Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to William (Bill) H. Schimmel, an individual who has served the State of Minnesota for 51 years with dedication and distinction. In December 1996 Bill will retire as a Nicolett County Commissioner. He ran for county commissioner in 1980, winning five straight elections. During his time on the board he made many contributions to his community and to his State. Many contributions have been made to his community during his terms as a county commissioner. They include bringing the computer age to the local courthouse and library. The building of a new jail which will be paid for next year, and expanding the park system and improving the highways. For 33 years Bill taught high school government and civics to students at Mankato High and Mankato West. Bill is a firm believer in the good of government, and feels that it is the public's responsibility not to take our democracy for granted. And, he practices what he preaches. You participate in a democracy by voting, by keeping informed, and in Bill's case, running for office in order to make things change. His public service has also included 2 years in the U.S. Armed Forces in the U.S. Army. Throughout his life, Bill's career has been interspersed with athletic coaching, baseball umpiring and police reserve and civil defense work, as well as dedicated church and community service. I commend Bill Schimmel on his many contributions over the years, and join with his family, friends, and colleagues in extending my warmest wishes for a well deserved retirement. Indefagitable, Bill will continue to remain active in the community he loves. Congratulations Bill, you're an inspiration.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to announce my intention to introduce in the 105th Congress a companion bill to the provisions of H.R. 4173 which was introduced last week by Congressman Lane Evans, who is an exceptionally dedicated and effective advocate for all veterans, including atomic veterans. This important legislation would grant atomic veterans the presumption of service-connection for eight additional illnesses: Bone cancer; colon cancer; nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease; parathyroid cancer; ovarian cancer; brain and central nervous system tumors; unexplained bone marrow failure; and meningioma. Were this bill to be enacted, it would ensure that atomic veterans receive compensation for six diseases for which Marshall Islanders now automatically receive compensation under the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal Act and two diseases the VA accepts as radiogenic but does deem to be presumptively service-connected. I am convinced that enactment of the provisions of H.R. 4173 would help to rectify an injustice or, to put it more accurately, a series of injustices inflicted by our Government over the past 50 years on atomic veterans who served our country bravely, unquestioningly, and with great dedication. If there's any doubt about the need to expand the list of presumptive diseases, it should have been dispelled by the final report of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments which was issued almost a year ago. The report's recommendations echoed many of the complaints that atomic veterans have had for years about the almost insuperable obstacles they face when seeking approval of their claims for VA compensation. The report urged an interagency working group to work ``in conjunction with Congress''--I repeat in conjunction with Congress--to promptly address the concerns expressed by atomic veterans. Among these concerns cited by the committee are several that I've long believed need to be urgently addressed, including: The list of presumptive diseases for which atomic veterans automatically receive VA compensation is incomplete and inadequate. The standard of proof for atomic veterans without a presumptive disease can't be met and are inappropriate given the incompleteness of exposure records retained by the Government. Time and money spent on contractors and consultants in administering the claims program, particularly the dose reconstructions required for most atomic vets filing claims with the VA, would be better spent on directly aiding veterans. With regard to the last two concerns, it is important to note that the Advisory Committee found that the Government didn't create or maintain adequate records regarding the exposure, identity, and test locale of all participants. This finding casts serious doubt on the ability of the Government to come up with accurate dose reconstructions on which the approval of claims for VA compensation of many atomic veterans depend. In sum, there's no doubt that the report of the President's Advisory Committee strongly buttresses the case for expanding the list of radiogenic diseases for which atomic veterans must receive the presumption of service-connection and, therefore, for enacting the provision of H.R. 4173 in the next Congress. Mr. President, for almost 3 years I've been deeply moved by the plight of our atomic veterans and their families, and frankly dismayed and angered when I have learned of the many injustices they've experienced over the past 50 years. My mentors on this issue have been Minnesota atomic veterans, particularly veterans of the U.S Army's 216th Chemical Service Company who participated in ``Operation Tumbler Snapper,'' a series of eight atmospheric nuclear tests in Nevada in 1952. They are an extraordinary group of Americans who despite their many trials and tribulations have not lost faith in this country and believe and hope they will one day receive the recognition and compensation that is due them. Mr. President, since January 1994, I have had numerous meetings and contacts with the men of the ``Forgotten 216th'' and their families. Since their problems typify those of other atomic veterans nationwide, permit me to tell you about veterans of the U.S. Army's 216th Chemical Service Company and about why they now term themselves the ``Forgotten 216th.'' When the men of ``The Forgotten 216th,'' about 50 percent of whom were Minnesotans, participated in ``Operation Tumbler Snapper,'' they believed their Government's assurances that it would protect them against any harm, but now are convinced they were used as guinea pigs with no concern shown for their safety. Many were sent to measure fallout at or near ground zero immediately after a nuclear bomb blast, encountering radiation so high that their geiger counters literally went off the scale while they inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given little or no protection, sometimes even lacking film badges to measure their exposure to radiation and were not informed of the dangers they faced. Moreover, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear tests, sometimes denied access to their own service health records, and provided with no medical follow-up to ensure that they had not suffered adverse health effects as a consequence of their exposure to radiation. Many members of the 216th have already died, often of cancer, some as long as 20 years ago. It should be obvious to all why these men now refer to themselves as ``the Forgotten 216th.'' For 50 years, atomic veterans have been one of America's most neglected groups of veterans. For almost 40 years there were no provisions in Federal law specifically providing veterans compensation or health care for service-connected radiogenic diseases. Even now, with laws on the books covering radiogenic diseases on both a presumptive and nonpresumptive basis, the rate of VA approval of atomic veterans' claims is abysmally low. Mr. President, in this connection, permit me to quote from the testimony of Mr. Joseph Violante of the Disabled American Veterans before a House subcommittee on April 30, 1996: The DAV believes that a great injustice has been done to America's Atomic veterans and their survivors. . . . Only 10 percent of those atomic veterans who seek compensation for . . . disabilities are granted service connected benefits, although the VA cautions that ``it cannot be inferred from this number that service-connection was necessarily granted on the basis of radiation exposure.'' . . . As of April 1, 1996, VA statistics show that there have been a total of 18,515 radiation [claim] cases. Service connection has been granted, as of April 1, in 1,886 cases. . . . Statistics current as of December 1, 1995, demonstrate that of the total number of cases in which atomic veterans have been granted service-connection, 463 involve the granting of presumptive service connection. . . To sum up, if we were to exclude the 463 veterans who were granted presumptive service connection, atomic veterans had an incredibly low claims approval rate of less than 8 percent. And of this low percentage, an indeterminate percentage may have had their claims granted for diseases unrelated to radiation exposure. Moreover, in the roughly 7-year period following the 1988 enactment of a law granting atomic veterans service connection on a presumptive basis for certain radiogenic disease to a degree of 10 percent disability or more, only 463 claims of presumptive diseases have been improved. By any standard, the VA's record of approving veterans' claims based on disabilities linked to radiogenic diseases is a sorry one. Mr. President, permit me to quote further from the eloquent and persuasive testimony of Mr. Violante: It cannot be overemphasized that radiation claims are wrongfully denied because of inaccurate reconstructed dose estimates used as the basis for the determination that the estimated minimal level of exposure experienced by the atomic veteran was insufficient to cause the cancer or other disease ravishing the atomic veteran's body. The reality is that atomic veterans are