Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. With an opportunity for other amendments dealing with agriculture.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that an intern, Jonathan Wettstein, be granted floor privileges during the duration of this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and, for that matter, to the people in our country who are watching the debate or those who are writing about this debate, that if Republicans want to block grant an additional $1 billion or so, having some sense of what it will be for, above and beyond the commitment we have made to our school districts--which has everything in the world to do with not only what teachers but students tell me they really need, namely, more teachers for smaller class sizes--we might be for it. But that is not what this is about. I have been in a Minnesota school about every 2 weeks for the last 9 years. I was at Centennial High School just 2 days ago--on Monday. We were talking about education, I say to my colleague from Washington. I always say to students: You are the experts. Tell me, given your experience--they were juniors and seniors, from a very good school-- what works? What are the things you think work best? Also, tell me where you think the gaps are, where you think the weaknesses are. The first thing students talk about is smaller class size. That is the first thing they talk about. We have used this commitment from the President and what Democrats have pushed through for this last year to hire an additional 519 teachers in the State of Minnesota. That makes a difference to our State. I do not want to see these 519 teachers who are adding--not subtracting, but adding--to the education of young people in our schools in Minnesota receive pink slips, to be without work. I do not want to see that happen. I do not want to see us retreat from the commitment we have made. A lot of people back in our States are fairly cynical about what we are doing or what we are not doing in the Nation's Capital, what we are doing or not doing in the Congress. One of the programs that people really respond to is sort of the way people view the Cox program, this initiative we have taken, which is working. What infuriates school districts, what infuriates the education people, who we should be supporting in all our States, is when we go down the road of a commitment, we come up with something that is not bureaucratized, we come up with an initiative that makes all the sense in the world, that speaks directly to the challenges we are faced with in our schools, that provides the funding for school districts to hire more teachers so they can reduce class size, which is really appreciated, which really makes a difference, all of a sudden we go back on that commitment. That is what this is all about. This amendment, on the part of Senator Gorton from Washington, is an effort to essentially negate the commitment we have made, which is what Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy and all of us are speaking for. As I listened to my colleagues on the other side speak, I think there is also a philosophical difference. It is not true that we in the Congress do not or should not think of our country as a national community. We should. We are a national community. There are certain kinds of values that inform us. Sometimes we come to the floor and support legislation, and hopefully pass legislation, that says to every child in America, no matter where he or she lives, no matter what State, no matter what district, no matter rural or urban or wealthy school district or low-income school district, we are going to do everything we can to make sure that child has an opportunity to do well. That is a commitment we make for our national community. We are going to say this is a priority. We are going to focus on this priority. We are going to fund this priority. What Senator Murray has said is, we have made that commitment. The priority that we have outlined is that we make the commitment to provide the funding for the school districts, if they want, so they can use that funding to hire more teachers to reduce class size. We know this is important, important to the students in this country, important to the students in Minnesota, important to the students of Illinois or Washington or Massachusetts. That is what we have done. That is what this debate is all about. The Republicans on the other side of the aisle want to basically go back on this commitment. They want to say no, we don't want to do that. We are simply going to undercut the commitment. They haven't authorized it yet. Let me tell Senators, there are a lot of us who would like to have a lot of substantive debate about education, including authorizing this bill in committee, getting it out on the floor. That can't be used as an excuse. What we have from Republicans is a counterproposal which essentially means that we go back on this commitment and we block grant this money. We wipe out this program. We wipe out this commitment. We wipe out this priority. We no longer say that as a Federal Government, as a Congress, as a national community, we are committed to getting more resources to school districts so they can hire more teachers and reduce class size. If my colleagues on the other side think there isn't a lot of support in their States for this initiative, they are making a big mistake. What my Republican colleagues want to do is say: We will just block grant this. The money can be spent however it can be spent. We don't establish the priorities. We don't think of this as a national community. We don't think of this effort to reduce class size as an important enough priority that we should continue to fund it. That is an outrageous proposition. All of us will be held accountable for our vote. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will make one more point, unless there are any colleagues on the floor who need to speak right away. I think there is a kind of difference between Democrats and Republicans, a difference above and beyond a philosophical question, which is that we are prepared to say this is a priority and stand by this priority, and we are not prepared to walk away from the commitment we have made to school districts or a commitment we made to children or a commitment we made to teachers or a commitment we made to education. We are not going to walk away from that commitment. Our Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to. The other problem is this pattern of funding. Here is a Republican 5- year history of cutting education funding: I remember the 1995 rescission, a cut of $1.7 billion. That was a House bill. Fiscal year 1996, $3.9 billion below 1995, House bill; fiscal year 1997, a cut of $3.1 billion; fiscal year 1998, $200 million less than the President's proposal; fiscal year 1999, $2 billion below the President's proposal. It is incredible to me. I was on the floor with Senator Boxer, Senator Feingold, Senator Durbin--there were a number of Senators involved. We were saying: Wait a minute; we now see an effort on the floor of the Senate to feel so sorry for these big oil companies that have been caught cheating; they ought to pay their fair share of taxes, but some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were right there for these oil companies. They wanted to make sure they got their breaks, wanted to make sure they didn't have to pay their fair share, wanted to make sure they got this benefit. That is a priority. You can be for big oil companies or you can try to work out deals for this special interest or that special interest. We are arguing that children and education is a special interest. We are arguing that this is a special program. We are arguing this is a special program that has worked very well. We are arguing that we made a commitment to our school districts to continue this funding. We are arguing that it would be simply unconscionable, indeed, unacceptable, for this Senate to now abandon that commitment after 1 year of a successful program. We speak against it. We fight against it. We are proud to vote for the Murray amendment. All of us will be held accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I want to ask the majority leader a question before we move forward. I have been waiting with amendments that speak to the pain and suffering of farmers in my State. Are there going to be opportunities for me, as a Senator from an agricultural State, to bring forth substantive amendments that will speak to what has happened to the farmer? Will there be vehicles or opportunities to come to the floor and introduce amendments and pass legislation that will help farmers in my State?