Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I had said to the minority leader that I know colleagues have a schedule tonight and are willing to do the amendment. I wanted to have at least 5 minutes tomorrow to summarize this amendment before people vote. That would be 10 minutes--in other words, 5 minutes equally divided.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was asking whether or not you would modify the request that I be able to offer an amendment after we have those 2 votes tonight. It won't be voted on tonight, I say to colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object. I ask that you might include in the request that I be recognized to offer an amendment tonight--it won't be voted on tonight--after the votes on tabling the Harkin and Bryan amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No. I thank the leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, the Grams amendment has been worked out? We are not going to have a long time on that; is that correct? Is that what you are saying? Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader. The second question was, my understanding is I will proceed next, or is there----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, two questions of the majority leader. When we had this discussion about how to proceed, I had asked for 10 minutes to be equally divided before the vote because I think the amendment is an important one. Colleagues will not be here tonight.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sam Rikkers, who is an intern with me, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session of the Senate.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues. I think 30 days CBO and in 60 days Veterans' Committee hearings in considering legislation moves us forward in a significant way. I thank both of my colleagues for their support. I thank the Senator from Maryland especially for some of her assistance in working on this amendment. I hope both my colleagues will please help us keep this in conference. I don't want this to be one of those things that it happens on the floor and then, goodbye, it is gone. I don't want to do that to these veterans. I think we will have strong support from both of our colleagues. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment that will aid atomic veterans--veterans who were exposed to ionizing radiation while serving on active duty. Atomic veterans who may well be America's most neglected veterans. They have been seeking justice for as long as 50 years and I am determined to help them, and I think my colleagues are determined to help them. Mr. President, I want to dedicate this amendment to the brave and patriotic Minnesotans who served in the U.S. Army's 216th Chemical Service Company, participating in Operation Tumbler Snapper--a series of eight nuclear weapons tests that took place in the Nevada desert in 1952. In particular, I want to pay tribute to two former members of the Forgotten 216th, Smoky Parrish and Gene Toronto, patriotic Americans who have been my mentors and have fought hard to fair and just treatment for all atomic veterans. I want to say to them and their families and to other families's of atomic veterans that I will do all in my power as a U.S. Senator to ensure the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them are never forgotten again. Before I discuss the substance of my amendment I would like to tell my colleagues more about the Forgotten 216th because their problems typify the problems of atomic veterans nationwide. When they participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper, they believed their Government's assurances that it would protect them against any harm, but have since become convinced they were used as guinea pigs without any concern for their safety. My colleague from Maryland said to me earlier, and I hope it's OK to repeat this, in a sense it was like the Tuskegee experiment. Immediately after a nuclear bomb blast, many were sent to measure fallout at or near ground zero, exposing them to so much radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. Members of the 216th were given minimal protection, sometimes even lacking film badges to measure radiation exposure and provided with no information on the perils they faced. Furthermore, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear tests, sometimes denied access to their own service medical records, and provided no medical followup to ensure they'd suffered no ill effects as a result of their exposure to radiation. This happened in our country. Sadly, many members of the 216th have already died, often of cancer. Is it any wonder that these men now refer to themselves as the Forgotten 216th? Mr. President, my amendment is intended to address some of the recommendations of the ``Final Report of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments'' issued in October 1995. I had an opportunity to testify before this committee about the atomic vets. The report's recommendations mirrored the concerns atomic veterans have had for many years: the list of presumptive diseases contained in law is incomplete and inadequate; the standard of proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet; and these statutes are limited and inequitable in their coverage. The VA now maintains two lists of radiogenic diseases, a presumptive list established under Public Law 101-321 as amended by Public Law 102- 578 and now consisting of 15 radiogenic diseases, and a nonpresmuptive list established under Public Law 98-542 which includes 11 diseases not on the presumptive list. My amendment would add these 11 diseases to the presumptive list, would result in the elimination of the nonpresumptive list, and the creation of a single presumptive list of radiogenic diseases. The radiogeneic diseases that would be added to the presumptive list are: lung cancer, bone cancer, skin cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, posterior subcapsular cataracts, non-malignant thyroid nodular disease, ovarian cancer, parathyroid adenoma, tumors of the brain and central nervous system, and rectal cancer. These veterans were exposed to this radiation. They went to ground zero. They were put in harm's way by our