Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief and take just several hours--just take a few minutes to speak about this. I wanted to see if everyone was awake today. This is an amendment that would assist atomic veterans. Mr. President, I actually could talk for several hours about the atomic veterans. But I would just say that I think the most moving and most emotional times for me as a Senator has been time spent with atomic veterans in Minnesota. These are veterans who were asked to go to ground zero during the atomic testing in States like Nevada and were put in harm's way by our Government, and no one told them what they might be facing, and no one gave them protective gear. For many of these atomic veterans it has been a nightmare. This all started in the 1950's, and for decades many of them have had a pattern of illness in their families. I could go on for hours talking about what has happened to them, including high incidences of cancer for the atomic veterans themselves, and all sorts of problems of cancer and deformities with children and grandchildren. And to this day they still wait for adequate compensation. They wait for justice. I think it is one of the most shameful things that has happened in our country. These are veterans. I actually want to focus on just one small piece of this amendment. I am hoping to be able to receive good support from both Democrats and Republicans, and I am hoping this amendment may indeed be accepted. I know Congressman Lane Evans has worked on this in the House, and I believe this provision has been accepted in the House of Representatives. This amendment would authorize $500,000 for the third and final phase of a Defense Special Weapons Agency program at Brookhaven National Laboratory to conduct--this will sound technical, Mr. President, but it is actually pretty important--to conduct internal dose reconstructions of veterans exposed to ionizing radiation while serving in the Armed Forces. DSWA is responsible for providing dose reconstructions for most atomic veterans filing claims with the VA. Out of the funding provided to DSWA--this, again, is the Defense Special Weapons Agency--for R&D under section 201(4), $500,000 would be available for bioassay testing at Brookhaven National Laboratory for the purpose of conducting internal dose reconstructions of atomic veterans to find out what has happened to them. That is what this is all about. This program is crucial to atomic veterans because it provides the means, I say to my colleague from South Carolina, who has been so supportive of veterans, for more accurate reconstruction of radiation dosage. This is a vital step in ensuring that atomic veterans receive the compensation they deserve and in reassuring veterans who did not inhale or ingest radioactive particles in quantities sufficient to cause cancer. In other words, they need to know where they stand. This is a terribly important test. We do not want to eliminate the funding for this. Many veterans who have radiogenic diseases have been denied compensation often based on flawed dose reconstructions. Mr. President, out of the hundreds of thousands of atomic veterans--I would like my colleagues to hear this, even if they are not on the floor now as they consider how to vote on this--out of the hundreds of thousands of atomic veterans, merely 15,000 have filed claims for service-connected compensation with the VA based on disability stemming from radiogenic diseases. Of these, only 1,438 have been approved, or less than 10 percent. Just imagine this, hundreds of thousands of atomic veterans, only 15,000 claims, and only a little over 1,000 have been approved. Of this low percentage, an indeterminate percentage may have had their claims granted for diseases unrelated to radiation exposure. Mr. President, we have to make sure that we provide funding, a small amount of funding within the Department of Defense--that is where we have been doing this funding--to make sure that we continue this very critical test undertaken for atomic veterans. The White House Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments found ``that the Government did not create or maintain adequate records regarding the exposure of all participants [in nuclear weapons tests and] the identity and test locales of all participants.'' This finding calls into question the current capability of the Government to come up with accurate dose reconstructions on which the approval of claims for VA compensation for many atomic veterans depend. Again, the advisory committee has said we do not have adequate data. We have not been able to keep the records. If we do not have this dose reconstruction done well, then a lot of the atomic veterans who deserve compensation for the terrible illnesses that have been inflicted upon them or their family members are not going to have the chance to get the compensation. The DSWA program at Brookhaven uses a technology called fission tracking analysis. It analyzes the results of urine samples from atomic veterans to arrive at internal dose reconstructions. The program seeks to improve the technique first used to establish the Marshall Islanders' exposure to ionizing radiation from atmospheric nuclear testing, the same tests that we have been using with Marshall Islanders. During the third and final phase of the program, Brookhaven plans to conduct bioassays of atomic veterans and provide technical assistance to DSWA in internal dose reconstruction. Here is what has happened, here is the reason for this amendment, colleagues. Unfortunately, a conflict has now