[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 120 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9875-S9898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report H.R. 3666.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3666) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1997.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, one final question in that I see the leader 
is still here. He has an amendment at the desk, and it is obviously one 
that there is a great deal of interest in on all sides. I wonder if he 
is ready to lay down his amendment. If we could do that here in the 
next few minutes and get a time agreement, that would help us get 
moving on what obviously is an amendment with a lot of interest.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would not be able to lay it down until 
11 o'clock, but I think I could lay it down within the next 15 minutes. 
I have a couple of conflicts that I need to address, but I will be 
ready to do that in the not too distant future.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe that will be fine. I appreciate it.
  Mr. President, I believe we have amendments the managers can act on 
in the meantime, and we will be ready to go around 11 o'clock.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have made good progress on the bill so 
far. As the majority and minority leader discussed, we do have one 
major amendment, the veterans health care amendment, the veterans 
entitlement amendment, to be proposed by the minority leader. We were 
hoping to get a time agreement on that.

  As I look down the list, there are a number of amendments relevant to 
the VA-HUD bill, and I ask Senators to come to the floor. Some of these 
I still hope can be worked out by agreement and taken without a vote. A 
couple people on our side of the aisle have suggested that they want 
votes but would be willing to take very short time agreements on them. 
For the most part, we hope to be able to finish those.
  There are quite a few amendments that are not relevant to the VA-HUD 
bill. I hope they can be held for bills which are related to the 
subject matter. There are some on both sides. Nobody has a monopoly on 
those. But if we are to continue the very important work of the many 
agencies that are included in this bill, we really do need to get this 
measure passed, sent to conference, worked out, and sent to the 
President. As I have stated on previous occasions, lifting the ceiling 
on the Ginny Mae loans will permit the sale of mortgages from the 
Veterans' Administration and FHA which otherwise would come to a halt.
  There is a matter, a very important matter, with continuing the 
availability of flood insurance that is dealt with in this measure. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides not to put in amendments which more 
appropriately belong on other measures or which are likely to lead to 
extensive discussions. We are open, ready for business, and we would 
like to get this resolved in the daylight. It would be a real pleasure 
to pass one in the light of day, and if we work cooperatively, we have 
a chance of doing that today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I share the goal of the Senator from Missouri to move 
in a well-paced way on this bill. I wonder, while we are waiting for 
the Democratic leader to come to offer his veterans medical care 
amendment, if we could have a quorum call and let us look at some of 
the amendments that maybe we could zip trip through once there is 
concurrence. Maybe while we are waiting for the Democratic leader to 
come we could actually dispose of some of those amendments.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have three amendments, I think, that have 
been cleared on both sides.


                           Amendment No. 5187

 (Purpose: To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. BOND. First, I send an amendment on behalf of Senator Hollings to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S9876]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Hollings, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5187.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title II of the bill, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC.  . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS.

       Section 102(a)(6)(D) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(6)(D)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (iv), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (v), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vi) has entered into a local cooperation agreement with 
     a metropolitan city that received assistance under section 
     106 because of such classification, and has elected under 
     paragraph (4) to have its population included with the 
     population of the county for the purposes of qualifying as an 
     urban county, except that to qualify as an urban county under 
     this clause, the county must--
       ``(I) have a combined population of not less than 210,000, 
     excluding any metropolitan city located in the county that is 
     not relinquishing its metropolitan city classification, 
     according to the 1990 decennial census of the Bureau of the 
     Census of the Department of Commerce;
       ``(II) including any metropolitan cities located in the 
     county, have had a decrease in population of 10,061 from 1992 
     to 1994, according to the estimates of the Bureau of the 
     Census of the Department of Commerce; and
       ``(III) have had a Federal naval installation that was more 
     than 100 years old closed by action of the Base Closure and 
     Realignment Commission appointed for 1993 under the Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, directly resulting in a 
     loss of employment by more than 7,000 Federal Government 
     civilian employees and more than 15,000 active duty military 
     personnel, which naval installation was located within 1 mile 
     of an enterprise community designated by the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 1391 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, which enterprise community has a population of not less 
     than 20,000, according to the 1990 decennial census of the 
     Bureau of the Census of the Department of Commerce.''.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which will 
permit Charleston County and the city of North Charleston, SC, to 
improve coordination and to increase their capacity in building a more 
viable urban community. This legislation will assist both the city and 
county in providing affordable housing and suitable living environments 
and by expanding economic opportunities for a number of the county's 
low- to moderate-income citizens. Charleston County contains two 
entitled cities: the city of Charleston and the city of North 
Charleston. With the population of these two cities excluded, the 
county has too small a population to qualify for a CDBG entitlement. 
Two recent developments, the BRAC decision to close the Charleston 
Naval Base and Shipyard and the designation of an area adjacent to the 
city of North Charleston as an enterprise community, have increased the 
need for coordinated planning and development by the county and the 
city of North Charleston. That Charleston County is not entitled and 
has to compete with other communities in the State for CDBG funds has 
hindered the area's ability to do the meaningful long-range planning 
required to recover from base closure and to respond to the opportunity 
provided by the enterprise community designation.
  The city of North Charleston has entered into a cooperative agreement 
with Charleston County to relinquish its entitlement to allow the 
county to qualify. This will not only enable the county to expand 
capacity building in the two neighborhoods that were designated as 
enterprise communities, but will enhance the capacity of the entire 
region to respond to the myriad problems and opportunities created by 
closure of the Charleston Naval Base and Shipyard. This amendment is 
budget neutral and breaks no new ground; it merely follows precedent 
set by numerous other communities across the nation that have found a 
cooperative, coordinated approach to community development eliminates 
duplication and directs more of their dollars to the intended 
beneficiaries. I urge its acceptance.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is a measure dealing with the 
availability of CDBG funding in the city of Charleston. It makes 
changes in the boundaries of the city.
  This has been cleared on both sides by the authorizing committee, and 
at a time when the city of Charleston once again is facing the 
potential disastrous impact of hurricanes, we think this is a very 
worthwhile change, and urge its adoption.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this side not only has no objection to 
the amendment, we concur with it. It allows Charleston County and the 
city of North Charleston, SC, to merge for purposes of CDBG 
consideration. We think it will make the agency more effective and 
efficient. We support the Hollings amendment and really wish the people 
of Charleston Godspeed as they face Hurricane Fran.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5187) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5188

  Mr. BOND. Next, on behalf of Senator Bennett, I send an amendment to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Bennett, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5188.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 27, line 19, strike ``$969,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$969,464,442.
       On page 29, line 5, strike the period, and insert a colon 
     and the following: ``Provided further, That of the total 
     amount provided under this head, the Secretary shall provide 
     $755,573 to the Utah Housing Finance Agency, in lieu of 
     amounts lost to such agency in bond refinancings during 1994, 
     for its use in accordance with the immediately preceding 
     proviso.''

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in the early 1980's, a period of 
extraordinarily high interest rates, it was necessary for Congress to 
appropriate additional money to HUD for its section 8 program for new 
projects just then coming on line, to cover the high cost of financing. 
The ``financing adjustment factor'' or its acronym ``FAF'' was an 
additional amount of rent subsidy under the section 8 program that 
enabled thousands of privately owned apartments to be built and 
occupied by very low income families, elderly, and disabled persons.
  Even with tax exempt bonds issued by State and local housing finance 
agencies [HFA's], interest rates were so high as to require the 
additional FAF subsidy. In my State of Utah, the HFA issued bonds in 
1982 and 1983 to finance the FHA insured mortgage loans for 16 
multifamily projects assisted with project-based section 8 rent 
subsidies and the extra FAF subsidy. It is clear that without FAF, the 
projects would not have been built and some 600 units of housing for 
very-low-income people would not have been available.
  One of the conditions of FAF was that the HFA's had to agree to 
refund their bonds when interest rates fell. The purpose of the 
refunding was to reduce mortgage debt service paid by HUD through the 
extra-high rent subsidies. Here was a program designed to provide 
assistance while it was needed and then to end the subsidy when it was 
no longer needed.
  The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1988 provided that 
State HFA's were entitled to receive 50 percent of the savings 
generated by the refunding of the bonds, but the HFA's were required to 
use their share of the savings to provide housing assistance to persons 
below 50 percent of the area median income.
  In 1991, HUD and the Utah HFA entered into an agreement that provided 
for a mechanism where HUD would continue paying the high rent subsidies 
to the project owner, and for a trustee to collect the savings not 
needed to pay the new lower bond debt and to split it between HUD and 
the Utah HFA. The format of the agreement between HUD and the Utah HFA 
was commonly called a trustee sweep and,

[[Page S9877]]

although it is the only agreement of its kind the Utah HFA has entered 
into, it was commonly used by HUD and other HFA's. The agreement 
between HUD and the Utah HFA provided that the HFA could be reimbursed 
for money it spent to assist very low income families.
  The agreement between HUD and the Utah HFA also contained a clause in 
which both HUD and the HFA agreed to not consent to or encourage any of 
the project owners to refinance their mortgage held by the Utah HFA.
  In 1992 and 1993, at the first date it could contractually do so, at 
HUD's request, the Utah Housing Finance Agency refunded its bonds and 
fulfilled its obligation that had been set out 10 years earlier. The 
stage was set for the Utah HFA to spend its own funds to help very low-
income families with their housing needs, relying on the agreement with 
HUD that the HFA would be reimbursed for its outlay of money.
  The Utah HFA, relying on its agreement with HUD, spent its own funds 
on CHAMP, a nationally recognized homeownership program that has 
enabled hundreds of very low-income families, many of them single 
parents, to purchase inexpensive homes with CHAMP's downpayment and 
closing cost assistance. These hard working, but low-paid families now 
have what for many is their only chance of raising their children in 
the stable environment of the American Dream, a single-family home. 
Utah HFA spent its funds with the certainty that it would be reimbursed 
by the FAF savings from its agreement with HUD.
  In October 1994, HUD, in breach of the agreement with the Utah HFA, 
consented to the request of six project owners enabling them to 
refinance their projects. The owners obtained new mortgage loans and 
prepaid the Utah HFA loans in full. Five of the six developments are 
continuing to receive the additional FAF rent subsidy.
  The owners' refinancing was only possible by maintaining the section 
8 contract rents at the very high subsidy levels, including that 
portion which was from the FAF. The owners will maintain the same or 
higher monthly debt service payments, because their new loans have a 
lower rate than the original loans, but with a much shorter term. HUD 
chose not to reduce the contract rents, but instead chose to consent to 
the refinancing, and appears to have breached its agreements with the 
Utah HFA. The result of this tragedy is that the project owners will 
benefit from taxpayer money originally intended to finance high-
interest debt, and more recently, very low-income people under the 
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The owners will enjoy the 
developments free from debt at about the same time the section 8 HAP 
contracts expire. It is possible the owners will convert the 
developments to market rentals at that time, and reap an extraordinary 
windfall at the expense of the public, as a result of HUD's decision to 
maintain the high contract rents allocations to the development.
  Sadly, HUD could have prevented this from happening but it did not. 
HUD is the section 8 HAP contract administrator for the Utah projects. 
The Utah HFA plays no role in the HAP contracts.
  The HAP contacts require HUD's prior written consent to a 
refinancing, and HUD, through the Denver regional office, gave that 
consent, and perhaps even encouraged the refinancing by entering into 
an amendment of the HAP contract which provides for the sharing of the 
contract rent savings with the owner, even though HUD agreed not to 
encourage or consent to a voluntary repayment.
  Numerous documents, statutes, agreements, and good sense show that 
the owners were not entitled to these moneys. The HUD decisionmakers 
stood behind one phrase in the HUD 1987 statute, in the face of 
overwhelming conflicts with other defensible documentation. The HUD 
decisionmakers allowed form over substance to rule their decision.
  The HAP contracts, the Utah HFA bond indentures and official 
statements, the agreements between the owners and the agency, the 
Congressional Record, FAF appropriations, and the agreement between HUD 
and the Utah HFA all point to the simple fact that HUD was obligated to 
pay contract rents only to the extent necessary to maintain the 
financial viability of the developments. Nothing should have convinced 
HUD to donate these moneys to the owners of the developments.
  HUD's action in this matter frustrates the public purpose of the 
McKinney Act, and the original FAF appropriations.
  Accordingly, I have been working with HUD to see if a solution could 
be arranged which satisfies all parties. Back when Secretary Cisneros 
came before the committee I submitted questions regarding this matter. 
I continued to work with HUD and the result is the amendment I am 
proposing today. In fact, this amendment was drafted by HUD. I have 
gone about resolving this matter with the utmost care, involving the 
all parties in what, I believe, is an equitable solution.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this deals with a problem the State of Utah 
has had, its Housing Finance Agency, with HUD. It is $755,000 that is 
in dispute. We believe this amendment is necessary to resolve the 
matter. As I understand it, HUD has no objection to this. I ask for the 
immediate adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this side has no objection to the 
amendment. It does correct a problem created by HUD for the State, for 
the Utah Housing Finance Agency. It goes back to Senator Bennett's 
predecessor, Senator Garn, who was ranking on the committee. We are 
happy it is finally resolved, and urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5188) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5189

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of amounts made available under the Act 
 to investigate or prosecute under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise 
   lawful activity engaged in by one or more persons solely for the 
 purpose of achieving or preventing action by a government official or 
             entity, or a court of competent jurisdiction)

  Mr. BOND. On behalf of Senator Faircloth, I send to the desk an 
amendment which repeats the provisions carried in last year's 
appropriations measures regarding free speech and the Fair Housing Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Faircloth, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5189.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in title II of the bill, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 2   . FAIR HOUSING AND FREE SPEECH.

       None of the amounts made available under this Act may be 
     used during fiscal year 1997 to investigate or prosecute 
     under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise lawful activity 
     engaged in by one or more persons, including the filing or 
     maintaining of a nonfrivolous legal action, that is engaged 
     in solely for the purpose of achieving or preventing action 
     by a government official or entity, or a court of competent 
     jurisdiction.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 3666 that will bring fairness and common sense to the way in which 
our Nation's housing policies are carried out. As you know Mr. 
President, I introduced a bill last August, the Fair Housing Reform and 
Freedom of Speech Act of 1995 that would overturn the Supreme Court 
ruling in City of Edmonds versus Oxford House.
  In that case, a home for 10 to 12 recovering addicts and alcoholics 
was located in a single family neighborhood. The city told Oxford House 
that they would have to apply for and receive zoning approval since the 
home would have violated the city's local zoning code that placed 
limits on the number of unrelated persons living together.
  Rather than going through the governmental process, Oxford House 
filed a claim with the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
saying that they were above the zoning process. HUD investigated the 
individuals and

[[Page S9878]]

city officials who had objected to the placement of this home. 
Regrettably, the Supreme Court ruled that these individuals had 
violated the Fair Housing Act.
  In the past, HUD has prosecuted people under the Fair Housing Act who 
have protested group homes coming into their neighborhoods. One of the 
most notable of these cases was the incident involving three residents 
in Berkeley, CA. HUD eventually dropped their suit because of the 
public's outrage. HUD has told us that they have discontinued this 
practice. I hope they have--but this amendment makes sure that they do.
  The Congress clearly intended an exemption from the Fair Housing Act 
regarding the number of unrelated occupants living together. In fact, 
the Fair Housing Act expressly authorizes ``any reasonable local, State 
or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants 
permitted to occupy a dwelling.'' (Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 
3607(b)(1)).
  However, HUD, saying that it has authority from the Fair Housing Act, 
has repeatedly intimidated people in the past who spoke out with 
possible prosecution. HUD's actions have been blatant violations of 
these individuals' rights to freedom of speech. Anybody has the right 
to speak their mind in opposition to something and seek legal action 
against what they believe is an injustice. HUD is trying to use its 
authority as a weapon to silence legitimate free speech.
  My amendment will make some delineation of the parameters of the Fair 
Housing Act. We need to preserve this act to prevent real 
discrimination in housing, but we should not be using this act to 
pursue agendas that silence individuals rights to free speech.
  Thank you Mr. President. I urge my colleagues' support of this 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we also concur with the amendment. I 
have been informed Secretary Cisneros has agreed to the amendment. 
Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the Banking Committee does, and 
so do I, because what this does is prohibit HUD from suing people or 
groups protesting HUD activities. It was based on suits HUD brought 
against groups protesting group homes. HUD accused them of Fair Housing 
Act violations. It was a really needless and heavyhanded intrusion on 
citizens' rights to organize about their own neighborhoods, something I 
most enthusiastically support.
  I support the Faircloth amendment and so do the appropriate people on 
my side of the aisle. Therefore, we urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5189) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have several more amendments that have 
come to us. We will take a few moments to discuss those. If my 
colleague has no further comments, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we have the basic agreement for a 
time on the Daschle amendment on the VA amendment. I propose that there 
be 4 hours equally divided on this amendment with one-half hour on the 
minority side allocated to Senator Byrd, that there be no second 
degrees, and at the end of that time a vote occur on or in relation to 
the amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that agreement is acceptable on this 
side. I think we can accommodate that schedule. I know Senator Byrd 
wanted to have some time, and this will accommodate his interests. So I 
hope that we can agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I just ask the managers of the bill, if 
we spend 4 hours on this amendment--and there are a dozen amendments 
pending, or something like that--it certainly is our hope we could 
finish the bill today. If we are going to spend 4 hours on one 
amendment, that does not make that look very likely. I do not 
understand why it would take 4 hours. I do not understand why it would 
take more than an hour.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we could take 10 or 20 hours, too. We are 
trying to accommodate the majority. The amendment has 25 cosponsors. I 
cannot recall exactly how many of our cosponsors have indicated an 
interest in talking, but I have assurances that the Senator from West 
Virginia would like 30 minutes alone. We will continue to work as we 
did last night to come up with a finite list, but I thought it was a 
concession to the majority to limit this to 4 hours, 2 hours on a side.
  So if that is not acceptable, we can just begin without a time 
agreement and maybe we can do it in less time. Maybe it will take twice 
as long, but that is up to the majority.
  Mr. NICKLES. Also, does the request say ``up to 4 hours''?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We will always be able to yield back time. So that 
implication is always part of the agreement. But if 4 hours is 
unacceptable, perhaps we ought to begin the debate and see how long it 
takes.
  Mr. President, I object to the agreement. I object to the agreement, 
and we will just begin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I was not going to object. The Senator 
from South Dakota can object if he wants to. I think 4 hours is too 
long. I think if we have an interest in passing this bill, we need to 
move forward on several amendments and we need to move forward 
expeditiously. Four hours on one amendment does not seem appropriate if 
that is our goal and objective to finish.
  If people want to string it out, I do not doubt we could spend all 
day on an amendment and probably spend all day on several amendments, 
but that does not finish the bill and does not get the work done.
  We happen to have five appropriations bills that we need to finish 
just through the Senate. Again, this Senator is not going to object to 
the request. But I think all Senators are going to have to realize, if 
they have an amendment on the list and they really desire to bring it 
up--and I know there are some amendments on there that people do not 
intend to offer, and I hope that is the case--we need to shorten our 
sights, make speeches maybe later in the evening or something, but move 
forward expeditiously on these amendments, vote on the amendments and 
dispose of them.
  I shall not object to the unaminous-consent.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, but I 
will not ask that it be read at this time. I will simply begin the 
debate and we will offer the amendment at a later time, several hours 
from now probably.
  Mr. President, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
approximately 2,785 children of Vietnam veterans suffer from spina 
bifida, a serious birth defect that requires lifelong care. That has 
already been established. A March report from the National Academy of 
Sciences suggests that a connection between these children's 
disabilities and their parents' exposure to agent orange in Vietnam is 
a very real and growing problem.
  Today, along with 25 of my colleagues, I am offering an amendment to 
acknowledge the Federal Government's share of responsibility for these 
children's care. Spina bifida occurs when the spinal cord does not 
close fully early in pregnancy. It is a complex disability. It requires 
coordinated care for many medical specialists, including neurosurgeons, 
neurologists, orthopedists, pediatricians, internists in adult years, 
psychologists, physical therapists, dietitians, and social workers.
  Children with spina bifida often go through a series of operations in 
early

