Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question, without losing my right.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take my time. Let me simply raise another question, which is if we have all of this concern for these big oil companies, and we want to prevent the Interior Department from making sure they can pay full royalties, then why don't we have the same concern for family farmers in the State of Minnesota? Why don't we have the same concern for the producers in my State? Many of us from the farm States want to come out here and we want to talk about raising the loan rate. I have a proposal that I want an up-or-down vote on to put a moratorium on these acquisitions and these mergers. We want to talk about antitrust action. We want to talk about fair trade policy. We want to know why the conference committee can't even get the emergency assistance to our farmers who are going under. But it seems as if when it comes to family farmers in Minnesota, or, for that matter, Illinois, or in our country, or when it comes to education for children, or when it comes to veterans' health care, or when it comes to low-income energy assistance, or when it comes to affordable housing, or when it comes to what we can do about reducing violence in homes, the brunt of the violence directed at women and children, we don't have very much sympathy. But we have all of the sympathy in the world for these poor oil companies that have been caught cheating because, after all, they are the ones that are the well connected. They are the ones that have the resources. They are the ones that seem to make a difference.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question. I would like to keep the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to keep the floor and yield for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is so much more I want to say right now, but I am pleased to yield to that request.

Mr. WELLSTONE. And I have how much time after?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the question, How does it come to be that these large oil companies have generated so much of our sympathy, have enlisted so much of our sympathy? They have been caught. Let me repeat that: They have been caught underpaying their royalties. They have been cheating. And we have all of the sympathy for these big oil companies. But when it comes to children, when it comes to family farmers, when it comes to doing something about reducing violence in homes, when it comes to raising the minimum wage, when it comes to affordable child care, when it comes to affordable health care, when it comes to so many of the issues so important to families in our country, we don't seem to have the same sympathy. This debate goes to the heart of what is at stake in the Senate. What is at stake is, Whom do we represent? Are we Senators for the big oil companies or are we Senators for the vast majority of citizens in our country who are asking Senators to get serious with good public policy that will make a difference for them, make a difference for their children, make a big difference for our communities? That is what this is about. Do we have representative democracy where the vast majority of people are heard or do we have a system where we have democracy for the few, where the big oil companies come here and work out their special deals? That is what they have done, America. That is so outrageous. That is what is so unconscionable. That is why we are taking the time this afternoon to make sure every single citizen in this country understands what has happened here. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her support. I am honored to have her support. I know the atomic veterans thank her.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that Harold R. Holmes, an intern with me, be given floor privileges during consideration of this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on the caps and this whole question of breaking the caps, maybe I should be one of the first Senators to come to the floor of the Senate and say why not be straightforward about this. We keep doing all the emergency expenditures. I didn't vote for the caps. I didn't vote for the budget agreement. I didn't vote for the budget caps. I find it a little surprising that a lot of people say: Oh my gosh, the Medicare reimbursement is struggling; our rural hospitals are toppling; what is happening to our producers who are struggling to survive? Home health care providers are struggling to survive, and our teaching hospitals and medical schools are struggling to survive. All of this is true. Everybody knows we will eventually get beyond these caps. We are saying to the veterans, there is a surplus but we use it for defense, we will use it for tax cuts, we will vote for $3 billion more--which is now $1.3 billion--because we increased it. But we are going to say this violates the Budget Act, and we are going to use that as a reason not to vote for this? I will try to say this in a very substantive, quiet way. I appreciate what the Senator from Maryland said, and I thank her. I haven't heard any Senator come to the floor and disagree with any statements I have made about the gaps in veterans' health care, about the needs, and about what we really need to do to live up to our commitment. I haven't heard anybody refute the case that I have made on the floor of the Senate. By the way, I say to my colleague from Maryland, I will have it filed by 3 o'clock. We have had various atomic votes. Every time I pass this on the floor