taken place between DOD and VA, and it has developed on funding the final phase of the program. DSWA declines to continue funding the program because it contends that it is not in the business of medical testing, even though the agency has performed medical testing for Marshall Islanders. The VA simply claims it lacks the necessary funding. In the interests of the atomic veterans who served this country bravely and unquestionably, we need to end the bickering and ensure the program is carried out to fruition. The VFW, the National Association of Atomic Veterans, and the Disabled American Veterans agree and strongly back this amendment. It is a little bit outrageous that we have this bickering going on and at the same time you have these veterans for whom this test is the only way that they are ever going to be able to get any compensation. Mr. President, in closing, I note that for many years the cover of the Atomic Veterans Newsletter, the official publication of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, contained the simple but eloquent statement: ``The atomic veteran seeks no special favor, simply justice.'' Their fight for justice has been too long, it has been too hard, and it has been too frustrating. But these patriotic and deserving veterans have persevered and they retain their faith in America. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in helping atomic veterans with their struggle for justice and supporting my amendment. It is a matter of simple justice. Mr. President, Congressman Lane Evans, who has been such a strong advocate for atomic veterans, has done this on the House side. I think the Senate should join in this effort. I think it would be absolutely unconscionable if we eliminated this funding for this small but very, very important program where we can have adequate data as to what kind of radiation dosage these atomic veterans were, in fact, vulnerable to, affected by, and what this means for them now. That, Mr. President, is the meaning of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent this amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have two amendments I will discuss. The first is an amendment numbered 669.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we lay aside the pending amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague in offering this amendment. Last year during the welfare reform debate, as part of the effort to balance the budget, the 104th Congress made dramatic cuts to programs for low-income families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 93 percent of the cuts in entitlement programs in the 104th Congress came from programs for low-income people. Congress reduced entitlement programs by $65.6 billion over the period from 1996 to 2002. I am deeply concerned about the extent to which legal immigrants are being harmed under the Welfare Reform act. The Act cut $22 billion in services to legal immigrants--a full 44 percent of the overall legislation. The House Ways and Means Committee reconciliation mark provided the least generous allocation of funding for legal immigrants as compared to the budget agreement and the Senate Finance Committee mark. The $9 billion allocation in the Ways and Means mark violates the budget agreement, and it covers fewer people. Since it does not cover those who, in the future, could be eligible for SSI assistance, it will leave many without any means of support. According to the Social Security Administration, 125,000 fewer people will be served by the House agreement compared to the Budget Agreement. In Minnesota it puts 1,145 elderly immigrants at risk of losing benefits. Moreover, it puts an additional 161,000 people at risk of losing their benefits because their citizenship is unknown or difficult to prove. Probably the worst provision in this agreement is that it makes an inhumane and irrational distinction among disabled people based on an arbitrary date on the calendar. If you were disabled and receiving SSI on August 22, 1996, then you retain eligibility. If not, there is no hope for receiving future benefits. The Durbin/Wellstone amendment restores food stamp benefits to legal immigrant families with children 18 years old and under at a cost of $750 million over 5 years. Our offset is achieved by placing limits on the amount of Federal money that States can use to offset their cost share requirements in the food stamp and Medicaid programs. Our amendment would take a small step toward addressing the use of these funds and target the savings into food stamp benefits for legal immigrants who have dependent children. Over 5 years, we hope to save $1 billion, which fully covers the cost of restoring food stamp benefits. Unlike other low-income families in this country, legal immigrants are banned from receiving food stamp benefits. Food stamps are the Nation's largest and most successful food assistance program and cuts to this program made up half of the savings in last year's welfare reform effort. According to CBO, 17 percent of the immigrants receiving food stamps are children. This means more than 150,000 children have lost access to this critical program. In Minnesota roughly 15,900 individuals are expected to lose food stamp benefits. According to INS, most of these immigrant families will naturalize within 10 years, making them eligible to apply for food stamps. CBO estimates that it will cost $750 million to restore food stamp benefits for children 18 years and under. Senator Durbin and I have provided an offset that achieves that amount over 5 years. No matter what