Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. These are amendments Nos. 380 and 383?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry, 380 and 381.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I offered that would remove some of the frustrating and infuriating obstacles that have too often kept veterans who were exposed to radiation during military service from getting the disability compensation they deserve. This amendment would add three radiogenic conditions to the list of presumptively service-connected diseases for which atomic veterans may receive VA compensation, specifically: lung cancer; colon cancer; and tumors of the brain and central nervous system. It is based on a bill I introduced during the last Congress, S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act. At the outset, let me say that this amendment was accepted and adopted by the Senate just a few months ago as a part of S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. Because that bill appears to be dead on arrival in the House, I am offering it on the Defense Authorization bill. I think this amendment was relevant to S. 4 and it is certainly relevant to this bill. But I mention the history of this amendment to my colleagues in the belief that what was acceptable to the Senate three months ago will be acceptable today. I want to explain why this amendment is topical to the Defense Authorization bill. I believe that the way we treat our veterans does send an important message to young people considering service in the military. When veterans of the Persian Gulf War don't get the kind of treatment they deserve, when the VA health care budget loses out year after year to other budget priorities, when veterans benefits claims take years and years to resolve, what is the message we are sending to future recruits? How can we attract and retain young people in the service when our government fails to honor its obligation to provide just compensation and health care for those injured during service? One of the most outrageous examples of our government's failure to honor its obligations to veterans involves ``atomic veterans,'' patriotic Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and at atmospheric nuclear tests. For more than 50 years, many of them have been denied compensation for diseases that the VA recognizes as being linked to their exposure to radiation--diseases known as radiogenic diseases. Many of these diseases are lethal forms of cancers. I received my first introduction to the plight of atomic veterans from some first-rate mentors, the members of the Forgotten 216th. The Forgotten 216th was the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S. Army, which participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper. Operation Tumbler Snapper was a series of eight atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Nevada desert in 1952. About half of the members of the 216th were Minnesotans. What I've learned from them, from other atomic veterans, and from their survivors has shaped my views on this issue. Five years ago, the Forgotten 216th contacted me after then-Secretary of Energy O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had conducted radiation experiments on its own citizens. For the first time in public, they revealed what went on during the Nevada tests and the tragedies and trauma that they, their families, and their former buddies had experienced since then. Because their experiences and problems typify those of atomic veterans nationwide, I'd like to tell my colleagues a little more about the Forgotten 216th. When you hear their story, I think you have to agree that the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them must never be forgotten again. Members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near ground zero immediately after a nuclear blast. They were exposed to so much radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given minimal or no protection. They frequently had no film badges to measure radiation exposure. They were given no information on the perils they faced. Then they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear tests. They were often denied access to their own service medical records. And they were provided no medical follow-up. For decades, atomic veterans have been America's most neglected veterans. They have been deceived and treated shabbily by the government they served so selflessly and unquestioningly. If the U.S. Government can't be counted on to honor its obligation to these deserving veterans, how can young people interested in military service have any confidence that their government will do any better by them? I believe the neglect of atomic veterans should stop here and now. Our government has a long overdue debt to these patriotic Americans, a debt that we in the Senate must help to repay. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help repay this debt by supporting this amendment. My legislation and this amendment have enjoyed the strong support of veterans service organizations. Recently, the Independent Budget for FY 2000, which is a budget recommendation issued by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), endorsed adding these radiogenic diseases to VA's presumptive service-connected list. Let me briefly describe the problem that my amendment is intended to address. When atomic veterans try to claim VA compensation for their illnesses, VA almost invariably denies their claims. VA tells these veterans that their radiation doses were too low--below 5 rems. But the fact is, we don't really know that and, even if we did, that's no excuse for denying these claims. The result of this unrealistic standard is that it is almost impossible for these atomic veterans to prove their case. The only solution is to add these conditions to the VA presumptive