of the Senate, it is taken out in conference committee. I will be back with an amendment on this bill. I am sure I will be told this is in violation of some kind of budget agreement. People who go to Nevada, ground zero, with no protective gear, and the Government doesn't tell them they are in harm's way. It is a nightmare what these people have been through because of their exposure to radiation--and their children and their grandchildren. We still don't want to provide compensation. Everybody says they are for it, they don't want to vote against it, and they take it out in conference committee. I come to the floor of the Senate and I say here is our own Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs saying we will need this $3 billion, which is now the $1.3 billion. Then I talk about my own research and survey to the VISN directors. Same conclusion. Then I say to my colleague from Missouri and others: Who do you want to believe? Do you want to believe the Veterans' Administration and OMB or some 30 or 40 different veterans organizations that have endorsed this independent budget? I say to my colleagues, you voted for this additional investment. We have come a long way, I say to the veterans community. I thank the veterans community for standing up for themselves and speaking for themselves. We have come a long way from the President's original budget proposal. We have gone on a long ways from what was originally proposed in the House and the Senate. My colleague from Missouri does a good job helping us to really make some improvement here. But in all due respect, I do not see how we can say to veterans: Here is the evidence. We know this is what you need. We know these are the gaps. We know what the problems are. We made a commitment to you. We have gone on record supporting this. But now, with your amendment, we are going to basically say it violates the Budget Act, these caps, phony caps of this Budget Act which everyone knows we are not going to live by. Everybody knows they are going to be busted. Everybody knows at the very end we are going to be spending more on key domestic needs. What are we going to do? Cut Head Start and child nutrition and child care and all the rest by 30 percent, or 20 percent, or 25 percent? We are not going to do that. So why not just be honest about it? We have an emergency here, and we have an emergency there, and we figure out other ways to do it. We are spending the money. Then, too many of my colleagues were all too ready to take some money out of the surplus for defense and tax cuts. Now all of a sudden, I come out here with an amendment on veterans' health care that speaks directly to what the evidence tells us we need to do to really improve veterans' health care, and my colleagues are going to vote against it and say it is a violation of the Budget Act? I will conclude this way. I think we ought to do what is right for veterans. I think we are on record calling for exactly the investment this amendment calls for. I think there is not a shred of evidence that suggests we should do anything less for veterans. And I do not think we should be hiding behind the Budget Act. I do not think we should be hiding behind these phony caps that we all know are not going to be operative when we finish up this session. So if I get to be the first person to come to the floor of the Senate and say that and say it directly, so be it. If the test case is on veterans' health care, so be it. But I am determined to fight for what I think is right and to see whether we can improve upon what my colleague from Missouri has done. I hope my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, will vote for this amendment. You have supported it in the past, you are on record supporting it, and I hope you will support the same investment of resources for veterans' health care again. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I say to my colleague, in the appropriations bills, it is not true we don't have any onbudget surplus. The President has only signed two appropriations bills. There is still money in the surplus.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Very quickly, I ask to have my name included as a cosponsor. I say to my colleagues, I appreciate this effort. I have done a lot of work with this around the country. I believe we can do better. I will have an amendment I will introduce shortly to deal with that question. I thank my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I will send an amendment to the desk shortly. Let me speak about this amendment. It is on the same subject matter. My colleague from West Virginia did a good job of outlining problems with the flatline budget. What we have had the last several years is a budget that has led to a decline, unfortunately, in the quality of health care for veterans. The presiding Chair has been a real leader in this area. I think he is very familiar with this. Part of the problem is that the budget not only does not deal with gaps in veterans' health care, or the need to deal with a lot of veterans who are homeless--I think it is a shameful statistic when, some believe, maybe up to one-third of the homeless population are veterans--or the need not to do better for drop-in centers for veterans as an alternative to institutionalized care. I say to my colleague from Maryland, perhaps the biggest gap is an ever-aging veteran population and the fact this carries with it very real challenges in delivering care to this part of the veteran population in a humane and dignified manner. What this