your position on the overall budget deal, you must agree that no purpose is served by denying children food. According to the Food Research and Action Center, approximately 13.6 million children under age 12 are at risk of hunger during some part of the year. FRAC reports that although families who face real issues of hunger may not be hungry every day of the month, or even every month of the year, the hunger affecting most low-income families is not a one- time or infrequent occurrence. It is characterized--and this is according to FRAC--by food shortages and chronic insecurity about whether the family will have enough food. We are now benefiting from scientific research that points to the significance of the early years on development of the brain. A consistently nutritious diet is one of the most important if not the most important ingredient to a child reaching his or her potential. In a 1995 study entitled Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project; a Survey of Childhood Hunger in the United States, FRAC determined that undernourished children suffer from two to four times as many health problems. I quote from the survey: Hungry children are more likely to be ill and absent from school. The infant mortality rate is closely linked to inadequate quantity or quality in the diet of the infant's mother. Iron deficiency anemia in children can lead to adverse health effects such as developmental and behavioral disturbances that can affect children's ability to learn and to read or do mathematics. According to the Centers for Disease Control, anemia remains a significant health problem among low-income children. Hungry children are less likely to interact with other people or to explore or learn from their surroundings. This interferes with their ability to learn from a very early age. According to the Tufts University Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy, evidence from recent research about child nutrition shows that, in addition to having a detrimental effect on the cognitive development of children, undernutrition results in lost knowledge, brainpower, and productivity. Hunger and insecurity about whether a family will be able to obtain enough food to avoid hunger, also have an emotional impact on children and their parents. Anxiety, negative feelings about self-worth, and hostility toward the outside world can result from chronic hunger and food insecurity. The food stamp is designed to reach those families most in need and there is plenty of evidence that the children most at risk of hunger are in poor or low-income families. A 1996-study reported about 6.1 million children under 6 were living in poverty in 1994. An additional 4.8 million young children lived near the poverty line, according to Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty. Sixty- two percent of poor children lived with at least one parent or relative who worked. Fewer than one-third of the children's families relied exclusively on welfare. The poverty rate grew fastest among Hispanic children, rising 43 percent since 1979, compared with a 38-percent rise among white children and 19 percent among black children. Last year's reform banned legal immigrant families with dependent children from food stamp benefits. This amendment is about restoring critical food assistance to those children. We cannot say we are for children and then turn our backs on legal immigrant children. This amendment is reasonable. It's paid for and it makes imminent sense.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues for their words of support and look forward to working with them in the coming days to make this change happen. Railroad Deficit Reduction Fuel Taxes

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the tax bill before us includes important tax incentives for the use of ethanol. These tax incentives have been critical to the growth of the ethanol industry, which in my State is monopolized by farmer-owned cooperatives. Farmer-owned coops are now the leading producers of ethanol. They make up 60 percent of the ethanol facilities around the country. By year's end, nine plants will be in operation in Minnesota, producing 126 million gallons annually and creating 500 new jobs. Overall, ethanol contributes between $109 and $260 million yearly to the State's economy. Currently, 71 percent of the gas sold in Minnesota contains ethanol. By the end of the year, 100 percent of the gas sold in Minnesota will be blended with ethanol. My concern today is with the small blenders tax credit. This income credit is available to ethanol producers who produce no more than 30 million gallons annually; and, it is applied to the first 15 million gallons. That's great. Targeting the credit is what we should do. Unfortunately, the credit works in such a way that cooperatives fail to get any advantage from it. I would like to ask that when the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee conference on the two tax bills, that they give serious consideration to changing the way the credit is structured so that cooperatives, like all other ethanol producers, receive the intended benefits of the small blenders tax credit. I appreciate the good efforts of my colleagues on this matter and hope they will work with me to address this technical change in the small blenders tax credit when the committees conference on the tax bills. I see my colleague from Illinois and know her commitment to the role of ethanol as an alternative fuel. I understand you have two farmer- owned cooperatives proposed for construction in Illinois?

