[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 125 (Thursday, September 23, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11347-S11354]
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, 2000--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2684) making appropriations for the 
     Departments 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, 2000, and for other purposes.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask the majority leader, was that a 
unanimous consent order that the only amendments in order are the ones 
that were read off?
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct. It did say, of course, relevant second-
degree amendments would be in order. I believe we only have a half 
dozen or so amendments we have to consider. I hope most of them can be 
handled without recorded votes. It does appear there would be a 
necessity for as many as two recorded votes, maybe three, tomorrow. If 
the Senators cooperate, I think we can be through with this bill

[[Page S11348]]

and all amendments before noon tomorrow.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 1789

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that lung cancer, colon 
cancer, and brain and central nervous system cancer should be presumed 
      to be service-connected disabilities as radiogenic diseases)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1789.

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

       On page 17, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. 108. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) One of the most outrageous examples of the failure of 
     the Federal Government to honor its obligations to veterans 
     involves the so-called ``atomic veterans'', patriotic 
     Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and 
     Nagasaki and at nuclear test sites.
       (2) For more than 50 years, many atomic veterans have been 
     denied veterans compensation for diseases, known as 
     radiogenic diseases, that the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     recognizes as being linked to exposure to radiation. Many of 
     these diseases are lethal forms of cancer.
       (3) The Department of Veterans Affairs almost invariably 
     denies the claims for compensation of atomic veterans on the 
     grounds that the radiation doses received by such veterans 
     were too low to result in radiogenic disease, even though 
     many scientists and former Under Secretary for Health Kenneth 
     Kizer agree that the dose reconstruction analyses conducted 
     by the Department of Defense are unreliable.
       (4) Although the Department of Veterans Affairs already has 
     a list of radiogenic diseases that are presumed to be 
     service-connected, the Department omits three diseases--lung 
     cancer, colon cancer, and central nervous system cancer--from 
     that list, notwithstanding the agreement of scientists that 
     the evidence of a link between the three diseases and low-
     level exposure to radiation is very convincing and, in many 
     cases, is stronger than the evidence of a link between such 
     exposure and other radiogenic diseases currently on that 
     list.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     lung cancer, colon cancer, and brain and central nervous 
     system cancer should be added to the list of radiogenic 
     diseases that are presumed by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs to be service-connected disabilities.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment that speaks to the frustrating and infuriating 
obstacles that have too often kept veterans who were exposed to 
radiation during military service from getting the disability 
compensation they deserve. This amendment would put the senate on 
record as being in favor of adding three radiogenic conditions to the 
list of presumptively service-connected diseases for which atomic 
veterans may receive VA compensation, specifically: lung cancer, colon 
cancer; and tumors of the brain and central nervous system. It is based 
on a bill I introduced during the last Congress S. 1385, the Justice 
for Atomic Veterans Act.
  But before I speak on the merits of this amendment, I'd like to talk 
about the frustrating and infuriating obstacles that have beset this 
amendment in the Senate. I offered an amendment to make the needed 
change in the law on S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors;', Airmen's, and 
Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. It was accepted and adopted by the 
Senate by voice vote. When it became clear that S. 4 was dead on 
arrival in the house, I offered this amendment to the Defense 
Department authorization bill. Again, the amendment was accepted, but 
it was stripped out in conference. I mention the history of this 
amendment to my colleagues in the belief that what was acceptable to 
the Senate three months ago will be acceptable today. But to put my 
colleagues on notice that this time I am going to insist on a roll call 
vote and to make it clear that I will be back to offer the actual 
amendment as many times as I have to so that justice can be done by the 
atomic veteran.
  I believe that the way we treat our veterans does send an important 
message to young people considering service in the military. When 
veterans of the Persian Gulf war don't get the kind of treatment they 
deserve, when the VA health care budget loses out year after year to 
other budget priorities, when veterans benefits claims take years and 
years to resolve, what is the message we are sending to future 
recruits?
  How can we attract and retain young people in the service when our 
government fails to honor its obligation to provide just compensation 
and health care for those injured during service?
  One of the most outrageous examples of our government's failure to 
honor its obligations to veterans involves ``atomic veterans,'' 
patriotic Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki and at atmospheric nuclear tests.
  For more than 50 years, many of them have been denied compensation 
for diseases that the VA recognizes as being linked to their exposure 
to radiation--diseases known as radiogenic diseases. Many of these 
diseases are lethal forms of cancers. I'm sure many of my colleagues 
have seen the recent headlines about the exposure of workers at the 
nuclear plant in Paducah, Kentucky. The story of the atomic veteran is 
very much the same.
  I received my first introduction to the plight of atomic veterans 
from some first-rate mentors, the members of the Forgotten 216th. The 
Forgotten 216th was the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S. 
Army, which participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper. Operation 
Tumbler Snapper was a series of eight atmospheric nuclear weapons tests 
in the Nevada desert in 1952.
  About half of the members of the 216th were Minnesotans. What I've 
learned from them, from other atomic veterans, and from their survivors 
has shaped my views on this issue.
  Five years ago, the Forgotten 216th contacted me after then-Secretary 
of Energy O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had conducted 
radiation experiments on its own citizens. For the first time in 
public, they revealed what went on during the Nevada tests and the 
tragedies and trauma that they, their families, and their former 
buddies had experienced since then.
  Because their experiences and problems typify those of atomic 
veterans nationwide, I'd like to tell my colleagues a little more about 
the Forgotten 216th. When you hear their story, I think you have to 
agree that the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them must never 
be forgotten again.
  Members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near ground 
zero immediately after a nuclear blast. They were exposed to so much 
radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they 
inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given minimal or 
no protection. They frequently had no film badges to measure radiation 
exposure. They were given no information on the perils they faced.
  Then they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear 
tests. They were often denied access to their own service medical 
records. And they were provided no medical follow-up.
  For decades, atomic veterans have been America's most neglected 
veterans. They have been deceived and treated shabbily by the 
government they served so selflessly and unquestioningly.
  If the U.S. Government can't be counted on to honor its obligation to 
these deserving veterans, how can young people interested in the 
military service have any confidence that their government will do any 
better by them?
  Mr. President, I believe the neglect of atomic veterans should stop 
here and now. Our government has a long overdue debt to these patriotic 
Americans, a debt that we in the Senate must help to repay. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help repay this debt by 
supporting this amendment.
  My legislation and this amendment have enjoyed the strong support 
of veterans service organizations. Recently, the Independent Budget for 
FY 2000, which is a budget recommendation issued by AMVETS, Disabled 
American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), endorsed adding these radiogenic 
diseases to VA's presumptive service-connected list.