Government. They were never told that anything terrible would happen to them. But so many of them have had cancer, so many of their children and grandchildren have been born with a variety of different disorders and problems, the least we can do, the least we can do is make sure that they receive good care and adequate compensation. Why the need for these changes? To begin with veterans must jump through hoops to demonstrate they are eligible for compensation for nonpresumptive diseases and, after they have done so the chances that the VA will approve their claims are minuscule. Mr. President, to illustrate what I mean, permit me to cite some VA statistics. As of April 1, 1996, out of the hundreds of thousands of atomic veterans there have been a total of 18,515 radiation claim cases, with service-connection granted in 1,886 cases. According to VA statistics current as of December 1, 1995, only 463 involve the granting of presumptive service-connection. Thus, if we were to exclude the 463 veterans who were granted presumptive service-connection, atomic veterans had an incredibly low claims approval rate of less than 8 percent. Moreover, of this low percentage, an indeterminate percentage may have had their claims granted for diseases unrelated to radiation exposure. Why the abysmally low percentage of claims approvals? One key reason is that VA regulations are overly stringent for service-connection for nonpresumptive radiogenic diseases. Dose requirements pose a particularly difficult, if not insuperable hurdle. While it is almost impossible to come up with accurate dose reconstructions because decades have elapsed since the nuclear detonations and adequate records don't exist, veterans are frequently denied compensation because their radiation exposure levels are allegedly too low. In this connection, let me quote from the findings of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: ``The Government did not create or maintain adequate records regarding the exposure of all participants in [nuclear weapons tests and] the identify and test locales of all participants.'' This finding obviously calls into question the capability of the Government to come up with accurate dose reconstructions on which approval of claims for VA compensation for atomic veterans frequently depend. My amendment essentially says two things. First of all, what we are saying now is that we call on CBO to do this study and provide us with an estimate of the costs of this provision, and that is done within 30 days. And then, not later than 60 days after enactment of this act, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs is to hold one or more hearings to consider this legislation. Mr. President, my amendment will ensure that the VA fulfills its responsibility to give atomic veterans the benefit of the doubt in considering their claims for compensation. This is especially important because after more than 50 years there is still much about the effects of low-level radiation that is the subject of scientific controversy. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I've fought hard to enable Persian Gulf veterans to receive compensation for diseases that may be linked to their service in the Persian Gulf, at least until scientists reach a definitive conclusion about the etiology of their illnesses. I've also strongly and consistently supported former Secretary Jesse Brown's efforts to ensure that Vietnam veterans are compensated for disabilities linked to their exposure to agent orange, even though science is still unable to determine the extent of their exposure. There is no question in my mind that both Persian Gulf and Vietnam veterans deserve such compensation. At the same time, I believe that the U.S. Government must give atomic veterans the same benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, right now, this is not the case. Let me give one example of the discriminatory treatment of atomic veterans concerns, and that is the VA's 1993 decision to grant VA benefits based on presumptive service connection to veterans exposed to agent orange who have contracted lung cancer, a decision which I fully back, but for atomic veterans, the VA still treats lung cancer as a nonpresumptive illness. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, we know what happened to them. They went to ground zero. They had no protective gear. They were exposed to this radiation. Why in the world has it taken us so long-- they are still waiting after 40 and 45 years --to make sure they get the care they deserve and make sure they get the compensation they deserve? Mr. President, we just have to do better. Let me reiterate, I fully supported the decision of the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to recommend to the President that lung cancer be treated presumptively as a service-connected condition for agent orange. I wish Secretary Jesse Brown was still with us. He probably was my best friend in the administration, in Government. He was a strong advocate for veterans. I am simply pointing out that we are not giving the atomic veterans the same treatment, and it is patently unfair. Since January 1994, I have had a lot of meetings with members of the Forgotten 216th. I have met with their families. I met with their children. I met with their grandchildren. Let me just be very honest about this. Many of them are up there in age now. They are elderly. They may not have that many more years to live. But it is incredible to me that we have let this shameful episode in the history of our country go on by never fully acknowledging what we did to them and never providing these veterans and their families with the compassion and care that they deserve. I don't think it is too strong for me to say that our Government lied to them. I don't think it is unfair for me to say that for 45 years, or thereabouts, we still have not given them a fair shake. Justice delayed is justice denied. The atomic veterans are not the strongest veterans organization in our country. They don't have that much clout. Many of my friends who were atomic veterans right now have cancer. Many of them are not in good health. Many of them have already died. They are not, in short, a strong lobby. But, Mr. President, I am telling you, I had a chance to talk to some of the atomic vets before coming out on the floor of the Senate. I had a chance to talk with my colleague from Maryland, and she really helped me with this amendment. She said to me, ``Senator Wellstone, if you think about it in steps, it makes more sense. First, we get the CBO study, and we make it clear we want that study, we want to know what it costs, so we are not just putting veterans in parentheses, out of sight out of mind. And then have some closure and make it clear that within 60 days the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will hold hearings and consider legislation that moves this forward.'' For some colleagues, and in a way for myself because I am always so impatient, who say, ``Well, but it doesn't guarantee the result,'' that is true, but these atomic veterans have been so out of sight and so out of mind for so long that I really think this would be a really good, positive step that the U.S. Senate would be taking. I don't know whether there will be opposition or not to the amendment. I hope there will be strong support for it. I really think this is the right thing to do. I am convinced that if every single Senator on the floor of the Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, had full knowledge of this history and full knowledge of what these veterans have gone through and full knowledge of the terrible illnesses in their families--it is really awful. This amendment doesn't even cover, I say to my colleague from Maryland, some of the pattern of disabilities and illnesses of children and grandchildren, which is frightening to me. I just don't know, I am not prepared to say what has happened genetically within families. I don't know. I am not a doctor, and I am sure there is probably disagreement about it. But what there shouldn't be disagreement about is that these veterans deserve better. These atomic veterans are veterans. These atomic veterans deserve better from our Government, they deserve better from our country, and it is time that we take action that would be a first major step toward providing them with the compensation and care which they truly deserve. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am now about to send to the desk a second amendment, which really has two provisions. The first is that within 30 days after enactment of this act, we get a CBO study that would provide to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Appropriations Committee an estimate of the cost of the provision in this amendment. The second part is that not later than 60 days after enactment of this bill, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall hold one or more hearings to consider legislation that would add the following diseases, which would now be presumptive, from the point of view of coverage: lung cancer, bone cancer, skin cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, posterior subcapsular cataracts, nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease, ovarian cancer, parathyroid adenoma, tumors of the brain and central nervous system, and rectal cancer. I send this amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 950

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski. First of all, I rise on the floor of the Senate to commend the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies for restoring $273 million in cuts in veterans discretionary programs, and to include health care for fiscal year 1998. Above and beyond this, let me also commend the committee for adding an additional $92.9 million above the President's budget request. This is a victory for veterans and their families, and it is a step in the right direction. We have been fighting to restore these cuts for 1998. When we first found out that in the budget resolution there were proposed cuts over the next 5 years, we held a forum out in Minnesota and, really, the veterans community was unanimous in denouncing these cuts. We circulated a letter, signed by colleagues, to the appropriations subcommittee. We have some appropriators here who are clearly strong advocates for veterans, and I thank them. We offered an amendment to the DOD authorization to transfer excess funding from the Pentagon to VA health care. We did not win on that amendment, but I thank the PVA, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the DAV, Disabled Veterans of America, and, in addition, I would also like to thank the Vietnam Veterans of America for their support. Now, what we have in this appropriations bill is a restoration of the $273 million, and adding another $92 million. That is good news for veterans and their families. Again, I commend my colleagues, and I thank DAV and PVA and Vietnam Vets and the other organizations for helping me and helping other Senators in restoring this funding. However, I remain deeply concerned about cuts in funding for veterans discretionary programs, health care programs, in the outyears, 1999 through 2002, which were agreed to in the bipartisan budget deal. So what this amendment essentially says to veterans is: Don't worry, because we go on record that your health care will be secure going into the next century. This amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which says that the Senate ensures its promises for veterans. It promises veterans that over the next 4 years, 1999 to 2002, the veterans' medical system will receive the resources it requires--I put that in bold letters--to deliver quality health care to our Nation's veterans. As I think about this budget deal, if we do not at least have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, then we are talking about, in the outyears, cuts of about $2 billion from the President's request; or, another way of looking at it, it would be close to $3 billion from 1997 funding levels. It is wrong. We know it. This amendment I have introduced for myself and Senator Mikulski puts the Senate on record as saying these cuts are wrong and making it clear we go on record that we will provide the VA health care system with the resources it needs to provide as good care as possible--quality care, we hope and pray--for veterans, going into the 21st century. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota.