amendment which I will send to the desk does, it is consistent with the veterans independent budget. It will call for an increase of an additional $1.3 billion. I say this to my colleagues: This amount of resources for veterans' health care does not come out of thin air. This is based upon an independent budget which was produced by major veterans organizations--VFW, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans, and the Vietnam Vets. What this budget does is something that I think is terribly important. It corroborates the findings of a report I was able to issue on the floor of the Senate not that long ago called ``Flatline Veterans Health Care and Fiscal Year 2000 Budget.'' I sent a copy out to all of my colleagues. Let me summarize the conclusion of this report. Without a doubt, the men and women of the VA health care system will continue their effort to provide quality health care regardless of what future budgets hold. However, the majority of the 22 VA directors report without a significant infusion of new funds, the future is one of fewer staff, offering fewer services and treating fewer veterans. Let me be clear about what is at stake. I appreciate the amendment we just passed, but the truth of the matter is it does not meet the needs. I want all of my colleagues to understand I came out with this amendment with Senator Johnson and 99 Senators voted to increase the amount of veterans' resources, to increase the budget, by exactly this amount of money. We have squeezed about as much money out of this as we can. The VA health care system is desperately short of resources. I think we absolutely have to do better. This amendment means the difference between an aging World War II veteran driving 6 hours to a hospital for care and the same veteran visiting an outpatient clinic in his own community. The amendment could mean the difference between a week's wait and several months for an appointment at a mental health clinic for veterans suffering from PTSD. The amendment could be the difference between cost-effective and humane care instead of responding to a crisis. Again, I want to make this clear. My colleagues are on record: 99 Senators voted to support an extra $3 billion above the President's request for the VA. That is exactly what this amendment calls for. This was an amendment to the budget resolution offered by my friend from South Dakota, Senator Johnson. It passed the Senate 99-0 and raised the Senate budget to the level recommended by the independent budget. I think it is now time to make good on that vote. Finally, let me be clear. I think there is a powerful claim that veterans can make. I say to my colleague from Missouri, I will read from this study and what I have heard from the regional directors. It is unbelievable. They are making it clear with an additional $500 million or $600 million there are still huge gaps. If we are really serious about dealing with these gaps, if we are really serious about adequately funding VA health care--and I think the veterans have a moral claim--I think this is a commitment we made to our veterans, this amendment for the additional $1.3 billion brings us to the level that really will deal with these glaring gaps. As a matter of fact, again we had a 99-0 vote to increase the funding to exactly the level called for in this amendment. I want to be clear. I have been critical of our President, Democratic President. I felt the flatline budget in the original budget proposal that came from the White House was no way to say thanks to the veterans. I have tried to work with colleagues on all sides of the aisle on this question. But in many ways I am on fire on this question. I really believe we have to live up to a commitment we have made. Let me read from a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that I think brings this into sharp focus: Dear Colleague: We invite you to join us in honoring a commitment to our Nation's veterans, a commitment that we feel is being neglected in their time of need. We are concerned that funding for the fiscal year 2000 Department of Veterans Affairs contained in the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD appropriations bill is inadequate in addressing the health care needs of our veterans' population. During consideration of the budget resolution, we offered an amendment that increased veterans' health care in fiscal year 2000 by $2 billion above the level contained in the budget resolution. The U.S. Senate accepted the Johnson- Wellstone amendment by a 99-0 vote. Many of our Nation's veterans' organizations endorsed our efforts to increase veterans' health care. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill only contains a $1.1 billion increase. Now we have added an additional $600 million to that, which is a step in the right direction. Therefore, we will be offering an amendment which would now provide for an additional $1.3 billion to make the total increase for veterans' health care up by $3 billion. The VA budget has been flatlined for the past 3 years and this catchup effort is badly needed. Mr. President, I want to marshal the evidence why I believe it is critically important my colleagues support this amendment. On June 15, 1999, I sent a letter to 22 of the veterans integrated service networks--that is what we mean when we are talking about the VISNs-- asking them for data as to what they were dealing with, what were the effects of flatline funding. Each director was asked to provide specific information about the impact on veterans' health care of the Clinton