Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell. I think it is tremendous that you have arranged this bit of time to share with the American people so we each get to step forward and tell the theory of the moving of the goalpost. To me it is the moving of the stadium. I think they moved the end zones, the stadium, and as far as I know, the campus. We will review this for a minute. I have been doing this stuff for 31 years. It is called legislating. You do it with Democrats if you are a Republican, and hopefully if you are a Democrat, you do it with Republicans. It cannot work any other way. Over the years of my time here I have served as chairman or ranking member with some very unique partisan people. Senator Al Cranston with the Veterans' Affairs; Gary Hart, nuclear; Ted Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, with Immigration and Judiciary; Joe Lieberman, Bob Graham, nuclear; Jay Rockefeller. These are the things that I have done. It has always been done with civility. It has always been done openly and honestly. I can't function in an atmosphere where people lie. That is what is happening here, and I am appalled by it. Let me tell you, it isn't about Ted Kennedy, who is one of my most delightful friends, and I have the highest respect for him. Let me tell you what happened yesterday. Get it down. The administration, the White House--remember, they told us if we would take the Gallegly amendment off the immigration reform bill, it wasn't, ``Well, I might,'' but it was, ``I will probably sign it.'' It was said that way. We didn't have any reason to believe they would not sign it at the White House. Last night, in good faith, myself, Senator Kennedy, Howard Berman, a Democrat from California who I delight in and enjoy very much, Congressman Lamar Smith, who is just one of the most splendid young men I know, who does a tremendous job with the chairmanship of immigration, the four of us sat down to see if we could give a little on title V because the latest request from the White House was, ``If you get rid of title V, we will complete all the work on the CR and sign it by tonight at midnight.'' The only thing wrong with that is nobody had ever agreed to give up title V--not Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the committee, not Senator Kyl, a member of the subcommittee, not Senator Feinstein, who has been an absolute stalwart in working with me; she deserves extraordinary credit for doing strong, strong legislative work in an atmosphere of high emotion from her State. She and Senator Boxer are more affected than anybody else in this place. They have stepped up to the plate, and it is a great honor to work with them. So we are going to get down to title V. I said we are going to go to cloture next Monday on that bill, and we have about 70 votes in our pocket, which will get you cloture in any ballpark here; you need 60 votes. So most of the Republicans would vote for cloture, and thanks to the work of Senator Feinstein and others on that side of the aisle, we would get cloture because there are 15 to 20 Democrats who will get cloture for us and help with that. So here we are. On August 2, the President wrote a letter to the Speaker to express concern about a single provision of the immigration bill, which was authorizing the States to deny a free public education to illegal aliens. The President threatened to veto the conference report if that provision or anything like it was included. No other provision was opposed in that way. After several weeks of hard, considerable debate and efforts to develop an acceptable compromise--admittedly, it was done, I think, in too much of a partisan way, but it was done and everybody knew what happened; everybody has seen the conference report--we agreed to delete the provision that was very popular in the House and had considerable support in the Senate. Yet, within the last day or so, the White House and Democrat allies have moved the goal posts. They have been attempting to obtain even further changes. All the time there is something new. You have had it reported here. I have never seen anything like it in 31 years of legislating. It would be bad enough if this were done by another veto threat, and early in the session. But this time the President is attempting to blackmail this Congress into accepting the changes he wants in the immigration bill, as well as changes in several other bills. Get this one: You could tell by the tenor of the discussion when the White House person entered the room last night that what they were really trying to do was get the stuff they could not get in the welfare bill and get it out of the immigration bill and correct the deficiencies in the welfare bill. I am not having any part of that. The President signed the welfare bill. I commended him on that. I thought that was great. He got flack and he wants to change some of it. But he isn't going to do it on this watch and, surely, he is not going to do it with an immigration bill. I can assure you of that. Then we have this threat to refuse to sign the CR. We have the threat to close the Government. Let me tell you, that won't work this trip because we are going to stick around to see that the Government does not shut down, because we are going to shovel this back and say there is nothing in there that would shut the Government down. The Democrats and the Republicans in the House and the Senate, trying their best, did what they could. If they fail, then the Republicans, which is the duty of leadership, produce a bill. If the President wants to veto it, do so. So here we are. You can see the scenario--oh, it is so vivid. Tuesday, we will have to think about closing the Government. Guess who will take the flack for that? Those bone-headed Republicans that let it happen the last time. That is not going to happen this trip because there is nothing in there to veto. It is called doing the business of the United States. It is done by people like Mark Hatfield and Senator Robert Byrd, and by people like Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, and it is done by people like Senator Feinstein and Senator Simpson; it is done that way over here. Maybe the White House does not understand that, but I understand it. So now what are the changes that we want here? Oh, well, title V, get rid of title V. Why would you want to get rid of title V? I will tell you what is in it. Without the requirements that sponsors earn at least 140 percent to 200 percent of the poverty line, welfare recipients will be in a position to sponsor immigrant relatives, even though they will be unable to provide the support for that relative that they have promised. These immigrant relatives will then be able to qualify for welfare programs costing the United States billions of dollars. That is in title V. Without the amendments making a ``public charge'' deportation effective, immigrants who go on welfare soon after their entry will be able to continue to receive it indefinitely, without fear of deportation. That is in title V. Without ``deeming''--in other words, considering that the petitioner and his or her income is that of the immigrant--for immigrants now in the country, many immigrants will continue to receive welfare, even though their middle-class or wealthy relatives who sponsored them are perfectly able to provide needed support. That is in title V. Without the new welfare verification requirements, illegal aliens, who claim to be U.S. citizens and just stand there and say they are, will continue to receive assistance, such as AFDC, Medicaid, and public housing. That is in title V. Without the provision authorizing full reimbursement to States-- listen to this one--now being forced by Federal mandate to provide emergency medical services to illegal aliens, the heavy burden of that mandate will continue to grow. That is in title V. Without the provisions expediting removal of illegal aliens from public housing--which is the work of Senator Reid and what he has been talking about for years--illegals will continue to occupy public housing, displacing U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens. That is in title V. Without the prohibition on States treating illegal aliens more favorably than U.S. citizens, States will be able to make illegals eligible for reduced in-State tuition at taxpayer-funded State colleges. That is in title V, together with all the stuff to clean up their use of unemployment compensation, their use of the Social Security system, and much, much more. That is what is in title V. There we are. I thank Senator Feinstein for being most courageous in the face of the onslaught that I am sure she is going to get. I want to commend Senator Kennedy, who worked with me until 2 in the morning to do a package, which must have drawn such a great big chuckle this morning when it got down to the White House. I have been doing this a long time, and I have always done it with absolute honesty. I have done it with orneriness, with passion, and I have done it with glee, with grief, but I didn't lie. This is appalling, absolutely appalling. If the trick is simply to shut down the Government, well, that is nothing. I never spent a nickel's worth of time figuring out how to do a bill that would go to the President so he would veto it so he would lose California. That has never been in my scenario--never would be; don't care about that. I care about doing something about illegal immigration. We couldn't do anything about legal immigration. That is for another date. Ladies and gentleman, this is a strong, potent, powerful bill. And, if all goes well, it will be voted on; Monday at 2 o'clock on a cloture vote. And cloture will carry. The debate will be cut off, and after the hours of postcloture and debate are over, we will do that on through the night, we will vote. We will do an immigration bill, and place it on the President's desk. I hope and pray that he will sign it. But it isn't crafted to blow up in his face, and it was not crafted by people who come to Congress, as they have been doing in these last days who stand in front of you and do something different than they said they would do before. And I am sick of it. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to request Senate approval of S. 1791. This legislation, Mr. President, would grant to recipients of compensation, and dependency and indemnity compensation [DIC] benefits, from the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] a cost of living adjustment [COLA] increase to take effect at the beginning of next year. This legislation is appropriate and warranted--even as we continue to work diligently to achieve deficit reduction. We can balance the budget, and simultaneously treat our veterans, and their survivors, with fairness and compassion. This bill is simple and straightforward. It would grant to recipients of certain VA benefits--most notably, veterans with service-connected disabilities who receive VA compensation, and the surviving spouses and children of veterans who have died as a result of service-connected injuries or illnesses, who receive dependency and indemnity compensation or DIC--the same percentage COLA that Social Security recipients will receive in 1997. So, for example, if Social Security recipients receive a 2.8-percent adjustment at the beginning of next year--the percentage of increase that the Congressional Budget Office now estimates will be forthcoming--then so too would the beneficiaries of VA compensation and DIC. Last year, the committee's COLA bill put into effect certain modifications, as approved by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on how COLA's are computed. For example, our 1996 COLA contained a ``round down'' feature--that is, a provision that required that monthly whole number benefit amounts be ``rounded down'' in all cases when they are recomputed. Under normal practice--and under this bill--benefit checks, which are paid in whole dollar amounts, are ``rounded up'' when the benefit recomputation yields a fractional dollar amount of $0.50 or more and rounded down when the computation yields a fractional dollar amount of $0.49 or less. It may happen, Mr. President, that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will again elect to direct that VA ``round down'' as part of a package of measures approved to reach budget reconciliation targets. That action, however, will be taken--if it needs to be taken--as part of a coordinated package of deficit reduction measures. For now, we request Senate approval of a ``clean'' COLA bill to assure enactment with no controversy before our adjournment. I do take this opportunity to mention ever so briefly my continued strong commitment to moving toward a balanced budget. We can do it. And I hope we will attempt to make real progress to do it during the time still remaining in the 104th Congress. The ``round down'' provision also serves as an instructive example of the sorts of things that can be done--if we have the vision to act now--to achieve that end without causing