Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I just wanted to take a moment to explain that it is not our desire necessarily to hold up this piece of legislation. There is support on our side as well. Unfortunately, the majority leader has not been able to work out an agreement with us to accommodate a number of Senators on our side who wish to offer amendments. It was for that reason that I objected tonight. Obviously, we will have a good debate about the bill. It will be my hope we could offer amendments, but at least at this time it does not appear to be likely. We will continue to work together and try to find a way to resolve these issues, but at least tonight that has not been resolved. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, only for the purposes of clarification, it is my understanding that the spina bifida amendment will either be up or down or a tabling motion. Is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Iowa yield? I apologize for interrupting.

Mr. DASCHLE. Without losing his right to the floor. We have a number of pieces of legislation that have to be addressed in the next hour. We anticipated, given what the Senator from Iowa indicated to me that he only had 10 minutes, that it would take 10 minutes. We have now used a half hour of that time allotted. He certainly did not consume it all. But I am wondering whether it would be appropriate to get a unanimous- consent agreement that the time on the Harkin amendment will be terminated at 8:45 to allow other amendments to be debated so that we can assure the opportunity to vote on all of these at 9:30, as the unanimous-consent request was proposed.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Harkin amendment, with appropriate responses from the Senator from Arizona and others, be limited to no more than 20 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 8:16 is when we were told from the desk you started. That is not the point. How much more time does the Senator from Iowa need?

Mr. DASCHLE. That is 4 minutes. The Senator from Missouri had 5 minutes. That would be 9 minutes. How much time does the Senator from Iowa need?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I propound the unanimous-consent request 20 minutes to be divided, 2 minutes, 2 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amount of time allocated to this amendment not exceed 15 minutes with the time evenly divided between myself and the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we had the debate on this amendment this morning, so this is meant simply to be a summary statement. Let me begin by reminding my colleagues about the mission of agent orange and the Agent Orange Act of 1991. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 was passed unanimously, 99-0, with the cosponsorship of my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Simpson. It requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate scientific findings from the National Academy of Sciences, based on their review of all related evidence. This year, the National Academy of Sciences found compelling evidence, based on scientifically sound epidemiological studies, to place spina bifida in the second category of compensated diseases. As I mentioned earlier, the VA already covers all of the conditions in categories 1 and 2, except spina bifida, because the Secretary doesn't have the authority to provide these benefits to children of veterans. We are not here today to debate the underpinnings of the original law. What we are here today to do is to talk about our obligation. The battle about the original law was fought and won. That ended 5 years ago. We have a reasonable proposal to address the unique needs of these kids, whose disabilities are linked to their parent's exposure to agent orange. I don't have to remind any of my colleagues that the National Academy of Sciences is a highly respected, nonpartisan research organization. Congress regularly relies on the National Academy of Sciences to provide unbiased, scientifically sound information. It is very unfortunate, as some of my colleagues have done, to criticize their professionalism simply because one disagrees with its findings. NAS has assembled a panel of expert scientists to review all of the signs associated with agent orange exposure. They found several epidemiological studies that supported an association between parental exposure to agent orange and the presence of spina bifida in children. NAS found the reanalysis of the Ranch-Hand study particularly compelling. They compared Vietnam veterans with non-Vietnam veterans and accounts of exposure. Despite the comments of the Senator from Wyoming this morning, they have indeed found a higher incidence of spina bifida in the children of Vietnam veterans. That is what led them to conclude what they did in the report last spring. That report states simply: Neural tube birth defects were in excess among offspring of Ranch Hands with four total cases in contrast to none among the comparison infants. This translates into a rate of 5 per 1,000, significantly higher than CDC's normal spina bifida rate of 4.5 per 10,000. In other words, there is a four times higher level of incidence of spina bifida with agent orange exposure than there is with no agent orange exposure, according to this study. These findings are statistically significant. And that is what the law requires. If you see a significant statistical difference, you have to reflect that in the requirements provided in the law that passed in 1991. Furthermore, in addition to the Ranch Hand study, a number of studies of veterans appear to show an elevated relative risk for either service in Vietnam or estimated exposure to herbicides or dioxin, and the presence of neural tube defects in their offspring. For those interested in reading an unbiased analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each study, I