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, let me simply follow up with a question. My understanding is the conference committee has not met for the past week; second, I know Senator Byrd and Senator Dorgan will speak about what is or is not in the bill. In this appropriations bill, we were not able to come out with any legislation that dealt with the price crisis, the whole question of concentration of power that dealt with what is happening to the family farmers. Is the bankruptcy bill the pending business after the morning business? Will we bring the bankruptcy bill to the floor with opportunities for Senators to introduce amendments that will make a difference for family farmers? Will we have that opportunity?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I will do everything I can between now and however long it takes, if I am the last person standing, to insist I have a right as a Senator from Minnesota to come to the floor and introduce legislation that will speak to the pain and suffering of family farmers in my State. I will not stop colleagues from speaking in morning business, but forthwith I will have to stay on the floor until I have a chance to make a difference for farmers.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Democrats have not been involved in that Appropriations Committee to my knowledge in terms of any meeting over the last week. Second, with all due respect to the majority leader, we are an amending body. Quite often we come to the floor with amendments. We especially come to the floor with amendments when we are dealing with a crisis situation. We are dealing with a crisis situation in rural America. It is not business as usual. I am going to insist that I have the right to come to this floor with amendments that will speak to farmers in Minnesota and around the country to make a difference.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask my colleague from Michigan whether or not this unanimous consent request can be modified to include other amendments; for example, some amendments that deal with how we improve farm policy or amendments on minimum wage?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if that is the case, as I explained to the majority leader earlier, I am determined that I am going to have an opportunity as a Senator from Minnesota to come out here on the floor of the Senate and to fight for farmers who are losing their farms in my State, and therefore I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this weekend, the McAuley Institute, Wider Opportunities for Women, the Center for Women Policy Studies, and the Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center of CUNY hosted a national conference on the important relationship between welfare reform and higher education. On Friday night, they held an opening night reception and awards ceremony. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but I ask to have printed in the Record a letter that was read on my behalf as part of the ceremony. The letter follows. September 24, 1999. To All in Attendance: First, I would like to begin by apologizing for the fact that I can't be here in person to accept this award. Certainly, I always like to attend any dinner that someone has gone to the trouble of holding in my honor, but even more so I would love to attend your conference focusing on the important relationship between education and economic self-sufficiency. Second, I would like to thank all of the sponsors of this conference--the McAuley Institute, Wider Opportunities for Women, the Center for Women's Policy Studies, and the Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center of CUNY--for presenting me with this award. I have worked with these groups in the past on important legislative efforts, and deeply respect the work that each of these organizations has done to protect and advance the well-being of the most needy among us. Having done that, though, I would also like to take this time to talk a little bit about poverty and need. We live in a nation of riches. Since 1969, the era when we launched our War on Poverty, we have seen the nation's total wealth per person grow by 62 percent, and as a nation, we consumed 73 percent more material goods and services per person in 1997 than we did 1969. Yet during that same time, the number of poor children in America grew by 46 percent, or more than 4 million children. About one-half of this growth represented the growing number of poor children in families headed by someone who worked. 1998 was a year of economic prosperity for many Americans. Many of us have benefitted greatly from a strong economy: unemployment is at its lowest level since 1969, and for the second year in a row wages have gone up, cutting across the traditional barriers of race, ethnicity and education. Unfortunately, though, these gains have barely been felt by those left behind by the growing economic inequality we see in this country. New figures on family income show that the gap between low- and moderate-income families and rich families is at an all-time high. During the 1990s, we have seen a disturbing trend in income gains--the rich in America are benefitting in ways that the poor are not: While the richest 20 percent of households gained about $15,000 dollars in annual income between 1990 and 1997, the poorest 20 percent of families gained only about $35 in annual income. That's a gain of 15 percent versus a gain of less than 1 percent. A recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities offers further evidence of the widening income gap between the rich and the poor in this country. Using Congressional Budget Office data, they found that the after- tax income of the richest one percent of the population will more than double between 1977 and 1999, rising 115 percent after adjusting for inflation. At the same time, the average after-tax income for middle-income households, which accounts for 60 percent of all households, will increase by only 8 percent--less than one-half a percent per year--and the average income of the poorest twenty percent of households will actually decrease. As a result of these large increases in income among the rich and the loss of income among the poor, CBPP estimates that in 1999, the richest twenty percent of households in the U.S. will have slightly more income than the other 80 percent of households combined, and the 2.7 million Americans with the highest incomes will have as much after-tax income as the 100 million Americans with the lowest incomes. My own state of Minnesota provides a telling example of how some of our families are being left behind: Minnesota leads the country in low unemployment--less than 3 percent statewide, less than 2 percent in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. But even with such impressive figures, we still see a situation where unemployment in our poorest central-city neighborhoods hovers around 15 percent, and a horrifying 60 percent of the children who live in these neighborhoods are growing up in poverty. And it isn't just in our cities, but also among our rural communities, particularly our farm communities, where we see similar levels of poverty and need. And when we talk about people being poor, we are talking about people in desperate need. It never fails to amaze me what the Federal government defines as poor--in 1997, a three-person family was ``officially'' poor if it made less than $12,802 a year. Even more upsetting, though, is that most poor families in the U.S. don't even meet this minimum. The average poor family with children received in 1997 only $8,688 a year in total income from all sources--the equivalent of $724 a month, $167 a week, less than $24 a day. Of course, those who suffer the most from poverty in this country are our children. It makes me sick just thinking about it. America's youngest children, those under the age of 6, are more likely to live in poverty than any other age group. During the past two decades there has been a substantial increase in the number and percentage of poor young people in the United States. The young child poverty rate has grown among all racial and ethnic groups, and in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The number of American young children living in poverty increased from 3.5 million in 1979 to 5.2 million in 1997. The young child poverty rate grew by 20 percent during those two decades, and currently one-in-five young children in the U.S. live in poverty. Nearly one-in-two young African American children live in poverty, and about one in three young Latino children live in poverty in the U.S. Still more horrifying, one in ten young children in the U.S. live in extreme poverty, in families with incomes less than half the poverty level, an amount of only $6,401 for a family of three in 1997. Nearly half of the children living in poverty in the U.S. live in extreme poverty. Currently, the extreme poverty rate among young children is growing faster than the young child poverty rate. I think what I find most upsetting is not the fact that so many among us still live in poverty, but that so many of those