any needy or deserving person any real pain. To round down a VA beneficiary's monthly check might cause some beneficiaries to lose one dollar per month of the COLA increase that will be forthcoming. Those COLA increases will range up to $50 per month and more. One dollar lost of the $50 increase is not a life-threatening hardship, I submit, to any person. Yet such a measure would result in savings of $500 million over a 6 year period. Such savings opportunities can be--and must always be--considered. To fail to do so will require much more drastic measures later. Please notice, Mr. President, I am talking about a measure that reduces ever so slightly a significant increase in benefits that would still be received by a VA beneficiary. I am not talking about cuts in veterans benefits. Despite what some so-called veterans advocates continue to say, I have never--ever--talked of any real cuts. Nor does anyone talk of actual cuts in veterans benefits as a route to a balanced budget--except, that is, one man: the President of the United States. President Clinton has proposed that VA health care spending be actually and truly cut from $16.9 billion to $13.0 billion in the year 2000. And yet he seems to have gotten a free pass on that one from the so-called veterans advocates. Why that is, I have not been able to figure out. But I have a hunch that will be a topic of a different speech. For now, I just say again to my colleagues as I start to approach the final days of my final Congress: We must face up to the deficit and the national debt. And I say to the young people of this great land: Wake up. See what is happening. You must get involved--before your elders carelessly spend your legacy. If you do not force elected officials to act, in not too many years from now there will be nothing left in the Federal budget for you to spend on yourselves after Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement, service on the debt and, yes, veterans benefits, are paid. Nothing left. That will be it. And that will be a tragedy. We can avoid it--but the Congress cannot wait. It must act now. I thank the Chair for the time to address this subject. And I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to speak on this most contentious and divisive issue. I was one of the 44 Members of this body who voted ``no'' when the Senate approved the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act back on December 7. As a longtime supporter of the ``right to choose,'' I do not believe either the Congress or the Federal Government should interfere with the deeply personal and private decisions that women sometimes face regarding unintended or crisis pregnancies. In fact, I have always questioned why men in the legislative bodies even vote on these terribly anguishing and intimate issues. I am deeply troubled that this legislation does not provide an exception from the proposed ban in situations where the health of a woman is ``at risk.'' It is perplexing to me that this Senate rejected an amendment last December that would have granted an exception when a woman's health is endangered. If it was really true--as so many of the anti-choice activists claim--that this procedure is ``hardly ever used'' for health-related reasons, I believe my colleagues would have been much more receptive to such an exception. The reality is that women's health is at the very core of this issue. I was present when the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on this legislation last November. I entered that hearing room with an open mind, and I listened carefully to witnesses who spoke both for and against the bill. What I found most compelling was the testimony of two women who had been faced with the heart-wrenching decision to have late-term abortions because their own health and well-being was imperiled by severely deformed fetuses that had no possible chance of surviving. In both cases, their doctors used the procedures that would be banned by this legislation. These women were devastated when they learned that the fetuses they carried had no ability to live outside the womb. They agonized and even grieved over their decisions. One of them--who spoke poignantly about her ``deeply held Christian beliefs''--went on to give birth to a healthy baby boy just 14 months later. Anyone who ever listened to her testimony would know that she was not someone who simply decided that having a baby would be inconvenient or ``too much trouble.'' Unfortunately, the bill before us would limit the options a woman has for dealing with a crisis pregnancy. It is a classic example of heavyhanded government intrusiveness. This legislation sharply collides with the rhetoric of those who continually profess a fierce commitment to making the government less meddlesome and less intrusive. It is the ultimate irony, in my mind, that this legislation is being advanced by a Congress that has distinguished itself again and again by rejecting the misguided notion that ``Government Knows Best.'' I am very proud to be a Member of the 104th Congress. Collectively, we have taken some gutsy and courageous stands on a wide range of issues. Sadly, on the singular issue of abortion, many of my good friends in both the Senate and the House seem to be taking the attitude that Government does know best and that individual Americans are somehow incapable of thinking and deciding for themselves. I do not share this attitude in any way. I am well aware that the antiabortion ``groups'' are fully energized on this issue. They have done a remarkable job of mobilizing their members to write letters and place phone calls in support of the bill. The flow of postcards and form letters is truly dizzying. Yet, I am not convinced that the other 99 percent of the public I do not hear from would embrace this bill and its ``Government Knows Best'' mentality. Perhaps that is because I still have vivid memories of what occurred just 2 years ago when Wyoming voters were given the opportunity to vote on an anti-choice Ballot Initiative in the 1994 election. On that particular Ballot Initiative, which would have criminalized most abortions, over 60 percent of Wyoming voters said ``no'' to this misguided proposal. The final vote tally was 78,978 voting ``yes'' and 118,760 voting ``no.'' Let me emphasize that this was not a ``poll'' or a ``focus group'' or the sentiment of some narrowly targeted group of respondents. We all know that polls can be cleverly structured to achieve the desired result--and there is certainly no shortage of polls with respect to this issue. What I am talking about, however, was a statewide vote. Voters from all of Wyoming's 23 counties participated. Every single registered voter in Wyoming had the opportunity to cast a vote on this issue. No one was excluded. In this same election in 1994, these same Wyoming voters elected conservative Republicans in every single statewide race and they elected an overwhelming majority of Republicans to the Wyoming State Legislature. So, at the same time Wyoming voters were voting decisively against a Ballot Initiative that would have restricted their individual freedoms, they were further expressing their distaste for ``Big Government'' by voting in large numbers for candidates--at the local, State and Federal levels--who reject the ``Government Knows Best'' philosophy. I share this information with my colleagues not because I believe our actions should be driven solely by public sentiment; I just think we ought to pay clear attention to all of our constituents--and not just to a narrow group of those who seem ever determined to impose their own idea of ``moral purity'' on their fellow human beings. I have found that it is often true in life that those who demand perfection of others--or who try to control other people's lives--sometimes do so because of their own imperfections or because they are somehow often incapable of controlling their own lives. I do not direct this statement at any of my fine and able colleagues. I simply offer it as an observation. Finally, I am reminded that last year I said this was a divisive bill that would only increase and elevate tensions between those who hold differing views on abortion. Those words ring true today because, regrettably, that is exactly what this legislation has accomplished. The dialog on abortion--on both sides--outside of this Chamber is increasingly ugly and uncivil. This legislation does nothing to reverse that. I urge my colleagues to reject it. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. A note about Jan Paulk. She is a wonderful woman and has been such a help to us in our Senate activities as we travel and do our official duties, visiting with Prime Ministers, Presidents, and State funerals and all the rest. Jan Paulk, a very engaging woman, was hospitable, patient beyond words, and a fine companion on journeys, some with great sadness, some pomp and circumstance, and there was Jan, always assisting everyone, including spouses, and being genial, kind, and courteous in every way. I have never seen her when she was out of sorts, and she certainly could have been on many occasions. My wife and I wish her well. Indeed, she is a very wonderful woman. There is much more for her to do, and she will do it. I am very pleased for her about her new task. She will enjoy all and she will do it exceedingly well. We wish her Godspeed. I will now yield the floor and signify that the Senator from Tennessee, my friend, Senator Dr. Bill Frist, will speak on a very emotional issue, partial-birth abortion. At the conclusion of his remarks we will go to the closing of the Senate session.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I, too, will join in the great remarks about my friend Paul Simon and thank the Senator, soon-to-be senior Senator from Illinois. My time as senior Senator has been so fleeting that I am hardly able to recall it because I served as the junior Senator to Malcolm Wallop, my friend from Wyoming. So enjoy the term indeed, I say to my colleague from Illinois. Do it well. And to my friend, Senator Pryor, who came here with me--and he and his wife Barbara have become very dear and special friends of ours--he is a most genial, generous, kind man, and a friend to his friends. If they rallied him in time of need, it would only be because in his life and her life they have done just exactly that to all around them. With regard to Paul Simon, you have to understand that I met Paul when we were State legislators together in 1971. There was a conference on outstanding State legislators, and here were Paul Simon and myself, he of the Illinois Legislature, me of the Wyoming Legislature, honored. They had two from each State. I was one; Paul was one. The first day I met him, I had a bow tie on because Paul and I had to at least know how to tie our own bow ties. There are people in here today that have no concept of how to tie a bow tie. In fact, some of them have difficulty with even a mechanical tie is my experience seeing it today. But we laughed about that over the years. But we are not in any way doing anything but paying tribute to this man who, with all the accolades we have heard, they are all true-- honest, direct, thoughtful, steady. I know. I served with him. He served on my subcommittee on immigration, refugee policy, always attentive, always asking, always, always having a query and inquiring and saying, ``Well, why is this? What is the purpose of this?'' And so, indeed, he and Jeanne, we wish them Godspeed. We will see more of them as we go on to snatch more of our own lives for ourselves rather than in this place and leave those tasks to our brothers and sisters and knowing what is required of them and both of us ready to move on to other things. I could not have had a finer colleague, whether it was working on the issues of fraudulent marriage--Paul handled that while I was chairman-- or the balanced budget. We all know the things he does. We all know who he is. That is why we did this tribute today. No one else will have a tribute like that in the U.S. Senate--how we would honor one of our colleagues in any way as we did today and see the look on his face and the delight and that smile that is so very special. He knew that and we knew that. I thought how appropriate to honor him in that way. None of us will ever receive such a wonderful accolade, with whimsy, humor, and good spirit. I commend all those who brought that to pass.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator for his courtesy and his extremely hard work on this legislation. Terrorism and Aviation Security

