Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. The price, and also, why is the price so important to whether or not family farmers will be able to continue to farm, and what is the central importance of that to our statement?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, for the sake of other colleagues, I believe many will support our efforts on the floor this week because they know how important agriculture is. But when the Senator makes the point about what is going to happen to family farmers, as opposed to large conglomerates able to weather this crisis, I wonder if the Senator might want to explain to people who feel strongly about it why, from the point of view of consumers, it is important that the family farmers be able to stay on the land. Maybe some people will hear you talk and they might say, well, OK, so the giants can stay on, they will farm the lands, and what difference does it make to the vast majority of the people in the country? I wonder if the Senator can spell that out.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have one more question for my colleague from Iowa. We have colleagues here on the floor from North Dakota and South Dakota. You talk about the Freedom to Farm bill and the whole question of the price plummeting and the dramatic loss of farm income in a State like Minnesota where we are really hurting. Later on I will get a chance to speak to that. The Senator mentioned that income in North Dakota dropped by 98 percent. Could my colleague from Iowa explain, A, why the price has plummeted; and, B, when we talk about a fair price, what we are really saying here? Because I think people need to understand how centrally important the price is to this whole question. Would the colleagues from North Dakota and South Dakota also be willing to comment on this?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one question?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Harkin spoke when I was out on the floor earlier, and Senator Dorgan, and Senator Johnson. Senator Conrad may have spoken. Mr. President, let me talk not so much about what is happening around the country, although most Senators represent States that are being hurt by this crisis in agriculture. Let me instead talk about what has happened in northwest Minnesota and what is happening right now in my State. In northwest Minnesota, we have been hit by bad weather. Everybody remembers the floods. We have also been affected by scab disease. And now we are facing very low prices with grain crops. Mr. President, the situation is dire. Wally Sparby, director of our farm service agency in the State, has predicted that we could lose as many as 20 percent of our farmers, that right now one out of every five farm families is in trouble and is struggling. Thanks to the help of Senators, including the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, we were able to get some help to farmers for spring planting season. We were able to get USDA farm credit to farmers at planting time. The problem is whether people are going to continue to be able to farm. Mr. President, I read from the testimony of Rod Nelson, who is president of the First American Bank in Crookston, which also has offices in the communities of Warren, Fisher, and Shelly in northwest Minnesota. Here is the concluding paragraph: In our bank in the fall of 1995, we began addressing the reality that things had reached a new level of concern, as many rather than some of our farm customers, were not doing well. Things have only gotten worse since then. This year we conservatively project to have 20 growers quitting or significantly downsizing their operation. We likely have an equal number thinking about doing so or in the process of doing so. It's important to note that to properly phase out of farming it takes good planning and 2, 3 or 4 years. The increased number we are seeing this year will likely be even larger next year. These numbers just represent our banks customers. As you look at the whole of Northwestern Minnesota, the picture would be worse because not all areas have beets which has been the one consistently good crop. Mr. President, I will just translate all of these statistics in personal terms. I hope we will take action in this Chamber that will make a difference. I hope it will happen in the House. I don't want it to be symbolic politics. I don't want a partisan debate. I hope it doesn't end up going in that direction, because I will tell you, I have met too many people who are now being driven off their farms. They not only work on the farms; this is where they live. During the mid-1980s, I was a teacher at Carleton College in Northfield, in Rice County, some 491 square miles, population I think about 41,000, and most all of my community organizing was in farm, rural areas. I spoke at so many different farm gatherings, and I knew so many families that were foreclosed on. I saw a lot of broken dreams and a lot of broken lives and a lot of broken families. That is exactly the direction we are going in right now. Farmers have good years and also some not so good years. Prices go up and prices go down. I am not, I say to my colleagues, going to come out here and rail about the Freedom to Farm bill. Maybe there will be a time to do that. I will say in a very quiet way that I really do believe this has been more for the benefit of corporate agribusiness, and I do think now that prices are falling and the so-called transition payments are dwindling, an awful lot of farmers are in trouble. That is the real point. We no longer have the safety net we once had. Farmers cannot make it on $2 corn, they can't make it on $3.25 wheat, and that is why at the beginning I said, and I say it again, I think the Freedom to Farm bill has become the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill. Now, after having said that, I want my colleague from Mississippi and other colleagues to know that I don't see this particular resolution