. Mr. President, I had hoped that we would start off this week expressing relief that a new agreement between Japan and the United States has been reached. But unfortunately, that has not happened yet. This remains an example of a situation in which American trade negotiators still are unable to succeed in convincing their Japanese counterparts that it is in our mutual interest to resolve a trade- related issue that is about market access and ensuring fair trade. What surprises me is that industry on both sides of the Pacific, and around the world, have generally applauded the two Semiconductor Agreements. Things have come a long way since 1986, when the first Semiconductor Agreement was reached and the U.S. semiconductor industry was on death's door. Since then, that agreement and the subsequent 1991 agreement, along with initiatives like Sematech, have helped American industry regain its footing and become the world leader that it is today. Markets around the world are expanding, profits are up, and the outlook for the entire industry is good. But this period of improving market access for the U.S. semiconductor market and injecting more fairness in our trade relationship has also been short enough that we still need another agreement to avoid setbacks or suprises that could otherwise easily confront us and escalate trade-related tension unnecessarily. Because the stakes are so high, I offer this Sense-of-the-Senate Resolution to call for appropriate action that should be taken if an agreement is not reached. Our resolution says: if an agreement on semiconductors is not reached by July 31--the date when the current agreement expires, and the date that Prime Minister Hashimoto agreed to--then the United States should unilaterally establish a system to monitor the Japanese semiconductor market, and report to Congress on a quarterly basis the progress, or lack thereof, in increasing foreign access to the Japanese semiconductor market. I have spent many years studying and working on issues involving Japan, especially in the trade area. For that reason, I have watched the semiconductor agreement with keen interest. Many observers think or talk of this particular issue as one that just affects the businesses and communities tied to making this technology. But we are actually talking about a product often called chips that play a key role in the condition and prospects of many other industries. This type of chips, these semiconductors, form the guts of all those things shaped out of the steel that my State of West Virginia produces, along with plastics and practically everything else that makes our trains run on time, inflates the airbags in our cars, makes the elevator stop on our floors, and of course, powers our computers. My State does not have an Intel or a Motorola that actually makes the chips. But West Virginia and many other states have industries that fall somewhere in what is called the high technology food chain. Semiconductors are the result of companies and workers who make and provide the materials that go into the end-product--sophisticated chips that make the United States one of the world's powerhouses in high- tech, and generate business and profits for many other industries around the country. Earlier this month, I visited PPG Industries in West Virginia. PPG started more than 100 years ago as the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. They are still one of the leading flat glass companies in the world, but they no longer resemble their ancestor of the 19th century, or even the early 20th century. They are a 21st century company that makes high performance thermoplastics that go into the housing for Pentium chips-- the most advanced semiconductors in today's personal computers [PC's]. When Japan buys more American made semiconductors and computers, the benefits are reaped all the way down the high technology food chain to companies like PPG. My hope is that Japan will see how they benefit, in so many ways, from finding common ground with the United States in settling our trade disputes and maintaining the fair and open trade arrangements we seek in the case of semiconductors. The United States and Japan have deep, meaningful ties with one another, from our security relationship which forms the bedrock of security and stability in East Asia to the leading role we both play in the world's economy. We must continue as friends and as major economic players in the world to try to make bilateral trade another area where we resolve our differences, adhere to the principle of reciprocity and fairness, and play by the same rules. In the case of semiconductors, the United States should not be asked to risk going back to the days, from not very long ago, when we could not reach the Japanese market with products that are the best in the world. I hope Japan will soon agree, but until that happens, I offer this resolution to highlight Americans' stake in the outcome and to propose the steps that should be taken to protect our economic interests.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is amazing to me that the Presiding Officer of the U.S. Senate requests silence of the Senate and is ignored by so many people who blatantly continue to talk while the Presiding Officer has now for 3 minutes requested silence. I hope the Presiding Officer takes whatever measures are necessary to get quiet in this body. It is unbelievable we would not pay attention to the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join Senator Hollings and others as a cosponsor of the Emergency Safeguard Act of 1996, and call on the Congress to move this bill with great haste. This is vitally important to over 600 employees of Corbin Limited in West Virginia, who are facing an unprecedented threat from a surge in imports of wool suits from Canada. Those of us who opposed the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA] did not want to find ourselves with situations like this, but we certainly feared they would occur. In this case, decisive action is now needed to stand up for American workers and industries facing an unfair threat. Three years ago, when explaining my vote against the NAFTA, I pointed to the disparities between the economies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, as a primary reason for opposing the trade agreement. At that time, I did not think it was right to ask West Virginia and other States with fragile economies to absorb the brunt of forced integration with Mexico. I was particularly concerned that workers in our labor intensive industries would face a considerable threat from much lower wage Mexican workers. Since that time, in the last 2-plus years, many of my concerns have proved well founded. Certainly, last year's bailout of the Mexican peso is the most conspicuous evidence of problems raised by the NAFTA, but today I am here for a wholly different reason. Today, I am forced to discuss a problem with our neighbors to the North--specifically to textile manufacturers in Canada. During consideration of the NAFTA, a provision was inserted at the last minute which allowed Canadian manufacturers to import fabrics from third countries nearly duty free--compared with the 36 percent duties that we pay--and then export finished garments to the United States regardless of the harm they might do to American industry and workers. Specifically, the provision precluded taking what are known as ``safeguard'' measures under the NAFTA for wool apparel exported to the United States under the tariff preference levels established during the Canada-United States Free-Trade Agreement. At that time, the Canadians assured our negotiators that this loophole was needed simply to protect the existing levels of exports of various categories of low cost wool products; things such as caps, sweaters, knits and socks. At that time, 10 percent of Canadian wool exports were high end products such as suits. However, Mr. President, since the NAFTA went into effect, nearly all Canadian wool exports have been suits, and of that, virtually all of them are coming from one Canadian company. Contrary to the stated intention of the negotiators, suits now account for 90 percent of Canada's wool exports, instead of 10 percent when the deal was made. This has done grievous harm to American suit manufacturers, who were blindsided by this shift in Canadian export patterns. Under normal circumstances, when you have an import surge of this sort, and obvious harm is being done to a domestic, American industry, the American companies and its workers can seek relief. They can take action under the trade laws to stem the surge, and get remedies from unfair and injurious trade. You can do this in every area we trade in but one, textile and apparel from Canada. In fact, if these very same imports were from Mexico instead of Canada, the United States industry and its workers could petition the United States Government for a safeguard to prevent serious injury. That is why this legislation is needed, and needed in a hurry. When I opposed the NAFTA I was afraid this kind of thing would happen. We may not be able to rewrite history and undo the NAFTA, but we can take reasonable steps to stem the hemorrhaging. I know the calendar shows very few days in which this body will be conducting legislative work, but I hope the majority leader will work with us to make this