Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as I said earlier, I sent a letter out to my colleagues a couple of days ago and now this amendment has been introduced. I spoke earlier about it, and I will again. I want to respond to some comments--if the word ``demagog'' is going to be used, I want to respond. I said earlier that if the net effect of this amendment is to encourage the denigration of public service and people in public service, then I am mistaken in offering this amendment--the Wellstone- Brownback amendment. Several days ago, I felt that I needed to get started on this and announced I would do it when this bill came to the floor. I then went on to say that in the context of what we have been doing here in the Congress, and the sacrifices that we have asked of all Americans, especially low- and moderate-income people that I believe it is wrong for the Members of Congress to receive a cost-of- living increase. We have made a lot of cuts in programs. Again, in the 104th Congress, more than 90 percent of the budget reductions in entitlement programs came from programs affecting low-income people. If we are going to argue that that has to be a part of the sacrifice, I don't see how we can then go forward with a cost-of-living increase. We will still be making more than $133,000 next year without the increase. But, Mr. President, my colleague from Alaska has come to the floor and has made several arguments that I have to address. First of all, Mr. President, my colleague suggests that if young people know they can only make $133,000 a year, why would they want to serve in the Senate or House? He goes on to suggest that the only people are going to come here are either millionaires or people who could not make $100,000 a year. I was a teacher. I didn't make anywhere near $100,000. By my colleague's standard, 95 percent of the people of the United States of America are the people who can't make $100,000 a year, because they clearly don't. Let's not assume that because someone was a teacher or a wage earner, and didn't make $100,000 a year, that somehow they don't have that much value. What in the world does that comment mean? You know, with all due respect, I think most people in the country would think $133,000 a year is a darn good salary, because 95 percent of the people in this country don't even make $100,000 a year. Maybe we just need to get a little bit more real about this for a moment. I didn't want to get into this argument, but if that's the kind of argument that is going to be made, I would like to make it clear that, having been one of those individuals that falls into my colleague's category of not being able to make $100,000 a year, I think that this is an argument that is way out of whack with reality. I doubt whether, if you took a poll, most of the people in the country would believe that a salary of $133,000 a year is a disincentive for somebody wanting to take this job. I don't believe that. I don't believe that most young people in this country would not run for the U.S. Senate because they are only going to be able to make $133,000 a year. I don't believe that for a moment. When some of my colleagues say that this would be a reduction in salary, the vast majority of the people in the country would not view it that way. That argument just doesn't make sense to me. As I said, I didn't want to get into these arguments, but if the word ``demagog'' is going to be used, then I do want to respond. Second of all, Mr. President, if we are going to start talking about the financial pressures that we as Senators feel with our income, for those of us who aren't independently wealthy, and talking about our need for two homes or to send children to college, that's a valid point. A lot of people feel that pressure. The median income in our country is around $36,000 a year. There are a lot of people with two or three children. There are a lot of people trying to figure out how to afford to send their kids to college. There are a lot of people who are trying to get affordable child care or to figure out how to buy a home or pay rent. And by the way, when we talk about trying to pay rent, I note that we have also been cutting low-income housing assistance. So when I hear this argument that the only people that are going to come here are millionaires or people who can't make $100,000 a year, there is an implication that these aren't the people you want to have come here. I think it would be good if we have lots of those people here. I sure didn't feel like I was not of value to this body because I didn't make anywhere close to $100,000 a year before I came here. When I hear the argument made that people would not want to serve, that young people would not want to serve, and people don't want to run for office because they would only be able to make $133,000 a year without this cost-of-living increase, I frankly think it is not a credible argument. I think 99.999 percent of the people in the country think they could get along on our salaries. The third point, Mr. President, that I want to make is that if we are going to talk about the squeeze that we feel at $133,000 a year, then how come in some of the decisions that we have made about sacrifice, cuts in health care programs, nutrition programs, housing programs--which basically affect and end up lessening opportunities for low- and moderate-income families--how come we then don't have the same concern for those families? If we are worried about how, on $133,000 a year, we can send our kids to college or afford housing, why aren't we as worried about middle- income and working families? I think this is a slippery-slope argument. We had better get to work thinking about the couple who work, in their early thirties and who make, combined, $35,000 a year. We had better start thinking about them because if all of a sudden we are going to be talking about how we just can't make it on $133,000 a year, then surely we must understand how people--middle-income and working families with incomes of $35,000 to $38,000 a year--feel a terrible squeeze. It is just an inconsistent argument for us to make. Mr. President, if I am wrong about why we should not have a cost-of- living increase, I have made a big mistake and apologize. But if not having a cost-of-living increase this year and staying at $133,000 is the reason why people are not going to run for office, which my colleague from Alaska thinks is the case, he is right, and I am wrong. But I don't think that is the major reason why people aren't running. I think that one of the major reasons people are not running for office is it costs so much money to run for office. If we really want more women and men from all sorts of different social and economic backgrounds to run for office in our country, it doesn't have much to do with whether or not we make $133,000 or $134,000 a year. Most people think that is a fine salary. It has much more to do with the fact that people know that they have to raise millions and millions of dollars. Either they themselves are millionaires and they have the money--and we have some people in this Senate who are independently wealthy, who are some of the best Senators. That is a fact. I don't think that is the issue. The issue is all of this money that people have to raise. Give me a break. Don't tell me that the reason people do not run for office and young people aren't interested in public life is because they are now finding out they are only going to make $133,000 a year. I think that is ridiculous. I think the reason many people don't run for office is twofold: First, it costs so much money. It is obscene, and a lot of people do not have the stomach for it. They don't want to do it. And I don't blame them. I think they wonder how we have the stomach for it. I think they think that maybe we are a little off. Or second, and just as important--and I could sure draw from some examples, but I will not because I might be violating Senate etiquette if I do--is why in the world when we have this search-and-destroy, slash-and-burn politics, where people do anything to win--that anybody wonders why people do not want to run for office? Does anybody here, Democrat or Republican alike, really believe that the reason younger people, and not such young people, do not run for office is because they can only make $133,000 a year? Don't you think it might have something to do with our failure to clean up this mess, to come together and pass some kind of good campaign finance reform bill? And don't you think it has a lot to do, Republicans and Democrats alike, with the way in which we have let all of these handlers move in and run our campaigns, putting attack ads on television which try to destroy candidates? Don't you think this is what makes most people in the country just a little bit skeptical about whether or not they would want to run for office and serve? I would just suggest to my colleagues that this situation is far more the issue than a cost-of-living increase. Finally, I will just go back to the first point I made today. I was just responding to what was said by my friend from Alaska--and to the concern about demagoguery on this issue. I admire people who come out here and say, ``I disagree.'' I am quite often on the side of something that is not popular. But I do believe that the arguments so far that have been given in opposition to this amendment don't make any sense. They really do not make any sense. I believe that it is important that people be able to make a decent income. We should vote, at the right time, for a cost-of-living increase, and not try to do this through the back door. People believe this is the right way to do an increase. But I don't see how we can do it in the context of the decisions that we have made and the sacrifice that we have called for from the people in this country that have been most affected by the decisions. I don't see how, if we are going to make the argument that people feel an economic squeeze at $133,000 a year, while most of the cuts we make in discretionary programs hurt low- and moderate-income families and their children in the name of sacrifice and in the name of deficit reduction, that this is the right time for us to go forward with a cost-of-living increase. That is the purpose of what I called the Wellstone-Brownback amendment, or whatever we wish to call it--it's name doesn't matter. Obviously, this amendment is going to be accepted. Is my understanding correct that this amendment is going to be accepted?

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. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Iowa wants to speak and my colleague from Arkansas. Could I just for a moment ask unanimous consent that an intern, Mara Davis, be allowed to be in the Chamber today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator DeWine and I wanted to introduce a bill. This would give us altogether maybe 15 minutes between two people.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I asked unanimous consent that morning business--we were hoping we would be able to introduce a bill and talk about it a little while. Given the important discussion that took place, I asked whether or not we could extend 10 minutes beyond what we had originally planned for morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask, colleagues have been involved in an important discussion. I think they probably would want to go on more, but I know Senator DeWine and I want to introduce a bill. We thought we might have a little more time. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for an additional 15 minutes?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Paul D. Staudenmaier, executive director of the Boys and Girls Club of Duluth, MN. On September 13, 1997, he will retire with over 21 years of dedicated service. Paul's career with the Boys Clubs began in Chicago over 46 years ago. In his teens, he was headed for a gang fight, when a member of the Chicago Boys Club urged him to come to the area club. He started as a games room worker at the former Harper Chicago Boys Club on the south side of Chicago and progressed through many different positions in the Chicago area clubs. He was program director at the Woodlawn Boys Club, unit director at the Lathrop Boys Club on the north side, and unit director at the Valentine Boys Club in the old neighborhood of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley. Paul received his masters degree in education administration with the help of a Boys Club Scholarship from New York University. He also served in the army in the Korean conflict, married Fran, his wife, and had four sons. In 1977, when Paul became executive director of the Boys Club of Duluth, the club was floundering and needed strong leadership. The club had less than $500 in the bank, and over $4,000 in unpaid bills. Housed in an old church building, it also needed a new boiler. Through the generous efforts of the United Way of Duluth, Paul secured a new boiler and from then on, changes occurred for the better. By 1980 the club was changing to have memberships for boys and girls. It took 10 years before the national organization gave the recognition to become the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Paul's many contributions have included helping to form the Help a Boy and Help A Girl scholarship which has been a very successful program. In 1982, he formed the Mighty-Mites for 4- to 5-year old children, a summer program for working mothers and in 1984, the Summer Fun Bunch for children, ages 6 to 12 years old. In 1985, he started the Operating Endowment Fund which is now the Boys and Girls Club of Duluth Foundation with assets of over $400,000. One of the highlights of Paul's career came in 1992 when a joint partnership was formed with the Duluth school district at the Lincoln Park School, located just a few blocks from the club. The Lincoln Park neighborhood has a ratio of 70 to 80 percent of single parent families and now has become a youth and family center that serves approximately 800 youth. It offers community swimming and gym classes for parents and children, and has a computer center for use after school hours for youth and parents, and offers many other youth and family programs. The program at the Lincoln School has been so successful that the existing club will be converted into a full service teen center. Paul's ability to look ahead has helped the club to form a strategic planning committee. One of its goals is to work with the local school district to form more joint ventures at other schools in other areas of the city. Paul Staudenmaier's contributions over the years are impressive and noteworthy, and it is an honor for me to pay tribute to this remarkable and dedicated man. As family, friends, and colleagues gather to honor Paul on September 13, 1997, I join them in conveying my heartiest congratulations. It is a privilege for me to join in honoring his distinguished career of service to others. As you celebrate this milestone, all the best on this occasion and I extend my warmest wishes to Paul for a well- deserved retirement, filled with continued good health and happiness.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offered on behalf of myself, Senator Harkin, Senator Daschle, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, is very simple and straightforward. It simply would authorize the Secretary of Defense to be able to transfer $400 million to veterans health care. In the budget resolution, we cut $400 million out of the health care budget of veterans. We have more Persian Gulf veterans who are seeking care. We have more and more veterans who are living to be 65 and living to be 85. We have veterans who are struggling with PTSD. This is a huge mistake. We should not be doing this. This gives us an opportunity to really be there for veterans. There are three wonderful letters from Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Disabled Veterans of America, all of which strongly support this amendment. I hope we will have a good, strong vote. I hope we will win on this. I say to colleagues, one way or the other, we have to restore these cuts in veterans health care.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Inquiry, Mr. President. Is it 2 minutes time equally divided?