who live in poverty are hard-working parents who are doing everything--everything--that they can. But they still aren't making it. Sixty-one percent of the average poor family's income comes from work--$5,295 a year, $441 a month, $102 a week, or less than $15 a day. For an 8 hour workday, that means someone was earning just under $2 an hour. Only twenty-one percent of our average poor family's income came from welfare--just $1,824 a year, $152 a month, $35 a week, or less than $5 a day. And a majority of all poor children under age 6, 65 percent, live with at least one employed parent. Only one-sixth of poor young children live in families who rely solely on public assistance for income. How is this possible? How can we live in a time when there are people who literally can't support themselves and their families despite the fact that they work, often nearly 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, sometimes more than one job. In a time of unprecedented economic well-being, of budget surpluses, and an 8.6 trillion dollar economy, it is criminal that there are those living among us, who are doing everything within their powers to make ends meet, who cannot provide the basic needs of day-to-day survival for themselves and their families. We need to ask ourselves, we must ask ourselves, what is happening when we see this happening. We should be desperately concerned when we see that the average income of American families living in poverty actually declined between 1996 and 1997. Simply put, this is both inexcusable and utterly unacceptable. Even in the hardest of times, no family, no child, in this country should be forced to go without the basic necessities of food, shelter, and medical care. But even more so, in a time of unparalleled economic prosperity, how can any one not react with both despair and outrage when confronted by such a scenario? There is much to be done, much that should be done, much that must be done. I am deeply committed to doing my part: I will continue to offer legislation that protects the rights of the poorest among us, and to fight to help them provide for their needs. I have sponsored or co-sponsored legislation to raise the minimum wage; to find out what's happening to people when they lose their welfare benefits; to allow welfare recipients to count two years of education or vocational training toward their TANF work requirements; to ensure that everyone in America has access to quality, affordable healthcare and child care; and to guarantee that women and children who are victims and survivors of domestic violence have the economic resources and security they need to leave abusive situations. We in Congress must recognize that it isn't enough to tell people they must work, but we also need to provide them with a wide range of supports while they try to make the difficult transition from poverty to economic self-sufficiency. All of it goes together--we must address each if we intend to solve any. There is so much that you can do with me as well. I urge you to follow what happens in Congress and with the Administration and make your opinion known to your Representatives, to your Senators, and to the President-- write, e-mail, fax, and phone. Participate in every way you can, not only for yourselves but also for those who might not feel able to. We must all give a voice to those who are most likely to go unheard, and we must teach them to speak loudly for themselves. We must also make sure that people don't forget the less fortunate among us. Sometimes in our own prosperity, it is easier to simply turn away from that which is difficult or painful to witness. We must not relax our efforts, and we must never allow anyone to declare the war against poverty won until there is no one, no mother, no child, who lies down at night hungry or homeless. No one should have to worry about whether or not they can provide medical care for a sick loved one, or whether or not their child is safe in daycare while they are at work. I know that I am preaching to the choir at this point, so I will close by simply praising you for all of your efforts-- each and every one of you is fighting this fight right on the front lines--and by urging you not to bend and not to give up. In the face of spending cuts, changing priorities, and a simple lack of concern, you are the real ``poverty warriors.'' And finally, I thank you again for honoring me this evening. Sincerely, Paul D. Wellstone, U.S. Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is to express the sense of the Senate--that is all we are doing--that lung cancer, colon cancer, and brain and central nervous system cancer should be presumed to be service-connected disabilities as radiogenic diseases. Colleagues, I am talking about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, atomic veterans who were in Nevada and Utah. They went to ground zero. Our government never told them they were in harm's way, never gave them any protective gear. It is just unbelievable, the incidents of cancer, and all I am saying is that we just right an injustice. We should make sure they get the health care they deserve; they should get the compensation they deserve. We do this presumption for Agent Orange and Vietnam vets. We should. We do it for Persian Gulf veterans. We should. We ought to do it for these atomic veterans. They have been waiting a half century. I understand the Department of Veterans Affairs is opposed to the Senate going on record with a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Let me just say that Ken Kizer, former Under Secretary of Health for the Department of Veterans Affairs, wrote that this is a mistake and that given our position on gulf war veterans and Agent Orange veterans, it is a matter of equity and fairness. Please vote for this, colleagues. It is absolutely the right thing to do. These veterans have been waiting for justice for a half century.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Ranking Member of the VA/HUD Appropriations Committee in a brief colloquy regarding two important projects which I believe deserve support. Mr. President, over the past years there has been an alarming increase in the need for adolescent treatment programs. The Mash-ka- wisen facility in Sawyer, MN, has recognized this need and therefore proposes the construction of a culturally specific treatment program designed for adolescents. The presence of an eighteen-bed adolescent treatment center will serve American Indian adolescents from throughout the Bemidji Indian Health Service Area, which includes the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. For the past twenty years, the existing center in Sawyer, MN, has served American Indians in need of alcohol and drug treatment with a culturally specific recovery program. As a result of their commitment, the Center has a national reputation, as well as one of the very highest treatment success rates in the nation. The Minnesota Indian Primary Regional Treatment Center has requested $2 million to fund the construction of their adolescent treatment facility. I also wish to call your attention to the request of $1.7 million by Northeast Ventures Corporation of Northern Minnesota. During the last 15 years, Northeastern Minnesota has experienced severe economic losses. Since 1989, Northeast Ventures has provided capital support for micro enterprises in the region. In addition to the assistance that Northeast Ventures has provided, its not for profit affiliate, the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, has been providing financial and technical support services to unemployed and underemployed men and women in Northeastern Minnesota. In reaction to the special economic needs of the Iron Range, a second not for profit affiliate, Iron Range Ventures, works specifically to provide investments in the Iron Range. Together these organizations have helped to provide the region with assistance that has led to gradual economic recovery and diversification. A HUD Special Purpose Grant will make it possible for this organization and its not for profit affiliates to provide additional support to existing and emerging businesses in the region. $850,000 will support the expanded and enhanced delivery of services and capital to small businesses and the remaining $850,000 will support increased investment in the Iron Range area of northeastern Minnesota. I am aware of the difficult financial constraints under which the VA/ HUD Appropriations Subcommittee worked this year, and I appreciate the Ranking Member's willingness to engage in a colloquy on these important projects. So I would simply ask my colleague from Maryland if she agrees with the importance of including these two projects in the VA/ HUD appropriations bill and is willing to work towards earmarking $2 million for the Mash-ka-wisen treatment facility and $1.7 million for Northeast Ventures Corporation?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for her commitment to seek funding for these projects for the next year. I am grateful for her continued support and to know she will support these projects in the upcoming conference committee. Surface Acoustic Wave--Mercury Vapor Sensor Research