into law before even more harm is done. This Senator counts the creation of new and better paying jobs for the people of West Virginia as one of the most important things he can do to help improve the way of life of the good people of his State. But just as important is maintaining the jobs we already have. This legislation is necessary, and should be passed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe our welfare system desperately needs reform, and most Americans agree. It is obvious that there is a strong consensus that parents seeking public assistance must be required to work or prepare for work. I wish it were more obvious that innocent children should be protected, and I have worked hard to make this case over the years as welfare reform has been debated. As Governor of West Virginia in 1982, I started one of the first workfare programs of the country because I believe in work, and I am proud that West Virginia continues to use this community work program today. I have met parents who are proud to do community service and who have used their experience to gain skills that ultimately got them a paying job. This is what we should do. Moving from welfare dependency to work is hard, but it is the best path for families and their future. While the debate about welfare reform is full of slogans and simplistic claims, it is far from easy to achieve the fundamental goals of promoting work and protecting children. The details of welfare reform do count, and that's why the Congress has consumed so much time and energy on this topic. I regret that the Senate found itself acting on welfare reform under the rules of budget reconciliation legislation, which has strictly limited our debate to just 20 hours and has drastically constrained our ability to consider amendments to modify the proposal. Using reconciliation procedures, the majority has taken advantage of a special way to prevent its notion of welfare reform from being subject to true debate and alterations. Last year, when the Senate worked on a bipartisan welfare reform bill, we spent 8 days debating welfare reform and held 43 rollcall votes. In an important signal of bipartisanship, an additional 62 amendments were accepted. While Democrats did not prevail with all of our amendments, we did have the chance to present our ideas and arguments for a genuine test of the Senate's will. It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership was not willing to take up welfare reform this year in the same fair, open process. But even under the rules and constraints of reconciliation, some bipartisan progress has been made on the Senate floor. We have restored the Federal health and safety standards for child care by a rollcall vote of 96 to 0. We agreed to another amendment to invest more money to enhance the quality and availability of child care. Child care is the key to helping parents work, and parents need to have confidence in the care that their child is receiving. I was also proud to cosponsor the Chafee-Breaux amendment to ensure continued Medicaid coverage to poor women and their children. Welfare reform should not be about reducing health care to needy families, and thanks to the bipartisan vote of 97 to 2, we know that health care coverage will be available for families with parents who are making the struggle to go from welfare to work--now and into the future. We eliminated the optional food stamps block grant which had the potential to unravel this country's commitment to ensuring decent nutrition for all poor children, needy families, and dependent senior citizens, no matter what State they reside in. An optional block grant of food stamps could have weakened the country's nutrition programs. One of my greatest fears is that States that choose the block grant would be forced to reduce benefits in times of recession or other times of need, like national disasters. With our agricultural resources, America should not go backward and become a nation where some of its people and children go hungry. And, I cosponsored the Breaux voucher amendment which assured basic support for innocent children for at least 5 years, and then gave States the option to provide non-cash assistance to children after a family reached the 5 year time limit. This amendment got 51 votes, but the rules of reconciliation demanded 60--so it fell. An alternative amendment was offered by Senator Ford, but it also failed by a a single vote. Because both of the voucher amendments failed, States are prohibited from using block grant funding to provide vouchers for children, and this is disturbing. Previous welfare bills from last year offered greater flexibility to States on vouchers. But some of the amendments that passed are important bipartisan efforts to improve the bill. There is more we should do to protect innocent children, and I can only hope that our colleagues will understand this in conference or in the near future. But time has run out under the rules of reconciliation, and we now are faced with a final vote on this legislation. In my view, this welfare reform bill poses a huge experiment--and something that must be watched and evaluated carefully. Proponents express full confidence that this new, bold welfare reform bill will change the system and put parents to work, quickly allowing children to benefit as their parents move from dependency to self- sufficiency. Opponents of the legislation charge that millions of children may be cast into poverty, and potentially end up on streets. Because people end up on welfare for such different reasons and in different circumstances, it is not clear what the results will be. This legislation charts a new course for welfare, but it is untested. I hope that proponents are right, and that this legislation has the right incentives. My hope is that the new pressure of a time limit will effectively and efficiently move parents into work, and families will benefit. To help ensure this, I fought hard throughout this Congress to secure the proper funding for child care, which is essential for single parents to go to work. Thanks to the effort of many dedicated Members, this legislation invests $13 billion in child care--more money than we are now spending, and this is a major accomplishment. The legislation we are now considering has a larger contingency fund than the previously passed Senate bill to offer help to States in times of economic downturns and recessions, which is especially needed for States like West Virginia that are vulnerable to economic ups and downs. Under the new block grant, States will have enormous flexibility--and strict requirements--to move families from welfare to work. Will the combination of more child care money and the incentive of time limits be the right mix? Will our economy continue to grow, and unemployment rates stay low so welfare recipients truly have a real chance to compete and get jobs? We will never know the answers, unless we try. Because the American people want and expect welfare reform, I will vote to try this new approach--and hope that Congress does its part to push for the desired results. But I also believe that this effort must be watched carefully and closely to ensure that the innocent children, who represent two-thirds of the people who depend on welfare, are not hurt. This is why I fought so hard with others last year to secure $15 million for research and evaluation. Every Member who votes for this legislation has an obligation to work with their State to ensure that this new system works, and to monitor the national progress as well. Throughout this debate, I have tried to focus my attention on the needs of children. As usual in today's political environment, areas of bipartisan agreement do not attract attention, but they are still important. In key areas for children, progress has been made. The Senate bill retains current law on foster care and programs to protect abused and neglected children. Such children are the most vulnerable group in our country, and I was active in a bipartisan group dedicated to retaining the foster care entitlement and prevention programs for abused and neglected children. The child support enforcement provisions in the legislation are another example of positive, bipartisan efforts. And because it was bipartisan, little attention has been given to these accomplishments. But these provisions include bold action to crack down on deadbeat parents who shirk their obiligation to pay child support. Currently, over $20 billion is uncollected in child support payments and arrearages. Strengthening child support enforcement will truly help children of all income levels, and this is meaningful action to underscore the importance of families, and support children. There has been a sincere effort to improve this bill, and the positive changes are the result of untold hours of hard work and dedication. The key point is that the current system does not have public support or confidence, and this is not healthy for the country. The cynicism and frustration we see among Americans toward Government stems partly from their anger about welfare. Even families dependent on our existing system admit that they are frustrated and that the system can trap families into a cycle of dependency. We need to make the leap with real changes, tougher rules, and more common sense. We have an opportunity to help families and build more support for the protections that should stay in place, if the job is done right. A great deal has been promised by the architects of this bill and others such as many Governors, and I hope we will see the hard work, skill, and compassion required to bring about the right kind of results. Today, I cast my vote for change.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join Senator Hollings and others as a cosponsor of the Emergency Safeguard Act of 1996, and call on the Congress to move this bill with great haste. This is vitally important to over 600 employees of Corbin Limited in West Virginia, who are facing an unprecedented threat from a surge in imports of wool suits from Canada. Those of us who opposed the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA] did not want to find ourselves with situations like this, but we certainly feared they would occur. In this case, decisive action is now needed to stand up for American workers and industries facing an unfair threat. Three years ago, when explaining my vote against the NAFTA, I pointed to the disparities between the economies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, as a primary reason for opposing the trade agreement. At that time, I did not think it was right to ask West Virginia and other States with fragile economies to absorb the brunt of forced integration with Mexico. I was particularly concerned that workers in our labor intensive industries would face a considerable threat from much lower wage Mexican workers. Since that time, in the last 2-plus years, many of my concerns have proved well founded. Certainly, last year's bailout of the Mexican peso is the most conspicuous evidence of problems raised by the NAFTA, but today I am here for a wholly different reason. Today, I am forced to discuss a problem with our neighbors to the North--specifically to textile manufacturers in Canada. During consideration of the NAFTA, a provision was inserted at the last minute which allowed Canadian manufacturers to import fabrics from third countries nearly duty free--compared with the 36 percent duties that we pay--and then export finished garments to the United States regardless of the harm they might do to American industry and workers. Specifically, the provision precluded taking what are known as ``safeguard'' measures under the NAFTA for wool apparel exported to the United States under the tariff preference levels established during the Canada-United States Free-Trade Agreement. At that time, the Canadians assured our negotiators that this loophole was needed simply to protect the existing levels of exports of various categories of low cost wool products; things such as caps, sweaters, knits and socks. At that time, 10 percent of Canadian wool exports were high end products such as suits. However, Mr. President, since the NAFTA went into effect, nearly all Canadian wool exports have been suits, and of that, virtually all of them are coming from one Canadian company. Contrary to the stated intention of the negotiators, suits now account for 90 percent of Canada's wool exports, instead of 10 percent when the deal was made. This has done grievous harm to American suit manufacturers, who were blindsided by this shift in Canadian export patterns. Under normal circumstances, when you have an import surge of this sort, and obvious harm is being done to a domestic, American industry, the American companies and its workers can seek relief. They can take action under the trade laws to stem the surge, and get remedies from unfair and injurious trade. You can do this in every area we trade in but one, textile and apparel from Canada. In fact, if these very same imports were from Mexico instead of Canada, the United States industry and its workers could petition the United States Government for a safeguard to prevent serious injury. That is why this legislation is needed, and needed in a hurry. When I opposed the NAFTA I was afraid this kind of thing would happen. We may not be able to rewrite history and undo the NAFTA, but we can take reasonable steps to stem the hemorrhaging. I know the calendar shows very few days in which this body will be conducting legislative work, but I hope the majority leader will work with us to make this into law before even more harm is done. This Senator counts the creation of new and better paying jobs for the people of West Virginia as one of the most important things he can do to help improve the way of life of the good people of his State. But just as important is maintaining the jobs we already have. This legislation is necessary, and should be passed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will vote for this amendment offered by my colleagues from Rhode Island and Louisiana, Senators Chafee and Breaux. It is the kind of amendment that deserves strong support from this body. There is absolutely no reason for welfare reform to cause innocent children to lose health insurance. We can and we should enact a bill that is very tough and very clear about requiring adults to work or prepare for work if they want to get public assistance. But we do need to pass the Chafee-Breaux amendment to make sure that children who are eligible for Medicaid do not lose their health coverage as we change the welfare system. We need to pass this amendment to make sure that losing health care is not the price of leaving welfare and getting a job. Mr. President, with this amendment, we are not proposing a new benefit or new spending. We are just trying to protect the way that poor children now can see a doctor when they're sick, get their vaccinations and their checkups, and receive basic medical care. Up to 1.5 million children and 4 million parents are at serious risk of losing their Medicaid coverage unless this amendment prevails. Mr. President, I truly believe the American people, including West Virginians, want us to adopt this amendment. The public has made it very clear that they expect Congress to make distinctions between responsible reform and reckless change. Americans want all children to have a chance in this country, and they know that health care is where that chance starts and lasts. You have to be healthy to learn, to grow, and to become productive. As our constituents demand changes in welfare, they are not asking us to abandon children or take health care away from those who need it. In fact, they get pretty upset when they see Congress doing something that will hurt children or health care. It is counterintuitive, counterproductive, and just plain wrong to push the parents of poor children into the workplace, and then pull health care out from under them. The mothers who succeed in leaving welfare for work are rarely going to start with jobs that offer health insurance for themselves or their families. According to one study, 78 percent of women who worked their way off welfare ended up in jobs that did not offer health insurance. Two-thirds of these women were still not able to get insurance after 18 months. It is cruel to ask a mother to make the choice between working and holding onto health insurance. This amendment is the critical way we can make sure parents have every reason to get a job and get off welfare--because Medicaid will be a source of coverage for a limited amount of time, for the transition from welfare to work. Congress is going to make bold changes in the welfare system. But please, let's not take the country backward in this life-and-death issue of health care for children and their parents as they leave welfare for work. It's our responsibility to deal with this part of the health care system, because unfortunately, the private sector just isn't there. Medicaid has to be there for them, or these families and children join the uninsured and have a much more difficult time getting out of the rut they're trying to escape. Ask any doctor, hospital, or community--when families don't have health insurance, they end up using the emergency room as their source of health care. That's costly, inefficient, and burdens the health care system. Mr. President, as we act on welfare reform, I hope we realize it is not just about saving money. We want to promote personal responsibility, the work ethic, and stronger families. The Chafee- Breaux amendment is a very specific way all of us in this body can make sure that poor families are not punished in the cruelest way, by losing their health insurance. All we want to do is to make sure basic health care is still there for these children and families while we get much tougher about the parents getting work and getting off welfare for good. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, which will make it even more possible for low-income parents to join the work force. Congress decided more than 10 years ago that the Federal Government had an important role in setting minimum standards of health coverage for pregnant women and children. Congress voted for--and two Republican Presidents signed--legislation in 1986, in 1987, in 1988, in 1989, and in 1990 that no matter where they lived, children were guaranteed a decent standard of health coverage. Texas currently sets its overall eligibility for Medicaid at 18 percent of poverty except for pregnant women and young children because, frankly, Congress forced it and many other States to set higher standards for pregnant women and children. While many of my colleagues do not want to, in any way, impinge on a State's flexibility, there is a time and place for decent minimal standards. Mr. President, this is the time, and this is the place. This is for some of our country's neediest children. Mr. President, let us not go back in time, and repeal extremely important health care protections for pregnant women and children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Rockefeller pertaining to the introduction of S. 1963 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to continue the effort to expand treatment options for older Americans who happen to have cancer. I am especially pleased my colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, is joining me as an original cosponsor. Senator Mack is a vigorous and persistent advocate for cancer research and improvements in patient care for those with cancer. He has been fighting this battle for a long time. Our bipartisan sponsorship, which is just a nice thing to happen around here anyway, is intended to say to the American people, especially to the millions of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, that we in the Congress are, in fact, very, very serious about trying to be helpful. Over 1.3 million people will be diagnosed with cancer this year. Over 11,000 of those people, newly diagnosed with cancer, will be people I represent, that is West Virginians. Cancer is, in fact, the second leading cause of death in West Virginia, second only to heart disease. This legislation is aimed at improving Medicare coverage, since Medicare beneficiaries account for more than half of all cancer diagnoses, and 60 percent of all cancer deaths. Our bill deals with the very specific problem faced by Medicare beneficiaries who are currently prevented from receiving care that may extend or save their lives. To put it very simply and very bluntly, Americans over the age of 65 who are struck with cancer believe they should get the best shot in fighting their disease. The Medicare Cancer Clinical Trial Coverage Act of 1996, which is the bill I am introducing, is a bill to do something very targeted to give older Americans their best shot at fighting cancer. With this bill we want to tackle the frustrating, often anguishing problem faced by older Americans who are unable to participate in cancer clinical trials. Let me explain. Consider the story of a West Virginian who was treated with an experimental drug for lung cancer, under a research trial approved by the National Cancer Institute. Because Medicare would not cover the cost of hospitalization required to administer the anticancer treatment, he decided he could only pay for one more treatment out of the money from his own pocket. This West Virginian could not bring himself to bankrupt his family, yet getting the additional treatments might bring the gift of a longer life for him and, obviously, much more stability and happiness for his family. This is a terrible choice that should not have to be made by anybody in this country. While we still have a long way to go in discovering a cure for cancer, there are constantly popping up reports of exciting new advances in the treatment of cancer. The bad news is that millions of people with cancer cannot take advantage of these path-breaking treatments because they are provided in a setup which is called clinical trials. To insurers, including the Medicare Program, that labels them experimental. In other words, clinical trials are labeled experimental and, therefore, the basis for turning down coverage with no ifs, ands, or buts. Critics of coverage for clinical trials argue that care provided in trials is purely investigational and too costly. In fact, these trials can provide essential information about which treatments are effective and which ones are not. This is one of the best ways for the health care system to learn about the various advantages and disadvantages of treatment options, including what costs are involved before a certain course is expanded widely or prematurely. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Connie Mack is very careful in pursuing a solution. We lay out a framework for a major demonstration project to come up with the information and the experience needed to then modify Medicare's policy toward clinical trials. With this demonstration we want the Medicare Program to find out more about the costs of covering high-quality clinical trials for its beneficiaries with cancer, and then compare them to the benefits and other results learned through the demonstration. There is truly an urgent need to get on with this study, and then where the findings should take us in changing Medicare's policy toward clinical trials. With new cancer therapies rapidly unfolding, dealing with a disease that its victims are desperately trying to battle, peer-reviewed clinical trials may be the best and only available care. Cancer researchers themselves--and there is a long list of associations and organizations who support this legislation--are eager to have more older Americans involved in these trials. More needs to be learned about the biological responses to various treatments within different age groups, and this bill can help fill that particular gap. In our bill we confine the demonstration to covering a select group of high-quality clinical trials. Our criteria say the trials covered under this demonstration have to be the result of top-notch peer review procedures. This legislation does not write any new policies for Medicare into stone, but it does lay the foundation for a Medicare policy toward cancer treatments that factors in what clinical trials now have to offer. We give the program 5 years to conduct the demonstration, and then we call on the Secretary of HHS to tell Congress how Medicare should or perhaps should not be changed in its policy toward cancer and other kinds of clinical trials. Many researchers, physicians, patients, and many of us in Congress have already been pushing for more coverage for clinical trials by Medicare and other insurers. In its 1994 report to Congress, a very long-named advisory group--something called the National Cancer Advisory Board's Subcommittee to Evaluate the National Cancer Program-- emphasized the need for private insurance and Medicare coverage for approved clinical trials. And we use that report in our bill to create the criteria for what kinds of trials should be covered in the Medicare demonstration that Senator Mack and I are proposing. I continue to believe that all Americans should be guaranteed access to quality health care. I would love to see Congress acting immediately to ensure that any American struck by cancer, whether age 21 or age 71, could get coverage for treatment in a clinical trial if that is judged the best option for them. Those are highly ambitious goals, and today Senator Mack and I offer this bill as one more incremental step in their direction. I actually started some years ago with legislation to improve cancer care for Medicare patients. That legislation ended up being enacted in 1993. It was really sort of embarrassingly simple. My legislation required Medicare coverage of oral anticancer drugs if those drugs would otherwise have been covered by Medicare if administered intravenously in a doctor's office. Obviously, the result being cost savings and almost simple beyond belief. But, nevertheless, it was not allowed prior to my legislation. We changed the law, and now it is allowed. A lot of money is being saved, and people are being helped because they can take an oral drug at home rather than having an injection in a doctor's office. As a result, many Medicare beneficiaries with cancer can take advantage of drugs that they were, in a sense, walled off from before. The other part of my bill set an uniform standard for Medicare coverage of anticancer drugs. Prior to the enactment of my legislation, there was significant variation in Medicare coverage of anticancer drugs because individual Medicare carriers made their own decisions on coverage. A GAO report found that Medicare's unreliable and inconsistent coverage of accepted off-label uses of cancer drugs forced oncologists to alter their preferred treatment. Now there is clear and consistent Medicare policy regarding coverage of anticancer drugs. In conclusion, I think it is time again for Congress to take another small, yet crucial, step in improving coverage for elderly cancer patients who deserve every chance they have to battle this horrible disease. I hope to get the help of colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and I am sure Senator Mack shares this wish with me--to get more supporters to recognize that this urgent need has to be attended to as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our bill and a summary of the legislation, along with a list of its supporters, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to continue the effort to expand treatment options for older Americans who happen to have cancer. I am especially pleased my colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, is joining me as an original cosponsor. Senator Mack is a vigorous and persistent advocate for cancer research and improvements in patient care for those with cancer. He has been fighting this battle for a long time. Our bipartisan sponsorship, which is just a nice