fighting a losing battle, not only with the disease or diseases that have taken away their good health, but with the very government that put them in harm's way. . . . . Why are only 15 diseases given a rebuttable presumption of service connection for atomic veterans while Marshall Islanders receive an irrebuttable presumption for 25 medical conditions [now 27 conditions]? Why does our government continue to put the needs of its veterans behind those of other groups, such as the Marshall Islanders? . . . Congress should consider making all the recognized ``radiogenic diseases'' and any other disease, illness or disability that others, such as the Marshall Islanders are being compensated for, diseases for which presumptive service connection is granted. I couldn't agree more with the DAV's cogent analysis and this is one of the reasons I'm determined to ensure that atomic veterans are granted service-connected compensation for all radiogenic diseases. The cover of every copy of the Atomic Veteran's Newsletter, the publication of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, contains the simple but eloquent statement: ``the atomic veteran seeks no special favor . . . simply justice.'' Mr. President, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the valiant and long struggle of atomic veterans for justice by strongly backing the bill that I plan to introduce next year and in fighting for its enactment. I dedicate this statement to the members and families of ``The Forgotten 216th'' who have educated me about the plight of atomic veterans and whose courage and perseverance I shall always admire. I ask that excerpts of the statement of Mr. Joseph Violante of the Disabled American Veterans before the Subcommittee on Compensation, Insurance and Memorial Affairs, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, April 30, 1996, be printed in the Record. The excerpts follow: Statement of Joseph A. Violante Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the more than one million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and its auxiliary, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present DAV's views on the controversy surrounding access to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical treatment and VA disability compensation for veterans exposed to ionizing radiation, referred to hereinafter as ``atomic veterans.'' At the outset, Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank you, Ranking Democratic Member Representative Evans, and the members of this subcommittee for scheduling today's oversight hearing regarding the problems experienced by atomic veterans with respect to access to VA health care and disability compensation. Clearly, action taken by this subcommittee will materially affect the lives of America's citizen/soldiers who were placed in harm's way by our government for the sole purpose of obtaining first-hand evidence about the effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. As my testimony will show, some atomic veterans have not received adequate health care treatment for the ailments believed to be associated with radiation exposure. Nor have the vast majority of atomic veterans been compensated for their residual disabilities. The remedial legislation passed by Congress over the years has not had the desired effects and must be revisited in order to provide meaningful health care and disability compensation for this group of veterans. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the issue of ionizing radiation and its potential adverse health effects have been present for more than 50 years. Atomic veterans and their loved one have been patiently waiting for answers from the scientific and medical communities, as well as responses to their concerns from Congress and the VA. Unfortunately, all too often those answers were not forthcoming. Nor does it appear that definitive answers will ever be known. For each study done concluding one point, another study surfaces to discount the findings of the prior report. Thus, the debate rages, with no apparent end in sight. Before I get into the specifics of VA health care for atomic veterans, let me state that atomic veterans experience the same frustrations as all other veterans who attempt to access the VA health care system--a system inadequate to meet veterans' medical needs and their demand for services. The crisis in VA health care results from years of inadequate funding and a ``patchwork'' approach to addressing the health care needs of veterans. In addition, atomic veterans believe that their particular medical needs are not being adequately met because the physicians who examine them, for the most part, do not have expertise in the harmful effects produced in body tissue by exposure to ionizing radiation to properly diagnose their illnesses and injuries. In fact, some atomic veterans honestly believe that these physicians are ``intent on not encouraging radiation claims and, therefore, play down the medical problems'' of atomic veterans. Generally speaking, receiving disability compensation from the VA is another frustrating aspect of the ionizing radiation debate. All too many radiation claims are denied due to the unanswered questions from the scientific and medical communities, the apparent failure of dose reconstruction methods to adequately reflect the true extent of radiation exposure experienced by atomic veterans, and the inability to obtain meaningful adjudication of radiation claims. All too often, atomic veterans, their dependents and survivors are denied compensation from our government for the residual illness, disease, or death allegedly associated with exposure to ionizing radiation while others, such as the Marshall Islanders, receive compensation from the United States Government for the same disability(ies). Before getting to the specifics of my testimony regarding access to VA health care and the payment of disability compensation for atomic veterans, I would note for the record that the DAV membership, present at our National Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada in July 1995, adopted a resolution in support of a military medal to recognize and honor the courage, sacrifice and devotion to duty of those veterans exposed to ionizing radiation during military service. This is but a small step towards recognizing the honorable service of these brave men and women, and we call upon the members of this subcommittee to support such legislation. I also call your attention to another resolution passed by the delegates at our last National Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, noting the inaccuracy of dose reconstruction estimates provided by the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) and calling for the condemnation of this action by DNA as well as urging the VA to undertake a review of the accuracy of dose reconstruction estimates by DNA. Your kind attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. At the very least, our government needs to take immediate action on these two items. Controversy Surrounding Potential health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation Radiation exposure may be external or internal. External radiation exposure occurs when the radiation source is outside the body. External exposure can come from standing in a cloud of radioactive gas, swimming in water that has radioactive material in it, or x-rays. Internal radiation exposure occurs when radioactive material is taken into the body by such means as eating, breathing, drinking, or through cuts or breaks in the skin. Both external and internal radiation exposure can directly harm internal organs, cells, and tissues. After radioactive material is taken into the body, some of it may enter the bloodstream. This blood then flows through various organs and tissues in the body, providing them with material necessary for their functioning. The body does not distinguish between radioactive and nonradioactive materials. Sometimes, radioactive substances concentrate primarily in one organ of the body and that organ, therefore, receives a larger dose of radioactive substance than do other organs. Other times, the radiation substance is distributed throughout the body. The dose received by different parts of the body depends on a number of factors, including whether the radiation substance dissolves easily in the blood, the type and energy of the radioactive material, the amount of radioactivity present, and its distribution in the body. The radioactive substance, once taken into the body, will continue to give off radiation until either it has decayed or is eliminated from the body through normal metabolism. The rate of decay depends on the radioactive substance's half- life--the time required for a radioactive substance to lose one-half of its activity by radioactive decay. Half-lives for different radioactive substances vary from hours to thousands of years. Plutonium, for example, has a half-life of 24,100 years. For obvious reasons, researchers know more about the effects of high-dose radiation on the immune system than about low-dose radiation exposure. High-dose radiation is defined as any exposure above fifty rad to the whole body. A rad is the unit of radiation dose used to measure the amount of energy a body absorbs from ionizing radiation. Information on the effects of high-dose radiation exposure comes from studies of Japanese atomic bomb victims, radiation accidents, such as the accident at Chernobyl, and studies of Marshall Islanders exposed to radiation fallout from nuclear tests in the 1950s. Less is known about low-dose exposure--less than fifty rads to the whole body--and its effect on the immune system because of the delayed period of time between the incident of exposure and the development