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I should like to address a critical issue that is very familiar to Members of this body who have been involved with the Federal Aviation Administration--it is the ``age 60 rule.'' In 1959, the FAA implemented a regulation to prohibit pilots, having reached the age of 60, from flying jets regulated by part 121 of the FAA regulations--that is, passenger-carrying jets with more than 30 seats. This year, the FAA has extended that ban to include commuter jets with more than 10 seats. I do not want to hold up this very important bill in order to carry out a lengthy debate on whether or not the ban is justifiable. I am not here to overturn that rule. Indeed, few of us here would be in any way qualified to do such a thing. Instead, I believe the FAA must certainly be willing to treat pilots over the age of 60 in a manner that is fair and consistent with its treatment of other pilots. The FAA, acting in the interest of public safety has concluded that pilots--however experienced they may be--over the age of 60 should not be allowed to fly. I would submit, however, that this conclusion has not been supported through any independent study. It can not be accurately studied because no U.S. pilot over the age of 60 has been allowed to fly ``part 121'' aircraft at any time during the last 36 years. In light of this situation, the judiciary--in a number of cases, but notably in the October 31, 1990 Baker versus FAA (7th Circuit Court of Appeals)--has upheld the FAA's position for the reason, as they stated, that the issue of age discrimination is clearly subordinate to that of passenger safety. The court did point out, however, that one of the FAA's own studies on flight time for class III pilots indicated that pilots between 60 and 70 with more than 1,000 hours of total flight time and more than 50 hours of recent flight time had the lowest accident rates of any age group of pilots. In conclusion, the court admitted that these pilots face a catch 22 in that they are unable to obtain exemptions from the age 60 rule until they can show they can fly large passenger aircraft safely, yet they cannot show such ability until they obtain an exemption. In the end, the court affirmed the FAA's order, saying, ``it is supported by substantial, albeit certainly not compelling evidence.'' In the FAA's ``part 121'' regulations, the FAA is empowered to grant exemptions to this rule if it ``finds that such action would be in the public interest,'' however, no exemptions have ever been granted regardless of physical condition or safety record. This is in spite of the fact that the FAA currently issues special certificates to pilots under the age of 60 with histories of alcohol abuse or even heart conditions. The FAA's explanation is that it has ``present tests that can predict the expected course of a known medical deficiency'' such as heart disease or alcoholism ``with sufficient accuracy to allow valid, individualized judgments'' but that ``the same accuracy is not possible when assessing the decrements associated with the aging process.'' I do not believe this is a consistent policy or a fair treatment of many pilots with impeccable records, but who also have more than 60 years of life behind them. In this bill, which will do so much to advance the issue of airline safety, I think it is a tragedy that there has been no mention of the fact that hundreds of this country's potentially safest and most experienced pilots have been grounded because of a rule with little or no empirical basis. I strongly believe that the FAA should outline the criteria by which it would consider exempting certain pilots from the ``age 60 rule,'' so that even a very small number of exceptionally fit pilots could be studied in order to form the basis for a future review of this outdated rule. I know this issue was briefly touched upon in Commerce Committee hearings, but it was not explored in enough depth, so I would like to ask my friend from Arizona, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, whether he would consider calling hearings on this important issue to many airline pilots, the ``age 60 rule.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my friend from Alaska, Mr. President. Just let me pay my own personal tribute for a moment to Howard Greene. When I came here to the Senate with Senator Warner, our first meeting, our first official conduct, our first official briefing, was with one Bill Hildenbrand and with Howard Greene, very special people, both of them. They worked so well together. These two smoothed my path in this place, and certainly Howard Greene was, in my role as assistant leader of the Senate, always there. He was there. He gave me full measure of himself, as so many have here who do the work of the Senate. Those who are here today who knew Howard, worked with him closely, he was always there for me in my role as assistant leader. As I say, he gave me full measure--loyal, helpful, persistent, a source of good counsel--and a strong, yes, yes, strong, taskmaster. He was good at organizing things, the official visits, the trips, the Presidential funerals, the official trips we had to do, and he was always well organized. He will be remembered for his love and loyalty to the Senate as an institution, for he loved this place from his youth and from his early beginnings. He was my strong right arm in my work, and I owe him my deepest thanks and respect. I shall miss his good humor, ribald as it was. I wish him well. There is much more for him to do in life. I wish him well. I wish him peace of mind. I wish him good health. He has many friends. He can certainly always know that this is one. Ann and I wish him the very best. God bless him in his new endeavors of life. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have certainly enjoyed over the years the spirited debates in which I have engaged with my good friend from the State of Arkansas. He is a most passionate and articulate representative of his constituents and he is certainly a credit to them. In the debate over raising grazing fees on ranchers who use the public lands, however, I find myself pining for a new subject. We have oft been down this road before. We have heard it all; about how those rotten billionaire ranchers are ripping off the American people; about how they are overgrazing and ruining the lands; about how we should have a progressive fee system that would hit some ranchers hard and leave others alone; about the inequity of rates charged for Federal versus State lands. It is all ``old hat.'' Mr. President, I commend Senators Thomas, Craig, Domenici, Burns and all the others who have spoken out against this poor idea. I would be hard pressed to express my objections more cogently than they have done. Let me just underline a few concerns that those of us from Western States share with regard to this issue. And these concerns are many. Indeed, I dare say that I cannot see one virtue in this amendment. To begin with, let there be no doubt about it: This amendment is not an effort to inject fairness into public lands grazing. Rather, this is the effort of interests who want nothing more than to get private ranchers off of public lands. ``Cattle free in 93'' was the clarion call during the last Presidential election of those who hold this view. Fairness? What is fair about it? As my good friend and colleague from the State of Idaho has pointed out, if it is fairness this amendment is after, then all parties should be paying the same rate, rather than pitting one class against the other. Of course, those of us on this side of the aisle are not surprised by this pitch: It is just such attempts to engender class warfare that those on the other side of the aisle have excelled at for lo these many years. Fairness? What is fair about penalizing success? What is fair about discouraging small ranchers from becoming successful ranchers? The supporters of this amendment moan that the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth out of our ranchers. How much money do they think will be returned to the Treasury when many of these ranchers go out of business because they have been barred from these lands--and again let me stress: This is most assuredly their ultimate goal. Environmentalists are forever trying to sell the American people a quick Persian rug about ``enviro dollars,'' and all of the money just waiting to be generated by tourism. Good heavens. In Western States like mine the tourist season on these lands is only a few months long at best. And has it occurred to no one what tourist jobs pay? Unless you own the motel you are probably making five bucks an hour changing bed sheets. Colonial Williamsburg, just a couple hours drive south of here, is one of the healthiest tourist enterprises in the country, yet there are people with 15 years seniority there who topped out long ago at eight or nine dollars an hour. The chimera of Tourism as a substitute for natural resource use on our public lands is one of the great hoaxes perpetrated on the American people by environmentalists. I guarantee you that tourism will not return more money to the Treasury than grazing lease holders. But perhaps most offensive about the effort to rid our public lands of private ranchers is the fact that Western States are owned to an enormous degree by the Federal Government: My State of Wyoming--52 percent; Idaho--63 percent; Nevada--a whopping 87 percent. What are the people of the West to do but use these lands? Eastern States are not owned by the Federal Government to near this degree. Nor is the State of Arkansas, as my friend from Idaho has pointed out. Fairness? What is fair about charging the same to graze on BLM lands as that charged on State and private lands? BLM land users have to furnish their own improvements; fences, culverts, water tanks. They must contend with public access to their herds. They have tighter restrictions on what predators they can and cannot control and a host of other differences. Mr. President, this amendment is neither fair nor prudent. We have defeated it before and I encourage my colleagues to defeat it again. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to speak on the issue of illegal immigration. Not legal immigration; that issue is not before this body. I know how to legislate. It was very clear this body did not wish to deal with legal immigration. That will be for others who come after me, Democrats and Republicans alike, to deal with that very tough issue. But, on Wednesday of last week, the House appointed conferees to the conference on the immigration bill, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is legislation that passed both Houses of the Congress by overwhelming margins. There were only three votes against this very popular bill in the Senate. I think the vote was 97 to 3. The House version passed by a vote of 333 to 87. Our fine majority leader and the House majority leader have each stated that passing immigration reform legislation in this Congress is a priority. Senator Bob Dole, a man for whom I have the richest admiration and respect--I served as his assistant--was always a very strong supporter of responsible immigration reform issues, all such measures, and candidate Dole has always expressed his support for the present illegal immigration control bill. The conference committee will meet this week, but already we are hearing about a plan now to filibuster the conference report here in the Senate. We all received a letter, of course, from the President, explicitly threatening a veto. That is common knowledge. His reason is clear to him and clear to many others, and that is the so-called Gallegly amendment. But I would refresh and remind my colleagues why this legislation received such strong bipartisan support in both Houses. This legislation is to strengthen the border enforcement by nearly doubling the size of the Border Patrol. It will ensure that aliens who commit serious crimes are detained upon their release from prison until they can be deported, and then they will be deported under expedited procedures. It will provide prompt decisions for those who apply for asylum and ensure that those who genuinely fear persecution at home can remain here. It will create an expedited removal process, so that those who seek to enter the United States surreptitiously or with fraudulent documents can be promptly deported and not allowed to stay here for years while pursuing various frivolous appeals at all levels and in all forums, administrative and judicial. It will ensure that the sponsor and not the U.S. taxpayer will be primarily responsible for providing financial support to new immigrants in need. And it will provide for voluntary pilot programs on systems to enable employers and welfare providers more reliably to identify those who are eligible to work or to receive benefits in this country. The most controversial portion of the bill, of course, the one that gave rise to the veto threat and the filibuster plan caper, is the so- called Gallegly amendment, which authorizes the States to decide whether or not to provide a free public education to illegal persons, illegal aliens--a proposal which in its present form is presented to the conferees as including some rather extensive changes to that provision. Some say it does not matter what you do to that provision, it is not appropriate. That may assuredly be so, and yet that is called legislating and it is about discussing and amending. So