Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. The U.S. Senate is about to pass a bill that deals with education and then send it to the President. Now, when I go back to Minnesota--and when I am in Minnesota I try to be in a school every 2 weeks--here are some of the questions that students might be asking me about this education bill. ``Senator,'' or ``Paul,'' will this legislation reduce the class size or the size of our classes so that our teachers will be able to give us more attention so we won't have to sit on a radiator because there is not enough room in the classroom?'' By the way, I don't speak just for Minnesota but I speak for a lot of schools I visited in this country. My answer will be no, though I would like to be able to say to those students yes, because I know how important class size is to whether or not they receive a good education. ``Senator, will there be any money to renovate our school?'' I was just meeting with a group of students from one of our schools, a middle school in Minnesota, the community of Cambridge. They were talking about some of the problems that they have. ``Senator, will there be any money to rebuild our schools?'' Or as I think about some of the schools I visited around the country, and if I was talking to other children, they might be saying to me, ``Senator, the roofs are caving in, the building is decrepit, the air- conditioning doesn't work during the warm spring months, the heating system doesn't work well during the cold weather months. Is there any money to invest in the infrastructure, because we don't have the wealth in our communities to do this?'' My answer will be, ``No, not in this piece of legislation.'' ``Senator, will this bill train teachers to use technology so they can incorporate that into their teaching--because we are hearing that it is so important for us to be technologically literate to compete in the economy. Will that happen?'' And my answer will be no. How about other people who work with children, people who are down in the trenches? This is their life's work. This is their passion. They say to me, ``Senator, did you in this education bill put any money into early childhood development so that when children reach kindergarten they will be ready to learn?'' And the answer will be no. Then another question will come: ``Senator, what about after-school care?'' I think about the Boxer amendment. ``Did you put any money into good community-based after-school care programs?'' A lot of us with teenage daughters and sons worry a lot about where they are and whether or not there would be something positive for them to do after school. ``Did you all do anything in this legislation to help us?'' And the answer will be no. Then to make matters worse, with some of the amendments that have passed, I heard my colleague from California speaking, now we have block grant amendments that passed. So as a national community, what we used to say was we are a nation. We do not want to grow apart, we want to grow together. We make certain commitments here in the Senate and here in the House of Representatives representing our Nation. We are a national community with certain values and priorities. By golly, one of them is title I. We want to make sure that children who come from families in difficult circumstances--low and moderate income and other problems--get some additional support, and our schools get some additional support so they can give these kids some additional help. Now there is no assurance that will happen. There is no assurance that we will have the same commitment to safe and drug-free schools. We now have with this piece of legislation $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion-- what we have done is not just a money issue. It is not just a lack of investment in crumbling schools. That is not there. It is not just the lack of investment in smaller class sizes. It is not there. It is not the lack of investment in enabling teachers to get more training for uses in technology. It is not there. It is not just a great step backward where we don't invest the money in public education. I don't know what slice of the population we are talking about, but I will tell you there are not a lot of Minnesotans who can just take $2,000 and put it into savings. What about the vast majority of people who don't have those dollars, who are concerned about the communities they live in and the schools their children go to, public education? This isn't a great step forward for public education or education for children; this is a great leap backward. Now we have done something else, I say to my colleagues who supported this initial framework. What we have done through amendments passed on this floor is undercut what has been a historic national community commitment to title I, to children who need that additional help. This is not a step forward; this is a great leap backward. Mr. President, I will tell you, this piece of legislation is a piece of legislation that does not do well for many, many children in our country. We should be able to do much better. If we were to think about the best kinds of things we could do to make sure that children would do well, that we could have good education for all of our children, we would have put a lot of emphasis on smaller class size, and there is no emphasis on it; a lot of emphasis on early childhood development, and there is no emphasis on this; a lot of emphasis on after-school programs, and there is nothing in this legislation; a lot of emphasis