of the disease. The late effects may show up months, years, or even decades after the exposure. . . . Many mistrust the agency established to care for them--the VA--because it is part of the government, a government they perceive as covering up the true facts about the extent of their exposure and the adverse health effects associated with the exposure. While Congress has enacted a number of laws to provide atomic veterans with priority access to VA health care and VA disability compensation for their illnesses, diseases, and disabilities due to exposure to ionizing radiation, very few atomic veterans are able to access the VA health care system and receive adequate care and treatment. Even fewer atomic veterans and their survivors are able to establish entitlement to VA disability compensation benefits. . . . va disability compensation benefits Prior to the enactment of the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, Pub. L. No. 98-542, 98 stat. 2725 (1984) (``the Act''), the authority for 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.311 (formerly 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.311b), there was no legal limitation to establishing service connection for residuals of ionizing radiation exposure. Service connection for a disability is generally established when a veteran's present condition can be reasonably related to an injury or disease which is shown to be incurred coincident with service. See 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.303(a). Determination of service connection is based on a broad and liberal interpretation of the law consistent with the facts in each individual case. Id. It has long been the VA's policy that any condition which can be attributed to service shall be granted direct service connection, no matter how long after service the condition first became manifest. See 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.303(d). However, because of the difficulty in proving causation in ionizing radiation cases, and the significantly small number of claims which had been allowed. Congress, in 1984, recognized that, statistically, there was enough of an association between some diseases and radiation exposure to establish them as ``radiogenic.'' Congress responded by enacting remedial legislation, the Act, whereby a veteran suffering from a ``radiogenic disease,'' was not required to submit evidence of causation. . . . The stated purpose of the 1984 Act is ``to ensure that [VA] disability compensation is provided to veterans who were exposed during service . . . to ionizing radiation . . . for all disabilities arising after service that are connected, based on sound scientific and medical evidence, to such service. . . .'' The Act, Sec. 3. Congress's findings included: There is scientific and medical uncertainty regarding the long-term adverse health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. Id. Sec. 2(2). Due to the long latency period involved, radiation claims present adjudicatory issues which are significantly different from issues generally presented. Id. Sec. 2(12). ``It has always been the policy of the [VA] and is the policy of the United States, with respect to individual claims for service connection . . . that when, after consideration of all evidence and material of record, there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence . . . the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. Id. Sec. 2(13). Presently, the VA recognizes 20 diseases as ``radiogenic diseases''--a disease that may be induced by ionizing radiation--under Sec. 3.311. These ``radiogenic diseases'' include leukemia, other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia; breast cancer; lung cancer; bone cancer; liver cancer; skin cancer; esophageal cancer; stomach cancer; colon cancer; pancreatic cancer; kidney cancer; urinary bladder cancer; salivary gland cancer; multiple myeloma; posterior subcapsular cataracts; non-malignant thyroid nodular disease; ovarian cancer; parathyroid adenoma; and tumors of the brain and central nervous system. Pursuant to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.311, an atomic veteran diagnosed with a recognized ``radiogenic disease'' can have his or her claim for direct service connection for residuals of exposure to ionizing radiation adjudicated by the VA, notwithstanding the fact that the atomic veteran does not have any medical evidence to establish a cause and effect relationship between his exposure to ionizing radiation and his diagnosed ``radiogenic disease.'' Otherwise, (based on a recent court decision discussed infra) an atomic veteran who believes that his or her disability, not found on the list of ``radiogenic diseases,'' may have his or her claim for service connection on a direct basis adjudicated by the VA providing the atomic veteran has medical evidence to support the claim. Once the atomic veteran has demonstrated that he or she suffers from a ``radiogenic disease'' or provides medical evidence of a cause and effect relationship between his or her disability and exposure to ionizing radiation, the VA, pursuant to Sec. 3.311 must obtain a dose estimate as to the range of doses to which the atomic veteran may have been exposed. Final review of direct service connection claims based on exposure to ionizing radiation is conducted by the Under Secretary for Benefits, who may obtain and consider any opinion of the Under Secretary for Health in reaching his determination whether the atomic veteran's disease resulted from radiation exposure in service. Mr. chairman, although Sec. 3.311 was passed by Congress in 1984 as remedial legislation, designed to assist atomic veterans and their survivors in obtaining compensation for illnesses, diseases, disabilities, and death due to exposure to ionizing radiation, this legislation has benefited very few atomic veterans or their survivors. Until recently, the VA considered the list of ``radiogenic diseases'' as an exclusive list thereby refusing to consider any claims for direct service connection for residuals of radiation exposure if the atomic veteran or his or her survivors could not demonstrate that the atomic veteran suffered from a listed ``radiogenic disease,'' regardless of the evidence submitted in support of the claim. The VA's practice of adjudicating only those claims where the atomic veteran suffered from a recognized ``radiogenic disease'' was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 1, 1994, in Combee vs. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1045 (Fed.Cir. 1994). Once an atomic veteran seeking direct service connection for residuals of exposure to ionizing radiation has established that he or she suffers from a recognized ``radiogenic disease'' or have provided the VA with medical evidence of a cause and effect relationship, the burden of proof then shifts to the VA for consideration of the case on the merits. It is at this point that atomic veterans face their greatest obstacle in establishing their entitlement to service connection. Dose estimates and dose reconstruction data for the various radiation tests are handled by the Defense Nuclear Agency. In more cases than not, no actual individual exposure record is available for the atomic veteran, and reconstructed dose estimates routinely fail to provide an accurate estimation of the level of radiation exposure experienced by the atomic veteran. Film badges, not issued to all participants in nuclear tests, did not provide a complete measure of radiation exposure, since they were not capable of recording inhaled, ingested, or neutron doses, or often shielded during the detonation, and were worn for only limited periods during and after each nuclear detonation. Many atomic veterans who participated in the nuclear tests in the Pacific report visiting these islands a short time after the test detonation and eating locally grown fruits and swimming in the lagoons. Atomic veterans who participated in the Nevada test sites report being covered in fallout dust which was either brushed off of them by hand or with brooms. Many report being transported to mess halls shortly after walking through ``ground zero'' and not being able to properly clean themselves before eating. These factors are extremely important in determining a proper reconstructed dose estimate; however, it does not appear that the participant's comments are used to further the analysis with regards to the dose reconstruction estimate. Without accurate reconstructed dose estimates, atomic veterans and their survivors find it virtually impossible to obtain the benefits they seek. All too often, reconstructed dose estimates show that the overwhelming majority of participants were supposedly exposed to one rem or less of external doses of ionizing radiation. It is extremely difficult to believe, based on the statements made by participants, that their total exposure was so minimal. The DAV believes that a great injustice has been done to America's atomic veterans and their survivors. As will be discussed later, only ten percent of those atomic veterans who seek compensation for their residual disabilities are granted service-connected benefits, although the VA cautions that ``[i]t cannot be inferred from this number that service connection was necessarily granted on the basis of radiation exposure.'' In other words, although the atomic veteran claimed residual disability as a result of his exposure to ionizing radiation, the claim could have been allowed under general principles establishing service connection such as the disease or illness was evidenced in the service medical records, etc. . . . Adjudication of radiation claims pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 3.311 have been a total failure. With almost 95% of atomic veterans failing to