Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation that I believe would represent a giant step forward for working Americans. The first bill, which I am calling the ``Safer Workplaces Act of 1999,'' contains four provisions that would extend health and safety protections for workers in the workplace. The second bill, the ``Right to Organize Act of 1999,'' would go a long way toward correcting some of the flagrant abuses of the law that have resulted in workers being denied their right to organize and bargain collectively. The Safer Workplaces Act of 1999 In recent years some of my colleagues have argued that the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act already goes too far in protecting the right of employees to work in a safe and healthy environment. I have a different view. I believe that, in several fundamental ways, the OSH Act does not go far enough. There are still too many workers injured on the job in America today. There are still too many tragic cases of workers losing their lives because their employers deliberately chose to break the law. When workers go to work in the morning, they have every right to expect that they'll come home at night in one piece--not maimed or killed on the job because of their employer's wrongdoing. I don't think that's a lot to ask. Of course it's not. In fact, I know many of my Republican friends couldn't agree more. This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. The four provisions of my ``Safer Workplaces Act,'' which I am also introducing individually as separate legislation, have all enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't enjoy bipartisan support in this Congress, as well. I hope we can sidestep some of the more bitter controversies surrounding the OSH Act and focus instead on meaningful changes that will make a real difference in the lives of American workers. The first provision in my Safer Workplaces Act, which I am introducing separately as the ``Safety and Health Whistleblowers Protection Act,'' would encourage employees to step forward and identify hazards in the workplace without fear of retaliation from their employers. In theory, workers are already protected from retaliation under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, but we know that this protection is all too often meaningless. As Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress recently testified before the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, ``The provisions in place today in Section 11(c) of the Act are too weak and too cumbersome to discourage employer retaliation or to provide an effective remedy for the victims of retaliation.'' Many, if not most, employees are simply afraid that they'll be punished or fired if they complain. And they have every reason to be afraid. In 1997 the Labor Department's Inspector General, Charles C. Masten, concluded that Workers, particularly with small companies, are vulnerable to reprisals by their employers for complaining about unsafe, unhealthy work conditions. The severity of the discrimination is highlighted by the fact that for 653 cases included in our sample, nearly 67 percent of the workers who filed complaints were terminated from their jobs. The IG further found that workers who complain to their employer first--rather than to OSHA--are particularly vulnerable; that workers in small firms are the most vulnerable; that employer retaliation is often severe, most frequently in the form of firing; that OSHA procedures to investigate complaints are inadequate; that there are significant delays in OSHA's decisionmaking in 11(c) cases; and that the Department is failing to seek effective remedies for employees. GAO reached similar conclusions. Of the Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) surveyed by GAO, 26 percent thought workers have little or no protection when they report violations to OSHA. According to almost 50 percent of these officers, workers themselves believe they have little or no protection. But only 10 percent thought workers faced no real danger of retaliation. When employees are too intimidated to identify workplace dangers, we end up with workplaces that are more dangerous than they should be. The Labor Department Inspector General concluded that, ``Based on the worker termination rates in the 11(c) cases, many employers are not receptive to requests for abatement of workplace hazards and feel free to discipline workers who seek abatement.'' So hazards go unreported and more workers get injured or killed. The problems with Section 11(c) are widely acknowledged. In the 103rd Congress, the House Education and Labor Committee issued a stinging critique of current law, and many of its criticisms were echoed by OSHA itself in 1998. These are some of the shortcomings they identified. There's too little time for workers to file a complaint, since many don't even learn of their legal rights within 30 days of retaliation. There's no protection for employees who refuse to work when they have good reason to think they're in danger. Workers have to rely on the Department to take their cases to court, and there are no real time limits for doing that. While their cases are pending, workers have no job and no paycheck. And there are no penalties for employers who retaliate against workers. My legislation is designed to correct these flaws. It gives workers 6 months, rather than 30 days, to file a grievance for retaliation. It protects not only workers who report unsafe conditions, but also employees who refuse to work when they have good reason to think they might be harmed or injured. To expedite the process, my bill provides for prompt hearings before an administrative law judge. It would allow dissatisfied workers to then take their case to a federal appeals court themselves, not having to rely on the Department. And it would provide for reinstatement during these proceedings, as well as compensatory damages and exemplary damages when the employer's behavior has been particularly outrageous. These common-sense improvements should not be contentious or controversial. In fact, a bipartisan consensus has already emerged in support of similar whistleblower reforms. In July 1988, Reagan Administration Secretary of Labor Ann McLaughlin recommended legislation allowing airline employees to refuse work when they have a reasonable belief that they might be injured or killed, as well as providing a six month grievance filing period, hearings before an administrative law judge, and a temporary reinstatement remedy. Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole agreed that ``limitation periods shorter than 180 days have proved too short for effective protection of whistleblower rights.'' In 1989 President Bush said that reinstatement must be available for whistleblowers in cases involving waste, fraud, and abuse because ``Standard make-whole remedies * * * will be meaningless, in practice, if whistleblowers are crushed personally and financially while legitimate complaints are caught in procedural limbo.'' In 1991, Gerard Scannell, Assistant Secretary for OSHA under President Bush, testified that ``we know there is a need to improve whistleblower protection and we have been working closely with the Congress on this issue.'' In the 104th Congress, Republican Congressman Cass Ballenger introduced an OSHA reform bill that would have strengthened whistleblower protections by lengthening the grievance filing period from 30 to 60 days, and by giving employees the right to take their cases to court if the Labor Department refuses to act. Republicans and Democrats agree that Section 11(c) is woefully inadequate and cries out for immediate reform. To ensure a safe and healthy work environment for all workers, we must count on employees to actively participate in identifying and correcting workplace hazards. But they're not going to do that if it means putting their jobs on the line. It's that simple. These courageous individuals need more protection, not less, and that's what my legislation is all about. The second provision of my Safer Workplaces Act, which I am introducing separately as the ``Wrongful Death Accountability Act,'' would make it a felony to commit willful violations of the OSH Act that result in death of an employee. Unbelievably, these criminal violations are only a misdemeanor under current law. Under virtually every other federal safety and health or environmental statute, by contrast, criminal violations are a felony. Because the penalty is so insignificant, the Justice Department rarely prosecutes. There are not a lot of cases where willful violations lead to the death of an employee, but some of them involve egregious behavior that needs to be prosecuted. We need to send a message. Employers who cause the death of their employees by deliberately violating the law should be held accountable with something more than a slap on the wrist. Before a recent hearing of the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress testified, ``We would urge that these violations not be classified as misdemeanors, but felonies, which carry with them the possibility of incarceration for periods in excess of one year. Classifying willful workplace safety and health violations that lead to an employee's death as misdemeanors is woefully inadequate to address the harm caused. Classifying such crimes as felonies would more justly reflect the severity of the offense.'' This is another reform that has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, and deserves bipartisan support in this Congress. In 1990 the Bush Administration testified in support of making these criminal violations felonies. Several Republicans on the Labor Committee--Brock Adams, Jim Jeffords, and David Durenberger--all supported such legislation. The third provision of the Safer Workplaces Act, which I am introducing separately as the ``Federal Employees Safety Enhancement Act,'' would extend full OSHA protections to employees of the federal government. Federal employees have been excluded from OSHA coverage for almost 30 years. While a 1980 executive order required federal agencies to comply with OSHA standards, it provides no real enforcement authority. As Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress recently testified before the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, ``the OSH Act currently does not adequately protect Federal employees. * * * OSHA has little ability to require positive change on the part of public employees. As a consequence, this limited authority hinders OSHA's success in reducing illness, injuries, and fatalities on the job.'' Again, this is a common-sense reform that should be bipartisan and uncontroversial. In 1994, Republican Congressman Cass Ballenger proposed to cover federal employees in his OSHA reform legislation. Last year, under the leadership of Senator Enzi, the Senate voted unanimously to extend OSHA coverage to the U.S. Postal Service. On introducing his Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act of 1998, Republican Senator Enzi indicated that all federal employees should ultimately be covered: ``This important legislation is an incremental step in the effort to ensure that the `law of the land' applies equally to all branches of government as well as the private sector--and everything in-between.'' Finally, my Safer Workplace Act would also extend OSHA protections to employees of state and local government. State and local public employees are now covered only if their state happens to have a state plan. But in 27 states that do not have a state plan, 8.1 million state and local public employees are not protected by OSHA. There's no reason why these employees should be treated as second- class citizens. They face workplace hazards just like workers in the private sector, sometimes more. Their health and their lives are just as much at risk as those of private sector workers. In fact, in 1997, 624 public sector workers were killed on the job. In several states, the injury rate is higher for public employees than for private sector employees. At a recent hearing of the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress testified. ``There are numerous examples of on-the-job tragedies that occurred primarily because safety and health protections do not apply to public employees. These tragedies could have been prevented by compliance with OSHA rules.'' Once again, this is a common-sense, bipartisan proposal. The Bush Administration supported OSHA coverage for state and local public employees in 1991. I understand there is interest on the other side of the aisle in this particular provision, and I welcome it. Taken together, the four provisions in this legislation would make a real difference for American workers. Fewer of them would be exposed to workplace hazards, fewer would be injured or harmed on the job, and fewer would be forced to pay with their lives. The Safer Workplaces Act would encourage employees to be involved in identifying workplace hazards and correcting them before tragedy occurs. It would deter employers from putting their employees