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Pension Benefits Protection and Preservation Act of 1999, a bill that will protect the hard earned pensions of millions of American workers. Mr. President, this legislation is long past due because big companies across America have been deserting their traditional defined benefit pension plan which promised a fair retirement to their long- time workers in favor of new ``cash-balance plans'' which promise less to loyal employees and more to CEO's who are already receiving record salaries, stock options and benefits. It is simply unfair for companies to discriminate against the very workers who have made those companies so successful. Older employees who have been forced into these cash-balance plans are finding their eventual pensions cut by 20-50 percent, and sometimes even more. This conversion technique is saving corporate America billions of dollars, but it is older workers who are paying the price. The technical and actuarial issues of cash-balance conversions may be complex, but what is simple is that Congress must act now to put transition safeguards in place to protect the retirement security of the American worker. Earlier this week, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee heard testimony from long-time IBM employees who were shocked on July 1, 1999, to find that the accrued balance in their pension plans had been slashed up to 50 percent overnight. Why? Because IBM decided to join the corporate conversion parade and convert its defined benefit pension plan that had promised a secure retirement to IBM employees into a plan that left trusted employees both insecure and embittered. IBM employees, including those in my state of Minnesota, used their knowledge of the Internet to organize, to communicate and to ultimately win major, but not fully adequate, concessions from IBM. But most employees of most companies don't have that kind of on-line sophistication. And no employees should have to rely on protests in order to preserve what they have already earned. That is why I am introducing this legislation. The Pension Benefits Protection and Preservation Act of 1999 offers a comprehensive approach to the difficulties of employees faced with cash-balance conversions. This measure will ensure fair treatment of American workers by requiring disclosure, pension plan choice, elimination of the ``wear- away'' of pension benefits, and enforcement of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. Workers have a right to know how much of a pension they will receive when an employer unilaterally changes its pension play. My bill required a detailed disclosure at least 45 days before a plan conversion becomes effective, if that conversion significantly reduces the pension benefits of employees. This gives employees adequate time to compare the benefits they would receive under the old plan with those of the new. That time to compare plans is critical because my bill penalizes employers who significantly reduce employee pension benefit unless employees are able to knowledgeably choose between old and new plans. Employers who do significantly reduce benefits and fail to allow choice will be liable for an excise tax equal in amount to 50 percent of the surplus in the pension fund of the company. What the threat of this penalty does is to direct pension monies where they belong--into the retirement benefits that employees receive, not into shareholder pockets or stock options of highly paid CEO's. The Pension Benefits Protection and Preservation Act of 1999 also eliminates the ``wearing-away'' of employee's accrued pension benefits by preventing company pension plans from giving participating employees an opening account balance in their ``new'' plan that is lower than their already accrued pension benefits to date under the old plan. Under my bill, companies will no longer be able to engage in that tactic; instead, they will be required to continue to pay into workers' pension accounts without regard to the amount of pension benefits workers have accrued under their old plan. Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the existing pension age discrimination law enacted in 1986. Mr. President, 25 years ago this month ERISA, the Employee Retirement Security Act, was enacted. Congress passed ERISA to put an end to broken pension promises and to protect working men and women. Twenty- five years later what we see instead is ERISA neither adequate--nor adequately enforced--enough to protect workers' pensions. Pension funds belong to the workers, not the employer, and we must put in place a strong safety net to prevent those funds from being raided in the guise of being improved. That is why I am introducing the Pension Benefits Protection and Preservation Act of 1999 today, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Pension Benefits Protection and Preservation Act of 1999, a bill that will protect the hard earned pensions of millions of American workers. Mr. President, this legislation is long past due because big companies across America have been deserting their traditional defined benefit pension plan which promised a fair retirement to their long- time workers in favor of new ``cash-balance plans'' which promise less to loyal employees and more to CEO's who are already receiving record salaries, stock options and benefits. It is simply unfair for companies to discriminate against the very workers who have made those companies so successful. Older employees who have been forced into these cash-balance plans are finding their eventual pensions cut by 20-50 percent, and sometimes even more. This conversion technique is saving corporate America billions of dollars, but it is older workers who are paying the price. The technical and actuarial issues of cash-balance conversions may be complex, but what is simple is that Congress must act now to put transition safeguards in place to protect the retirement security of the American worker. Earlier this week, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee heard testimony from long-time IBM employees who were shocked on July 1, 1999, to find that the accrued balance in their pension plans had been slashed up to 50 percent overnight. Why? Because IBM decided to join the corporate conversion parade and convert its defined benefit pension plan that had promised a secure retirement to IBM employees into a plan that left trusted employees both insecure and embittered. IBM employees, including those in my state of Minnesota, used their knowledge of the Internet to organize, to communicate and to ultimately win major, but not fully adequate, concessions from IBM. But most employees of most companies don't have that kind of on-line sophistication. And no employees should have to rely on protests in order to preserve what they have already earned. That is why I am introducing this legislation. The Pension Benefits Protection and Preservation Act of 1999 offers a comprehensive approach to the difficulties of employees faced with cash-balance conversions. This measure will ensure fair treatment of American workers by requiring disclosure, pension plan choice, elimination of the ``wear- away'' of pension benefits, and enforcement of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. Workers have a right to know how much of a pension they will receive when an employer unilaterally changes its pension play. My bill required a detailed disclosure at least 45 days before a plan conversion becomes effective, if that conversion significantly reduces the pension benefits of employees. This gives employees adequate time to compare the benefits they would receive under the old plan with those of the new. That time to compare plans is critical because my bill penalizes employers who significantly reduce employee pension benefit unless employees are able to knowledgeably choose between old and new plans. Employers who do significantly reduce benefits and fail to allow choice will be liable for an excise tax equal in amount to 50 percent of the surplus in the pension fund of the company. What the threat of this penalty does is to direct pension monies where they belong--into the retirement benefits that employees receive, not into shareholder pockets or stock options of highly paid CEO's. The Pension Benefits Protection and Preservation Act of 1999 also eliminates the ``wearing-away'' of employee's accrued pension benefits by preventing company pension plans from giving participating employees an opening account balance in their ``new'' plan that is lower than their already accrued pension benefits to date under the old plan. Under my bill, companies will no longer be able to engage in that tactic; instead, they will be required to continue to pay into workers' pension accounts without regard to the amount of pension benefits workers have accrued under their old plan. Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the existing pension age discrimination law enacted in 1986. Mr. President, 25 years ago this month ERISA, the Employee Retirement Security Act, was enacted. Congress passed ERISA to put an end to broken pension promises and to protect working men and women. Twenty- five years later what we see instead is ERISA neither adequate--nor adequately enforced--enough to protect workers' pensions. Pension funds belong to the workers, not the employer, and we must put in place a strong safety net to prevent those funds from being raided in the guise of being improved. That is why I am introducing the Pension Benefits Protection and Preservation Act of 1999 today, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Wyoming, I understand the point he is making about the connections to money at an individual level. I am not here to make that argument. I think there is a different argument that could be made about the need for reform. What I want to do is go back to what I think is the issue. To me, the issue is that the Hutchison amendment is an outrageous provision. The reason we are out here on the floor is, we want people in the country to know about it. We all have to be accountable. It was offered to the Interior appropriations bill. Now, because of this successful effort to get cloture, this amendment, if it goes into law, which it will, will restrict the Interior Department from doing its job, which is to make sure that the oil companies pay their full royalties. I thank the Senator from California for having the courage to come out and take on this effort and for having the courage to make this an issue, a very public issue in the country. The reason we are out here is that behind this amendment lies an unbelievable story. The Interior Department's Mineral Management Service, MMS, simply wanted to collect the money that these oil companies owe the public. Many of the industry's largest companies have been consistently underpaying their royalties. They are not paying their taxes. Ordinary people, which I mean in a positive way, in Illinois or Minnesota, they pay their taxes. These companies have not been paying their taxes, not the fair share. Last year, Mobil Oil agreed to a $56.5 million settlement of Federal and State lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties. They agreed to the settlement. Also, according to the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a bastion of liberalism, Chevron Corporation has agreed in principle to pay approximately $95 million to resolve a civil lawsuit charging that Chevron shortchanged the American public. That is what has been going on. There have been a flurry of other settlements--$2.5 billion in Alaska, $350 million in California, $17.5 million in Texas, $10 million in Louisiana, and $8 million in New Mexico. Remember, this oil belongs to the public. What we have been saying to these companies is: Go ahead, take the oil, but all we ask, as the public, is for you to pay the market value. I don't think that is too much to ask, nor do the people of this country think it is too much to ask. Apparently, the big oil companies do. If there was a poll in the country, 99 percent of the people would be with my colleague from California. Let me be clear about one thing: We are not talking about all of the oil companies. We are not talking about the mom and pop independents. We are talking about large integrated companies that sell to affiliates at undervalued prices. They make up only 5 percent of the oil companies drilling on the Federal land, but they account for 68 percent of the Federal production. The Interior Department, up to the time of this Hutchison amendment, was developing regulations to stop this highway robbery. People get angry. People work hard. They pay their taxes. Then they see these big oil companies that say: We don't have to pay our taxes. This is not new authority. Interior always had the statutory authority to collect royalties on the fair market value. But what the Hutchison amendment would do would essentially negate what the Interior Department was trying to do. What was the Interior Department trying to do? These new regulations would keep the oil companies from manipulating ``fair market value'' to underpay their royalties. That is what they have been doing. They have been cheating. This is the question I ask my colleagues: Do these companies, these large integrated oil companies, deserve our sympathy? I don't think so. They have been caught. Let me repeat that. They have been caught. They have been caught underpaying their royalties. They have been cheating the public. That is what they have been doing. My colleague from Texas and some other Senators come to the floor and they want to do a special favor for the big oil companies. The reason we are out on the floor is, even if we lost on the cloture vote, I say to my colleague from California and other Senators, we don't lose this vote, not really. We don't lose this fight, not really, because I think people in the country are absolutely outraged. We are talking about $66 million a year that could be going to the environment, to schools, to our children. We are talking about big oil companies that basically seem to think--my colleague from Wisconsin was out here on the floor, and I guess other Senators didn't appreciate what he was doing. But with all due respect, this is a reform issue. How is it that we have so much sympathy, how is it we care so deeply, how is it we feel the pain of these oil companies, how is it we are so much at their service, and yet, when it comes to families that can't afford child care, we don't have the same sympathy? When it comes to making sure we make the investment in education for our children, we apparently don't have the same sympathy. I was at a press conference with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, a Republican. We were talking about the current course, which is going to be about a 12- to 14-percent cut in low-income energy assistance in a cold weather State. We are talking about grants of maybe $285, but it makes a huge difference. Do my colleagues know that for around 85-, 90,000 households in Minnesota, a third of them are elderly; 70 percent of them are working poor? This means there is a grant so that during the cold winter months in Minnesota--we have a few of those months--we make sure those families, in trying to pay their heat, are still also able to afford food, or elderly people don't give up on prescription drugs. What do we have here? We have a Senate, by virtue of the vote on the floor of the Senate, which basically does the bidding for these big oil companies. All of our sympathies are for these companies. My colleague from California has had the courage to confront this, to take this on. The reason we are taking our time this afternoon, I say to the Senator from California, is that we want as many people in the country as possible to know about this. That is right; absolutely, that is right. I said, when the Senator was out, I have no doubt--and I thank her for her effort; I know she must be getting tired--I have no doubt that 99 percent of the people in this country are on your side. I say that to the Senator from California. People are outraged by this. This is another example of too few people, with too much power, having too much say over how the Senate operates, and the vast majority of the people are left out. It is interesting; my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, just gave me a summary of what happened today on the House side in the Subcommittee on Education of Appropriations. Unbelievable. They cut $1.2 billion in money that would have gone to reduce class size. My daughter is a Spanish teacher. I asked her the other day, ``What size classes do you have this year?'' She said, ``36 and 38.'' Those are two of her classes. Those classes need to be smaller. Then I was talking to my son, who has two small children in elementary school. In the third grade class, there are 28 students. We know if we reduce class size, teachers would have more time to spend with these kids, and they can do better. Today, on the House side, our Republican colleagues cut this--title I funding, $264 million below the President's request. I have to talk about this for a little while. This is unbelievable. Albeit, I was literally on this one, in a minority, but we had all this discussion about Ed-Flex and all that we were going to do with title I. At the same time, our title I funding for low-income children in our country is about a third of the level of what it should be if we were to reach all the kids. This is money that