[[Page S9879]]

childhood followed by special care, therapy and treatment throughout 
their lives. Many are wheelchair bound. Others can walk with 
assistance. There is a high survival rate. But these victims of this 
horrendous disease face daily challenges few of us will ever fully 
comprehend.
  Picture a 10-year-old child leaving for school in a specially 
equipped schoolbus, but only after first running through an obstacle 
course known to most of us as a house, to get from her bed to the 
electric wheelchair that takes her to a bathroom where she is learning 
to control continence through a catheter, and on through a house 
designed to accommodate the special needs of someone living with a 
disability.
  During the day, this fifth grader must attend many classes with her 
peers but also must spend part of the day in special education classes 
to overcome learning disabilities that are often associated with spina 
bifida and to go to physical therapy to ensure continued mobility and 
development.
  After school, the child is picked up by her mother, who had to take 
the afternoon off, in a special transport van to go to a hospital for 
her biannual checkup with a multidisciplinary team. She may have 
bladder therapies, a renal ultrasound or urologic tests. She may be 
checked for seizures or scoliosis. She and her parents will be taught 
self-care skills for bowel management, intermittent catheterization and 
intervention for urinary tract infections, all this in addition to 
regular pediatric checkups.
  Before leaving, she is referred to her psychiatrist the following 
week to discuss depression and socialization issues. Her nurse asks her 
about her latex allergy, which is a common secondary condition, and 
reminds her to avoid bandages, balloons and other products containing 
latex.
  Later, at home, the family sits down to a low-fat meal to keep weight 
problems at bay as she does her homework, practices transfer techniques 
to move her between wheelchair and bed, and finally goes to sleep.
  Fortunately, these kids are tough. Depending on severity, many are 
able to live very full and productive lives, though not a day goes by 
that they are not reminded of their disability.
  Mr. President, the National Academy of Sciences announced in March 
new findings that suggest evidence of a link between exposure to agent 
orange and the presence of spina bifida in Vietnam veterans' children. 
The report was required by the Agent Orange Act of 1991 that was Public 
Law 102-4.
  The first National Academy of Sciences report published in 1993, as 
many of our colleagues recall, created a four-tiered classification 
system for health problems associated with agent orange exposure.
  Category 1 was sufficient evidence of an association. Evidence in 
this category is sufficient to conclude without any question that there 
is a positive association.
  Category 2 is the limited/suggestive evidence of association. In this 
category evidence suggests the association, but there is an inability 
to rule out, with confidence, confounding, chance or bias, so there is 
not unequivocal, absolute, conclusive proof that the connection exists.
  Category 3 is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine 
whether an association exists. That is a category where available 
studies are insufficient to permit a conclusion about the presence or 
absence of an association.
  And category 4, the limited/suggestive evidence of no association 
whatsoever, where studies are mutually consistent in not showing a 
positive association between any level of exposure and the presence of 
a condition.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs provides disability compensation 
to Vietnam veterans suffering from conditions in the first and second 
categories. The National Academy of Sciences has now placed for the 
first time spina bifida in the second category of diseases for which 
there is the limited/suggestive evidence of the association.

  Mr. President, the law requires that in cases where the evidence for 
an association is equal to or outweighs the evidence against the 
association, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs resolve the benefit of 
the doubt in favor of the veteran and provide the disability 
compensation. That is consistent with the law providing presumptive 
disability compensation to veterans of all previous wars. The Agent 
Orange Act of 1991 gave the authority to the Secretary to make these 
decisions based upon the neutral, scientific and very respected 
National Academy of Science reports which are required in the law that 
I mentioned earlier.
  This amendment is required because the Secretary does not have the 
authority to provide for compensation to veterans' children. While 
birth defects in their children has been many veterans' biggest 
concern, we have never before faced a situation where we now have very 
real, tangible evidence, based upon National Academy of Sciences' 
information, and the tremendous work and effort done by many others who 
contributed to this report. The Agent Orange Act did anticipate this 
situation and specifically asked the National Academy of Sciences to 
investigate the connection between exposure and reproductive effects 
and birth defects in veterans' children.
  In March, I submitted for the Record a statement supporting these 
findings and raising the issues that needed to be addressed. So, as 
required by the 1991 law, the Department of Veterans Affairs reviewed 
the National Academy of Sciences report. In May, the President 
announced, among other things, his intention to pursue legislation that 
would provide an appropriate remedy for these veterans and their 
children.
  Again, let me emphasize, in this category 2, the National Academy of 
Sciences has concluded that there is more evidence to suggest the 
connection than there is lack of evidence to suggest that there is no 
connection. So there is a strong degree of evidence, statistically 
significant scientific evidence, that has brought the National Academy 
of Sciences, for the first time, to the conclusion that they reached 
earlier this year and has brought the Secretary and the President to 
the conclusion they have reached.
  So the time now has come, Mr. President, for us to respond, as we 
have responded at each and every one of the junctures that we have 
faced during this very difficult period for many victims of Agent 
Orange. This amendment addresses this situation in what I view to be a 
very reasonable way. It is sensitive to the needs of the children and 
our responsibility to them, but at the same time it is cognizant of the 
fact that these children are not veterans. That must be taken into 
account, as well.
  This amendment would provide comprehensive health care, vocational 
rehabilitation, and a monthly stipend to eligible children. 
Eligibility, of course, is a very important factor to be considered 
here. The veteran must have served in Vietnam and must now be in a 
situation where they are experiencing or have clearly become victims of 
the spina bifida disease.
  Health care would be provided by or through the Veterans' 
Administration. We anticipate that most of the care would be provided 
via contract by experienced spina bifida care providers. It would 
provide for up to 4 years of vocational training, and monthly payments 
of $200, $700, or $1,200 would be provided, depending on the level of 
disability. The proposal reflects months of efforts by the 
administration, by others, including Senators Kerrey and Rockefeller, 
Congressman Lane Evans, veterans service organizations, and groups 
representing persons with spina bifida.
  It is fully offset with a noncontroversial provision included in both 
the Democratic and Republican reconciliation bills last year. It 
requires that veterans wishing to file liability claims against the VA 
show negligence, as is done in the private sector, to be entitled to 
benefits for whatever claims may be derived as a result of the filing 
by the veteran. Currently, a veteran may file for service connection 
for any injury occurring in a VA facility without showing whether it 
resulted from negligence or an accident. So, both the budgets of the 
Republicans and the Democrats included a provision to clarify the 
responsibility of the VA in cases of claims involving veterans who file 
that may not at all be related to negligence on the part of the VA. 
That clarification creates a surplus from which part of the funds to be 
paid out in this amendment will be derived.

  Savings from the provision come from averting future cases--no 
benefits are cut. Excess savings are directed to

[[Page S9880]]

deficit reduction, allowing the VA and the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
to count these savings toward future responsibilities in the next 
reconciliation bill.
  Mr. President, the VA-HUD appropriations bill is certainly the most 
appropriate vehicle for this, 20 years later. It seems to me that after 
every one of the debates and all of the cases that we have had to make 
on this floor and in the House of Representatives on behalf of veterans 
who have been exposed to an unusual set of circumstances that go all 
the way back to the early 1970's, where mysterious diseases have 
occurred and ultimately have been found to be related to their exposure 
in Vietnam--obviously, each and every one of those cases involving yet 
additional evidence has led to a debate that dealt with the appropriate 
way with which to respond to this additional evidence. We now have the 
evidence of yet another unfortunate effect of that military service. We 
have the evidence. We have the law on our side. And now we have the 
appropriate solution.
  Given the limited amount of time left this year and the proposal by 
the majority leader for moving the schedule between now and the end of 
this month, there is likely no other opportunity for us to address this 
issue in the remaining days of this legislative session.
  Mr. President, some would argue that we should not legislate on an 
appropriations bill, but they are oftentimes the ones who have 
supported legislation on an appropriations bill on prior occasions 
during this Congress. In fact, on March 16, 1995, the vote was 42-57 to 
allow legislating on an appropriations bill. On that day, the practice 
became something that would now be considered to be appropriate, given 
the circumstances of that vote and the ruling by the Chair and the 
commitment on the part of the body to overrule the Chair on that 
occasion. So the precedent has been set. Legislating on appropriations 
is now something that is not out of order, and no points of order can 
be brought on that particular issue.
  This amendment, Mr. President, has very strong support from the 
American Legion, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, from the Vietnam 
Veterans of America, from a real leader in this whole effort now for 
almost 25 years, Adm. Elmo Zumwalt--who has probably experienced the 
effects of agent orange on his family more graphically and 
unfortunately than perhaps anybody else in the country, given the fact 
that his son was exposed and died of his exposure to agent orange and 
his grandson is suffering from a learning disability they believe to be 
related to his son's exposure--the Spina Bifida Association of America, 
the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the American Association 
of University Affiliated Programs for Persons with Developmental 
Disabilities, and, of course, the administration.
  Mr. President, we have to make a commitment to these children. They 
may not be large in number, but those 2,000 children are every bit as 
much victims of those circumstances faced by our soldiers in Vietnam as 
the soldiers were themselves. We placed their parents, men and women, 
in harm's way in service to their country. We asked them to risk their 
lives and their health so that others could remain free. We did not, 
however, ask them to give their children's lives and health. We told 
them that we would take care of them and their families when they 
return, whether they were injured or not. Some of those injuries were 
immediately apparent, but others have revealed themselves over time. We 
bear the responsibility for the consequences of our actions and our 
policies, for the injuries suffered by those veterans, even those 
unforeseen, and even those in their children. This amendment does it as 
best we can under these circumstances. I urge its adoption.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before the minority leader leaves, there are 
a number of things I would like to clarify with him. What is the basis 
of the number of children who have spina bifida, who are children or 
offspring--and I suppose now many are grown into adulthood--what is the 
basis of that number?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The basis of the number is simply the number we have 
been able to calculate of those children of agent orange veterans who 
were exposed to agent orange and who are now victims of spina bifida. 
So you have a very limited population. That population is first limited 
by the number of Vietnam veterans in Vietnam exposed to agent orange 
and, second, to those children of veterans who fall into that category.
  Mr. BOND. They have not actually counted this number. This is an 
estimate, is it not?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is as hard a count as the VA currently has.
  Mr. BOND. I understand this is just an estimate based on an 
assumption from a study that if there is a connection, this number of 
offspring of veterans would have spina bifida, is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am told by staff that this is the best estimate the 
Congressional Budget Office has been able to derive in consultation 
with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. BOND. But it is an estimate?
  Mr. DASCHLE. It is an estimate.
  Mr. BOND. Based on a study of a small number of people where there 
were slightly larger incidence of spina bifida in this study than in 
the normal population, is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is not correct. The distinguished chairman of the 
committee misstates, I think, the report by the National Academy of 
Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences has indicated that, in the 
category 2 determination, there is a greater association of spina 
bifida victims in cases involving veterans affected by agent orange 
than in the nonexposed population. That is, there is a greater 
likelihood that spina bifida has occurred as a result of that exposure 
than there is not.
  Mr. BOND. That is an estimate based on one study. You are 
extrapolating from that study?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, the law requires us to base it on the National 
Academy of Sciences' report, which is based on several studies. The 
National Academy of Sciences is required, under the law of 1991, to 
review the scientific literature and evidence to provide us with an 
assessment of the health-related difficulties that may be in evidence 
as a result of exposure in Vietnam, including those especially related 
to children. In accordance with the law, the National Academy of 
Sciences has now said that spina bifida is one disease where a clear 
association can be drawn.
  In working with the National Academy of Sciences, the Congressional 
Budget Office, and the VA, there has been an estimate provided, for 
budgetary purposes, of the number of children who would be directly 
affected. That estimate is the one I gave earlier. That is only an 
estimate, but it is the best estimate, given the circumstances and the 
studies that have now been done.
  I don't believe it is a very significant matter for us to be debating 
the question as to whether it is 2,500, or 2,800, or 3,200. The 
estimate was made the way CBO estimates are normally made. The real 
question is: What do you do when you have a veteran exposed to agent 
orange, who now has a child with spina bifida? What the law says is 
that we give the veteran and his or her family the benefit of the 
doubt. In following through with the law, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs has done just that.
  Mr. BOND. Well, Mr. President, I might say to the distinguished 
minority leader, this is one of the problems we get when there is a 
legislative matter on which there have been no hearings in the Senate. 
We are attempting to determine the basis of that assumption here on the 
floor of the Senate.
  This should properly be done in a Veterans' Affairs Committee 
hearing. As I understand what the minority leader says in his 
arguments--and none of us have any question about the pain and 
difficulty that a family with a child born with spina bifida goes 
through. What we are asking is whether there is a reasonable basis in 
fact. Now, as I understand it, all of these assumptions are based on 
something called the ranch-hand study, is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is not correct.
  Mr. BOND. What is the basis of it then, the study, the basis of the 
assumptions that you are making?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The basis of the assumptions is, as I said earlier, that 
the law requires the National Academy of

[[Page S9881]]

Sciences to review all of the outstanding information, all of the 
scientific data that is available currently, including but not limited 
to the Ranch Hand study, assess that data and make a determination 
based upon that assessment as to whether an association exists. By law, 
they are required to do that. By law, they have.
  Having done that, by law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the 
President, and 26 of us in the Senate--as well as more in the House--
are now responding. The law required that we give the benefit of the 
doubt to the veteran. Now, there have been those who have historically 
opposed that presumptive disability compensation in the law. But it is 
the law. What we are now saying is that the law must extend to the 
children, as it has been extended to agent orange victims in the past, 
over the objections, I might add, of a few of my colleagues. Again, 
Public Law 102-4 has been passed; it is the law, and it is our 
responsibility to live up to our commitments.
  I might also add, in response to the distinguished chairman's comment 
about a hearing, the National Academy of Sciences' report linking agent 
orange exposure to spina bifida was issued in March. The President 
announced his commitment to a legislative solution in May. The request 
for committee hearings on the NAS findings was issued 2\1/2\ months ago 
and was never answered--over 2\1/2\ months ago. We never had any 
commitment to a hearing. Now, there is a hearing scheduled for sometime 
this month, but not on the exploration of issues dealing with this 
amendment. There has been ample time and notification to deal with this 
issue. There has been absolutely no response.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Wyoming has a very busy 
schedule, and I don't, in any way, imply that he is not interested and 
has not been personally kind to me in many of the requests that I have 
made of him. But on this issue I think the record speaks for itself. 
There has not been committee attention given to this issue this entire 
year. Now, suddenly scheduling an unrelated hearing--unrelated 
hearing--2 weeks before adjournment is not going to allow us to address 
this issue. We know what the law says, and we know what the National 
Academy of Sciences' report has concluded. We know that there is an 
association.
  All we are simply doing here is saying let's make sure that the VA 
has the ability to follow through with what the law requires in 
providing the benefits to veterans and their families under these very, 
very difficult circumstances, albeit very limited, perhaps to as few as 
2,500 cases.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me ask the minority leader when the 
legislation to provide this was introduced. When did you introduce 
legislation to provide these benefits?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we introduced the legislation this 
summer, sometime in July.
  Mr. BOND. Well, since we went out of session in August, and it was 
introduced in the latter part of July, it would not be unreasonable 
that legislative hearings could not be held on a bill which had not 
been introduced, is it?