lives' in danger through deliberate violations of the law. And it would give federal employees and state and local public employees the same health and safety protections that workers in the private sector have long enjoyed. This is a sensible package of bipartisan reforms, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this legislation in the 106th Congress. The Right-to-Organize Act of 1999 As Ranking Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) subcommittee with jurisdiction over the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), I am also introducing legislation that would more fully recognize the right of American working men and women to organize and bargain collectively. Workers across America who want to organize a union and bargain collectively with their employer are finding that the rules are stacked against them in crucial ways. This is clear to any labor organizer, and to many workers who have made the effort. To give workers a fair chance to organize and bargain collectively, we need fundamental labor law reform. My ``Right-to-Organize Act of 1999'' will target some of the worst abuses of labor law that have become increasingly common in recent years. First, employees are being subject to flagrant coercion, intimidation, and interference during certification election campaigns. Second, employers are simply firing employees who attempt to organize a union, and they're doing so with virtual impunity. In fact, despite the fact that the NLRA prohibits firing of employees for trying to organize a union, as many as 10,000 Americans lose their jobs each year for doing just that. The 1994 Dunlop Commission found that one in four employers illegally fired union activists during organizing campaigns. And third, there is a growing problem of employers refusing to bargain with their employees even after a union has been certified. The Right-to-Organize Act of 1999 tackles these problems with the following provisions: First, it would help employees make fully informed, free decisions about union representation by providing labor representatives and management equal opportunity to disseminate information to employees. Second, it would expand the remedies available for employees who are wrongfully discharged--for union organizing, for example. Specifically, it would expand the remedies available to the National Labor Relations Board to include three times back pay, and it would allow employees to recover punitive damages in district court when the Board has determined that they were wrongfully discharged. Third, if protecting the right to join a union and bargain collectively is to have any meaning, there must be safeguards to ensure that newly certified unions have a reasonable opportunity to reach an agreement with their employer. My legislation would provide for mediation and arbitration when employers and employees fail to reach a collective bargaining agreement on their own within 60 days of a union's certification. While these provisions are all much-needed to level the playing field, I am the first to admit that much more still needs to be done. This legislation is very much a work in progress. I will be considering additional provisions to strengthen the authority of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) to sanction willful violations of the law and to prevent abuses that too often string out election campaigns for months and months while worker representatives are thoroughly intimidated, organizers are fired, and the organizing campaign dies an early death. I believe very strongly that the Right to Organize is terribly important--not only for the workers who want to join together and bargain collectively, but for all Americans. One of the most important things we can do to raise the standard of living and quality of life for working Americans, raise wages and benefits, improve health and safety in the workplace, and give average Americans more control over their lives is to enforce their right to organize, join, and belong to a union. We know that union workers are able to earn up to one-third more than non-union workers and are more likely to have pensions and health benefits. That's why more than four in ten workers who are not currently in a union say they would join one if they had the chance. When workers join together to fight for job security, for dignity, for economic justice and for a fair share of America's prosperity, it is not a struggle merely for their own benefit. The gains of unionized workers on basic bread-and-butter issues are key to the economic security of all working families. Upholding the Right to Organize is a way to advance important social objectives--higher wages, better benefits, more pension coverage, more worker training, more health insurance coverage, and safer workplaces--without drawing on any additional government resources. I believe that the Right to Organize is one of the most important civil rights and human rights causes of the 1990s. Unfortunately, this cause has received too little attention in this Congress. I hope I can do something to remedy that situation, but this legislation is only a first step.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation that I believe would represent a giant step forward for working Americans. The first bill, which I am calling the ``Safer Workplaces Act of 1999,'' contains four provisions that would extend health and safety protections for workers in the workplace. The second bill, the ``Right to Organize Act of 1999,'' would go a long way toward correcting some of the flagrant abuses of the law that have resulted in workers being denied their right to organize and bargain collectively. The Safer Workplaces Act of 1999 In recent years some of my colleagues have argued that the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act already goes too far in protecting the right of employees to work in a safe and healthy environment. I have a different view. I believe that, in several fundamental ways, the OSH Act does not go far enough. There are still too many workers injured on the job in America today. There are still too many tragic cases of workers losing their lives because their employers deliberately chose to break the law. When workers go to work in the morning, they have every right to expect that they'll come home at night in one piece--not maimed or killed on the job because of their employer's wrongdoing. I don't think that's a lot to ask. Of course it's not. In fact, I know many of my Republican friends couldn't agree more. This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. The four provisions of my ``Safer Workplaces Act,'' which I am also introducing individually as separate legislation, have all enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't enjoy bipartisan support in this Congress, as well. I hope we can sidestep some of the more bitter controversies surrounding the OSH Act and focus instead on meaningful changes that will make a real difference in the lives of American workers. The first provision in my Safer Workplaces Act, which I am introducing separately as the ``Safety and Health Whistleblowers Protection Act,'' would encourage employees to step forward and identify hazards in the workplace without fear of retaliation from their employers. In theory, workers are already protected from retaliation under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, but we know that this protection is all too often meaningless. As Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress recently testified before the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, ``The provisions in place today in Section 11(c) of the Act are too weak and too cumbersome to discourage employer retaliation or to provide an effective remedy for the victims of retaliation.'' Many, if not most, employees are simply afraid that they'll be punished or fired if they complain. And they have every reason to be afraid. In 1997 the Labor Department's Inspector General, Charles C. Masten, concluded that Workers, particularly with small companies, are vulnerable to reprisals by their employers for complaining about unsafe, unhealthy work conditions. The severity of the discrimination is highlighted by the fact that for 653 cases included in our sample, nearly 67 percent of the workers who filed complaints were terminated from their jobs. The IG further found that workers who complain to their employer first--rather than to OSHA--are particularly vulnerable; that workers in small firms are the most vulnerable; that employer retaliation is often severe, most frequently in the form of firing; that OSHA procedures to investigate complaints are inadequate; that there are significant delays in OSHA's decisionmaking in 11(c) cases; and that the Department is failing to seek effective remedies for employees. GAO reached similar conclusions. Of the Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) surveyed by GAO, 26 percent thought workers have little or no protection when they report violations to OSHA. According to almost 50 percent of these officers, workers themselves believe they have little or no protection. But only 10 percent thought workers faced no real danger of retaliation. When employees are too intimidated to identify workplace dangers, we end up with workplaces that are more dangerous than they should be. The Labor Department Inspector General concluded that, ``Based on the worker termination rates in the 11(c) cases, many employers are not receptive to requests for abatement of workplace hazards and feel free to discipline workers who seek abatement.'' So hazards go unreported and more workers get injured or killed. The problems with Section 11(c) are widely acknowledged. In the 103rd Congress, the House Education and Labor Committee issued a stinging critique of current law, and many of its criticisms were echoed by OSHA itself in 1998. These are some of the shortcomings they identified. There's too little time for workers to file a complaint, since many don't even learn of their legal rights within 30 days of retaliation. There's no protection for employees who refuse to work when they have good reason to think they're in danger. Workers have to rely on the Department to take their cases to court, and there are no real time limits for doing that. While their cases are pending, workers have no job and no paycheck. And there are no penalties for employers who retaliate against workers. My legislation is designed to correct these flaws. It gives workers 6 months, rather than 30 days, to file a grievance for retaliation. It protects not only workers who report unsafe conditions, but also employees who refuse to work when they have good reason to think they might be harmed or injured. To expedite the process, my bill provides for prompt hearings before an administrative law judge. It would allow dissatisfied workers to then take their case to a federal appeals court themselves, not having to rely on the Department. And it would provide for reinstatement during these proceedings, as well as compensatory damages and exemplary damages when the employer's behavior has been particularly outrageous. These common-sense improvements should not be contentious or controversial. In fact, a bipartisan consensus has already emerged in support of similar whistleblower reforms. In July 1988, Reagan Administration Secretary of Labor Ann McLaughlin recommended legislation allowing airline employees to refuse work when they have a reasonable belief that they might be injured or killed, as well as providing a six month grievance filing period, hearings before an administrative law judge, and a temporary reinstatement remedy. Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole agreed that ``limitation periods shorter than 180 days have proved too short for effective protection of whistleblower rights.'' In 1989 President Bush said that reinstatement must be available for whistleblowers in cases involving waste, fraud, and abuse because ``Standard make-whole remedies * * * will be meaningless, in practice, if whistleblowers are crushed personally and financially while legitimate complaints are caught in procedural limbo.'' In 1991, Gerard Scannell, Assistant Secretary for OSHA under President Bush, testified that ``we know there is a need to improve whistleblower protection and we have been working closely with the Congress on this issue.'' In the 104th Congress, Republican Congressman Cass Ballenger introduced an OSHA reform bill that would have strengthened whistleblower protections by lengthening the grievance filing period from 30 to 60 days, and by giving employees the right to take their cases to court if the Labor Department refuses to act. Republicans and Democrats agree that Section 11(c) is woefully inadequate and cries out for immediate reform. To ensure a safe and healthy work environment for all workers, we must count on employees to actively participate in identifying and correcting workplace hazards. But they're not going to do that if it means putting their jobs on the line. It's that simple. These courageous individuals need more protection, not less, and that's what my legislation is all about. The second provision of my Safer Workplaces Act, which I am introducing separately as the ``Wrongful Death Accountability Act,'' would make it a felony to commit willful violations of the OSH Act that result in death of an employee. Unbelievably, these criminal violations are only a misdemeanor under current law. Under virtually every other federal safety and health or environmental statute, by contrast, criminal violations are a felony. Because the penalty is so insignificant, the Justice Department rarely prosecutes. There are not a lot of cases where willful violations lead to the death of an employee, but some of them involve egregious behavior that needs to be prosecuted. We need to send a message. Employers who cause the death of their employees by deliberately violating the law should be held accountable with something more than a slap on the wrist. Before a recent hearing of the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress testified, ``We would urge that these violations not be classified as misdemeanors, but felonies, which carry with them the possibility of incarceration for periods in excess of one year. Classifying willful workplace safety and health violations that lead to an employee's death as misdemeanors is woefully inadequate to address the harm caused. Classifying such crimes as felonies would more justly reflect the severity of the offense.'' This is another reform that has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, and deserves bipartisan support in this Congress. In 1990 the Bush Administration testified in support of making these criminal violations felonies. Several Republicans on the Labor Committee--Brock Adams, Jim Jeffords, and David Durenberger--all supported such legislation. The third provision of the Safer Workplaces Act, which I am introducing separately as the ``Federal Employees Safety Enhancement Act,'' would extend full OSHA protections to employees of the federal government. Federal employees have been excluded from OSHA coverage for almost 30 years. While a 1980 executive order required federal agencies to comply with OSHA standards, it provides no real enforcement authority. As Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress recently testified before the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, ``the OSH Act currently does not adequately protect Federal employees. * * * OSHA has little ability to require positive change on the part of public employees. As a consequence, this limited authority hinders OSHA's success in reducing illness, injuries, and fatalities on the job.'' Again, this is a common-sense reform that should be bipartisan and uncontroversial. In 1994, Republican Congressman Cass Ballenger proposed to cover federal employees in his OSHA reform legislation. Last year, under the leadership of Senator Enzi, the Senate voted unanimously to extend OSHA coverage to the U.S. Postal Service. On introducing his Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act of 1998, Republican Senator Enzi indicated that all federal employees should ultimately be covered: ``This important legislation is an incremental step in the effort to ensure that the `law of the land' applies equally to all branches of government as well as the private sector--and everything in-between.'' Finally, my Safer Workplace Act would also extend OSHA protections to employees of state and local government. State and local public employees are now covered only if their state happens to have a state plan. But in 27 states that do not have a state plan, 8.1 million state and local public employees are not protected by OSHA. There's no reason why these employees should be treated as second- class citizens. They face workplace hazards just like workers in the private sector, sometimes more. Their health and their lives are just as much at risk as those of private sector workers. In fact, in 1997, 624 public sector workers were killed on the job. In several states, the injury rate is higher for public employees than for private sector employees. At a recent hearing of the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress testified. ``There are numerous examples of on-the-job tragedies that occurred primarily because safety and health protections do not apply to public employees. These tragedies could have been prevented by compliance with OSHA rules.'' Once again, this is a common-sense, bipartisan proposal. The Bush Administration supported OSHA coverage for state and local public employees in 1991. I understand there is interest on the other side of the aisle in this particular provision, and I welcome it. Taken together, the four provisions in this legislation would make a real difference for American workers. Fewer of them would be exposed to workplace hazards, fewer would be injured or harmed on the job, and fewer would be forced to pay with their lives. The Safer Workplaces Act would encourage employees to be involved in identifying workplace hazards and correcting them before tragedy occurs. It would deter employers from putting their employees lives' in danger through deliberate violations of the law. And it would give federal employees and state and local public employees the same health and safety protections that workers in the private sector have long enjoyed. This is a sensible package of bipartisan reforms, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this legislation in the 106th Congress. The Right-to-Organize Act of 1999 As Ranking Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) subcommittee with jurisdiction over the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), I am also introducing legislation that would more fully recognize the right of American working men and women to organize and bargain collectively. Workers across America who want to organize a union and bargain collectively with their employer are finding that the rules are stacked against them in crucial ways. This is clear to any labor organizer, and to many workers who have made the effort. To give workers a fair chance to organize and bargain collectively, we need fundamental labor law reform. My ``Right-to-Organize Act of 1999'' will target some of the worst abuses of labor law that have become increasingly common in recent years. First, employees are being subject to flagrant coercion, intimidation, and interference during certification election campaigns. Second, employers are simply firing employees who attempt to organize a union, and they're doing so with virtual impunity. In fact, despite the fact that the NLRA prohibits firing of employees for trying to organize a union, as many as 10,000 Americans lose their jobs each year for doing just that. The 1994 Dunlop Commission found that one in four employers illegally fired union activists during organizing campaigns. And third, there is a growing problem of employers refusing to bargain with their employees even after a union has been certified. The Right-to-Organize Act of 1999 tackles these problems with the following provisions: First, it would help employees make fully informed, free decisions about union representation by providing labor representatives and management equal opportunity to disseminate information to employees. Second, it would expand the remedies available for employees who are wrongfully discharged--for union organizing, for example. Specifically, it would expand the remedies available to the National Labor Relations Board to include three times back pay, and it would allow employees to recover punitive damages in district court when the Board has determined that they were wrongfully discharged. Third, if protecting the right to join a union and bargain collectively is to have any meaning, there must be safeguards to ensure that newly certified unions have a reasonable opportunity to reach an agreement with their employer. My legislation would provide for mediation and arbitration when employers and employees fail to reach a collective bargaining agreement on their own within 60 days of a union's certification. While these provisions are all much-needed to level the playing field, I am the first to admit that much more still needs to be done. This legislation is very much a work in progress. I will be considering additional provisions to strengthen the authority of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) to sanction willful violations of the law and to prevent abuses that too often string out election campaigns for months and months while worker representatives are thoroughly intimidated, organizers are fired, and the organizing campaign dies an early death. I believe very strongly that the Right to Organize is terribly important--not only for the workers who want to join together and bargain collectively, but for all Americans. One of the most important things we can do to raise the standard of living and quality of life for working Americans, raise wages and benefits, improve health and safety in the workplace, and give average Americans more control over their lives is to enforce their right to organize, join, and belong to a union. We know that union workers are able to earn up to one-third more than non-union workers and are more likely to have pensions and health benefits. That's why more than four in ten workers who are not currently in a union say they would join one if they had the chance. When workers join together to fight for job security, for dignity, for economic justice and for a fair share of America's prosperity, it is not a struggle merely for their own benefit. The gains of unionized workers on basic bread-and-butter issues are key to the economic security of all working families. Upholding the Right to Organize is a way to advance important social objectives--higher wages, better benefits, more pension coverage, more worker training, more health insurance coverage, and safer workplaces--without drawing on any additional government resources. I believe that the Right to Organize is one of the most important civil rights and human rights causes of the 1990s. Unfortunately, this cause has received too little attention in this Congress. I hope I can do something to remedy that situation, but this legislation is only a first step.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Development Venture Capital Assistance Act of 1999. This bill would create a demonstration program to promote small business development and entrepreneurship in economically distressed communities through support of Community Development Venture Capital funds. While our nation has enjoyed a historic period of economic growth over the past several years, there are concentrated pockets of poverty, in rural and urban areas, which have not experienced development of jobs and opportunities for its residents. Small businesses, which have led America's economic expansion, have not been able to gain a toehold in these areas. A major reason for this lackluster performance is inability for entrepreneurs in economically distressed areas to access capital. No business can grow without infusions of capital for equipment purchases, to conduct research, to expand capacity, or to build infrastructure. At some point all successful ventures outgrow incubation in the entrepreneur's garage or living room; additional staff must be hired and the complexity of managing supply and demand increases. Yet it is clear that throughout the country there are small business owners who are being starved of the capital necessary to take this step. They have viable businesses or ideas for businesses but cannot fully transform their aspirations into reality because of this financial roadblock. Traditional venture capital firms are not meeting the need for equity capital in disadvantaged communities. Such investments are risky in the best of circumstances, but they can and do succeed with adequate time and attention. These communities need patient investors who are willing to work closely with small business owners to realize a financial return over the long term. Often, the investments needed are smaller than those made by traditional sources. Throughout America, organizations known as Community Development Venture Capital funds are making these kinds of equity investments in communities and are producing excellent results. CDVC funds make equity investments in small businesses for two purposes: to reap a financial return to the fund, and to generate a social benefit for the community through creation of well paying jobs. This ``double bottom line'' is what makes CDVC funds unique. There are around 30 CDVC funds currently operating throughout the country, in both rural and urban areas. These funds are demonstrating the success of socially conscious investment and entrepreneurial solutions to social and economic problems. My own state of Minnesota is home to a good example of a seasoned, and successful CDVC fund: Northeast Ventures Corporation of Duluth. NEV serves a seven county rural area and focuses on creating good jobs in high value-added industries. NEV targets 50% of the