[[Page S11349]]

  Let me briefly describe the problem that my amendment is intended to 
address. When atomic veterans try to claim VA compensation for their 
illnesses, VA almost invariably denies their claims. VA tells these 
veterans that their radiation doses were too low--below 5 rems.
  But the fact is, we don't really know that and, even if we did, 
that's no excuse for denying these claims. The result of this 
unrealistic standard is that it is almost impossible for these atomic 
veterans to prove their case. The only solution is to add these 
conditions to the VA presumptive service-connected list, and that's 
what my amendment does.
  First of all, trying to go back and determine the precise dosage each 
of these veterans was exposed to is a futile undertaking. Scientists 
agree that the dose reconstruction performed for the VA is notoriously 
unreliable.
  GAO itself has noted the inherent uncertainties of dose 
reconstruction. Even VA scientific personnel have conceded its 
unreliability. In a memo to VA Secretary Togo West, Under Secretary for 
Health Kenneth Kizer has recommended that the VA reconsider its 
opposition to S. 1385 based, in part, on the unreliability of dose 
reconstruction.
  In addition, none of the scientific experts who testified at a Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on S. 1385 on April 21, 1998, 
supported the use of dose reconstruction to determine eligibility for 
VA benefits.
  Let me explain why dose reconstruction is so difficult. Dr. Marty 
Gensler on my staff has researched this issue for over five years, and 
this is what he has found.
  Many atomic veterans were sent to ground zero immediately after a 
nuclear test with no protection, no information on the known dangers 
they faced, no badges or other monitoring equipment, and no medical 
follow up.
  As early as 1946, ranking military and civilian personnel responsible 
for nuclear testing anticipated claims for service-connected disability 
and sought to ensure that ``no successful suits could be brought on 
account of radiological hazards.'' That quotation comes from documents 
declassified by the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation 
Experiments.
  The VA, during this period, maintained classified records 
``essential'' to evaluating atomic veterans' claims, but these records 
were unavailable to veterans themselves.
  Atomic veterans were sworn to secrecy and were denied access to their 
own service and medical records for many years, effectively barring 
pursuit of compensation claims.
  It's partly as a result of these missing or incomplete records that 
so many people have doubts about the validity of dose reconstructions 
for atomic veterans, some of which are performed more than fifty years 
after exposure.
  Even if these veterans' exposure was less than 5 rems, which is the 
standard use by VA, this standard is not based on uncontested science. 
In 1994, for example, GAO stated: ``A low level dose has been estimated 
to be somewhere below 10 rems [but] it is not known for certain whether 
doses below this level are detrimental to public health.''
  Despite persistent doubts about VA's and DoD's dose reconstruction, 
and despite doubts about the science on which VA's 5 rem standard is 
based, these dose reconstructions are used to bar veterans from 
compensation for disabling radiogenic conditions.
  The effects of this standard have been devastating. A little over two 
years ago the VA estimated that less than 50 claims for non-presumptive 
diseases had been approved out of over 18,000 radiation claims filed.
  Atomic veterans might as well not even bother. Their chances of 
obtaining compensation are negligible.
  It is impossible for many atomic veterans and their survivors to be 
given ``the benefit of the doubt'' by the VA while their claims hinge 
on the dubious accuracy and reliability of dose reconstruction and the 
health effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation remain 
uncertain.
  This problem can be fixed. The reason atomic veterans have to go 
through this reconstruction at all is that the diseases listed in my 
amendment are not presumed to be service-connected. That's the real 
problem.
  VA already has a list of service-connected diseases that are presumed 
service-connected, but these are not on it.
  This makes no sense. Scientists agree that there is at least as 
strong a link between radiation exposure and these diseases as there is 
to the other diseases on that VA list.
  Mr. President, you might ask why I've included these three diseases 
in particular--lung cancer; colon cancer; and tumors of the brain and 
central nervous system--in my amendment. The reason is very simple. The 
best, most current, scientific evidence available justifies their 
inclusion. A paper entitled ``Risk Estimates for Radiation Exposure'' 
by John D. Boice, Jr., of the National Cancer Institute, published in 
1996 as part of a larger work called Health Effects of Exposure to Low-
Level Ionizing Radiation, includes a table which rates human cancers by 
the strength of the evidence linking them to exposure to low levels of 
ionizing radiation. According to this study, the evidence of a link for 
lung cancer is ``very strong''--the highest level of confidence--and 
the evidence of a link for colon and brain and central nervous system 
cancers is ``convincing''--the next highest level of confidence. So I 
believe I can say with a great deal of certainty, Mr. President, that 
science is on the side of this amendment.