  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, Mr. President, I just say that, obviously, you 
don't need a bill to hold hearings on something that was already 
announced all the way back last March. Last March, the National Academy 
of Sciences made their announcement and the Secretary and the President 
made their decisions in May. I would think that alone would trigger 
hearings and some response on the part of the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. That was not done.
  So, obviously, our only recourse was to follow through with the 
legislation that we introduced.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will have further remarks later. But 
since the distinguished minority leader is here, I will say that I 
personally know of his deep, deep interest in agent orange issues. The 
Senator from South Dakota and I have been bandying that about for many 
a year. We will continue to do so, because I continue to insist--and 
the law insists--that we stick with sound medical and scientific 
evidence, period.
  We do not deal with these issues on the basis of emotion or fear. 
This makes it very difficult because there is no sound medical or 
scientific evidence that dioxin does anything related to birth defects 
except for one study of a highly exposed group called the ``ranch-hand 
study.''
  Remember, too, that there was a civil suit against the producers and 
manufacturers of herbicides containing dioxin. It was to be the 
greatest class action of all time. It was to destroy huge corporations 
in America and bring them to their knees for producing this substance. 
What happened to that suit? It was settled for less than $200 million. 
The judge recommended that the plaintiffs settle because there wouldn't 
be any way they could prove through the testimony what they had to 
prove to show sound medical and scientific evidence linking dioxin to 
what had happened to the plaintiff class. They settled for an amount 
that would amount to a few thousand dollars each for members of the 
class, perhaps $6,000, $7,000, or $8,000 each. And that settlement 
really was the beginning of what has come to pass with regard to an 
issue that never seems to go away.
  But I commend my friend, Tom Daschle. He is a fighter for veterans. I 
am a veteran, too. I do not enjoy getting into these things. I chair 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  But to my knowledge there has never been a request for a hearing on 
this bill because this bill didn't come before the U.S. Senate until 
July 29, and we went out days after that. I do not hold many hearings 
on bills that I do not have before me. This bill was presented July 29.
  The amendment speaks of the law and what we do to follow the law. The 
law requires us to say, for each disease reviewed by the Academy, ``the 
extent that available scientific data permit meaningful determinations, 
A, whether a statistical association with herbicide exposure exists 
taking into account the strength''--the word is ``strength''--``of the 
scientific evidence of the appropriateness of the statistical and 
epidemiological method used to detect association.''
  There is no ``strength'' in the report that the minority leader 
cites. It was a subject of ``bias, confusion, and confounding,'' 
according to the Institute of Medicine. And I shall quote that later in 
my remarks.
  The second part of it was the increased risk of the disease among 
those exposed to herbicide during service in the Republic of Vietnam 
during the Vietnam era; and, C, ``whether there exists a plausible 
biological mechanism or other evidence of a causal relationship between 
herbicide exposure and the disease.''
  That is the law. So it was not something that the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee was escaping. But I certainly wanted the record to be so 
totally clear on what the subject is because there is no solid, strong 
data to support any plausible biological mechanism.
  I have cited the law. I shall have more to say later. But this is the 
first time--I hope the leader will listen to my remarks. And I see the 
ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is on the floor. I 
hope that he will become involved in the debate, if that is 
appropriate, and I think it is. This will be the very first time that 
we have ever extended any form of entitlement to a dependent class 
based on the health of the dependant, rather than the disability or 
death of the parent. I have no idea where this precedent would take us, 
but I can tell you that in our reconciliation instructions there are 
not many places to get the funding needed to pay for it.
  So I hope that every single Member who is sponsoring this amendment 
will tell us where we are going to get the money because we are already 
committed to using the Gardner decision money for other purposes. I 
hope that will be heard again and again and again as we get into 
talking about reprogramming or doing this, or doing that--that we have 
allocated the Gardner decision money. Gardner was a decision which 
could be described by a nonlawyer as ``bone headed.'' Nevertheless, we 
will correct that, and we have allocated those resources. They are 
gone.

  So if this passes, and the Veterans' Committee is then called upon to 
meet it's reconciliation instructions, then I am going to have to, as 
chairman and with my good colleague from West Virginia as ranking, sit 
down and decide

[[Page S9882]]

where we are going to get the money. I know there will be an argument 
about reprogramming and stuff that no one will understand. But that is 
the issue. That is one of the issues.
  The other issue is when you link the word ``veteran'' and innocent, 
disabled children you have to wade through a lot of emotion as well as 
facts. They have linked those words here. And it will be my purpose to 
try to show that the people who were in Vietnam and exposed were 
treated very fairly and always on the basis of sound medical and 
scientific evidence.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, going back to the basic questions and 
assumptions, again I note the difficulty we have as we are asked on an 
appropriations bill to approve legislation to establish a new 
entitlement program.
  Did I understand the minority leader to say that he believes it is 
entirely appropriate for an appropriations bill to include a new 
entitlement program which has not been the subject of hearings in an 
authorizing committee, and which the chairman of the authorizing 
committee opposes on an appropriations bill? Is this the new procedure 
we follow?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I remind my dear friend that he voted to 
cause this to be the new procedure in March 1995. He voted to overrule 
the Chair when the Chair ruled that you could not legislate on an 
appropriations bill. He was one of those who said no; that we think now 
that appropriations bills are appropriate vehicles with which to 
legislate. So he set the precedent. We are simply saying we are willing 
to live now with that precedent. With respect to this case, I thank him 
for doing so. But he was the one who did it. I do not think this is 
necessarily a good practice. But in this case I am very grateful to him 
for having voted for it so I can offer this amendment and not be called 
on a point of order.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there will be a point of order. Who knows? 
There may be several of them.
  But let me ask the minority leader if he does not agree that there 
are instances of legislation on appropriations bills where the 
authorizing committee has agreed that it is appropriate to make changes 
which could not be made in the normal course of business and whether it 
has not been the agreement of the leadership that on this 
appropriations cycle we would only include legislation which had the 
approval of the authorizing committees? Was the minority leader not 
involved in that leadership discussion?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I was certainly not involved in any discussion of that 
kind. That is news to me.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am sorry that the word has not gotten 
around. I was under the impression that the full leadership of this 
body had said that we were not going to attempt a broad range of 
authorizing activities where the authorizing committee objected. 
Certainly in this instance I think there are many questions which 
legitimately should be resolved before the authorizing committee.
  I wonder if the minority leader is familiar with the testimony which 
was produced in the House by the principal investigator on the one 
study, a ``ranch-hand study,'' which examined the possibility of a link 
between dioxin and offspring with spina bifida, and the fact this 
investigator testified before the House appropriations committee 
concluded in his testimony by saying that ``The Institute of Medicine 
has recently interpreted available evidence on spina bifida and 
exposure to herbicide as `suggestive of an association' but `limited 
because chance bias and confounding could not be ruled out with 
confidence' the results of our study of ranch hand veterans and 
comparisons were apparently important to the Institute of Medicine in 
reaching their conclusion. However, it is my opinion that the 
accumulated evidence does not yet establish that there is a cause-and-
effect relationship between herbicide exposure and spina bifida 
today.''

  Is the Senator familiar with that testimony?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I sure am. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from 
Missouri has raised the question because it confirms really what the 
National Academy of Sciences also says. It says that the evidence today 
does not suggest a direct, unequivocal cause-and-effect relationship--
and the law specifically does not require one. All the National Academy 
of Sciences says is that there is more evidence to suggest that there 
is a relationship than there is evidence to suggest that there is not.
  The National Academy of Sciences is that body to which we turn for 
the best assessment as to what the relationship is so that the 
Secretary and we may determine what our actions ought to be based upon 
the available scientific data. Based upon that and only that, we are 
concluding once more, as we have done on so many occasions, that the 
presumption must go to the veteran--not to the Government, not to the 
chemical companies, not to anybody else but to the veteran.
  We have to assume that if there is some doubt and if the weight of 
evidence suggests that there is more data in favor of the relationship 
than there is not, the benefit of the doubt ought to go to the veteran 
and his family. We have done that on compensation. We have done that on 
medical care. And now we are doing it on a very narrow focus: spina 
bifida today in children of victims of agent orange in the first place.
  That is what we are saying. As the Senator from Missouri knows, we 
debate the same issue with respect to tobacco constantly--you have 
Senators here who raise the issue of tobacco, and there is a debate 
about how much data suggests a direct link. But you still have 
companies that suggest there is no link. I am one who does not agree 
with that. But yet we base our policy on the linkage that exists, the 
overwhelming evidence that does exist that there is a connection 
between exposure and a disease. So we are doing now with agent orange 
once more--providing a link based upon the scientific link that we have 
described in the law itself and that is supported by evidence from the 
Centers for Disease Control studies, the ranch hand study, and other 
evidence.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the legal link is merely that there are 
suggestions, there is not evidence, and this is one of the facts that 
would be brought out were there to be a hearing. Perhaps the minority 
leader could tell us what kind of services the potential beneficiaries 
of this amendment are now receiving. Are they now receiving federally 
supported care? Are they receiving privately supported care?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I can tell the Senator from Missouri that they are not 
receiving any assistance today from the VA.
  Mr. BOND. That is not the question. Are they receiving Federal 
assistance in any form?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That would depend, of course, on what their 
circumstances are. If they are Medicaid eligible, they might be 
eligible for a small amount of assistance in health from Medicaid, but 
there is virtually no assistance, as the Senator knows, through 
Medicaid for the number of different obstacles that I described in my 
earlier remarks that a child faces as they have to address the many 
complications outside of just the health complications for which they 
must endure every day. There is no assistance there.
  So I cannot tell the Senator today how much Medicaid assistance they 
may be getting, how much assistance they may be getting through AFDC. 
That is not the issue. The issue is, what is the VA doing? And the 
answer to that question is zero, nothing. They cannot do anything. That 
is the purpose of this amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we have now seen why this is such a 
difficult question, because there is no arguing with the fact that 
individuals suffering from disabling diseases, particularly such as 
spina bifida, which is a congenital birth defect, which, in most severe 
cases, can cause paralysis, deserve our compassion. There are some 
studies underway which have shown that one of the causes of spina 
bifida is a lack of folic acid. This is a disease, this is a defect 
which deserves our greatest attention because it is a debilitating, 
truly awful disability, and the compassion with which the minority 
leader speaks is justifiable.

  We all have compassion for these people, but we are considering an 
appropriations bill today. It is the most tortuous reasoning to say, 
when the

[[Page S9883]]

minority leader has waited until July 29 to introduce a piece of 
legislation, and then without hearings in the relevant authorizing 
committee expects without the hearings and over the objection of the 
authorizing committee which wishes to explore what is clearly 
questionable scientific evidence on which any findings should be based, 
that this should be put in an appropriations bill. This would be an 
entitlement program stuck on an appropriations bill. As the chairman of 
the Veterans Committee has already pointed out, the so-called offset 
has already been used for the entitlement.
  The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee marked up a bill just prior to 
the August recess. No Member raised the issue and, as I said, the 
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has held no hearings on it.
  There are many issues which need to be considered regarding the 
provision of benefits to children with spina bifida. They have not been 
discussed and debated in a normal legislative process. A view expressed 
by the Disabled American Veterans executive director, David Gorman, in 
a May 1996 letter to the VA Secretary said:

       Because the basis of [these children's] entitlement is 
     dissimilar to both the conventional direct and derivative 
     eligibility for VA programs, benefits for them would appear 
     to be beyond the parameters of traditional VA benefits, and 
     more properly under the scope of other compensatory programs. 
     Benefits for these children might be more appropriately 
     included under authority and appropriations for military 
     claims.

  Similarly, the Vietnam Veterans of America wrote to the Secretary in 
April stating:

       We urge you to specifically request the VA task force seek 
     outside expertise from both governmental and nongovernmental 
     entities on these issues. VVA aims to ensure that the 
     appropriate questions are being considered and addressed by 
     policymakers in the VA and Congress.

  The Vietnam Veterans Association raised a number of questions which 
need answering such as how many veterans' families are affected by 
spina bifida. We have only an estimate based on a flawed study which 
led to the assumption for the numbers which the minority leader gave. 
And the minority leader has been unable to tell us what governmental or 
nongovernmental services might already be available to these veterans 
and families and what agencies should be tasked with providing health 
care and compensation.
  The Veterans' Administration does not even know how many offspring of 
veterans of Vietnam are actually affected by this terrible disease, 
their ages, their degree of disability, or the extent to which they are 
already receiving Federal assistance, nor does the VA have any firm 
estimate on the cost of care and compensation.
  These are very important issues. These are truly critically important 
issues to the families affected. They deserve the attention and 
deliberation of this body but, I suggest, through the normal 
legislative process. The views of the veterans service organizations 
certainly should be taken into consideration on this important issue. 
Their views--and there are views on both sides--deserve the proper 
forum of hearings in the authorizing committee. As I noted, some of the 
organizations do support and some do not support the Daschle amendment.
  There are much greater problems with this, and the minority leader 
brushed them off. But the amendment sets several precedents. First, to 
my knowledge, expanding entitlements on an appropriations bill has not 
been done--to my knowledge.
  If there is ever an instance in which the American people can see why 
the Federal Government is spinning out of control, it is when on the 
basis of limited scientific evidence, not hard scientific evidence, 
without hearings, without legislative consideration of all points of 
view, without even knowing how many people are affected and what other 
benefits are available, a brandnew entitlement program is set up; it is 
set in motion without consideration of its impact.
  When young people ask us how did the Federal Government spending get 
out of control, this is probably one small example. It is an example, 
where there are people who have a severe birth defect. We are concerned 
about them. But we are setting up a Government program without reliable 
scientific knowledge on what the cause is or how it is going to be 
dealt with. Are we dealing with all of the children of veterans who 
deserve this kind of help? What about the children of gulf war veterans 
who suffer from heart-wrenching disabilities, possibly as a result of 
their parents' service? This amendment opens up a whole host of 
questions which deserve to be considered through the normal legislative 
process.
  But let us be clear about the scientific basis. Has there been a 
scientifically established link between exposure to agent orange and 
spina bifida in offspring? The answer is no. There has been only 
``limited/suggestive evidence'' of an association based on a single 
study. The author of that study says: Do not rely on it. The cause of 
spina bifida is unknown. Work is going forward on the folic acid 
approach.
  The VA's task force report on agent orange, issued in May in response 
to the National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine update on 
agent orange, said ``Most of the studies cited did not show 
statistically significant differences. Notwithstanding these scientific 
questions, sufficient data exist of a possible association that the 
task force concluded that spina bifida meets the liberal standards set 
forth in Public Law 102-4,'' the Agent Orange Act of 1991.
  The task force report also said:

       The Task Force believes the legal standard governing the 
     finding of a ``positive association'' under P.L. 102-4 is an 
     imperfect framework for analyzing the relevant scientific 
     evidence and, further, raises a risk that VA's findings of a 
     ``positive association'' may be misinterpreted to mean more 
     than they do. The Task Force is concerned that VA's finding 
     of a ``positive association'' under the liberal standard of 
     P.L. 102-4 may be misconstrued as reflecting a scientific 
     judgment that a causal association exists between herbicide 
     exposure and a particular disease. The Task Force emphasizes 
     that its conclusions made for the limited purposes of P.L. 
     102-4 do not reflect a judgment that a particular health 
     outcome has been shown to be caused by, or in some cases even 
     definitely associated with, herbicide exposure under the 
     standards ordinarily governing such conclusions for purposes 
     of scientific inquiry and medical care.

  The NAS looked at one study referred to as the ``Ranch Hand'' study. 
The author of this so-called Ranch Hand study said his own findings did 
not support a conclusion of linkage between herbicide and spina bifida. 
He said before a House hearing earlier this year: ``It is my opinion 
that the accumulated evidence does not yet establish that there is a 
cause-and-effect relationship between herbicide exposure and spina 
bifida.'' The NAS noted that the studies relative to spina bifida had 
``methodological limitations such as small sample size and possible 
recall bias'' which mean that further study is required.
  And finally, there is at least one study which would seem to 
contradict an association between herbicide exposure and spina bifida. 
An herbicide production plant exploded in the town of Seveso, Italy, 
with residents exposed to substantial quantities of herbicide. A study 
on the frequency of birth defects in Seveso failed to demonstrate any 
increased risk of birth defects.
  Let us be clear about the impact of this amendment on other veterans 
entitlements. Because the so-called Gardner decision is being used to 
offset this new entitlement, the effect is that the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, in meeting its reconciliation instructions next year, will 
be forced to cut veterans entitlements in other areas to pay for this 
entitlement.
  I should also add that the benefits which would be authorized to 
veterans' offspring in some cases would exceed compensation benefits 
currently provided to service-connected veterans. One must question 
whether this is fair and appropriate.
  And finally, Mr. President, while the costs of compensation would be 
offset in this amendment by reducing benefits related to the ``Gardner 
decision,'' there is no provision to cover medical costs. VA would be 
required to provide comprehensive health care benefits--at an estimated 
cost of at least $14 million a year. VA would have to absorb these 
additional costs--at a time when VA's medical care budget, as requested 
by the President and recommended by the committee, is estimated to 
cover only those veterans currently served by the VA medical system. We 
would have to take away health care from those who are already served 
to meet these new benefits.

[[Page S9884]]

  It seems to me, to expand medical benefits to an additional 
population will mean the care of those veterans--the vast majority of 
whom are service-connected disabled or very low income--will be put at 
risk.
  And I should also add that the medical benefits which would be 
authorized are more generous that VA's current authorities for medical 
care to veterans. These issues deserve close study and debate. That, I 
think, can only occur in the authorizing committee in an appropriate 
legislative consideration.

  I think it is highly inappropriate to play election year politics 
with such an important issue as this one. I think we have normal 
legislative procedures which should be followed to determine whether 
there is any scientific evidence suggesting that we should provide this 
entitlement, this expanded entitlement. Trying to place it on an 
appropriations measure is, I think, inappropriate and totally 
unwarranted.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the 
minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be very brief because I note the distinguished 
ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has been here for 
some time and wants to be heard on the matter. Let me just respond to 
three issues raised by the distinguished Senator from Missouri.
  First of all, as to the matter of the offset, let me emphasize, 
Gardner has not been used. Gardner has not been used. That is, the 
offset has not been allocated. The reason it has not been allocated is 
that we have not passed a reconciliation bill. No reconciliation bill 
has passed which delineates its usage. So, clearly, that funding has 
not been allocated. It is available. I do not think there is any 
question about that. I ask my colleagues to show me where, in what 
reconciliation bill, we have delineated the utilization of Gardner.
  Second, let us not debate Ranch Hand all over again. The Ranch Hand 
Study and many other studies were debated, and we made our decisions 
based upon the evidence available in 1991. We passed the Agent Orange 
Act overwhelmingly, virtually unanimously, in 1991. That battle was 
fought 5 years ago--beginning even longer ago. That law, now on the 
books 5 years, simply says when there is a positive association, when 
there is a connection that has been made by the National Academy of 
Sciences, that connection be recognized by the VA and be dealt with; we 
have dealt with all of the other diseases that have now been officially 
connected.
  There are a number of those diseases that fall in category 1 and 
category 2. Chloracne is in that category. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is in 
that category. Soft-tissue sarcoma, Hodgkin's disease, porphyria 
cutanea tarda, multiple myeloma, respiratory cancers of the lung, 
larynx and trachea, prostate cancer, acute and sub-acute peripheral 
neuropathy--all of those are in categories 1 and 2. If we do not act on 
this amendment in a favorable way, the only category 1 or 2 disease 
that will not be on the list officially recognized will be spina 
bifida.
  We will be saying spina bifida is different than all the diseases I 
have just listed here. We are going to say that we are going to not 
abide by the law, not abide by the guidance given by the National 
Academy of Sciences. We are going to say we know better than the 
National Academy of Sciences. We are going to say that even though we 
asked for evidence related to birth defects, we are not interested in 
facing the consequences of that evidence.
  I hope we do not make that mistake. I hope we do what we have done in 
every one of these other cases. With respect to every one of these 
diseases, we have acknowledged the connection, we have made the 
commitment to our veterans experiencing these diseases. The time to do 
it for spina bifida is this morning, is today. Let us get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am really amazed to listen to the 
debate across the aisle, and the fervor, really, the fervor about an 
amendment which would actually end up saving a lot of money; a debate 
in which they are determined that these kids with spina bifida are not 
going to have any help. There is a real determination about this. This 
is not just a mild philosophical discussion. There is a sense of 
outrage that spina bifida kids could get this kind of help.