jobs created through investments to women, and to low income and structurally unemployed persons. They also require portfolio companies to offer employees an opportunity to participate in a health care plan to which the employer contributes. The following story illustrates an NEV achievement: In 1990 a group of entrepreneurs approached Northeast Ventures about setting up a car wash equipment manufacturing facility in Tower, a town of 508 people, in one of the poorest parts of Northeastern Minnesota. While NEV thought that the market opportunity was attractive, the company, called Powerain, had an incomplete business plan and lacked a Chief Operating Officer. NEV also felt that the business provided a good opportunity to create jobs and bring some economic vitality to an area that needed it badly. Other assistance was needed before NEV could provide financing for the effort. Northeast worked closely with Powerain's founders to revise the business plan and identify a strong CEO candidate for the company. Northeast also invested $200,000 in equity into the business. Northeast's involvement did not stop after making its first investment. NEV staff conducted the strategic planning sessions of Powerain and continue to be essential in developing the company's strategic plan. They assist in identifying the need for key personnel; recruit the necessary staff; and are integral in qualifying the short list of candidates. Over a multi year period, NEV has talked daily with the Powerain CEO regarding subjects as diverse as sales, distributor relationships and the financial structure of loans. Over an eight year period, NEV has assisted Powerain in all subsequent rounds of financing totaling $826,932. Powerain had a record sales year in 1998 and is expecting another record year in 1999. The company currently employs 20 full-time people, and expects to increase that number significantly in the future. The company provides ongoing training to its staff and entry level positions begin at $8 an hour--with full benefits. Most employees earn well in excess of $10 per hour. Success stories such as these are typical for CDVC funds. The purpose of the Community Development Venture Capital Assistance Act is to grow the capacity of the CDVC fund ``industry'' by authorizing a $20 million four year demonstration program through the Small Business Administration. First, the bill would authorize $15 million for SBA grants to private, nonprofit organizations with expertise in making venture capital investments in poor communities. This will provide hands-on technical assistance to the new and emerging CDVC funds. These grants could also be used to fund the start up and operating costs of new CDVC organizations. Grants to these intermediary organizations would be matched dollar for dollar with funds raised by the intermediary from non-Federal sources. Second, the bill would provide $5 million in SBA grants to colleges, universities, and other firms or organizations--public or private--to create and operate training programs, intern programs, a national conference, and academic research and study dealing with community development venture capital. This legislation would provide support for entrepreneurial solutions to economic development issues in rural and urban America. It will allow the Federal government to promote what's working in distressed communities. Last year, the Senate approved a nearly identical provision as part of an SBA technical amendments bill. I was pleased that the demonstration program enjoyed bipartisan support last year and I hope it will again.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I address you today to speak about a problem that is one of the most pressing facing our nation today. Ten million children in America are eligible for federal child care assistance, yet we provide for only 1.4 million of them. Fully 86 percent of eligible children are left unattended or are forced into inadequate facilities that are often overcrowded. These are the only viable options for parents who are struggling to make ends meet even in these times of national prosperity. The waiting list for child care assistance in many states extends to tens of thousands of eligible families. And so many parents who would give almost anything to be able to stay at home and care for their children themselves simply can't afford to do so. Something needs to be done soon. The problems that we are facing today will only compound as children who have been inadequately cared for struggle in school and society. As President Kennedy said, ``the time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining.'' Today I reintroduce the most ambitious effort to address this problem to date, The Child Development Act. With this one piece of legislation, our nation will cut our most threatening problem in half. This bill provides support for half of the ten million American children who are eligible for federal child support assistance, and provides billions of dollars in tax credits for parents who choose to stay home with their children. The Child Development Act will help children and their parents several ways. First, it will greatly increase funding for the CCDBG program, a tried and proven method of providing for care of our children. The bulk of this money ($37.5 billion over 5 years) will be used to provide more affordability for families wanting to enroll their children in child care programs. There is also $4 billion in CCDBG funds set aside for improving the quality of child care in our country, which is definitely necessary as Children's Defense Fund studies show that 6 out of 7 child care facilities in this country provide only poor to mediocre service, and one out of eight centers actually put the safety of children at risk. Five billion dollars in CCDBG increases is set aside for improving afterschool programs for school age children. Additional $2 billion in CCDBG increases is allocated for new child care facilities construction ($500 million) providing 50,000 to 75,000 new high quality child care slots each year; increases in public/ private partnerships where states and local communities' private sectors must each match twenty five percent of grants ($500 million); and $1 billion is allocated for professional development of child care workers. The remaining portions of the $62.5 billion bill are $1 billion in loan forgiveness to those who earn a degree and work in early childhood education, and $13 billion in tax credits for low- and middle-income working parents, so that they can better afford quality care for their children. Those parents who make the tough financial decision to stay at home and care for their children will be greatly assisted by this provision. Research has shown that much of what happens in life depends upon the first three years of development. The brain is so profoundly influenced during this time because the brain of a three-year-old has twice as many synapses (connections between brain cells) as that of her adult parents. The process of brain development is actually one of ``pruning'' out the synapses that one does not need (or more accurately, does not use) from those that become the brains standard ``wiring.'' This is why the first three years of development are so important--this is the time that the brain must develop the wiring that is going to be used for the rest of one's life. According to a report on brain development published by the Families and Work Institute, ``Early care and nurture have a decisive, long lasting impact on how people develop, their ability to learn, and their capacity to control their own emotions.'' If children do not receive proper care before the age of three, they never receive the chance to develop into fully functioning adults. We are not allowing our children a chance in life when we do not provide them with proper care in their early years. If America is to achieve its goal of equal opportunity for our children, we need to start with proper care in their early years. It is a painful statistic then that our youngest citizens are also some of the poorest Americans. One out of every four of our country's 12 million children under the age of three live in poverty. It becomes very difficult to break out of the cycle of poverty if poor children are not allowed to develop into fully functioning adults. Yet many parents in America do not have the option of providing adequate care for their children. For parents who can barely afford rent it is nearly impossible to take advantage of the Family Medical Leave Act, and sacrifice 12 weeks of pay in order to directly supervise a child. Many mothers need to return to work shortly after giving birth and find that the only options open to them are to place their children in care that is substandard, even potentially dangerous--but affordable. According to the Children's Defense Fund, six out of seven child care centers provide only poor to mediocre care, and one in eight centers provide care that could jeopardize children's safety and development. The same study said that one in three home-based care situations could be harmful to a child's development. How can we abide by these statistics? This is a serious problem, and frighteningly widespread. The eligibility levels set for receiving child care aid through the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is 85 percent of a state's median income. Nationally, this came out to about $35,000 for a family of three in 1998. However, according to the Children's Defense Fund, fully half of all families with young children earn less than $35,000 per year. Half! A family that has two parents working full time at minimum wage earns only $21,400 per year. This is not nearly enough to even dream of adequate child care. Child care costs in the United States for one child in full-day day care range from $4,000 to $10,000 a year. It is not surprising that, on average, families with incomes under $15,000 a year spend 23 percent of their annual incomes on child care. And in West Virginia, if a family of three makes more than that $15,000, they no longer qualify for child care aid! In fact, thirty-two states do not allow a family of three which earns $25,000 a year (approximately 185 percent of poverty) to qualify for help. Only four states in our nation set eligibility cut- offs for receiving child care assistance at 85 percent of median family income, the maximum allowed by federal law. There is obviously not enough funding to support the huge need for child care assistance in our nation, and that is why I am proposing the Child Care Development Act. There is widespread support for expanded investments to improve the affordability and quality of child care. A recent survey of 550 police chiefs found that nine out of ten police chiefs surveyed agreed that ``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested more in programs to help children and youth get a good start'' such as Head Start and child care. Mayors across the country identified child care, more than any other issue, as one of the most pressing issues facing children and families in their communities in 1996 survey. A recent poll found that a bipartisan majority of those polled support increased investments in helping families pay for child care - specifically, 74% of those polled favor a bill to help low-income and middle-class families pay for child care, including 79% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans, and 76% of Independents. It is clear that many like to talk about supporting our children, and many are in favor of supporting our children, but what action is actually taken? Yes, the addition of new child care dollars in 1996 has helped welfare recipients, but it has done nothing for working, low- income families not receiving TANF. The Children's Defense Fund recommends that Congress pass comprehensive legislation that guarantees at least $20 billion over five years in new funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG). My Child Care Development Act goes beyond this, yet even my bill is just a first step. This bill is designed to provide affordable, quality child care to half of the ten million American children presently in need of subsidized care. It will provide $62.5 billion over 5 years--$12.5 billion a year--nearly three times the amount proposed in the President's most ambitious, and still unprosecuted, proposal. In 1997 the President proposed extending care to 600,000 children from poor families, leaving fully 80% of eligible children without aid. The last time we heard about that proposal was 1997. If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting children, we need to invest more in families and in child care help for them. Enabling families to work and helping children thrive means giving states enough money so that they can set reasonable eligibility levels, let families know that help is available, and take working families off the waiting lists. The Child Care Development Act will require $62.5 billion over five years. There will be several offsets necessary if we are serious about giving children in this country the type of care they need and deserve. Shifting spending from these offsets demonstrates that our true national priority is children, not wasteful military spending and corporate tax loopholes. The offsets that will be necessary are as follows. If we repeal the reductions in the Corporate Minimum Tax from the 1997 Budget Bill, we create $8.2 billion. The elimination of the Special Oil and Gas Depletion Allowance will make room for and additional $4.3 billion. An offset of $575 million will come from a repeal of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit and an offset of $13.8 billion will come from the elimination of exclusion for Foreign-Earned Income. From these four different offsets in tax provisions a sub total amount of $26.8 billion is created to spend on child care. Defense cuts will also be necessary in the amount of $24.4 billion. This will come from canceling the F-22, a plane plagued with troubles, which will free up $19.3 billion, and $5.1 billion will come from a reduction in Nuclear Delivery Systems Within Overall Limits of START II. The remaining offsets can be made by reducing the Intelligence Budget by 5%, which would save $6.7 billion; by reducing Military Export Subsidies by $850 million; and by canceling the International Space Station, which costs $10 billion. All of which, when added together, allows for an additional $68.8 billion to be used to support our children. This is, finally, a child care bill on the same scope as the problem itself. We as a nation are neglecting the most vulnerable and important portion of our society--our children. Here is an ambitious solution to this vast problem that has been plaguing our country, so that we don't have to be a country that just talks about putting our children first.