or the amendments that we are going to bring to the floor over the next day or so as being a debate about the Freedom to Farm bill. I think it was a profound mistake. I voted against it. I will always take that position until proven wrong. By the way, I said when it was passed that I prayed I was wrong. I would be pleased to be proven wrong. If in fact the Freedom to Farm bill, along with the flexibility for farmers in planting, which I am all for, was to lead to family farmers doing better and the families being better off, I would be all for it. I guess that was the theory. But now we don't have the safety net we had, and, most important of all, farmers do not have the leverage in the marketplace to get a decent price. That is what I would put my focus on, a fair price for farmers, especially family farmers. Now, for people who might be watching our debate, I think this is special to me as a Midwesterner, because the family farm structure of agriculture is precious to our part of the country. We all know that the land will be farmed by somebody and somebody will own the animals. The question is whether or not the land is farmed by family farmers. The number of family farmers who live in our communities has a lot to do with who supports our schools, who supports our churches or synagogues, who supports the local businesses in town. This is a life- or-death issue for a very important part of America. This is a life-or- death issue for a part of America that is dear to many Americans. So first we have the resolution that is before us which asks the Senate to recognize that we have an emergency situation, and we do. This would potentially free up some funds that are needed to provide family farms and families in rural America with some support. Second, I think the most significant thing we can do is to focus on price. When I think about the discussions I have with farmers--I hope to be in Granite Falls, Minnesota this Saturday with State legislators. Doug Peterson is going to be there; Ted Winter is going to be there; Jim Tunheim from northwest Minnesota has been making the plea over and over: Please do something. Our focus will be to lift the current cap on the market loan rate. Right now, we have a cap on the loan rate which is $1.89 for a bushel of corn and $2.58 for a bushel of wheat, and this tends to set a floor under prices. But this is simply too low. It is just simply too low. Farmers cannot cash-flow with these kinds of prices. At a Minnesota average price for the year at $2 for corn, it simply is not going to work for family farmers. What I would like to do in the best of all worlds, is to remove these caps and raise the loan rate to the close to the cost of production--$3 corn and $4 wheat. That is what we should talk about. Instead, what we want to do is to at least take the cap off this loan rate, and then raise the loan rate to 85 percent of the average price for the last 5 years. That would be at about $2.25 a bushel for corn and about $3.22 for a bushel of wheat. Let me say to my colleagues, if we do that and we also extend the repayment period from 9 months to 15 months--all of it is paid back; this is not a giveaway--then what we will see is farmers getting a better price for their crop. We have to take the cap off the loan rate. We have to get the price up. There is no way that family farmers can make it otherwise. We can focus on exports. We can focus on all those other issues. That is fine. But the central issue is price, price, price. And right now that loan rate is set at such a low level and farmers have so little bargaining power in the marketplace that they cannot get a fair price. We also want to make sure that we have some price disclosure and reporting when it comes to what is going on with the livestock markets around the country. The problem is that there is plenty of competition among the producers, but there is no competition among the buyers of hogs and beef cattle. Therefore what we are talking about is a pilot project that basically puts us on the path toward mandatory price reporting by the packers. I personally would like to see mandatory price reporting done nationally, but I think this is a good step. We ought to know what they are paying. We have precious little free enterprise in what should be a free- enterprise system. The family farmers are the only competitive unit, and they find themselves squeezed both by the input suppliers and to whom they sell. Finally, crop insurance just cannot do the job if you face several disaster years in a row. Our amendment would replenish the disaster reserve of the Secretary of Agriculture so we can make payments to farmers who have suffered a disaster and for whom crop insurance hasn't worked. This is the indemnity feature of this piece of legislation. I say again to my colleagues, we can end up debating Freedom to Farm. I am all for debating it. But there is no way, whether it be what is happening to wheat farmers or what is now going on with corn growers as well, that farmers are going to make it if we don't get the price up. The most important single thing we can do as an emergency measure is to take the cap off the loan rate to get the price up, and, in addition, make sure that we can get some funding out there, some kind of indemnity program that will enable the Secretary of Agriculture, in the spirit of disaster relief, to get some funds out there to these families so that they have a chance. I want to say to my colleagues, I hope there will be overwhelming support for this resolution. More importantly, I hope that we will have overwhelming support for what is to follow. We want to take a position as a Senate that this is for real. The economy is at peak economic performance, but we are faced with a crisis in many of our rural and agricultural communities. Then what we have to do is pass amendments to this appropriations bill which take some concrete steps that can make all the difference in the world to the people we are