establish service connection for their illness, disease, or disability, the remedial legislation passed in 1984 has not provided atomic veterans with meaningful consideration of their claims. The present statistical data showing an extremely high denial rate has changed very little since 1984 when former Senator Cranston expressed the need for this remedial legislation. In May 1988, aware that something more was needed, Congress passed Pub. L. No. 100-321, Sec. 2(a), 102 Stat. 485, which grants service connection on a presumptive basis for certain diseases becoming manifest in an atomic veteran to a degree of 10% or more. Currently, the list of presumptive diseases, a total of 15 in all, include: leukemia, other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia; thyroid cancer, breast cancer; cancer of the pharynx; esophageal cancer; stomach cancer; cancer of the small intestine; pancreatic cancer; multiple myeloma; lymphomas, except Hodgkin's disease; bile duct cancer; gall bladder cancer, primary liver cancer, except if cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated; salivary gland cancer; and urinary tract cancer. While 20 diseases are recognized as ``radiogenic diseases'' pursuant to 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.311, only 15 diseases are presumed to be service-connected as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation. Yet, pursuant to the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal Act, 25 separate medical conditions are irrebuttably presumed to be the result of radiation exposure and Marshall Islanders are compensated for these disabilities. It is difficult to understand the lack of consistency in these lists. Why are only 15 diseases given a rebuttable presumption of service connection for atomic veterans while Marshall Islanders receive an irrebuttable presumption for 25 medical conditions? Further, at the very least, why are not all 20 ``radiogenic diseases'' presumed to be service-connected as a result of ionizing radiation exposure pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1112(c)? Why does our government continue to put the needs of its veterans behind those of other groups, such as the Marshall Islanders? America's veterans should always be considered a special and unique group for having served their nation with honor. . . . Congress should consider making all the recognized ``radiogenic diseases,'' and any other disease, illness, or disability that others, such as the Marshall Islanders, are being compensated for, with those diseases for which presumptive service connection is granted. The Marshall Islanders have an irrebuttable presumption, at the very least, America's atomic veterans should receive a rebuttable presumption for all diseases, illnesses or disabilities for which others are compensated. The DAV commends this subcommittee for it's recent, favorable action on adding bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, a form of lung cancer, to the list of diseases presumed to be service-connected for veterans exposed to ionizing radiation. As stated above, however, all recognized ``radiogenic diseases'' including lung cancer should be added to the list of diseases presumed to be service-connected. . . . In closing, I would like to refer to a phrase which appears on the Atomic Veterans' Newsletter, published by the National Association of Atomic Veterans, Inc. that states: ``The atomic veteran seeks no special favor . . . simply justice.'' This justice is long overdue. DAV encourages this subcommittee to do everything necessary to ensure that this group of forgotten veterans--atomic veterans--receive meaningful justice from our government. This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I recently had the honor of attending the annual Twin Cities-Upper Midwest Human Rights Campaign Awards Dinner honoring Ruth and David Waterbury of Minneapolis, and the Northern States Power Co. The work of the Human Rights Campaign, which is dedicated to combatting discrimination, ensuring equal protection for all under our laws, and advancing the interests of gay and lesbian persons in the United States, is one of the most effective organizations of its kind. The Brian Coyle Leadership Awards, presented to the Waterburys and Northern States Power, are dedicated to the memory of Minneapolis City Council Member Brian Coyle, a community activist and inspiration to many, including to me. He was a friend of mine, and his work to end discrimination is a lasting legacy to the gay and lesbian community in my State, and across the Nation. As a long-time social and political activist myself, I was humbled that night to be in the presence of so many individuals who stand on principle, often in the face of terrific odds and in the face of anger, misunderstanding, bias and even, in some extreme cases, violence against themselves or their loved ones. Ruth and David Waterbury are two such people. They have contributed much to our community, both as a couple and as individuals. As I have come to know this wonderful family over the years, I continue to be amazed at their tireless and selfless work on behalf of others. Both were board members of the Minneapolis-St. Paul chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and Ruth was president for the year just ended. David was chair of the Governor's Task Force on Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans. Ruth is a current board member of District 202. Each has been instrumental in establishing scholarship funds for gay and lesbian students at their respective alma maters, Yale and Carleton. The Waterburys have also been involved in the good work of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, It's Time Minnesota, Plymouth Congregational Church, Interfaith Coming Out Celebration, Minnesota GLBT Education Fund, and the Human Rights Campaign. Additionally, in part due to their great efforts, my State of Minnesota enacted an inclusive civil rights law that is a model for other States to follow. Together they have been visible and effective advocates on behalf of the gay and lesbian community in our State. If I might, let me include an excerpt from Ruth and David's biography that speaks to their commitment not only to the campaign for human rights, but to each other as well. ``Ruth and David Waterbury have been advancing the civil rights of gays and lesbians since shortly after their daughter came out to them. Margery gave them literature to read and expressed hope that they would eventually be glad she was a lesbian. Ten years later, they have now fulfilled her hope and feel privileged to have taken the journey.'' For many parents, it is sometimes difficult to accept differences in their children that they did not foresee or wish for. For many others, it is not easy to accept people who are different from themselves-- whether it be because of their gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. But the Waterburys chose a path of acknowledging their daughter's orientation, embracing it, and working to help other parents confronted by the same issues. Because of people like them, there is much hope, and even reason for joy. Because of the actions of those like the Waterburys, willing to fight to ensure that the most basic guarantee of our Constitution--equal protection under the law--is secure, there are role models for others to follow, from which others might take the torch and lead. I wanted to publicly salute them today here in the Senate, and thank them for their tireless efforts on behalf of their daughter, and on behalf of gay and lesbian people in my State and throughout the Nation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yesterday, President Clinton signed the VA/HUD appropriation bill and the Mental Health Parity amendment which was included in the appropriated bill into law. For all of us who worked so hard to achieve passage of the parity amendment, the enactment of the provision represented more than the insurance policy changes that the provision will actually require. Passage of the legislation is a symbol of fairness, progress and hope for millions of Americans and their families who, for far too long, have been victims of discrimination-- families who for far too long have been thrust into bankruptcy, or denied access to cost-effective treatments because their illness was a mental illness and not a physical illness like cancer or heart disease. Mental illness has, in one way or another, touched the lives of many of us who work here on Capitol Hill and I am pleased that the 104th Congress was able to take this first and very necessary step toward parity. I want to take this opportunity to say that while the passage of this amendment was a historic step forward for people with mental illnesses, the amendment was a fist step and a first step only. It does not require parity for copayments or deductibles or inpatient days or outpatient visit limits. It also does not include substance abuse services. My State of Minnesota has passed legislation which goes much further than what we were able to accomplish in this Congress. Minnesota requires that health plans provide full parity coverage for mental health and substance abuse services. The cost impact of this legislation in Minnesota has been minimal according to a recent study based on preliminary data. Without full parity coverage for mental health and substance abuse, health plans will continue to discriminate against individuals and families in need of services. The responsibility for and cost of care will continue to be shifted from the private to the public sector. For children and adolescents, the burden and cost of care will continue to be shifted to the child welfare, education, and juvenile justice systems. These overburdened systems are often not