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would say, of course not, and moreover I would say to my colleague from Colorado, since I am going to be taking close to 40 or 35 minutes, if he would like to go second since he only has 10 minutes, I will follow my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I think I can do the first amendment in about 5 minutes and I think I can do the second in about a half an hour.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Ohio to introduce a bill that is an important step toward protecting the lives and the future of this Nation's children. Today in the Labor Committee, we will hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in daycare. We as a society must share some of the responsibility for this tragedy with the daycare center that neglected Jeremy Fiedelholtz. We as a society have allowed daycares to be under funded and understaffed, because we have not valued the position of daycare provider. We have not treated that job as a profession, we have not respected their responsibilities and considered such individuals to have a career worthy of compensation, attention, and respect. The bill that my colleague and I introduce today would provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession. It would also provide forgiveness for some existing child care providers who remain in the profession. The bill seeks to make child care more affordable and to increase the quality of child care by making a career in child care more profitable. It would help make the career of caregiver more affordable and more feasible for those interested in helping children grow. Nationally, child care workers have the following statistics: 97 percent are female; 33 percent are women of color; 41 percent have children; 10 percent are single parents; only 18 percent of child care centers offer their workers health coverage. In Minnesota child care centers, the average hourly wage for a child care provider is $8.72; for an assistant teacher is $6.66; and for an aide is $5.69. Minnesota family child care providers, who are never covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, have an average hourly wage of $2.79, and make $7,800 a year for a 60-hour work week. With changes created by the welfare bill in the Federal child care food program, many family child care providers will become ineligible for this program; those who don't pass the costs of care on to the parents will have negative earnings--they will actually lose $71 a week. Nationally, child care teaching staff earn $6.89 an hour and $12,000 a year. Family child care providers earn $9,500, and unregulated providers, $5,100. Although they are better educated than the average worker, child care workers earn one-third of the average male salary and one-half of the average female salary. It is no surprise that one- third of them leave their centers every year. In the meantime, in Minnesota, there are 8,960 children on the waiting list for child care. There are probably another 13,440 children who would apply if the waiting list wasn't so long. Mr. President, add all this up and you have a recipe for disaster. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the workforce today. Parents who can't care for their children, can't work. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the field of education today. Children who are not stimulated and cared for during the earliest years will never be able to reach his or her full potential when they grow up. If we don't take the profession seriously and encourage people of caliber to enter the profession of caregiving, and reward those who remain in the profession, then we are risking our economic future and putting at risk millions of children like Jeremy Fiedelholtz. I urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort to invest money where it is most needed. Let me just say I am very honored to introduce this legislation with Senator DeWine. I thoroughly enjoy working with him, and I think we are both very committed to this piece of legislation. Mr. President, in the Labor Committee today, we are going to hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in child care. If you look at the reports, the conditions around our country are not what they should be for children, and if you just think about the pay scale of women and men--they are mainly women--who are child care providers, we have devalued the work of adults who work with children. What this piece of legislation does is it provides loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood development and then remain employed in this early childhood profession. It also would have some forgiveness for existing child care providers who remain in the profession. What we are simply trying to say here, I say to my colleagues, is that the neuroscience evidence is compelling, these early years are critical years, we have to get it right, there has to be a nurturing care and the intellectual stimulation and, yet, if you look around the country, nationally child care teaching staff earn an average of $6.89 an hour, or about $12,000 a year. Actually, in many of our States, people who work in zoos, and by the way I love visiting zoos--it is not my point to put down that work-- earn twice as much as women and men who work in child care centers. If we really value children and we really understand that pre-K is so important, and if we really understand--and we should and we must--that we have to make sure that by age 3, children have gotten the nurturing care in order for them to be able to go on and do well in school and do well in life, then it is terribly important that we attach more value to the work that is being done. That is what this piece of legislation does, which provides the loan forgiveness for women and men I hope will go into this profession. It is a small step forward, but it is an extremely important step. I am very pleased to introduce this legislation today with my colleague, Senator DeWine.