  I find that interesting. Maybe they could get some help from the 15-
percent tax cut. I don't know.
  The Senator from Missouri used the phrase ``spinning out of control'' 
over costs that will come, in 1997, to $3.179 million for medical 
care--spinning out of control. Actually, the Senator from Missouri said 
$14 million. He is wrong. It is $3.179 million for medical care. 
Spinning out of control.
  This is very interesting. I say to my esteemed chairman that we have 
never done anything on Gardner. He talked about correcting Gardner. He 
is wrong about that. We have never corrected Gardner. Some said it 
could be done. It has not been done. That is a statement that is 
inaccurate, and my colleagues who are listening, and their staffs, I 
hope they will understand that.
  The Senator from Missouri was talking about Gardner, using Gardner 
money to take away from veterans benefits. You cannot use Gardner money 
for veterans benefits. Gardner money is not a cash benefit for 
veterans. It has only to do with potential Government liability. It is 
not a source of funding for veterans benefits, another mistake by the 
Senator from Missouri.
  ``Normal legislative process''--sacred all of a sudden--``normal 
legislative process.'' Some of us feel very strongly about Persian Gulf 
war veterans and some of the mysterious illnesses which are occurring 
in tens of thousands of people across this country. No, nobody has been 
able to really prove anything to this point, but there is no normal 
legislative process.
  In fact, there was no interest on the part of the majority in even 
taking up this matter over the past 2 years in the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. This is a subject which has gotten a great deal of 
attention, but not in the Veterans' Committee.
  I, in fact, as the ranking member, held--it was not even a hearing, 
it was kind of a meeting, about the Persian Gulf war illnesses--and was 
chewed out up and down for doing something that would never again be 
allowed in the Veterans' Committee, for trying to come to the rescue of 
Persian Gulf war veterans.
  Incidentally, some of those veterans have kids who, in a sense, 
although the word ``entitlement'' is not exactly true, we have already 
established that the Department of Veterans Affairs will allow medical 
examinations for the deformed children of some of these Persian Gulf 
war veterans, and there are a lot of them. That has been established. 
That is now being done. That is now in the law. They will be carefully 
examined by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  But there is not any normal legislative process because there is no 
interest. There is no interest in the deformed children. There is no 
interest in these Persian Gulf war mystery illnesses, which are no 
mystery to me. I don't care if anybody has proved it. You cannot take a 
20-year-old, send him to the Persian Gulf, and do what they did over 
there--which I will not get into now--and the Defense Department denied 
all of it until they had to admit that when they blew up a group of 
chemical bombs, maybe one of the divisions had been exposed a little 
bit. But that was just a minor thing, according to the Department of 
Defense, and they said if they had to do it all over again, they would 
do it exactly the same way. That is what the head of health for the 
Department of Defense said, a very sensitive position.
  So what the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Wyoming have 
to understand, which I thought they would, is that war has changed. We 
are not talking about missiles. We are not talking about neutron bombs. 
We are not talking about hand-to-hand combat. We are not talking about 
tank warfare. We are talking about what started back in the First World 
War with mustard gas, in a very small sense, and we were unprepared for 
that. And then the atomic experimentation, which we carried out as a 
country, and we were unprepared for that. Thousands of soldiers were 
radiated, and the Government refused to do anything about it. It said, 
``You can't prove it.''

  Then along comes agent orange. They say it is just incidental if you 
are

[[Page S9885]]

getting cancer or anything of that sort. You happened to have been in 
Vietnam in an agent-orange-exposed area. We do not seem to be able to 
show that we can prove this is enough, although I think we could there. 
Admiral Zumwalt, and a lot of other people, were pretty firm on that.
  War is changing, and I hope the other side is noticing that. We are 
getting into the century of toxins, of chemicals. We do not have the 
big Russian bear anymore. We have the little horrendous dictators like 
Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi. They build their little bombs, and 
their little bombs are not filled with explosives, they are filled with 
chemicals and toxins that will destroy peoples' nervous systems.
  ``Spinning out of control,'' ``normal legislative process,'' ``first 
time we've ever had an entitlement''--the world is changing, I say to 
my colleagues; war is changing, and it would be a good thing to take 
notice of.
  I would like to have a hearing on this subject, the changing nature 
of war, but we will not have one. We will not have one this month. We 
will not have one next month if we are in session, I guarantee you 
that, because the chairman will not do it. No, I am sorry, the Gardner 
amendment was not corrected. And, yes, there are some of us over here 
who do want to help children, some of us over here who do have a bias 
toward children. If evidence is, by and large, 50-50, we will lean 
toward the children, particularly in the case of spina bifida. All of 
that, unfortunately, was just a prelude to my remarks. I felt a need to 
respond.
  Incidentally, if the Senator from Wyoming is so unhappy about the 
precedent which was set in the agent orange decision by the Congress in 
the Vietnam war, then why doesn't he introduce legislation to repeal 
it? He talks about it all the time. Why not then introduce legislation 
to repeal it and count the votes? If that was wrong, if the proof was 
not sufficient, then introduce legislation to repeal it.
  I applaud the Democratic leader and his amendment to provide help and 
monetary support to veterans' children with spina bifida. I am going to 
talk about it. This is a tragedy that cries out for normal legislative 
process, and if you can't get it, then faster action.
  It also cries out for acceptance of Government responsibility. 
Spinning out of control--spinning out of control, $3 million in 1997 
for medical care for spina bifida children born to Vietnam veterans. I 
mean, you have about 1,500 to 4,000 of these spina bifida babies being 
born each year, but the number is going down because of improved 
maternal diet. It has been going down for the last decade.
  There are many arguments against, as the Senator from Missouri 
pointed out, amending an appropriations bill in this way. The minority 
leader made the same argument, and those are arguments I would be 
generally inclined to support. Being the junior Senator to the senior 
Senator from West Virginia, those are arguments I would almost be bound 
to support.
  But here is one Senator from West Virginia who is willing to give a 
great deal of leeway and the benefit of the doubt when a compelling 
need comes about, to meet our responsibility to a class in our society 
called children. That is what we are doing by this amendment of the 
minority leader.
  A little background. Under the agent orange law that we enacted in 
1991, the Government assumed responsibility for health outcomes. If 
somebody does not like it, repeal it if they can, but that is what we 
did under the law. We assumed responsibility for health outcomes of 
that particular war, the Vietnam war, where there was at least a 
positive association of the war with the disease.
  That law required the VA to contract with the National Academy of 
Sciences--and here we are doing the same thing on this. The National 
Academy of Sciences was charged with reviewing ongoing research on 
illnesses resulting from agent orange exposure in Vietnam. I seriously 
doubt there are many Senators on either side of the aisle who really 
questioned whether there is a relationship between agent orange and 
cancer, and the other different perils that it caused.
  In March of this year, the National Academy of Sciences found limited 
or suggestive evidence for connecting service in Vietnam with a number 
of additional diseases, including spina bifida, in children of those 
who served in Vietnam. Creating a new entitlement for dependents? Yes. 
Because when you get into this kind of toxic stuff, dependents are 
affected, like they were in the Persian Gulf war through the chemical 
combinations and toxins that were used there. Dependents are affected. 
Reproductive activities are affected. Women are affected. Kids are 
affected. Have you seen the pictures? Have you visited the kids? Has 
anybody on that side of the aisle visited the kids, visited the 
families, talked with them? I do not know.
  But this is extremely important. It is the National Academy of 
Sciences that made this finding, Mr. President, not the Congress, not 
the Veterans' Committee, not the House, not the Senate, not the 
President, not the VA. The National Academy of Sciences.
  The President immediately established a task force within the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to make recommendations to him based 
upon what the NAS--the National Academy of Sciences--had reported. The 
VA task force recommended, among other things, the enactment of 
legislation that is now provided by the Democratic leader's amendment. 
Everything sounds pretty much in order to me.
  On May 28, President Clinton announced that the Government would meet 
its responsibility to the children of Vietnam veterans. We did it with 
agent orange. Nobody has tried to repeal that that I am aware of. Now 
we have a new classification, new evidences, dependents, children 
showing up with problems. And the President said that he would send the 
Congress legislation to take care of Vietnam veterans' children who 
develop spina bifida.
  The decision for the Government to take responsibility for children 
of veterans exposed to these environmental hazards--toxic hazards of 
war--is precedent setting. It surely is. It absolutely is, because the 
nature of war is changing. It is not without controversy, as is clear 
on the floor this morning, but it is what I call a leadership decision. 
And I applaud the President for making that decision.
  The hazards of war are changing. It is so obvious. It is so obvious, 
Mr. President. It seems so obvious, but evidently it is not. Witness 
the great difficulty that the Government has had in discovering the 
causes of the vast array of illnesses that have followed service in the 
Persian Gulf war. The injuries of that war in the great majority of 
cases have not resulted, once again, from guns or missiles, but rather 
from environmental or other toxic exposures.
  Once again, we have not had a chance to have a hearing on this. The 
normal legislative process was not followed, which is the reason that 
the minority leader and some of us have had to resort to approaches of 
this sort. There are new types of dangers that our soldiers will 
increasingly face in future conflicts. That is assured. That is why, as 
chair and now ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I 
made and am making a significant effort to oversee the Government 
efforts regarding environmental exposures to our military men and 
women. And it has not been a pretty sight.

  The Defense Department, in one of the greatest stonewalls of all 
time, but in keeping with their record going all the way back to the 
First World War, denies any responsibility for anything happening to 
the soldiers that they are responsible for.
  Part of the bargain in the Vietnam war, and also the Persian Gulf 
war--but here we are talking about Vietnam with these children--yes, 
the soldiers, men and women, signed up and went over to serve, but it 
was not part of the bargain that the children which they might have 
upon return from service, who might potentially be affected, would be 
part of this deal. These children were not sent to Vietnam. They did 
not sign up for the risks of service. There seems to be benefit-of-the-
doubt type evidence that they were harmed, however.
  So the question comes again, do we favor the $3 million expenditure 
in 1997 for medical care for the horrible consequences they suffered--
or do we ignore them, ignore them because it is a new type of 
entitlement or it has not followed the legislative process? I mean, 
this is a stunning difference between the two sides of the aisle.

[[Page S9886]]

  The question before us today is whether the Government owes 
responsibility to children born to those who served in an earlier war, 
children born with a disabling condition called spina bifida. Now let 
us talk a little bit about the problem.
  Mr. President, the problem can be immensely horrible, and it is in 
the case of spina bifida. It is not brought on by any action by the 
children. It is not brought on by any action by the parents. These are 
truly innocent victims. My colleagues may not want to hear some of the 
horrendous problems these children face, but they are going to, because 
we all need to understand a little bit about the nature of what is at 
stake here.
  Spina bifida, SB, means ``split spine.'' It is a defect of the neural 
tube, the embryonic structure that evolves into the brain and the 
spinal cord. It results from the failure of the spine to close properly 
in the first month of pregnancy.
  There are three types of spina bifida, the most common of which is 
occulta, which is not disabling and is not included in the amendment 
before us.
  What is covered in the proposed amendment are the two much more 
severe forms of spina bifida. In these forms, a cyst holding the spinal 
cord membranes, nerve roots of the spinal cord, or the cord itself, 
usually malformed, pokes through an open part of the spine; or there 
may be, in fact, no cyst, but only a fully exposed section of the 
spinal cord and the nerves.
  Affected babies are at a high risk of infection until the back is 
closed surgically, and varying degrees of other problems remain even if 
the surgery is successful. Estimates of the number of children born 
with spina bifida range from 1,500 to 4,000 each year. As I indicated 
before, that number is going down as maternal diet and pregnancy 
testing are improving. All of this has been declining over the last 
decade.

  The types of problems that these children develop vary, sometimes 
significantly, depending on the particular spinal nerves that are 
involved. But their conditions are serious, often severely disabling, 
and for all, lifelong. Curable? No. Lifelong? Yes.
  Now, there are three primary areas of disabling function: The central 
nervous system, which is the brain and the spinal cord; the urologic 
system, which are the kidneys and the bladder; and the musculoskeletal 
system, which are the bones and muscles. Common primary medical 
problems include hydrocephalus, which occurs when the cerebrospinal 
fluid is unable to drain normally and fluid collects around the brain, 
resulting in an enlarged head; serious bladder problems due to lack of 
muscle control--urinary tract infections are very common, and kidney 
problems can result; bowel control problems; orthopedic conditions, 
including partial or complete paralysis, depending on where the defect 
shows on the spinal cord; and a variety of problems involving 
dislocated joints, misshapen bones, bowed legs, and foot deformities.
  It is not a lot of fun. It is also very common for these children to 
develop a whole host of secondary medical problems as a result of this, 
including obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, bone fractures, 
seizures, eye disorders--due to pressure on the optic nerve--and a 
life-threatening latex allergy.
  In addition, learning disabilities are a constant and lifelong 
reality for children with spina bifida. Now, remember, we have had 
learning through the school systems as it has been over the past couple 
of centuries; and we are now, after the deregulation of the 
telecommunication industry, entering into a whole new age where 
children are going to be expected to be able to handle much more 
complex learning procedures through computers and all the rest. So 
learning disabilities are going to be a horrible, lifelong reality for 
children with spina bifida, as they already are. Poor short-term 
memory, lack of organizational skills, lack of eye-hand coordination, 
needs for special education and other kinds of support are common.
  Finally, there are a plethora of social development and psychological 
problems which plague these children for all their lives. Put yourself 
in the condition that I have just described for the last 7 or 8 
minutes. I invite my colleagues to put their children in that 
condition. We have all seen spina bifida kids. We all know what they 
look like, what happens. We all know the love they get from their 
parents, but we all know what a fundamentally incurable, horrible 
condition it is. I, as one Senator, want to say that I am willing to 
give these children a huge benefit of the doubt as we did in the agent 
orange bill.
  I turn to the controversy of determining the cause of these problems. 
Now, looking at the science and the law, opponents of providing health 
care to spina bifida children will honestly and genuinely argue that 
the scientific evidence of the connection between service in Vietnam 
and spina bifida is either lacking or flawed, or both. And for sure, 
there are those who argue against caring for any Vietnam veterans for 
agent orange exposure.
  But, Mr. President, I believe we in Congress are particularly ill-
suited to be the determiners of what is and what is not ``good 
science.'' Those are debates and discussions best left to the 
scientists themselves, not to politicians. But the determination is 
great to replace scientific review with political debate and bias.
  The fact is that with only a few exceptions, the maladies previously 
identified by the National Academy of Sciences as statistically 
connected with service in Vietnam can also be statistically related to 
other causes, as well.
  The scientific proof, as I understand it, is not an open-and-shut 
case with regard to those earlier diseases and illness findings. I 
readily acknowledge it is not an open-and-shut case regarding spina 
bifida.
  However, Mr. President, this is, in fact, exactly what the 1991 agent 
orange law intended. We, as a Nation, decided then that we would give 
the benefit of the doubt to those who served our country in Vietnam. 
What we decided then was to task the NAS with the scientific 
determination as to the strength of the evidence of connection of a 
disease or illness. No more and no less.