able to provide needed services, and many are forced to go without treatment. This will continue to be the case. I have seen first hand in my State at facilities like Hazelden and others, the benefits that drug and alcohol treatment can bring to the lives of millions of Americans. Alcohol and other drug addictions effect 10% of American adults and 3 percent of our youth. Untreated addition last year alone cost this Nation nearly $167 billion. Ultimately we all bear the cost of delays or gaps in mental health and substance abuse services. Sadly, that fact has not been changed by the passage of Senator Domenici's and my amendment. We have much more work to do and I look forward to consideration of legislation which would provide full parity coverage for mental health and substance abuse services. I am grateful for the advocacy, hard work, and compassion of the mental health and substance abuse community. Without them, we could not have achieved such success this year. This victory was made possible because families and friends of people struggling with mental illnesses were willing to speak out in public. This issue has a human face now and that made it possible to win votes and enact legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with Senators Domenici, Kennedy and Conrad to expand coverage for mental health and substance abuse services and I also want to take this moment to thank Senators Simpson and Kassebaum who will not be here next year but were critical in enabling us to take the first critical step toward parity.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I submit a resolution designating the week of November 3, 1996 as National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week. America's children are its most priceless and irreplaceable resource, and I am proud to lend them my voice in the U.S. Senate. Today, I speak for America's children as I urge my colleagues to consider this important resolution. Shaking a baby causes serious brain injury. A baby's head accounts for one-fourth of its weight and is supported by weak and underdeveloped neck muscles. When a baby is shaken, it causes the brain to rock back and forth, hitting the skull with great force. This can cause the brain to bleed, bruise, or swell, resulting in the possibility of blindness, deafness, paralysis, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and developmental disability. In many cases, this can also lead to death. Brandon and Teddy are two very special little boys from my home State of Minnesota. They are survivors of a common and deadly form of child abuse that is often committed out of simple ignorance. Brandon and Teddy were violently shaken by their birth mothers out of frustration. This type of abuse and its resulting injuries are known as shaken baby syndrome or SBS. Brandon and Teddy are survivors, but they will bear the scars of their abuse for the rest of their lives. Both boys have been adopted and are receiving expert care from a committed and loving family. Brandon is 6 years old and is stricken with a permanent brain injury. He has a seizure disorder, shunts in his head, and a permanent blind spot as a result of being shaken. Brandon receives special education services and learns very slowly. Teddy is 4 years old and does not speak. His brain injury impacts his problem-solving capability and his education is a long and tedious process. Teddy will probably never be able to live independent of a care-giver. Brandon and Teddy's injuries were entirely preventable. A study by the Ohio Research Institute on Child Abuse Prevention indicates that 25 to 50 percent of adults do not know that shaking a baby is dangerous. Education of adult and teenage child care providers is the key to preventing the tragic consequences of SBS. According to studies by the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, SBS is so lethal that over 20 percent of its victims die from the resulting injuries. These injuries may account for over 10 percent of all physical child abuse deaths in the United States. On November 10, 1996, the first National Conference on Shaken Baby Syndrome will convene in Salt Lake City, UT. At this conference a coalition of families, doctors, law enforcement people, and child protection officials will gather to discuss the issues surrounding SBS. These committed individuals will work to educate medical professionals about the symptoms of SBS, push for more severe penalties for perpetrators, and teach all segments of the public that it's never OK to shake a baby. Mr. President this resolution emphasizes the importance of this historic conference. It is my hope that the Senate will continue its commitment to the health and safety of America's children by supporting this resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the list of supporting agencies be listed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on behalf of this amendment proposed by my colleague and good friend, Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey, and I want to start out in a very direct way and say that from my experiences and the experiences of my wife, Sheila, working in this area of domestic violence, I have learned that, all too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. That is what this amendment is all about. The facts, unfortunately, speak for themselves. If you work in the area of domestic abuse or if you just pick up the newspaper in your own State, you will read stories about violence, abuse, and murders within families and among intimates happening all the time, and, colleagues, you will realize that in all too many cases the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. That is what this amendment that my colleague has introduced speaks to. In the historic Violence Against Women Act that was enacted into law as a part of the 1994 crime bill, thanks to the tireless efforts of Senator Biden and Senator Hatch, there was a provision which was accepted--eventually and after much negotiation--that I offered in the Senate and Representative Torricelli, and Representative Schroeder sponsored in the House. This provision prohibits anyone who has a restraining order issued against them from owning or possessing a gun, and it also prohibits anyone from selling or giving a gun to someone they know has a restraining order against them for having abused their spouse or their child. This was a severely modified and much weaker version of what was originally known as the Domestic Violence Firearm Prevention Act, a bill that I introduced. Senator Lautenberg now takes the next logical step with this very important piece of legislation, which would prohibit the possession of a firearm by someone who has been convicted of an act of domestic violence. I imagine my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, went through all the statistics. Let me just simply state, again, that: Four women a day are killed at the hands of their batterer; every 15 seconds a woman is battered in our country. The leading single cause of injury among women in America today is violence in the home. It is just unconscionable. The good news--and it really is, I think, good news--is that no longer in our country, no longer in our States, and no longer in our communities are we saying that this violence in the home is not our business, no longer do we just turn our gaze away from it without doing anything about it. I think we have finally realized that this violence in homes, all too often directed at women and their children, is really everybody's business. If we do not stop the violence in the homes, it is going to continue to spill out into the streets and into our communities. The problem which Senator Lautenberg speaks to with this amendment, of which I am so proud to be an original cosponsor, is as follows: In all too many cases, unfortunately, if you beat up or batter your neighbor's wife, it is a felony. If you beat up or batter, brutalize your own wife or your own child, it is a misdemeanor. If the offense is a misdemeanor, then under the current law there is a huge loophole. We do not let people who have been convicted of a felony purchase that firearm. What the Senator from New Jersey is trying to do is plug this loophole and prohibit someone convicted of domestic abuse, whether felony or misdemeanor, of purchasing a firearm. For example, in my State of Minnesota, an act of domestic violence is not characterized as a felony unless there is permanent physical impairment, the use of a weapon, or broken bones. I just want to simply say one more time to colleagues, because I can rattle off all the statistics, this is no small issue in our country. We are talking about significant violence. For any Senator who says that we do not want to prohibit any law-abiding citizen from purchasing a gun, I respond that we are not talking about law-abiding citizens. We are talking about citizens who have been convicted of an act of violence against a spouse or child and we are saying in those cases, the law should prohibit that person from purchasing gun, from owning a gun. Once again, the reason we support this law is because we know that in all too many cases, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. Mr. President, for a period of time I was coming to the floor to announce the domestic violence hotline number which was set up under a provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Since its opening on February 21, 1996, the hotline has received over 30,000 calls for help from residents in 50 States and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Let me announce that one more time. The hotline has received since February 21, 30,000 calls for help from 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. I want to announce the number one more time. The