  Last year, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee reported out a 
version of S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act, which included 
three diseases to be added to the VAs presumptive list. Two of those 
diseases, lung cancer and brain and central nervous system cancer, I 
have included in my amendment. The third disease included in the 
reported bill was ovarian cancer. Mr. President, I'd like to explain 
why I substituted colon cancer for ovarian cancer. It is true that the 
1996 study I just cited states that the evidence of a linkage for 
ovarian cancer to low level ionizing radiation is ``convincing,'' just 
as it is for colon cancer. But Mr. President, there are no female 
atomic veterans. The effect of creating a presumption of service 
connection for ovarian cancer is basically no effect--because no one 
could take advantage of it. However, the impact of adding colon cancer 
as a presumption for atomic veterans is significant; atomic veterans 
will be able to take advantage of that presumption.
  The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments 
agreed in 1995 that VA's current list should be expanded. The Committee 
cited concerns that ``the listing of diseases for which relief is 
automatically provided--the presumptive diseases provided for by the 
1988 law--is incomplete and inadequate'' and that ``the standard of 
proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet and, 
given the questionable condition of the exposure records retained by 
the government, inappropriate.'' The President's Advisory Committee 
urged Congress to address the concerns of atomic veterans and their 
families ``promptly.''
  The unfair treatment of atomic veterans becomes especially clear when 
compared to both agent orange and Persian Gulf veterans. In 
recommending that the administration support S. 1385, Under Secretary 
for Health Kenneth Kizer cited the indefensibility of denying 
presumptive service connection for atomic veterans in light of the 
presumption for Persian Gulf war veterans and agent orange veterans.
  In 1993, the VA decided to make lung cancer presumptively service-
connected for agent orange veterans. That decision was based on a 
National Academy of Sciences study that had found a link only where 
agent orange exposures were ``high and prolonged,'' but pointed out 
there was only a ``limited'' capability to determine individual 
exposures.
  For atomic veterans, however, lung cancer continues to be non-
presumptive. In short, the issue of exposure levels poses an almost 
insurmountable obstacle to approval of claims by atomic veterans, while 
the same problem is ignored for agent orange veterans.
  Persian Gulf war veterans can receive compensation for symptoms or 
illnesses that may be linked to their service in the Persian Gulf, at 
least until scientists reach definitive conclusions about the etiology 
of their health problems. Unfortunately, atomic veterans aren't given 
the same consideration or benefit of the doubt.

[[Page S11350]]

