Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. The majority leader keeps saying he is determined to get this assistance to the people and he is determined to try and get this done this week. Have I heard that correctly?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader. Let me see if I understand what the majority leader said, and I think I do. I expect it to be a friendly question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one final question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing today, the Medical Technology, Public Health and Innovation Act of 1997, takes a significant step toward improving the effectiveness, timeliness, and predictability of the FDA review process for medical devices. It is important that we improve the system for device approval in order to provide access to optimal technology to American consumers. We need to do this in order to promote the public health. We must also maintain protections for consumers, which are provided by the FDA's oversight of device manufacturing, development, and marketing. This legislation maintains those protections, while allowing for new efficiencies within the FDA. Over the past 2 years, I have met with numerous representatives of Minnesota's medical device industry, patient advocates, clinicians, and officials from the FDA, and have concluded that there are indeed steps that Congress should take to make the regulatory process for medical devices more efficient. Minnesotans want the FDA not only to protect public health, but also to promote public health. They want to know not only that new technologies will be safe, but that they will be available to them in a timely manner. Many of Minnesota's medical device manufacturers, researchers, clinicians, and patients in need of new and improved health care technology have become increasingly concerned about the regulatory environment at the FDA. While there have been some improvements in the device review process, there is still a need to increase communication between the FDA and industry; to decrease review times; and to have consistency in the review process. These needs are highlighted by the following example. A plant operated by a Minnesota-based device company was developing a new treatment for aortic aneurysms, which would require less invasive measures than are currently used. The company developed a protocol for testing its product, submitted the protocol to the FDA and was told by the reviewer that the protocol was invalid. The reviewer suggested a different protocol and the company followed it. Upon completion of the clinical trial, the company submitted the required data to the FDA. The original reviewer was on an extended leave of absence, so the data went to a different reviewer. The new reviewer deemed the protocol that was used to be invalid, and requested a new clinical trial, which basically followed the protocol that had been rejected by the first reviewer. The company was forced to do a new trial, which resulted in significant delays in getting this important product to market for patient use. I am certain that this is but one of many examples of inconsistently applied processes that delay the release of life-saving technology to the consumer. The technologies that the FDA regulates are changing rapidly. We cannot afford a regulatory system that is ill-equipped to speed these advances. As a result, both Congress and the Administration are reexamining the paradigms that have governed the FDA. Our challenge will be to define FDA's mission and scope of responsibility, as well as to give guidance on an appropriate balance between the risks and rewards of streamlining all aspects of how FDA does its job--including the approval process for breakthrough products. The legislation that I am introducing would begin to address these issues in three important ways: First, it would enable the FDA to adopt nationally and internationally recognized performance standards to improve the transparency and effectiveness of the device review process. Resource constraints and the time-consuming rulemaking process have precluded FDA promulgation of performance standards in the past. This legislation would allow the FDA, when appropriate, to simply adopt consensus standards that are already being used by most of the world and use those standards to assist in determining the safety and effectiveness of class III medical devices. The FDA could require additional data from a manufacturer relevant to an aspect of a device covered by an adopted performance standard if necessary to protect patient safety. Currently, the lack of clear performance standards for class III medical devices is a barrier to the improvement of the quality and timeliness of the premarket approval process. Second, it would improve communication between the industry and the FDA and the predictability of the review process. I believe that these two factors are extremely important. The bill includes provisions for meetings between the applicant and the FDA to ensure that applicants are promptly informed of any deficiencies in their application, that questions that can be answered easily would be addressed right away, and that applicants would be well informed about the status of their application. I believe that improving communication between the FDA and industry would result in greater compliance with regulations and that this will ultimately benefit consumers and patients. Third, the legislation would help the FDA focus its resources more appropriately. PMA supplements or 510(k)'s that relate only to changes that can be shown to not adversely affect the safety or effectiveness of the device would not require premarket approval or