it is now worded so that at least those who are opposed to any form of illegal immigration reform are not now able to say that we are ``kicking schoolchildren out into the streets.'' No one I know is interested in ``kicking children out into the streets.'' I certainly am not, and I have always had some serious problems with regard to aspects of the Gallegly amendment, but if that is what is to be in this conference report in this form, in its amended form, then it is certainly acceptable to me. The proposal contains generous ``grandfathering'' provisions for those students now in school. They will be permitted to continue their education in the elementary or secondary school in which they are now enrolled at no charge. If they wish to change school districts in the same State or advance from elementary to secondary school, they may do so upon paying tuition, or a fee equal to the actual cost that others who are citizens pay within that district for their education. Furthermore, the proposed change will ensure that unless the Congress is given an opportunity to vote on repealing this provision in 30 months, the provision will sunset--be gone. At the end of the 60 months, if a bill to repeal the measures is introduced there must be a vote within 90 days or the provision will sunset--be gone. Those changes to moderate the provision were negotiated by Senators Hatch and Specter. They represent, obviously, substantial modifications to the elements that were there originally that were apparently the most objectionable. I believe they might be sufficient to make the bill acceptable to those who truly want illegal immigration control legislation. But there are some very disappointing signals, I share with my colleagues, some very disappointing signals from the Dole campaign. I think that my fine leader, who I served as assistant for those 10 years--a most wonderfully decent man--is being ill-served on this issue. If what I read in the papers and hear through the media is true, and those who know me please believe that it is, indeed, always taken with a huge grain of salt by me as to what is in the media--indeed, that will always be so, hopefully--but I am informed he is being advised by those who advise these people who choose to submit themselves to seek the role of the Office of Presidency--that he is being advised simply to let the bill die. And the reason for that, apparently, is so, as I gather it, that the President will not have a Rose Garden ceremony with regard to illegal immigration; that apparently because the President had a Rose Garden ceremony with regard to welfare reform and with regard to health care and with regard to, I guess, anything else that he signs, that somehow this then cripples the effort of my friend, Bob Dole. Thus it is rather extraordinary to me that those on my side of the aisle often accuse this administration of cynical politics and yet I can't imagine anything more cynical than not signing an illegal immigration bill or working for its passage--something that was passed by such overwhelming margins--on the basis that it is simply going to ``help the incumbent'' turning our backs on the singular issue that is reflected in polls across the country for years, and that is to ``do something'' about illegal immigration. There is and always has been overwhelming public support for measures to reduce illegal immigration. Both candidate Dole and President Clinton have stated their support for illegal immigration control legislation. I say to my colleagues, it is in the national interest to achieve control over our borders, to achieve control over illegal immigration and the misuse of our most generous public support and welfare programs that so burden the taxpayers of this country. When we have 60 percent of the live births in a certain hospital in California attributed to illegal undocumented mothers who then give birth to a U.S. citizen; when we have people who are minorities who go to seek public support because they need it and are then told that the cupboard is bare because it has all gone to illegal, undocumented persons, that stirs people up. They don't like it, and it really shouldn't be the guiding policy of anything we do here, but it is the way it is. So I just say, apparently the scenario is this now. I gather in my wisdom: Pass the bill in the House with the Gallegly amendment, which will be adopted; send it over here, and then it will be filibustered by those who do not like the Gallegly amendment. I guess they think all of those people are Democrats. And then we will point our bony fingers at all the Democrats and say, ``They brought down illegal immigration.'' That is childish logic, because there are at least 10 to 12 Republicans in this body who do not like the Gallegly amendment in any form and who will assist in the filibuster. So if anybody thinks it is just going to be a wonderful roundelay over here of Democrats filibustering an illegal immigration bill and then we pointing the bony fickle finger of fate at those who destroyed the issue. No. So, I guess that is where we are. We will pull the bill down and try to blame it on the Democrats and go home. Clever, not, because as I say, there are at least 10 to 12 Republicans who will join in that filibuster. Go home in October and tell voters a Republican Congress did nothing about illegal immigration in an election year. Then we also heard, ``Well, if we just send it to President Clinton and he vetoes it, we will win California.'' I never went for that scenario. I think that is about as boneheaded as you can get, too. But when they are telling us that my dear friend, Bob Dole, should do nothing and nothing should happen, and that is going to help Bob Dole, I must say I have purely missed out on most of the trickery and cynicism of the campaign, because there are many on our side who will have nothing to do with the Gallegly amendment. Not me, for I am ready to do the modified version. So what the public will see is a distorted figure of my friend, Bob Dole. We have had enough of those. Ten years as his assistant, I know him well. He will win the Presidency of the United States if the people of the United States come to know him as well as I do and as well as we do here, as well as my friend from Montana knows him, and he surely does, as well as the occupant of the chair. Each and every week for the past 2 years, Bob Dole has said to me, ``When will we have an immigration bill, Al?'' And now we have one. Now we have people pulling at Bob Dole, mewling, puling, mumbling issuing from staff and others. He is being ill-served if he is led to believe that it is not a priority issue. And if California is in the balance, as we say in politics, by doing nothing, someone will have cut the tightrope wire for one great and decent man, my friend Bob Dole. So perhaps we can move on now with the national interest. There is no one who expresses it more in its most honest form than that most wonderfully decent and capable man, Bob Dole. We shall see how it plays out. I thank the Chair. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that was a noble comment from my friend from Montana. Absolutely the generosity matches only his magnanimous smile, and I love it. I will just continue now for an hour and 40--no, excuse me. That just slipped. It slipped away for a moment. That is the trouble with me, Mr. President. I take my work seriously but not myself. That can get you in a lot of difficulty in life, but that is still the best way to fly.

Mr. SIMPSON. With that, Mr. President, and a thank you to my friend from Montana, Senator Burns, because I will take a few minutes, and then perhaps 5 minutes of the time under our administration will go to him. I will not take 15; I may take 7--maybe.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, what is the time situation and the procedure situation?

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in reflecting on my own lifetime of public service, I can think of no one whose sincere dedication to veterans, combined with the ability to transform that dedication into a concrete reality, exceeds that of my old and dear friend G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery. We all know why the Montgomery GI bill carries Sonny Montgomery's name. It's not just an honor, it is a clear depiction of reality. What some Members of this body may not realize is that Sonny Montgomery's interests and everlasting impact extend far beyond the veterans' education benefit that carries his name. There is no path down which a veteran may travel that hasn't been scouted first and smoothed and improved by the Congressman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery. There is no benefit provided to our veterans by a grateful nation that does not bear the imprint of the longtime chairman, and now ranking minority member, of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Sonny Montgomery. The rules of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs limit proposals to name VA facilities to the names of individuals who are deceased. As we consider the measure before us today, some may wonder what has occurred to amend that standard. If such a person were to exist, I could assume that they do not know the stirring 30-year record of service and legislation written by Sonny Montgomery. If such a question is raised, I will only say to the inquirer that exceptional service calls for exceptional action and that such an action also calls for an exception to the rule. This is such a time. A rule that would prohibit application of the name G.V. Sonny Montgomery to the VA Medical Center in Jackson, MS, is a rule begging to be temporarily laid aside--in sheer gratitude from us all. In fact, Sonny Montgomery is the dominant presence in the world of veterans' affairs and the genial and generous shadow he casts extends far beyond the boundaries of the State of Mississippi. An honor limited only to his native State of Mississippi is an honor quite inadequate to describe his full legacy. In reflecting on the full and honest career and commitment of the senior Congressman from Mississippi, I conclude that if honors truly reflected accomplishment, we would likely have to name the whole shooting match of the Department of Veterans Affairs after Sonny Montgomery. When Sonny Montgomery leaves us in the Congress and returns to his beloved home as a private citizen he will leave behind an unmatched legacy of unselfish commitment and service. He will leave behind shoes that it would take a giant to fill. The only way that veterans may not benefit in the future from the career of Sonny Montgomery will be if the height of the bar he set is up there so high that those who follow him may be discouraged by the fact that it will be so difficult to equal, much less exceed, his remarkable record. Sonny Montgomery will serve as an example to generations of all legislators to come. I am so very proud to join in supporting legislation to recognize an example, and a career, and a wonderful, never tiring, ever focused, lovely, kind, incomparable man, by ensuring that the VA Medical Center in Jackson, MS, will forever carry the name that his actions have made synonymous with love of veterans: G.V. Sonny Montgomery. I love him. He has saved my skin a time or two. He is my true friend. God bless him. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the Domenici-Wellstone amendment, which provides for just a small measure of mental health ``parity.'' I am also a cosponsor of the freestanding bill, S. 2031, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, which was introduced on August 2. I am--and will remain--deeply committed to this cause. I sincerely believe that the manner in which we address this singular issue will speak volumes about the true nature of the 104th Congress. I want to emphasize as clearly as I can that this amendment does not ask for anything grand or far reaching. It would merely require health plans to provide parity with respect to lifetime caps and annual payment limits. In other words, if an existing health plan has a lifetime cap or an annual limit on what it will spend for medical or surgical services, that plan must either include services for mental illness in that total or have a separate ceiling for mental illnesses that is no more restrictive than the ceiling for medical and surgical services. This very limited proposal would apply only in these two areas--for lifetime caps and for annual payment limits. It would not require ``parity'' for copayments or deductibles or any other aspects of health coverage. Considering that the Senate has previously voted--on April 18, by a margin of 68 to 30--for an amendment that would have required a much more sweeping version of mental health ``parity,'' it surely seems to me that the pending amendment--which is so very limited in scope-- should pass by an even larger vote. I would look forward to that. But those of us who have been involved in this cause have learned not to take a thing for granted. Even if we are to win this vote, we know that we will confront myriad further roadblocks as this measure works its way though the legislative process in the remaining weeks of this session. I still have a bit of a hollow feeling about our failure to include this reasonable compromise in the health insurance reform bill. In a bill that was so packed full of ``mandates''--which is exactly what the health insurance bill consisted of--somehow this mental health provision was singled out as some terrible mandate that would ``cost too much.'' As much as I don't want to believe this, my gut instincts tell me that this outcome most surely had something to do with discrimination against the mentally ill. This Congress should not make this mistake a second time. I urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The statute talked about statistical association, increased risk and casual relationship. So that is where we are. The IOM, the Institute of Medicine, said there is ``limited suggestive evidence'' of an association between exposure of a father and spina bifida. That is largely based on the Air Force Ranch Hand study. The study found that three Ranch Hand children were born with spina bifida. Do not stop there. The same study also found that the total rate for birth defects in Ranch Handers is comparable to that of the control group. How is that possible? Well, it is quite logical, because when statisticians break aggregate or average data down into its component parts, individual values start to spread out away from the norm. So it is with the Ranch Hand children. For example, while the Ranch Hand spina bifida value is high, the Ranch Hand cleft palate value is low--zero in fact. The low value for cleft palate does not mean that agent orange prevents cleft palate any more than the high value for spina bifida means that agent orange causes that birth defect or even there is an association between the two. I remember an old phrase that said, ``If you torture data long enough with statistics, they will eventually confess.'' And that is what has happened here. If you torture data long enough with statistics, eventually it will confess. One other thing with a thought experiment. I think I will shorten my remarks in the interest of moving on through this day. But we could go on and make all sorts of comparisons about the health of the House Members and the Senate Members and whether they have this or have that. We could all find that they have more kidney disease, more heart disease in one body or another, and you could play with that stuff all day and all night. You are going to find those differences. But we are trying to use sound medical and scientific evidence because that is what the law says. There is a name for this scientific sin of combing raw data until you find data skewed in the direction you want to go and then formulating a hypothesis on that finding. That is called ``data mining.'' And using the Ranch Hand study as the basis for forming a conclusion, rather than using the findings as the basis for forming a hypothesis for testing, is to commit the sin of data mining. I think you want to remember that the principal investigator for this study, Dr. Joel Michalek, testified before a House committee that his findings did not support the conclusion that there is a linkage between spina bifida and agent orange. That is it. That is the only evidence we have. We are ignoring that? The academic reviewers for the journal Epidemiology drew no attention to, or conclusions from, the birth defect findings when they published the Ranch Hand study. The IOM said this, ``any positive conclusion is vulnerable to chance, bias and confounding.'' And so all I can do is present my colleagues with the facts. Others can come to present the emotion. And they will be here. And I will continue to try to present the facts. There is not one of us here--and certainly not this Senator--that does not care about people who have spina bifida or care about Admiral Zumwalt's son, a tragic thing. And that dear and remarkable American feels that agent orange is the destruction of that fine young man. And that may well be. No one--no one--cares less for those people. I hope we can keep that out of debate. When we come to the debate, bring facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. There have been thousands of studies of veterans, farmers, agriculture workers, and industrial workers who either were or are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides or their component chemicals, and all of those studies--every single one of them --provide little support for the theory that Agent Orange causes spina bifida. Dioxin does cause chloracne, and that is why we have made it a presumptive disease. It may cause other things, and that is why we made other diseases presumptive diseases. But the use of the Ranch Hand study to support making birth defects presumptive, as is being done today, is to use the study for a purpose disavowed by its principal investigator. That has to be at least heavy in your consideration. With that, I see my colleagues have fled or have absented themselves from the Chamber, so I probably should fill the void, but I think the word should go out we are certainly ready to proceed with the debate or yield back time. I am ready to do that, but I do not wish to cut off anyone in the debate, either the minority or the majority side. So rather than have a quorum call, I shall proceed. However, let the word go out through the network that if anyone wishes to debate this issue further they should present themselves. If not, we can conclude the debate and go to the procedural motion that will be made by the Senator from Missouri. Again, I want to reiterate that we really do some good things for people who have this disease. I have cited that. But I think one of the most unique is the private sector, the remarkable group known as the Shriners, those fellows you see in the parade with the fez--older now, but just as caring and loving of their fellow man and woman, and especially children. They provide care for any child in this Nation with spina bifida, and especially if you cannot afford to pay. In fact, that is really the requirement. They will treat that child only if the parents can afford to pay nothing. There is never any reimbursement. Those remarkable people support those hospitals, and you do, too. I want that clearly said. We are always talking about, what can the private sector do? How can they begin to take the burden off Medicare and Medicaid? This is one way. We put a redundant program together just so we can not say that the VA has not done anything for these victims. Even though others are serving them, we still want the VA to do it. That is how we get to a $6 trillion debt within the next few years--a $5.2 trillion debt--even if we balance the budget. Under all these horrible proposals described by some of my brethren, the budget will be balanced in the year 2002, but the debt will be $6.2 trillion. Half the American people believe that we all got together and balanced the budget, and that may be so. That would mean the deficit will be gone; whether it is $160 billion or $200 billion, just pick your figure. But, Members, the debt of the United States will have marched on like ``Old Man River.'' That is why everybody is asleep. The debt, after balancing the budget in the year 2002, the debt will then have gone to 6.2 trillion bucks. Why is that? Is that the ghost of Ronald Reagan doing that? Is that Clinton doing that? No. Right here. This is where we do it--Democrats and Republicans do it. We do it to get reelected. You just saddle this new group of human beings with a burden that they can never, never tolerate and do it for the best reasons--the children, the veterans, the seniors. No affluence testing, no measurement of what you put in and what you get out, no measurement of your net worth. That game is going to end--not in my time, but it will end--because there is no way it can be sustained. It is as if we are talking about messing with the deck chairs on the Titanic, which has been partially lifted and then returned to the depth, which is about where we are with the debt. There is no way to arrange these deck chairs unless you do something with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal retirement and the national debt interest, period. So maybe we can hear less about those who care less--if I hear that again, I will be wanting to toddle right over here from my office--or that somehow one party cares more than another about human beings. That is pure balderdash. It is ugly. It is crude. It does not fit, because I do not know anybody in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party that is interested in doing a number on anyone of the lesser of society. We are interested in trying to do something to see that there is something left for those people in 10 or 20 years. If that is cruel, I am proud to join that pack, because I think that is the greatest abrogation of responsibility for our generation, to just leave a tattered pile of IOU's for a bunch of young people who apparently are not paying attention or who know that there will not be anything in the till for them anyway. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Minnesota. I have worked with him on various issues having to do with Parkinson's disease, mental health, and veterans' issues. He is a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have come to very much appreciate the things he has debated, and to have a better understanding of him throughout. I think respect for each other is what the Senate is about. We can have serious partisan differences. Senator Rockefeller and I have more serious partisan differences than most two people on the floor. But that need not interfere with our ability to legislate. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, again I want to commend Senator Bond for his work. He has done yeoman work on this issue. Senator Daschle, as I say, and I have been batting this one around longer than you would believe because Senator Daschle believes deeply that, whether we are going to find anything or not, we must keep looking for something with regard to a linkage of dioxin and disease. I wish it were that easy. It is not. In the beginning of my remarks I stated that if there was something there before to establish such a link, there would have been a lot of plaintiffs who would have never settled the case when they were having a great old time suing everybody that ever introduced herbicides containing dioxin. You may be assured of that. Attorneys in the class action would have never turned around and gone backward if they had known there was any possible way to prove this tie because it would be jackpot day for trial attorneys on that one, and the jackpot day did not come. Such a link has not been proven, and the only group that has any credibility in this about exposure is the Ranch Hand study. So no wonder the proponents of the amendment say ignore the Ranch Hand study when it does not support their cause. Those were the people who bathed in it, put it in the barrels, unloaded it, kicked it out of the aircraft, and there is no more serious difficulty with that cohort of people than with people who were nonveterans and not in Vietnam. I do not know how many times we have to say that. There have been no increase in birth defects in that group. Again, the Ranch Hand study is the people most exposed. But there is one thing, or two or three things that I would like to say in response to my friend from West Virginia. The Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from South Dakota keep saying to us in a litany, a mantra, that the NAS study shows that 50 percent of the studies show an association and 50 percent of them do not show an association. That is not so, my colleagues. All of the studies examined for the first report of the Institute of Medicine in 1993 were deemed not to have sufficient evidence to show an association with birth defects. All of them for 1993. After 1993, one new study was put forward by the NAS--the Ranch Hand study. Proponents have grasped the NAS classification of this study as having limited/suggestive value as a proof of association. But that study, according to its own principal investigator, who testified at a hearing in the House, shows no association whatsoever. The other disturbing thing to me is that we continue to hear the use of ``emotion, fear, guilt,'' suggesting that somehow we don't want to do something for these children. This is a horrible disease. To me it is more than talk. I have been involved in fundraising for spina bifida. I have been out there raising money for this disease in tributes to others where I participated for fundraising activities long before this issue ever came before this body. I do not need anyone to check my credentials on how I care about these people. It is a horrible disease. It is not even worth talking about in trying to say that somehow those who are opposed to this amendment are less caring or are poised to do ugly things to the most fragile in our society. I am disgusted by that kind of argument. You can go ahead and continue to make it, and I will continue to be disgusted by it. That type of outrage is the type of debate that is presented. We are not talking about a 15-percent tax cut. We are not talking about partisanship. In my experience there are many partisans in this body, but the Senator from West Virginia is one of the best. I do it, too. But this does not have anything to do with who cares for children. It does not have anything to do with who values the kids. It does not have anything to do with who cares more. We all care just as much for our fellow human beings as anyone from West Virginia or Wyoming or New York. We are all here as caring individuals. So the continuing use of ``emotion, fear, guilt'' is not attractive to this Senator. Every one of us knows the problems of spina bifida. Every single one of us should, or certainly will, after this debate. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we do a lot for the people with spina bifida. Maybe the VA does not do anything for people with spina bifida, but the Government does. So how many duplicative programs are you going to have, or are you just going to have an appeal to emotion and then a press release about what you did for veterans? I am a veteran. I am very proud to be a veteran. Some of the most unbelievable arguments on the other side--I am not relating this to the Senator from West Virginia or the Senator from South Dakota--come from the people who have not even been in the Civil Air Patrol. I must say I get a belly full of that one, too. Let us tell our colleagues what we do for people in this kind of horrible extremity. Anyone under 21 falls under the Early Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Testing Program, the EPSD Program of Medicare, for those in extremity, the horror stories, the wretched, the beat up, the people we hear talked about here as if only some of us cared about those people. Under Medicaid, this program provides for everything that a medical professional deems necessary for treatment and rehabilitation--everything. When the child reaches 21, then the State determines what will be covered above and beyond the Federal minimum standards. Those standards are inpatient, outpatient, nursing home, home health aid, drugs, x rays, medical doctors, nurse practitioner visits, and dental. All of that is provided to people who are in need as a result of the disease, the horrible disease of spina bifida. Therefore, this amendment is redundant, but that fact is never mentioned. And then there is a final point which nobody seems to pick up, but I have to keep throwing it out. The Shriners--the Ancient Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine--is a Masonic organization, and even though these organizations are sometimes held in some different lights than they were 50 years ago, let me tell you what the Shriners do, ladies and gentlemen. They have a string of hospitals that are solely for crippled children. And do you know what? They will provide free care for every single child with spina bifida in the United States, period. No Government bucks. No grants. No nothing. This is their job, to provide this care for people who cannot afford to do anything and to do it free of charge, no questions asked. And they want me to express that to my colleagues one more time. That point apparently has not been heard in this debate, and is often shuffled to the bottom. There are people who do things in America because they love other people and not because they love them more. Because we all are that way. We are a compassionate nation. I do not know anybody in this body, Democrat or Republican, who sits around at night figuring out how to do less for children, do less for seniors, do less for the disenfranchised or the powerless or the minorities in our country. I do not know anybody. That is ugly, ugly stuff that does not fit. It does not fit. Now, there was a comment earlier that if we are upset about the agent orange legislation, we should repeal it. No way. I would not repeal it. It gave the NAS some excellent direction. I voted for it. Unfortunately, in this case it did not fulfill its promise. Unfortunately emotion and fear and guilt overwhelmed sound medicine and science one more time. There was comment that there had been no interest in Persian Gulf injuries and on activities relating to that war. That is not so. That is in total error. With me as chairman of the committee and Senator Rockefeller as ranking member, we have not maybe legislated on the things that he would have legislated if he were chairman, but that is called seniority and it is called who is in charge. If that changes next time, I am certain that I will not be present for the activity, but if my friend from West Virginia is chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he will have a whole new agenda and a busy one at that. But I can tell you the Congress has legislated--oh, we have, indeed--with the Persian Gulf. We have enacted benefits upon benefits. We have enacted health care. We have enacted research and all of those programs are now on the books, ongoing, and you cannot say that this Congress or this chairman has not been vitally involved in the process. We have done what we had to do. Now, we have another little item which has come to the attention of all of us, I hope, a letter dated August 29 received September 3 with the yearly progress report of the ongoing Ranch-Hand study. It went to the committee, but I think it should be in your hands and we will see that it is in the hands of the Members before the vote. You want to look at it if you can cut through the emotion, the fear and the stuff that goes with this issue. As I say, I have been here 18 years, and it is tough enough when you mention the word ``veteran,'' but when you mention the word ``veteran'' and ``innocent disabled children,'' then the engines are fully cranked. But there is not any way to pay for this one if we have to go back to reconciliation and redo our work. And I want every single sponsor of this amendment to tell me where we should get the money if we lose the money that we had in here for reconciliation because of the use of the Gardner decision here. I really want to hear that. Maybe you could give me book, page, and hymn number as to where you are going to get the scratch to do this and pay for 214 million bucks over 6 years. But let us get back to the real issue raised by the legislation that I voted for and very proudly too. That legislation was filled with language that talked about: Sound medical and scientific evidence. . . . Scientific evidence and reasoning. . . . Statistical association. . . . Strength of the evidence. . . . The increased risk of the disease. . . . The plausible biological mechanisms. . . . The causal relationships. This is the language of the bill. All other sound medical and scientific information. . . . Statistically significant. . . . Capable of replication. . . . Withstand peer review. They did not do any of that here. None of it. None of it. I think that there may have been simply a professional lapse by NAS in a very complicated task which they clearly took very seriously, and I do not denigrate that in any way. But I can tell you what the law says. I can read that very clearly. But in the Ranch-Hand study update that we just received, and which will be on your desks, listen to this sentence: The data provides little or no support for the theory that paternal exposure to Agent Orange and its dioxin containment is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes. That is in pretty good English. What it really means is they did not find a thing in the Ranch Hand study, not a thing that would cause an adverse reproductive outcome. Those are the Ranch-Hand persons. They keep saying, look at the Ranch-Hand study because the Ranch-Hand study was the guys that took the real hits. But the Ranch Hand study found there is no real difference of any statistical order. Then remember what we have done for these veterans who think that dioxin may have been the cause of their diseases. We have provided service upon service upon service to them. When I came here, we were providing $20 billion for veterans and today it is $40 billion, and there are 3 million fewer veterans. To have somebody say to me that we do not provide for our veterans is just not so. So I hope that you will look at your report from the Ranch-Hand study. I think it would be important. And let me just say that I have set a hearing for this, and the reason I set a hearing is because a bill came in. And I guess the reason the bill came in is because of frustration. But you cannot have a hearing based on frustration. The bill came in July 29. Then we left here. So I set a hearing for September 18 and was ready to go ahead with it but the ranking member told me he cannot be here then. My friend from West Virginia could not be here for that date. So I said we'll set another date. So to say that I am not receptive and helpful and cooperative is just not so. We have had the normal legislative process. It is called a bill is ``considered.'' We could get that chart that they hand out to the school kids. You put in a bill and it is referred to a committee. Then you have hearings. However, we have had nothing on this measure-- nothing. I will have that hearing and it will be done at a time mutually convenient with my friend from West Virginia. To think the statement is made we are not interested in taking up the issue and that we have ignored, or not paid proper attention to the Persian Gulf veterans--it is not so. And that we have no interest in children--boy, that one has to go somewhere else for some other debate. So, we will have the hearing. Hopefully, it will match the time of my colleague, my good friend from West Virginia. I tried to accommodate him. If I cannot, I am going to have the hearing anyway. In fact, there came a time a few months ago where he had a hearing. He just called it. So I showed up. I thought that would be interesting, that I might join in the fun. So those are things that happen when you have the type of activity where you have a breakdown in staff, which happens here often-- jealousies, pettiness, all the things which go with the human condition here as well as out in the local community. We do not do things any differently here than you do in your hometown. I have often said, people who are looking to us for perfection are often people who do not have any perfection in their own lives, so they try to say, ``You do it. Mine is a mess, so we expect perfection out of you.'' They will never get perfection out of here, and that is the joy of legislating and that is why the country works. I am willing to give children the benefit of the doubt. Who is not? I am willing to give veterans the benefit of the doubt. Who is not? Who has not? For Heaven's sake, yes, Congress is poorly suited to evaluate what is good science. But scientists are not, and that is why we should leave it with them. With only a few exceptions, this is surely an extraordinary venture for us, to open a new entitlement program at a time when everybody in this country knows that the entitlements are simply sucking us away. When you provide this kind of thing for people, like you do with any other entitlement, it is automatic. And it has to be paid. If you do not pay it, you get sued by the recipient. So we do nothing about entitlements, and there will be nothing done between now and November 5, in this country, by any of us here or by either Presidential candidate that will have a single thing to do with the one thing that is just draining the core out of America, and that is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal retirement, and interest on the national debt. And the saddest irony is those who talk all day long about the kids and the veterans and all the rest will find, in the year 2012, according to the bipartisan committee report of Senator Kerrey and Senator Danforth, there will be nothing left for transportation, education, defense or any other thing--WIC, WIN, Head Start or any other thing you want or really lust for or must have, because all the resources will have been used by those five items I just described: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal retirement, interest on the national debt. That is your legacy. Then what will we do with the poor? The kids? The veterans? You tell me. Because we cannot even stop the COLA. We cannot even cut down a cost-of-living-allowance for a senior citizen who lives in Sun City with a cabin in the mountains and a couple of homes and a couple of cars. We cannot even get the COLA reduced for those people. We cannot even ``affluence test" them, because it is a violation of America. I will be waiting for that debate. I shall report on it from the banks of the Ishawooa Creek, and the Bobcat Ranch, southwest of Cody, WY--when I finish alerting the young people as