thing to happen around here anyway, is intended to say to the American people, especially to the millions of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, that we in the Congress are, in fact, very, very serious about trying to be helpful. Over 1.3 million people will be diagnosed with cancer this year. Over 11,000 of those people, newly diagnosed with cancer, will be people I represent, that is West Virginians. Cancer is, in fact, the second leading cause of death in West Virginia, second only to heart disease. This legislation is aimed at improving Medicare coverage, since Medicare beneficiaries account for more than half of all cancer diagnoses, and 60 percent of all cancer deaths. Our bill deals with the very specific problem faced by Medicare beneficiaries who are currently prevented from receiving care that may extend or save their lives. To put it very simply and very bluntly, Americans over the age of 65 who are struck with cancer believe they should get the best shot in fighting their disease. The Medicare Cancer Clinical Trial Coverage Act of 1996, which is the bill I am introducing, is a bill to do something very targeted to give older Americans their best shot at fighting cancer. With this bill we want to tackle the frustrating, often anguishing problem faced by older Americans who are unable to participate in cancer clinical trials. Let me explain. Consider the story of a West Virginian who was treated with an experimental drug for lung cancer, under a research trial approved by the National Cancer Institute. Because Medicare would not cover the cost of hospitalization required to administer the anticancer treatment, he decided he could only pay for one more treatment out of the money from his own pocket. This West Virginian could not bring himself to bankrupt his family, yet getting the additional treatments might bring the gift of a longer life for him and, obviously, much more stability and happiness for his family. This is a terrible choice that should not have to be made by anybody in this country. While we still have a long way to go in discovering a cure for cancer, there are constantly popping up reports of exciting new advances in the treatment of cancer. The bad news is that millions of people with cancer cannot take advantage of these path-breaking treatments because they are provided in a setup which is called clinical trials. To insurers, including the Medicare Program, that labels them experimental. In other words, clinical trials are labeled experimental and, therefore, the basis for turning down coverage with no ifs, ands, or buts. Critics of coverage for clinical trials argue that care provided in trials is purely investigational and too costly. In fact, these trials can provide essential information about which treatments are effective and which ones are not. This is one of the best ways for the health care system to learn about the various advantages and disadvantages of treatment options, including what costs are involved before a certain course is expanded widely or prematurely. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Connie Mack is very careful in pursuing a solution. We lay out a framework for a major demonstration project to come up with the information and the experience needed to then modify Medicare's policy toward clinical trials. With this demonstration we want the Medicare Program to find out more about the costs of covering high-quality clinical trials for its beneficiaries with cancer, and then compare them to the benefits and other results learned through the demonstration. There is truly an urgent need to get on with this study, and then where the findings should take us in changing Medicare's policy toward clinical trials. With new cancer therapies rapidly unfolding, dealing with a disease that its victims are desperately trying to battle, peer-reviewed clinical trials may be the best and only available care. Cancer researchers themselves--and there is a long list of associations and organizations who support this legislation--are eager to have more older Americans involved in these trials. More needs to be learned about the biological responses to various treatments within different age groups, and this bill can help fill that particular gap. In our bill we confine the demonstration to covering a select group of high-quality clinical trials. Our criteria say the trials covered under this demonstration have to be the result of top-notch peer review procedures. This legislation does not write any new policies for Medicare into stone, but it does lay the foundation for a Medicare policy toward cancer treatments that factors in what clinical trials now have to offer. We give the program 5 years to conduct the demonstration, and then we call on the Secretary of HHS to tell Congress how Medicare should or perhaps should not be changed in its policy toward cancer and other kinds of clinical trials. Many researchers, physicians, patients, and many of us in Congress have already been pushing for more coverage for clinical trials by Medicare and other insurers. In its 1994 report to Congress, a very long-named advisory group--something called the National Cancer Advisory Board's Subcommittee to Evaluate the National Cancer Program-- emphasized the need for private insurance and Medicare coverage for approved clinical trials. And we use that report in our bill to create the criteria for what kinds of trials should be covered in the Medicare demonstration that Senator Mack and I are proposing. I continue to believe that all Americans should be guaranteed access to quality health care. I would love to see Congress acting immediately to ensure that any American struck by cancer, whether age 21 or age 71, could get coverage for treatment in a clinical trial if that is judged the best option for them. Those are highly ambitious goals, and today Senator Mack and I offer this bill as one more incremental step in their direction. I actually started some years ago with legislation to improve cancer care for Medicare patients. That legislation ended up being enacted in 1993. It was really sort of embarrassingly simple. My legislation required Medicare coverage of oral anticancer drugs if those drugs would otherwise have been covered by Medicare if administered intravenously in a doctor's office. Obviously, the result being cost savings and almost simple beyond belief. But, nevertheless, it was not allowed prior to my legislation. We changed the law, and now it is allowed. A lot of money is being saved, and people are being helped because they can take an oral drug at home rather than having an injection in a doctor's office. As a result, many Medicare beneficiaries with cancer can take advantage of drugs that they were, in a sense, walled off from before. The other part of my bill set an uniform standard for Medicare coverage of anticancer drugs. Prior to the enactment of my legislation, there was significant variation in Medicare coverage of anticancer drugs because individual Medicare carriers made their own decisions on coverage. A GAO report found that Medicare's unreliable and inconsistent coverage of accepted off-label uses of cancer drugs forced oncologists to alter their preferred treatment. Now there is clear and consistent Medicare policy regarding coverage of anticancer drugs. In conclusion, I think it is time again for Congress to take another small, yet crucial, step in improving coverage for elderly cancer patients who deserve every chance they have to battle this horrible disease. I hope to get the help of colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and I am sure Senator Mack shares this wish with me--to get more supporters to recognize that this urgent need has to be attended to as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our bill and a summary of the legislation, along with a list of its supporters, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to recommend a very distinguished West Virginian be confirmed today to the post of Federal district judge for northern West Virginia. I'm honored to have joined with my senior colleague, Senator Byrd, in recommending that the President present this nomination. Senator Byrd and I have recommended Judge Craig Broadwater to this important post because he represents the very best of our State. He is the perfect blend of talent, energy, strength, and commitment to his fellow human beings--and, Mr. President, his life and his career are evidence of this fact. I had the privilege of appointing Judge Broadwater to the West Virginia First Judicial Circuit in 1993, when I was Governor. He was thereafter elected to the post in 1984. Since then, he was rated by the West Virginia State Bar as the No. 1 judge in the circuit, became chairman of the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission, and then chief judge for the first circuit in 1987, 1988, and 1995. To fully appreciate this remarkable man, you need to understand that Judge Broadwater is only 45 years old, and he has already had a outstanding judicial career. Craig's career is rooted in a lifetime of incredible service to this country and his community. Craig was born and raised in Paden City, WV, along the Ohio River. He graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, and was a Distinguished Military Graduate, Army ROTC, from West Virginia University in 