notification. Manufacturers would instead make information and data supporting the change part of the master record at the FDA. In addition the FDA would be able to exempt from premarket notification requirements those class II devices for which such requirements are unnecessary to ensure the public health without first having to go through the time consuming and bureaucratic process of reclassifying them to class I. The FDA would also have the option of relying on postmarket controls classifying devices. Enabling the FDA to focus its attention where the real risks are will not only streamline the approval process but also benefit consumers. I look forward to working with Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and my other colleagues on the Committee on the concepts included in my proposal. I will work vigorously to ensure that they are included in FDA legislation considered by the Senate this year. I look forward to continuing to work on these issues with Minnesotans. Clearly, there are actions that Congress can take to improve the FDA without sacrificing the assurance of safety that all Americans depend on. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing today, the Medical Technology, Public Health and Innovation Act of 1997, takes a significant step toward improving the effectiveness, timeliness, and predictability of the FDA review process for medical devices. It is important that we improve the system for device approval in order to provide access to optimal technology to American consumers. We need to do this in order to promote the public health. We must also maintain protections for consumers, which are provided by the FDA's oversight of device manufacturing, development, and marketing. This legislation maintains those protections, while allowing for new efficiencies within the FDA. Over the past 2 years, I have met with numerous representatives of Minnesota's medical device industry, patient advocates, clinicians, and officials from the FDA, and have concluded that there are indeed steps that Congress should take to make the regulatory process for medical devices more efficient. Minnesotans want the FDA not only to protect public health, but also to promote public health. They want to know not only that new technologies will be safe, but that they will be available to them in a timely manner. Many of Minnesota's medical device manufacturers, researchers, clinicians, and patients in need of new and improved health care technology have become increasingly concerned about the regulatory environment at the FDA. While there have been some improvements in the device review process, there is still a need to increase communication between the FDA and industry; to decrease review times; and to have consistency in the review process. These needs are highlighted by the following example. A plant operated by a Minnesota-based device company was developing a new treatment for aortic aneurysms, which would require less invasive measures than are currently used. The company developed a protocol for testing its product, submitted the protocol to the FDA and was told by the reviewer that the protocol was invalid. The reviewer suggested a different protocol and the company followed it. Upon completion of the clinical trial, the company submitted the required data to the FDA. The original reviewer was on an extended leave of absence, so the data went to a different reviewer. The new reviewer deemed the protocol that was used to be invalid, and requested a new clinical trial, which basically followed the protocol that had been rejected by the first reviewer. The company was forced to do a new trial, which resulted in significant delays in getting this important product to market for patient use. I am certain that this is but one of many examples of inconsistently applied processes that delay the release of life-saving technology to the consumer. The technologies that the FDA regulates are changing rapidly. We cannot afford a regulatory system that is ill-equipped to speed these advances. As a result, both Congress and the Administration are reexamining the paradigms that have governed the FDA. Our challenge will be to define FDA's mission and scope of responsibility, as well as to give guidance on an appropriate balance between the risks and rewards of streamlining all aspects of how FDA does its job--including the approval process for breakthrough products. The legislation that I am introducing would begin to address these issues in three important ways: First, it would enable the FDA to adopt nationally and internationally recognized performance standards to improve the transparency and effectiveness of the device review process. Resource constraints and the time-consuming rulemaking process have precluded FDA promulgation of performance standards in the past. This legislation would allow the FDA, when appropriate, to simply adopt consensus standards that are already being used by most of the world and use those standards to assist in determining the safety and effectiveness of class III medical devices. The FDA could require additional data from a manufacturer relevant to an aspect of a device covered by an adopted performance standard if necessary to protect patient safety. Currently, the lack of clear performance standards for class III medical devices is a barrier to the improvement of the quality and timeliness of the premarket approval process. Second, it would improve communication between the industry and the FDA and the predictability of the review process. I believe that these two factors are extremely important. The bill includes provisions for meetings between the applicant and the FDA to ensure that