to what is going to happen to them, that is. That is why I wear this tie. This is for young people. A young man came up the other day. He was 18. He had his hat on backward, kind of a mouth-breathing exercise. He said, ``What is going to happen to us? Who speaks for us?'' ``Well,'' I said, ``why don't you speak for yourselves? We gave you the right to vote and only 15 percent of you use it. Don't come whimpering around to me.'' He said, ``OK.'' So then he put his cap on correctly and went, breathing the vapors, in the other direction. That is why I wear this tie. Because I tell people between 18 and 40, this tie, with chickens on it, if they do not get off their fannies and do something about it, they will be picking grit with the chickens when they are 65. We will see how that works. I intend to get involved with groups, young, third millennium, and others, because if you really, really care about the poor and the disenfranchised and the seniors and the veterans, then get off your fanny and do something with the issues that are eating our lunch instead of just tapping around the edges, fearful of what may happen if you act. Well, as I say, it is very difficult to enter a debate like this because there are some words that lead to immediate emotion and the voting of taxpayer money without any further thought when they are uttered within this Chamber. Those words include ``veterans,'' and ``innocent disabled children.'' Now there is a way to combine them in one amendment. If this amendment is to be decided on the basis of the emotions evoked by these words, we can cease right here and save the Senate's time. And it is too bad there is not a time agreement on this amendment. My remarks, I told them, would be about 30 minutes, because I have a hunch there will be a lot of people who will come in here. Maybe not. But, if the Senate is actually willing to look at this issue closely and honestly, and with absolute facts, then there are issues that must be raised. First of all is the fact that this amendment, to an appropriations bill, mind you, would create a brandnew program with brandnew benefits for a new population of previously unserved beneficiaries. Whatever the merits of the proposal, it is clearly an attempt to enact authorizing legislation on an appropriations bill and is, therefore, out of order. I think that will be presented by my friend from Missouri. I will not be so bold as to suggest this amendment would be the first time the Senate has approved authorizing legislation on an appropriations bill, but we should ask ourselves if this is the proper legislative process for creating new entitlements. If it is, then, I earnestly suggest the Senate would consider eliminating the authorizing committees altogether. We would save the taxpayers the cost of funding committee operations and save our colleagues the time and effort that we know takes place as we do our work, in what is oftentimes a tedious process. I can understand how, in some cases, a Senator might want to circumvent the committee process, bring an amendment directly to the floor of the Senate. He might do so in absolute frustration. I understand that one. That is, if an authorizing committee bottled up an important measure, never giving it a hearing, never giving proponents a chance to make their case. But, if this proposal has never seen the light of day, if it has never been debated, if Senators with an interest in the issue have never had a chance to even listen to or participate in a discussion on the merits of the proposal, the fault cannot be with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The bill was introduced July 29. As I say, within days of introduction we recessed to allow the Presidential nominating conventions to take place. Now, having returned with bags hardly unpacked, we find before us an amendment creating a huge precedent-setting new entitlement. If this proposal has never seen the light of day, it is not because it has been forgotten in some committee's ``hold'' box. This amendment has not seen the legislative light of day because not enough time has elapsed for the legislative sun to even rise. This amendment creates a new entitlement and the constraints of the Budget Act apply. I note the amendment's budget neutrality is obtained by reversing the Supreme Court's Gardner decision. I mentioned that before. That may seem like esoterica of the first order to you, but, without going into detail, that decision expanded an existing veterans' benefit in a way that was never intended by the Congress. But I also note the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, which is still in effect, includes savings from the reversal in Gardner and the assumptions behind the reconciliation instructions for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. That is what it is. The savings from reversing Gardner are the foundation of the veterans committee bill that we will report out, if we are called upon to achieve $5.271 billion in 6 years savings needed to comply with the budget resolution. If those savings are used instead to pay for this bill, they will not be available to the committee. That means we would have to do something else to reduce veterans' benefits. The amendment's use of Gardner savings is not an offset, I say to my colleagues. It merely shifts the responsibility of finding an offset off the back of the amendment and into the lap of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Period. Costs of the amendment will not be borne by some abstract bookkeeping account. The costs will be borne by yet unidentified beneficiaries of whatever program the Veterans' Committee is forced to attack to compensate for this amendment's use of Gardner's appeal. All the groups are not for this amendment. I have heard nothing from the DAV, the Disabled American Veterans. You would think you would hear from them. You know what they are thinking: This is going to take money away from disabled veterans to give to dependents of veterans. We have never done that with this kind of an entitlement, ever. They know that. So do the Paralyzed Veterans of America. You have not seen anything from them. They do not dare speak out, but they are not aboard here in the letters of support, because they know there will be one population that will really be hammered in this process, and that is those who are disabled; veterans who are disabled, not the children of veterans who are disabled. This amendment is rooted in a study did not prove anything and whose significance is reduced by confusion and bias and confounding. This amendment is wholly premature. Yes, the administration has proposed legislation on this subject. That was received July 25 when it was slipped under the Veterans' Committee door. So, there was not much opportunity to look at this one. I think we should have more than 4 or 5 legislative days in the light of day before reaching the Senate floor. But the objections to this amendment are not limited to procedural questions of jurisdiction and process. I also believe the amendment is fundamentally flawed on the merits. Sure, there are a lot of unresolved questions to be resolved in a calm and reflective manner before the Senate goes forward with such an expensive and expansive program, but the amendment hangs or predicates itself on several assumptions. First is that exposure to herbicide causes spina bifida, a serious defect in the exposed father's children. Second, that Vietnam veterans were, in fact, exposed, and every single link in that chain of reasoning is subject to dispute. This is the kind of thing that is best resolved through the complete legislative process: introduce the bill, solicit evidence, comments, hold hearings, seek review of experts and interested parties on both sides, hold a markup, consider amendments, and then bring the bill to the floor. This amendment has short circuited that process. That is what we do here, and as a legislator who has been doing this stuff for 30 years, who appreciates beautifully the wisdom of the legislative process, I am greatly saddened by that. In 30 years, I have never been an administrator, never wanted to be President, never wanted to do anything but legislate. If you are doing it right, it is very dry work. It is not about emotion, it is not about press releases; it is about hard work. But I can't change that. We will have to compress the entire legislative process into a few minutes, so here it is. Here we go. It will not take long. Does a father's exposure to herbicides cause spina bifida in his children? There is very little evidence to support that assertion even though, as a result of all the furor over the years surrounding agent orange, the bookshelves have literally groaned under the weight of studies of the health effects of herbicides, but few, if any, of those studies have ever pointed to spina bifida. Were Vietnam veterans generally exposed to a material amount of agent orange? Whatever evidence, or lack of evidence, for association between exposure and disease, the only actual empirical evidence of exposure that is available to us does not support the theory that Vietnam veterans were generally exposed to agent orange. Look at these charts--two of them--which depict measured blood dioxin levels found in two population samples. This upper chart shows a level found in a sample of 646 Vietnam veterans. The lower chart shows the levels found in a control group of 97 veterans who did not serve in Vietnam. In each case, the vertical scale is the percentage of the sample population; the horizontal scale is the specific dioxin, TCDD, measured in parts per trillion, ppt. In both groups, veterans who served in Vietnam and veterans who did not serve in Vietnam, the percentage of subjects begins to rise at a measured dioxin level of 2 ppt, peaks at about 3 and tails off into scattered individuals--that is what these symbols are, individuals, not groups--at about 10 parts per trillion. By the way, these levels are consistent with measured blood dioxin levels for the general American population, which are in the same range of 0 to 20 parts per trillion. So there it is. ``ND'' means nondetectable. Then you see this rise, then down, and after that, there is no effect at all up into 20 parts per trillion--nothing. This is the veteran population who were in Vietnam, and this is non-Vietnam veterans, and the charts are exactly the same--exactly the same. That is the kind of data you never consider when you are just using emotion. Those are studies from the CDC. In short, based upon those samples, Vietnam and non-Vietnam veterans cannot be distinguished from each other on the basis of the measured dioxin levels in their blood, and neither group can be distinguished from the American population. So the only evidence available to us, based on measured blood levels of dioxin in veterans, is not consistent with the hypothesis that service in Vietnam exposed most veterans to material amounts of agent orange. Yes, I know, that is difficult. I am sure someone will be coming here to get in the fray, and I will be waiting for that. Let me show you a second chart showing measured dioxin levels in several different populations. This chart depicts blood dioxin levels of numerous populations and compares the level found in Vietnam veterans, presumed to be exposed, with the levels found in populations known--known--to have been exposed. So let's look at that. We are not guessing here. We are going to talk about populations known to be exposed. The horizontal scale is blood dioxin levels in parts per trillion. The top group depicts the measured blood dioxin levels for Vietnam ground troops with high, low, and medium opportunities for exposure, as well as the measured level of the control group known not to have been exposed. All these groups have identical, and low, levels of blood dioxin. That finding is consistent with the hypothesis that Vietnam veterans do not have material exposure to agent orange. The level for the control group and the exposed group are the same. Let's go to the next little chart. We find a group of bars down there depicting the measured dioxin levels in a control group and in four categories of the Ranch Handers. Now Ranch Handers, a cohort of about 2,700 people, if I recall, 2,300, are the Air Force personnel who did the actual agent orange spraying. Of course, that would be the group we used in our studies. And why not? We knew what they were doing. I point out that you should know what they were doing. They were mixing it, loading it, labeling it, spraying it, kicking it out of the helicopters with an open lid, and cleaning it up. That is who they are. For the control group and the Ranch Hand officers the measured blood dioxin levels are rather low. And their level is about equal to the level found in the ground troops. But the levels for the enlisted Ranch Hand personnel are elevated, a finding which you would expect for people who actually mixed, loaded, sprayed and cleaned up the agent orange. A little lower on the chart we find the third