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. We will have some discussion on this issue, I gather. And I wanted to say to my colleagues, that several days ago I sent a letter out to every colleague saying that I was going to have an amendment out here opposing the cost-of-living adjustment for members of Congress--and you are quite right, I say to my colleague from Colorado, this is not a pay increase. This was just a cost-of-living adjustment. I would like to explain a little bit about why I did this. Senator Brownback has now come out with the same amendment, so we will work together. And it does not matter to me who does the amendment. What matters is the effect of it all. But I think that I may have somewhat of a different framework than my colleague from Kansas, and so I want to spell out my reasons why I support this amendment. And I am not going to spend a lot of time on it. First of all, when I sent this letter out, I sent it only to my colleagues. I was not interested in this becoming a major public issue, although when we work this out on the floor, I suppose it is a public issue. The reason for addressing my colleagues is that I really think that if this amendment becomes a bashing of public service--and I know some colleagues will interpret it that way--then it is a big mistake. If that is what the net effect of this amendment is, I made a big mistake. I think there are people here--Republicans and Democrats; Democrats and Republicans--who have a highly developed sense of public service. If this amendment, which is likely to be accepted, contributes to an across-the-board denigration of public service and all people in public service, then sending this letter out to my colleagues and saying that I would introduce this amendment would have been a mistake. But I now join in sponsoring this amendment. This amendment will not make some people feel better about it. The reason I introduced it, and I wish to make this very clear--is because this past year, in our deficit-reduction plans, as the Center on Budget Alternatives and Priorities points out, 93 percent of the cuts we made in discretionary spending affect low-income people and some of the most vulnerable citizens in our country. In the welfare bill that we passed, $55 billion of cuts disproportionately hurt legal immigrants--not illegal--many of them elderly, many of them living alone, many of them with a combined income of $525 a month--all their Federal assistance was eliminated. Only part of it was restored. And the other major area that suffered was in food nutrition programs--the vast majority of the cuts in the welfare reform bill passed last Congress were in the Food Stamp Program. Most of the beneficiaries hurt were working poor people, many of them children. So it just seems to me that if we are going to be making, in the name of deficit reduction, cuts in programs, and the disproportionate share of those cuts affect the most vulnerable people in our country, many of them children, many of them poor, I just cannot see how we can give ourselves a cost-of-living increase. I do not even know what we make--I guess around $130,000 a year. I put high value on the work we do here. But I just want to point out that a colleague asked me yesterday, after I sent this letter out, ``Well, come on, Paul. Would there be a time where you would vote for this? Isn't this just what you do every year?'' Well, I do not offer this amendment every year. So I said, ``Absolutely, yes, but not in the context of what we have done as a Senate and a House.'' I am sure some people believe we have done the right things here in Congress. No one has a corner on political truth. Maybe people felt the votes we have made, for deficit reduction and for cuts in different programs, were the right thing to do and had to be done. But it does seem to me that it is just not right, if we are going to call on many citizens to sacrifice for deficit reduction, and in particular, call on low- and moderate-income families to sacrifice all in the name of deficit reduction, and if we are going to make cuts in the most effective child nutrition safety program that we have ever had, then I just do not think this is a time for us to be giving ourselves a cost- of-living increase. In some context, I can see how the argument over this cost-of-living increase can be said to be about apples and oranges. I really can. But the way I see it as a Senator, in the context of still calling for people to make sacrifices in our country, that there ought to be shared sacrifice. And I think, given the fact that we all do well financially in Congress, that it is a mistake to go forward with the cost-of-living increase. That is why I sent the letter to my colleagues 2 days ago and why I announced my intention to introduce an amendment. Senator Brownback has now come out with an amendment. We will join together on this. The Senator can speak for himself, but I wanted to make my framework clear on why I am against a cost-of-living increase. If there is further debate on this, I have a more complete statement, but I have stated what I believe and there is no reason to speak at any greater length now. I thank my colleagues. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will yield the floor for now. If other colleagues are going to speak, I will want to come back--I think they may want to take part in this discussion--only because I want to be clear why I am doing this and why I think it is the right thing for Congress. Other people may have very different arguments to make, and if anyone else is going to use the word ``demagogue'' then I am certainly going to come back out here to debate on this amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just say before I yield the floor that I thought it would be done in a short period of time. Are other colleagues going to come out and speak--I understand they are. Is that correct?