number is 1-800-799- SAFE. We in the U.S. Senate, by adopting this amendment, will be saying three things. We will be saying we will not tolerate this violence; we will not ignore this violence; and we will no longer say that it is someone else's responsibility. All of us have a chance to make a difference. My fellow Senators, someone's safety depends on your vote. My fellow Senators, someone's safety depends on your vote. That is usually the safety of a woman and a child. There is no more important vote than the one that is coming up on this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Minnesota athletes who competed in the 1996 Paralympic Games in Atlanta. Over 3,500 athletes from more than 100 nations competed in the games, making it one of the world's largest sporting events. Overall the United States won 157 medals, including 46 Gold Medals. I salute each and every one of America's athletes, but I would like to mention a few of the 10 Minnesotans who participated in these important games. The U.S. Paralympic cycling team won 13 medals in the road and track races during this year's games. Christopher Pyrkosz of Livonia, MN, was among those receiving a team medal for his efforts on the U.S. team. Susan Hagel of Minneapolis and Josie Johnson of Gary also took home Bronze Medals, as part of the U.S. Paralympic women's basketball team. The U.S. Paralympic judo team surprised the crowds in Atlanta with their strong showing in this year's competition. Jim Mastro of Fridley earned a Bronze Medal for his individual efforts. Mitch Siedenfeld of Minneapolis also took home a Bronze Medal for his performance of the U.S. Paralympic table tennis team. The 1996 Paralympic Games in Atlanta demonstrated the independence and empowerment of individuals with disabilities. Dozens of records were broken at this year's games, and the competition received considerable media attention around the world. The strength and determination of the Paralympic athletes is amazing, and I am sure that my colleagues join me in celebrating the United States' excellent overall showing during this year's games.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, 5 minutes?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I hope I have not gone before him and that this would be OK right now. Madam President, I wanted to speak to, or build on, the remarks of my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, about the ENDA bill, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. I listened to some of the debate. Actually, when I was back home in Minnesota, I saw some of what went on, on the floor on Friday. We had no votes, and on Friday evening I caught some of it. I do not think I want to repeat the different arguments that were made. I would rather talk about this piece of legislation as it connects to people's lives. I want to talk about a very close family friend. This friend of ours, over the years, really has had to live in a state of terror, though it has gotten somewhat better now. Several times, Madam President, he has had to go from one job to another, not because of the content of his character, not because of his ability, not because of his contributions to his employer or to his fellow workers or fellow employees, but because of his sexual orientation. I really do think that the Employment Nondiscrimination Act is a matter of simple justice. I really hope that the U.S. Senate will vote for this piece of legislation. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor, because I believe if we vote for this piece of legislation, we really will have taken an enormous step forward toward ending discrimination in our country. It is just not right that a man or a woman, because of sexual orientation, should be in a situation where he or she could lose a job or not be able to obtain employment because of their sexual orientation. This is a basic civil rights issue. There is no provision in this piece of legislation that calls for favorable treatment. There are no quotas. This piece of legislation just says we must extend basic civil rights protection against discrimination in employment to all citizens--to all citizens--in our country and we must end this discrimination based on sexual orientation. I also want to mention, because I am very proud of my State, that in Minnesota, in 1992, we adopted very similar provisions to this piece of legislation in the Human Rights Act. We became the eighth State to guarantee protection against this type of discrimination. I would like to say, from the point of view of the business community, of the religious community, of communities within our larger Minnesota community, I think now there is very strong support for ending this discrimination. This piece of legislation that we passed in our State has served our State well. If we pass this in the U.S. Senate and eventually pass this in the U.S. Congress, we will serve our country well. This is the right thing to do, to end discrimination in employment. What should matter is a person's ability. What should matter is the character of a person. What should matter is an employee's contribution to his or her business or place of work. What should not matter is sexual orientation. We must end this discrimination. I hope my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, will support this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Kentucky, I think on the Domenici-Wellstone amendment, we had a pretty thorough debate and discussion, so we probably don't need it on this one.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, when the Senate considered the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill last year, I was a proud cosponsor of the Feingold/Moseley-Braun amendment, which deleted language which would have restricted the use of HUD funds in the investigation of discrimination in homeowner's insurance. This year, in the Senate committee report of the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill, there is once again language recommending that HUD be prohibited from enforcing protections against property insurance redlining. In fact the committee report calls HUD's activities related to property insurance ``duplicative of state regulation of insurance . . . creat(ing) an unwarranted and unnecessary layer of federal bureaucracy.'' I want to make it very clear, as I did last year, that I believe the U.S. Senate should not set the precedent of exempting property insurance from fair housing laws. If HUD is not able to investigate claims of property insurance redlining, Americans might be kept from buying houses because they might not be able to get homeowner's insurance. I believe that all Americans have the right to homeowner's insurance, regardless of race or ethnicity or the neighborhood in which they live. Mr. President, once again, I will remind you that we have been through this before. The insurance industry claims that this type of denial of coverage is not taking place, but HUD reports that it continues to process and settle thousands of claims of property insurance redlining. Unfortunately, the shameful practice of denying coverage to Americans because of the neighborhood they live in or the color of their skin is still practiced today. If HUD is barred from funding private fair housing groups investigating claims of property insurance redlining, Americans will be denied the protection of a basic civil rights law. I do not think that insurance companies should be exempt from property provisions in the Fair Housing Act. HUD's enforcement of civil rights protections does not undermine State insurance regulation, rather, Federal fair housing protections ensure that homeowners or potential homeowners do not encounter discriminatory practices in their effort to obtain homeowner's insurance. In this campaign season, many have voiced their desire to help all Americans get their piece of the American dream. Mr. President, this is a perfect place for us to protect Americans who are trying to purchase a home from discrimination. travis va hospital

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I know my colleagues are anxious to move forward. Although there is so much I want to say for the record, I yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Very briefly, I say openly that I could go through in a kind of logical way all of the specifics of it. But I believe the amendment of my good friend from Colorado guts this amendment in the second degree. I think what he most objects to is the idea of any kind of standard. We just voted on a standard. That is what we just did. That is the vote we just took. It was 98 votes where we said, ``Look, when it comes to the whole issue of the mother-child, we want to make sure there is at least a 48-hour period of time.'' That is what we just did. We are now saying in a very incremental way that when it comes to the mental health area we ought to deal with this discrimination and we ought to make sure that, at least with the lifetime or annual caps, you have some parity. If you begin to say, ``I am all for the plans, but I do not want to have a situation where in fact there has to be in mental health coverage an equality with caps,'' then you move away from the whole strength of this. So this is the opposite of the perfecting amendment. This amendment guts this legislation. I hope that it will be defeated resoundingly. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief because I know there are several other Senators who want to speak tonight. Senator Kennedy has spent many of his years as a Senator fighting on behalf of parity and fairness for people struggling with mental illness, and others. Mr. President, on April 18 of this year, 68 Senators voted for our amendment. This was really an amendment that said we ought to end the discrimination. There ought to be full parity for the treatment of mental illness in our country. I think what the Senate was saying--68 Senators, which is really a significant vote--was that for too long the stigma of mental illness has kept many in need from seeking help and for too long it has prevented policymakers from providing the help. We heard from a number of Senators who spoke in very personal terms about their own families and their own experiences--Senator Conrad, Senator Simpson, and Senator Domenici. Mr. President, their testimony was eloquent and powerful. But in addition I want to point out tonight that there are also very sound policy reasons for supporting this amendment. I will not describe our amendment. Senator Domenici has already done so. But I do want colleagues to know that it is just an incremental step forward, but a significant one. What we are saying is that when it comes to lifetime caps and annual caps, at least have parity there so that we do not have a situation where there is a million-dollar cap for someone who is struggling with cancer or heart disease and then you find out that if someone is struggling with mental illness all together it is a $40,000 cap or an annual cap of only $10,000. This amendment would really help many families in our country who right now, given the present arrangement, which is an arrangement of discrimination and stigma, just face economic catastrophe. People just go bankrupt. People go under all too often. So, Mr. President, this amendment is incremental. It is not full parity, but it would be an enormous step forward. As I said, it is not just the personal stories. Certainly I could talk about this tonight in very personal terms. We have done that already. But there are sound policy reasons. The MIT Sloan School of Management reported in 1995 that clinical depression costs American business $28.8 billion in lost productivity and worker absenteeism. In addition, there are too many people in prison who should not be. There are too many children who could be doing well in school who do not do well. There are too many families under tremendous strain that do not need to be under so much strain. I mean, in many ways we talk so much about the importance of supporting families. If we could pass this amendment tonight with a huge vote, and then work hard and get the support in the House--and I think we will. Senator Domenici is right, so many families and so many people who have struggled with this have been active. One of the things that has changed through organizations like the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill and others is that people no longer will accept the idea that because they have to struggle with mental illness they are somehow women or men of less worth or less substance or less dignity. People are speaking up for themselves. I think if we get a really strong vote tonight--and I think we will-- I think you will see many of those families working hard with Members of the House and we will pass this. And we should, Mr. President. It would make an enormous difference. I said to my colleague, Senator Domenici, and I have said to other friends as well, that the only thing that troubled me that evening--I will never forget; I was very proud to be a part of this--was that at the very end the expectations of all of the people that had just risen, the hopes would just be dashed and people would end up just being devastated and discouraged and feel like it all was for naught. We did not make it on the insurance reform bill, but this is not just a symbolic exercise tonight. We are hoping to get a huge vote from Republicans and Democrats alike. I think we have the support for this. Then we are hoping that in conference committee this stays in and this becomes the law of the land. It is not full parity, it is just incremental, but what a difference it would make. What a difference it would make for families that are struggling with mental illness. Mr. President, what a difference it would make. I do not guess this is the most important reason, but what a difference it would make for all of the families that now are speaking for themselves and talking to Senators and talking to Representatives. I see Senator Conrad, and I talked about what the Senator said on the floor on April 18. I said I would never forget those words. I see he is here to speak. I do not want to cut into the time of others. However, I think it is only old data and old ideas that have kept us from covering mental health the same way we cover other real illnesses, whether they are acute or chronic. Congress should pass this. The Senate should pass this amendment. We should pass it by a huge margin. It is a necessary and affordable step toward ending the stigma and discrimination against Americans suffering from mental illness. Let me repeat one more time: This vote tonight, the larger the margin the better, will be a necessary and affordable step that we as Senators have taken toward ending the stigma of discrimination against Americans suffering from mental illness. Colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to take that step is no small accomplishment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I see. Mr. President, I will just take a moment. I certainly thank Senator Bradley and Senator Frist and other Senators for their leadership, and I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I just want to make four points. The first one is the point the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Biden] made. I come from a State where very simple legislation has now been passed with overwhelming support. The problem is, as with so many of the self- insured plans, that people because of ERISA are just not covered at all. In Minnesota I think it is about only 40 percent of the people, actually a quite smaller percentage in Delaware. So we really have to do this at the Federal level to provide this protection for women, their husbands and their children. My second point, an alarming one, is that too many health plans are refusing to provide the postpartum coverage both women and their physicians feel is necessary. Senator Domenici and I are going to talk about mental health. That is another example where too often in the plans you find discrimination or you sort of find a point where some of the limits set are arbitrary. That is exactly what is going on here. This is really an effort to deal with what some people call the drive- through deliveries. I think this amendment is long overdue. It is not that often we can pass an amendment or a piece of legislation which so clearly connects to people's lives--women's lives, children's lives, husbands' lives, families' lives. This is an extremely important amendment. Again, point one is that we do need to do this at the Federal level to provide this coverage to people in the United States. My second point is that we do have these drive-through deliveries. Three, as referred to by my colleague from Tennessee, nobody is mandating that a mother stay in the hospital 48 hours. My daughter, Marcia, had a boy several months ago and in a day was more than ready to go home. But what I am worried about is the bottom line becomes the only line, and what you have is people discharged out of the hospital when they should not be and when they are in need of more assistance or when their babies are in need of more assistance. So I think it is extremely important on those grounds. And the final point, which is different, is that I think this amendment and the fine work that was done in the House of Representatives speaks to a broader question. We are not going to get to it today, but I really do think that what is going on in the country is a major concentration of power in health care. The fact that there have not been a lot of changes taking place in the 104th Congress does not mean that there are not major changes taking place all around the country. These are rough figures; I am just speaking from memory here, but something like the nine largest insurance plans control over 60 percent of the managed care plans in our country today. I am not trying to make any conspiracy argument, but what I am trying to say is when you move toward this kind of concentration of power and you find situations when women and their babies are leaving the hospitals, really forced to leave the hospitals because they do not have the necessary coverage where they should be there that extra day, that points to a larger set of problems, and I think we need to legislatively figure out how to build more accountability into the system, how to make sure some of the care givers are involved in setting some of these standards, how to make sure that there is more consumer protection, how to make sure that while we move forward with cost cutting or cost containment, all of which we need to do, the bottom line is not the only line because when it comes to the health of a mother and her newborn or when it comes to the concerns of families, there is nothing more precious than good health. That is what this amendment speaks to in a very dramatic and very direct way, and I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor. I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the Senator know I asked unanimous consent that our amendment be brought up?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that after this amendment is disposed of, the Domenici-Wellstone amendment be next in line.