  Based upon those NAS findings, we directed the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to make a determination of whether there was a ``positive 
association''--meaning at least 50 percent of the credible evidence 
supported a conclusion that a health outcome was related to Vietnam 
service. In fulfilling their job, the NAS established in 1993 four 
categories of the association of health outcomes. The minority leader 
referred to these. One, sufficient evidence of association. Two, 
limited or suggestive evidence. Three, inadequate or insufficient 
evidence. Four, limited or suggested evidence of no association.
  It was in the second category, ``limited or suggestive evidence,'' 
that the NAS earlier this year placed spina bifida in its report--for 
the first time. It is based upon this NAS finding that the VA task 
force concluded there was sufficient evidence to establish a positive 
association of military service and spina bifida.
  The question then becomes whether ``limited or suggested evidence of 
an association''--which the task force described as ``several studies 
[that] suggest apparent increases in risk in offspring of Vietnam 
veterans''--whether that is sufficient to support the Government's 
assuming financial responsibility.
  That is an appropriate question for debate, but one we have already 
answered in this body and in this Congress and in the law, by enactment 
of the 1991 agent orange law. What this amendment does today is fully 
in accordance with that law.
  Now, the legislation proposed by the Democratic leader, and as 
suggested by the Department of Veterans Affairs, would establish a 
health care program for children with spina bifida, and a three-tiered 
compensation program paying either $200, $700, or $1,200 a month, 
depending on the degree of disability. The compensation program would 
not, as I understand it, entail new costs, since it is offset by 
savings of other veterans' programs, and the health program's small 
cost would be absorbed in the VA medical care account.
  Because no one knows for sure how many children will qualify for the 
health care or monetary benefits, the costs are uncertain. Estimates 
range from 700 to 3,000 spina bifida children of a parent who served in 
Vietnam and

[[Page S9887]]

where this positive association was established.
  CBO has informally advised--and they speak for us--that about 2,785 
children probably would be eligible to participate--2,785 children--at 
a total cost of perhaps $4 million annually for health care. This is a 
real, real, budget buster. This is, in fact, a very small amount of 
money, when one considers that lifetime health care costs for those who 
have spina bifida range from $294,000--which comes from the Centers for 
Disease Control--to over $750,000--and that comes from the Spina Bifida 
Association--per child for comprehensive health care. But since many of 
the health care costs are in the early years of life, and the proposed 
amendment is not retroactive, the health care costs would be much, much 
less than these estimates.
  The monetary portion of the benefit is intended to offset the varied 
expenses that these children and their families face other than direct 
health care. One can well imagine that this would include such things 
as special education and training, lost wages or work limitations, or 
independent living needs. It is not very hard to imagine that. Under 
the Democratic leader's amendment, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
would establish, by regulation, three levels of disability, 
corresponding to the three tiers of payments intended to supplement 
other funds available to these children from either public or private 
sources.
  Again, CBO estimates that the compensation and vocational costs of 
the amendment would be fully offset and would, in fact, result in a net 
savings of $4.2 million in 1997 and $525 million through 2002.
  So I conclude, Mr. President, that the question we will answer today 
is whether we will honor the commitment we have often stated to our men 
and women in uniform. I am sure somebody will stand up and take that 
one apart with all kinds of anger, rage, and whatever else. But that is 
what we have committed to do. That is the mission statement above the 
door at the Department of Veterans Affairs office building.
  We are dealing with a new kind of precedent-setting entitlement, yes, 
because we have moved into a new era of warfare. I am sorry, but in the 
Persian Gulf, there are kids that are born with deformities. There is 
something called ``burning semen,'' what some Persian Gulf veterans' 
wives have called ``shooting fire,'' which nobody wants to talk about; 
wherein the soldier, be it a male, who served up front in the Persian 
Gulf war, when he is having sexual relations with his wife and some 
sperm maybe hits her in the leg, an enormous red welt develops. We have 
never had to talk about things like that before, but we do now because 
it is different now.
  Some of these kids from the Persian Gulf war are being born deformed. 
Have we done anything to really help them? No. Has the Defense 
Department admitted anything is wrong whatsoever? No, of course not, 
not since World War One have they ever done that.
  Now we are dealing with spina bifida, coming from the Vietnam war. 
Positive association was established, leaning toward the child, toward 
the veteran was established, by law, in 1991. So we will have this 
question answered today. There are those who want to go by normal 
legislative procedure, which would not happen, and who are, for 
whatever reason, incredibly reluctant to help children in a situation 
in which money would be saved by so doing.
  Spina bifida is horrible. I repeat, it is horrible. My wife and I 
have four children. None of them has that. I thank God that none of 
them do. I am overwhelmed with caring. One man I met on the subway 
yesterday whose child has spina bifida talked to me about her. It has 
nothing to do with Vietnam, but he talked about just the problems of 
that.
  So I come very close to my ending here. In that 1991 law, Mr. 
President, we decided that the scientific test of our commitment would 
not be a 100 percent, totally black or white, test of cause and effect. 
We decided that as a matter of law. It was not intended to be an 
absolute test of cause and effect. It was intentionally balanced in 
favor of our soldiers, which now includes their offspring, because the 
world and wars have changed.
  Those we have directed to make these decisions now tell us that there 
is evidence--albeit limited or suggestive evidence--of the causal 
connection for spina bifida in children and the service of their 
parents in Vietnam. As I understand it, the evidence is considered 
close to a 50-50 proposition; that is, the causal connection is as 
likely as not.
  In such cases, I am totally comfortable with giving a strong 
presumption in favor of the children of American service members, at 
least until such time as scientific evidence suggests a more positive 
association--or a less positive one, a negligible one, or a 
nonassociation.
  This is not an area of absolutes. But if I am to err, Mr. President, 
as I often have and surely will in the future, I choose to err on the 
side of assuming a responsibility, of assuming a benefit of the doubt, 
of assuming the care of the children of the war.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank the 
Senator from West Virginia for his very personal, very eloquent, and 
very powerful statement. The Senator from Wyoming, the chairman on this 
committee, has been gracious enough to let me speak.
  Mr. President, I am proud and honored to be a cosponsor of this 
important and historic amendment introduced by the distinguished and 
able Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. This amendment would enable 
the VA to extend health care and other benefits, including a monthly 
stipend, to Vietnam veterans' children suffering from spina bifida, a 
serious, disabling neural tube birth defect that requires lifelong 
care.
  While I recognize that this amendment is unprecedented in that it 
would authorize the VA for the first time to provide health care and 
related benefits to children of veterans, there is no question in my 
mind that it is fully justified. The humane and courageous decision of 
the President and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Brown to request that 
spina bifida in the offspring of Vietnam veterans be considered 
service-connected was based on a National Academy of Sciences [NAS] 
study released in March 1996 that found evidence suggesting a link 
between veterans' exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina 
bifida in their children.
  Mr. President, it is important to note that NAS used the same 
scientific criteria to conclude that there is a credible link between 
parental exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in 
their offspring as it had previously used in a 1993 NAS study that 
found a connection between veterans' exposure to agent orange and the 
incidence of respiratory cancers and multiple myeloma. Since Vietnam 
veterans suffering from these diseases already are receiving VA 
benefits based on the NAS findings and a subsequent determination that 
these conditions are presumptively service-connected, it is only fair 
that spina bifida-afflicted children of Vietnam veterans should also be 
provided with appropriate VA benefits.
  Moreover, I would like to underscore the fact that both the 1993 and 
1996 NAS studies were mandated by the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which 
passed the Senate 99 to 0. That act also stipulated that reproductive 
disorders and birth defects must be accorded special attention to 
ascertain whether or not compensation is warranted. The 1996 NAS report 
leaves little doubt about the wisdom of focusing on birth defects and 
that at least for the innocent and tragic victims of spina bifida there 
is little doubt that compensation is warranted.
  Vietnam veterans have long been concerned that their military service 
jeopardized the health of their children and some of their worst fears 
now appear to have been confirmed. Some of the children of American 
soldiers exposed to agent orange are now paying a terrible price. 
Moreover, the cost of caring for a child with spina bifida can 
devastate a family financially. There is no question that the Federal 
Government has a moral responsibility to help veterans whose children 
suffer from spina bifida meet their children's health care and other 
special needs.

[[Page S9888]]

These children are innocent victims of the Vietnam war. The least we 
can do is to provide them with the benefits they need and clearly 
deserve.
  Mr. President, again, I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of 
this amendment. I count as one of my blessings all of the teaching that 
the Vietnam vets, and really the veterans community, have done in 
Minnesota. They have really been my teachers. I want to say that I have 
immersed myself in issues important to them. I have tried to do my very 
best. I am really proud of a lot of my work, in the main, not because 
of me, but because----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that he might 
need to adjust his microphone.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The microphone seems to be going on and off. Let me 
try this. Can the Chair hear me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment is very 
important. Again, it comes from work with Vietnam vets and their 
families and others in the veterans community.
  I thank Secretary Brown for his humane recommendation that spina 
bifida in the offspring of Vietnam vets be considered service 
connected. I know it is based on the National Academy of Sciences 
study.
  Mr. President, if you think about it, these children really are 
innocent victims of the Vietnam war. If I had to err, I would rather 
err on this side. I do not believe this is a huge appropriation of 
resources. I believe this is the right thing for us to do.
  I think, at least to me--sometimes I do not feel like people in our 
country realize this--it has been amazing how many veterans and their 
families fall between the cracks and still do not get the kind of 
health care that they truly deserve. In this particular case there are 
just too many families who have this struggle, too many children of 
Vietnam vets, too many children, I say again, who are innocent victims 
of this war, too many children who need our help, and I think this 
amendment is a very important step in the direction of providing 
assistance to families, to Vietnam vets, and to the children of Vietnam 
vets. I believe that this help is long overdue.
  Mr. President, I have met too many Vietnam vets who have struggled--
some of whom have died--because of exposure to agent orange. It is, I 
think, the least we can do to provide this assistance to their 
children.
  Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues on both sides will give 
this amendment introduced by the minority leader very strong support. I 
know in very good faith my friend--I consider Senator Simpson really to 
be a friend, somebody for whom I have tremendous respect--is in 
disagreement. But from my own heart, I think it is the right thing to 
do. I think we can help children. I think we can help families. I think 
it is part of our commitment to Vietnam vets. I think they deserve the 
assistance.
  I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Minnesota. I have 
worked with him on various issues having to do with Parkinson's 
disease, mental health, and veterans' issues. He is a member of the 
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have come to very much appreciate 
the things he has debated, and to have a better understanding of him 
throughout. I think respect for each other is what the Senate is about. 
We can have serious partisan differences. Senator Rockefeller and I 
have more serious partisan differences than most two people on the 
floor. But that need not interfere with our ability to legislate.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, again I want to commend Senator Bond for his work. He 
has done yeoman work on this issue. Senator Daschle, as I say, and I 
have been batting this one around longer than you would believe because 
Senator Daschle believes deeply that, whether we are going to find 
anything or not, we must keep looking for something with regard to a 
linkage of dioxin and disease. I wish it were that easy. It is not.
  In the beginning of my remarks I stated that if there was something 
there before to establish such a link, there would have been a lot of 
plaintiffs who would have never settled the case when they were having 
a great old time suing everybody that ever introduced herbicides 
containing dioxin. You may be assured of that. Attorneys in the class 
action would have never turned around and gone backward if they had 
known there was any possible way to prove this tie because it would be 
jackpot day for trial attorneys on that one, and the jackpot day did 
not come. Such a link has not been proven, and the only group that has 
any credibility in this about exposure is the Ranch Hand study.
  So no wonder the proponents of the amendment say ignore the Ranch 
Hand study when it does not support their cause. Those were the people 
who bathed in it, put it in the barrels, unloaded it, kicked it out of 
the aircraft, and there is no more serious difficulty with that cohort 
of people than with people who were nonveterans and not in Vietnam. I 
do not know how many times we have to say that. There have been no 
increase in birth defects in that group.

  Again, the Ranch Hand study is the people most exposed. But there is 
one thing, or two or three things that I would like to say in response 
to my friend from West Virginia. The Senator from West Virginia and the 
Senator from South Dakota keep saying to us in a litany, a mantra, that 
the NAS study shows that 50 percent of the studies show an association 
and 50 percent of them do not show an association. That is not so, my 
colleagues. All of the studies examined for the first report of the 
Institute of Medicine in 1993 were deemed not to have sufficient 
evidence to show an association with birth defects. All of them for 
1993. After 1993, one new study was put forward by the NAS--the Ranch 
Hand study. Proponents have grasped the NAS classification of this 
study as having limited/suggestive value as a proof of association. But 
that study, according to its own principal investigator, who testified 
at a hearing in the House, shows no association whatsoever.
  The other disturbing thing to me is that we continue to hear the use 
of ``emotion, fear, guilt,'' suggesting that somehow we don't want to 
do something for these children. This is a horrible disease. To me it 
is more than talk. I have been involved in fundraising for spina 
bifida. I have been out there raising money for this disease in 
tributes to others where I participated for fundraising activities long 
before this issue ever came before this body. I do not need anyone to 
check my credentials on how I care about these people. It is a horrible 
disease. It is not even worth talking about in trying to say that 
somehow those who are opposed to this amendment are less caring or are 
poised to do ugly things to the most fragile in our society. I am 
disgusted by that kind of argument. You can go ahead and continue to 
make it, and I will continue to be disgusted by it. That type of 
outrage is the type of debate that is presented. We are not talking 
about a 15-percent tax cut. We are not talking about partisanship. In 
my experience there are many partisans in this body, but the Senator 
from West Virginia is one of the best. I do it, too. But this does not 
have anything to do with who cares for children. It does not have 
anything to do with who values the kids. It does not have anything to 
do with who cares more. We all care just as much for our fellow human 
beings as anyone from West Virginia or Wyoming or New York. We are all 
here as caring individuals.
  So the continuing use of ``emotion, fear, guilt'' is not attractive 
to this Senator. Every one of us knows the problems of spina bifida. 
Every single one of us should, or certainly will, after this debate.
  Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we do a lot for the people 
with spina bifida. Maybe the VA does not do anything for people with 
spina bifida, but the Government does. So how many duplicative programs 
are you going to have, or are you just going to have an appeal to 
emotion and then a press release about what you did for veterans? I am 
a veteran. I am very proud to be a veteran. Some of the most 
unbelievable arguments on the other side--I am not relating this to the 
Senator from West Virginia or the Senator from South Dakota--come

[[Page S9889]]

from the people who have not even been in the Civil Air Patrol. I must 
say I get a belly full of that one, too.
  Let us tell our colleagues what we do for people in this kind of 
horrible extremity. Anyone under 21 falls under the Early Periodic 
Screening and Diagnostic Testing Program, the EPSD Program of Medicare, 
for those in extremity, the horror stories, the wretched, the beat up, 
the people we hear talked about here as if only some of us cared about 
those people. Under Medicaid, this program provides for everything that 
a medical professional deems necessary for treatment and 
rehabilitation--everything. When the child reaches 21, then the State 
determines what will be covered above and beyond the Federal minimum 
standards. Those standards are inpatient, outpatient, nursing home, 
home health aid, drugs, x rays, medical doctors, nurse practitioner 
visits, and dental. All of that is provided to people who are in need 
as a result of the disease, the horrible disease of spina 
bifida. Therefore, this amendment is redundant, but that fact is never 
mentioned.

  And then there is a final point which nobody seems to pick up, but I 
have to keep throwing it out. The Shriners--the Ancient Order of Nobles 
of the Mystic Shrine--is a Masonic organization, and even though these 
organizations are sometimes held in some different lights than they 
were 50 years ago, let me tell you what the Shriners do, ladies and 
gentlemen. They have a string of hospitals that are solely for crippled 
children. And do you know what? They will provide free care for every 
single child with spina bifida in the United States, period. No 
Government bucks. No grants. No nothing. This is their job, to provide 
this care for people who cannot afford to do anything and to do it free 
of charge, no questions asked. And they want me to express that to my 
colleagues one more time. That point apparently has not been heard in 
this debate, and is often shuffled to the bottom.
  There are people who do things in America because they love other 
people and not because they love them more. Because we all are that 
way. We are a compassionate nation. I do not know anybody in this body, 
Democrat or Republican, who sits around at night figuring out how to do 
less for children, do less for seniors, do less for the disenfranchised 
or the powerless or the minorities in our country. I do not know 
anybody. That is ugly, ugly stuff that does not fit. It does not fit.
  Now, there was a comment earlier that if we are upset about the agent 
orange legislation, we should repeal it. No way. I would not repeal it. 
It gave the NAS some excellent direction. I voted for it. 
Unfortunately, in this case it did not fulfill its promise. 
Unfortunately emotion and fear and guilt overwhelmed sound medicine and 
science one more time.
  There was comment that there had been no interest in Persian Gulf 
injuries and on activities relating to that war. That is not so. That 
is in total error. With me as chairman of the committee and Senator 
Rockefeller as ranking member, we have not maybe legislated on the 
things that he would have legislated if he were chairman, but that is 
called seniority and it is called who is in charge. If that changes 
next time, I am certain that I will not be present for the activity, 
but if my friend from West Virginia is chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, he will have a whole new agenda and a busy one at 
that. But I can tell you the Congress has legislated--oh, we have, 
indeed--with the Persian Gulf. We have enacted benefits upon benefits. 
We have enacted health care. We have enacted research and all of those 
programs are now on the books, ongoing, and you cannot say that this 
Congress or this chairman has not been vitally involved in the process. 
We have done what we had to do.
  Now, we have another little item which has come to the attention of 
all of us, I hope, a letter dated August 29 received September 3 with 
the yearly progress report of the ongoing Ranch-Hand study. It went to 
the committee, but I think it should be in your hands and we will see 
that it is in the hands of the Members before the vote. You want to 
look at it if you can cut through the emotion, the fear and the stuff 
that goes with this issue. As I say, I have been here 18 years, and it 
is tough enough when you mention the word ``veteran,'' but when you 
mention the word ``veteran'' and ``innocent disabled children,'' then 
the engines are fully cranked. But there is not any way to pay for this 
one if we have to go back to reconciliation and redo our work. And I 
want every single sponsor of this amendment to tell me where we should 
get the money if we lose the money that we had in here for 
reconciliation because of the use of the Gardner decision here. I 
really want to hear that. Maybe you could give me book, page, and hymn 
number as to where you are going to get the scratch to do this and pay 
for 214 million bucks over 6 years.
  But let us get back to the real issue raised by the legislation that 
I voted for and very proudly too. That legislation was filled with 
language that talked about:

       Sound medical and scientific evidence. . . . 
     Scientific evidence and reasoning. . . . Statistical 
     association. . . . Strength of the evidence. . . . The 
     increased risk of the disease. . . . The plausible 
     biological mechanisms. . . . The causal relationships.

  This is the language of the bill.

       All other sound medical and scientific information. . . . 
     Statistically significant. . . . Capable of replication. . . 
     . Withstand peer review.

  They did not do any of that here. None of it. None of it. I think 
that there may have been simply a professional lapse by NAS in a very 
complicated task which they clearly took very seriously, and I do not 
denigrate that in any way. But I can tell you what the law says. I can 
read that very clearly.
  But in the Ranch-Hand study update that we just received, and which 
will be on your desks, listen to this sentence:

       The data provides little or no support for the theory that 
     paternal exposure to Agent Orange and its dioxin containment 
     is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes.

  That is in pretty good English. What it really means is they did not 
find a thing in the Ranch Hand study, not a thing that would cause an 
adverse reproductive outcome. Those are the Ranch-Hand persons. They 
keep saying, look at the Ranch-Hand study because the Ranch-Hand study 
was the guys that took the real hits. But the Ranch Hand study found 
there is no real difference of any statistical order.
  Then remember what we have done for these veterans who think that 
dioxin may have been the cause of their diseases. We have provided 
service upon service upon service to them. When I came here, we were 
providing $20 billion for veterans and today it is $40 billion, and 
there are 3 million fewer veterans. To have somebody say to me that we 
do not provide for our veterans is just not so. So I hope that you will 
look at your report from the Ranch-Hand study. I think it would be 
important.
  And let me just say that I have set a hearing for this, and the 
reason I set a hearing is because a bill came in. And I guess the 
reason the bill came in is because of frustration. But you cannot have 
a hearing based on frustration. The bill came in July 29. Then we left 
here. So I set a hearing for September 18 and was ready to go ahead 
with it but the ranking member told me he cannot be here then. My 
friend from West Virginia could not be here for that date. So I said 
we'll set another date.
  So to say that I am not receptive and helpful and cooperative is just 
not so.
  We have had the normal legislative process. It is called a bill is 
``considered.'' We could get that chart that they hand out to the 
school kids. You put in a bill and it is referred to a committee. Then 
you have hearings. However, we have had nothing on this measure--
nothing. I will have that hearing and it will be done at a time 
mutually convenient with my friend from West Virginia. To think the 
statement is made we are not interested in taking up the issue and that 
we have ignored, or not paid proper attention to the Persian Gulf 
veterans--it is not so. And that we have no interest in children--boy, 
that one has to go somewhere else for some other debate.
  So, we will have the hearing. Hopefully, it will match the time of my 
colleague, my good friend from West Virginia. I tried to accommodate 
him. If I cannot, I am going to have the hearing anyway. In fact, there 
came a time a few months ago where he had a hearing. He just called it. 
So I showed up. I thought that would be interesting, that I might join 
in the fun.