on rebuilding crumbling schools. What kind of message do you think these children get when they walk into these dilapidated buildings? The message is that we don't value them. But there is nothing in this legislation that deals with that. Mr. President, what we also would have done is, we would have focused not just on the children, but we should be focusing also on the parent or parents. The two most important explanatory variables in determining how well children do are the income status and the educational status of their parent or parents. We don't put the emphasis on that. We don't put the emphasis on making sure there is health care there and good jobs and family income. We don't put the emphasis on smaller class size. We don't put emphasis on rebuilding crumbling schools. We don't put emphasis on preschool, early childhood development or after-school programs. What we do is undercut and wipe away a major commitment that we have made to the title I program and funds for kids from low- and moderate-income families. This piece of legislation is not a great step forward; it is a great leap backward from a commitment to public education, from a commitment to children and families all across the United States of America, from a national commitment to making sure that we expand opportunities for all of the children in our country. This piece of legislation doesn't do that. It may pass, but it will be vetoed by the President. And I will say to my colleagues that I am sorry, because I guess, with the exception of some Senators who have a different view, this is by and large a difference that we have on the two sides of the aisle. I look forward to this national debate. We will be debating education. In a way, this exercise--I would not call it meaningless. People spoke. But the truth of the matter is that everybody knows the President is going to veto this bill. He has made that clear. In that sense, all of us have felt a little uneasy about this week. But the debate will go on, because this issue of education, this issue of our children, whether our children will get good educational opportunities so they will do well in their lives--this is an important issue to families in North Dakota, Connecticut, Minnesota, and all across the country. As a Democrat, I am telling you, we are going to take this issue out and about the country. We are going to have a discussion, dialog, and debate. This piece of legislation, especially with these amendments, represents a huge step backward, and I want people in the country to understand that on this issue, the differences between the Democrats and Republicans makes a huge difference. I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could we have order?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that I will try to be relatively brief. I wish to speak to the agreement that the Senator from Georgia had announced. Senator Gregg had an amendment that he wanted to bring to the floor dealing with IDEA. Many of us were concerned about his amendment. From my point of view, this was an amendment that I believe threatened to undercut some of what I think has really been rich and important about IDEA. That is my own view. Many people in the disabilities community, many parents of children are worried about it as well. IDEA is really a pretty wonderful breakthrough for many families because up until the mid seventies--I know Senator Harkin will speak about this later--there were about 8 or 9 million children, many of whom felt shut out from the schools. The concern we had was that this amendment might turn the clock back. We did not want that to happen. It was our view it wasn't a question of it might turn the clock back; we were worried that it would. I guess the agreement we have reached is that now Senator Gregg is going to withdraw the amendment. I now want to speak about the amendment I am withdrawing. I want to say to parents and people in the disabilities community, especially in my State of Minnesota, that I have withdrawn this amendment reluctantly, but I understand their concern, and people really kind of got to my heart because there was a tremendous amount of concern about this amendment and I care fiercely about IDEA. I thought last year we had reached a good bipartisan consensus. I think this amendment by Senator Gregg is mistaken. I am glad it is now withdrawn. And when Senator Harkin--who is one of my really close friends here, somebody whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for and who has been probably, I think, just a giant in the Senate when it comes to issues that affect the disabilities community--said that he thought this agreement would put his mind at ease, then I so agreed. Mr. President, I will therefore offer the amendment that I had initially had to the Coverdell bill to the higher education bill, which makes a great deal of sense because that is really what this is about. I think we can get a majority vote for this because this amendment is very reasonable. Some Senators, such as Senator Ford from Kentucky, Senator Levin from Michigan, Senator Durbin from Illinois, who are among the original cosponsors, voted for the welfare bill. I voted against the welfare bill, but that is not what this amendment is about. What this amendment says is that we really have to fix the welfare bill. We have to make a modification here because what's happening around the country is that too many States are put in a position, in order to meet the work participation requirements, of essentially