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield to the Senator from Iowa the remainder of our time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I, again, want to stress support from three organizations that have had a chance to really take a look at this. I think there is broad support from the veterans community--I really hope that we will get a strong vote for this amendment--from the Disabled American Veterans, from the Vietnam Veterans of America, and from the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Earlier I asked unanimous consent that letters of their support be printed in the Record. What we do here is we just simply give the Secretary of Defense discretion authority to transfer $400 million to the VA to restore VA funding for health care. This was cut in the budget resolution. Again, I want to make it real clear to my colleagues that I don't think any of us really understood that we were going to have these kind of deep cuts in the VA health care budget. I want to, in a couple of minutes, make the point that we are not just talking about abstract numbers and statistics, we are talking about people's lives. In particular, I want to talk about what the VA health care system is dealing with. First of all, the Persian Gulf veterans. When we had testimony in the Veterans' Committee, it was very, very important that when General Schwarzkopf came in, one of the points he made was one commitment we can make to the gulf war veterans, I say to my colleague from Iowa, is to make sure we do the research as to what happened to them, and, second of all, we make sure that those veterans get the health care that they need. Mr. President, this has everything in the world to do with defense. They were there supporting our country, and, in addition, let me point out that the Department of Defense, I think if there was any one agency in Government that would be more than willing to transfer a little bit of funding to make sure those veterans get health care, it certainly would be the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense. So it is a mild amendment. It does not ask for much. It just simply says we shouldn't have cut this $400 million. I want to make it real clear on the Senate floor, that if we don't win today--and I hope we will--my colleague and I are, one way or another, absolutely committed to restoring this funding. You can be talking about the gulf war veterans, you can be talking about the Vietnam veterans, you can be talking about post-traumatic stress syndrome, you can be talking about World War II and Korean war veterans who are now older and need the care as well. Mr. President, by the year 2000, one out of every three veterans is going to be 65 years of age or older, and 63 percent of all American males over the age of 65 will be veterans. These are the demographics. So there is nothing more important we can do than to make sure that we live up to our contract to provide these veterans with the support that they need. What is going to happen if we don't restore the funds? This is my conclusion. It is a simple argument we are making. If we don't restore the $400 million this year, what is going to happen is we are going to accelerate closure of inpatient care, we are going to offer fewer ambulatory services, we are going to reduce long-term care, and we are going to treat fewer veterans. That is what is going to happen. That is wrong. If we want to help veterans, this is an opportunity to do so. We all love to be in the parades, we all speak at the veterans' gatherings, we all say it is a sacred contract, we all say that we support veterans. Well, Mr. President, we cut $400 million, and my colleagues can ask any veteran in any of your States, and they didn't know about it. Now is the time to rectify this mistake. Now is the time to take a small amount of money, $400 million, out of $2.6 billion more than the Pentagon asked for and at least give the Secretary of Defense the authority to transfer this funding. I am sure this will happen if we vote for it, and I hope that we get a very strong vote. This amendment is a justice amendment. We should not be cutting health care services for veterans. The demand is increasing for that care, and we ought to, as U.S. Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, respond to veterans, we ought to support veterans, and the right thing to do is to vote for this amendment. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Iowa for all of his support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I think we are now on our amendment. I believe it is No. 668. Mr. President, I am going to just take 5 minutes. I am proud to be joined by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daschle and Senator Kerry from Massachusetts be added as original cosponsors.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Point of inquiry. Did we have an order of amendments we had agreed to?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be allowed to speak and the Senator from Texas for 10 minutes and then that be followed by the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my amendment is pending now, I say to my colleague from Texas. The Levin amendment is not pending. I have not yielded the floor yet, but I would be more than willing----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would rather not yield the floor at the moment. But if my colleague wants to speak--do we have other Senators on the floor who want to speak on this amendment? My colleague from Iowa wants to speak on the amendment. If Senators want to cover other topics for a short period of time, I would be more than willing to defer to them. We want to try to make our case here before the vote. Can I ask my colleagues whether they are interested in debating this amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Are we now debating this amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, these