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is about the HOPE scholarship program. If the tax credits will work for working families, these should be refundable credits. I ask for full support. The offset is responsible. Everybody is under all this pressure. I ask for a voice vote.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dynamic leader, very capable public servant, tenacious veteran's advocate, and a good friend--Veterans' Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown. I am saddened by the news that Secretary Brown is leaving after four productive and hard working years at the helm of the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs. Under his leadership, the VA and veterans have made tremendous progress. Jesse Brown fought battle after battle to protect, reform, and fully fund veterans' health care. Jesse Brown won most of those battles. Jesse Brown fought to strengthen benefits for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. He fought for their children suffering from Spina Bifida. Jesse Brown won those battles. Jesse Brown fought to improve the veterans' benefits claims process. He better than anyone knew the importance of timely, accurate, and fair decisions. Jesse Brown worked hard for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, Persian Gulf war veterans, women veterans, homeless veterans, and many others. Most importantly, Jesse Brown cares about people. I've seen him on many occasions stop what he's doing to visit one-on-one with a veteran in need or a grieving loved one. In an airport, on the street, in a hospital, at VFW post, Jesse always took the time to listen to people and to try to help them. That is what leadership is all about. That is what being an effective public servant is all about. That is what being a veterans' advocate is all about. Jesse was never afraid to speak his mind and fight for veterans and their families--no matter the strength of the opposition or political risk to him. He did what he thought was right. He was proud to be their advocate and it should come as no surprise when said that being Secretary had been the high point of his life. Jesse Brown, a former Marine wounded in Vietnam, can feel good about his accomplishments and he can feel proud that his place in history is secure. He will be known forever as the Secretary for Veterans' Affairs. He will be known as one of the best veterans' advocates the country has ever seen. Here are some of the comments that veterans, their families, and veterans' advocates have shared with me since learning the news that Jesse is leaving the VA. Jesse brought to the VA real experience, knowledge, and wisdom to prepare the VA for the 21st Century. We'll miss him.''--Bernie Melter, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Veterans' Affairs. Jesse Brown's commitment to veterans will never be questioned and his tenure as Secretary for Veterans Affairs will go down in history as the greatest advocate for veterans we'll ever see.--Duane Krueger, Vietnam veteran and Anoka County Veterans Service Officer. Secretary Brown's departure is a major loss for all veterans. His advocacy for veterans was without regard to political affiliation and was based upon the fact that as a veteran you had earned your entitlement.--Wayne Sletten, Vietnam era veteran and Lake County Veterans' Service officer. In my personal opinion Secretary Jesse Brown was the best leader of the VA we've ever had.--Chuck Milbrandt, Director, Minneapolis VA Medical Center. At a time when my family was struggling to obtain my late husband's benefits for Agent Orange, Jesse took the time to personally review the case and ensure that we received all the benefits to which we were entitled. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Jesse Brown and his commitment to helping people.--Leesa Gilmore, widow of Vietnam Veteran Tim Gillmore. Secretary Jesse Brown will be sorely missed by all of us at the St. Paul VA Regional Office and Insurance Center. He was a strong and fair leader and served as an excellent role model on how we ought to serve veterans and their dependents. We will miss his guidance, candor, and wit. We wish him the best of luck in future endeavors and know that he will continue to be a strong advocate for all veterans.--Ron Henke, Director, St. Paul VA Regional Office and Insurance Center. These are some of the many people who have expressed their admiration and respect for Jesse Brown and who want to recognize his many achievements during his tenure in office. For me, I will dearly miss working side-by-side with Jesse fighting for veterans and their families. Like veterans in Minnesota, he has been my teacher and today here in the U.S. Senate I am proud to honor him and thank him for his incredible service and wonderful friendship. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to VA Secretary Brown and properly recognize him for his many years of service and commitment to the Nation and her veterans.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is not an objection. I am not going to object. But just the question, if I could ask it. My understanding is--I mean, there are a number of us--all of us would like to finish. Some of us have been waiting a long time, many, to have amendments and to discuss them and I don't think we want to prolong the matter. My understanding is as opposed to the beginning of the week, we don't actually have to lay the amendment down tonight in order to have that amendment up tomorrow; am I correct? My second question is, wouldn't it be a little bit more expeditious if in fact the amendment could be laid down so we don't have to go through that process at all tomorrow morning with the requirement if they are not laid down tonight they would be out of order?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Are we going to rotate?