1972. He received his law degree from West Virginia University in 1977. He served in the U.S. Army as a second lieutenant, from 1972 to 1974, and is still an active reservist in the West Virginia Army National Guard. He has been awarded a Special Forces tab, master parachutist badge, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for Korea in 1973 and 1974, the Humanitarian Service Medal, and the West Virginia Emergency Service Medal. Yet, I also know that Judge Brodwater may be most proud of his outstanding record on behalf of West Virginia's children. He has been a great leader in our State in the area of child abuse and neglect laws and has been a longtime member of the executive board of the Boy Scouts of America. I am also fortunate to know Craig's family--his wife, Chong, two beautiful daughters, Chandra and Taeja, and son, Shane. They, too, are testament to his deep commitment and values. Everywhere you turn in our State's northern panhandle, you see the imprint of Judge Broadwater's intellect and commitment. He knows the importance of family. A close examination of his record as a judge will reveal a very tough, yet fair man, whose life experience have prepared him to sit on the Federal bench as a judge before his fellow citizens. Mr. President, Senator J. William Fulbright said in 1961: It is not our affluence, or our plumbing, or our clogged freeways that grip the imagination of others. Rather, it is the values upon which our system is built. These values imply our adherence not only to liberty and individual freedom, but also to international peace, law and order and constructive social purpose. When we depart from these values, we do so at our own peril. Every American, and certainly every West Virginia, should be comfortable knowing that Craig Broadwater and the values upon which his life has been built will be a part of our judicial system. As his U.S. Senator and his friend, I'm proud to recommend his confirmation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think our business is relatively easy here, or ought to be. I really think there are only two things we ought to do from the side of the aisle that I represent. We are interested in paycheck security, health care security, retirement security. Those have a variety of things that go along with them which we think are important for family values, for family safety, and obviously family security. I think there are two pieces of legislation that ought to be signed into law by the President, ought to be passed out of this body. There is no reason why they cannot be. I stand here this morning as the junior Senator from West Virginia in some sense of frustration and wonderment, really putting myself in the place of American citizens wondering why it is not more certain and why there is not a more clear course. I think if either of these bills fails to pass this session of Congress, both Houses, and on to the President, then I think the American people have real reason to wonder why they put us here. I speak, of course, of two pieces of legislation which we have already passed. The first one was passed the other day, the minimum wage increase. There was a 74 to 24 vote on that. Some might say, well, that was not as strong as it appeared because minimum wage was encased in a small business package, had that title. But there cannot be any doubt about the fact that the minimum wage increase did pass. It has passed the Senate. So has the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance bill, more properly the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance bill that passed by 100 to 0. I really think it is embarrassing to our body, to all 100 of us, that there is a real cloud of uncertainty as to whether or not these are going to become law. They have passed through here. The plot keeps thickening as we hear about efforts to delay, to entangle these pieces of legislation, to complicate them. Each of these pieces, of course, have enormous benefits for millions of hard-working American families. Therefore, it seems to me incontrovertible that the good will on both sides should prevail. On our side, we talk about putting families first. I think they are three good words, it is a good phrase. It is clear. It is what we mean. It means enacting the minimum wage increase and it means enacting the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. In West Virginia tens of thousands of wage earners, in fact, 24 percent of all our wage earners in the State, will benefit from the minimum wage law. I am not necessarily happy to say that that many of them would be affected, but that is what I have to say because that is the fact. Over two-thirds of them are adults, and most of them are women, many of them, most of them, have responsibilities for children. I had a remarkable conversation, at least to me, last week with one of these people who is a graduate, lives in a small community in West Virginia, who is a graduate of the University of Indiana, has a B.A. from the University of Indiana, and moved to West Virginia because she liked the lifestyle. She works as a waitress. She has a 10-year-old girl, her husband has left her, and child support is minimal. She can now earn $2.13 an hour because of the tipping matter under the present law we have passed here in the Senate. So her salary--as she said, tips do make up the difference. If you do allow that to happen, then, in fact, she could go from $8,500 a year to $10,700 a year. When you add on top of that the earned income tax credit for which she is eligible, she could make $3,000 plus from that, which would put her above the poverty level. Now, that is a momentous fact, taking a program already existing, and the minimum wage which we passed, that we take a woman who lives in poverty, officially, a proud person, well-educated, interested in the arts, with a brilliant 10-year-old daughter, who I had a chance to talk with, who is an exceptional gymnast, for whom she can do nothing because there is no margin whatever in her life financially, being able to help her. She brings to mind, and many others who I have talked to who are working, who are not on welfare, who are working because of their desire to achieve self-esteem through work rather than being on welfare. I cannot understand why there would be any reason to either block the appointment of conferees, or whatever it would be, to keep the minimum wage bill from passing. It means an enormous amount to people in my State and every single State, most of whom are adult, most of whom are women, most of whom have children. Then, I think, finally, there is no excuse if the Congress fails to pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. We said from the very beginning, after the failure of the Clinton health care bill, that we should concentrate on what we can agree on. That is what we started out with on Kassebaum- Kennedy, concentrating on what we can agree on. We have to do it incrementally. I understand that and I applaud that. This is a bill on which we so agreed. In fact, the vote was 100 to 0. Then MSA's, medical savings accounts, was put in in the House and put in over here in a rather odd manner at the last moment. That we did not agree on. Everything else we did agree on. Now that is being, I think, sort of relegated to the possibility of a bill that will not pass this Congress because of the disagreement on that. On the other hand, there was an agreement at the beginning. The whole spirit of everything was that we would agree with what we could agree on, and we did so in such a magnificent form that we passed it 100 to 0 here. We should do that, putting families first, which means getting back to the basics of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and getting this bill into law. If it means we have to take a moratorium on our August recess, I do not care what it takes, we ought to be able to pass the minimum wage bill and the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance bill. It is a ``no brainer,'' Mr. President. I submit that with all sincerity, two pieces of legislation, and there are many more that I have in mind, but here are two pieces of legislation, both of which have passed by overwhelming margins in this body, both of which can be conferenced successfully, if we only have the will to do so, both of which would enormously help put American working families first. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, is it all right to proceed?