trying to represent here. Those are steps I think we should take. I hope we get strong support for them. My priority is to be out on the floor speaking, debating this, working with colleagues, trying to get as much support as possible. For many family farmers in Minnesota and around the country, time is not neutral. It is not in their favor. If we are not willing to take some action that can make a difference, they are going to go under. We are going to see too many family farmers driven off the land. We will see more and more concentration of ownership of land. It is not going to be good for agricultural America; it is not going to be good for rural America; it is not going to be good for small businesses; it is not going to be good for small towns; it is not going to be good for the environment; and it is not going to be good for the consumers in this country. This is a crisis of national proportions, and I hope we will take corrective action this week on this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 3127 Mr. President, I come before the Senate as a Senator from Minnesota, along with other Senators from the Midwest, although I think that we represent the point of view of Senators throughout the country. I come to speak to the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that is before the Senate, although we are going to have much more business to follow. The concluding paragraph of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution is: Now, therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that emergency action by the President and Congress is necessary to respond to the economic hardships facing agricultural producers and their communities. This was laid down by my colleague, Senator Daschle from South Dakota, the minority leader. I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an original cosponsor of his amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be brief. I am just going to summarize. I thank my colleague. I think Senator Ford and Senator Moynihan said it well. Mr. President, I think this is eminently reasonable. I want to be clear one more time, this just gives the States the flexibility to allow a mother who is in college or wants to go to college for 2 years, to be able to do that and not be penalized for it. No State has to adopt this amendment. It is entirely up to the judgment of the States. But right now we have a situation where States face penalties and they are put in a position of having to drive some of these women out of school where they could do so much better in terms of employment, so much better in terms of jobs. There is a wealth of evidence that I could go into, but I think we want to go to a vote. This is the right thing to do. This is a terribly important initiative supported by many Senators who supported the welfare bill, and I hope there will be a very strong vote for it. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Center for Women Policy Studies, that has over 100 signatures representing children, women and education organizations in support of this amendment, along with a letter from the National Urban League be printed in the Record. Since I don't have time to go into other organizations of support I ask that a list of these organizations from all around the country also be printed in the Record. I would also like to include in the Record that I have received letters in support for this amendment from the American Vocational Association, the American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of Community College Trustees, and letters from a number of different legislators.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Maryland. She always kind of takes these issues from the abstract and connects them to people. I really thank her for her statement. I am very proud to have her support. I hope we really get a strong vote for this. Mr. President, I think my colleague from Kentucky is on the floor and wishes to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will yield time to the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matthew Tourville, an intern in my office, be allowed to be on the floor while we debate the higher education bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think my colleague, Senator Dodd from Connecticut, wants to speak on this amendment, and Senator Ford and Senator Moynihan are going to come down. I believe my colleague from Delaware also is going to speak. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. WELLSTONE. How long is a moment? Sixty seconds. I prefer, since the arguments are fresh in everybody's mind, to vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from West Virginia to see if this can be resolved briefly. If not, maybe we will want to change course. I think we might be able to move to a vote briefly. Can we wait for a few moments?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I know we are going to take a break in a moment. I say to my colleagues, if you don't have debate and want to support this amendment, I won't talk that long. I am ready to go forward with it. I don't know what my colleagues have heard. I believe both of them are supporters. I will simply summarize right now. There is a lot of data I can present later on about the difference an associate degree makes in terms of an economic situation for a family. I want to pick up on one comment my colleague from Illinois made. I can't even begin to recount the number of community colleges I have been at where maybe there are 300 students. I know about 20 percent are single parents, many welfare mothers. Over and over again, the plea that I hear is, ``Please let me finish my education; please let me get my 2-year degree, because I will be in such a better position to support myself and my children.'' I think if a State wants to allow a mother to do so, and her family will be much better off, we ought to give States that flexibility. I believe our States are saying that, I believe the community colleges are saying that and these families are saying that. I have a list of about 70 different organizations--120 organizations--that are saying that. So I hope we will adopt this amendment. Mr. President, I ask the manager, my colleague, the chairman, I have much to say if we are going on and there is debate. If there is support for this, I am prepared to urge its adoption. Does my colleague know? Is there opposition?