service-connected list, and that's what my amendment does. First of all, trying to go back and determine the precise dosage each of these veterans was exposed to is a futile undertaking. Scientists agree that the dose reconstruction performed for the VA is notoriously unreliable. GAO itself has noted the inherent uncertainties of dose reconstruction. Even VA scientific personnel have conceded its unreliability. In a memo to VA Secretary Togo West, Under Secretary for Health Kenneth Kizer has recommended that the VA reconsider its opposition to S. 1385 based, in part, on the unreliability of dose reconstruction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Dr. Kizer's memo be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. WELLSTONE. In addition, none of the scientific experts who testified at a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on S. 1385 on April 21, 1998, supported the use of dose reconstruction to determine eligibility for VA benefits. Let me explain why dose reconstruction is so difficult. Dr. Marty Gensler on my staff has researched this issue for over five years, and this is what he has found. Many atomic veterans were sent to ground zero immediately after a nuclear test with no protection, no information on the known dangers they faced, no badges or other monitoring equipment, and no medical followup. As early as 1946, ranking military and civilian personnel responsible for nuclear testing anticipated claims for service-connected disability and sought to ensure that ``no successful suits could be brought on account of radiological hazards.'' That quotation comes from documents declassified by the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. The VA, during this period, maintained classified records ``essential'' to evaluating atomic veterans' claims, but these records were unavailable to veterans themselves. Atomic veterans were sworn to secrecy and were denied access to their own service and medical records for many years, effectively barring pursuit of compensation claims. It's partly as a result of these missing or incomplete records that so many people have doubts abut the validity of dose reconstructions for atomic veterans, some of which are performed more than fifty years after exposure. Even if these veterans' exposure was less than 5 rems, which is the standard used by VA, this standard is not based on uncontested science. In 1994, for example, GAO stated: ``A low level dose has been estimated to be somewhere below 10 rems [but] it is not known for certain whether doses below this level are detrimental to public health.'' Despite persistent doubts about VA's and DoD's dose reconstruction, and despite doubts about the science on which VA's 5 rem standard is based, these dose reconstructions are used to bar veterans from compensation for disabling radiogenic conditions. The effects of this standard have been devastating. A little over two years ago the VA estimated that less than 50 claims for non-presumptive diseases had been approved out of over 18,000 radiation claims filed. Atomic veterans might as well not even bother. Their chances of obtaining compensation are negligible. It is impossible for many atomic veterans and their survivors to be given ``the benefit of the doubt'' by the VA while their claims hinge on the dubious accuracy and reliability of dose reconstruction and the health effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation remain uncertain. This problem can be fixed. The reason atomic veterans have to go through this reconstruction at all is that the diseases listed in my amendment are not presumed to be service-connected. That's the real problem. VA already has a list of service-connected diseases that are presumed service-connected, but these are not on it. This makes no sense. Scientists agree that there is at least as strong a link between radiation exposure and these diseases as there is to the other diseases on that VA list. You might ask why I've included these three diseases in particular-- lung cancer; colon cancer; and tumors of the brain and central nervous system--in my amendment. The reason is very simple. The best, most current, scientific evidence available justifies their inclusion. A paper entitled ``Risk Estimates for Radiation Exposure'' by John D. Boice, Jr. of the National Cancer Institute, published in 1996 as part of a larger work called Health Effects of Exposure to Low-Level Ionizing Radiation, includes a table which rates human cancers by the strength of the evidence linking them to exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. According to this study, the evidence of a link for lung cancer is ``very strong''--the highest level of confidence--and the evidence of a link for colon and brain and central nervous system cancers is ``convincing''--the next highest level of confidence. So I believe I can say with a great deal of certainty, Mr. President, that science is on the side of this amendment. And I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the table I just mentioned be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Last year, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee reported out a version of S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act, which included three diseases to be added to the VAs presumptive list. Two of those diseases, lung cancer and brain and central nervous system cancer, I have included in my amendment. The third disease included in the reported bill was ovarian cancer. Mr. President, I'd like to explain why I substituted colon cancer for ovarian cancer. It is true that the 1996 study I just cited states that the evidence of a linkage for ovarian cancer to low level ionizing radiation is ``convincing,'' just as it is for colon cancer. But Mr. President, there are no female atomic veterans. The effect of creating a presumption of service connection for ovarian cancer is basically no effect--because no one could take advantage of it. However, the impact of adding colon cancer as a presumption for atomic veterans is significant; atomic veterans will be able to take advantage of that presumption. The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments agreed in 1995 that VA's current list should be expanded. The Committee cited concerns that ``the listing of diseases for which relief is automatically provided--the presumptive diseases provided for by the 1988 law--is incomplete and inadequate'' and that ``the standard of proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet and, given the questionable condition of the exposure records retained by the government, inappropriate.'' The President's Advisory Committee urged Congress to address the concerns of atomic veterans and their families ``promptly.'' The unfair treatment of atomic veterans becomes especially clear when compared to both Agent Orange and Persian Gulf veterans. In recommending that the Administration support S. 1385, Under Secretary for Health Kenneth Kizer cited the indefensibility of denying presumptive service connection for atomic veterans in light of the presumption for Persian Gulf War veterans and Agent Orange veterans. In 1993, the VA decided to make lung cancer presumptively service- connected for Agent Orange veterans. That decision was based on a National Academy of Sciences study that had found a link only where Agent Orange exposures were ``high and prolonged,'' but pointed out there was only a ``limited'' capability to determine individual exposures. For atomic veterans, however, lung cancer continues to be non- presumptive. In short, the issue of exposure levels poses an almost insurmountable obstacle to approval of claims by atomic veterans, while the same problem is ignored for Agent orange veterans. Persian Gulf War veterans can receive compensation for symptoms or illnesses that may be linked to their service in the Persian Gulf, at least until scientists reach definitive conclusions about the etiology of their health problems. Unfortunately, atomic veterans aren't given the same consideration or benefit of the doubt. I believe this state of affairs is outrageous and unjust. The struggle of atomic veterans for justice has been long, hard, and frustrating. But these patriotic, dedicated and deserving veterans have persevered. My amendment would finally provide them the justice that they so much deserve. Let me say this in closing. As I have worked with veterans and military personnel during my time in the Senate, I have seen a troubling erosion of the Federal Government's credibility with current and former service members. No salary is high enough, no pension big enough to compensate our troops for the dangers they endure while defending our country. Such heroism stems from love for America's sacred ideals of freedom and democracy and the belief that the nation's gratitude is not limited by fiscal convenience but reflects a debt of honor. This is one of those issues which test our faith in our government. But the Senate can take an important step in righting this injustice. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in helping atomic veterans win their struggle by supporting my amendment. Exhibit 1 Department of Veterans Affairs, April 21, 1998. From: Under Secretary for Health (10). Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the Department's Position on S. 1385 (Wellstone). To: Secretary (00). 1. I request that you reconsider the Department's position on S. 1385 (Wellstone), which would add a number of conditions as presumptive service-connected conditions for atomic veterans to those already prescribed by law. I only learned that the Department was opposing this measure last night on reading the Department's prepared testimony for today's hearing; I had no input into that testimony. Indeed, my views on this bill have not been obtained. I would strongly support this bill as a matter of equity and fairness. 2. I do not think the Department's current opposition to S. 1385 is defensible in view of the Administration's position on presumed service-connection for Gulf War veterans, as well as its position on Agency Orange and Vietnam veterans. 3. While the scientific methodology that is the basis for adjudicating radiation exposure cases may be sound, the problem is that the exposure cannot be reliably determined for many individuals, and it never will be able to be determined in my judgment. Thus, no matter how good the method is, if the input is not valid then the determination will be suspect. 4. I ask that we formally reconsider and change the Department's position on S. 1385. I feel the proper and prudent position for the Department is to support S. 1385. Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., M.P.H.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment speaks to the priorities of the Senate or lack of priorities of the Senate. We have here a bill that really talks about authorization, leading to appropriation of hundreds of billions of dollars for defense, for the Pentagon. I will talk about the priorities of some low-income families in our country. Their priorities are how to keep a roof over their children's heads. Their priorities are how to get food in their children's stomachs. Their priorities are how to earn a wage that pays their bills. And their priorities are how to obtain medical assistance when they are sick or when their children are sick. Mr. President, 2 years ago we passed a welfare bill, and as we start to see more and more families slide deeper and deeper into poverty, and as we see around the country some of these families losing their benefits, I have not heard so much as a whisper of concern, let alone a shout of outrage, from the Senate. So