saying to single parents, almost all of them women with small children, you have to leave school and take a job even if that job is maybe a $6- an-hour job, and then a year later they will be worse off because they don't receive any health care benefits. This is shortsighted, and I do not think anybody intended this to happen. What this amendment will say, I say to my colleague from Georgia, is it will leave it up to States. There is no mandate at all. It will just say that if the State of Minnesota--and I think my State certainly wants to do this, or the State of Georgia or the State of Kentucky so decides--the States can say to us, ``Look, we would like to be able to give these parents, these women, 2 years of higher education because they are on the path to economic self-sufficiency.'' Why would you want to take them off that path? These are the parents who have the best chance of completing at least 2 years of school and then obtaining a living wage job and doing better for themselves and their children, and that this would not count against the work force participation requirements that States now have to meet. It would leave it entirely up to the States, but it would at least give States that option. I think my colleagues will be hearing from a lot of Governors and a lot of States and the higher education community. I think it makes all the sense in the world. This surely is not what we intended. I do not think we intended, under the framework of what is called welfare reform, to put States in a position where States have to say to all too many women, ``Look, you have to leave school.'' We ought to let these parents complete the school and, therefore, they are going to do much better for themselves and much better for their children as well. Mr. President, I, therefore, want to make it clear that I will offer this amendment. I see my colleague, the chairman of our Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Jeffords, here. I wanted to do it on this bill, but we got into this impasse. I care about IDEA. I didn't want us to have some acrimonious debate and a lot of ill will. So I am withdrawing the amendment; Senator Gregg is withdrawing his amendment. Therefore, I will look for another vehicle. The higher education bill is going to come before us. It is a good bill, a bipartisan bill. This amendment, I promise colleagues, is as reasonable as it can get. There is no reason in the world why we would want to put States in a position and put too many parents in a position of not being able to complete 2 years of education. It certainly would make a huge difference to them. Just one other word. I gather that we are going to talk about IDEA, and Senator Gregg or Senator Gorton is going to want to come to the floor and speak about that, and Senator Harkin can respond to what they have to say. For my own part, I thought we had a really strong agreement on IDEA. I think we should stick to that. It is a bipartisan agreement. It is important to make sure that children who are disabled have equal opportunities. I would hate to see us weaken this very, very important step that we have taken as a Senate. We will not be dealing with that debate tonight. But this amendment on higher education will be there. I also want to say one other thing to my colleagues, and then I will finish. Again, please look at the evidence that is coming in. What you are going to see with the welfare bill is that in all too many cases, we have now seen a reduction in the caseload, that is true, but it does not equal the reduction of poverty, which is where we should be heading. Too many of these parents are finding jobs, but they pay barely minimum wage without any health care benefits. In addition, the child care arrangements are really rather frightening, and too many small children, prekindergarten children, are not receiving good developmental child care. Too many children who are age 4 are home alone, and too many children are going home from school alone. We really have to look at what is happening, because a year from now or 2 years from now or 3 years from now, depending on the States, there is going to be a drop-dead date certain, and there will be no assistance. We have to know whether these families are reaching economic self-sufficiency, and the best way these families can do that is for that mother to be able to get an education. If we want real welfare reform or we want to reduce poverty or we want to have a stable middle class in our country, there is nothing more important to do than to make sure that we focus on a good education and a good job. That is what this amendment is about. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his graciousness. I hope when I offer this amendment there will be good, strong support. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senate has just passed H.R. 629, legislation granting congressional consent to the Texas/Maine/ Vermont Compact. I have often been asked why I--a senator from Minnesota--should have such a deep and abiding interest in this legislation, which appears to involve only those three states. Until this week, I had not agreed to a time limit for debate, and this held up consideration of the bill for more than year. I think I owe it to my colleagues to explain why I was insisting on a full and thorough debate, and why I think this discussion is so important. What has troubled me from the very beginning is that this legislation would result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste in a small, poor, majority-Latino community in rural West Texas--a town called Sierra Blanca. In this respect, the Texas/Maine/Vermont Compact is different from other Compacts the Senate has considered. We know beforehand where this waste will be dumped. The Texas legislation in 1991 identified the area where the dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. Whether we like it or not, this knowledge makes us responsible for what happens to Sierra Blanca. I'll be the first to acknowledge that this is a terrible responsibility. The fate of the people who live there ultimately rests in our hands. Their livelihoods, their community, their property, their health, their safety, and in many respects their lives, all depend on how we choose to proceed on this bill. I believe very strongly that the Compact raises important and troubling issues of what has variously been described as ``environmental justice,'' ``environmental equity,'' ``environmental discrimination,'' or ``environmental racism.'' And a diverse array of civic organizations agree with me about this. The Texas NAACP, The Sierra Club, the League of United Latin American Citizens (or ``LULAC''), Greenpeace, the Bishop and the Catholic Diocese of El Paso, the House Hispanic Caucus, Friends of the Earth, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, to name just a few. As a very basic proposition, I think we can all agree that it's wrong for poor, politically powerless, minority communities to be singled out for the siting of unwanted hazardous waste dumps. It's wrong when that happens in Sierra Blanca, and it's wrong when it happens in hundreds of other poor minority communities all across this country. I want to do whatever I can to stop it, and I don't see why every one of us should not want to do the same. I don't understand why it should be considered unusual for a senator to care about these things. On the contrary, I think it should be unusual for a senator not to care about these things. Let me tell you something about Sierra Blanca. It's a small town in one of the poorest parts of Texas, an area with one of the highest percentages of Latino residents. The average income of people who live there is less than $8,000. Thirty-nine percent live below the poverty line. Over 66 percent are Latino, and many of them speak only Spanish. It's a town that has already been saddled with one of the largest sewage sludge projects in the world. Every week Sierra Blanca receives 250 tons of partially treated sewage sludge from across country. And depending on what action Congress decides to take, this small town with minimal political clout may also become the national repository for low-level radioactive waste. Supporters of the Compact would have us believe that the designation of Sierra Blanca had nothing to do with the income or ethnic characteristics of its residents. That it had nothing to do with the high percentage of Latinos in Sierra Blanca and the surrounding Hudspeth County--at least 2.6 times higher than the state average. That the percentage of people living in poverty--at least 2.1 times higher than the state average--was completely irrelevant. They would have us believe that Sierra Blanca was simply the unfortunate finalist in a rigorous and deliberate screening process that fairly considered potential sites from all over the state. That the outcome was based on science and objective criteria. I don't believe any of this is true. Let me be clear. I'm not saying science played no role whatsoever in the process. It did. Indeed, based on the initial criteria coupled with the scientific findings, Sierra Blanca was disqualified as a potential dump site. It wasn't until politics entered the picture that Sierra Blanca was even considered. I think its worth taking a moment to review how we get to where we are today. The selection criteria for the dump were established in 1981, and the Texas Waste Authority hired engineering consultants to screen the entire state for suitable sites. In March 1985, consultants Dames & Moore delivered their report to the Authority. Using ``exclusionary'' criteria established by the Authority, Dames & Moore ruled out Sierra Blanca and the surrounding area, due primarily to its complex geology. Let me quote from that report. Features ``applied as exclusionary as related to the Authority's Siting Criteria'' included ``the clearly exclusionary features of: complex geology; tectonic fault zones,'' et cetera. ``The application of exclusionary geological criteria has had a substantial impact'' in screening potential sites, the report observed. In its final composite, the report explained, ``Complex geology and mountainous areas in West, West-Central, and the Panhandle of Texas were excluded,'' including the Sierra Blanca dump site. The report also found, ``Many tectonic faults occur in West Texas within massive blocks of mountain ranges. This area includes El Paso [and] Hudspeth'' counties ``and has undergone several phases or episodes of tectonic disturbances.'' Finally, it went on to observe that, ``Although not excluded, the remainder of Hudspeth County does not appear to offer good siting potential.'' So much for the science. Repeatedly since the early 1980s, the Waste Authority has come back again and again to this politically powerless area. It has designated four potential sites in all, and--with one revealing exception--all of them were in Hudspeth County. There are only three communities in the entire County, all of them poor and heavily Latino, and all of them targeted