applicants are promptly informed of any deficiencies in their application, that questions that can be answered easily would be addressed right away, and that applicants would be well informed about the status of their application. I believe that improving communication between the FDA and industry would result in greater compliance with regulations and that this will ultimately benefit consumers and patients. Third, the legislation would help the FDA focus its resources more appropriately. PMA supplements or 510(k)'s that relate only to changes that can be shown to not adversely affect the safety or effectiveness of the device would not require premarket approval or notification. Manufacturers would instead make information and data supporting the change part of the master record at the FDA. In addition the FDA would be able to exempt from premarket notification requirements those class II devices for which such requirements are unnecessary to ensure the public health without first having to go through the time consuming and bureaucratic process of reclassifying them to class I. The FDA would also have the option of relying on postmarket controls classifying devices. Enabling the FDA to focus its attention where the real risks are will not only streamline the approval process but also benefit consumers. I look forward to working with Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and my other colleagues on the Committee on the concepts included in my proposal. I will work vigorously to ensure that they are included in FDA legislation considered by the Senate this year. I look forward to continuing to work on these issues with Minnesotans. Clearly, there are actions that Congress can take to improve the FDA without sacrificing the assurance of safety that all Americans depend on. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while it has been called to my attention that, in speaking quickly, I might have also called the leadership a disaster. That was not my intention. I will make sure that my remarks do not reflect that. I think it is a disaster here, what is going on. But I want to make it clear that nothing I said was intended in that way. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor and I think that other Senators will certainly be on the floor today, tomorrow, and as long as it takes, to speak about the disaster in my State and in the Dakotas and other States as well. I really come to the floor today to speak about a disaster, really a disaster on top of a disaster, because the disaster supplemental, which the Congress completed action on Thursday has still not been sent to the White House. There has been a disaster in our States and peoples lives have been devastated and they are waiting for additional Federal assistance. Mr. President, there is the disaster that people are faced with in Minnesota and the Dakotas of having been flooded out of their homes. I heard the Chaplain's prayer, that we resolve our impasse this week, and I thank him for his prayer. He is always very sincere and I hope all of us will listen to him because there has to be a way that we can get help to people who really are trying to rebuild their lives. I heard the mayor from Grand Forks, ND, this morning on one of the national network shows. She was saying that people are doing well at the community level because they really are helping each other out and trying to get back to their regular normal routines. But the one thing that is just continuing to really discourage and demoralize people is they still do not know whether or not there will be any additional Federal assistance. They are waiting week after week after week. Mr. President, I feel that the disaster, the other disaster, is the disaster here in the Congress. I spoke for a long time about this last week, and then said at the end of the week--and I am not really, by the way, looking forward to this--I said that I was prepared to come to the floor and speak for a long time again this week on the need for this emergency supplemental assistance. I do not know what the business of the Senate will be, but I am prepared to make sure that there is no business as usual in the Senate until we pass a clean supplemental that the President can sign. This has to be resolved. The particular disaster I want to speak to this afternoon, Mr. President, is the fact that some very controversial riders have been added to the supplemental. I think the people in Minnesota and the Dakotas are confused about this issue as well. They do not understand why some Members of the House and the Senate have insisted on adding these controversial riders. The purpose of this emergency disaster supplemental is to get much needed assistance out to these people who have been flooded out of their homes, not as a vehicle for unrelated issues like the continuing resolution and a provision relating to how the 2000 census will be done. By the way, the vast majority of people in Minnesota do not agree with that. So you have an effort to attach on what is called a continuing resolution, and then you have another amendment dealing with the way we take our census. Unrelated issues that the President said he would veto the bill over. By the way, when the President came out to visit North Dakota and South Dakota and Minnesota he said way back then when he looked at the devastation, ``I just hope that people will keep this a clean bill. Please get the help to people. Do not put on other measures.'' He always said he would veto it. Now, here is my question. Why hasn't the bill been sent to the White House yet? Here it is 12:10, today, Monday. To my knowledge, after this piece of legislation was to be sent to the President on