  Mr. President, I believe this state of affairs is outrageous and 
unjust. The struggle of atomic veterans for justice has been long, 
hard, and frustrating. But these patriotic, dedicated and deserving 
veterans have persevered. My amendment would finally provide them the 
justice that they so much deserve.
  Let me say this in closing, Mr. President: As I have worked with 
veterans and military personnel during my time in the Senate, I have 
seen a troubling erosion of the federal government's credibility with 
current and former service members. No salary is high enough, no 
pension big enough to compensate our troops for the dangers they endure 
while defending our country. Such heroism stems from love for America's 
sacred ideals of freedom and democracy and the belief that the nation's 
gratitude is not limited by fiscal convenience but reflects a debt of 
honor.
  Mr. President, this is one of those issues which test our faith in 
our government. But the Senate can take an important step in righting 
this injustice. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
join me in helping atomic veterans win their struggle by supporting by 
supporting my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Minnesota 
for his persistence and consistent advocacy for a group that is now 
called the atomic vets. He is absolutely right when he says that every 
year he offers the amendment and then, because of the pressures of 
conference, it evaporates. First of all, the atomic vets have no finer 
champion than the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone.
  From my perspective I support him. Tomorrow, when the call of the 
roll is made, I will be voting aye.
  Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Minnesota for his eloquent 
comments within the timeframe that enabled Senators to move on to other 
responsibilities. I really appreciate his courtesy.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her support. I 
am honored to have her support. I know the atomic veterans thank her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we know how strongly the Senator from 
Minnesota feels about this. He has been a very forceful and persuasive 
advocate. We do recognize that because of the rule under which the 
Senator is proceeding, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. We have 
turned back to the authorizing committees the job of authorizing. It 
seems rather traditional to do it that way. I know the Senator wants to 
make this point. We thank him very much for putting it in the form of a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the state of the Union is strong. Our 
country's overall economy is at an all time high, unemployment is at 
the lowest it has been in years, education is rising, and American 
homeownership is increasing. Despite all of these factors, our nation--
and rural America in particular--is in the midst of an affordable 
housing shortage crisis. According to reports, 5.3 million Americans 
pay more than 50 percent in their annual income to rent or living in 
substandard conditions. This is unacceptable for a society as wealthy 
as ours, and we must make real progress now to improve housing 
conditions for all Americans. I would like to take this opportunity to 
discuss two critically important housing assistance programs that are 
cut by the short-sighted funding levels in the fiscal year 2000 
(FY2000) VA-HUD Appropriations bill.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides 
Section 8 rental assistance to nearly three million families through 
Housing Certificate Funds, including vouchers, certificates, and 
project-based assistance. The VA-HUD Appropriations bill that we are 
discussing today provides $11 billion for the Housing Certificate 
Fund--which is $724 million more than the FY1999 level. While I am 
pleased that the VA-HUD bill ensures funding for all expiring Section 8 
contracts for FY2000, I am deeply disappointed that the bill does not 
attempt to meet the future need for housing assistance by including 
funding for an additional 100,000 vouchers.
  In my state of South Dakota, families in need of housing assistance 
spend an average of 9 months on a waiting list for current Section 8 
vouchers. Sadly, this is actually a better situation than most 
Americans face. More than 1 million Americans wait an average of 28 
months, or over two full years, for Section 8 assistance.
  The strong economy in South Dakota has contributed to a shortage of 
affordable housing in our larger cities. In many of our smaller towns, 
adequate housing is also at a premium. An additional 100,000 Section 8 
vouchers would mean that an additional 321 South Dakota families would 
receive Section 8 assistance. I urge my colleagues to adequately fund 
the proposal for 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers because the Section 8 
program, simply put, helps families find housing they can afford.
  Another housing program that has been extremely valuable for South 
Dakota and the nation is the Community Builder program. Community 
Builders have enabled HUD to take a much-needed customer-friendly 
approach to serving low-income Americans. In South Dakota, Community 
Builders are working with local governments and housing authorities to 
provide needed rental assistance statewide.
  Community Builders have also worked with the Northeastern Council of 
Governments in South Dakota to spread information to several 
northeastern counties on the services that HUD provides, and how to 
access these services. Community Builders have facilitated FHA loans 
for the construction of affordable homes in Rapid City, while also 
helping the Sioux Empire Housing Partnership become a HUD- approved 
housing counseling agency. The Community Builder program has begun to 
address the housing needs in historically underserved communities, many 
of which have never utilized HUD services in the past. One of my former 
staffers, Stephanie Helfrich, was a Community Builder Specialist for 
the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and her work has enabled tribal 
leaders to better utilize HUD's programs to the benefit of one of the 
most poor populations in the nation.
  In conclusion, I understand the strict budget constraints the 
committee faces in drafting this bill. While I support every effort to 
keep government spending low, I believe it is a wise investment in our 
country's future when we ensure that our working families have adequate 
housing. I will continue to work with my colleagues to find ways to 
help South Dakota families and families across the nation address their 
housing needs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, America is experiencing one of its most 
prosperous times, yet despite a booming national economy some 5.3 
million families are spending more than half of their income on housing 
or are living in severely substandard housing. In Hartford, Connecticut 
alone, there are 19,000 families suffering in worst case housing.
  Most distressing, more than one million elderly and over two million 
families with children face an affordable housing crisis.
  Recent data indicate that this trend is worsening as housing costs 
rise faster than the incomes of low-income working families, and the 
number of affordable public housing units drops. In fact, more than 2 
million public housing units were lost between 1973 and 1995, and the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development indicates that as many as 
1,000 more units are being lost each month.
  As a result, more than one million Americans languish on waiting 
lists for public housing or Section 8 vouchers. In Connecticut, the 
average time for waiting lists for public housing is 14 months and 
Section 8 vouchers is 41 months.
  Last year, Congress passed a significant measure to streamline many 
public housing programs and focus more resources on families most in 
need of assistance. This included almost 100,000 new Section 8 
vouchers. Tragically, the bill before us today provides no funding for 
these vouchers. In light of the tremendous need, and the gap that has 
grown in housing assistance over the past few years, providing fund for 
these new rental assistance vouchers is a modest, but crucial step.

[[Page S11351]]