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, most of my colleagues who support this amendment, and I believe there will be bipartisan support, supported the welfare bill. This is not about the welfare bill. Most colleagues who support this amendment were strongly in support of the welfare bill. I want to say at the beginning, a few words about that welfare bill which is a little counterintuitive to what I think people have been reading about or hearing about. I want to say, and unfortunately I believe I can marshal a lot of evidence for this point of view, that the reduction of welfare rolls by some 4 million plus people will be a good thing if what we are talking about is a reduction of poverty. The question is whether or not it has led to a reduction of poverty. There is precious little information out there and we need to understand, when we say to a family--a single parent, almost always women with small children--you now are off the rolls, you will be working, the question becomes what kind of jobs at what kind of wages can they support their families on? And, when they lose their health care a year later, are they worse off or better off? We have to make sure that these women and these children will be better off and that this will lead to a reduction of poverty, economic independence and all the rest. I am not at all sure that is happening. As a matter of fact, I think if we were ever to get the data State by State, we would find that many of these others and these children are worse off. First point. Then I will get to the amendment. Second point--child care. There are too many stories that too many people are now telling about how, yes, they are working, but it is a 3- to-11 job. Where is the child care available for their 3-year-old or their 4-year-old? There are too many of these families that talk about very ad hoc arrangements, one week it is a cousin, another week it is an older brother, but they never know from week to week how they will be able to find the child care. There are too many long waiting lists for affordable child care for working families. Now, you have another group of people who are coming into the workforce. There are too many first and second graders who are going home alone with no one there at all, and too many 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds also who are at home alone. That is the truth. Somebody has to look at that. I just want to say it on the floor once and then I go right on to the amendment. Someone has to look at that. If we are going to say that children are so precious--and we say that--and if we are going to say the children are 100 percent of our future--and we say that--then these children, even if they are poor children, matter as much as any other children. They are, all of these children, are a mother's child and a father's child, and they should matter. Somebody, somewhere, sometime, someplace has to get beyond the hype and look at exactly what is happening. Now, for the amendment supported by many colleagues who have a very different view about the welfare bill; this amendment is straightforward. What it does is it allows States to permit 24 months of vocational and postsecondary education as work activity. I will explain what this means. And, in addition, it removes teens from the 30 percent education cap. Two issues: The States have a cap as to how many citizens they can count as working if they are going to school, and teenagers are included. In a way, the teenagers should not be included because the given is we want teenagers to complete their high school education. I think that is pretty simple and straightforward, and that will help a lot of our States out as they try to work through the work participation requirements. The second thing this amendment says is, for any State that wants to--and there is no mandate at all--for any State that wants to, you can allow a mother to be able to complete 2 years of education. This is extremely important. Senator Levin began this effort last summer when he offered a similar amendment to the Balanced Budget Act. His amendment would have expanded the current law to permit 24 months of vocational education. I commend his efforts. I remind colleagues that there were 55 votes in favor of the amendment. Since that time, more data, more reports, more anecdotal evidence has emerged reinforcing the need to make this modification. In other words, we want to give States more flexibility with their welfare plans. We have to make this modification, because right now what is happening is that in too many cases States don't have the flexibility and, therefore, women, single parents with small children who are on the path to economic self-sufficiency because they are going to school, are essentially being driven out of school. This is crazy. We shouldn't do this. If we can at least put into effect this modification, which I think will have strong support, we will enable these women and these mothers to go on through the 2 years of education. We will enable the States to have the flexibility. No State is required to; it is up to the States. These women will be in a much better position to be economically sufficient. I will provide a lot of data, I say to my colleagues. If the Senator from Illinois is here to speak on the amendment--I know he is an original cosponsor. Has the Senator come to speak on the amendment? I will give an introduction and then defer to my colleague because we are going to finish up soon. Mr. President, what I am simply saying to