grouping of measured blood dioxin levels. These are levels measured in workers with known occupational exposures to dioxin. They are measurements for a group of German industrial workers and New Zealand agricultural sprayers. Then there are the levels found in the most exposed quintile, as the phrase is used in graphs, of an occupational study conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. That study broke its subjects down into five quintiles with progressively greater opportunity for exposure. The measured blood dioxin level increases proportionately with exposure, as one would expect. Except for the lowest exposure NIOSH group, that is the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health subjects, all occupationally exposed groups have measured blood dioxin levels higher than both Ranch Handers and Vietnam veterans. Then finally--and you have heard mention of this extraordinary disaster--the bottom bar shows the measured blood dioxin levels for residents of Seveso, Italy, a town heavily exposed to dioxin as a result of a horrible accident where they were exposed to dioxin as a result of an industrial accident. The chart shows that the blood levels for Seveso residents who developed chloracne, which is a known effect of dioxin--no one argues that--are higher than the blood levels of those who did not. And we would certainly expect that. I ask my colleagues to note that the scale of this chart is exponential above 100 parts per trillion--off the chart, if you will. And the chart documents the fact that Seveso residents have measured dioxin blood levels which are thousands of times higher than that found in any Vietnam veterans, Ranch Handers or non-Ranch-Handers. And this is the reason for the chart. All of the followup studies of the individuals whose blood serum dioxin level are documented on the chart do not report any increased rates of spina bifida in the children of these heavily exposed individuals. Remember that these are people, individuals with documented heavy exposure to dioxin. In the case of the Seveso residents with chloracne, the measured blood dioxin levels are over 10,000 times greater than that for Vietnam veterans. If spina bifida were associated with exposure, we would find increased rates of spina bifida in these populations. And there is none. And the greatest increases would be in the population with the highest measured blood dioxin levels. And there are none. In fact, the only group with any increase in the rate for spina bifida is in the Ranch Hand group. And as we will see, the principal investigator of the Ranch Hand study has testified before this Congress that limitations in that study mean that this finding should not be used to draw conclusions about birth defects. That is what the principal investigator said. That testimony I will be glad to present to my colleagues. The documented higher dioxin levels for enlisted Ranch Handers-- compared to other Vietnam veterans--also means that even if someday there were to be a valid study showing adverse effects in these Ranch Handers, those conclusions may not be applicable to the Vietnam population as a whole. This would be especially true if the proposed application of such a study would be to support the creation of a new entitlement applicable to all Vietnam veterans. I noted earlier, the Ranch Hand study is not such a study according to its principal investigator. So both of those charts are based on actual measurements. Both are taken from the 1996 update of the Institute of Medicine, the IOM, agent orange report. I will be glad to share this with anyone who may wish to have it. This update is the foundation for both Secretary Brown's prostate cancer decision and Senator Daschle's spina bifida amendment. And where did they come from? They originated with the CDC and they came from the IOM, the Institute of Medicine. This is the same report that has been relied upon by the very capable minority leader. We are using this same thing. In enacting the old Public Law 102-4, which I was involved in, the Congress enacted a three-part standard for determining if there was an ``association.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that portion of the statute be printed in the Record. I have previously spoken about it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will have further remarks later. But since the distinguished minority leader is here, I will say that I personally know of his deep, deep interest in agent orange issues. The Senator from South Dakota and I have been bandying that about for many a year. We will continue to do so, because I continue to insist--and the law insists--that we stick with sound medical and scientific evidence, period. We do not deal with these issues on the basis of emotion or fear. This makes it very difficult because there is no sound medical or scientific evidence that dioxin does anything related to birth defects except for one study of a highly exposed group called the ``ranch-hand study.'' Remember, too, that there was a civil suit against the producers and manufacturers of herbicides containing dioxin. It was to be the greatest class action of all time. It was to destroy huge corporations in America and bring them to their knees for producing this substance. What happened to that suit? It was settled for less than $200 million. The judge recommended that the plaintiffs settle because there wouldn't be any way they could prove through the testimony what they had to prove to show sound medical and scientific evidence linking dioxin to what had happened to the plaintiff class. They settled for an amount that would amount to a few thousand dollars each for members of the class, perhaps $6,000, $7,000, or $8,000 each. And that settlement really was the beginning of what has come to pass with regard to an issue that never seems to go away. But I commend my friend, Tom Daschle. He is a fighter for veterans. I am a veteran, too. I do not enjoy getting into these things. I chair the Veterans' Affairs Committee. But to my knowledge there has never been a request for a hearing on this bill because this bill didn't come before the U.S. Senate until July 29, and we went out days after that. I do not hold many hearings on bills that I do not have before me. This bill was presented July 29. The amendment speaks of the law and what we do to follow the law. The law requires us to say, for each disease reviewed by the Academy, ``the extent that available scientific data permit meaningful determinations, A, whether a statistical association with herbicide exposure exists taking into account the strength''--the word is ``strength''--``of the scientific evidence of the appropriateness of the statistical and epidemiological method used to detect association.'' There is no ``strength'' in the report that the minority leader cites. It was a subject of ``bias, confusion, and confounding,'' according to the Institute of Medicine. And I shall quote that later in my remarks. The second part of it was the increased risk of the disease among those exposed to herbicide during service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era; and, C, ``whether there exists a plausible biological mechanism or other evidence of a causal relationship between herbicide exposure and the disease.'' That is the law. So it was not something that the Veterans' Affairs Committee was escaping. But I certainly wanted the record to be so totally clear on what the subject is because there is no solid, strong data to support any plausible biological mechanism. I have cited the law. I shall have more to say later. But this is the first time--I hope the leader will listen to my remarks. And I see the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is on the floor. I hope that he will become involved in the debate, if that is appropriate, and I think it is. This will be the very first time that we have ever extended any form of entitlement to a dependent class based on the health of the dependant, rather than the disability or death of the parent. I have no idea where this precedent would take us, but I can tell you that in our reconciliation instructions there are not many places to get the funding needed to pay for it. So I hope that every single Member who is sponsoring this amendment will tell us where we are going to get the money because we are already committed to using the Gardner decision money for other purposes. I hope that will be heard again and again and again as we get into talking about reprogramming or doing this, or doing that--that we have allocated the Gardner decision money. Gardner was a decision which could be described by a nonlawyer as ``bone headed.'' Nevertheless, we will correct that, and we have allocated those resources. They are gone. So if this passes, and the Veterans' Committee is then called upon to meet it's reconciliation instructions, then I am going to have to, as chairman and with my good colleague from West Virginia as ranking, sit down and decide where we are going to get the money. I know there will be an argument about reprogramming and stuff that no one will understand. But that is the issue. That is one of the issues. The other issue is when you link the word ``veteran'' and innocent, disabled children you have to wade through a lot of emotion as well as facts. They have linked those words here. And it will be my purpose to try to show that the people who were in Vietnam and exposed were treated very fairly and always on the basis of sound medical and scientific evidence. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas who came here when I did. We exit together as we entered together. It has been a great privilege to serve with this remarkable woman and see the legislative history that she leaves; and my friend from Massachusetts, too, who I have enjoyed thoroughly in my time here, even though certainly there are times when he tests every bit of my patience, and on more than many occasions. But I will miss him, too. I commend them both. I just want to briefly follow up on the comments of the Senator from New Mexico. I had made some comments yesterday about my disappointment with one aspect of this conference report. We have had such a productive week here, and on so many things. But I do feel a sense of real hollowness over the failure to include even some modest version of the mental health parity in this bill. I am a cosponsor and I spoke on the bill originally when it passed here 68-30, a sweeping definition there, when it was approved. Senators Domenici and Wellstone worked doggedly trying to assure that at least some limited form of that amendment came through this process. It had been my privilege to assist them in that cause. They have worked very hard. The events of the last few days show again that the wall of discrimination against the mentally ill is very real. It is still too powerful for any of us to overcome, apparently. That is a very sobering fact. I know my colleagues will not give up this fight, none of us will, even though this singular battle has been lost. I pledge I will continue to assist them. There is a great deal of work to be done in educating and enlightening the American people on the realities of mental illness. It is troubling and disturbing to me that there still continues to be this stigma associated with mental illness. The unspoken message here is that people afflicted with mental illness are somehow not as worthy of treatment as those afflicted with cancer or heart disease or other physical ailments. No one in this Chamber would consciously ever say such a thing, but this is the message we are sending through our actions. That is why it is so important for this Congress to revisit this important issue. We should certainly not let this bill and its silence with respect to mental health be any kind of final word on this issue. We will revisit this one in September. I commend my colleague from New Mexico, and again thank Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy for this remarkable work product which we all deeply appreciate.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2012, a bill to redesignate the National Cemetery System as the ``National Cemetery Administration,'' and to redesignate the position of Director, National Cemetery System as ``Assistant Secretary, Memorial Affairs.'' The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 24, 1996. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2011, a bill relating to the use of appropriated funds for the operation and maintenance of golf courses on real property controlled by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 20, 1996. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2012, a bill to redesignate the National Cemetery System as the ``National Cemetery Administration,'' and to redesignate the position of Director, National Cemetery System as ``Assistant Secretary, Memorial Affairs.'' The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 24, 1996. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter.