Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Bradshaw and Sarah Nelson, a fellow and an intern, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I give 5 minutes to the Senator from California?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the rest of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I know Senator Hutchinson thanked the majority leader. I also want to thank the majority leader for his support in doing this. He is right. It is timely. We do want to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, the problem is we are going to have a vote soon.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that outlines a comprehensive strategy for providing federal assistance to states and localities, to better serve children in need of mental health services who come in contact with our nation's juvenile justice system. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy and Landrieu in this effort. The bill has received the strong support of over forty organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the United Church of Christ, and form states judges, probation and police officers. Elie Wiesel once said: ``More than anything--more than hatred and torture--more than pain--do I fear indifference.'' We must be vigilant not to allow ourselves and our country to be indifferent to children's misery, particularly those children who may be sick, difficult, and test our patience, understanding, and compassion. Yet, today, throughout America, I fear that we have become deeply indifferent to how we treat juveniles in the justice system who live in the shadow of mental illness. Each year, more than one million youth come in contact with the juvenile justice system, and more than 100,000 of these youth are detained in some type of jail or prison. These children are overwhelmingly poor and a disproportionate number of children of color. By the time many of these children are arrested and incarcerated, they have a long history of problems in their short lives. As many as two-thirds suffer from a mental or emotional disturbance. One in have has a serious disorder. Many have substance abuse problems and learning disabilities. Most come from troubled homes. The `crimes' of these children vary. While some have committed violent crimes, some have committed petty theft or skipped school. Still others have simply run away from home to escape physical or sexual abuse from parents or other adults. Despite popular opinion, most of the children who are locked up are not violent. Justice Department studies show that only one in twenty youth in the juvenile system have committed violent offenses. Jails and juvenile detention centers often find themselves unprepared to deal with the mentally ill. For instance, medication may not be given or properly monitored. Or, guards may not know, for example, how to respond to disturbed youth who simply is not capable of standing in an orderly line for meals. A common result is that these kids are disciplined and put in solitary confinement. What is happening to these troubled children is national tragedy. Across the country, we are dumping emotionally disturbed kids into juvenile prisons. Why do so many youth with mental illness end up in the justice system? Children with mental disorders often behave in ways that bring them into conflict with family members, authority figures, and peers. Over the last ten years, the public attitude toward juvenile crime has grown toughter. Consequently, the juvenile justice system is casting a wilder net. A growing fear and intolerance of children who misbehave or commit nonviolent offenses have pushed children into the juvenile system who would not have ended up there in earlier times. At the same time, our country has failed to invest adequately in services and programs that could reduce the need for incarceration. These include mental health services. The warning signs for delinquency are well known--school failure, drug and alcohol abuse, family violence and abuse, and poverty. Yet, we have failed to put in place community prevention, screening, and early intervention services for those children most at risk. Proper mental health treatment can prevent or reduce offending. But many communities don't have adequate treatment services for children and their families. For example, a recent report by Louisiana state officials acknowledged that secure facilities held many children who had been ``discarded'' from the educational, child welfare and other systems of care. I have heard that social workers in a number of states have been even instructed desperate parents to have their children arrested in order to get services because community health services are so scarce. Last July, I went with the National Mental Health Association to the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, a privately-owned correctional facility for over 600 youth in northeast Louisiana, to see firsthand the shocking civil rights violations cited by the U.S. Department of Justice. I left with vivid and disturbing images of how we are dealing with youth with mental and emotional problems in this country. While in Tallulah, I saw one hallucinating and suicidal child in isolation for observation, yet his transfer to an appropriate mental health facility was uncertain. Another child I met was taking three different types of powerful psychiatric medications, but had only seen a psychiatrist twice in the last eight months. The Justice Department reports chronicled instances where boys were being repeatedly sexually and physically abused, and children with mental illnesses were being housed with youths who have committed violent crimes. Mentally ill children received no therapy, and when they were having symptoms, they were isolated or punished for their illness. Tallulah is not the only offending facility, however. The Justice Department has exposed gross abuses in Georgia, Kentucky, and other juvenile facilities in Louisiana. Other states are also experiencing similar problems. Investigators found extreme cases of physical abuse and neglect of mental health needs, including unwarranted and prolonged isolation of suicidal children, hog-tie and chemical restraints used on youth with serious emotional disturbances, forced medication and even denial of medication. Children with extensive psychiatric histories who are prone to self-mutilation (e.g., cutting themselves with glass) never even saw a psychiatrist. In some cases, abusive treatment of these children results directly from their being emotionally disturbed. Staff in juvenile facilities fail to recognize, and in fact punish them for, the symptom of their disorders. Children have been punished for requesting treatment or put in isolation when they refused to accept treatment. One child in a boot camp was punished for making involuntary noises that were symptoms of his Tourette's syndrome. Mental disorders are being handled almost solely through discipline, isolation, and restraints according to investigations by the US Justice Department and human rights groups. A recent survey by the California Youth Authority found that 35 percent of boys in its custody and 73 percent of girls need treatment. One reason for the higher percentage of young people with mental illness in jail, specialists say, is that many states have cut budgets for adolescent psychiatric care, even more than those for adults. If a child had a broken leg, would any institution leave that leg unattended? Why then, in America, are we dumping children with mental health problems in institutions without treatment, and under conditions which can only worsen their illnesses? Our current system fails mentally ill children. How? The screening and treatment of mental and emotional disorders are inadequate or nonexistent at correctional facilities. Mental illness is often addressed solely through discipline, isolation, and restraint. At Tallulah, children told us that they were beaten and were put in isolation for long periods, even months--echoing in painful detail what had been revealed in the Justice Department reports. The tragedy of this situation is that we know what works--treatment-- but our current system for children with mental illness favors punishment over treatment. For children, we know that family-focused, individualized treatment delivered in the child's community can improve children's mental health and prevent them from offending in the first place. It is proven that integrating these mental health and substance abuse services with schools and child welfare agencies produces even greater success. In fact, linked community services have been shown to reduce contact with the juvenile justice system by 46 percent. My legislation would help states provide critical assistance to these children who suffer from mental disorders. It focuses on providing appropriate services that can both prevent them from committing delinquent offenses and from reoffending, and it is structured so that services are planned and integrated at the local level. First, it provides funds to train juvenile justice personnel on the identification and appropriate treatment of mental illness in kids, and on the use of community-based alternatives to incarceration. Currently, juvenile justice system personnel lack routine training to deal with mentally ill youth, many of whose low risk factors make them good candidates for alternative treatment programs in the community. Second, it authorizes a new treatment and diversion block grant program to state and localities. Despite studies showing large numbers of incarcerated children having psychiatric disorders, we know that screening, assessment and treatment for children's mental disorders is grossly inadequate. Further, many of these kids have multiple problems before they are locked-up, and are involved with several different child agencies and systems. Typically, these agencies shift the care and costs for serving a child back and forth. The result is that the child and the family never receive the services they need. States will be able to access the new block grant funds to develop and implement integrated treatment and diversion programs for juveniles who come up against the police and the courts. Third, it will establish training and technical assistance centers. Now, States do not have the information and technical assistance they need to provide appropriate services for youth with mental health disorders. Further, it will establish a federal council which will report to Congress on recommendations to improve the treatment of mentally ill children who come into contact with the justice system. Next, it will give States the choice whether to use their federal prison construction funds for treatment of incarcerated mentally ill and children. Finally, if will amend the Prison Litigation Reform Act, by restoring to federal courts the authority to remedy abuse conditions in juvenile justice facilities. Congress passed the act in 1996 largely to reduce frivolous pro se lawsuits by prisoners, and nothing in my bill would affect those provisions of the PLRA. Yet, the PLRA has had a devastating effect on the conditions in which juvenile offenders and mentally ill prisoners are held. My provision would not repeal the PLRA or adversely effect the crackdown on frivolous lawsuits. Instead, it would carve out a narrow exception to the PLRA restrictions in limited circumstances, involving children and the mentally ill, for it has been shown again and again that they are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect in state institutions. We can no longer be indifferent to this national tragedy. What I saw in Tallulah, and what is happening in countless facilities across this country, is a disgrace. The wholesale neglect of juveniles with mental illness in our prisons must end. We as a society have the moral obligation to see they get the help they need. Treating young people with mental disorders in dehumanizing ways is not the answer to questions of crime prevention and public safety. And it's not the way to make children productive, law abiding, and caring citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that outlines a comprehensive strategy for providing federal assistance to states and localities, to better serve children in need of mental health services who come in contact with our nation's juvenile justice system. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy and Landrieu in this effort. The bill has received the strong support of over forty organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the United Church of Christ, and form states judges, probation and police officers. Elie Wiesel once said: ``More than anything--more than hatred and torture--more than pain--do I fear indifference.'' We must be vigilant not to allow ourselves and our country to be indifferent to children's misery, particularly those children who may be sick, difficult, and test our patience, understanding, and compassion. Yet, today, throughout America, I fear that we have become deeply indifferent to how we treat juveniles in the justice system who live in the shadow of mental illness. Each year, more than one million youth come in contact with the juvenile justice system, and more than 100,000 of these youth are detained in some type of jail or prison. These children are overwhelmingly poor and a disproportionate number of children of color. By the time many of these children are arrested and incarcerated, they have a long history of problems in their short lives. As many as two-thirds suffer from a mental or emotional disturbance. One in have has a serious disorder. Many have substance abuse problems and learning disabilities. Most come from troubled homes. The `crimes' of these children vary. While some have committed violent crimes, some have committed petty theft or skipped school. Still others have simply run away from home to escape physical or sexual abuse from parents or other adults. Despite popular opinion, most of the children who are locked up are not violent. Justice Department studies show that only one in twenty youth in the juvenile system have committed violent offenses. Jails and juvenile detention centers often find themselves unprepared to deal with the mentally ill. For instance, medication may not be given or properly monitored. Or, guards may not know, for example, how to respond to disturbed youth who simply is not capable of standing in an orderly line for meals. A common result is that these kids are disciplined and put in solitary confinement. What is happening to these troubled children is national tragedy. Across the country, we are dumping emotionally disturbed kids into juvenile prisons. Why do so many youth with mental illness end up in the justice system? Children with mental disorders often behave in ways that bring them into conflict with family members, authority figures, and peers. Over the last ten years, the public attitude toward juvenile crime has grown toughter. Consequently, the juvenile justice system is casting a wilder net. A growing fear and intolerance of children who misbehave or commit nonviolent offenses have pushed children into the juvenile system who would not have ended up there in earlier times. At the same time, our country has failed to invest adequately in services and programs that could reduce the need for incarceration. These include mental health services. The warning signs for delinquency are well known--school failure, drug and alcohol abuse, family violence and abuse, and poverty. Yet, we have failed to put in place community prevention, screening, and early intervention services for those children most at risk. Proper mental health treatment can prevent or reduce offending. But many communities don't have adequate treatment services for children and their families. For example, a recent report by Louisiana state officials acknowledged that secure facilities held many children who had been ``discarded'' from the educational, child welfare and other systems of care. I have heard that social workers in a number of states have been even instructed desperate parents to have their children arrested in order to get services because community health services are so scarce. Last July, I went with the National Mental Health Association to the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, a privately-owned correctional facility for over 600 youth in northeast Louisiana, to see firsthand the shocking civil rights violations cited by the U.S. Department of Justice. I left with vivid and disturbing images of how we are dealing with youth with mental and emotional problems in this country. While in Tallulah, I saw one hallucinating and suicidal child in isolation for observation, yet his transfer to an appropriate mental health facility was uncertain. Another child I met was taking three different types of powerful psychiatric medications, but had only seen a psychiatrist twice in the last eight months. The Justice Department reports chronicled instances where boys were being repeatedly sexually and physically abused, and children with mental illnesses were being housed with youths who have committed violent crimes. Mentally ill children received no therapy, and when they were having symptoms, they were isolated or punished for their illness. Tallulah is not the only offending facility, however. The Justice Department has exposed gross abuses in Georgia, Kentucky, and other juvenile facilities in Louisiana. Other states are also experiencing similar problems. Investigators found extreme cases of physical abuse and neglect of mental health needs, including unwarranted and prolonged isolation of suicidal children, hog-tie and chemical restraints used on youth with serious emotional disturbances, forced medication and even denial of medication. Children with extensive psychiatric histories who are prone to self-mutilation (e.g., cutting themselves with glass) never even saw a psychiatrist. In some cases, abusive treatment of these children results directly from their being emotionally disturbed. Staff in juvenile facilities fail to recognize, and in fact punish them for, the symptom of their disorders. Children have been punished for requesting treatment or put in isolation when they refused to accept treatment. One child in a boot camp was punished for making involuntary noises that were symptoms of his Tourette's syndrome. Mental disorders are being handled almost solely through discipline, isolation, and restraints according to investigations by the US Justice Department and human rights groups. A recent survey by the California Youth Authority found that 35 percent of boys in its custody and 73 percent of girls need treatment. One reason for the higher percentage of young people with mental illness in jail, specialists say, is that many states have cut budgets for adolescent psychiatric care, even more than those for adults. If a child had a broken leg, would any institution leave that leg unattended? Why then, in America, are we dumping children with mental health problems in institutions without treatment, and under conditions which can only worsen their illnesses? Our current system fails mentally ill children. How? The screening and treatment of mental and emotional disorders are inadequate or nonexistent at correctional facilities. Mental illness is often addressed solely through discipline, isolation, and restraint. At Tallulah, children told us that they were beaten and were put in isolation for long periods, even months--echoing in painful detail what had been revealed in the Justice Department reports. The tragedy of this situation is that we know what works--treatment-- but our current system for children with mental illness favors punishment over treatment. For children, we know that family-focused, individualized treatment delivered in the child's community can improve children's mental health and prevent them from offending in the first place. It is proven that integrating these mental health and substance abuse services with schools and child welfare agencies produces even greater success. In fact, linked community services have been shown to reduce contact with the juvenile justice system by 46 percent. My legislation would help states provide critical assistance to these children who suffer from mental disorders. It focuses on providing appropriate services that can both prevent them from committing delinquent offenses and from reoffending, and it is structured so that services are planned and integrated at the local level. First, it provides funds to train juvenile justice personnel on the identification and appropriate treatment of mental illness in kids, and on the use of community-based alternatives to incarceration. Currently, juvenile justice system personnel lack routine training to deal with mentally ill youth, many of whose low risk factors make them good candidates for alternative treatment programs in the community. Second, it authorizes a new treatment and diversion block grant program to state and localities. Despite studies showing large numbers of incarcerated children having psychiatric disorders, we know that screening, assessment and treatment for children's mental disorders is grossly inadequate. Further, many of these kids have multiple problems before they are locked-up, and are involved with several different child agencies and systems. Typically, these agencies shift the care and costs for serving a child back and forth. The result is that the child and the family never receive the services they need. States will be able to access the new block grant funds to develop and implement integrated treatment and diversion programs for juveniles who come up against the police and the courts. Third, it will establish training and technical assistance centers. Now, States do not have the information and technical assistance they need to provide appropriate services for youth with mental health disorders. Further, it will establish a federal council which will report to Congress on recommendations to improve the treatment of mentally ill children who come into contact with the justice system. Next, it will give States the choice whether to use their federal prison construction funds for treatment of incarcerated mentally ill and children. Finally, if will amend the Prison Litigation Reform Act, by restoring to federal courts the authority to remedy abuse conditions in juvenile justice facilities. Congress passed the act in 1996 largely to reduce frivolous pro se lawsuits by prisoners, and nothing in my bill would affect those provisions of the PLRA. Yet, the PLRA has had a devastating effect on the conditions in which juvenile offenders and mentally ill prisoners are held. My provision would not repeal the PLRA or adversely effect the crackdown on frivolous lawsuits. Instead, it would carve out a narrow exception to the PLRA restrictions in limited circumstances, involving children and the mentally ill, for it has been shown again and again that they are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect in state institutions. We can no longer be indifferent to this national tragedy. What I saw in Tallulah, and what is happening in countless facilities across this country, is a disgrace. The wholesale neglect of juveniles with mental illness in our prisons must end. We as a society have the moral obligation to see they get the help they need. Treating young people with mental disorders in dehumanizing ways is not the answer to questions of crime prevention and public safety. And it's not the way to make children productive, law abiding, and caring citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on the Rockefeller amendment, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grams of Minnesota and Senator Ashcroft be added as cosponsors.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. Please help me get this done.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. I thought I would see whether my colleagues were alert.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see the confusion. I have the other amendment based upon what I think is in negotiation that we have had. Let's listen to that amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will tell you, I have been in the U.S. Senate now for 8 years, and I love to speak when it is an issue that is so important to me and so important to veterans. But if my colleagues are supporting my amendment, I thank them for their support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Does my colleague from Virginia have a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. In addition, none of the scientific experts who testified at the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on S. 1385 on April 21, 1998, supported the use of dose reconstruction to determine eligibility for VA benefits. Let me tell you why dose reconstruction is so difficult. Dr. Marty Gensler on my staff has researched this issue for over 5 years. 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 follow up. As early as 1946, ranking military and civilian personnel responsible for nuclear testing anticipated claims for service-connected disability and sought to ensure that--quote--no successful suits could be brought on account of radiological hazards. Unquote. That quotation comes from documents declassified by the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. The VA, during this period, maintained classified records--quote-- essential--unquote--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 about the validity of dose reconstructions for atomic veterans, some of which are performed more than fifty years after exposure. Even if these veteran's 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 hinges on the dubious accuracy and reliability of dose reconstruction and the health effect 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 10 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 10 are not on it. This makes no sense. Scientists agree that there is at least as strong a link between radiation exposure and these 10 diseases as there is to the other diseases on that VA list. 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, give 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 claim 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. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, 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 The American Legion, Washington, DC, June 25, 1998. Dear Senator: The American Legion encourages you to cosponsor S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone. The American Legion fully supports S. 1385. It grants the benefit of the doubt to sick and dying veterans of the cold war, and it rights the wrong of our government ignoring these veterans for so many decades. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the United States General Accounting Office both admit that the radiation dose that veterans were exposed to when assigned to atomic weapon's tests is impossible to determine. Yet VA has granted only 80 disability compensation claims out of over 18,000 filed for service connected illnesses caused by radiation exposure. S. 1385 would reverse this trend. Senator Wellstone's bill is short and simple. It adds to the list of diseases presumed to be service connected for radiation-exposed veterans. Under this bill, specific cancers and other diseases known to be caused by radiation exposure would become service connected for veterans exposed to radiation. Thank you for your continued support of America's veterans and their families. Please support and cosponsor S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act of 1997. Sincerely, John F. Sommer, Jr.,