is used for teaching assistants, more teachers, more parent outreach, higher standards, and making sure that kids who fall behind can meet those standards. Today, we are essentially cutting title I. How could the $66 million be used? We can hire a thousand teachers; we can put 44,000 new computers in the classrooms; we can buy textbooks for 1.2 million students; we can provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren. So I can't understand when some of my colleagues come out on the floor and say this is not the issue. This is the issue. These oil companies have been cheating. They haven't been paying their fair share of taxes. They were able to get some Senators to come out here as a favor to them and make sure they are able to continue to basically not pay their fair share of taxes. We give up $66 million, and the choice becomes not the mom-and-pop operations, but huge, big, integrated oil companies. Do I have sympathy on the side of big oil companies, or am I on the side of children? That is an easy question for me and the vast majority of people in this country to answer. It is interesting; when we talk about the whole issue of cheating the public, I want to point this out on the floor of the Senate. Now we are talking about cheating the public. Now we are talking about the Interior Department wanting to basically put into effect the regulation that makes sure the big oil companies could not cheat the public. Now we are talking about an effort that basically is an effort to undo this regulation, undo the work of the Interior Department. The Interior Department is essentially saying to people: You know what. We, as a Government agency, are going to make sure the oil companies pay their fair share, which is what people believe in. People get angry because they think we are well-connected, and if you make huge contributions--which is what my colleague from Wisconsin was talking about--and you are a heavy hitter and you have lobbyists, you can get special deals. People hate that. They get furious about it. I don't blame them. I heard a lot about cheating and all the rest when we had the welfare debate. It is interesting. We have all this sympathy for the ``poor,'' large oil companies. They come in here and, apparently, for some of my colleagues, we can't do enough for them, even when they are not paying their fair share. But you know, it is interesting; we never have any of the same sympathy for poor mothers and children. I have been out on the floor of the Senate trying to get at least some honest policy evaluation of how this welfare bill is working. I get something passed on the Senate floor, and it is taken out in conference committee. As I was saying, how about some sympathy for others? Maybe if they are not as well connected, or maybe if they don't have all of the income, we still ought to care about them. So if we hear from Families USA that since that welfare bill passed, there are 670,000 fewer children who have medical coverage, we ought to be concerned. If we hear from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that there has been a dramatic rise in the number of hungry and food- insecure families in the country, maybe we ought to be concerned. And if we know there has been about a 25-percent drop in food stamp participation, maybe we ought to be concerned. If we hear that most of these mothers are getting jobs that are barely above minimum wage, and then they lose health care coverage and they don't find good child care for their children, maybe we should be concerned. If it is the case, as it is the case in Minnesota--and I will bet in a lot of other States as well--that we can't even make the rent subsidy program work any longer because there is no affordable low-income housing, so the fair market value is above what would make anybody eligible, and that people can't even find housing and they can't cash-flow--they would have to make $12 or $13 to be able to cash- flow to afford any affordable housing for themselves and their children, and if the most dramatic rise in the homeless population is women and children, maybe we should have the same concern. But we don't. We are concerned for these oil companies that have been caught cheating, but we are not concerned for low-income women and children. We are concerned for these oil companies that have been caught cheating. There is not enough we can do for them, but we are not concerned about funding title I. We are not concerned about making sure we fund low-income energy assistance. We are not concerned about making the investment to reduce class size. We are not concerned about affordable child care. We are not concerned about making sure that we fully fund and make the investment we ought to make in veterans' health care. But we can't do enough for these oil companies that have been caught cheating. I think this debate we have been having, this sort of fight on the floor of the Senate speaks volumes on what is at stake. Let me simply, one more time, repeat what I said earlier. This amendment is an outrageous provision offered to the Interior appropriations bill. What it does is it basically restricts the Interior Department from doing its job. What the Interior Department was trying to do was make sure the oil companies pay the full royalties for the oil they are drilling on Federal or Indian land. Therefore, we lose, roughly speaking, $66 million a year. Therefore, the choice becomes: Do you hire a thousand teachers? Do you put 44,000 new computers into the classrooms? Do you buy textbooks for 1.2 million students? Do you provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren? Or do you basically come down on the side of the big oil companies? Well, I am proud to say on the floor of the Senate that I am not the Senator for the big oil companies or the big insurance companies or the pharmaceutical companies. They already have great representation in Washington, DC. It is the rest of the people who need it. That is what Senator Boxer has been trying to do--represent the rest of the people in this country. That is what I am proud to do out on the floor of the Senate. It is interesting. October is going to be Domestic Violence Awareness Month. It is so important that in October we focus on the violence in families. About every 13 seconds a woman is beaten and battered in her home. A home is supposed to be a safe place. About every 13 seconds, that is a conservative figure. All too many children witness this violence, as well. As it turns out, we also at this time are recognizing the 25th anniversary of Women's Advocates, which was the Nation's first battered women's shelter located in St. Paul, MN. I have a lot of pride when I talk about the staff and when I talk about the volunteers and the supporters of Women's Advocates. In 1974, the doors of this shelter first opened for women and their children who were seeking some respite from violence. It took a lot of courage and for women to stand up to this. To date, this wonderful, special place has provided advocacy shelter and advocacy and support services to over 25,000 women and children. They spend countless hours teaching our schoolchildren and community members about the impact. Women's Advocates stands as a pillar of grace and triumph. I hail executive director, Elizabeth Wolf, and all the courageous women. But what is interesting to me--I raise this question because, again, I come out on the floor of the Senate and I say: Can't we do more to try to stop this violence? Can't we have more safe visitation centers to protect children and women? Can't we make sure we do more by way of supporting children who witness this violence in their homes--some 3 to 5 million children? Can't we do more to make sure these women who have been battered and who have experienced this violence can afford housing when they leave these shelters? Do you know what the answer is from my colleagues? No. We can't make that investment. We don't have the money. But when the oil companies that have been cheating and have been caught cheating come here and they say, please give us a special break, please give us a special favor, we find it easy to give them our sympathy and to give them what they want. How interesting it is. This is an issue of representation. How interesting it is that when we are talking about children in our schools, when we are talking about working families that can't afford child care for their children, when we are talking about men and women who work in our child care centers and have to leave because they can't make a living wage, therefore, there is all this turnover--the Washington Post had an excellent piece about this not too long ago--and when we are talking about whether or not people who work almost 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, shouldn't be able to have a living wage and we should raise the minimum wage, or when we are talking about whether or not