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Development Venture Capital Assistance Act of 1999. This bill would create a demonstration program to promote small business development and entrepreneurship in economically distressed communities through support of Community Development Venture Capital funds. While our nation has enjoyed a historic period of economic growth over the past several years, there are concentrated pockets of poverty, in rural and urban areas, which have not experienced development of jobs and opportunities for its residents. Small businesses, which have led America's economic expansion, have not been able to gain a toehold in these areas. A major reason for this lackluster performance is inability for entrepreneurs in economically distressed areas to access capital. No business can grow without infusions of capital for equipment purchases, to conduct research, to expand capacity, or to build infrastructure. At some point all successful ventures outgrow incubation in the entrepreneur's garage or living room; additional staff must be hired and the complexity of managing supply and demand increases. Yet it is clear that throughout the country there are small business owners who are being starved of the capital necessary to take this step. They have viable businesses or ideas for businesses but cannot fully transform their aspirations into reality because of this financial roadblock. Traditional venture capital firms are not meeting the need for equity capital in disadvantaged communities. Such investments are risky in the best of circumstances, but they can and do succeed with adequate time and attention. These communities need patient investors who are willing to work closely with small business owners to realize a financial return over the long term. Often, the investments needed are smaller than those made by traditional sources. Throughout America, organizations known as Community Development Venture Capital funds are making these kinds of equity investments in communities and are producing excellent results. CDVC funds make equity investments in small businesses for two purposes: to reap a financial return to the fund, and to generate a social benefit for the community through creation of well paying jobs. This ``double bottom line'' is what makes CDVC funds unique. There are around 30 CDVC funds currently operating throughout the country, in both rural and urban areas. These funds are demonstrating the success of socially conscious investment and entrepreneurial solutions to social and economic problems. My own state of Minnesota is home to a good example of a seasoned, and successful CDVC fund: Northeast Ventures Corporation of Duluth. NEV serves a seven county rural area and focuses on creating good jobs in high value-added industries. NEV targets 50% of the jobs created through investments to women, and to low income and structurally unemployed persons. They also require portfolio companies to offer employees an opportunity to participate in a health care plan to which the employer contributes. The following story illustrates an NEV achievement: In 1990 a group of entrepreneurs approached Northeast Ventures about setting up a car wash equipment manufacturing facility in Tower, a town of 508 people, in one of the poorest parts of Northeastern Minnesota. While NEV thought that the market opportunity was attractive, the company, called Powerain, had an incomplete business plan and lacked a Chief Operating Officer. NEV also felt that the business provided a good opportunity to create jobs and bring some economic vitality to an area that needed it badly. Other assistance was needed before NEV could provide financing for the effort. Northeast worked closely with Powerain's founders to revise the business plan and identify a strong CEO candidate for the company. Northeast also invested $200,000 in equity into the business. Northeast's involvement did not stop after making its first investment. NEV staff conducted the strategic planning sessions of Powerain and continue to be essential in developing the company's strategic plan. They assist in identifying the need for key personnel; recruit the necessary staff; and are integral in qualifying the short list of candidates. Over a multi year period, NEV has talked daily with the Powerain CEO regarding subjects as diverse as sales, distributor relationships and the financial structure of loans. Over an eight year period, NEV has assisted Powerain in all subsequent rounds of financing totaling $826,932. Powerain had a record sales year in 1998 and is expecting another record year in 1999. The company currently employs 20 full-time people, and expects to increase that number significantly in the future. The company provides ongoing training to its staff and entry level positions begin at $8 an hour--with full benefits. Most employees earn well in excess of $10 per hour. Success stories such as these are typical for CDVC funds. The purpose of the Community Development Venture Capital Assistance Act is to grow the capacity of the CDVC fund ``industry'' by authorizing a $20 million four year demonstration program through the Small Business Administration. First, the bill would authorize $15 million for SBA grants to private, nonprofit organizations with expertise in making venture capital investments in poor communities. This will provide hands-on technical assistance to the new and emerging CDVC funds. These grants could also be used to fund the start up and operating costs of new CDVC organizations. Grants to these intermediary organizations would be matched dollar for dollar with funds raised by the intermediary from non-Federal sources. Second, the bill would provide $5 million in SBA grants to colleges, universities, and other firms or organizations--public or private--to create and operate training programs, intern programs, a national conference, and academic research and study dealing with community development venture capital. This legislation would provide support for entrepreneurial solutions to economic development issues in rural and urban America. It will allow the Federal government to promote what's working in distressed communities. Last year, the Senate approved a nearly identical provision as part of an SBA technical amendments bill. I was pleased that the demonstration program enjoyed bipartisan support last year and I hope it will again.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, following is a list of requirements this amendment will make unwaivable under Ed-Flex: providing opportunities for all children to meet challenging achievement levels; using learning approaches that meet the needs of historical underserved populations, including girls and women; provide instruction by highly qualified professional staff; provide professional development for teachers and aides to enable all children in the school to meet the State's student performance standards. I am for flexibility, but we ought to also have, in addition, accountability. These are the core requirements of the title I program as a part of ESEA passed in 1965. There is a reason for these core requirements. We want to make sure that there will be no loophole so that we give protection to poor children in this country. Right now, this ed flexibility bill, unless this amendment is agreed to, creates a loophole whereby a State could allow a school district to be exempt from these basic core requirements, which is our effort as a national community to make sure that poor children have educational opportunities. The Ed-Flex bill, if this amendment is not agreed to, could take away opportunities for poor children. I ask for your support in relation to title I, in relation to the vocational education program. This is the right thing to do. If this amendment is not agreed to, this piece of legislation will not be a step forward for low-income children in America. It will be a great leap backward. Please support this amendment, colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may we have order the Chamber.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this week across the globe, men and women have celebrated International Women's Day, highlighting the achievements of women around the world. From Qatar to Indonesia, the day was marked by women marching, meeting, and protesting for recognition of their inherent dignity and fundamental human rights. I believe there is much work yet to be done to ensure that women and girls' human rights are protected and respected. One of the most horrendous human rights violations of our time is trafficking in human beings, particularly among women and children, for purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. To curb this horrific practice, I am introducing the ``International Trafficking of Women and Children Victim Protection Act of 1999'' which will put Congress on record as opposing trafficking for forced prostitution and domestic servitude, and acting to check it before the lives of more women and girls are shattered. One of the fastest growing international trafficking businesses is the trade in women. Women and girls seeking a better life, a good marriage, or a lucrative job abroad, unexpectedly find themselves forced to work as prostitutes, or in sweat shops. Seeking this better life, they are lured by local advertisements for good jobs in foreign countries at wages they could never imagine at home. Every year, the trafficking of human beings for the sex trade affects hundreds of thousands of women throughout the world. Women and children whose lives have been disrupted by economic collapse, civil wars, or fundamental changes in political geography, such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union, have fallen prey to traffickers. The United States government estimates that 1-2 million women and girls are trafficked annually around the world. According to experts, between 50 and 100 thousand women are trafficked each year into the United States alone. They come from Thailand, Russia, the Ukraine and other countries in Asia and the former Soviet Union. Upon arrival in countries far from their homes, these women are often stripped of their passports, held against their will in slave-like conditions, and sexually abused. Rape, intimidation, and violence are commonly employed by traffickers to control their victims and to prevent them from seeking help. Through physical isolation and psychological trauma, traffickers and brothel owners imprison women in a world of economic and sexual exploitation that imposes a constant fear of arrest and deportation, as well as of violent reprisals by the traffickers themselves, to whom the women must pay off ever-growing debts. Many brothel owners actually prefer women--women who are far from help and home, and who do not speak the language--precisely because of the ease of controlling them. Most of these women never imagined that they would enter such a hellish world, having traveled abroad to find better jobs or to see the world. Many in their naivete, believed that nothing bad could happen to them in the rich and comfortable countries such as Switzerland, Germany, or the United States. Others, who are less naive but desperate for money and opportunity, are no less hurt by the trafficker's brutal grip. Last year, First Lady Hilary Clinton spoke powerfully of