I rise to propose an amendment. It is an amendment that I hope will receive the support of every Senator, Democrat and Republican alike. It is simple and it is straightforward. Current law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide an annual report to Congress. My amendment requires the Secretary to include information about families who have moved off the welfare rolls. What kind of jobs do they have? What is their employment status? What kind of wages are they making? Is it a living wage? What is the child care situation with their children? Have they been dropped from medical assistance? Do they have any health insurance coverage at all? Mr. President, like my colleagues, I had hoped that the welfare reform bill--though I voted against it because I had real reservations about how it would really take shape and form throughout the country-- would work. But I have my doubts. On the basis of some of the evidence I present here today, I believe we need to find out with certainty what is happening to families, mainly women and children, when they no longer receive welfare assistance in our country. Since August of 1996, 1.3 million families have left welfare. They are no longer receiving welfare assistance. That is 4.5 million recipients, and they are mainly women and children. The vast majority of these 4.5 million citizens are children. On the basis of these numbers, too many people have deemed welfare reform a success. But to see the welfare rolls reduced dramatically does not mean necessarily that we have reduced poverty in this country. It doesn't mean these families have moved from welfare to self-sufficiency. It doesn't mean these families have moved from welfare to economic self- sufficiency. These statistics, the drop in the welfare caseload, which has been so loudly talked about as evidence of success by Republicans, Democrats, and by this Democratic administration, doesn't tell us what is really happening. It doesn't tell us anything about how these women and children are doing. It doesn't tell us whether or not these families are better off now that they are no longer receiving welfare assistance, or whether they have fallen further into poverty. It doesn't tell us if the mothers can find work. It doesn't tell us if they are making enough of an income to lift themselves and their children out of poverty. It doesn't tell us whether these mothers have adequate access to affordable child care, and it doesn't tell us whether or not these mothers and these children have any health care coverage at all. No one seems to know what has happened to these families. Yet, we keep trumpeting the ``victory'' of welfare reform. The declining caseloads tell us nothing at all about how families are faring once they no longer receive assistance. I am worried that they are just disappearing and this amendment is all about a new class of citizens in our country. I call them The Disappeared. Let me give you some examples. We are hearing a lot about the plunge in food stamp participation. Over the last 4 years, the number of people using food stamps dropped by almost one-third--from 28 million to 19 million people. Some people want to interpret this as evidence of diminished need. But just like the decline in the welfare rolls, there are important questions left unanswered. I hope this drop in food stamp assistance means that fewer people are going hungry, but I have my doubts. If people are no longer needy, then how can we account for the fact that 78 percent of the cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors for its ``Report on Hunger'' reported increases in requests for emergency food in 1998? This January, a survey conducted by Catholic Charities U.S.A. reported that 73 percent of the diocese had an increase by as much as 145 percent in requests for emergency food assistance from the year before. How can we account for such findings without questioning whether or not the reformers' claim of success are premature? What is going on here? What is happening to these women and children? Should we not know? The esteemed Gunnar Myrdal said, ``Ignorance is never random.'' Sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know. This amendment says we ought to do an honest evaluation and have the Secretary of Health and Human Services provide a report to us as to exactly what is happening with these women and children. A story Friday from the New York Times suggests one explanation. One welfare recipient was told incorrectly that she could not get food stamps without welfare. Though she is scraping by, raising a family of five children and sometimes goes hungry, she has not applied for food stamps. ``They referred me to the food pantry,'' she said. ``They don't tell you what you really need to know; they tell you what they want you to know.'' The truth of the matter is that there is an information vacuum at the national level with regard to welfare reform. What has happened to the mothers and children who no longer receive any assistance? In a moment, I am going to talk about some findings from NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice organization--findings that should disturb each and every Senator. At the outset, let me read a brief excerpt from the report that outlines the problem: Even though government officials are quick to point out that national welfare caseloads are at their lowest point in 30 years, they are unable to tell us for the most part what is happening to people after they leave the welfare rolls-- and what is happening to people living in poverty who never received assistance in the first place. I am especially concerned because the evidence we do have suggests that the goals of welfare reform are not being achieved. People are continuing to suffer and continuing to struggle to meet their basic needs, and I am talking primarily about women and children. I challenge the Senate today with this amendment. At the very minimum, we should call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give us a report on the status of those women and those children who no longer receive any welfare assistance. Should we not at least know what is happening to these families? I have already mentioned the dramatic decline in welfare caseloads. We must recognize that it is naive to assume that all of the 1.3 million of these families have found jobs and are moving toward a life of economic self-sufficiency. After all, the caseload decline has not been matched by a similar decline in poverty indicators. Moreover, since 1995, colleagues, what we have seen is an increase among the severest and harshest poverty. This is when income is less than one- half of what the official definition of poverty is. We have found an increase of 400,000 children living among the ranks of the poorest of poor families in America. Could this have something to do with these families being cut off welfare assistance? We ought to at least know. I have already mentioned the NETWORK report. What this group did was collect data on people who visited Catholic social services facilities in 10 States with large numbers of people eligible for aid, and I will summarize these very dramatic findings. Nearly half of the respondents report that their health is only fair or poor; 43 percent eat fewer meals or less food per meal because of the cost; they can't afford it. And 52 percent of soup kitchen patrons are unable to provide sufficient food for their children, and even the working poor are suffering as 41 percent of those with jobs experience hunger. The people who are working work almost 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, and they are still so poor that they can't afford to buy the food for their children. I am presenting this evidence today because I want us to have the evidence. In another study, seven local agencies and community welfare monitoring coalitions in six States compared people currently receiving welfare to those who stopped getting welfare in the last few months. The data show that people who stopped getting welfare were less likely to get food stamps, less likely to get Medicaid, more likely to go without food for a day or more, more likely to move because they couldn't pay rent, more likely to have a child who lived away or was in foster care, more likely to have difficulty paying for and getting child care, more likely to say ``my life is worse'' compared to 6 months ago. Is that what we intended with this welfare reform bill? The National Conference of State Legislatures did its own assessment of 14 studies with good information about families leaving welfare. It found that: Most of the jobs [that former recipients get] pay between $5.50 and $7 an hour, higher than minimum wage but not enough to raise a family out of poverty. So far, few families who leave welfare have been able to escape poverty. Just this month, Families USA released a very troubling study. It finds that: Over two-thirds of a million low-income people-- approximately 675,000--lost Medicaid coverage and became uninsured as of 1997 due to welfare reform. The majority (62 percent) of those who became uninsured due to welfare reform were children, and most of those children were, in all likelihood, still eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Moreover, the number of people who lose health coverage due to welfare reform is certain to grow rather substantially in the years ahead. Let me just translate this into personal terms. Here is the story of one family that one of the sisters in the NETWORK study worked with: Martha and her seven-year-old child, David, live in Chicago. She recently began working, but her 37-hour a week job pays only $6.00 an hour. In order to work, Martha must have childcare for David. That is the name of my oldest son, David. Since he goes to school, she found a sitter who would receive him at 7 a.m. and take him to school. This sitter provided after school care as well. When Sister Joan sat down with Martha to talk about her finances, they discovered that her salary does not even cover the sitter's costs. By the way, as long as we are talking about afterschool care, let me just mention to you that I remember a poignant conversation I had in East L.A. I was at a Head Start center, and I was talking to a mother. She was telling me that she was working. She didn't make much by way of wages, but she was off welfare, and she wanted to work. As we were talking and she was talking about working, all of a sudden she started to cry. I was puzzled. I felt like maybe I had said something that had upset her. I said: Can I ask you why you are crying? She said: I am crying because one of the things that has happened is that my first grader--I used to, when I was at home, take her to school, and I also could pick her up after school. She lived in a housing project. It is a pretty dangerous neighborhood. She said: Now, every day when my daughter, my first grader, finishes up in school, I am terrified. I don't know what is going to happen to her. There is no care for her, and she goes home, and I tell her to lock the door and take no phone calls. Colleagues, this amendment asks us to do a study of what is going on with these children. How many children don't play outside even when the weather is nice because there is nobody there to take care of them? Let me talk about an even scarier situation-- families that neither receive government assistance nor have a parent with a job. We don't know for certain how large this population is, but in the NETWORK study 79 percent of the people were unemployed and not receiving welfare benefits. Of course this study was focused on the hardest hit. Let me just say that in some of the earlier State studies, what we are seeing is that as many as 50 percent of the families who lost welfare benefits do not have jobs. Can I repeat that? Close to 50 percent perhaps--that is what we want to study--of the families who have been cut off welfare assistance do not have jobs, much less the number of families where the parents--usually a woman-- has a job, but it is $6 an hour and she can't afford child care and her children don't have the necessary child care. Now her medical assistance is gone and she is worse off and her children are worse off. They are plunged into deeper poverty than before we passed this bill. Don't we want to know what is happening in the country? How are these families surviving? I am deeply concerned and worried about them. They are no longer receiving assistance. And they don't have jobs. They are literally falling between the cracks and they are disappearing. I want us to focus on the disappeared Americans. What do we do about this? I want to have bipartisan support. I was a political science teacher before becoming a Senator. In public policy classes, I used to talk about evaluation all the time. That is one of the key ingredients of good public policy. That is what I am saying today. We want to have some really good, thorough evaluation. We have some States that are doing some studies. But the problem is there are different methodologies and different studies that are not comprehensive. Before we passed this bill, when we were giving States waivers-- Minnesota was one example--43 of 50 States have been granted waivers. They were all required to hire an outside contractor to evaluate the impact of the program. After this legislation passed, we didn't require this any longer of States. Now we are only getting very fragmentary evidence. As a result, we do not really know what is happening to these women. We don't know what is happening to these children. The money that we have earmarked is Labor-HHS appropriations, for Health and Human Services--$15 million to provide some money for some careful evaluation. That is what we need, policy evaluation. But the money has been rescinded. What I am saying--I am skipping over some of the data--is at the very least, what we want to do is to make sure that we do some decent tracking and that we know in fact what is really going on here. Let me just give you some examples that I think would be important just to consider as I go along. Let me read from some work that has been done by the Children's Defense Fund. Alabama: Applying for cash assistance has become difficult in many places. In one Alabama county, a professor found workers gave public assistance applications to only 6 out of 27 undergraduate students who requested them despite State policy that says anyone who asks for an application should get one. In other words, I know what was going on. This professor was saying to students, go out there as welfare mothers and apply and see what happens. They did. What they found out is that very few of them were even given applications. Arizona: 60 percent of former recipients were taken off welfare because they did not appear for a welfare interview. We are talking about sanctions. After holding fairly steady from 1990 to 1993, the number of meals distributed to Arizona statewide, Food Charity Networks, has since risen to 30 percent, and a 1997 study found that 41 percent of Networks' families had at least one person with a job. Quite often what happens is the people who are off the rolls aren't off the rolls because they found a job, but because they have been sanctioned. The question is, Why have they been sanctioned? The question is, What happened to them? What has happened to their children? California: Tens of thousands of welfare beneficiaries in California and Illinois are dropped each month as punishment. In total, half of those leaving welfare in these States are doing so because they did not follow the rules. This was from an AP 50-State survey. It was also cited in the Salvation Army Fourth Interim Report. In an L.A. family shelter, 12 percent of homeless families said they had experienced benefit reductions or cuts that led directly to their homelessness. One of the questions, colleagues, is this rise of homelessness and this rise of the use of food pantry shelves. Does it have something to do with the fact that many of these women have found jobs but they don't pay a living wage, or they haven't found work but the families have been cut off assistance? Florida: More than 15,000 families left welfare during a typical month last year. About 3,600 reported finding work, but nearly 4,200 left because they were punished. The State does not know what happened to almost 7,500 others. Iowa: 47 percent of those who left welfare did so because they did not comply with requirements such as going to job interviews or providing paperwork. Kentucky: 58 percent of the people who leave welfare are removed for not following the rules. Minnesota: In Minnesota, case managers found that penalized families were twice as likely to have serious mental health problems, three times as likely to have low intellectual ability, and five times more likely to have family violence problems compared with other recipients. Mississippi Delta region: Workfare recipients gather at 4 a.m. to travel by bus for 2 hours to their assigned workplaces, work their full days, and then return another 2 hours home each night. They are having trouble finding child care during these nontraditional hours and for such extended days. I could give other reports of other States. Let me just say to every single Senator here, Democrat and Republican alike, you may have a different sense of what is going on with the welfare bill. That is fine. But what I am saying here is if you look at the NETWORK study, if you look at the Conference of Mayors study, if you look at the Conference of