can't we do more by way of affordable houses, or when we are talking about how we can't expand the Pell grant program to make sure higher education is more affordable, we don't have any sympathy; we don't have any resources; there is nothing we can do. But when it comes to these big oil companies, when they come here and they say, please give us a special favor, we have been cheating and now the Interior Department is going to say we can't cheat any longer and we have to pay our fair share of taxes, we ask you to fix that. That is exactly what the crux of the amendment is. That is exactly why we are speaking on the floor with a tremendous amount of indignation. The question becomes one of representation. I think this actually is what my colleague from Wisconsin was trying to speak to. Why do the wage earners, these working families, these children and women who are experiencing violence, children who witness that violence, why don't their concerns seem to carry any weight and yet the concerns of the poor large oil companies that have been caught cheating seem to matter? What is going on here? I think this is a huge problem. I think this has everything in the world to do with the need for reform. This has to do with a mix of money and politics. This has to do with: Who are the players? Who are the contributors? Who are the heavy hitters? Who are the well connected? Who can get Senators to do their bidding? I tell you, it is outrageous. That is why I am on the floor to say it is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. I have another question. I have a different question. This one is very near and dear to my heart. Why do we have all of this concern for these poor big oil companies that have been caught cheating and don't want to pay their fair share but we don't have the same concern for family farmers who right now are going under? We are going to lose another 6.57 percent of our family farmers in Minnesota. These producers are going to go under. We want to come out here and we want to say raise the loan rate. I say to my colleague from Michigan, I would be pleased to finish up a little bit earlier. I will finish up in a few minutes. I have other colleagues wanting to speak. I will make one final point. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Michigan be allowed to follow me. I still have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I take 30 seconds to summarize?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, probably about an hour.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a sense-of-the- Senate amendment that speaks to the frustrating and infuriating obstacles that have too often kept veterans who were exposed to radiation during military service from getting the disability compensation they deserve. This amendment would put the senate on record as being in favor of adding three radiogenic conditions to the list of presumptively service-connected diseases for which atomic veterans may receive VA compensation, specifically: lung cancer, colon cancer; and tumors of the brain and central nervous system. It is based on a bill I introduced during the last Congress S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act. But before I speak on the merits of this amendment, I'd like to talk about the frustrating and infuriating obstacles that have beset this amendment in the Senate. I offered an amendment to make the needed change in the law on S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors;', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. It was accepted and adopted by the Senate by voice vote. When it became clear that S. 4 was dead on arrival in the house, I offered this amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill. Again, the amendment was accepted, but it was stripped out in conference. I mention the history of this amendment to my colleagues in the belief that what was acceptable to the Senate three months ago will be acceptable today. But to put my colleagues on notice that this time I am going to insist on a roll call vote and to make it clear that I will be back to offer the actual amendment as many times as I have to so that justice can be done by the atomic veteran. I believe that the way we treat our veterans does send an important message to young people considering service in the military. When veterans of the Persian Gulf war don't get the kind of treatment they deserve, when the VA health care budget loses out year after year to other budget priorities, when veterans benefits claims take years and years to resolve, what is the message we are sending to future recruits? How can we attract and retain young people in the service when our government fails to honor its obligation to provide just compensation and health care for those injured during service? One of the most outrageous examples of our government's failure to honor its obligations to veterans involves ``atomic veterans,'' patriotic Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and at atmospheric nuclear tests. For more than 50 years, many of them have been denied compensation for diseases that the VA recognizes as being linked to their exposure to radiation--diseases known as radiogenic diseases. Many of these diseases are lethal forms of cancers. I'm sure many of my colleagues have seen the recent headlines about the exposure of workers at the nuclear plant in Paducah, Kentucky. The story of the atomic veteran is very much the same. I received my first introduction to the plight of atomic veterans from some first-rate mentors, the members of the Forgotten 216th. The Forgotten 216th was the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S. Army, which participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper. Operation Tumbler Snapper was a series of eight atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Nevada desert in 1952. About half of the members of the 216th were Minnesotans. What I've learned from them, from other atomic veterans, and from their survivors has shaped my views on this issue. Five years ago, the Forgotten 216th contacted me after then-Secretary of Energy O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had conducted radiation experiments on its own citizens. For the first time in public, they revealed what went on during the Nevada tests and the tragedies and trauma that they, their families, and their former buddies had experienced since then. Because their experiences and problems typify those of atomic veterans nationwide, I'd like to tell my colleagues a little more about the Forgotten 216th. When you hear their story, I think you have to agree that the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them must never be forgotten again. Members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near ground zero immediately after a nuclear blast. They were exposed to so much radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given minimal or no protection. They frequently had no film badges to measure radiation exposure. They were given no information on the perils they faced. Then they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear tests. They were often denied access to their own service medical records. And they were provided no medical follow-up. For decades, atomic veterans have been America's most neglected veterans. They have been deceived and treated shabbily by the government they served so selflessly and unquestioningly. If the U.S. Government can't be counted on to honor its obligation to these deserving veterans, how can young people interested in the military service have any confidence that their government will do any better by them? Mr. President, I believe the neglect of atomic veterans should stop here and now. Our government has a long overdue debt to these patriotic Americans, a debt that we in the Senate must help to repay. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help repay this debt by supporting this amendment. My legislation and this amendment have enjoyed the strong support of veterans service organizations. Recently, the Independent Budget for FY 2000, which is a budget recommendation issued by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), endorsed adding these radiogenic diseases to VA's presumptive service-connected list. Let me briefly describe the problem that my amendment is intended to address. When atomic veterans try to claim VA compensation for their illnesses, VA almost invariably denies their claims. VA tells these veterans that their radiation doses were too low--below 5 rems. But the fact is, we don't really know that and, even if we did, that's no excuse for denying these claims. The result of this unrealistic standard is that it is almost impossible for these atomic veterans to prove their case. The only solution is to add these conditions to the VA presumptive service-connected list, and that's what my amendment does. First of all, trying to go back and determine the precise dosage each of these veterans was exposed to is a futile undertaking. Scientists agree that the dose reconstruction performed for the VA is notoriously unreliable. GAO itself has noted the inherent uncertainties of dose reconstruction. Even VA scientific personnel have conceded its unreliability. In a memo to VA Secretary Togo West, Under Secretary for Health Kenneth Kizer has recommended that the VA reconsider its opposition to S. 1385 based, in part, on the unreliability of dose reconstruction. In addition, none of the scientific experts who testified at a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on S. 1385 on April 21, 1998, supported the use of dose reconstruction to determine eligibility for VA benefits. Let me explain why dose reconstruction is so difficult. Dr. Marty Gensler on my staff has researched this issue for over five years, and this is what he has found. Many atomic veterans were sent to ground zero immediately after a nuclear test with no protection, no information on the known dangers they faced, no badges or other monitoring equipment, and no medical follow up. As early as 1946, ranking military and civilian personnel responsible for nuclear testing anticipated claims for service-connected disability and sought to ensure that ``no successful suits could be brought on account of radiological hazards.'' That quotation comes from documents declassified by the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. The VA, during this period, maintained classified records ``essential'' to evaluating atomic veterans' claims, but these records were unavailable to veterans themselves. Atomic veterans were sworn to secrecy and were denied access to their own service and medical records for many years, effectively barring pursuit of compensation claims. It's partly as a result of these missing or incomplete records that so many people have doubts about the validity of dose reconstructions for atomic veterans, some of which are performed more than fifty years after exposure. Even if these veterans' exposure was less than 5 rems, which is the standard use by VA, this standard is not based on uncontested science. In 1994, for example, GAO stated: ``A low level dose has been estimated to be somewhere below 10 rems [but] it is not known for certain whether doses below this level are detrimental to public health.'' Despite persistent doubts about VA's and DoD's dose reconstruction, and despite doubts about the science on which VA's 5 rem standard is based, these dose reconstructions are used to bar veterans from compensation for disabling radiogenic conditions. The effects of this standard have been devastating. A little over two years ago the VA estimated that less than 50 claims for non-presumptive diseases had been approved out of over 18,000 radiation claims filed. Atomic veterans might as well not even bother. Their chances of obtaining compensation are negligible. It is impossible for many atomic veterans and their survivors to be given ``the benefit of the doubt'' by the VA while their claims hinge on the dubious accuracy and reliability of dose reconstruction and the health effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation remain uncertain. This problem can be fixed. The reason atomic veterans have to go through this reconstruction at all is that the diseases listed in my amendment are not presumed to be service-connected. That's the real problem. VA already has a list of service-connected diseases that are presumed service-connected, but these are not on it. This makes no sense. Scientists agree that there is at least as strong a link between radiation exposure and these diseases as there is to the other diseases on that VA list. Mr. President, you might ask why I've included these three diseases in particular--lung cancer; colon cancer; and tumors of the brain and central nervous system--in my amendment. The reason is very simple. The best, most current, scientific evidence available justifies their inclusion. A paper entitled ``Risk Estimates for Radiation Exposure'' by John D. Boice, Jr., of the National Cancer Institute, published in 1996 as part of a larger work called Health Effects of Exposure to Low- Level Ionizing Radiation, includes a table which rates human cancers by the strength of the evidence linking them to exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. According to this study, the evidence of a link for lung cancer is ``very strong''--the highest level of confidence--and the evidence of a link for colon and brain and central nervous system cancers is ``convincing''--the next highest level of confidence. So I believe I can say with a great deal of certainty, Mr. President, that science is on the side of this amendment. Last year, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee reported out a version of S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act, which included three diseases to be added to the VAs presumptive list. Two of those diseases, lung cancer and brain and central nervous system cancer, I have included in my amendment. The third disease included in the reported bill was ovarian cancer. Mr. President, I'd like to explain why I substituted colon cancer for ovarian cancer. It is true that the 1996 study I just cited states that the evidence of a linkage for ovarian cancer to low level ionizing radiation is ``convincing,'' just as it is for colon cancer. But Mr. President, there are no female atomic veterans. The effect of creating a presumption of service connection for ovarian cancer is basically no effect--because no one could take advantage of it. However, the impact of adding colon cancer as a presumption for atomic veterans is significant; atomic veterans will be able to take advantage of that presumption. The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments agreed in 1995 that VA's current list should be expanded. The Committee cited concerns that ``the listing of diseases for which relief is automatically provided--the presumptive diseases provided for by the 1988 law--is incomplete and inadequate'' and that ``the standard of proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet and, given the questionable condition of the exposure records retained by the government, inappropriate.'' The President's Advisory Committee urged Congress to address the concerns of atomic veterans and their families ``promptly.'' The unfair treatment of atomic veterans becomes especially clear when compared to both agent orange and Persian Gulf veterans. In recommending that the administration support S. 1385, Under Secretary for Health Kenneth Kizer cited the indefensibility of denying presumptive service connection for atomic veterans in light of the presumption for Persian Gulf war veterans and agent orange veterans. In 1993, the VA decided to make lung cancer presumptively service- connected for agent orange veterans. That decision was based on a National Academy of Sciences study that had found a link only where agent orange exposures were ``high and prolonged,'' but pointed out there was only a ``limited'' capability to determine individual exposures. For atomic veterans, however, lung cancer continues to be non- presumptive. In short, the issue of exposure levels poses an almost insurmountable obstacle to approval of claims by atomic veterans, while the same problem is ignored for agent orange veterans. Persian Gulf war veterans can receive compensation for symptoms or illnesses that may be linked to their service in the Persian Gulf, at least until scientists reach definitive conclusions about the etiology of their health problems. Unfortunately, atomic veterans aren't given the same consideration or benefit of the doubt. Mr. President, I believe this state of affairs is outrageous and unjust. The struggle of atomic veterans for justice has been long, hard, and frustrating. But these patriotic, dedicated and deserving veterans have persevered. My amendment would finally provide them the justice that they so much deserve. Let me say this in closing, Mr. President: As I have worked with veterans and military personnel during my time in the Senate, I have seen a troubling erosion of the federal government's credibility with current and former service members. No salary is high enough, no pension big enough to compensate our troops for the dangers they endure while defending our country. Such heroism stems from love for America's sacred ideals of freedom and democracy and the belief that the nation's gratitude is not limited by fiscal convenience but reflects a debt of honor. Mr. President, this is one of those issues which test our faith in our government. But the Senate can take an important step in righting this injustice. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in helping atomic veterans win their struggle by supporting by supporting my amendment. I yield the floor.