certainly refer you to the NAS report. Mr. President, we could talk for the rest of the night, if we had the time, about the science of this issue. The real question is: Who ought to get the benefit of the doubt? Who should deserve the benefit of the doubt, given the commitment made by our veterans in Vietnam, now more than 20 years ago? Do we give it to the veterans and their children, or do we give it to those who would argue that we need more information, more science, more data, even though the accumulation of data has already demonstrated a clear association? By placing spina bifida in the second category, NAS, the experts we chose 5 years ago to advise us, concluded there is evidence suggestive of an association. The law set a standard of positive association that we are relying upon in this amendment. When the credible evidence for an association is equal to or outweighs the evidence against an association, the benefit of the doubt, by law, must go to the veteran. The law specifically does not require evidence of cause and effect. Reconciliation has not happened and is not in sight. As a result, the provision identified in the amendment can be used as savings to pay the very limited benefits we are talking about today. This widely supported provision would insert into the law a fault requirement to limit the VA's liability in non-malpractice related cases. Regardless of what arguments can be put forth by others, the fact that a hearing is being held later this month is an argument that, in my view, is not relevant to the debate on this amendment. It is not even dealing with the issue. Those interested in addressing the issues raised by the March report have been working for months to design an appropriate solution. This amendment is strongly supported by veterans and disability communities. Veterans and their families have waited decades for the confirmation embedded in these findings. They should not have to wait any longer. This amendment is clearly germane to the underlying bill. It is a veterans issue, and this is a veterans bill. We are not going to be fooling America's veterans by suggesting that somehow this is not germane. Opponents of this amendment should not be able to hide behind some convenient, questionable procedural motion. This is germane. It is relevant. And the time to act is now. We cannot wait any longer. Let us treat spina bifida as we do all the other diseases that we have already determined have a direct association to agent orange exposure. Let us give veterans and their children the means and support necessary to deal with the problems associated with this crippling disability. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield that time to the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. According to the unanimous consent agreement, the final issue to be disposed of at approximately 9:30 deals with the resolution relating to Iraq. I would like to address that resolution at this time. I send it to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on Tuesday, I spoke briefly about my views on President Clinton's decision to retaliate against Iraq for its unprovoked, unjustified, and brutal attack on the civilian population of Irbil, a city in northern Iraq. At that time, I also indicated I planned to introduce a resolution condemning Saddam Hussein's behavior and expressing the Senate's support for the President's actions. I must say I never dreamed it would take this long and be this difficult to arrive at a simple resolution in support of the actions taken earlier this week. For several days now, we have been attempting to resolve issues relating to language and have been thwarted and frustrated in that effort for a lot of reasons, in large measure because many of my colleagues on the other side wish not to laud the President or find any way with which to praise the President's actions. In fact, for the last several hours the issue has been, do we even use the word ``President'' in the resolution? There was an adamant feeling on the part of many on the other side that we could not use the word ``President,'' and so you will not find that word used as a result of the requirements by many of my colleagues on the Republican side. In fact, the only reference to the President is a reference to the Commander in Chief, and I must say that that is suitable to many of us, but I do believe that it is a very unfortunate set of circumstances that could have caused some partisanship, in fact a great deal of partisanship, to enter into these deliberations. Let me at the same time applaud the majority leader for his willingness to continue to work with me to resolve those outstanding questions and to come to some compromise on the language that has now been presented to the Senate. His work and his cooperation as well as that of some of our colleagues on the other side have brought us to this point tonight. Let me also thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn, and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin. Let me also thank Senator Pell and many others--Senator Biden, who had a lot to do with the wording of this legislation; in addition, Senator McCain, Senator Warner, and others who were very helpful in bringing us to this point. Let me make it very clear that in spite of what I consider to be the pettiness involved with whether you use the word ``President'' or not, this resolution very clearly and strongly and wholeheartedly supports the measures taken by this President in the last 72 hours. Last Saturday, in spite of clear warnings from the United States and the international community, Iraqi forces commenced their vicious attack on the defenseless civilian Kurdish population in and around Irbil. Casualties reportedly numbered in the thousands. Reports of door-to-door searches resulting in executions were rampant and, unfortunately, all too credible. In addition to this obvious