by the Authority. The one exception to the pattern was in 1985, after completion of the engineering consultants' report, Dames & Moore concluded that the ``best'' sites were in McMullen and Dimmit Counties, and the Waste Authority settled on a site in McMullen County. But this decision met with fierce opposition. Politically influential individuals demanded that the Authority move the dump to Hudspeth County. At this point any pretense of objectivity was abandoned. The selection criteria were changed in 1985 so as to rule out the two ``best'' sites identified by Dames & Moore. The new criteria gave preference to sites located on state-owned land. This change had the effect of virtually guaranteeing selection of a site somewhere in Hudspeth County, large portions of which are owned by the state of Texas. So the Waste Authority proceeded to designate, based on an informal and cursory process, five sites in Hudspeth County. Its clear choice, however, was Fort Hancock, one of the County's three poor Latino communities. Unfortunately for the Authority, the more politically powerful city of El Paso next door decided to fight back. Together with Hudspeth County, El Paso filed suit against the site selection. They argued that the Fort Hancock site was located in an area of complex geology--like Sierra Blanca, incidentally--and lay on a 100-year flood plain. The amazing thing is that they won. In 1991 U.S. District Court Judge Moody ruled in their favor and ordered that no dump could be built in Fort Hancock, Hudspeth County. But the County's court victory was short-lived. The Waste Authority was clearly not about to give up. The Authority went back to the state legislature to get around Judge Moody's decision by once again changing the rules. A legislator from Houston, far to the East where the big utilities are based, proposed a bill that ignored all previous selection criteria and designated Fort Hancock once and for all. Interestingly enough, this maneuver aroused a great deal of public indignation, precisely because of the Authority's perceived discriminatory practice of dumping on Latino communities. There was an impressive show of force against discrimination, but the outcome was not exactly what Hudspeth County had in mind. After Judge Moody's remarkable decision, lawyers for El Paso and the Waste Authority worked out a compromise. Fort Hancock would be saved, but a 400 square mile area further north in Hudspeth County would take its place. This oblong rectangle imposed on the map--an area that included Sierra Blanca--was subsequently dubbed ``The Box.'' The Texas legislature passed the so-called ``Box Law'' by voice vote only days before the end of session in May 1991. Once again, the previous site selection procedures were stripped away. The Box Law repealed the requirement that the dump had to be on public land, the very requirement that had pointed the Authority towards Hudspeth County in the first place. This was necessary because, at that time, the Sierra Blanca site was not public land at all. Most importantly, to prevent another troublesome lawsuit like the Fort Hancock debacle, the Box Law essentially stripped local citizens of the right to sue. It denied them all judicial relief other than an injunction by the Texas Supreme Court itself, and for this unlikely prospect citizens would be required to drive 500 miles to Austin. This story is depressingly familiar. A similar scenario unfolds over and over again in different parts of the country, with different names and faces in every case. Sometimes there is no intention by anyone to discriminate. But pervasive inequalities of race, income, and access to the levers of political power exercise a controlling influence over the siting of undesirable waste dumps. The people who make these decisions sometimes are only following the path of least resistance, but in far too many instances the result is a targeting of poor, politically marginalized minority communities who lack the political muscle to do anything about it. The remarkable thing about this story is that some people in Hudspeth County did fight back. Dell City fought back and won in the early 1980s. Fort Hancock fought back and won their court case in 1991. And make no mistake, the people of Sierra Blanca are fighting back, too. Many of them have been here on the Hill. Father Ralph Solis, the parish priest for Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County, was here in February, and his delegation may have visited your office. These people know that the odds are stacked against them, but they are persevering just the same. One of the amendments I included in this bill is intended to give them a fighting chance. It gives them their day in court--the right to challenge this site selection on grounds of environmental justice. It says that the Compact cannot be implemented in any way--and that would include the siting process, the licensing process, or the shipment of waste to the site--that discriminates against communities because of their race, national origin, or income level. If local residents can prove discrimination in court, then they can stop the Compact Commission from operating the dump. They don't have to prove intent, by the way, although that certainly would be sufficient. All they have to show is disparate treatment or disparate impact. I know some of my colleagues don't believe issues of environmental justice are implicated here. Or they may think this is not a question for the Senate to decide. I believe this amendment