letters are extremely important. They are from three very fine veterans organizations: The DAV, the PVA, and the Vietnam Veterans of America. The reason they are concerned, and, for that matter, all of the veterans community is concerned, is that in the budget resolution what we ended up putting into effect was a cut in veterans health care benefits. Mr. President, the portion of those cuts that directly affect veterans health care is $400 million. What this amendment does is simply authorize the Secretary of Defense the ability to be able to transfer this $400 million into the veterans health care. Mr. President, let me just say to colleagues that this is a huge issue. I am positive that if my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, get a chance to talk with the veterans organizations and veterans communities in their States, they will find out that people are really indignant about this because it was never clear--I don't think it was clear to any of us--that, in fact, we were voting for actual cuts, actual cuts in veterans health care. What this amendment does, it says, look, we have $2.6 billion in the Pentagon budget more than the Pentagon asked for; we can at least take a portion of this. And please remember, all this amendment does is give the Secretary of Defense the discretion or the authority to be able to transfer it. It is not a mandate. It seems very appropriate. Mr. President, it seems like this amendment that Senator Harkin and I have introduced is eminently reasonable because if you think about it, one of the huge concerns in the Veterans' Committee is very much linked to national defense. We are talking about men and women who have served our country. As we look at veterans health care and we project to the future, we want to make sure we do not end up sacrificing the quality of care for veterans. I know what I hear back in the State of Minnesota, first and foremost, we have now an increasing number of gulf war veterans who are in need of help. This is yet an additional challenge for the VA. This is an additional challenge for our country to get the care to these people. Mr. President, this amendment, again, just authorizes the Secretary of Defense to make this transfer of funding. These veterans were all about serving our country in defense of our country. If there ever was an opportunity to restore this funding for veterans health care, it is now. This Congress, whether it is this afternoon, or whether it is next week, or whether it is next month, is going to have to restore this funding. I don't think there was one Senator that was clear, when we passed this budget resolution, that we were actually directing $400 million of cuts in veterans health care. I will just tell you that more and more and more of the gulf war veterans are going to be stepping forward in your States, in our States, and they are going to be saying: We don't know what happened to us, but we do know that before we went and served, we could run 2 miles and we felt good, and now we can't walk a half mile, and we don't know what happened to us. Over and over again, we are seeing report after report that makes it crystal clear that the gulf war veterans have every reason in the world to be indignant about not getting information that they need to get from our Government and, more important, about their need to receive some care. So what in the world are we doing cutting $400 million in the veterans health care budget? In addition, Mr. President, let me simply point out that above and beyond the gulf war veterans, we have a situation where our veterans population is aging. More and more of our veterans are living to be 65 years of age and over. More and more of our veterans are living to be 85 years of age and over. And this is an additional strain. So, Mr. President, I want to point out that, at the very time that veterans are showing up at VA hospitals in greater numbers, with increasing health care costs generally and prospects for greater medical costs specifically, at the very time that we have that going on, we have a cut in this budget resolution. So, what we are saying in this amendment--and I will defer to my colleague from Iowa in a moment--we are saying, look, we have an excess $2.6 billion. It is more than the Pentagon asked for. We have a cut in veterans health care in the budget resolution to the tune of $400 million. It is clear it is going to have very negative consequences for veterans. The veterans community in our Nation--I have just three letters, from the PVA, DAV, and Vietnam veterans, and they are saying: You can't do that. What about those of us who are struggling with posttraumatic stress syndrome? What about the Persian Gulf veterans? More and more are asking: What happened to us? More and more of those veterans are asking for adequate care. What about the ever-increasing aging population among veterans at the very time there is going to be more of a strain? At the very time that we have more of a challenge, you have cut $400 million. This is an opportunity to come through for the veterans community. I hope it will happen today. I hope we get a very strong vote today. I say this to all my colleagues. One way or another, we are going to have to restore this funding. This amendment, if you just think about the wording, just provides the Secretary of Defense with the authorization to transfer some of this funding to VA health care--$400 million--and it makes eminently good sense because, after all, these veterans who come and seek health care within our VA health care system were the very men and women who served our country in defense of our country. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Harkin. Mr. President, let me begin by asking unanimous consent that letters from the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America be printed in the Record in support of this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 668.