toll on human life, Saddam's invasion also threatens the interests of the United States and its allies in this crucial region of the world. The prospect for factional strife has been greatly increased while regional stability has been called into question, thereby enhancing the risk of a larger scale conflict in the region. Saddam's aggression is in direct contravention of the United Nations Resolution 688 which was enacted in 1991 at the end of the Persian Gulf war. At that time the Security Council empowered the United States, Britain, and France to protect the Kurdish population from human rights abuses by the Iraqi regime through the establishment of a no-fly zone over large portions of northern and southern Iraq. Saddam's attack on Irbil blatantly violates international norms and is by itself sufficient justification for the President's decisions to strike four critical Iraqi targets with 44 cruise missiles and to expand the no-fly zone northward to the very suburbs of Baghdad. Unfortunately, the aggression in Irbil is but the latest in a string of ruthless and provocative actions undertaken by Saddam before, during, and after the Persian Gulf war. Mr. President, I will not outline the entire catalog of violent and reprehensible acts undertaken by Saddam and his henchmen since he ascended to power in Iraq. Needless to say, the list is as chilling as it is long. President Clinton succinctly noted in his statement on Tuesday, ``Saddam Hussein's objectives may change but his methods are always the same--violence and aggression against the Kurds, against ethnic minorities, against Iraq's neighbors.'' It is for these reasons that I support and our colleagues support the President's decision to take action. I am very confident the American people feel exactly as we do tonight. The President's actions served a twofold purpose. First, they showed Saddam that he will pay a price for his latest act of aggression. In mounting the largest attack on Iraqi territory in the 5 years since the end of the Persian Gulf war, president Clinton has appropriately reminded Saddam that violations of international norms will not go unpunished. Secondly, by destroying air defense assets in central Iraq and extending the no-fly zone northward toward Baghdad, the United States has greatly reduced the threat Saddam poses to his opponents within Iraq and his opponents in adjoining nations. By restraining Saddam's bloody hand, the President's decisive action has limited the ability of an oppressive regime to disrupt the volatile center of a Middle East region that is vital to American foreign policy interests. The response was measured, appropriate, and absolutely necessary. I also want to indicate at this time my strong support for the men and women in uniform who are asked repeatedly to go in harm's way to protect our national interests. Early damage reports from the latest attack on Iraq indicate another mission accomplished without a hitch and without a casualty. It is noteworthy that despite the end of the cold war, the military forces of the United States continue to play a crucial role around the world in advancing and protecting our national interests. This dedicated group of men and women have been called upon repeatedly since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the onset of the post-cold-war era. They have never failed the American people or our friends abroad. The resolution before us is an extremely crucial matter for all of us because our enemies and friends must see that we speak with one voice when it comes to our policy for containing and defeating Saddam Hussein. As we have learned only too painfully in the past, domestic discord on important national security issues only plays into the hands of those who seek to undermine our resolve. It is critically important to demonstrate national unity when our military forces are in harm's way. Even in this most intense political season, politics for all Americans still ends at the water's edge. President Clinton was faced with a broad array of choices when deciding how to respond to Saddam's aggression, everything from doing nothing to inserting United States ground troops and forcefully evicting Iraqi troops from Irbil. Obviously, each end of this spectrum constitutes an unacceptable and inappropriate response. Only something between the two extremes makes any sense, precisely the course chosen by President Clinton. This resolution puts the Senate forcefully behind the President's measured decision. The President opted both to weaken Iraqi air defenses and simultaneously expand the area in which the Iraqi Air Force will not be permitted to operate. These actions clearly demonstrate the United States is prepared to impose real costs on Saddam Hussein for his aggression. As noted by Gen. Colin Powell, the President did exactly the right thing. Of our friends and allies abroad, we ask they stand with the United States as we seek to faithfully implement the U.N. resolutions adopted at the end of the Persian Gulf war. Saddam's actions demonstrate he still represents a direct threat to his people, his neighbors, and the security of the entire vitally important region. If the world were to look the other way now and allow Saddam to go unpunished, we would encourage more blatant and damaging incursions in the future. There must be no doubt in Saddam's mind that the international community is united in its opposition to such unacceptable behavior. Finally, to Saddam Hussein, let us state for the record the position of this administration and this Congress, as plainly and as simply as we can. Although we may belong to different political parties and have opposing views on some issues, we stand united and indivisible on this. Iraqi aggression must not go unpunished, now or in the future. We will insist on Iraq's compliance with international norms of behavior, regardless of the circumstance. To this end I have worked with the distinguished majority leader to draft a resolution condemning Saddam's behavior and indicating our strong support for the U.S. response to this latest incident. With the adoption of this resolution by the Senate, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind, least of all Saddam Hussein's, that the American people are united in their opposition to this conduct. Passage of this resolution is one way to demonstrate to our friends and enemies alike, our resolve on this crucial issue. I ask for its support tonight. I hope we could indicate our support unanimously. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield just for a clarification, I say at the outset that I support entirely the result of these negotiations, and I appreciate very much everyone's cooperation. On the first page of the unanimous-consent agreement, in reference to the bill to be offered by Senator Kennedy, on the bottom line it asks unanimous consent that the bill be equally divided in the usual form, with a vote to occur on Tuesday. It did not say a vote on final passage. I assume the majority leader meant a vote on final passage.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as a requirement of the 1991 Agent Orange Act, after a thorough analysis of all relevant scientific evidence, the National Academy of Sciences announced in March a link between agent orange exposure and the presence of spina bifida in offspring. My amendment would extend health care, vocational rehabilitation, and monetary benefits to Vietnam veterans' children born with spina bifida, a serious birth defect that requires lifelong medical care. It is completely paid for with a non-controversial savings provision. While this should be an honest vote on the proposal itself, some have chosen to cloak it in a procedural question. I ask my colleagues to vote against the germaneness point of order. Of all amendments we have debated and voted on today, this amendment is clearly a veterans' issue on this veterans' bill. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is as hard a count as the VA currently has.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we could take 10 or 20 hours, too. We are trying to accommodate the majority. The amendment has 25 cosponsors. I cannot recall exactly how many of our cosponsors have indicated an interest in talking, but I have assurances that the Senator from West Virginia would like 30 minutes alone. We will continue to work as we did last night to come up with a finite list, but I thought it was a concession to the majority to limit this to 4 hours, 2 hours on a side. So if that is not acceptable, we can just begin without a time agreement and maybe we can do it in less time. Maybe it will take twice as long, but that is up to the majority.

Mr. DASCHLE. We will always be able to yield back time. So that implication is always part of the agreement. But if 4 hours is unacceptable, perhaps we ought to begin the debate and see how long it takes. Mr. President, I object to the agreement. I object to the agreement, and we will just begin.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would not be able to lay it down until 11 o'clock, but I think I could lay it down within the next 15 minutes. I have a couple of conflicts that I need to address, but I will be ready to do that in the not too distant future.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, but I will not ask that it be read at this time. I will simply begin the debate and we will offer the amendment at a later time, several hours from now probably. Mr. President, according to the Congressional Budget Office, approximately 2,785 children of Vietnam veterans suffer from spina bifida, a serious birth defect that requires lifelong care. That has already been established. A March report from the National Academy of Sciences suggests that a connection between these children's disabilities and their parents' exposure to agent orange in Vietnam is a very real and growing problem. Today, along with 25 of my colleagues, I am offering an amendment to acknowledge the Federal Government's share of responsibility for these children's care. Spina bifida occurs when the spinal cord does not close fully early in pregnancy. It is a complex disability. It requires coordinated care for many medical specialists, including neurosurgeons, neurologists, orthopedists, pediatricians, internists in adult years, psychologists, physical therapists, dietitians, and social workers. Children with spina bifida often go through a series of operations in early childhood followed by special care, therapy and treatment throughout their lives. Many are wheelchair bound. Others can walk with assistance. There is a high survival rate. But these victims of this horrendous disease face daily challenges few of us will ever fully comprehend. Picture a 10-year-old child leaving for school in a specially equipped schoolbus, but only after first running through an obstacle course known to most of us as a house, to get from her bed to the electric wheelchair that takes her to a bathroom where she is learning to control continence through a catheter, and on through a house designed to accommodate the special needs of someone living with a disability. During the day, this fifth grader must attend many classes with her peers but also must spend part of the day in special education classes to overcome learning disabilities that are often associated with spina bifida and to go to physical therapy to ensure continued mobility and development. After school, the child is picked up by her mother, who had to take the afternoon off, in a special transport van to go to a hospital for her biannual checkup with a multidisciplinary team. She may have bladder therapies, a renal ultrasound or urologic tests. She may be checked for seizures or scoliosis. She and her parents will be taught self-care skills for bowel