Thursday of last week, it was not. First we have the House of Representatives going on vacation, Memorial Day recess, not even finishing the bill, not even finishing the bill. Then we finally got this passed on Thursday and now we find out that, now it is 12:10 Monday, they still have not sent the bill over to the President. This is unconscionable on top of unconscionable. They did not send the bill over to the President on Friday. They know he will veto it. What is the majority party doing? I would be quite prepared to debate anybody who wants to debate me on this. I do not agree, most of the people in Minnesota do not agree, with attaching unrelated issues to the supplemental. Keep the bill clean and get the help to people. Why hasn't the bill, that you know the President is going to veto, been sent to the President? You did not send it on Friday, you have not sent it on the weekend, and you have not even sent it come Monday. Some people can be incredibly generous with the suffering of others. Can anybody on the floor of the U.S. Senate who agrees with this decision not to even send the bill to the President--you know he will veto it, then it comes back here, then maybe we can have an agreement--can anybody justify that? Not for me, as a Senator from Minnesota, but for the people in East Grand Forks or Grand Forks or Warren or Ada, and a whole lot of other communities. Now, here is what I see, and this is just transparent: GOP sources alternately said they declined to send the disaster relief bill to the White House last week because either they wanted to give the President a chance to change his mind--which they were hoping to do through a weekend grassroots effort--or they were afraid Clinton would be able to monopolize the Sunday talk shows with his explanation of the expected veto. This is unbelievable. So here is what we have. Talk about talking out of two sides of your mouth. On the one hand people are saying, no, we do not want to send the bill to them because we really think that we will have a chance to change his mind. On the other hand, they say, no, we do not want to send a bill to him because we know he will veto it and we do not want him to be on Sunday shows talking about why he has vetoed it. Mr. President, can I suggest a third point to you, and that is, to people who are waiting for help, they do not understand these games. So I suggest to my colleagues on the majority side that it is time to send the bill to the President. You should not have delayed it on Friday. You should not be delaying it today. You know full well he will veto the bill. You are playing politics with people's lives. Get the bill back here, let us get to work and get the help to people. This has become really callous and really insensitive. Now here we have another explanation: House Majority leader Dick Armey, Texas, on Friday said Congress would not send Clinton the bill until today, even though the enrolling clerk had already finished work on it. ``We think it's important that the President have a weekend to think this thing through,'' he said. But Republicans also needed some time to think about what their plan will be if the measure is vetoed. GOP leaders were in ``some turmoil'' over what their game plan should be, as a GOP aide said. I put the emphasis on game. Stop playing games. I do not care whether it is Republicans or Democrats. I only care right now about the people in East Grand Forks, MN, and the people in the Dakotas and other communities in Minnesota. I do not care about these games. They know the President was going to veto it. This was just an effort to embarrass the President and it still has not been sent to him. You know what, colleagues? I do not know whether you have embarrassed the President or not, I do not think you have, but the point is you have embarrassed yourselves. You have embarrassed yourselves because everybody can see through this. If you want to provide disaster relief to people in an emergency supplemental, then we should understand it is an emergency supplemental bill. It is a disaster. People are waiting to rebuild their homes. People are waiting to rebuild their businesses. People are trying to find out whether or not they are going to be moved because they live in a floodplain or whether they will not be moved, and they cannot find out anything because of this unbelievable charade that is taking place here. I really do not understand it. I said last week that you have seen in the Dakotas and Minnesota a real sense of community. I see no sense of community here. I see no sense of community here. By the way, the vast majority of people would agree. I voted for the bill because I know how important it is to get help to people, but most people understand, and I can understand, what the President is doing. That as President, we have one President, he can say, look, give me a disaster relief bill, give me something that provides assistance to people. Do not mix up agendas. Do not impose your own agendas about how you want the census taken, do not impose your own agenda on whether you want money spent on education or not, do not impose your own agenda about public parks on a disaster relief bill for people. Now, if anybody wants to debate me, come on out. I am willing to stay here all afternoon. I would be willing to stay here all afternoon. If people don't come out, then I assume there is no debate for right now. I want to make it clear, Mr. President--very clear--and I would rather not do it and I am sure there will be help--but this week, until this disaster relief bill gets done, insofar as I am able to as the Senator from Minnesota, I will make sure that nothing else gets done here. To the extent that I can use every bit of knowledge that I have and leverage as a Senator to fight for people in Minnesota. I am going to make sure that the Senate is a deliberative body. If my colleagues think this process is geared to grind slowly, I am going to make sure that it is practically at a halt. This is outrageous, I say to the Chair, and he can't comment, and he may be in complete agreement with me on the substance. But, frankly, he would do the same thing, I think, probably if it was his own State. I mean, enough is enough. We are not going to do business as usual until this disaster relief bill is passed and we get assistance to people. I cannot, for a moment, understand why--and I doubt whether anybody from the majority party is going to come out and debate me--even though I don't agree with adding on other provisions, what I really have trouble understanding is why did they not send it to the President Friday? Why is it 12:20 on Monday and this still hasn't been sent to the President? Maybe delay is fine here, this is all abstract; but these are people's lives. I bet you that you ask the American people whether or not they think there is any defense for not sending the bill to the President, which you know is going to be vetoed, so you can then get down to work and finally pass a bill to get help to people who have been flooded out of their homes, I bet you 99 percent of the people in the country would say they don't understand this at all. And they should not understand it because there is simply nothing to defend. Mr. President, the Washington Post had an editorial on Sunday that starts out, ``The President is right and Republicans are wrong about the disaster relief bill.'' I will amend that. Frankly, at this point in time I agree, but I want to make it crystal clear that it should not be a partisan issue. Let's just get the help to people, just get a disaster relief bill with provisions in the bill that have to do with providing disaster relief, and pass it. That is what we should do. The Post editorial goes on to say: ``Once again''--this is the language that is important--``in trying to use an appropriations bill as a forcing device, they have overreached. The amendments raise important issues that deserve to be debated on the merits and under the regular rules.'' And then the conclusion--``An emergency bill to provide flood relief in the upper Midwest, and to pay some of the cost of the Bosnia peacekeeping mission, and to plug a few unexpected holes in the budget, is the wrong place to thrash out these other issues.'' They were talking about right-of-way across Federal lands like this. They ought to back off. Here is an article written in the Pioneer Press by columnist Bill Salisbury. ``Political Ping-Pong is a Pathetic Game.'' That is quite a title. It starts out: The folks from Grand Forks and East Grand Forks were perplexed. They came here Wednesday to make yet another plea for Federal aid to help them recover from the spring flooding that wrecked their town. The group of 11 city officials and business leaders got patted on the head, assured that the national leaders feel their pain, and once again were promised that the money will soon be on its way. But if our Federal leaders had been completely honest with the group, they would have said something like: ``You're going to get your flood relief sooner or later, but first we're going to play a little political ping-pong game, and we're going to use you folks as the ball.'' I don't think anybody could have said it better. That is what is going on here, a political ping-pong game using people in our communities, in the Dakotas and in Minnesota, as the ball. It is a political ping-pong game using people in our communities as the ball. Well, I have news for you, colleagues. If that is your plan, don't plan on conducting any other business on the floor of the U.S. Senate, because there are going to be some of us out here and we are going to really fight hard this week. This has just become outrageous. Now, Mr. President, I could focus on all of the conditions and the lives of people in our communities, and I will do that as we move forward this week because I want to reserve my voice and my strength for when the majority party is trying to conduct its business so I can come out here and make sure that doesn't happen. But let me, one more time at least, bring this to the attention of the people in Minnesota and in the Dakotas and elsewhere in the country. What is going on here? You have a disaster, and the disaster is right here in the Congress. The disaster right here is the leader--the disaster right here is the failure of the majority party to move this bill forward. I am sorry, I don't know any other way to say it. There are three issues. You have people in pain and they need help. They have been waiting week after week after week, and they are being used as the ball in a political ping-pong game. Second issue. You have people here who decided on an oh-so-clever strategy and that strategy was to say, OK, here is a disaster relief bill. Everybody is going to be for providing help to people. So now we have these other agendas. Why don't we take our other political agendas having to do with the Census Bureau and their work, and public parks and roads, having to do with fights over budget priorities, and why don't we just put these provisions in this bill? That is a disaster. But now we have another disaster. The disaster I am talking about today is the disaster of the majority party and after loading on these provisions and knowing the President is going to veto the bill on Friday, not sending the bill over, and with the bogus argument made about how ``we didn't want to because we thought maybe the President would change his mind,'' or ``actually, we didn't want to because, if we did, the President could get on the Sunday talk shows and make us look bad.'' I don't really care whether those I work with look bad. I am worried about the people in my State. And now it is Monday and I have a question for the majority party: When are you going to send this bill to the President? What are you waiting for? How much more suffering does there have to be? How many more people do you want to demoralize? How much longer do you want people waiting? Where is your humanity? Send the bill over to the President, and then the President will veto the bill--he is going to veto the bill. Let's get to work and let's have some agreement. Let's have some compromise. Let's work things out, let's pass this bill, and let's pass this bill this week--tomorrow. But, Mr. President, we can't do anything until the majority party sends the bill over. I extend an invitation to any of my colleagues: Anytime you would like to come out on the U.S. Senate floor today and debate this question, please do, because it is a question that people in Minnesota and in the Dakotas have. If you would like to explain to the people in Minnesota and in the Dakotas on the floor of the U.S. Senate why you have not sent this bill to the President and why you are engaging in further delay, I would be very pleased for you to do so. I would be pleased. Actually, I think really you owe people that explanation. But I don't really think there is any argument that you can make. I will conclude this way this afternoon. I want my colleagues to know that I think it is indefensible and I don't blame you for not being out here because you can't defend it. I also want colleagues to know--those in support of this effort--that if we don't get to work on this and we don't pass this disaster relief bill, then I am prepared--and I am sure I will be joined by other colleagues as well because I heard Senator Daschle express a tremendous amount of indignation, along with both Senators from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad and Mr. Dorgan, and Senator Johnson from South Dakota, and we are prepared to fight very hard. So to my colleagues, whoever you are on the other side, whoever you are who made this decision not to even send this bill to the President, causing yet further delay and postponing the time when people will finally get help back in Minnesota, for some reason, I gather you think this is a clever strategy. I want you to know that people see through it and, in any case, I want you to know that until we get the work done here and we get the help to people, as a Senator from Minnesota, I am going to make sure that there will be no business as usual on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I may not always be able to get the floor, and it may not be all that easy, but I am quite convinced that this is what I should do, and I think other Senators will do the same thing. There comes a point in time when the only thing you can do, if you are trying to fight for people you represent, is come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and use your leverage. It looks like this is one of those times. Mr. President, let me conclude on a more positive note. I hope that my colleagues in the majority party will send this bill to the President today. I hope that it will come back to us right away, and I ``hope and pray,'' in the words of the Chaplain, that we will reach agreement and pass a disaster relief bill and that we will get help to people in Minnesota and in the Dakotas. Mr. President, these are good people, really good people. They have really been through a lot and they deserve our help. They don't deserve what we are doing to them right now. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am not quite sure what the business of the Senate will be this week. I would be interested in knowing what the majority leader is planning. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brian Ahlberg be permitted privileges of the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I do not think I will, I wonder whether the acting leader would amend his request to include Senator Wellstone for up to half an hour.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question? In the unanimous-consent agreement, which I think makes all the sense in the world, will the Senator be kind enough in the rotation, since we have Senator Faircloth here and Senator Hollings, and I am pleased to follow Senator Hollings, could we be listed in order right now, since we are here?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Alaska. I say, I will try to stay under 10 so he will have time to speak. We had an agreement, those of us here earlier, if that would be OK. I will try to be quite brief, because we have been through a tremendous amount of this debate. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that I appreciate the work of my colleagues. I know that my friend from New Jersey is committed to many of the same issues that I am. Whatever he does, he does in good faith. I think this budget agreement is a profound mistake. I have said I think it is a budget without a soul. I believe that very honestly and truthfully. I worry about so much of these cuts in capital gains and estate taxes going to the very top of the population, those that really do not need any assistance. Mr. President, really, I hate the tradeoff. I think it is a budget without a soul. And I think it is a profound mistake as a blueprint for our country for the following reasons. First, let me just start with the justice, just by raising the question of simple justice. In the last Congress, all in the name of deficit reduction, in the welfare bill we made huge cuts. Almost all of the cuts we made were targeted to low-income people. We made cuts totalling about $26 billion in food nutrition programs, food stamp programs. We do not restore any of that by way of a blueprint in this budget agreement. Then we made cuts in benefits for legal immigrants. Now, my colleague from New Jersey expressed some of his dismay about what is going on in the House side, in the House Ways and Means Committee. And I am quite in agreement with him. But I also just want to say I guess it is how you look at what is progress. The fact we restored some benefits for legal immigrants who are elderly and disabled, that is a good thing. And the fact that we restored some benefits for children, that is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is, if you are elderly, if you are 80 years old and you are not disabled, you are just old and poor, you are elderly and poor, your benefits were not restored in the budget agreement. I do not think that is enough. The fact of the matter is, for children who need food nutrition help or for elderly people, there was no restoration of funding for food nutrition programs. I do not think that is enough. Just as a matter of elementary fairness, we should have done much better. Mr. President, my colleagues have talked about our priorities. I guess I will be honest. I really understand that everybody votes in good conscience--and I know this budget agreement is going to get a good vote--but to have tax cuts, and I think my colleague from South Carolina is on the mark, to backload it, and with enormous revenue loss, the vast majority of the benefits going to those people who least need it, and what is the tradeoff? The tradeoff is what is unacceptable. This is a budget without a soul. Mr. President, we had an amendment that would have at least restored the $5 billion in investment in dilapidated school infrastructure. It was voted down. Why are we doing tax cuts for wealthy people and we are unwilling to invest in rebuilding our schools? Mr. President, I had an opportunity to go to Delta, MS. I visited a school. There is going to be some renovation now, but the ceiling was just practically caving in. The toilets were so decrepit, no child should ever have to go into a bathroom like this. You could not wash your hands after going to the bathroom because there was no running water in the sink. Now, that is not just in the South. These schools exist in the North and the Midwest and the West. These are the schools that too many of our children go to every day. And we did not invest one penny in rebuilding these schools for America's children, for some of the poorest children in America. I just think that this is unacceptable. And I think that this budget is a budget without a soul. Mr. President, we have talked so much about early childhood development, and we have been reading all these reports, all the neuroscience evidence. It is so compelling. The evidence is irreducible and irrefutable that if we do not invest in the nutrition--and I could talk about each one of these areas at great length--if we do not invest in the health care, if we do not invest in really good child care, really good child care, if we do not get it right for these children, that by age 3 they are not going to be ready for school and they will never be ready for life. Mr. President, with all due respect, what are we doing with cuts in capital gains and estate taxes, disproportionately going to the very top of the population, not even targeting that, and at the same time we make a pittance--I am sorry--a pittance of investment when it comes to the most critical years that affect whether children are going to do well in education, and those are in the very early years? We have White House conferences that talk about the development of the brain. We have speeches that are given. And yet, when it comes to where the rubber meets the road, when it comes to what are our priorities, we have a budget agreement here that does not make the investment in these children, does not make the investment in early childhood development, barely scratches the surface. It is not even a baby step. How much longer are these children going to have to wait? Everybody keeps talking about how we have to balance the budget for the sake of our children, our children's future. How about these children right now? And let us go ahead and balance the budget. But, first of all, why do we have these tax cuts that go to some of our wealthiest citizens? Why are we backloading it? Why are we eroding our revenue base? Why are we building here a straitjacket which will prevent us from making any of these investments in rebuilding rotting schools, in health and nutrition and child care for children at a very early age? This is a budget without a soul. I think this budget as a blueprint for our country is a profound mistake. It is a profound mistake for America. Mr. President, one final point because I promised to be brief. I could go on and on, but I have spoken on these issues before. There was a cut in this budget--and really, it was not very well publicized--in veterans health care, $2.3 or $2.7 billion. I just want to make it very clear to my colleagues that when we got briefings from the White House--and everywhere else nobody talked about this. We had a flat-line budget we were worried about, but $2.3 or $2.7 billion--a couple different figures are out there--over the next 5 years in veterans health care. Dr. Ken Kizer, who runs those health care programs, was out in Minnesota. He did not know about it. I do not think Secretary Jesse Brown knows about