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I note with great pride that one of my staff members has been honored with a very special award: Charlotte Moreland, who serves me on the minority staff of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has been named 1996 Congressional Staffer of the Year by the Vietnam Veterans of America. I can think of no one who has earned this award more than Charlotte. She has been a loyal member of my personal staff ever since I joined the Senate in 1984, and I have been most grateful for the many strengths she brought to that job. But Charlotte really found her forte when I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs in 1993, and she became my Special Projects Director on the committee. She has continued to work for me in my capacity now as the committee's ranking Democratic member. Charlotte has helped countless veterans from West Virginia and all around the country obtain the services and benefits they are due from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Some of the work she has done is truly amazing; she has been able to get results where many others have failed, or failed to even try, lacking the drive and compassion that are Charlotte's trademark. Charlotte was born and raised in West Virginia, and she has never lost the stubborn persistence, tenacity, and deep caring that are so characteristic of my home State. Charlotte is a vigorous--I might say, ferocious--advocate for the underdog, the vulnerable, those who would otherwise get lost in the system. She is not afraid to fight Government bureaucracy, redtape, and complacency, and she will follow through on a case until all avenues of help are exhausted. Whether it involves quality or availability of medical care in a VA hospital, or timely and appropriate decisions on disability claims, veterans need a place to turn when they believe the system has failed them. Charlotte acts as my eyes and ears out in the community, listening to the concerns of individual veterans and reporting them back to me, so that I can address systemic problems through legislation and oversight. I count on her tremendously, and I truly would not be able to perform my job well on the committee if she were not performing hers. Charlotte is a prime example of a very special class of employees-- dedicated congressional staffers who labor, often anonymously, behind the scenes, making our Government work and providing services to our citizens. Too often they do not receive the recognition they so richly deserve. In saluting Charlotte, I salute also these other unsung heroes. As Members of Congress, we are often in the limelight. But our accomplishments would be far less without the dedicated staff that serve us, and we should never forget that. Veterans--in West Virginia and throughout our country--are incredibly lucky to have Charlotte as their advocate. I am grateful to have her on my staff, and enormously proud of all she has accomplished.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the students, teachers, parents, and librarian Jeannie Riley at Meadows Elementary School in Huntington, WV. This group worked together in an outstanding effort to promote literacy through the million pages reading program. Jeannie Riley wanted to challenge students at Meadows Elementary School to read 1 million pages by the end of the school year. She worked with school administrators, teachers, and parents to provide creative incentives for the students to read, using activities such as afternoon dances and the opportunity to throw pies at teachers. This innovative program encouraged family reading time and motivated students to read independently. The students enthusiastically accepted the challenge and worked very hard to meet their goal. They succeeded in their endeavor, a magnificent achievement by some motivated young people in my State. Mr. President, we all know reading is an essential skill that enables children to communicate and convey ideas more effectively. Children who acquire good reading skills will be better equipped to compete in today's dynamic world that demands an education as a pre-requisite for self-sufficiency and participating in a highly skilled work force. Illiteracy is a problem that plagues West Virginia as well as the Nation, and too many children reach adulthood lacking abilities they need for a secure future. Programs like the million pages project are consistent with goals set by the Department of Education. They also complement the goals of the National Commission on Children, a bipartisan group of policymakers, educators, and individuals that I led in looking for ways to strengthen families and better the lives of tomorrow's leaders. The million pages project is a step in the right direction, going beyond basic classroom instruction to develop a love of reading and encourage the development of these vital skills. Programs such as the million pages project are helping to fight the battle of illiteracy and giving West Virginia's children a better chance for a bright future. This program serves as a fine example of what happens when people come together to promote a worthy cause, and I hope others will learn from the Meadows challenge. Achieving this goal of 1 million pages is a great honor, and again, Mr. President, I sincerely congratulate the Meadows Elementary community. I applaud Jeannie Riley for working so hard to initiate the million pages project, the teachers of Meadows Elementary for embracing it with enthusiasm, the parents for reading to their children and supporting this initiative, and the students for their tremendous effort and persistence in reaching their goal.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Hedgesville High School on their outstanding achievement in We the People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution national finals. This competition promotes an understanding of the key objectives and significance of American constitutional democracy. The 17 students from Hedgesville, WV, who competed in the national finals in Washington, DC, April 27-29, were Erin Ambrester, Kelly Buck, Robert Deters, Dwain Donaldson, Alisha Harper, Jessica Hedrick, Jennifer Huftless, Janice Kelly, Travis Kline, Rebecca Maslauskas, Aaron Moats, Janelle Myers, Jennifer Powers, Heidi Silver, Christopher Twigg, Stephanie Whitford, and Melissa Zombro. This group competed against 49 other classes from around the country. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Harriett Kopp, who deserves acknowledgment for the success of the team. Other individuals who contributed to the team were district coordinator, Sharon Flack, and State coordinator, Ernest Dotson. This program is conducted by the Center for Civic Education. The program itself reaches more than 22 million students between elementary and high school levels. The national finals are similar to a congressional hearing whereby students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. This nationally acclaimed program helps students understand the history and principles of our constitutional government. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are the focus of this civic competition among students in public and private schools. This particular class from Hedgesville High School participated at the congressional district, State, and national levels. The panel of judges score students on the basis of their ability to comprehend the constitutional principles of America's historical and contemporary issues. Again, Mr. President, I am so proud of these young men and women from Hedgesville High School.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May we have order? There are at least 12 conversations taking place.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, a long time ago, I was a Republican, and I was brought up in a Republican family. It was not the kind of Republican family which is very much respected these days because it was referred to as ``Rockefeller Republicanism,'' and that is about the worst thing you can say about a Republican because this primarily came from my Uncle Nelson, who liked to get things done for the people of New York State and also for the country. He was also Vice President. He was very active. He was constantly worried about housing, and he wanted to get things done. I grew up, and I was not very political, was not very interested in politics. I was interested mostly in Japanese language and Chinese history and all kinds of things which were not very germane to politics. But I got into politics the way people really should get into politics, and that is because they started a program. I remember President Eisenhower used to call it ``the Kiddy Corps,'' and I was still in Japan at the time. It was actually the Peace Corps they were talking about starting, and I was in Japan when President Kennedy was elected. He was my first vote. I came back in time to vote for him and not for Nixon, but that did not make me a Democrat. It was just that Kennedy was obviously going to be a better President than Nixon. I did not care that much about politics. Then I got into the Peace Corps, and I saw what was going on in the rest of the world. And then I joined a program which really was started by the Democrats also, in this case, President Johnson, along with Bobby Kennedy, that now is called VISTA. As the Senator from Kentucky knows, I went to West Virginia in 1964, and I was a registered Republican. Now, I had been voting Democratic, but politics did not mean that much to me. What West Virginia taught me and what the people of West Virginia taught me was that getting things done for people that have a variety of types of problems, much like the Senator from North Dakota was talking about, was what really interested me. I really cared about that. I did not know I had really cared about that. I was in my midtwenties, but that was something that really grabbed me, and all of a sudden being able to speak Chinese or talk about Japanese history or whatever did not seem quite as important to me. So I made a decision to get into politics. At that point, I had been, in effect, a Democrat for 6 years. It is very interesting, this whole day and particularly this last couple of hours helps me understand again and again