[[Page S9890]]

  So those are things that happen when you have the type of activity 
where you have a breakdown in staff, which happens here often--
jealousies, pettiness, all the things which go with the human condition 
here as well as out in the local community. We do not do things any 
differently here than you do in your hometown. I have often said, 
people who are looking to us for perfection are often people who do not 
have any perfection in their own lives, so they try to say, ``You do 
it. Mine is a mess, so we expect perfection out of you.'' They will 
never get perfection out of here, and that is the joy of legislating 
and that is why the country works.
  I am willing to give children the benefit of the doubt. Who is not? I 
am willing to give veterans the benefit of the doubt. Who is not? Who 
has not? For Heaven's sake, yes, Congress is poorly suited to evaluate 
what is good science. But scientists are not, and that is why we should 
leave it with them. With only a few exceptions, this is surely an 
extraordinary venture for us, to open a new entitlement program at a 
time when everybody in this country knows that the entitlements are 
simply sucking us away. When you provide this kind of thing for people, 
like you do with any other entitlement, it is automatic. And it has to 
be paid. If you do not pay it, you get sued by the recipient.
  So we do nothing about entitlements, and there will be nothing done 
between now and November 5, in this country, by any of us here or by 
either Presidential candidate that will have a single thing to do with 
the one thing that is just draining the core out of America, and that 
is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal retirement, and 
interest on the national debt. And the saddest irony is those who talk 
all day long about the kids and the veterans and all the rest will 
find, in the year 2012, according to the bipartisan committee report of 
Senator Kerrey and Senator Danforth, there will be nothing left for 
transportation, education, defense or any other thing--WIC, WIN, Head 
Start or any other thing you want or really lust for or must have, 
because all the resources will have been used by those five items I 
just described: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal 
retirement, interest on the national debt. That is your legacy.
  Then what will we do with the poor? The kids? The veterans? You tell 
me. Because we cannot even stop the COLA. We cannot even cut down a 
cost-of-living-allowance for a senior citizen who lives in Sun City 
with a cabin in the mountains and a couple of homes and a couple of 
cars. We cannot even get the COLA reduced for those people. We cannot 
even ``affluence test" them, because it is a violation of America.
  I will be waiting for that debate. I shall report on it from the 
banks of the Ishawooa Creek, and the Bobcat Ranch, southwest of Cody, 
WY--when I finish alerting the young people as to what is going to 
happen to them, that is.
  That is why I wear this tie. This is for young people. A young man 
came up the other day. He was 18. He had his hat on backward, kind of a 
mouth-breathing exercise. He said, ``What is going to happen to us? Who 
speaks for us?''

  ``Well,'' I said, ``why don't you speak for yourselves? We gave you 
the right to vote and only 15 percent of you use it. Don't come 
whimpering around to me.'' He said, ``OK.'' So then he put his cap on 
correctly and went, breathing the vapors, in the other direction. That 
is why I wear this tie. Because I tell people between 18 and 40, this 
tie, with chickens on it, if they do not get off their fannies and do 
something about it, they will be picking grit with the chickens when 
they are 65.
  We will see how that works. I intend to get involved with groups, 
young, third millennium, and others, because if you really, really care 
about the poor and the disenfranchised and the seniors and the 
veterans, then get off your fanny and do something with the issues that 
are eating our lunch instead of just tapping around the edges, fearful 
of what may happen if you act.
  Well, as I say, it is very difficult to enter a debate like this 
because there are some words that lead to immediate emotion and the 
voting of taxpayer money without any further thought when they are 
uttered within this Chamber. Those words include ``veterans,'' and 
``innocent disabled children.'' Now there is a way to combine them in 
one amendment. If this amendment is to be decided on the basis of the 
emotions evoked by these words, we can cease right here and save the 
Senate's time. And it is too bad there is not a time agreement on this 
amendment. My remarks, I told them, would be about 30 minutes, because 
I have a hunch there will be a lot of people who will come in here. 
Maybe not. But, if the Senate is actually willing to look at this issue 
closely and honestly, and with absolute facts, then there are issues 
that must be raised.
  First of all is the fact that this amendment, to an appropriations 
bill, mind you, would create a brandnew program with brandnew benefits 
for a new population of previously unserved beneficiaries. Whatever the 
merits of the proposal, it is clearly an attempt to enact authorizing 
legislation on an appropriations bill and is, therefore, out of order. 
I think that will be presented by my friend from Missouri. I will not 
be so bold as to suggest this amendment would be the first time the 
Senate has approved authorizing legislation on an appropriations bill, 
but we should ask ourselves if this is the proper legislative process 
for creating new entitlements.
  If it is, then, I earnestly suggest the Senate would consider 
eliminating the authorizing committees altogether. We would save the 
taxpayers the cost of funding committee operations and save our 
colleagues the time and effort that we know takes place as we do our 
work, in what is oftentimes a tedious process.
  I can understand how, in some cases, a Senator might want to 
circumvent the committee process, bring an amendment directly to the 
floor of the Senate. He might do so in absolute frustration. I 
understand that one. That is, if an authorizing committee bottled up an 
important measure, never giving it a hearing, never giving proponents a 
chance to make their case. But, if this proposal has never seen the 
light of day, if it has never been debated, if Senators with an 
interest in the issue have never had a chance to even listen to or 
participate in a discussion on the merits of the proposal, the fault 
cannot be with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The bill was 
introduced July 29. As I say, within days of introduction we recessed 
to allow the Presidential nominating conventions to take place. Now, 
having returned with bags hardly unpacked, we find before us an 
amendment creating a huge precedent-setting new entitlement. If this 
proposal has never seen the light of day, it is not because it has been 
forgotten in some committee's ``hold'' box. This amendment has not seen 
the legislative light of day because not enough time has elapsed for 
the legislative sun to even rise.
  This amendment creates a new entitlement and the constraints of the 
Budget Act apply. I note the amendment's budget neutrality is obtained 
by reversing the Supreme Court's Gardner decision. I mentioned that 
before. That may seem like esoterica of the first order to you, but, 
without going into detail, that decision expanded an existing veterans' 
benefit in a way that was never intended by the Congress.
  But I also note the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, which is 
still in effect, includes savings from the reversal in Gardner and the 
assumptions behind the reconciliation instructions for the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. That is what it is. The savings from reversing 
Gardner are the foundation of the veterans committee bill that we will 
report out, if we are called upon to achieve $5.271 billion in 6 years 
savings needed to comply with the budget resolution.
  If those savings are used instead to pay for this bill, they will not 
be available to the committee. That means we would have to do something 
else to reduce veterans' benefits.
  The amendment's use of Gardner savings is not an offset, I say to my 
colleagues. It merely shifts the responsibility of finding an offset 
off the back of the amendment and into the lap of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. Period.
  Costs of the amendment will not be borne by some abstract bookkeeping 
account. The costs will be borne by yet unidentified beneficiaries of 
whatever program the Veterans' Committee is

[[Page S9891]]

forced to attack to compensate for this amendment's use of Gardner's 
appeal.
  All the groups are not for this amendment. I have heard nothing from 
the DAV, the Disabled American Veterans. You would think you would hear 
from them. You know what they are thinking: This is going to take money 
away from disabled veterans to give to dependents of veterans. We have 
never done that with this kind of an entitlement, ever. They know that.
  So do the Paralyzed Veterans of America. You have not seen anything 
from them. They do not dare speak out, but they are not aboard here in 
the letters of support, because they know there will be one population 
that will really be hammered in this process, and that is those who are 
disabled; veterans who are disabled, not the children of veterans who 
are disabled.
  This amendment is rooted in a study did not prove anything and whose 
significance is reduced by confusion and bias and confounding.
  This amendment is wholly premature. Yes, the administration has 
proposed legislation on this subject. That was received July 25 when it 
was slipped under the Veterans' Committee door. So, there was not much 
opportunity to look at this one.
  I think we should have more than 4 or 5 legislative days in the light 
of day before reaching the Senate floor. But the objections to this 
amendment are not limited to procedural questions of jurisdiction and 
process.
  I also believe the amendment is fundamentally flawed on the merits. 
Sure, there are a lot of unresolved questions to be resolved in a calm 
and reflective manner before the Senate goes forward with such an 
expensive and expansive program, but the amendment hangs or predicates 
itself on several assumptions.
  First is that exposure to herbicide causes spina bifida, a serious 
defect in the exposed father's children.
  Second, that Vietnam veterans were, in fact, exposed, and every 
single link in that chain of reasoning is subject to dispute. This is 
the kind of thing that is best resolved through the complete 
legislative process: introduce the bill, solicit evidence, comments, 
hold hearings, seek review of experts and interested parties on both 
sides, hold a markup, consider amendments, and then bring the bill to 
the floor.
  This amendment has short circuited that process. That is what we do 
here, and as a legislator who has been doing this stuff for 30 years, 
who appreciates beautifully the wisdom of the legislative process, I am 
greatly saddened by that. In 30 years, I have never been an 
administrator, never wanted to be President, never wanted to do 
anything but legislate. If you are doing it right, it is very dry work. 
It is not about emotion, it is not about press releases; it is about 
hard work. But I can't change that.
  We will have to compress the entire legislative process into a few 
minutes, so here it is. Here we go. It will not take long.
  Does a father's exposure to herbicides cause spina bifida in his 
children? There is very little evidence to support that assertion even 
though, as a result of all the furor over the years surrounding agent 
orange, the bookshelves have literally groaned under the weight of 
studies of the health effects of herbicides, but few, if any, of those 
studies have ever pointed to spina bifida.
  Were Vietnam veterans generally exposed to a material amount of agent 
orange? Whatever evidence, or lack of evidence, for association between 
exposure and disease, the only actual empirical evidence of exposure 
that is available to us does not support the theory that Vietnam 
veterans were generally exposed to agent orange.

  Look at these charts--two of them--which depict measured blood dioxin 
levels found in two population samples. This upper chart shows a level 
found in a sample of 646 Vietnam veterans. The lower chart shows the 
levels found in a control group of 97 veterans who did not serve in 
Vietnam.
  In each case, the vertical scale is the percentage of the sample 
population; the horizontal scale is the specific dioxin, TCDD, measured 
in parts per trillion, ppt.
  In both groups, veterans who served in Vietnam and veterans who did 
not serve in Vietnam, the percentage of subjects begins to rise at a 
measured dioxin level of 2 ppt, peaks at about 3 and tails off into 
scattered individuals--that is what these symbols are, individuals, not 
groups--at about 10 parts per trillion.
  By the way, these levels are consistent with measured blood dioxin 
levels for the general American population, which are in the same range 
of 0 to 20 parts per trillion.
  So there it is. ``ND'' means nondetectable. Then you see this rise, 
then down, and after that, there is no effect at all up into 20 parts 
per trillion--nothing. This is the veteran population who were in 
Vietnam, and this is non-Vietnam veterans, and the charts are exactly 
the same--exactly the same. That is the kind of data you never consider 
when you are just using emotion. Those are studies from the CDC.
  In short, based upon those samples, Vietnam and non-Vietnam veterans 
cannot be distinguished from each other on the basis of the measured 
dioxin levels in their blood, and neither group can be distinguished 
from the American population.
  So the only evidence available to us, based on measured blood levels 
of dioxin in veterans, is not consistent with the hypothesis that 
service in Vietnam exposed most veterans to material amounts of agent 
orange.
  Yes, I know, that is difficult. I am sure someone will be coming here 
to get in the fray, and I will be waiting for that.
  Let me show you a second chart showing measured dioxin levels in 
several different populations. This chart depicts blood dioxin levels 
of numerous populations and compares the level found in Vietnam 
veterans, presumed to be exposed, with the levels found in populations 
known--known--to have been exposed.
  So let's look at that. We are not guessing here. We are going to talk 
about populations known to be exposed. The horizontal scale is blood 
dioxin levels in parts per trillion. The top group depicts the measured 
blood dioxin levels for Vietnam ground troops with high, low, and 
medium opportunities for exposure, as well as the measured level of the 
control group known not to have been exposed.
  All these groups have identical, and low, levels of blood dioxin. 
That finding is consistent with the hypothesis that Vietnam veterans do 
not have material exposure to agent orange. The level for the control 
group and the exposed group are the same. Let's go to the next little 
chart. We find a group of bars down there depicting the measured dioxin 
levels in a control group and in four categories of the Ranch Handers. 
Now Ranch Handers, a cohort of about 2,700 people, if I recall, 2,300, 
are the Air Force personnel who did the actual agent orange spraying.
  Of course, that would be the group we used in our studies. And why 
not? We knew what they were doing. I point out that you should know 
what they were doing. They were mixing it, loading it, labeling it, 
spraying it, kicking it out of the helicopters with an open lid, and 
cleaning it up. That is who they are.
  For the control group and the Ranch Hand officers the measured blood 
dioxin levels are rather low. And their level is about equal to the 
level found in the ground troops. But the levels for the enlisted Ranch 
Hand personnel are elevated, a finding which you would expect for 
people who actually mixed, loaded, sprayed and cleaned up the agent 
orange.
  A little lower on the chart we find the third grouping of measured 
blood dioxin levels. These are levels measured in workers with known 
occupational exposures to dioxin. They are measurements for a group of 
German industrial workers and New Zealand agricultural sprayers. Then 
there are the levels found in the most exposed quintile, as the phrase 
is used in graphs, of an occupational study conducted by the U.S. 
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. That study broke 
its subjects down into five quintiles with progressively greater 
opportunity for exposure.
  The measured blood dioxin level increases proportionately with 
exposure, as one would expect. Except for the lowest exposure NIOSH 
group, that is the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 
subjects, all occupationally exposed groups have measured blood dioxin 
levels higher than both Ranch Handers and Vietnam veterans.

[[Page S9892]]

  Then finally--and you have heard mention of this extraordinary 
disaster--the bottom bar shows the measured blood dioxin levels for 
residents of Seveso, Italy, a town heavily exposed to dioxin as a 
result of a horrible accident where they were exposed to dioxin as a 
result of an industrial accident.
  The chart shows that the blood levels for Seveso residents who 
developed chloracne, which is a known effect of dioxin--no one argues 
that--are higher than the blood levels of those who did not. And we 
would certainly expect that. I ask my colleagues to note that the scale 
of this chart is exponential above 100 parts per trillion--off the 
chart, if you will. And the chart documents the fact that Seveso 
residents have measured dioxin blood levels which are thousands of 
times higher than that found in any Vietnam veterans, Ranch Handers or 
non-Ranch-Handers.
  And this is the reason for the chart. All of the followup studies of 
the individuals whose blood serum dioxin level are documented on the 
chart do not report any increased rates of spina bifida in the children 
of these heavily exposed individuals. Remember that these are people, 
individuals with documented heavy exposure to dioxin. In the case of 
the Seveso residents with chloracne, the measured blood dioxin levels 
are over 10,000 times greater than that for Vietnam veterans.
  If spina bifida were associated with exposure, we would find 
increased rates of spina bifida in these populations. And there is 
none. And the greatest increases would be in the population with the 
highest measured blood dioxin levels. And there are none.
  In fact, the only group with any increase in the rate for spina 
bifida is in the Ranch Hand group. And as we will see, the principal 
investigator of the Ranch Hand study has testified before this Congress 
that limitations in that study mean that this finding should not be 
used to draw conclusions about birth defects. That is what the 
principal investigator said. That testimony I will be glad to present 
to my colleagues.
  The documented higher dioxin levels for enlisted Ranch Handers--
compared to other Vietnam veterans--also means that even if someday 
there were to be a valid study showing adverse effects in these Ranch 
Handers, those conclusions may not be applicable to the Vietnam 
population as a whole.
  This would be especially true if the proposed application of such a 
study would be to support the creation of a new entitlement applicable 
to all Vietnam veterans. I noted earlier, the Ranch Hand study is not 
such a study according to its principal investigator.

  So both of those charts are based on actual measurements. Both are 
taken from the 1996 update of the Institute of Medicine, the IOM, agent 
orange report. I will be glad to share this with anyone who may wish to 
have it. This update is the foundation for both Secretary Brown's 
prostate cancer decision and Senator Daschle's spina bifida amendment. 
And where did they come from? They originated with the CDC and they 
came from the IOM, the Institute of Medicine. This is the same report 
that has been relied upon by the very capable minority leader. We are 
using this same thing.
  In enacting the old Public Law 102-4, which I was involved in, the 
Congress enacted a three-part standard for determining if there was an 
``association.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that portion of the statute be 
printed in the Record. I have previously spoken about it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       (d) Scientific Determinations Concerning Disease.--(1) For 
     each disease reviewed, the Academy shall determine (to the 
     extent that available scientific data permit meaningful 
     determinations)--
       (A) whether a statistical association with herbicide 
     exposure exists, taking into account the strength of the 
     scientific evidence and the appropriateness of the 
     statistical and epidemiological methods used to detect the 
     association;
       (B) the increased risk of the disease among those exposed 
     to herbicides during service in the Republic of Vietnam 
     during the Vietnam era; and
       (C) whether there exists a plausible biological mechanism 
     or other evidence of a causal relationship between herbicide 
     exposure and the disease.