management, intermittent catheterization and intervention for urinary tract infections, all this in addition to regular pediatric checkups. Before leaving, she is referred to her psychiatrist the following week to discuss depression and socialization issues. Her nurse asks her about her latex allergy, which is a common secondary condition, and reminds her to avoid bandages, balloons and other products containing latex. Later, at home, the family sits down to a low-fat meal to keep weight problems at bay as she does her homework, practices transfer techniques to move her between wheelchair and bed, and finally goes to sleep. Fortunately, these kids are tough. Depending on severity, many are able to live very full and productive lives, though not a day goes by that they are not reminded of their disability. Mr. President, the National Academy of Sciences announced in March new findings that suggest evidence of a link between exposure to agent orange and the presence of spina bifida in Vietnam veterans' children. The report was required by the Agent Orange Act of 1991 that was Public Law 102-4. The first National Academy of Sciences report published in 1993, as many of our colleagues recall, created a four-tiered classification system for health problems associated with agent orange exposure. Category 1 was sufficient evidence of an association. Evidence in this category is sufficient to conclude without any question that there is a positive association. Category 2 is the limited/suggestive evidence of association. In this category evidence suggests the association, but there is an inability to rule out, with confidence, confounding, chance or bias, so there is not unequivocal, absolute, conclusive proof that the connection exists. Category 3 is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists. That is a category where available studies are insufficient to permit a conclusion about the presence or absence of an association. And category 4, the limited/suggestive evidence of no association whatsoever, where studies are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between any level of exposure and the presence of a condition. The Department of Veterans Affairs provides disability compensation to Vietnam veterans suffering from conditions in the first and second categories. The National Academy of Sciences has now placed for the first time spina bifida in the second category of diseases for which there is the limited/suggestive evidence of the association. Mr. President, the law requires that in cases where the evidence for an association is equal to or outweighs the evidence against the association, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs resolve the benefit of the doubt in favor of the veteran and provide the disability compensation. That is consistent with the law providing presumptive disability compensation to veterans of all previous wars. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 gave the authority to the Secretary to make these decisions based upon the neutral, scientific and very respected National Academy of Science reports which are required in the law that I mentioned earlier. This amendment is required because the Secretary does not have the authority to provide for compensation to veterans' children. While birth defects in their children has been many veterans' biggest concern, we have never before faced a situation where we now have very real, tangible evidence, based upon National Academy of Sciences' information, and the tremendous work and effort done by many others who contributed to this report. The Agent Orange Act did anticipate this situation and specifically asked the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the connection between exposure and reproductive effects and birth defects in veterans' children. In March, I submitted for the Record a statement supporting these findings and raising the issues that needed to be addressed. So, as required by the 1991 law, the Department of Veterans Affairs reviewed the National Academy of Sciences report. In May, the President announced, among other things, his intention to pursue legislation that would provide an appropriate remedy for these veterans and their children. Again, let me emphasize, in this category 2, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that there is more evidence to suggest the connection than there is lack of evidence to suggest that there is no connection. So there is a strong degree of evidence, statistically significant scientific evidence, that has brought the National Academy of Sciences, for the first time, to the conclusion that they reached earlier this year and has brought the Secretary and the President to the conclusion they have reached. So the time now has come, Mr. President, for us to respond, as we have responded at each and every one of the junctures that we have faced during this very difficult period for many victims of Agent Orange. This amendment addresses this situation in what I view to be a very reasonable way. It is sensitive to the needs of the children and our responsibility to them, but at the same time it is cognizant of the fact that these children are not veterans. That must be taken into account, as well. This amendment would provide comprehensive health care, vocational rehabilitation, and a monthly stipend to eligible children. Eligibility, of course, is a very important factor to be considered here. The veteran must have served in Vietnam and must now be in a situation where they are experiencing or have clearly become victims of the spina bifida disease. Health care would be provided by or through the Veterans' Administration. We anticipate that most of the care would be provided via contract by experienced spina bifida care providers. It would provide for up to 4 years of vocational training, and monthly payments of $200, $700, or $1,200 would be provided, depending on the level of