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have about 3 minutes, I guess. Let me just mention a couple of amendments that fit in with this whole idea of tax fairness. One amendment that I hope to do, with Democrats and Republicans, is to make sure we take the HOPE scholarship program and make these tax credits refundable. It is the same issue. Think about the community college students; many are older, going back to school and with children. If we want to make sure that we are really providing help to them--they are not going to be able to take advantage of this $1,500 because they are not going to have that liability. If we want higher education to be affordable for many of these working families, we simply have to do that. A higher education is so important to how our children and grandchildren will do that I hope we will be able to pass that amendment. The second amendment that I want and hope to do with Senator Bumpers takes the tax cuts and puts it into a Pell grant program. We simply make the Pell grant $7,000 a year, and that is the most efficient, effective way of making sure that higher education is affordable. The third amendment I want to mention is the amendment I want to do with Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, which has to do with tax credits and, again, for school infrastructure. I say, what are we doing with all of these tax benefits mainly going to wealthy people and we are not investing 1 cent into rebuilding rotting schools across America? What kind of distorted priorities are out here? Finally, I want to mention--in case I don't have a chance later on as we run out of time--that I have an amendment I think is real interesting, which goes like this. If you have a company--and please remember that average wages rose 3 percent in 1996. Salaries and bonuses of American CEOs rose 39 percent to $2.3 million. So what I say to a company is: Look, if you want to pay your CEO over 25 times what the lowest wage worker makes, go ahead and do it, go ahead and do it. Right now, we say you can do it up to a million dollars. But don't do it on the Government's tax tab. You can pay your CEO anything you want to, but when it is above 25 times what the lowest wage worker makes, you don't get any tax breaks for doing that, just as we don't end up getting tax breaks when someone mows our lawn. We don't get to deduct that. What are we doing here, if we are talking about fairness? Well, Mr. President, the differences make a difference. This is an outrageous argument that working families paying a payroll tax are only receiving welfare payments. This is an outrageous proposition that over 600,000 children are not going to benefit in the State of Minnesota from this tax credit. We are talking about a tax bill out here that provides the lion's share of benefits to those people least in need of the assistance. Mr. President, there is no reason in the world for Senators to be quiet on this issue. I hope we get a very strong vote for our amendment. I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from--

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try and take 7\1/2\ minutes and leave 7\1/2\ minutes for my colleague. Mr. President, I have more than enough to say but just in response to my good friend from Oklahoma, there was a quote--and maybe this is the same argument he is making--from Speaker Gingrich, ``When you take out billions of dollars in tax cuts for working people and put in billions of dollars for people who pay no taxes, that's increasing welfare spending.'' We are talking about the child credit. Mr. President, let me just remind the Speaker and my good friend from Oklahoma, looking at CBO numbers, this is the percentage of working families who would not be eligible for the majority party's child tax credit, whose payroll taxes exceed their income taxes. The bottom fifth, 0 to $21,700, 99.6 percent; second fifth, $21,000 to $41,000, 97 percent. There are a lot of working families in the State of Minnesota and all across this country who are not going to be eligible for this child tax credit who pay payroll taxes, who work hard, pay taxes, and are, quite frankly, resentful of this argument that is being made. As a Senator who represents those families, I am especially resentful of such an argument. I only need to know one thing about this tax proposal, this reconciliation bill. In the State of Minnesota, the tax bill excludes 41 percent of the children. Mr. President, 607,463 children of the 1.5 million children in Minnesota would not receive a benefit from the child tax credit. I repeat, 607,000 children of 1.5 million children will not receive the benefit of the child tax credit. Those are working families. I say to Democrats, every Democrat, every single Democrat, and as many Republicans as possible, ought to be out here advocating and fighting for those families. It is outrageous to make the argument that they do not pay any taxes or they are ``just on welfare.'' Absolutely outrageous. Mr. President, you have heard the figures presented out here so I do not need to go through that again except to say I am telling you, in the cafes in Minnesota, when people get a close look at this reconciliation bill they are going to be amazed. They are going to be really teed off because they are going to say, wait a minute, I thought there was going to be tax relief for us, the small business people, and us, working families. They are going to find out that the lion's share of the benefits go to the very top, the folks that are the CEO's, the multinational corporations who are raking in, on the average, $3 million a year. You know, Mr. President, I sometimes think that my colleagues believe that if you make $100,000 a year, you are middle class. I would be surprised if more than 10 percent of the people in this country make over $100,000 a year. What about these working families? Well, we have a proposal here that targets these tax benefits to working families, to small businesses, to family farmers. I am telling you, this is one of these moments where the differences between the two parties make a difference. My gosh, I think a lot of people in Minnesota are scratching their heads and saying: Has there been a hostile takeover of the Government process in Washington, DC? We have been hearing about all this money in elections, and we are now starting to believe that the only folks that sit down at the bargaining table and get their way are people who have the economic resources, because we sure are getting the short end of the stick. And they are right. I hope we will get a huge vote for this alternative. Mr. President, let me just summarize a couple of amendments. How much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. I say to my colleagues I will probably take 10 minutes. How much time remains?