and again and again why it was I became a Democrat, because the complaint that you constantly hear about Republicans and about us in Congress in general, but the Republicans run the Congress--they run the House. They run the Senate. We just had an election of the new majority leader. He has a new team, all in power, all set to go. And the question that is always raised is: Why don't they ever talk about things which affect average people's lives? I think that is a pretty fair question, because they do not. It is the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire got up and started rambling on about something he did not know anything about, or when he withdrew the amendment the Senator from Pennsylvania, who represents people who have all kinds of problems in Allegheny County, PA, and the counties around there, and the steel towns and coal towns--used to be coal towns and steel towns--lots of unemployment, lots and lots of problems, that he went on for a long period of time after the amendment had been withdrawn. And, as the Senator from North Dakota said, it shut down the Senate. We were on an authorization bill. We had the Senator from South Carolina who certainly, shall we say, has some experience around here and has put in some time around here. I assume he wants to get that done. It is called defense authorization, one of the most important bills that we have. Now that is dead and gone. Yesterday, I gave a speech about things we have to take up in this Congress, that we have to solve, that people expect us to solve. We are the only people who can solve it. It cannot be done by Executive order. It cannot be done by the States. It can only be done by us. I do not know exactly how many legislative days we have left, but it cannot be very many, 35, 40, 45 days? If this is the way we are going to spend our time, then I can understand why the American people say those people up there do not get anything done. But, even more, it helps me understand why it is that I am a Democrat, because Democrats keep worrying and coalescing and forming coalitions and meeting about how they were to get things done for average working families. Raising the minimum wage is one of them. What is the minimum wage worth today? About $3.10 in purchasing power, compared to 20 years ago. That would affect, I say to the Senator from Kentucky, one out of every four workers in West Virginia, working people in West Virginia--not people on welfare, people who work every day who could go on welfare and who, in many cases, would do better to go on welfare in terms of their own financial self-interest because they would get health care, they would get lower rent, they would get food stamps. But no, they are interested in something called pride. Welfare is down in West Virginia; work is up in West Virginia, as it is in a lot of the country. We should be doing something about raising that minimum wage to encourage people to stay off welfare and to continue working. Some of us spent a lot of time fighting for something called the earned-income tax credit. I would say to the Presiding Officer, if the earned-income tax credit was combined with the minimum wage, increased as we did it for George Bush in 1991, with bipartisan support--I do not know what is so different about today--then the great majority of American families would move out of poverty. That may not be of interest to the majority party but that is of enormous interest to me and makes me very proud about being a Democrat, and very concerned about doing something about these problems. The politics part is not important but the inactivity part is important, the fact that nothing is getting done here, week after week after week after week after week. Tomorrow or the next day in the Finance Committee, on which I serve, they are going to take up Medicaid and make it into a block grant. The majority party is going to pass that. It will pass the Senate Finance Committee because they control that. They control the floor. It will pass. It will happen. And then we are going to see the results. But we have done nothing, and we have been talking about it for months, about the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. The Senator from Kansas, with all of the things she has done for her people and this country over all of these years, I would think there would be some on the other side who would really want to make certain that, when she left, she had her name on the only piece of health care legislation that passed in the first 4 years of the Clinton Presidency. But I am now beginning to be convinced that the majority party does not want to see that happen. I really do not understand that. That is very hurtful to the people I represent, many of whom are Republicans, many of whom are Democrats. Why do they not want to do that? It is because of a single insurance company that had a tremendous amount of influence on a previous Member, so it was laid out there, and the House Republican leadership is very strongly attached to that concept, and it is called MSA's, medical savings accounts. It is very, very effective for savings and for all kinds of things for people who are rich and healthy, and does absolutely no good to people who are average working families and are not wealthy, and are not necessarily healthy. Why can we not pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill? It passed the Senate 100 to nothing. Why can we not pass that? Nothing takes place around here. That is why the American people say, about the majority party, why do they not ever talk about things which relate to my life? And they do not. We get, instead, diatribes on political things. People fire up from the other side--and we do from our side, presumably, from time to time--but they fire up. For anything that is remotely political they are on their feet and ready to go. I am so sick of telling the story of how many hearings we have had on Medicare and Medicaid as opposed to Whitewater, I will not even do it. We are not discussing the things that affect the American people and there are some of us here who desperately want to do that because we come from States where that kind of discussion, and the action that comes from it, is needed. The Senator from Kentucky represents three States: western Kentucky, central Kentucky, and eastern Kentucky. And eastern Kentucky is just exactly like my southern West Virginia, and they need a lot of help. They have a whole lot of people in eastern Kentucky who do not have any insurance, cannot possibly afford it because they have something called a preexisting condition, or they are laid off from one job and they would like to be able to carry their insurance to another job. But they cannot do it now. Except that Nancy Kassebaum changed that and made it possible for them to do it in a bill which passed this body 100 to nothing. Now we cannot get it passed. We cannot get it taken up. We cannot get it passed: MSA's. I do not understand that. And I regret that. I regret that we have a chance to lift people out of poverty through something called welfare reform and we do not seem to be able to get to it. I resent that we have a chance to lift people out of poverty by increasing the minimum wage--which is no shocking deal. It was not in 1991, when George Bush passed it and signed it. Business people were not screaming and yelling, or if they were they stopped pretty quickly because nothing much happened except people began to get some more money. Now, actually, we are offering a smaller amount of money increase. It is exactly the same that he offered, $4.25 to $5.15 in 2 years--wow, that is really throwing money around--but of course that is worth much less today, what we are offering, than the same amount of change back in 1991. People criticize us because we are not getting things done. I want to say, some of us are trying. Some of us are really trying. We care about what happens in the Persian Gulf. We care what happens in health care. We care what happens with average working families. We care what happens with pension security. We care what happens with job instability. We care what happens with minimum wage. We care what happens with welfare reform. We care what happens with neglected and abused children. We care about what happens with a whole lot of things which people pay us a very good salary to come up here and do something about--and we are not doing it. I think the principal reason we are not doing it is because the proclivity of the majority party, there is some kind of a gene or something, or computer chip stuck into that majority party, that causes them to always aim, go cutthroat for politics. The meanest politics I have heard in the 12 years I have been up here, frankly, have come from the other side. Am I out of place with what I said? I have no idea. It is what I believe. I know I am a Democrat, but I do not really care about that so much because I know why I am here in the Senate. I am here to help average people, people I represent and the people we all represent. Nobody has to represent millionaires, they represent themselves. Our duty is to help people who need wise public policy. That is our job, and we are not doing it. It is sad, and it is shameful.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to take such time as I will require for a statement. It should not last more than 10 minutes.