administration's fiscal year 2000 proposal and possible congressional appropriations levels. By July 12, it was amazing. All 22 directors had provided a response to my office. I want to summarize some of what they had to say. By the way, some of what they have said, some of the data, is deeply troubling. They made it clear that then-Under Secretary for Health Kenneth Kaiser's words in an internal memo earlier this year, that the President's proposed budget posed ``very serious financial challenges,'' was no exaggeration. We have made some improvement with this amendment that Senator Bond has introduced. But let me go on with the amendment I have introduced, which my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, also wants to cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent he be included as a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 20 of these VISNs would have funding shortfalls under the Clinton budget. Twenty out of 22 VISNs reported that the Clinton administration's fiscal year 2000 budget would result in a shortfall of funds necessary to provide either current services or current services combined with new mandates and demands. As many as 10,000 employees would be cut under the Clinton budget. Nineteen of the 22 VISNs indicated that staff reductions would be necessary under this budget. Altogether, the VISNs reported that staffing levels would have to be reduced by as many as 10,000 employees through a combination of attrition, furloughs, buyouts, and reductions. Ten of these would reduce patient workload under the President's budget; 71,000--and then I will get to my colleague's improvement to talk about why I think it is an improvement but falls short of what we should be doing--71,129 fewer veterans would be served under this budget. Let me go to the negative impact of the Clinton budget, plus the additional $500 or $600 million that we have here. I asked them on the $500 million, the majority of VISNs reported on the budget $500 million above the President's proposal. It is $500 million above, which is not quite the level that my colleague from Missouri has proposed. Again, here is what we hear: 12 reported they would experience shortfalls in providing services; 13 talked about reduced staffing; and, again, 38,000 fewer veterans would be served. And over and over and over again what I heard from these directors, which reflected the independent budget report by these veterans organizations, is: Senators, if you want to honor your commitment to veterans, if you want to say thanks to us, then you have to recognize the impact, the dramatic negative impact of these flatline budgets. I say to my colleagues on the floor, I am being scrupulously, if you will, nonpartisan in my critique. The President's budget was woefully inadequate. But what these veterans organizations did, since we have been saying to them for years, ``Stop being so negative; tell us what you need,'' is they got together in an excellent coalition effort. They put together this independent budget, and they talked about what we would need to do to help an increasingly aging population, what we would need to do to make sure we had adequate staff, what we would need to do to make sure that staff wasn't doubling up on hours, what we would need to do to make sure there were not longer waiting lines, what we would need to do to get more community-based care not only to elderly veterans but to veterans who are struggling with posttraumatic stress syndrome--what we would need to do to honor our commitment. This amendment by our colleague is a step in the right direction. It is what the House has called for, but it is not what Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America--let me simply read from this letter from PVA, and then I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, if he wants to speak on this amendment, I will finish up. Dear Senator Wellstone, On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, I am writing to urge you to provide a $3 billion increase for veterans' health care. The $1.7 billion increase provided by the House of Representatives-- Which is now what we have here-- is inadequate and would only serve to maintain the continuing deterioration in health care provided to veterans. The $1.1 billion increase provided in the bill provided by the Senate Appropriations Committee does not even reach the level of inadequacy. In fact, the $1.7 billion increase represents a net increase of only $300 million. The Administration's budget proposal not only flat-lined veterans' health care for the fourth year in a row but called for $1.4 billion in ``management efficiencies''--cuts in personnel and health care. Once these cuts are averted, veterans' health care will be left with a $300 million net increase. If the increase of $1.1 billion provided in S. 1596 is maintained, the VA will suffer a net decrease of $300 million. The Independent Budget identified the resource needs-- This is the operative language-- of the VA, as requiring a $3 billion increase. This was also the same amount identified by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs in its ``Views and Estimates'' -- That is our Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs-- which stated: VA requires over $3 billion in additional discretionary account funding in FY 00 to support its medical care operations. Mr. President, what I am simply saying to my colleagues is that if, in fact, we have DAV and VFW and Paralyzed Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America who do their own analysis, present this budget, say we need to go up $3 billion from the President's request, and in addition we came out with an amendment, Senator Johnson and I and every colleague--99 Senators voted for this increase--then why in the world are we not going to vote for an appropriation of money that will, in fact, deal with these gaps, that will, in fact, make a huge difference? So I send my amendment to the desk, which would increase the amount appropriated for the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs by $1.3 billion. I send this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Johnson, and Senator Smith. I see Senator Johnson and Senator Smith on the floor. But let me just summarize. I thank my colleague from Missouri.