colleagues is, I think this modification just makes all the sense in the world. Right now what happens is you have a State that is under pressure with all the work participation requirements. The State doesn't feel like it has the flexibility to give these mothers this option. And so you have this kind of bitterly ironic situation where a mother, a single parent, with two small children in college is forced out of college. She gets a $6- an-hour job with no benefits. One year later, she loses her medical assistance, and she and her children are far worse off, as opposed to-- and I will provide a lot of data to support this--as opposed to what happens when this woman, this mother can complete her education. There is no mandate. What we are saying is that if my State of Minnesota or the State of Illinois or the State of Vermont or the State of Massachusetts or the State of Alabama so desires, or the State of Kentucky--my colleague, Senator Ford, has been very active on this-- then they can do so. The question is, When these mothers are on the path to economic self- sufficiency, why do we want to take them off that path? I recently heard from a mother, Camille Martinson, who is a single mother with two children on the verge of completing a nursing degree. But fearing she will be unable to do so--her words best express the frustration she is now feeling and highlights, I think, the importance of the amendment. I quote from the letter that Camille sent me: With this infant program-- That is our welfare program in Minnesota-- They are forcing me to work a $5.15 per hour job. But if I was to graduate as a nurse, I will work for pay of over $10 per hour or higher. I am almost ready to graduate but it's damn near impossible with all these demands on me. If I didn't love my children so much that I want to provide them and give them a good life, I would have quit school and flipped burgers for eternity. I guess that's what the State may be forced to have me do. It sure seems like it. I want to make something out of my life for me and my children and succeed in life but won't at this rate. These are her words, a direct quote: Please help me with these issues as I see no other way out. It is hell for me. I guess you have to be in my shoes to know exactly how I feel and what I'm going through. I don't like the way this program is set up. It is a lose-lose situation. I can't win no matter what I do. The system I'm currently working on will make me fail no matter what I do. When I speak on these issues I'm not only speaking for myself, but many thousands of others are having similar problems that I do. I have a lot to lay out on this amendment. I yield the floor to my colleague from Illinois who was gracious enough to come down and speak on this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be included as a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask my colleague if I might make general comments about the bill as we are waiting.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that I may follow Senator Graham.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to very shortly send an amendment to the desk. I want at the very beginning to just take a couple of minutes to thank my colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy, for their very fine work. To me, it is a labor of love to be on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and I want to very briefly talk about the Higher Education Act which was first passed in 1965. I want to highlight at the beginning the Pell Grant Program, and I want to pay my respects to one of the Senators whom I have most enjoyed getting to know and to work with. I think he is a giant. I think he represents civility. And that is Senator Claiborne Pell. When we talk about the Pell Grant Program, I would say to the pages, as you go to apply for higher education, the Pell Grant Program will be critically important. This was Claiborne Pell's great contribution. I do believe that eventually--and I think my colleagues agree with me; and I am really disappointed that we haven't done this--we ought to fully fund the Pell Grant Program. We have bumped it up now to about $3,100 or thereabouts, but, frankly, we ought to take it up to $5,000. It is the most cost-effective approach. You reach the most students in need. You reach well into the middle-income range as well. Students don't graduate in such debt. It is absolutely critically important, and that would remain for me kind of the major priority in higher education. I also want to just at the very beginning remind colleagues that I still think, on the Hope scholarship tax credit proposal, we have got our work cut out for us, because if it is not refundable, those students, many of whom are in community colleges, Mr. President, in our State of Minnesota, who come from families under $28,000 a year, just simply have no help at all. So the promise of a tremendous amount of assistance for 2 years of higher education is not being realized. The average college student today is just so different--I mean is really so different. I sometimes believe the nontraditional students, students who are older and going back to school, many of them with children themselves, have become the traditional students. Over 57 percent of college students are female--it certainly wasn't that way in 1965 when we passed the Higher Education Act--37 percent are students of color. The average age of a student today in higher ed is 27, and more than 25 percent of college students are over 30. About 1 in 5 are married, and 1 in 10 are single parents. So it is not just 18- and 19- year-olds living in the dorm any longer. Really, we are talking about a very different situation. I wanted to highlight this, and I will just take a few moments and then get right to the amendment by just some profiles of some of our Minnesota students. Tony Rust is a senior at Southwest State University at Marshall, MN, and the Minnesota State University Student