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to waive that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with Senator Mikulski. We just repealed the Boren provision, which was an effort to make sure that there was reasonable and adequate rates of reimbursement. This was for nursing homes, children's hospitals, group care for people with disabilities. What we do in this amendment is a compromise, colleagues. We just simply require that States provide assurance to the Secretary that the rates will be actuarially sufficient to ensure adequate care. We don't have any vague standard. This is an actuarially sufficiency standard. We are just saying to States, let's have some standard that you can say you have had an independent analysis done and that you are providing the resources so the children's hospitals and nursing homes and group homes can provide adequate care to very vulnerable seniors, children and the disabled. Please vote for this compromise. We can't wipe out all of these standards. Other than that, I do not feel strongly about it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have people talking all around me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is hard in this process because people want to talk. But these amendments have consequences for people's lives. I would like to wait until we have order.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could just say to you, I am not going to start, if I could ask for order.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may we have order?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this past fall for me as a Senator, one of the proudest moments was when the Senate passed the Domenici--and I was pleased to join him--Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act. This became part of the VA-HUD appropriations bill and became, really, eventually the law of the land. This was a first and important step in ending the discrimination when it comes to health care coverage for people struggling with mental illness, to say we take another step toward punching through some of the prejudice and some of the ignorance about mental illness. Mr. President, I thank, and I say to my colleague from New Mexico this is really what it is all about--we have in the gallery, family gallery, people representing the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Mental Health Association. They have been here all day. This has been several days we worked on this. I believe, thanks to the strong support of Senator Domenici, that we have now an amendment that will be approved. I thank him for his fine work. I thank the people who have been here today, thank you for your help, and I would like to thank also Margaret Halperin who works with me in the mental health area. This amendment just says that now what we have done is we have focused on children's health care, we have some $16 billion of additional money. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware for all of his fine work on this. What this amendment says is--it does not mandate anything. What it says is when it comes to providing health care coverage, now that it goes to States, as there is additional funding to provide health care coverage for children if there is going to be mental health coverage in any package that we do not have any discriminatory treatment toward those children that are struggling with mental illness. This is terribly important. What we are doing again is we are just kind of breaking through more prejudice. It is another step toward ending discrimination and it is so important, I say to colleagues. This is passed now at night. Tomorrow I hope we will focus on it, if not on the floor of the Senate I know there will be many people in the country who will want to focus on it, groups and organizations here that will want to focus on this. What this means for families and for children, I cannot even begin to explain. But let me simply say all too often it has been devastating. There has been no coverage. All too often it is children who could be doing well in school but are not able to, it is children who could live full lives but are not able to. What we do with this amendment is we take another step toward breaking through the prejudice, toward breaking through the discrimination and, we say, now that we have funds going to States and now we are going to be focusing on the health care of children, please, colleagues, please remember that when we talk about the health of children we are also talking about the mental health of children. That is what this amendment says. That is what this amendment is all about. I am so pleased that this amendment is going to be accepted. We will work very hard to keep this in conference committee and this, again, is an amendment with, I think, strong bipartisan support. And more than anybody here in the Senate I thank Senator Domenici for all of his help. I yield the floor to my colleague from New Mexico.

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