State Legislatures study, if you look at the Children's Defense Fund study, and if you just travel --I am likely to do quite a bit of travel in the country over the next couple of years to really take a look at what is happening--but if you just travel and talk to people, you have reason to be concerned. Right now we do not know and we cannot remain deliberately ignorant. We cannot do that. Policy evaluation is important. So I challenge each and every Senator to please support this amendment which calls for nothing more than this, that every year when we get a report from the Secretary of Health and Human Services we get a report on what has happened to these women and children--that is mainly the population we are talking about--who no longer receive welfare assistance. Where are they? What kind of jobs do they have? Are they living-wage jobs? Is there decent child care for the children? Do they have health care coverage? That is what we want to know. I remember in the conference committee last year, and I will not use names because no one is here to debate me, I remember in a conference committee meeting last year we got into a debate. I wanted mothers to at least have 2 years of higher education and have that not counted against them. I was pushing that amendment. I remember, it was quite dramatic. In this committee, there were any number of different Representatives from the House, and some Senators, who said: You are trying to reopen the whole welfare reform debate and you are trying to change welfare policy. This has been hallmark legislation, the most important legislation we passed since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's legislation. I said to them: Let me ask you a question. Can any of you give me any data from your States? I know the rolls have been cut substantially. I hear my own President, President Clinton, talking about this. But, President Clinton, you have not provided one bit of evidence that reducing the welfare rolls has led to reduction of poverty. The real question is not whether or not people are off the rolls; the real question is, Are they better off? I thought the point of welfare reform was to move families, mainly women and children, from welfare to economic self-sufficiency, from welfare to a better life. I thought all Senators think it is important that people work, but if they work, they ought not to be poor in America. We can no longer turn our gaze away from at least being willing to do an honest evaluation of what is happening. This amendment calls for that. I cannot see how any Senator will vote against this. I tried to bring this amendment to the juvenile justice bill. It would have been a good thing to do, because, frankly, there is a very strong correlation between poverty and kids getting into trouble and which kids get incarcerated. I think this piece of legislation is creating a whole new class of people disappeared Americans. Many of them are children. That is my own view. But as that bill went along, I agreed I would not do it if I could introduce this amendment to the next piece of legislation, which is the DOD legislation right now. I hope there will be an up-or-down vote. I hope there will be strong support for it. If colleagues want to vote against it--I do not know how you can. We ought to be willing to do an honest evaluation. I tell my colleagues, if you travel the country, you are going to see some pretty harsh circumstances. You are going to see some real harsh circumstances. I do not remember exactly, and I need to say it this way because if I am wrong I will have to correct the record, but I think in some States like Wisconsin that have been touted as great welfare reform States, and I talked to my colleague, Senator Feingold, about this, and there is low unemployment so it should work well--I think, roughly speaking, two-thirds of the mothers and children now have less income than they did before the welfare bill was passed. That is not success. That is not success. Do you all know that in every single State all across the country-- and it depends upon which year, it is up to the State--there is a drop- dead date certain where families are going to be eliminated from all assistance? Shouldn't we know, before we do that, before we just toss people over the cliff--shouldn't we know what is going on? Shouldn't we have some understanding of whether or not these mothers are able to find jobs? Shouldn't we know what is going on with their children? Shouldn't we know whether there are problems with substance abuse or violence in the homes? Shouldn't we make sure we do that before we eliminate all assistance and create a new class of the disappeared, of the poorest of the poor--of the poor who are mainly children? I have brought this amendment to the floor before, but this time around I do not want a voice vote. I want a recorded vote. If Senators are going to vote against this, I want that on the record. If they are going to vote for it, I will thank each and every one of them. Then, if there is an effort to drop this in conference committee because it is on the DOD bill, do you know what. Here is what I say: At least the Senate has gone on the record saying we are going to be intellectually honest and have an honest policy evaluation. That is all I want. That is all I want to see happen. If it gets dropped, I will be back with the amendment again, and again, and again and again--until we have this study. Until we are honest about being willing--I am sorry--until we are willing to be honest about what is now happening in the country and at least collect the data so we can then know. I feel very strongly about this, colleagues, very strongly about this. I am going to speak on the floor of the Senate about this. I am going to do some traveling in the country. I am going to try to focus on what I consider to be really some very harsh conditions and some very harsh things that are happening to too many women and to too many children. I also speak with some indignation. I can do this in a bipartisan way. I want us to have this evaluation. I say to the White House, to the administration--I ask unanimous consent I have 1 more minute. I actually started at 12:30, so I do not know how I could be out of time. I had a half hour.