  These vouchers are not a free ride--families still must pay at least 
30 percent of their incomes for rent. Without the vouchers, however, 
millions of working families and elderly citizens will be unable to 
secure affordable housing.
  Mr. President, I'd like to take a few additional moments to address 
another program of great importance. Under the leadership of Secretary 
Cuomo, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has made great 
strides to create a new, innovative approach to government through the 
Community Builders Program.
  Unfortunately, this appropriations bill would kill this initiative by 
terminating the 400 Community Builder fellows hired to serve in field 
offices around the country. This program is the first agency-run 
program in the Federal Government for experienced local professionals 
to perform short-term, public service in their communities. It 
represents a new way of thinking about government service and creates 
an opportunity to tap well-qualified talent in the community.
  Under the program, HUD recruits, hires and trains professional 
individuals--who have extensive backgrounds in community and economic 
development, and housing--to serve 2-4 years as community change agents 
in field offices. To date, 400 people have been hired.
  In Hartford, Connecticut, Community Builders have formed a 
partnership with state officials and national housing financial 
institutions to cross-train staff on the wide variety of housing 
finance programs and financing mechanisms available for the development 
of affordable housing. In addition, they have partnered with the 
Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, the 
Connecticut Housing Finance Agency, the National Equity Fund, the Local 
Initiatives Support Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Bank of 
Boston to improve coordination and ``layering'' of programs and 
delivery of services.
  These professionals bring a fresh perspective, the ability to think 
``outside the box,'' and creative outlook on housing and community 
development programs. Community Builders in Connecticut illustrate the 
diversified experience and knowledge brought to HUD operations with 
professional backgrounds in the areas of architect, municipal 
government, law and business management.
  Community Builders are truly change agents in our community. They are 
knowledgeable about HUD programs, make customer service more efficient, 
are professionally competent, and are bringing their expertise to make 
government work better.
  I hope that the Senate will reconsider the significance of this 
program and provide continued support to ensure that our government 
maintains innovative, customer service oriented programs such as the 
Community Builders Program.
  I thank Senator Kerry and Secretary Cuomo taking action to ensure 
that working poor families have access to affordable housing and 
promoting new, innovative approaches to government management. I am 
proud to stand in support of their efforts.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I call the Senate's 
attention to a program that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
has initiated that I believe is ill-conceived, wasteful and lacking of 
public input. The EPA, at the direction of Vice President Gore, has 
launched a ``voluntary'' initiative with the chemical industry to test 
some 2,800 high production volume (HPV) chemicals and substances. The 
chemicals included in this list are currently manufactured or imported 
in volumes in excess of one million pounds, many of which have already 
gone through substantial testing and known to be either hazardous or 
safe. As chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the 
testing and handling of toxic chemicals, I am particularly concerned 
about how this program will be administered and funded.
  This major initiative was launched in October 1998 during a press 
conference by EPA, the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the 
Environmental Defense Fund. This initiative calls on industry to 
voluntarily provide test plans for these 2,800 HPV chemicals by 
December 1999, after which EPA will mandate tests of the remaining 
chemicals. Although the first phase of this initiative is voluntary, 
I'm concerned that there was not adequate public and congressional 
involvement in the development of this massive undertaking. Only after 
much urging by concerned Members of Congress, including myself, and 
other affected interest groups, EPA decided to hold a number of 
``stakeholder'' meetings to share views and information about the HPV 
program.
  The lack of public and congressional input is just one concern that I 
have with this initiative. There are several other important issues of 
which the Senate should be aware. A major concern deals with the large 
amount of unnecessary animal testing that could occur as a result of 
this program. While obtaining better data on hazardous chemicals is 
certainly a worthy goal, I am concerned about the extent to which 
animal testing would be used in lieu of alternative testing methods. I 
understand that there have been many advances in toxicology, risk 
assessment and alternative testing strategies that minimize the use of 
animals, that could be applied.
  As I stated earlier, the HPV program calls for testing of many 
substances that clearly need no further testing. These include 
chemicals well documented and regulated as dangerous, as well as 
substances recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. 
Chemicals with existing data should be purged from the list by EPA. 
There have been numerous assertions by Administration officials that 
they have no intention of ordering duplicative testing and remain 
interested in pursuing alternative testing methods where appropriate. I 
hope this is true. However, I still have serious concerns about the 
expedited schedule of the program and how EPA is directing its 
resources. Therefore, as the subcommittee chairman with oversight 
responsibility over toxic substances and testing, I plan to closely 
monitor EPA's implementation of this program.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I certainly agree with my colleague from New Hampshire 
that if this toxicity data is out there and available, then every 
effort should be made to collect it, verify its relevance to this 
program, and use it. There is no reason to order duplicative and 
wasteful testing. But I do hope this can be done in an efficient 
manner. The collection of this information should not slow down the 
progress of this program seeking basic toxicity data on the 2,800 
chemicals most widely used in the United States. The claim has been 
made that 90 percent of these chemicals lack full toxicity data and 40 
percent have no toxicity data. However, if this data already exists, 
then let's get it. We need to fill in these data gaps. Finally, even 
though the EPA has begun to show some willingness to respond to 
suggestions from stakeholders, I believe that the HPV program would 
benefit from a hearing in Senator Smith's subcommittee.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the two Senators for their insight and comments on 
EPA's HPV chemical testing program. We are in agreement that EPA should 
seek to uncover all existing data in preparation for determining what 
data gaps exist and test plans need to be developed. EPA should also 
pursue the validation and incorporation of non-animal testing as soon 
as practicable. In the meantime, I hope negotiations between the 
various stakeholder groups bring about some consensus on how best to 
proceed with this program.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his 
comments and hope we can continue to work together on the monitoring of 
this and other EPA programs.


                      epa risk management program

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his work on the 
recently passed legislation, S. 880, dealing with EPA's Risk Management 
Plan program. I understand that there might be some problems with EPA's 
implementation of the law with respect to the funding of the program.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senior Senator from Missouri for his 
recognition, and he is correct that there might be some problems with 
the implementation of the law. A provision of the law directs companies 
to conduct a public meeting for local residents regarding the risks of 
chemical accidents. The facilities are then supposed to send a 
certification of the FBI stating that they conducted the meeting. It is 
my understanding that the EPA and FBI have