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I just simply say to my colleagues, we are on record supporting this increase in funding. We voted for it 99-0. In addition, I have three pieces of evidence to support this. Our own Senate Veterans' Committee said this is really what we need. That is what our Senate Veterans' Committee said. I sent out, because I could not get a straight story from the Veterans' Administration, a survey to all these different VISNs, and 22 directors responded. They said: This is what we need. And they talked about staff reductions and longer waiting lines and what they really needed. Finally, the veterans organizations themselves spent a considerable amount of time studying the needs of veterans and came up and said: Listen, this is the shortfall. If you really want to make a commitment to us, if you really want to deal with some of these deficiencies, if you really want to deal with some of these gaps in health care, if you really want to say thanks to us, whatever money you are going to have in the surplus--which will go wherever--you ought to at least honor your commitment to us. That is what this amendment asks my colleagues to do. I hope there will be a strong vote for it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to take a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from South Dakota, first of all, I appreciate his support and his work, as I do the support of my colleague from New Hampshire. I remind my colleague from South Dakota that when we started out working on this and brought the amendment before the Budget Committee, where colleagues voted to what would now raise this $1.3 billion above the amendment from my colleague from Missouri up to the $3 billion difference between what the administration had and what the veterans independent budget said we needed, we were doing this on the basis of just lots of meetings and conversations with veterans. My colleague gives some very good examples. It is not a question of political strategy. I was very moved by this letter from PBA. One of the things they say to me and say to us, I say to Senator Johnson, is they point out that the VA requires this is the amount--this is a report from the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, views and estimates. This is the summary of our own Veterans' Committee of what we need. VA requires over $3 billion in additional discretionary account funding in FY 00 to support its medical care operations: an additional $1.26 billion to meet unanticipated spending requirements; an additional $853.1 million to overcome the effects of inflation and ``uncontrollables'' in order that it might maintain current services; and at least $1 billion-- This is the way they break it down-- in additional funding to better address the needs of an aging and increasingly female, veterans population.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from South Dakota that given the surplus and given the record economic performance, I am in complete agreement with him. I again say to all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans--who I think support this and are on record supporting this additional investment--that we get in my office back in Minnesota more constituent calls from veterans than any other group. All too often these are veterans who fall between the cracks. I was a cosponsor of the Bond amendment. I think it is a step in the right direction. But we are on record saying we know we have to do a better job. We have the Senate Veterans' Committee on record in its own report. We have the veterans independent budget that identifies gaps in all these needs. In addition, I have a survey that I did with a lot of these visiting directors in which they say they will need these resources. If we are going to say on the floor of the Senate we are for the veterans, if we are going to say we are for improving veterans' health care, then I think this is an additional improvement to the amendment we have just passed. This is an amendment that does the job. This is the amendment that many veterans organizations are saying we ought to fight for. Again, I say to my colleagues, 99 colleagues are on record. I hope we will get a very strong vote for it. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I respond to what my colleague said, if I could ask my colleague from West Virginia.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know my colleague from New Hampshire wishes to speak. I thank Senator Byrd, and I agree with what he said. I want to go over the evidence that in fact we can do better and we have to. I support Senator Bond's effort. But in terms of all of the data we have on veterans' health care, I think the amendment meets that. I ask unanimous consent I be able to follow Senator Smith. I will only take 5 minutes.