it. And I will tell you something, the veterans organizations, all of the organizations I know that I have had the honor of working with, are really indignant about this. They are angry not only about the substance of it, but also the manner in which it was done. So I will have an amendment and I certainly hope my colleagues will join me to restore that funding for veterans health care. I think it is critically important. Mr. President, let me conclude. I do not understand why we have accepted this tradeoff of tax cuts disproportionately benefiting the people on the top, not even targeting them to middle income or small businesses, and at the same time not investing in rebuilding our schools, not investing in early childhood development, not investing in making sure that every child has a head start, not investing adequately in veterans health care. I just think that this tradeoff is unacceptable. Yes, let us have an agreement. But what is the price? The price of this agreement is that we have, as a Senate, I think--I know some colleagues disagree with me, I know many do, I know most do--I think we have abandoned a principle that has been so important to our country. I think it has been a principle which, in many ways, has led to our resilience as a nation. It is a principle that has to do with the very meaning of our Nation, it is the principle of justice, it is the principle of expanding opportunities for our citizens, and it is that American dream that every child--no matter color of skin, no matter income, no matter boy or girl, no matter urban or rural, --that every child will have the same chance to reach his or her full potential. We have not met that standard in this budget agreement. We are nowhere near that standard. That is why, again, I will vote no. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be very brief. I had a chance to speak at some length about the need for disaster relief, and the need for emergency assistance for Minnesotans and the Dakotas. I want in less than 3 minutes to just say two things on the floor today. I would like to thank my colleagues. This started out in the hope that eventually it will end up as a bipartisan effort, and a lot of cooperation to get help to people, our neighbors. This is help that doesn't make everybody whole again, but at lease it gives people a chance to rebuild their lives. I hope that next week that is where this ends up. It started out on a very positive note, and I hope it will end up there. My second point is my colleague from North Dakota said he was disappointed. I am actually outraged. I think it is transparent. I think what is going on here is silly. There are some extraneous amendments on what should be a straight disaster relief bill--the way we collect census data; having to do with a continuing resolution; having to do with a budget resolution; and, if there is any kind of crisis a Government shutdown next fall; having to do with parks; you name it. This shouldn't be on this bill. I think what people know here--for some reason they think people in the country don't know it--that it is going to go to the President, the President is going to veto it, and it is going to be sent back. If it is an effort to embarrass the President, what is accomplished? Because when it gets sent back here, it is my fervent hope--and I believe this will happen--that these extraneous provisions will be taken off the bill. Then it will go back to the President, and then it will be signed. What has been accomplished? Is the point to embarrass the President? Is it just a game? I think we are going to be faced next week with one of two scenarios: Either it goes to the President, the President vetoes it--and everybody here knows it. But so do people back in our home States. They have intelligence. The President will veto it. Then it will come back here. And one of two things will happen: Either the bill will be stripped of these provisions that have nothing to do with the compelling need to get help to people, in which case, great. Thank you. Fine. But what was the point? Or that will not happen. And if that does not happen, then I will use every measure I know how to use as a Senator to stop this process here. I will do everything I can next week if we do not get a clean bill. Everything I can do to fight for the people in Minnesota I will do. So my hope is that this ends up on the positive note that it started out on because this is really not about a kind of strategy or tactics. It is just about getting help to people, and it is time. It is time to do the right thing. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicole Elizabeth Narotzky and Margaret Joanna Smith be allowed to be in the Chamber during this afternoon.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to make clear I was not aware of the editorial and the Senator from North Dakota--well, I was aware of the editorial. I can't lie. I was aware of the editorial. Nevertheless, I need to answer, but I can't read it from here. I would like to respond to the question of the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Fine. Mr. President, if my colleague, then, in the form of a question could summarize that?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I might just inquire, I intend to answer the question. But the question embodies the eight reasons, and the Senator from North Dakota is going over those, asking me if I am aware of those reasons. I can't read that chart.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I still have the floor, and I intend to answer the question of my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I haven't yielded for the question yet. I yield for the question.