[[Page S11352]]

decided that the EPA should collect the certifications and manage them 
through an EPA contractor. Not only did Congress not appropriate funds 
for this activity by the EPA but we specifically directed the FBI to 
collect this information.
  Mr. INHOFE. I hope the Appropriations Committee will take a close 
look at how the EPA is implementing this program. As the chairman of 
the authorizing subcommittee and the author of the legislation, I will 
be paying particularly close attention to its implementation.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the diligence of the Senator from Oklahoma in 
his oversight. As the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, I 
will also pay close attention to the implementation of this law.


                  reducing space transportation costs

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, reducing space transportation costs to 
enable more scientific research has been a priority of NASA and this 
committee. I am aware of several innovative programs developed by NASA 
and other agencies that attempt to dramatically reduce the cost of 
space access for missions through transporting individual science 
instruments within commercial spacecraft. However, I understand NASA is 
having some difficulty in implementing such ``secondary payload 
programs'' because of a lack of a definition of ``government payload'' 
in the National Space Transportation Policy. Therefore, I would like 
the committee to clarify that individual scientific instruments with 
full or partial government funding riding inside a commercial satellite 
are not ``government payloads'' for purposes of the Space 
Transportation Policy. Would the chairman agree with me that this is 
something we should address in the conference report?
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's interest in these new ``shared 
ride'' programs which a number of agencies are trying to implement. I 
understand NASA is trying to get this definition clarified, but that 
process is taking some time. I think we should support NASA's efforts 
by addressing this issue in conference report language, and I look 
forward to working with the Senator to address this issue in 
conference.


                    the national science foundation

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee 
yield for a question?
  Mr. BOND. I yield for a question from the senior Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  As the chairman knows, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee has a strong history 
of support for the behavioral and social science research programs of 
the National Science Foundation, NSF, dating back to the beginning of 
this decade. Basic behavioral and social science research, which ranges 
from research on the brain and behavior to studies of economic decision 
making, has the potential to address many of our Nation's most serious 
concerns, including productivity, literacy, violence, and substance 
abuse, as well as other diverse issues such as information systems, 
artificial intelligence, and international relations.
  Under his leadership and that of our colleague, Senator Barbara 
Mikulski, the subcommittee strongly, encouraged the establishment of a 
separate directorate for these sciences at NSF and was instrumental in 
encouraging that directorate to pursue a basic behavioral science 
research agenda known as the Human Capital Initiative. Most recently, 
this subcommittee expressed strong support for the planned 
reorganization of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences 
directorate's single research division into two separate divisions, a 
Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Division, and a Social and Economic 
Sciences Division. This reorganization was necessary to accommodate the 
explosive pace of discovery in the behavioral and social sciences and 
to promote partnerships with other disciplines.
  Basic research in these sciences has contributed to the Nation's 
economic prosperity and national security. Given the critical 
importance of these fields to the national interest, and recognizing 
the enormous strides being made in these sciences, I seek your 
clarification because the report language included in your committee 
report may be interpreted to question the value of NSF's programs in 
these areas. I am also concerned that the language undermines a 
valuable scientific enterprise. Is it the chairman's understanding that 
the committee report's intent is to express the committee's belief that 
NSF's core mission includes support for behavioral and social science 
research?
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for the question. NSF's 
core mission indeed includes basic research in the behavioral and 
social sciences, and, let me make it clear, it is my expectation that 
NSF will continue its strong investment in these areas. Any efforts to 
narrow NSF's mission to exclude these sciences or to target them for 
reduced support would jeopardize the development of the 
multidisciplinary perspectives that are necessary to solve many of the 
problems facing the Nation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.


                        nox SIP call

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise at this time to engage in a 
colloquy with the subcommittee chairman, the Senator from Missouri.
  I am concerned about what I feel is an apparent inconsistency and 
inequity created by two separate and conflicting actions that occurred 
last May. One was EPA issuing a final rule implementing a consent 
decree under section 126 of the Clean Air Act that is triggered in 
essence by EPA not approving the NOX SIP call revisions of 
22 states and the District of Columbia by November 30, 1999. The other 
was by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 
issuing an order staying the requirement imposed in EPA's 1998 
NOX SIP Call for these jurisdictions to submit the SIP 
revisions just mentioned for EPA approval.
  Caught in the middle of these two events are electric utilities and 
industrial sources who fear that now the trigger will be sprung next 
November 30, even though the States are no longer required to make 
those SIP revisions because of the stay, and even though EPA will have 
nothing before it to approve or disapprove.
  Prior to this, EPA maintained a close link between the NOX 
SIP Call and the section 126 rule, as evidenced by the consent decree. 
I believe a parallel stay would be appropriate in the circumstance. EPA 
should not be moving forward with its NOX regulations until 
the litigation is complete and those affected are given more certainty 
and clarity as to what is required under the law.
  A stay is very much needed, especially in light of EPA's more recent 
comments suggesting that is may reverse its earlier interpretation of 
the Clean Air Act regarding State discretion in dealing with interstate 
ozone transport problems. The effect of such a reversal would be to 
force businesses to comply with EPA's Federal emission controls under 
Section 126 without regard to NOX SIP Call rule and State 
input.
  The proposed reversal is creating tremendous confusion for the 
businesses and the States. Under EPA's proposed new position, 
businesses could incur substantial costs in meeting the EPA-imposed 
section 126 emission controls before allowing the States to use their 
discretion in the SIP process to address air quality problems, less 
stringent controls or through controls on other facilities altogether.
  Indeed, the fact that these businesses almost certainly will have 
sunk significant costs into compliance with the EPA-imposed controls 
before States are required to submit their emission control plans in 
response to the NOX SIP Call rule would result in 
impermissible pressure on their States to forfeit their discretion and 
instead simply conform their SIPs to EPA section 126 controls.
  The bottom line is that not only do the States and business community 
not know what EPA is doing, EPA doesn't know what it is doing. This is 
hardly a desirable regulatory posture for what clearly is promising to 
be a very costly and burdensome regulation.
  Let's be clear what the law is and what it requires, before rather 
than after the EPA writes and enforces its rules. I think that is a 
reasonable expectation and a reasonable requirement that the EPA should 
be able to meet.