this human tragedy. She said: ``I have spoken to young girls in northern Thailand whose parents were persuaded to sell them as prostitutes, and they received a great deal of money by their standards. You could often tell the homes of where the girls had been sold because they might even have a satellite dish or an addition built on their house. But I met girls who had come home after they had been used up, after they had contracted HIV or AIDS. If you've ever held the hand of a 13-year-old girl dying of AIDS, you can understand how critical it is that we take every step possible to prevent this happening to any other girl anywhere in the world. I also, in the Ukraine, heard of women who told me with tears running down their faces that young women in their communities were disappearing. They answered ads that promised a much better future in another place and they were never heard from again.'' These events are occurring not just in far off lands, but here at home in the U.S. as well. According to a report in the Washington Post in 1997, the FBI raided a massage parlor in downtown Bethesda. The massage parlor was involved in the trafficking of Russian women into the United States. The eight Russian women who worked there, lived at the massage parlor, sleeping on the massage tables at night. They were charged a $150 a week for ``housing'' and were not paid any salary, only receiving a portion of their tips. According to recent reports by the Justice Department, teenage Mexican girls were held in slavery in Florida and the Carolinas and forced to submit to prostitution. In addition, Russian and Latvian women were forced to work in nightclubs in Chicago. According to charges filed against the traffickers, the traffickers picked the women up upon their arrival at the airport, seized their documents and return tickets, locked them in hotels and beat them. The women were told that if they refused to dance nude in various nightclubs, the Russian mafia would kill their families. Further, over three years, hundreds of women from the Czech Republic who answered advertisements in Czech newspapers for modeling were ensnared in an illegal prostitution ring. Trafficking in women and girls is a human rights problem that requires a human rights response. Trafficking is condemned by human rights treaties as a violation of basic human rights and a slavery-like practice. Women who are trafficked are subjected to other abuses--rape, beatings, physical confinement--squarely prohibited by human rights law. The human abuses continue in the workplace, in the forms of physical and sexual abuse, debt bondage and illegal confinement, and all are prohibited. Fortunately, the global trade in women and children is receiving greater attention by governments and NGOs following the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. The United Nations General Assembly has called upon all governments to criminalize trafficking, to punish its offenders, while not penalizing its victims. The President's Interagency Council on Women is working hard to mobilize a response to this problem. Churches, synagogues, and NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch and the Global Survival Network, are fighting this battle daily. But, much, much more must be done. My legislation provides a human rights response to the problem. It has a comprehensive and integrated approach focused on prevention, protection and assistance for victims, and prosecution of traffickers. I will highlight a few of its provisions now: It sets an international standard for governments to meet in their efforts to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human rights abuse. It calls on the State Department and Justice Department to investigate and take action against international trafficking. In addition, it creates an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in the Office of the Secretary of State and directs the Secretary to submit an annual report to Congress on international trafficking. The annual report would, among other things, identify states engaged in trafficking, the efforts of these states to combat trafficking, and whether their government officials are complicit in the practice. Corrupt government or law enforcement officials sometimes directly participate and benefit in the trade of women and girls. And, corruption also prevents prosecution of traffickers. U.S. police assistance would be barred to countries found not to have taken effective action in ending the participation of their officials in trafficking, and in investigating and prosecuting meaningfully their officials involved in trafficking. A waiver is provided for the President if he finds that provision of such assistance is in the national interest. On a national level, it ensures that our immigration laws do not encourage rapid deportation of trafficked women, a practice which effectively insulates traffickers from ever being prosecuted for their crimes. Trafficking victims are eligible for a nonimmigrant status valid for three months. If the victim pursues criminal or civil actions against her trafficker, or if she pursues an asylum claim, she is provided with an extension of time. Further, it provides that trafficked women should not be detained, but instead receive needed services, safe shelter, and the opportunity to seek justice against their abusers. Finally, my bill provides much needed resources to programs assisting trafficking victims here at home and abroad. We must commit ourselves to ending the trafficking of women and girls and to building a world in which such exploitation is relegated to the dark past. I urge my colleagues to support the International Trafficking of Women and Children Protection Act of 1999. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this week across the globe, men and women have celebrated International Women's Day, highlighting the achievements of women around the world. From Qatar to Indonesia, the day was marked by women marching, meeting, and protesting for recognition of their inherent dignity and fundamental human rights. I believe there is much work yet to be done to ensure that women and girls' human rights are protected and respected. One of the most horrendous human rights violations of our time is trafficking in human beings, particularly among women and children, for purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. To curb this horrific practice, I am introducing the ``International Trafficking of Women and Children Victim Protection Act of 1999'' which will put Congress on record as opposing trafficking for forced prostitution and domestic servitude, and acting to check it before the lives of more women and girls are shattered. One of the fastest growing international trafficking businesses is the trade in women. Women and girls seeking a better life, a good marriage, or a lucrative job abroad, unexpectedly find themselves forced to work as prostitutes, or in sweat shops. Seeking this better life, they are lured by local advertisements for good jobs in foreign countries at wages they could never imagine at home. Every year, the trafficking of human beings for the sex trade affects hundreds of thousands of women throughout the world. Women and children whose lives have been disrupted by economic collapse, civil wars, or fundamental changes in political geography, such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union, have fallen prey to traffickers. The United States government estimates that 1-2 million women and girls are trafficked annually around the world. According to experts, between 50 and 100 thousand women are trafficked each year into the United States alone. They come from Thailand, Russia, the Ukraine and other countries in Asia and the former Soviet Union. Upon arrival in countries far from their homes, these women are often stripped of their passports, held against their will in slave-like conditions, and sexually abused. Rape, intimidation, and violence are commonly employed by traffickers to control their victims and to prevent them from seeking help. Through physical isolation and psychological trauma, traffickers and brothel owners imprison women in a world of economic and sexual exploitation that imposes a constant fear of arrest and deportation, as well as of violent reprisals by the traffickers themselves, to whom the women must pay off ever-growing debts. Many brothel owners actually prefer women--women who are far from help and home, and who do not speak the language--precisely because of the ease of controlling them. Most of these women never imagined that they would enter such a hellish world, having traveled abroad to find better jobs or to see the world. Many in their naivete, believed that nothing bad could happen to them in the rich and comfortable countries such as Switzerland, Germany, or the United States. Others, who are less naive but desperate for money and opportunity, are no less hurt by the trafficker's brutal grip. Last year, First Lady Hilary Clinton spoke powerfully of this human tragedy. She said: ``I have spoken to young girls in northern Thailand whose parents were persuaded to sell them as prostitutes, and they received a great deal of money by their standards. You could often tell the homes of where the girls had been sold because they might even have a satellite dish or an addition built on their house. But I met girls who had come home after they had been used up, after they had contracted HIV or AIDS. If you've ever held the hand of a 13-year-old girl dying of AIDS, you can understand how critical it is that we take every step possible to prevent this happening to any other girl anywhere in the world. I also, in the Ukraine, heard of women who told me with tears running down their faces that young women in their communities were disappearing. They answered ads that promised a much better future in another place and they were never heard from again.'' These events are occurring not just in far off lands, but here at home in the U.S. as well. According to a report in the Washington Post in 1997, the FBI raided a massage parlor in downtown Bethesda. The massage parlor was involved in the trafficking of Russian women into the United States. The eight Russian women who worked there, lived at the massage parlor, sleeping on the massage tables at night. They were charged a $150 a week for ``housing'' and were not paid any salary, only receiving a portion of their tips. According to recent reports by the Justice Department, teenage Mexican girls were held in slavery in Florida and the Carolinas and forced to submit to prostitution. In addition, Russian and Latvian women were forced to work in nightclubs in Chicago. According to charges filed against the traffickers, the traffickers picked the women up upon their arrival at the airport, seized their documents and return tickets, locked them in hotels and beat them. The women were told that if they refused to dance nude in various nightclubs, the Russian mafia would kill their families. Further, over three years, hundreds of women from the Czech Republic who answered advertisements in Czech newspapers for modeling were ensnared in an illegal prostitution ring. Trafficking in women and girls is a human rights problem that requires a human rights response. Trafficking is condemned by human rights treaties as a violation of basic human rights and a slavery-like practice. Women who are trafficked are subjected to other abuses--rape, beatings, physical confinement--squarely prohibited by human rights law. The human abuses continue in the workplace, in the forms of physical and sexual abuse, debt bondage and illegal confinement, and all are prohibited. Fortunately, the global trade in women and children is receiving greater attention by governments and NGOs following the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. The United Nations General Assembly has called upon all governments to criminalize trafficking, to punish its offenders, while not penalizing its victims. The President's Interagency Council on Women is working hard to mobilize a response to this problem. Churches, synagogues, and NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch and the Global Survival Network, are fighting this battle daily. But, much, much more must be done. My legislation provides a human rights response to the problem. It has a comprehensive and integrated approach focused on prevention, protection and assistance for victims, and prosecution of traffickers. I will highlight a few of its provisions now: It sets an international standard for governments to meet in their efforts to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human rights abuse. It calls on the State Department and Justice Department to investigate and take action against international trafficking. In addition, it creates an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in the Office of the Secretary of State and directs the Secretary to submit an annual report to Congress on international trafficking. The annual report would, among other things, identify states engaged in trafficking, the efforts of these states to combat trafficking, and whether their government officials are complicit in the practice. Corrupt government or law enforcement officials sometimes directly participate and benefit in the trade of women and girls. And, corruption also prevents prosecution of traffickers. U.S. police assistance would be barred to countries found not to have taken effective action in ending the participation of their officials in trafficking, and in investigating and prosecuting meaningfully their officials involved in trafficking. A waiver is provided for the President if he finds that provision of such assistance is in the national interest. On a national level, it ensures that our immigration laws do not encourage rapid deportation of trafficked women, a practice which effectively insulates traffickers from ever being prosecuted for their crimes. Trafficking victims are eligible for a nonimmigrant status valid for three months. If the victim pursues criminal or civil actions against her trafficker, or if she pursues an asylum claim, she is provided with an extension of time. Further, it provides that trafficked women should not be detained, but instead receive needed services, safe shelter, and the opportunity to seek justice against their abusers. Finally, my bill provides much needed resources to programs assisting trafficking victims here at home and abroad. We must commit ourselves to ending the trafficking of women and girls and to building a world in which such exploitation is relegated to the dark past. I urge my colleagues to support the International Trafficking of Women and Children Protection Act of 1999. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be relatively brief, and then I will ask Senator Wyden, who is a cosponsor of this resolution, to really manage the rest of the time for Democrats. He is really the person who has taken the lead in the Senate on this, and he certainly should have the most time to talk about the resolution and the importance of it. Mr. President, I will make a couple of points. One of them is very much in agreement with my colleague from Kansas, having to do with the importance of the peace process. First, let me say that I think this resolution, which calls on the Palestinians not to unilaterally declare an independent state, is an important resolution. It is one which I certainly support. I support this resolution because I think that whatever ultimately is decided about whether or not there is or is not an independent Palestinian state, that is to be decided by Israel and the Palestinians. That is a part of the negotiation, part of where this peace process has to go in terms of dealing with these kinds of difficult questions. It would be a tragic mistake for there to be a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state now. It would be a tragic mistake. I think this resolution really says that in a fairly strong and firm way. Second of all, let me just say that I did have a chance, in December, to go to Israel with President Clinton. I have been a critic of the President on any number of different issues, especially when it comes to human rights questions. I think the administration's record is very weak. I think the President is trying to do the right thing in the Mideast. I went, in part, because I thought this was a commitment that the President was living up to, which he had made, regarding the Wye River agreement. It was a very moving trip. I thought it was especially significant. I am convinced that the historians will write about what happened in Gaza when the Palestinian National Council went on record voting to revoke that part of their charter that called for the destruction of Israel. That can only be a step forward. It was very moving to be there when that vote took place. I just think that it raised the benchmark in terms of where we are going in the peace process. I thought it was a terribly important step that was taken. Now we really wait to see what will happen in Israel. There are key elections. It is my hope that both Israel and the Palestinians will live up to a commitment that I think is so important to people all over the world. If there is not some political settlement, if there is not some resolution of this conflict, I fear that Israeli children and Palestinian children will be killing each other for generations to come. My final point is that I would like to make this a part of the Senate record, and that is why I wanted to speak briefly about this. I do not believe that our support for this resolution should be construed as the U.S. Senate taking a one-sided point of view. I think we should be evenhanded. I think the role of our Government is to encourage both parties to be committed to this peace process. I think the role of the U.S. Government is to have credibility with both parties and to simply say that this really is the only step that can be taken, and the only step that can be taken is a political settlement. So let me just make it clear, as ranking minority member of this committee, that this resolution is a terribly important resolution. I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this question, but I also want to make it clear that I believe it is important for the U.S. Senate to maintain an evenhanded approach and to do everything we can to encourage this peace process to go forward, to do everything we can to encourage both parties to be a part of this peace process. And I believe that is what this resolution does. I will reserve the remainder of the time on our side. I will ask my colleague, Senator Wyden from Oregon, to please manage this bill forthwith. I ask unanimous consent that John Bradshaw, a fellow in my office, be allowed to be on the floor of the Senate for the rest of the day.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, I have an amendment that is similar to the amendment colleagues voted on last time. I have tried to meet some of the objections that were made to that amendment. It now is based literally on sections 114(b) and 115(c) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It is the same language which deals with the core requirements of title I and makes it clear that we want to make sure no State is allowed to give any school district an exemption from these core requirements. Again, let me just list these requirements: To provide opportunities for all children to meet challenging achievement levels--the Senator from New Mexico is on the floor, and I will bet he would not object to that. To use effective instructional strategies that give primary consideration to providing extended learning time like an extended school year, before- and after-school, and summer programs; To use learning approaches that meet the needs of historically underserved populations, including girls and women; To address the needs of all children, but particularly the needs of children who are members of the target population through a number of means, including counseling, mentoring, college guidance, and school- to-work services; To provide instruction by highly qualified professional staff; To minimize removing children from the regular classroom during regular school hours; To provide professional development for teachers and teaching assistants to enable all children in the school to meet State student performance standards. I listed the basic requirements on the program as well. I am thinking out loud while I am speaking. Let me try to figure this out. The Chair is a lawyer, and maybe I should be a lawyer at this moment. But it seems to me that this doesn't do any damage to the idea of flexibility. It seems to me that anybody who would argue that this somehow damages Ed-Flexibility, or any State or school district that makes that argument, must have in mind that they want to waive these core requirements. If they want to waive these core requirements--and we are now about to pass a piece of legislation that will enable them to do so--that is what is flawed in this legislation. That is the flaw in this piece of legislation. That is the problem. There is a reason we made these core requirements part of title I, which has been such an important program to low-income children. The reason, I say to the Chair, is that while many school districts in many States have done a great job--and I have seen great work done in Minnesota--the fact of the matter is that sometimes these children fall between the cracks. Sometimes these children's parents, or parent, are the ones without the prestige and clout in the community. Therefore, we want to make sure there is some protection for these children. We want to make sure they receive instruction from highly qualified teachers. We want to make sure that if they fall behind, they get some help. We want to make sure they are asked to meet high standards. I hope somebody is watching this debate. Why in the world is this amendment unacceptable? Why is this amendment unacceptable? Because, I am telling you, if what Ed-Flex is all about is to sort of say, on the part of the Federal Government, we are giving up on this core accountability and, State school districts, you do whatever you want, you don't have to worry about meeting these core requirements that deal with low-income children, I am against it. Do you know something? A lot of Senators should be against it. So, Mr. President, I hope we can go over 50 votes today, and I hope this amendment will pass. If it does, I think it will make this Ed-Flex bill a much better piece of legislation. There is one other thing we should do: Fund it. Fund it. I would say that in all the discussions I have had with people--I hope all of my colleagues have visited schools with title I communities in urban and rural communities. I will tell you, I have heard little discussion about how ``we don't have enough flexibility.'' I have heard a lot of discussion about not having adequate funds. Fund it. Fully fund title I. Then we would be doing something to help these children. Fully fund Head Start, and then we would be doing something to help the children. Fully fund pre-K, preschool, early childhood development, and make child care affordable for families. Then we would be really doing something to help these children. Lower class sizes. Now we are helping these children. Make sure we do something to help children who drop out so that they don't drop out. I say to Senator Bingaman, I was told by a judge in Minnesota that there is a higher correlation between high school dropouts and incarceration than between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will soon yield the floor. I hope there are 100 votes for my amendment, because then I will believe the Ed-Flex bill is a good piece of legislation. Without this amendment, you don't have the accountability. You have given up on the Federal role of protecting poor children. That is a huge mistake. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time, assuming that my colleague on the other side who disagreed may want to make some arguments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment, which I have talked to my colleagues about, speaks to the central issue with this legislation that a lot of colleagues, I think, are trying to step around, dance around; that is, accountability. In other words, this amendment says we are for flexibility, but we are also for flexibility with accountability. It is absolutely acceptable for school districts and States to make all kinds of decisions on the ground about whether or not you want more teaching assistants or more computers or more community outreach. All of that makes sense and is within the framework of flexibility. I say to my colleague from Vermont, this amendment combines two amendments, so let me start and devote maybe about 5 minutes or less to the Perkins program--a very important vocational education program. What this amendment essentially says is, look, there are certain kinds of core requirements, core accountability requirements, of the Perkins program--vocational ed, high school, college--that must be protected-- that must be protected. The requirement that school districts and vocational schools meet their States' performance standards, who can object to that? The requirement that schools and districts provide professional development to teachers, counselors and administrators, who can object to that? The requirement that schools must provide programs of sufficient size, scope and quality to bring about improvement, what is objectionable about that? The requirement that schools and districts must evaluate the programs, including the assessment of how the needs of special populations are being met, what is objectionable about that? And finally, the requirement that schools and districts must tell the State about their process for local evaluation and improvement of the program. That is the Perkins Vocational Education Program. And the only thing I am saying, on the basis, I say to my colleague from Vermont, of the good work that we have done together on vocational education, why in the world, understanding the importance of flexibility, would we