disability. The proposal reflects months of efforts by the administration, by others, including Senators Kerrey and Rockefeller, Congressman Lane Evans, veterans service organizations, and groups representing persons with spina bifida. It is fully offset with a noncontroversial provision included in both the Democratic and Republican reconciliation bills last year. It requires that veterans wishing to file liability claims against the VA show negligence, as is done in the private sector, to be entitled to benefits for whatever claims may be derived as a result of the filing by the veteran. Currently, a veteran may file for service connection for any injury occurring in a VA facility without showing whether it resulted from negligence or an accident. So, both the budgets of the Republicans and the Democrats included a provision to clarify the responsibility of the VA in cases of claims involving veterans who file that may not at all be related to negligence on the part of the VA. That clarification creates a surplus from which part of the funds to be paid out in this amendment will be derived. Savings from the provision come from averting future cases--no benefits are cut. Excess savings are directed to deficit reduction, allowing the VA and the Veterans' Affairs Committee to count these savings toward future responsibilities in the next reconciliation bill. Mr. President, the VA-HUD appropriations bill is certainly the most appropriate vehicle for this, 20 years later. It seems to me that after every one of the debates and all of the cases that we have had to make on this floor and in the House of Representatives on behalf of veterans who have been exposed to an unusual set of circumstances that go all the way back to the early 1970's, where mysterious diseases have occurred and ultimately have been found to be related to their exposure in Vietnam--obviously, each and every one of those cases involving yet additional evidence has led to a debate that dealt with the appropriate way with which to respond to this additional evidence. We now have the evidence of yet another unfortunate effect of that military service. We have the evidence. We have the law on our side. And now we have the appropriate solution. Given the limited amount of time left this year and the proposal by the majority leader for moving the schedule between now and the end of this month, there is likely no other opportunity for us to address this issue in the remaining days of this legislative session. Mr. President, some would argue that we should not legislate on an appropriations bill, but they are oftentimes the ones who have supported legislation on an appropriations bill on prior occasions during this Congress. In fact, on March 16, 1995, the vote was 42-57 to allow legislating on an appropriations bill. On that day, the practice became something that would now be considered to be appropriate, given the circumstances of that vote and the ruling by the Chair and the commitment on the part of the body to overrule the Chair on that occasion. So the precedent has been set. Legislating on appropriations is now something that is not out of order, and no points of order can be brought on that particular issue. This amendment, Mr. President, has very strong support from the American Legion, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, from the Vietnam Veterans of America, from a real leader in this whole effort now for almost 25 years, Adm. Elmo Zumwalt--who has probably experienced the effects of agent orange on his family more graphically and unfortunately than perhaps anybody else in the country, given the fact that his son was exposed and died of his exposure to agent orange and his grandson is suffering from a learning disability they believe to be related to his son's exposure--the Spina Bifida Association of America, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the American Association of University Affiliated Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, and, of course, the administration. Mr. President, we have to make a commitment to these children. They may not be large in number, but those 2,000 children are every bit as much victims of those circumstances faced by our soldiers in Vietnam as the soldiers were themselves. We placed their parents, men and women, in harm's way in service to their country. We asked them to risk their lives and their health so that others could remain free. We did not, however, ask them to give their children's lives and health. We told them that we would take care of them and their families when they return, whether they were injured or not. Some of those injuries were immediately apparent, but others have revealed themselves over time. We bear the responsibility for the consequences of our actions and our policies, for the injuries suffered by those veterans, even those unforeseen, and even those in their children. This amendment does it as best we can under these circumstances. I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The basis of the number is simply the number we have been able to calculate of those children of agent orange veterans who were exposed to agent orange and who are now victims of spina bifida. So you have a very limited population. That population is first limited by the number of Vietnam veterans in Vietnam exposed to agent orange and, second, to those children of veterans who fall into that category.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle who deserve our gratitude for the effort put forth in the last couple of days to bring us to this point. I will not name them now. I will name them later. Let me simply read the resolving clause: The Senate commends the military actions taken by and the performance of the United States Armed Forces, under the direction of the Commander in Chief, for carrying out this military mission in a highly professional, efficient and effective manner.