[[Page S11353]]

  Does the chairman agree with me that the EPA should find a reasonable 
way to avoid triggering the 126 process while the courts deliberate and 
we have a better understanding of what the law requires States and 
businesses to do to be in compliance?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Senator bringing 
this to the Senate's attention. I agree that this matter should be 
resolved swiftly. I would encourage and expect the EPA to, over the 
next several months, find a way that is fair to all sides. In addition, 
I would expect that any remedy would ensure that the States maintain 
control and input in addressing air pollution problems through the SIP 
process. I would be happy to work with the Senator from Alabama to 
ensure that EPA is fully responsive to these legitimate problems.


                         veterans' health care

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for successfully 
managing such a complex appropriations bill as S. 1596. In particular, 
I want to thank him for recognizing the need for additional funding for 
veterans health care and increasing that appropriations an additional 
$1.7 billion over the President's request. Doing this was very 
difficult in light of budgetary constraints, but it was the right thing 
to do and I commend him for his foresight and courage.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania for his kind 
remarks and for his leadership in urging an additional $1.7 billion for 
veterans health care. I also commend my friend for his leadership as 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs in urging 
medicare subvention for veterans and for gaining Senate approval of 
increased funding for the GI education bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is an additional matter in which I 
would like to have an exchange with him involving two amendments I have 
offered. The first involves the need for funding of a unique 
construction project at the Lebanon VA Medical Center for the growing 
problem of the long term care needs of veterans. The second involves 
funding for a needed national veterans cemetery in the southwestern 
portion of Pennsylvania. In the interest of time and space, I will not 
elaborate on these projects both of which have been authorized by the 
Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs in S. 1076 and S. 695 respectively 
and are outlined in the accompanying reports. You and I discussed them 
yesterday and I believe we had a meeting of the minds in which I 
understood that you will seek at least limited funding for both 
projects during conference. Is this the understanding of Senator Bond 
as well?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. I know how 
important these projects are to you and veterans in Pennsylvania. While 
I cannot guarantee an outcome, I will do my best to secure design funds 
for these projects when we meet with the House in conference on the 
bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined my colleague 
Mr. Wellstone from Minnesota in offering an amendment to the Fiscal 
Year 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations bill to increase funding for veterans 
health care by an additional $1.3 billion. This would create a $3 
billion increase in VA health care funding --the level called for by 
the Independent Budget produced by a coalition of veterans 
organizations.
  Before I begin, I would like to take a minute and make a few comments 
on the amendment that the Senate already has accepted. First, I want to 
thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for offering the amendment to add an 
additional $600 million for veterans' health care. By accepting this 
amendment, the total increase for veterans' health care in this piece 
of legislation is now $1.7 billion. I am pleased that my colleagues 
recognize the dire situation facing the Veterans Administration and our 
nation's veterans because of past negligence in meeting the needs of 
veterans health care.
  I supported the amendment, and I have asked to be added as a 
cosponsor. However, as I understand it, this $1.7 billion will provide 
only momentary relief to a VA system which has been drastically 
underfunded for the past three years. That is why Senator Wellstone and 
I offered an amendment to give even more to veterans, who in service of 
their country gave everything they had to protect this democracy.
  Mr. President, let me begin by saying that this is the fourth 
consecutive year, that the Clinton Administration has proposed a flat-
line appropriation for veterans' health care in its FY 2000 budget 
request. The VA's budget included a $17.3 billion appropriation request 
for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Although, the Clinton 
Administration's request included allowing the VA to collect 
approximately $749 million from third-party insurers--$124 million more 
than in FY 1999, this cap on medical spending places a greater strain 
on the quality of patient care currently provided in our nation's VA 
facility, especially when meeting the needs and high health costs of 
our rapidly aging World War II population.
  Our nation's veterans groups have worked extensively on crafting a 
sensible budget that will allow the VA to provide the necessary care to 
all veterans. They have offered an Independent Budget that calls for an 
immediate $3 billion increase for VA health care to rectify two current 
deficiencies in the VA budget. First, the VA has had to reduce 
expenditures by $1.3 billion due to their flatlined budget at $17.3 
billion. These were mandatory reductions in outpatient and inpatient 
care and VA staff levels that the VA had to make due to their flatlined 
budget.
  The remaining $1.7 billion is needed to keep up with medical 
inflation, COLAs for VA employees, new medical initiatives that the VA 
wants to begin (Hepatitis C screenings, emergency care services), long 
term health care costs, funding for homeless veterans, and treating 
54,000 new patients in 89 outpatient clinics.
  Although we have increased veterans' health care by a total of $1.7 
billion, and which certainly will help relieve some of the VA's 
budgetary constraints, I believe that more needs to be done. The 
veterans community has requested that VA health care needs to be 
augmented by $3 billion to ensure the provision of accessible and high 
quality services to veterans.
  That is why Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment, and which I 
remind my colleagues the Senate unanimously accepted 99-0, during 
consideration of the budget resolution that raised VA health care to a 
total of $3 billion. The nation's top veterans groups (AMVETS, Blinded 
Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Vietnam Veterans of America) 
voiced their strong support for our amendment, however, the final 
budget resolution contained an increase of only $1.7 billion.
  I agree with the coalition of veterans organizations that have put 
together a sensible and responsible alternative VA budget'' that an 
infusion of approximately $3 billion into the VA health budget is 
needed this year in order to avoid an unconscionable destruction of our 
nation's commitment to its veterans. Without such a funding boost, 
framed within a balanced federal budget, we will soon be witnessing 
enormous VA staffing reductions, degradation of VA health care quality, 
the termination of needed programs, and the closure of VA hospitals. 
Our hopes of establishing VA outreach clinics in such communities as 
Aberdeen, South Dakota will be impossible without an increase in 
funding.
  That is why Senator Wellstone and I are offering this amendment. The 
veterans community has done all the research and is acutely aware of 
the glaring health care needs that the VA must contend with in order to 
care for our nation's veterans. Our amendment would take $1.3 billion 
from the non-Social Security surplus and designate it as emergency 
spending for veterans' health care. The funding required for this 
amendment represents a minute fraction of the total federal budget that 
we are debating here today. However, the funding we set aside to 
improve accessibility and quality of care within our veterans health 
care system will provide a tremendous boost for an already stretched 
and fractured VA medical system.
  Mr. President, since I began my service in Congress over twelve years 
ago,