  Mr. SIMPSON. The statute talked about statistical association, 
increased risk and casual relationship. So that is where we are. The 
IOM, the Institute of Medicine, said there is ``limited suggestive 
evidence'' of an association between exposure of a father and spina 
bifida. That is largely based on the Air Force Ranch Hand study. The 
study found that three Ranch Hand children were born with spina bifida.
  Do not stop there. The same study also found that the total rate for 
birth defects in Ranch Handers is comparable to that of the control 
group. How is that possible? Well, it is quite logical, because when 
statisticians break aggregate or average data down into its component 
parts, individual values start to spread out away from the norm. So it 
is with the Ranch Hand children.
  For example, while the Ranch Hand spina bifida value is high, the 
Ranch Hand cleft palate value is low--zero in fact. The low value for 
cleft palate does not mean that agent orange prevents cleft palate any 
more than the high value for spina bifida means that agent orange 
causes that birth defect or even there is an association between the 
two.
  I remember an old phrase that said, ``If you torture data long enough 
with statistics, they will eventually confess.'' And that is what has 
happened here. If you torture data long enough with statistics, 
eventually it will confess.
  One other thing with a thought experiment. I think I will shorten my 
remarks in the interest of moving on through this day. But we could go 
on and make all sorts of comparisons about the health of the House 
Members and the Senate Members and whether they have this or have that. 
We could all find that they have more kidney disease, more heart 
disease in one body or another, and you could play with that stuff all 
day and all night. You are going to find those differences. But we are 
trying to use sound medical and scientific evidence because that is 
what the law says.
  There is a name for this scientific sin of combing raw data until you 
find data skewed in the direction you want to go and then formulating a 
hypothesis on that finding. That is called ``data mining.'' And using 
the Ranch Hand study as the basis for forming a conclusion, rather than 
using the findings as the basis for forming a hypothesis for testing, 
is to commit the sin of data mining.
  I think you want to remember that the principal investigator for this 
study, Dr. Joel Michalek, testified before a House committee that his 
findings did not support the conclusion that there is a linkage between 
spina bifida and agent orange. That is it. That is the only evidence we 
have. We are ignoring that?
  The academic reviewers for the journal Epidemiology drew no attention 
to, or conclusions from, the birth defect findings when they published 
the Ranch Hand study.
  The IOM said this, ``any positive conclusion is vulnerable to chance, 
bias and confounding.'' And so all I can do is present my colleagues 
with the facts. Others can come to present the emotion. And they will 
be here. And I will continue to try to present the facts. There is not 
one of us here--and certainly not this Senator--that does not care 
about people who have spina bifida or care about Admiral Zumwalt's son, 
a tragic thing. And that dear and remarkable American feels that agent 
orange is the destruction of that fine young man. And that may well be. 
No one--no one--cares less for those people. I hope we can keep that 
out of debate. When we come to the debate, bring facts. Everyone is 
entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own 
facts.

  There have been thousands of studies of veterans, farmers, 
agriculture workers, and industrial workers who either were or are 
presumed to have been exposed to herbicides or their component 
chemicals, and all of those studies--every single one of them --provide 
little support for the theory that Agent Orange causes spina bifida. 
Dioxin does cause chloracne, and that is why we have made it a 
presumptive disease. It may cause other things, and that is why we made 
other diseases presumptive diseases.
  But the use of the Ranch Hand study to support making birth defects 
presumptive, as is being done today, is to use the study for a purpose 
disavowed

[[Page S9893]]

by its principal investigator. That has to be at least heavy in your 
consideration.
  With that, I see my colleagues have fled or have absented themselves 
from the Chamber, so I probably should fill the void, but I think the 
word should go out we are certainly ready to proceed with the debate or 
yield back time. I am ready to do that, but I do not wish to cut off 
anyone in the debate, either the minority or the majority side. So 
rather than have a quorum call, I shall proceed. However, let the word 
go out through the network that if anyone wishes to debate this issue 
further they should present themselves. If not, we can conclude the 
debate and go to the procedural motion that will be made by the Senator 
from Missouri.
  Again, I want to reiterate that we really do some good things for 
people who have this disease. I have cited that. But I think one of the 
most unique is the private sector, the remarkable group known as the 
Shriners, those fellows you see in the parade with the fez--older now, 
but just as caring and loving of their fellow man and woman, and 
especially children. They provide care for any child in this Nation 
with spina bifida, and especially if you cannot afford to pay. In fact, 
that is really the requirement. They will treat that child only if the 
parents can afford to pay nothing. There is never any reimbursement. 
Those remarkable people support those hospitals, and you do, too. I 
want that clearly said.
  We are always talking about, what can the private sector do? How can 
they begin to take the burden off Medicare and Medicaid? This is one 
way. We put a redundant program together just so we can not say that 
the VA has not done anything for these victims. Even though others are 
serving them, we still want the VA to do it. That is how we get to a $6 
trillion debt within the next few years--a $5.2 trillion debt--even if 
we balance the budget. Under all these horrible proposals described by 
some of my brethren, the budget will be balanced in the year 2002, but 
the debt will be $6.2 trillion.
  Half the American people believe that we all got together and 
balanced the budget, and that may be so. That would mean the deficit 
will be gone; whether it is $160 billion or $200 billion, just pick 
your figure. But, Members, the debt of the United States will have 
marched on like ``Old Man River.'' That is why everybody is asleep. The 
debt, after balancing the budget in the year 2002, the debt will then 
have gone to 6.2 trillion bucks. Why is that? Is that the ghost of 
Ronald Reagan doing that? Is that Clinton doing that? No. Right here. 
This is where we do it--Democrats and Republicans do it. We do it to 
get reelected.
  You just saddle this new group of human beings with a burden that 
they can never, never tolerate and do it for the best reasons--the 
children, the veterans, the seniors. No affluence testing, no 
measurement of what you put in and what you get out, no measurement of 
your net worth. That game is going to end--not in my time, but it will 
end--because there is no way it can be sustained.
  It is as if we are talking about messing with the deck chairs on the 
Titanic, which has been partially lifted and then returned to the 
depth, which is about where we are with the debt. There is no way to 
arrange these deck chairs unless you do something with Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, Federal retirement and the national debt 
interest, period.

  So maybe we can hear less about those who care less--if I hear that 
again, I will be wanting to toddle right over here from my office--or 
that somehow one party cares more than another about human beings. That 
is pure balderdash. It is ugly. It is crude. It does not fit, because I 
do not know anybody in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party 
that is interested in doing a number on anyone of the lesser of 
society. We are interested in trying to do something to see that there 
is something left for those people in 10 or 20 years. If that is cruel, 
I am proud to join that pack, because I think that is the greatest 
abrogation of responsibility for our generation, to just leave a 
tattered pile of IOU's for a bunch of young people who apparently are 
not paying attention or who know that there will not be anything in the 
till for them anyway.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from 
South Dakota, Senator Daschle, today as a cosponsor of the Agent Orange 
Benefits Act Amendment of 1996. I find myself year after year after 
year giving voice to those Vietnam veterans who still are suffering as 
a result of their service in Vietnam. Thirty years ago agent orange was 
sprayed in Vietnam--30 years ago--and we are still debating the bias of 
each individual analyzing the evidence of its health impact on the 
veterans and their children. The families who suffer deserve our 
cooperation. It is time to stop debating and move forward.
  This amendment does just that. It takes another crucial step forward 
in repaying our debt to those who have served their country. In some 
cases, that is a dear debt, indeed.
  The legacy of Vietnam has cast its dark shadow on many aspects of our 
daily lives, changed the way many of us think and view war. Today we 
seek to address the shadow that has been cast over some children of 
Vietnam veterans.
  Mr. President, the amendment we are proposing today would extend 
health care and related benefits to children of Vietnam veterans who 
suffer from spina bifida, a serious neural tube birth defect that 
requires life-long care--provided, of course, the children were 
conceived after the veterans began their service in Vietnam. These 
children have become the next innocent victims, victims in a long line, 
who are suffering from the effect of agent orange.
  Senator Daschle, Senator Rockefeller, I and many others have worked 
for the past decade to try to bring to a fair and just resolution the 
questions surrounding agent orange and the effects it has had on the 
men and women who faithfully served this country. In 1991, we 
coauthored the agent orange Act of 1991 which required the Institute of 
Medicine--part of the National Academy of Sciences--to conduct a 
scientific review of all evidence pertaining to the connection between 
exposure to agent orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam and 
subsequent occurrence of health-related conditions. As a result of this 
law, a report was issued by the National Academy of Sciences in March 
1993 and it was to be followed by biennial updates for the next 10 
years.
  The first report published by the National Academy of Sciences in 
1993 created four categories to classify the level of association 
between certain health conditions and exposure to agent orange. 
Category I contains conditions for which there is sufficient evidence 
of an association. Category II contains conditions for which there is 
limited or suggestive evidence of an association. After 1993, the VA 
provided compensation for all conditions contained in categories I and 
II. Conditions for which there is inadequate or insufficient evidence 
to determine whether an association exists were placed in category III 
and compensation was not provided for them.
  When the latest of the NAS biennial updates was issued in March of 
this year, it cited new evidence supporting the link between exposure 
to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in children of 
veterans who served in Vietnam. The NAS panel moved ``spina bifida in 
offspring'' from category III into category II, based on the results of 
three epidemiological studies which suggest that a father's exposure to 
herbicides may put his children at a greater risk of being born with 
spina bifida. The Ranch Hand Study, which examined a group of veterans 
who were directly involved with spraying 19 million gallons of chemical 
defoliant in Vietnam during the war, was the largest of these studies. 
Over the past 2 years the results of the Ranch Hand study have been 
reanalyzed by the U.S. Air Force, and this new analysis reinforced 
evidence of a connection between agent orange exposure and spina

[[Page S9894]]

bifida in offspring that had been found in other studies. This 
ultimately led to the committee's conclusion that there is limited or 
suggestive evidence of an association. I ask unanimous consent to place 
an article in the Record that discusses at length the basis of these 
findings.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [From the Journal of the American Medical Association, Apr. 10, 1996]

 New IOM Report Links Agent Orange Exposure to Risk of Birth Defect in 
                         Vietnam Vets' Children

                          (By Joan Stephenson)

       New Evidence reveals a tentative link between exposure to 
     chemical defoliants that were used in the Vietnam War and an 
     increased risk of spina bifida in veterans' children, 
     according to a recently issued report by the National Academy 
     of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM).
       The congressionally mandated report, Veterans and Agent 
     Orange: Update 1996, is the second in a series of biennial 
     reassessments of the health effects of Agent Orange and other 
     herbicides. In addition to noting limited or suggestive 
     evidence of an increased risk of the birth defect in exposed 
     veterans' children, it said that new studies confirm the 1994 
     report's finding that there is sufficient evidence that 
     exposure to these chemicals is linked with soft tissue 
     sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, and 
     chloracne.
       The report also described ``limited or suggestive'' 
     evidence, based on studies of occupational exposure to 
     herbicides or dioxin outside of Vietnam, that exposure may be 
     linked with acute, transient peripheral neuropathy. However, 
     a link between chornic peripheral neuropathy and exposure to 
     these chemicals was not supported by the overall data.


                           Thousands Exposed

       United States military forces sprayed nearly 19 million 
     gallons of herbicides, including more than 11 million gallons 
     of Agent Orange, over Vietnam between 1962 and 1971, to strip 
     vegetation that helped conceal enemy troops. Thousands of US 
     troops were exposed to varying doses of these chemicals, 
     which were sprayed from airplanes and helicopters, from boats 
     and ground vehicles, and by soldiers wearing equipment 
     mounted on their backs.
       After a 1969 report that concluded that one of the chief 
     chemicals used in Agent Orange could cause birth defects in 
     laboratory animals, use of Agent Orange was halted in 1970. 
     All herbicide spraying in Vietnam ended by 1971.
       ``Since that time, some of the 3 million Americans who 
     served in the Vietnam War have wondered whether their 
     exposure to herbicides may have caused them to develop 
     cancer, or caused their children to have birth defects,'' 
     said David Tollerud, MD, MPH, of the University of Pittsburgh 
     (Pa) School of Medicine, at a press briefing. To address 
     these concerns, Congress passed the Agent Orange Act of 1991, 
     authorizing the National Academy of Sciences to review 
     studies concerning the health effects of herbicide exposure 
     and to reevaluate the evidence every 2 years for 10 years as 
     new evidence accumulates, noted Tollerud, chair of the IOM 
     committee that produced the report.
       As in the first IOM report, the diseases were classified 
     into four categories according to the strength of evidence 
     (or lack thereof) linking health effects with herbicide 
     exposure.
       The top category includes conditions for which there is 
     ``sufficient evidence'' of a positive association with 
     exposure to herbicides of dioxin (a trace contaminant of 
     herbicides). The second classification involves diseases in 
     which ``limited or suggestive evidence'' suggests such an 
     association--meaning that at least one high-quality 
     epidemiologic study has found a link, but that the evidence 
     is not conclusive enough to rule out chance or study bias 
     influencing the results. The other two categories involve 
     conditions for which there is ``inadequate or insufficient 
     evidence'' to determine whether a link exists, or ``limited 
     or suggestive evidence of no association.''


                          operation ranch hand

       The finding of ``limited or suggestive'' evidence of an 
     increased risk of spina bifida in children fathered by 
     veterans exposed to herbicides was based on three 
     epidemiologic studies, the largest of which involved a 
     reanalysis of a group of nearly 900 Operation Ranch Hand 
     veterans who were directly involved in the handling and 
     spraying of herbicides in Vietnam.
       In the Ranch Hand study, researchers found three cases of 
     spina bifida (plus one case of another neural tube defect, 
     anencephaly) among 792 liveborn infants, compared with no 
     cases occurring in a comparable group of children fathered by 
     nonexposed veterans, for a rate of nearly four cases per 
     1,000 births. The rate of spina bifida in the general 
     population is about five cases per 10,000 births.
       Two other epidemiologic studies reviewed by the committee--
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vietnam 
     Experience Study and the CDC Birth Defects Study--also 
     suggest an association between herbicide exposure and 
     increased risk of spina bifida in children. But the report 
     noted that while all three studies were of relatively high 
     quality, methodologic limitations such as small sample size 
     and possible recall bias mean that further study is required 
     to confirm this apparent link.
       Based on several occupational studies outside of Vietnam, 
     the report also added acute, transient peripheral neuropathy 
     lasting weeks, months, or longer to the list of health 
     effects for which there is limited or suggestive evidence of 
     an association with herbicide exposure.
       Other diseases classified in this category in the first IOM 
     report included prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, and 
     respiratory cancers (of the lung, larynx, or trachea), and 
     the new report reconfirmed those findings. Studies completed 
     since the first report resulted in a reclassification of the 
     evidence linking porphyria cutanea tarda and herbicide 
     exposure from ``sufficient'' to ``suggestive.'' New studies 
     also prompted the committee to downgrade the classification 
     of skin cancer from ``suggestive'' to ``insufficient evidence 
     of an association.''


                         A Question of Exposure

       Unlike the other findings of the IOM report, the 
     conclusions about an apparent link between spina bifida and 
     herbicide exposure were based on studies of Vietnam veterans. 
     However, most of the evidence reviewed by the committee about 
     possible health effects from exposure to the herbicides used 
     in Vietnam came from studies of people who were exposed to 
     these chemicals either on the job or in industrial accidents.
       Tollerud noted that a severe lack of information about the 
     exposure levels of individual troops hindered the IOM 
     committee's ability to assess the herbicide-related health 
     risks faced by Vietnam veterans.
       ``Except for particular groups, such as those involved in 
     Operation Ranch Hand and other groups directly involved in 
     spraying operations, information on the extent of herbicide 
     exposure among veterans is virtually nonexistent--and this 
     limits how far we can interpret data [from studies of 
     nonveterans] with respect to the veterans themselves,'' he 
     said.
       The majority of experts on the IOM committee agreed that 
     it's not currently possible to quantify the degree of risk to 
     Vietnam veterans from exposure to herbicides and dioxin. 
     However, two committee members, Bryan Langholz, PhD, and 
     Malcolm Pike, PhD, both of the University of Southern 
     California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine, said that 
     studies indicate that measuring trace levels of dioxin, which 
     lingers in the body for years, and extrapolating backward 
     could provide a useful measure of a veteran's original 
     exposure.
       If this method provides such a valid estimate--an 
     assumption that many experts on the committee dispute--
     studies that measure blood levels of the chemical in Vietnam 
     veterans would suggest that most veterans, particularly those 
     who did not participate in herbicide spraying, were not 
     exposed to very high levels of the chemicals, said Langholz.
       Scientists hope that ongoing and future research efforts 
     will help reduce some of the uncertainty about exposure 
     levels of veterans. One possibility is the development of 
     historical exposure reconstruction models, which involves 
     combining existing data on such factors as the paths flown by 
     airplanes involved in herbicide spraying with information on 
     specific troop movements and meteorological conditions when 
     spraying occurred, to determine levels of exposure of 
     veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs and the IOM are 
     working together to solicit research proposals for such 
     studies, said Tollerud.
       Another area that still needs to be addressed is the 
     possible health effects of herbicide exposure in the women 
     who served in the Vietnam War, particularly potential 
     reproductive effects and diseases that are usually or only 
     seen in women, such as breast cancer and cancers of the 
     female reproductive organs. The Department of Veterans 
     Affairs is currently identifying and enrolling such women in 
     studies to examine this issue.
       ``We hope that by the time the review process comes around 
     in 2 years that there will be new information to address the 
     gaps in knowledge that we now have about [herbicide-related] 
     health effects in these women,'' said Tollerud.
       Prepublication copies of Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 
     1996 are available from the National Academy Press by 
     telephone (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (Washington, DC, 
     metropolitan area). The report's executive summary is 
     available on the World Wide Web at http://www.nap.edu/nap/
 online/veterans/.

  Mr. KERRY. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as mandated by the 1991 
law, initiated a comprehensive review of the 1996 NAS report and made 
consequent policy recommendations to the President. Subsequently, in 
May, President Clinton announced that the administration would propose 
legislation to aid Vietnam veterans' children who suffer from the 
disease spina bifida.
  Our amendment fulfills that commitment by recognizing and accepting 
responsibility for one of the serious health care needs of veterans' 
families that the preponderance of evidence suggests stems from the 
tragic effects of agent orange.
  Since 1985, Vietnam veterans have been eligible for free health care 
from

[[Page S9895]]

the Veterans Administration for conditions that are related to exposure 
to agent orange. Veterans' disability compensation has been awarded to 
veterans affected by several agent orange-related illnesses including 
non-Hodgkins lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, Hodgkin's disease, 
chloracne, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma, and, most recently, 
prostate cancers and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy.
  There are those who will stand before us today and argue that there 
is not enough credible evidence to make a positive association between 
exposure of a veteran to agent orange and the occurrence of spina 
bifida in that veteran's children, and that, accordingly, there are not 
sufficient grounds to add it to the list of conditions I have just 
mentioned. I will say again today what I said first back in May 1988, 
and repeated just last month:

       It is offensive to veterans to tell them that there is not 
     enough ``scientific evidence'' to justify compensation . . . 
     The evidence is in their own bodies, and even worse, in the 
     bodies of their children.

  Both the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse 
Brown, have asked that spina bifida in veterans' offspring be 
considered service connected. If we do not act on this proposal today, 
we may not be able to do so this Congress. It will be pushed aside 
because of the tight schedule due to the election cycle this year. For 
30 years many issues surrounding Vietnam have been put aside to be 
dealt with another day by different people. Mr. President, we cannot 
let this continue--we must act today and allow the pain to be eased for 
the children and their families who are suffering. This bill will grant 
the VA the necessary means to finally start providing needed care to 
these children who carry the scars of a war they never saw or fought.
  I know that there is still controversy about the effects of agent 
orange. There may always be controversy, just as there may always be 
controversy about the Vietnam war itself. We as adults know that most 
frustrating of all this world's realities: there are some things we as 
human beings can never know for certain and which, therefore, always 
will be controversial. But we must set aside the controversy--or put it 
behind us--to enable suffering children to receive the care and 
treatment they need when responsible, intelligent people acting in good 
faith can look back and discern the source of that suffering.
  This is not just a theoretical concern to me, Mr. President. There 
are real human beings in my State of Massachusetts who are among the 
American veterans and family members whose lives have been effected by 
spina bifida.
  I want to compliment the Democratic leader for his tenacious, 
exemplary leadership on this difficult issue. He has struggled 
valiantly to secure fair treatment for those who sacrificed so greatly 
for our Nation by their service in Vietnam. I thank him for permitting 
me to join him in bringing this amendment before the Senate today.
  I also want to commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, 
Senator Rockefeller, the former chairman of the Veterans Affairs 
Committee who now serves as its ranking Democrat. I hope the veterans 
of our Nation, those who served in Vietnam and those who served in 
other conflicts, realize what kind of friend--but, more importantly, 
what kind of effective advocate--they have in Jay Rockefeller. His work 
and the work of his staff on this legislation were crucial, and I 
express my appreciation to them.
  Mr. President, we must not permit our inaction or our lack of 
absolute certitude to make some of the children of our Vietnam veterans 
the last victims of the Vietnam war. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am a co-sponsor of the amendment offered 
by the distinguished Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle. This 
amendment, which is supported by the Vietnam Veterans of America and 
the American Legion, attempts to address a very painful legacy of the 
Vietnam conflict. It provides comprehensive health care and a very 
modest monetary allowance to the children of Vietnam veterans who 
suffer from spina bifida as a result of their fathers' exposure to the 
chemical defoliant Agent Orange during the the Vietnam conflict over 
twenty years ago.
  Mr. President, the history of Agent Orange exposure has been sad, 
even shameful. After the Vietnam conflict, as veterans suffered, 
administration after administration failed to aggressively investigate 
the cause of their illnesses. Now, some twenty-two years after the end 
of the conflict, additional medical conditions are still being linked 
to exposure to Agent Orange. Just this spring, prostate cancer and 
peripheral neuropathy were added to the list.
  For twenty-two years, the genetic legacy of Agent Orange exposure has 
been denied, although reproductive disorders and birth defects in their 
children have been among the Vietnam veterans' greatest Agent Orange-
related health concerns. A congressionally-required National Academy of 
Sciences report of March, 1996, cited new evidence of a link between 
Agent Orange exposure and the occurrence of spina bifida in the 
children of exposed veterans. While not conclusive, the evidence 
persuaded the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to propose legislation to 
provide for these unfortunate children.

  This amendment is necessary because, while the Department of Veterans 
Affairs has recommended that spina bifida in Vietnam veterans' children 
be recognized as service-connected, the VA does not have the authority 
to extend health care or other benefits to children of veterans. 
Separate legislation authorizing this service connection, which Senator 
Daschle introduced in July with my support, is unlikely to be passed in 
the limited time remaining in this Congress.
  Mr. President, spina bifida is a crippling birth defect caused by the 
improper development of the vertebrae or spinal cord, resulting in 
varying degrees of paralysis of the lower limbs. The damage is 
permanent and incurable. Treatment includes surgery, medication, 
physiotherapy, and the use of assistive devices like braces, crutches, 
or wheelchairs. These are not conditions that are outgrown; spina 
bifida victims must learn to control and live with these dysfunctions. 
Ongoing therapy, medical care, and/or surgical treatments are necessary 
to prevent and manage complications throughout an individual's life.
  These children are the hidden victims of the Vietnam conflict. They 
are the sad legacy of war, an uncounted and unwanted cost of conflict. 
As a nation, as a Congress, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars 
preparing for and conducting military operations. We are profligate 
spenders on the front end of a military operation--nothing is too good 
for the troops, and you can't have too much of a good thing.
  But when it comes to the tail end of a military operation, the 
aftermath of conflict, we become parsimonious and begrudging. We 
provided for the veterans of the Vietnam conflict, but only after years 
of study and review. We have been even slower to address these 
secondary casualties, the children with spina bifida.
  Mr. President, there is considerable reluctance to admit to the 
delayed costs of conflict, let alone to plan and budget for these 
costs. If we required veterans' health care and compensation to be 
included in our cost estimates before we began a military operation, we 
might think twice about committing our troops. And if we acknowledge 
the potential effect of military operations and the exposure to 
hazardous materials on the next generation, as I believe we should, 
these cost estimates can only rise.
  I am glad that, finally, the government is meeting its responsibility 
to provide for the Vietnam veterans children with spina bifida. They 
are casualties of war as surely as if they were hit by a bullet. I am 
only sorry that it took so very long, and that we cannot do more.

  In the Vietnam conflict, there was agent orange. In the Persian Gulf, 
there now exists the possibility that U.S. troops were exposed to 
chemical warfare agents, which can also cause birth defects. I offered 
an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would have provided 
health care for the children of Persian Gulf veterans who have birth 
defects or catastrophic illnesses while research is conducted to 
investigate the possible link between these childrens' conditions and 
their parents' possible exposure to chemical warfare agents or other 
hazardous materials.

[[Page S9896]]

  I asked that these poor children and their families be given the 
benefit of the doubt, that they not face the same long and difficult 
road traveled by the Vietnam veterans and their children. Some argued 
that I have attempted to set a bad precedent in providing health care 
before the science has been conducted to prove the link between cause 
and effect. Well, I would rather be accused of an excess of compassion 
than its dearth. It has been 5 years, and no research has been 
conducted. Under $30 million a year is needed to care for these 
children, and to provide relief to these families. Of the hundreds of 
billions spent each year on the military establishment, I do not find 
$30 million an excessive amount to treat the smallest and weakest of 
our military families. Similarly, the price tag associated with 
providing for the children with spina bifida is modest. It is not an 
economic hardship to address our responsibility to these children.

  Before each conflict, we talk about what national security interests 
are at stake. Mr. President, if our children, our future generation, 
are not our most vital national security interest, then what have we 
fought for? Hazardous exposures have long been associated with the 
battlefield, but now that science can confirm that such exposures 
affect our children and our future, we must not shirk from 
acknowledging our responsibility. In the Gospel of Mark, we are 
reminded of the Lord's words: ``suffer the little children to come unto 
me, and forbid them not: for such is the kingdom of God.'' Senator 
Daschle has offered an amendment that would address the health care 
needs of the children who are the innocent victims of the Vietnam 
conflict, and in doing so, he brings us all a little closer to the 
kingdom of God. I commend Senator Daschle for his compassion and his 
effort on the behalf of these children. I am a cosponsor of this 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle. 
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. President, many statements have been made here on the Senate 
floor over the years about the need to honor the debt we owe our 
Nation's veterans. If there ever was a nonpartisan issue, it is the 
need to keep the promises we made to those who sacrificed by defending 
this great Nation and the principles it stands for.
  We have a long and proud history of compensating our veterans for 
injuries and wounds they sustained in combat situations. Millions of 
veterans have had to endure sickness, disability, and even paralysis as 
a result of their military service and we must continue to ensure that 
there is adequate funding for research as well as for the facilities 
and medical care needed to care for these men and women.
  During the course of the Vietnam war, thousands of our service 
personnel who returned from Southeast Asia were stricken with ailments 
associated with exposure to the chemical herbicide known as agent 
orange. After years of pressure from veterans organizations and 
distinguished Americans such as Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, Jr., the former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Government finally began to 
provide health care and other important benefits to veterans suffering 
from exposure to agent orange.
  That is why Vietnam veterans have been eligible for free VA health 
care for agent orange-related conditions since 1985 and that is why 
disability compensation has been provided to Vietnam veterans for 
ailments that are believed to be directly related to exposure to agent 
orange such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and respiratory cancers.
  Today, I join the distinguished minority leader in offering the U.S. 
Senate an opportunity to make another down payment on that often talked 
about debt that we owe our veterans. The amendment that we are offering 
today will extend health care and related benefits, including a monthly 
monetary allowance, to the children of Vietnam veterans suffering from 
spina bifida.
  Spina bifida is a neural tube birth defect that requires lifelong 
care. As has already been pointed out, a recent report from the 
National Academy of Sciences has provided new evidence demonstrating a 
link between the occurrence of spina bifida in the children of veterans 
to a veteran's exposure to agent orange and other toxic herbicides in 
Vietnam. In light of the empirical data that does indeed demonstrate a 
correlation, I believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to 
ensure that these children receive the necessary medical care to treat 
this ailment.
  We will surely hear criticism today on the Senate floor that this 
legislation will create another entitlement program that the Government 
cannot afford. Mr. President, this Nation made a decision long ago that 
our courageous service members were entitled to certain benefits, most 
importantly access to quality medical care for health problems that 
arise as either a direct or indirect result of their service to this 
country. We are talking about innocent children here, who have been 
stricken with a serious, disabling condition as a result of their 
father's service in Vietnam. Is there definitive proof of this? No. Is 
there a strong likelihood that this is the case? Yes, and so long as 
the evidence suggests such a correlation exists, we must continue to 
fulfill our obligation to our veterans and their families.
  I am also pleased that this legislation is fully funded with a cost 
offset. By reforming the Gardner decision--a move that even the major 
veterans organizations recognize needs to be made --this legislation is 
fully paid for with additional savings being dedicated to reducing the 
Federal budget deficit.
  Mr. President, this legislation has the strong backing of a number of 
organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Spina Bifida Association of 
America, and the Clinton administration. I want to commend the 
Democratic leader for his longstanding leadership on this and other 
issues important to our Nation's veterans. Our veterans have fulfilled 
their commitment to this Nation, and we must fulfill our commitment to 
them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the amendment 
offered by the minority leader to the VA/HUD appropriation bill. This 
amendment would authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide 
comprehensive medical care, vocational training benefits, and 
compensation benefits for certain children of Vietnam veterans who are 
born with spina bifida.
  The proponents of the amendment offer an emotional argument. I am 
very concerned about those who suffer from this condition. I recognize 
that these children and their families face many challenges and 
financial burdens.
  The issue before us, however, is not whether spina bifida is or isn't 
a horrible condition. No Senator would argue otherwise. I am confident 
that each of us has compassion for the children and their families. As 
a veteran myself, I have been an ardent supporter of our Armed Forces 
and veterans. I have voted in favor of benefits for all veterans, 
including those exposed to agent orange and Persian Gulf war veterans.
  What this body must determine, is what legislation is appropriate at 
this time. I do have concerns about this amendment, as it is offered on 
this appropriations measure.
  Historically, benefits for dependents of veterans have been based on 
the death or disability of the veteran. This amendment would, for the 
first time, authorize VA to provide benefits to a person not a veteran 
based on a possible relationship between that individual's disability 
and a veteran's service. The committee of jurisdiction should carefully 
consider such an unprecedented extension. However, no such hearings 
have occurred to fully examine the consequences of extending benefits. 
Therefore, I consider this amendment to be premature.
  Under this amendment, children of veterans would be provided 
comprehensive medical care. The Veterans' Affairs Committee recently 
approved an extensive overhaul of eligibility rules and priorities for 
health care. Under that legislation, veterans would be enrolled into 
the VA health care system, with a cap on total health care 
expenditures. The extension of medical care to dependents of veterans 
will result in a decrease of medical care to veterans.

[[Page S9897]]

  Next, the amendment provides for vocational training benefits and for 
compensation. Under the proposed framework, the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs would pay a monthly stipend, based on the level of disability. 
These benefits would not be paid out of discretionary funds, but, as a 
new entitlement program, are considered mandatory spending. Because it 
would affect direct spending, a spending offset will be required. 
Again, the Veterans' Affairs Committee would be required to pay for 
this new entitlement to dependents of veterans, of unknown costs, by 
reducing benefits established for veterans. I believe that creating a 
new entitlement on this appropriation measure is inappropriate.
  Finally, I have reservations regarding the underlying merits of the 
study on which the amendment is based. In short, the science is 
inconclusive. The Institute of Medicine stated the study shows limited/
suggestive evidence of an association between exposure to herbicides 
and spina bifida. The principal investigator of the primary study on 
this issue testified earlier this year before a House committee that 
the study is inadequate to establish a cause and effect relationship. 
The VA task force that reviewed the Institute of Medicine report noted 
that scientific questions remain. Because scientific questions remain, 
it would be prudent to further study and resolve all open issues before 
embarking on a new entitlement program that would take away from 
existing veterans' benefits.
  Mr. President, because this amendment is premature, is inappropriate 
for an appropriation bill, and is based on inconclusive science, I will 
not vote to amend the VA-HUD appropriations bill as proposed by the 
amendment. Again, I emphasize my support for veterans, my concern and 
care for the children with spina bifida and their families. I am sure 
the Congress will continue to review this issue and address the open 
questions in a more appropriate forum.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Daschle's 
amendment. I join such groups as the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans 
of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans in 
supporting this effort initiated by the President and spearheaded in 
the Senate by the minority leader.
  Senator Daschle's amendment seeks to help the innocent victims of a 
war fought long ago. Just as there are lingering psychological wounds 
from the war, there are veterans and their families who struggle with 
the lingering physical impacts every day. This amendment will provide 
health care and benefits to children of Vietnam veterans who suffer 
from spina bifida, believed to be caused by their fathers being sprayed 
with agent orange.
  I have a long record of fighting for our Nation's veterans. I have 
fought for adequate health care and benefits funding as both the chair 
and ranking member of the VA-HUD Subcommittee.
  I've fought to ensure vets receive quality of service and effective 
and accessible VA facilities. I also worked to make sure the VA 
provided the services especially appropriate for women veterans.
  I am determined that we never forget America's veterans. They fought 
to protect Western civilization, preserve freedom, and defend 
democratic governments. They fought overseas to protect those of us at 
home.
  I am determined that promises made must be promises kept. We must say 
thanks to vets with concrete actions, not just flowery rhetoric. Medals 
are nice, but the Nation has a responsibility to help veterans who 
risked their lives and returned home to find their lives and the lives 
of their children changed forever.
  The minority's leader's amendment reminds us that many Vietnam vets 
were exposed to agent orange. A March 1996 National Academy of Sciences 
report noted that exposure to that substance may cause spina bifida in 
veterans' children.
  The VA estimates that up to 2,000 children of Vietnam era veterans 
may be impacted. This amendment ensures that they would be provided 
appropriate health care and monthly benefits.
  And furthermore, this amendment is paid for. The minority leader's 
amendment includes an offset that more than covers the anticipated cost 
of these expanded benefits.
  While some would say this is an issue that can wait, and calls for 
further study, I say we really should not wait. We must not forget that 
spina bifida is an incurable disease that isn't going away for those 
affected. Those kids cannot wait one more year, for one more study. It 
may be easy for some of us to forget the war, or not to quite remember 
the war. For all of those who like to go into parades and talk about 
what they want to do to help the veterans, I believe that for many 
veterans who served in Vietnam, one of the ways we can show our respect 
is to make sure that children who have birth defects because of what 
their fathers were exposed to in Vietnam are protected. That is what 
the vets would like. They fought a war. We can call it a war. We should 
call it a war, and we should remember that. Yes, they want the GI 
benefits and, yes, they appreciate the VA medical care. But I know of 
no Vietnam vet that would not be proud of the fact that we looked out 
for their children.
  There is concern about the study. Some say the linkage between agent 
orange and spina bifida for children of the vets is too skimpy. But I 
want to bring out the fact that the law that was passed related to 
agent orange says that there only need be a positive association, not a 
definitively determined cause and effect.
  So the National Academy of Sciences shows that there is a positive 
association between agent orange and these children who have spina 
bifida. That is what Senator Daschle is standing on. We support him. We 
are supported by the VA and so many other groups. I hope when the 
Democratic leader offers his amendment, it is one of those that passes 
99 to 0. We really don't need to make the children of Vietnam veterans 
subject of a heated debate on the floor. That outlines my thoughts in 
the area. If there is substantial debate, I anticipate that I may 
participate even further on this. I hope my colleagues will give this 
very serious consideration.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are waiting for somebody to offer an 
amendment. We have heard that people are on the way. We would like to 
get the amendments offered. We have a limited list. If there are any 
who have amendments on which a vote might be needed, we ask them to 
contact the floor and come forward. We would like to move forward. I 
hope we can get time agreements and finish up the bill this evening. 
But at this juncture we are depending upon the Members who wish to 
offer amendments. I invite any and all of them to come forward.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, earlier today we were worrying about 
whether we could get a 4-hour time agreement to limit debate on the 
amendment that the minority leader is going to offer. There was a good 
couple of hours, 2\1/2\ hours, of debate, and the amendment has not 
been offered. We are open to do business.
  If anybody has arguments for or against it, I would invite him or her 
to come present those arguments. I understand the minority leader is 
temporarily involved in another hearing and has not been able to 
present his amendment. There is no amendment pending.
  We welcome anyone who wants to discuss the bill or discuss amendments 
which they will offer. This is the prime time of day when we ought to 
be doing the business of the Senate. This is the third day we have been 
on this bill. The ranking member and I have been here, ready and 
willing to move forward. We are running short of time in this 
legislative session, and we have this and a number of other very 
important measures to conclude.
  So I make an earnest plea to people on both sides of the aisle who 
want to talk about this bill, or particular issues, to come forward and 
do so, please. Let us use the time of the Senate productively. We are 
here. We are ready. We are waiting to do business. We welcome such 
views and such enlightenment as our colleagues would wish to share with 
us.

[[Page S9898]]

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________