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me briefly describe the problem that my amendment is intended to address. When atomic veterans try to claim VA compensation for their illness--this is the problem--the VA almost invariably denies their claims. VA tells these veterans that the radiation doses were too low--below 5 rems. But the fact is, we don't really know that, and even if we did, that is 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 the conditions in my amendment to the VA presumptive service-connected list. That is what my amendment does. It covers a whole range of cancers that should be a part of these diseases. They should get compensation. 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 by the VA is notoriously unreliable. The General Accounting Office itself has noted the inherent uncertainties of dose reconstruction. Even the VA scientific personnel have conceded its unreliability. And in a memo to VA Secretary Togo West, VA Under Secretary for Health Ken Kizer--and I thank Dr. Kizer for his courage--has recommended that the VA reconsider its opposition to S. 1385, in part based upon 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. Mr. President, I would like to speak about an amendment that I will offer soon. I do so for purposes of moving our deliberations forward in the U.S. Senate. This amendment is identical-- although I may make some changes if we are able to reach a compromise-- but in its present form, it is identical to S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act, which I introduced in the 105th Congress. An amended version of this bill was reported out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee on July 28, 1998. This amendment 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. My amendment clears the way for these veterans by adding some radiogenic diseases--we are now negotiating which ones--to the list of diseases that are presumed service- connected. This is, colleagues, the only solution. It is the only way of ensuring that ``atomic veterans'' have any realistic chance of proving their disability claims. And our treatment of atomic veterans is, Mr. President, a long and sad and shameful history in our country. Why am I offering this amendment now? The rationale for S. 4 is to recruit young people for service in the military, and retain them by enhancing pay, retirement, and educational benefits. I hope my colleagues will agree that potential recruits may be influenced by more than just the pay and the benefits. Senator Cleland's committee amendment certainly recognizes that one important factor in recruitment and retention is the way we treat our veterans after they leave the service. I very much agree 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 do not get the kind of treatment they deserve, when the VA budget, year after year, does not give veterans a stable source of funding for VA health care, when veterans' benefits claims take years and years to resolve--so people are waiting 3 years for compensation--the message that we are sending to prospective recruits is not a very encouraging one. Making sure we treat veterans right is, in fact, the philosophy behind the Rockefeller amendment. 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 obligation to veterans involves the atomic veterans, patriotic Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and at atmospheric nuclear tests. I want to say this to colleagues. Before you consider tabling the amendment--and I hope you do not--and before you consider your vote, please examine this history with me. For more than 50 years, many of these atomic veterans 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 cancer. I received my first introduction to the plight of atomic veterans-- and there is no issue I feel more strongly about as a Senator--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 Forgotten 216th were Minnesotans. What have I learned from them and from other atomic veterans? What have I learned from their survivors? And how has this shaped my views as a U.S. Senator? Five years ago, the Forgotten 216th contacted me after then-Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had conducted radiation experiments on its own citizens. And for the first time in public, these veterans revealed what happened to them in Nevada during the tests and the tragedies and the traumas that they, their families, and their former buddies have experienced since then. Because their experiences and problems typify those of atomic veterans nationwide, I would like to tell my colleagues a little more about the Forgotten 216th. In fact, I am proud to talk about them on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am pleased to take up some time talking about these atomic veterans. When you hear their story, I think you will 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 nuclear blasts in Nevada. 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 by the Government. They frequently had no film badges to measure radiation exposure. They were given no information on the perils they faced. And now, 50 years later, we say we don't have the money to provide them compensation. After all this, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in the 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 so selflessly and unquestioningly served. If the U.S. Government can't be counted on to honor its obligation to these deserving veterans, and that is what this amendment is about, how can young people interested in military service have any confidence the Government will do any better by them? If we don't finally provide compensation to these veterans, what does that tell young people who are thinking about serving in the armed services? Mr. President, I believe that the neglect of the 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 can help to repay. And we can repay it now. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help repay this debt by supporting this amendment. This legislation and this amendment have enjoyed the strong support of veterans service organizations. Both the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans, DAV, provided strong letters of support to the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee for its April 1998 hearing. They have also written letters of support for this legislation. Recently, the Independent Budget for fiscal year 2000, which is the budget recommendation issued by AMVETS, DAV, PVA, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, endorsed adding these radiogenic diseases to the VA's presumptive service-connected list. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement, the American Legion and the DAV letters of support and the relevant excerpt from the fiscal year 2000 Independent Budget be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will go forward with this other amendment because I know my colleagues are anxious to move along. Let me just say to my colleague from Delaware, I have here a memorandum of agreement between the Department of Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services to go forward with this subvention project. We already have the memorandum of agreement. They are ready to go. All they need is for the U.S. Senate to go on record saying we support it. One more time, I will just say to my colleagues, sometimes the debate is all civil, but sometimes it is with some strong feeling. I think the veterans community is becoming very impatient with us, and for very good reasons. They have every reason in the world to wonder about VA health care as they look forward to the future. And this amendment is but one small step toward trying to figure out one piece of stable funding. I think it is a terrible mistake to come out here and to move to table this amendment. And the point I made earlier I think still stands.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would defer to my colleague. I actually rise for the purpose of offering an amendment, but if my colleague wants to respond to the Rockefeller amendment, I would defer to him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I do have an amendment I want to bring to the floor in a moment, if that is the direction we are going. Let me just say to my colleague from Delaware, the argument that we ought to wait until we see what happens with this pilot project within DOD is an apples-and-oranges proposition. First of all, it is going to be another year before we know what happens with the DOD pilot, and, second of all, these are two different health care systems. These are two different health care systems. The point is, we say it is fine to go ahead with DOD and do a Medicare subvention pilot project, but when it comes to our veterans-- our veterans--that's another story. I say to my colleagues again, whether or not men and women want to serve in the armed services is directly correlated to how they are going to be treated when they are veterans. When it comes to veterans, we should have done this a year ago. It just doesn't cut it to say, ``Well, we have to wait for another year to see how the pilot works out with DOD.'' That is a very different health care system. A year ago we should have had this Medicare subvention demonstration model within the Veterans' Administration, and we are able to do it now. We want to do it. That is why we bring this to the floor. Finally, let me point out, on the whole budget problem--Senator Rockefeller said it--this amendment is budget neutral. These are new users of the VA system. Everybody who has talked about Medicare subvention has made it crystal clear that there are no negative financial implications for the Medicare trust fund. I am sorry, these arguments don't cut it. If colleagues want to vote against this, they can vote against it. I will just tell you, I think a vote to table the Rockefeller amendment, the amendment that Senator Jeffords has worked on, the amendment that I am very proud to support-- I have to say it this way, and I am not playing politics--it really is a vote against veterans. In Minnesota, I don't find any topic to be more a topic of discussion among the veterans community than health care. I don't find any greater concern than the concern as to whether or not we are going to have a stable source of funding for veterans' health care. This is just a pilot project that takes us in this direction. I cannot believe my colleagues are going to come out on the floor of the Senate and table this. I hope we get a vote against the tabling motion. Other than that, Mr. President, I don't feel strongly about it. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Virginia for his graciousness, and also Senator Graham from Florida. Let me just say to Senator Rockefeller that I think the time is right for his amendment to authorize a Medicare Subvention pilot project. We have been through this year after year after year. We have a veterans' health care system that is really struggling with a flat-line budget. My colleague from West Virginia has shown a lot of leadership on a lot of issues that affect the veterans community. Look, we need to at least have this Medicare Subvention on a pilot project basis. We need to think about a stable source of funding for veterans' health care. Give veterans the choice whether to go to VA for their health care. It should be their choice. We have such a demonstration project within DOD right now. We ought to be able to do this within the Veterans' Administration. Veterans organizations feel strongly about this. This is the time to support the Rockefeller amendment because the whole question of recruitment, and whether or not young women and men want to serve in our armed services is directly related to how they feel they are going to be treated when they are no longer in the armed services, when they are veterans. Will there or will there not be support for the veterans' health care system? This Rockefeller amendment is a terribly important step in the direction of making sure we have good veterans health care. And I would like to include my name as an original cosponsor, if that is all right with my colleague.