[[Page S11354]]

I have held countless meetings, marched in small town Memorial Day 
parades, and participated in Veterans Day tributes with South Dakota's 
veterans. As the years go on their concerns remain the same. To ensure 
that Congress provides the VA with adequate funding to meet the health 
care needs for all veterans. Without additional funding South Dakota VA 
facilities will continue to face staff reductions, cutbacks in 
programs, and possible closing of facilities.
  Too often, I have received letters from veterans who must wait up to 
three months to see a doctor. For many veterans who do not have any 
other form of health insurance, the VA is the only place they can go to 
receive medical attention. They were promised medical care when they 
completed their service and now many veterans are having to jump 
through hoops just to see a doctor.
  It is time for Congress to end this neglect and fiscal 
irresponsibility when it comes to providing decent health care for 
veterans. I think Senator Wellstone would agree with me that no one in 
this body would accept three years of flat-lined budgets if we were 
talking about the Department of Defense or national security funding. 
But that is exactly what we've done to our veterans. Every year we 
labor through the appropriations process and every year veterans 
funding is treated as an afterthought and not one of our first 
priorities.
  As Congress makes spending decisions for fiscal year 2000, we also 
will have to decide what to do with the non-Social Security surplus for 
next year. Shouldn't we be able to use some of that surplus to address 
the immediate problems of veterans health care? I think our veterans 
deserve nothing less, and we should make a committed effort to give the 
VA all the resources it needs to operate effectively.
  I want to thank my friend, Mr. Wellstone, for working with me on this 
endeavor to do what we feel is our obligation to our veterans. The 
veterans community is fortunate to have such a vigilant advocate in 
Senator Wellstone who has displayed tremendous passion and leadership 
when it comes to ensuring that our nation's commitment to our veterans 
is not forgotten.
  As we enter the twilight of the Twentieth Century, we can look back 
at the immense multitude of achievements that led to the ascension of 
the United States of America as the preeminent nation in modern 
history. We owe this title as world's greatest superpower in large part 
to the twenty-five million men and women who served in our armed 
services and who defended the principles and ideals of our nation.
  From the battlefields of Lexington and Concord, to the beaches of 
Normandy, and to the deserts of the Persian Gulf, our nation's history 
is replete with men and women who, during the savagery of battle, were 
willing to forego their own survival not only to protect the lives of 
their comrades, but because they believed that peace and freedom was 
too invaluable a right to be vanquished. Americans should never forget 
our veterans who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism.
  Again, Mr. President, I applaud Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski 
for recognizing the shortcomings in this VA-HUD Appropriations bill by 
increasing veterans' health care by an additional $1.7 billion. Senator 
Wellstone and I believe that we can go even further, and we ask for the 
Senate's support. We have an obligation to provide decent, affordable, 
health care for America's veterans. We should live up to our obligation 
to our nation's veterans and ensure that they are treated with the 
respect and honor that they so richly deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Missouri, we 
are now working through some colloquies. Some are a little bit more 
chatty and we have not had a chance to review them all. We will be 
prepared tomorrow to present them to the Senate.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Missouri, we have concluded 
our actions for today.

                          ____________________