want to not at least protect this program and make sure that in every State all across the country that at least these core requirements are met? Let everybody be flexible as long as they meet these core requirements. Let's not sacrifice the quality of this program. Mr. President, the other part of this amendment is what troubles me the most. This is what troubles me the most about Ed-Flex. And let me just say to my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, I am quite sure that this amendment is going to pass overwhelmingly. For all I know, it may get 99 votes. But let me tell you one unpleasant truth that you have been unwilling to face up to. It is this: When the original title I program first passed in 1965, a lot of sweat and tears went into this program. We had some basic protections for poor children in America and we said there were going to be certain core requirements and in no way, shape, or form would those requirements ever be violated because this went to the very essence of what we are about as a Federal Government, which is making sure there is protection and quality of education for all our children. Here is what the core requirements are all about. This amendment is a different version from the amendment I had on the floor, because this is trimmed down and it refers specifically to sections 114(b) and 115(c) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am just saying we wrote this into this legislation in 1965, colleagues. This was over 30 years ago. What did we say? We said let's make sure that no State will ever be in a position of being able to give a school district a waiver from the following requirements: That for all of the title I children, low-income children, there will be opportunities for all children to meet challenging achievement levels; that they will use effective instructional strategies which will give primary consideration to extending learning time, like an extended school year; that we will serve underserved populations, including women and men, or girls and boys; that we will address the needs of children, particularly those who are members of the target population, who need additional help; that we will provide instruction by highly qualified professional staff; that we will minimize removing children from the regular classroom during regular school hours; and that we will provide the professional development for teachers and aides to enable the children in school to meet the State student performance standards. What is going on here? I came out here and spoke for almost 4 hours the other day and I never heard anybody give me a substantive argument about why they are opposed to this amendment. What is going on here? I am not going to use Senators' names, but one Senator with considerable stature here in the U.S. Senate said, ``Senator Wellstone, if your amendment passes, it will gut this bill.'' If that is what my colleague is saying, that is exactly what makes me worry about this legislation. How could this amendment gut Ed-Flex when this amendment just says we are going to do with Ed-Flex what the proponents of Ed-Flex say Ed-Flex does? Then my colleagues say, ``Don't you trust the Governors? Don't you trust the school districts across America?'' My answer is yes, I trust most of them, and therefore you should trust most of them, and therefore surely no one who is involved in education with children in our country would be opposed to the idea that for title I children, for poor children, there will be certain core requirements which will be the essence of accountability. How can you be opposed to it? I don't know of any Governor or any school board member who would say, ``Senator Wellstone, we don't want to live by the standard of making sure that our teachers are highly trained for title I children. Senator Wellstone, we don't want to live by the standard that there should be high standards for these children. Senator Wellstone, we don't want to have to give special help to kids who are falling behind.'' What are you afraid of? Why is there not support for this amendment? This amendment, in a slightly fuller version, received about 45 votes last time. I am hoping, now that I have sort of refined this amendment and narrowed the scope, that it will receive a majority vote. Because if this amendment does not pass, this piece of legislation, I want to say to people in the country, this will not be a step forward. This piece of legislation is not a step forward for several reasons. Let me just make one point that I made earlier as well, that right now, with title I, we are spending about $8 billion a year, and depending on who you listen to--whether it is the Congressional Research Service or whether it is Rand Corporation--this program is severely underfunded. In my State of Minnesota, when I meet with school district officials, especially in our urban communities, they tell me, ``Paul, what happens is we get money for schools with 65 or 75 percent poverty''--my amendment says schools with 75 percent poverty population should have first priority; that passed; I am glad it did--``but then we run out of money.'' If we are serious about helping these kids, we ought to be providing the funding to our school districts so they can provide the support to the children who are behind. Many of our schools all across the country scream at us and tell us: ``Because you haven't provided us with the resources, we can only help half the students,'' or a third of the students. So if we want to do something significant, we ought to provide the funding. What we certainly should not do is turn our backs to what was so important about title I as a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. What was so important about title I--this is a big Federal program; this is a Federal program that matters to K-12. What was so important was, we knew way back in 1965 and we know today that we as a National Government, we have a responsibility to make sure there are certain standards which apply to the education that poor children receive, and so we made sure there were certain standards, certain core requirements, which would be part of accountability. We would say that every school district in the land and every school in the land which was serving title I children would never be able to violate these core requirements. That is what we as a Congress were doing for poor children. We were for school districts having flexibility. We are for school districts having flexibility. However, this piece of legislation strips away the most important accountability feature to title I. This piece of legislation does not any longer give these children the protection. This piece of legislation, therefore, in its present form, is not a step forward, it is a great leap backward. I am surprised there is not more opposition. I know it is called Ed-Flex. Great title. I know everybody can say this is what the Governors want and we just sort of give all the decisionmaking power to the States. Politically, it seems to be a winning argument. Maybe I am the only one in the U.S. Senate who feels this way. I am for flexibility and I am for some of these other amendments that deal with smaller class size and rebuilding crumbling schools, and I am for spending a lot more money on education for children that comes out of the President's budget, that is for sure. But as a U.S. Senator, I will not be on the floor of the U.S. Senate and not speak against a piece of legislation which strips away some core protection for poor children that makes sure these children also get a decent education, and that the title I program which deals with these children meets these core requirements. For any other Senator to say this amendment guts Ed-Flex troubles me, because I think if everybody thought Ed-Flex was such a good bill, they would want to at least make sure we had this elementary, basic protection for these children. How can we pass this piece of legislation without this accountability? This amendment improves this legislation, Senator Jeffords. This amendment makes it a better bill. Without this amendment, we don't have this protection for some of the children in this country. I will oppose it even if I am the only vote in opposition. How much time remains?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have an extra copy. Might I ask whether I could also get one Xeroxed while I am speaking?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will, although I say, in the spirit of debate, it would probably be better if I had a chance to get some sense of why there is opposition to this amendment. Then I could maybe respond to that and we could have a little more of a give-and-take discussion.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Inquiry. I don't know whether we are finished with this amendment. If so, I am ready to send an amendment to the desk. I do not know whether my colleague from Vermont--

Mr. WELLSTONE. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its reading.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not. Is the order which listed the amendments the order of the votes or the order in which the amendments would be laid down? Is there flexibility--to use that word--about how we might proceed this afternoon, for those of us who are here and ready to do our amendments?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, did the majority leader say between the votes tomorrow there will be 5 minutes equally divided?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, let me, first of all, very briefly explain what this means to Minnesota. I think we on the floor have already gone over what this proposal is. It is $12 billion over 7 years, $7.3 billion over 5 years. It is an initiative to enable our school districts to reduce class sizes, grades 1 through 3, to an average of 18 students. It is an additional 100,000 teachers. Estimates are that we are going to need to hire 2 million really good teachers over the next 10 years in our country. This is our way, at the Federal Government level, of providing some resources to States and school districts that are sorely needed. Under this proposal, Minnesota would receive $19 million in fiscal year 2000 to support 519 teachers. Minneapolis would receive $2,355,271; St. Paul, $1,761,943; and Anoka-Hennepin, $489,090. This money is sorely needed, and it would be put to great use. I am pleased to announce that this comes as a complement to what the Ventura administration is planning on doing, which is to provide $150 million in the next 2 years to reduce class sizes in kindergarten through third grade, with the goal of having no more than 17 students per classroom. Let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire that in Minnesota, at least, I do not think you are going to get any argument whatsoever that the Federal Government ought to do a better job of providing money for special ed children. There is no question about it, the IDEA program is a great idea. We want children with special needs to be in our schools. We want them to get the best education possible. What troubles me is two things. No. 1, what troubles me is this sort of playing off one group of children against another group of children. I will say right now that in the State of Minnesota, we have also made it a goal to try to reduce class size because we know--I try to be in the schools about every 2 weeks--that there are a couple of things for sure that work. One of them is to make sure that we have the parents involved, and one of them is to make sure that children come to kindergarten ready to learn. We are not there as a Nation. One of them is smaller class size. At the elementary school level, it makes a huge difference. It makes a huge difference, I say to my colleague from Washington, at the middle school level, at the junior high school level, and at the high school level. So why are we talking about these proposals as if it is one versus the other? I say to my colleagues that what disappoints me the most is that the evidence is crystal clear. Let me just lay this out as I talk about this. Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee. Students in small classes perform better than students in large classes in each grade from kindergarten through eighth grade. In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education Program is helping to reduce class size in grades K through 12 in low-income communities; again, showing significant improvement in reading, math, and language tests. In Flint, MI, efforts over the last 3 years to reduce class size in grades K through 3 have produced a 44-percent increase in reading scores and an 18-percent increase in math scores. The research shows that it makes a huge difference. When we talk to the teachers, they tell us it makes a huge difference. When I am in schools and I ask students, ``What do you think represents real education reform?'' the first thing they talk about is reducing class size. They say, ``Smaller classes.'' I ask them, ``Why would smaller classes make a big difference?''

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.