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I don't want to get into a big argument with the Chair. I can do it in 1 minute. I think I have heard the administration, Democratic administration, I have heard the President and Vice President talk about how we have dramatically reduced the welfare rolls with huge success. Has the dramatic reduction in the welfare rolls led to a dramatic reduction in poverty? Are these women and children more economically self- sufficient? Are they better off or are they worse off? That is what I want to know. I say that to Democrats. I say that to Republicans. We ought to have the courage to call upon the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide us with this data. As policymakers, we need this information. Please, Senators, support this amendment. I yield the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I apologize. I was in a discussion with the staff on the majority side. What are we talking about here?

Mr. WELLSTONE. That will be fine with me. Amendment No. 381, As Modified

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first, on amendment No. 381, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The UC provides for an hour equally divided.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, yes, I have been trying to get this amendment on the floor for some time. I am talking to a good friend, my friend from Virginia, as I make my case. I believe my friend from Virginia will agree that this is well worth the focus on the part of the Senate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. One hour equally divided is the UC.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am delighted if there is not any opposition. If the Senator is going to yield back his time, clearly--I do need to go to the caucus, but I would rather not yield back time. I will try to shorten my presentation. If there is not a response, so be it; we will get a strong vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to shorten this amendment to 10 or 12 minutes in any way, shape or form, because it is too important to have a chance to talk about what is happening to these women and children and make sure that we track what is happening.

Mr. WELLSTONE. We should stay with the UC agreement.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be more than willing --if several of my colleagues want to speak on the very important amendment that Senator Roberts has offered, I would be willing to bring my amendment up right after the caucuses and go to it right then.

Mr. WELLSTONE. After we have those votes then I would bring the amendment up.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I thank him for two of the amendments. I am committed to having a rollcall vote on the welfare tracking amendment, so that would not work out for me. I am pleased to go on with this debate, and I will come back later.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Virginia, I appreciate working with him on the other amendments. I have been down this path before with voice votes and then it is out in conference. I am committed to having a debate and vote on this. I am sorry my colleague is surprised by this. I am more than willing to wait. I think this debate is very important. I will come back later and do this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague whether I could have 10 seconds to have some fellows granted the privilege of the floor? They have been waiting outside. May I do that without taking anybody's time?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ben Highton, Rachel Gragg, John Bradshaw, and Michelle Vidovic, who are fellows, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, this is an important debate. I agree with both of the managers. We should go on with the debate. I ask the question whether or not I may bring this amendment up after the caucuses or speak for a while but then have some time later.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take a very brief period of time on each amendment. Basically what this amendment says is: The Secretary of Defense shall publicly disclose existing, available information relative to a foreign nation's determination of the nature and extent of environmental contamination, if any, at a site in that foreign nation where the United States operated a military base, installation, and facility that has been closed as of the date of the enactment of this Act. I thank both colleagues, and I really hope these amendments will be supported in conference committee. To make a long story short, when we leave a country, close our base, quite often what happens is that there is some environmental contamination. We want to make sure those countries have access to information as to the extent of what chemicals or substances are there which might pose a danger to their citizens. It is a very reasonable amendment. It is important for our foreign relations with these countries. I believe it has strong bipartisan support. I thank Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their support and make the request--I think both Senators will do this--that this be kept in conference committee. That is why I do not need a recorded vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought we were going to do two amendments right now: One is on environmental impact when we close bases, and the second amendment is on atomic vets, both of which the Senator is prepared to accept.