Association State Chair. He received the Pell grant his freshman year, only the Perkins loan his first 3 years, and the Stafford loan all 4 years. During his 4 years of college, Rust has worked at least 20 hours per week in order to pay for tuition and other expenses. His parents have not helped him financially, but he did, however, receive scholarships during his sophomore year. ``I wouldn't have been able to attend college without the Federal financial aid programs,'' Rust said. ``I wouldn't be graduating this weekend if it wasn't for federal programs.'' Rust's loan debt will be approximately $20,000. That weekend, of course, goes back to the beginning of June. By the way, Southwest State University is one great university. And the thing I like about it best, Mr. President--you have probably visited it as well--is the accessibility for those students who are developmentally disabled. It is just an incredible place; it really is. Paula Heinonen, after working for years in a rural hospital and raising four children, decided to return to school to enhance her skills. A nontraditional student, Paula is a junior at the Center for Extended Learning at Bemidji State University at Bemidji, MN. Paula is a wife, mother, worker, and student. And we have a lot of students like that today on our campuses. Then, finally, Troyce Williams. Troyce is a single mother of four children who is working hard to complete her studies at Minneapolis Community and Technical College within the one-year education requirement--which I will come back to in the amendment. Affordable housing and child care are critical to her graduating. Mr. President, there are a couple of things in this bill I appreciate. There was an amendment I was proud of that we introduced, we did extend the Pell award for summer semesters, and that will help a lot these nontraditional students. I think that was terribly important. We did have increases, not all that we should have, in the Pell grants and in the TRIO Program. I don't think I heard a lot of discussion about the TRIO Program, but talk about a heart-and-soul program, I love the TRIO people in Minnesota. It is an effort to reach down in the public school system and attract students of color or ``disadvantaged'' students, low-income students, to higher education. And then, once there, once they are in our colleges and universities, to provide them with the kind of additional support services that they need. It is just wildly successful and, actually, we have strong bipartisan support for the TRIO Program. There was a time when we were fighting for the survival of the TRIO Program. I am really glad that both parties have united behind it. Senator DeWine and I--and I have enjoyed working with Senator DeWine from Ohio--we have an amendment in this bill that I feel very good about. What we essentially say is that for those men and women who graduate who go into early childhood development, there will be loan forgiveness. That is a really positive incentive. We keep saying we have to get it right for students before kindergarten, but we pay men and women in child care miserably low wages. You make half of what you make working at a zoo, if you are working with children. By the way, I think people who work at zoos do very important work. I love zoos. Actually, I think they are precious. But the point is, why in the world do we say, ``These early years are so important for the development of the brain, as shown in all of the studies, and we have to get it right for these children, it has to be intellectually stimulating,'' and we have so many people who work for $6 or $7 or $8 an hour, many without any health care benefits and all? Senator DeWine and I have a loan forgiveness provision in the bill which I think at least helps. We have a mental health package which will provide those who are choosing careers in mental health to have research work and internships on the campus to be considered as study. We have an effort with Senator Kennedy in an area that has languished, recruiting women into the fields of math and science. We do some things that I think are important with the Fair Play Act, which would require the university data--I say to the chair of the committee, don't worry, I am not going to get started on this today, at least--but we have expenditures on all sports to be shared with the Department of Education, so we can try to figure out why some of these minor sports, be they men's sports or women's sports, are being cut. My colleague, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, is great to work with. I am proud of the amendment we did on campus safety. We want more accurate reporting. We have an issue with the Senator from Pennsylvania, and we have a $10 million grant program for collaboration between campus police, local law enforcement, and those women who are working in battered women shelters, which I think is extremely important. Finally, we are going to have an GAO study just look again at some of the cuts in college sports, some of which I think have been arbitrary and capricious, and to try to have a little bit more accountability. I thank my colleagues for their work on this bill. I am proud of the amendments I was able to contribute. I think this is a very good piece of legislation. I now will send an amendment to the desk. This amendment I introduce on behalf of myself, Senator Wendell Ford, Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Carl Levin, Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. A number of these Senators are going to be out on the floor speaking on this amendment. I think it is an extremely important amendment, colleagues. I believe we can pass it. I hope we can pass it. Amendment No. 3111 (Purpose: To expand the educational opportunities for welfare recipients)

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Erin Shanahan, Sarah West and Micky Holmes, interns and fellows, be allowed on the floor during the debate and votes on the education bill.