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment is very important. Again, it comes from work with Vietnam vets and their families and others in the veterans community. I thank Secretary Brown for his humane recommendation that spina bifida in the offspring of Vietnam vets be considered service connected. I know it is based on the National Academy of Sciences study. Mr. President, if you think about it, these children really are innocent victims of the Vietnam war. If I had to err, I would rather err on this side. I do not believe this is a huge appropriation of resources. I believe this is the right thing for us to do. I think, at least to me--sometimes I do not feel like people in our country realize this--it has been amazing how many veterans and their families fall between the cracks and still do not get the kind of health care that they truly deserve. In this particular case there are just too many families who have this struggle, too many children of Vietnam vets, too many children, I say again, who are innocent victims of this war, too many children who need our help, and I think this amendment is a very important step in the direction of providing assistance to families, to Vietnam vets, and to the children of Vietnam vets. I believe that this help is long overdue. Mr. President, I have met too many Vietnam vets who have struggled-- some of whom have died--because of exposure to agent orange. It is, I think, the least we can do to provide this assistance to their children. Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues on both sides will give this amendment introduced by the minority leader very strong support. I know in very good faith my friend--I consider Senator Simpson really to be a friend, somebody for whom I have tremendous respect--is in disagreement. But from my own heart, I think it is the right thing to do. I think we can help children. I think we can help families. I think it is part of our commitment to Vietnam vets. I think they deserve the assistance. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his very personal, very eloquent, and very powerful statement. The Senator from Wyoming, the chairman on this committee, has been gracious enough to let me speak. Mr. President, I am proud and honored to be a cosponsor of this important and historic amendment introduced by the distinguished and able Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. This amendment would enable the VA to extend health care and other benefits, including a monthly stipend, to Vietnam veterans' children suffering from spina bifida, a serious, disabling neural tube birth defect that requires lifelong care. While I recognize that this amendment is unprecedented in that it would authorize the VA for the first time to provide health care and related benefits to children of veterans, there is no question in my mind that it is fully justified. The humane and courageous decision of the President and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Brown to request that spina bifida in the offspring of Vietnam veterans be considered service-connected was based on a National Academy of Sciences [NAS] study released in March 1996 that found evidence suggesting a link between veterans' exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in their children. Mr. President, it is important to note that NAS used the same scientific criteria to conclude that there is a credible link between parental exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in their offspring as it had previously used in a 1993 NAS study that found a connection between veterans' exposure to agent orange and the incidence of respiratory cancers and multiple myeloma. Since Vietnam veterans suffering from these diseases already are receiving VA benefits based on the NAS findings and a subsequent determination that these conditions are presumptively service-connected, it is only fair that spina bifida-afflicted children of Vietnam veterans should also be provided with appropriate VA benefits. Moreover, I would like to underscore the fact that both the 1993 and 1996 NAS studies were mandated by the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which passed the Senate 99 to 0. That act also stipulated that reproductive disorders and birth defects must be accorded special attention to ascertain whether or not compensation is warranted. The 1996 NAS report leaves little doubt about the wisdom of focusing on birth defects and that at least for the innocent and tragic victims of spina bifida there is little doubt that compensation is warranted. Vietnam veterans have long been concerned that their military service jeopardized the health of their children and some of their worst fears now appear to have been confirmed. Some of the children of American soldiers exposed to agent orange are now paying a terrible price. Moreover, the cost of caring for a child with spina bifida can devastate a family financially. There is no question that the Federal Government has a moral responsibility to help veterans whose children suffer from spina bifida meet their children's health care and other special needs. These children are innocent victims of the Vietnam war. The least we can do is to provide them with the benefits they need and clearly deserve. Mr. President, again, I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. I count as one of my blessings all of the teaching that the Vietnam vets, and really the veterans community, have done in Minnesota. They have really been my teachers. I want to say that I have immersed myself in issues important to them. I have tried to do my very best. I am really proud of a lot of my work, in the main, not because of me, but because----

Mr. WELLSTONE. The microphone seems to be going on and off. Let me try this. Can the Chair hear me?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my constituent, Patricia Mack, an outstanding Housing and Urban Development [HUD] employee and housing activist. Over the years, she has accomplished a great deal in her work in the area of public housing. In 1971, Patricia began her first job in the housing field in the Chicago Regional Office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. She worked as an Urban Renewal Representative, advocating for and advancing the cause of civic renewal projects in the Chicago area. In October 1971, HUD established an office in Patricia's home State of Minnesota. Patricia moved back to the Twin Cities to serve as a Metropolitan Development Representative where she worked closely with metro-area communities to use HUD grant funds for water and sewer projects, neighborhood facilities, parks, and historical preservation initiatives. She played crucial roles in both the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. In July 1974, Patricia's career path took her to Alexandria, VA, to serve as assistant to the director of the Alexandria, VA, Planning Department. Working primarily on housing issues, she helped to lay the groundwork for Alexandria's Housing Assistance Program. In February 1976 she returned to Minnesota to the Minnesota HUD Office as Housing Assistance Specialist. She worked with Minnesota communities on the implementation of the Housing Assistance Program much as she had in Virginia. In 1985, Patricia was named Special Assistant to the Field Office Manager, a position in which she handled responsibilities ranging from public and congressional affairs to HUD special projects like the affirmative action plan. In this capacity, Patricia played a key role in assuring that adequate minority participation was utilized in the construction of the new Federal building that was being built in downtown Minneapolis. In the last decade, Patricia has continued to become actively and centrally involved in many programs pertaining to housing and the homeless. Patricia's dedication, leadership, and spirit have been instrumental in countless successes as a volunteer with Habitat for Humanity and in working with the Metropolitan Interfaith Community for Affordable Housing, In 1995, Patricia was the first Government official to receive a well-deserved award from the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless. Today, Patricia continues her work helping to address such serious and complex issues as homelessness and the availability, quality, and affordability of public housing on behalf of Minnesotans and their communities. It is a privilege for me to recognize and applaud Patricia Mack for her fine work and many contributions over the years. She is an inspiration, and I wish her continued future success.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my both my colleagues from Pennsylvania that they clearly are two Senators who are always more than willing to be strong and determined and honest in their positions in public. This amendment is not at all aimed at the Senator from Pennsylvania. It is aimed at something that I think is wrong with this process. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate working with both of my colleagues. For all I know that other provision was stuck in conference committee in the dark of night. I did not catch it. I really appreciate what you have said. I think we would probably disagree maybe on the substance because I think by postponing the time that this can be generic. We really provide more cost to the consumers. But it seems like what you have said--and hopefully we can all agree on this--this should not have been stuck in the conference committee the way it was. It was not appropriate, and that is why I challenged the ruling of the Chair. I think from the point of view of the way our process operates it is a huge mistake to legislate this way. That is why I hope that I will receive strong support on this challenge. And my understanding is that, if we prevail on the voice vote, this will become a successful concurrent resolution which will be a technical correction resolution that I introduced on behalf of myself, and also Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. Again, I thank especially Senator David Pryor for really bringing this to my attention.