meets the concerns of those colleagues. All my amendment does is give local residents the right to make their case in court. There is no guarantee they will win. After all, it is extremely difficult to prove environmental discrimination. But I'm glad this amendment has been accepted as part of H.R. 629, and I certainly will insist that it be included in any final legislation passed by this body. I do not see how anyone would want to deny these people a chance to make their case. Short of defeating the bill outright, I believe passing this amendment is the only way for us to do right by the people of Sierra Blanca. Yet, as amazing as it sounds, Compact proponents also claim to have the best interests of Sierra Blanca at heart. They claim the Compact will protect local residents because it keeps out waste from states other than Maine and Vermont. They have used this argument again and again, in Sierra Blanca, in the Texas legislature, in the House of Representatives, and they're using it again in the United States Senate. But this argument makes no sense. The dump does not have to be built, it is indeed unlikely to be built without congressional consent to this Compact, and the Compact would not protect Sierra Blanca in any event. The point that keeps getting lost here is there's no compelling reason why the Sierra Blanca dump must be built. Some of you might have seen the headline in the New York Times on December 7 of last year: ``Warning of Excess Capacity in Nation's Nuclear Dumps--New Technology and Recycling Sharply Reduce the Volume of Nuclear Waste.'' The article discusses a study by Dr. Gregory Hayden, the Nebraska Commissioner for the Central Interstate Compact Commission. Dr. Hayden found that ``there is currently an excess capacity for low-level radioactive waste disposal in the US without any change to current law or practice.'' He went on to explain, ``These disposal sites have had low utilization due to falling volumes since 1980. Thus, a high capacity remains for the future, without any change to the current configuration of which states may ship to which disposal site.'' Let me repeat the essential point: there is no compelling need for any new low-level radioactive waste dumps in this country. And if no new dump is built, nobody can argue that the compact is needed to protect Sierra Blanca. The most popular argument for building another dump involves disposal of medical waste. I'm sure all of you have heard it. It's claimed that waste from medical facilities and research labs is getting backed up-- that it has to go somewhere. But let me emphasize one central and indisputable fact: over the last few years, over 99 percent of the waste from Maine and Vermont has come from nuclear reactors. Less than one percent has been from hospitals and universities. And from all three states, 94 percent of the low-level waste between 1991 and 1994 came from reactors. This dump is being built--first and foremost--to dispose of radioactive waste from nuclear reactors, not from hospitals. So why are the nuclear utilities hiding behind hospitals and universities? It's not very hard to figure out. In 1984 the Texas Waste Authority hired a public relations firm to increase the popularity of nuclear waste. The PR firm recommended, ``A more positive view of safe disposal technologies should be engendered by the use of medical doctors and university faculty scientists as public spokesmen for the [Texas Waste] Authority.'' ``Whenever possible,'' the report said, ``the Authority should speak through these parties.'' Well, that advice has been followed to the letter. We all have sympathies for hospital work and university research. I know I do. But we cannot let those sympathies blind us to the existing excess capacity for disposal of low-level waste. Not only has there been no convincing demonstration of need for this dump, but odds are no dump will be built if the Compact fails. Let me quote from an article from the Texas Observer of last March: ``Texas generates nowhere near enough waste on its own to fill a three-million cubic feet dump, and by its own projections [the Texas Waste Authority] could not survive without Maine and Vermont's waste.'' Moreover, there are indications the Texas legislature will not appropriate funding to build the dump if Congress rejects this Compact. Texas lawmakers refused the Waste Authority's request for $37 million for construction money in FY 1998 and FY 1999. In fact, the Texas House initially zeroed out all funding for the Authority, but funding for licensing was later restored in conference committee. My understanding is that construction funding was made contingent on passage of the Compact, whereupon Maine and Vermont will each be required to pay Texas over $25 million. Supporters of the Compact are trying to have it both ways. When challenged about the environmental justice of targeting Sierra Blanca, they respond that no site has been selected, and environmental justice can only be addressed if and when that ever happens. Then in the same breath they insist that the dump in Sierra Blanca is definitely going forward and the Compact is therefore necessary to protect local residents from outside waste. So which is it? Either the Sierra Blanca dump is a done deal or it's not. The truth is, the most likely scenario is that the dump will be built in Sierra Blanca if Congress approves this Compact, subject to any legal challenges, but the project will not go forward if the Compact is rejected. Even if the dump is built, however, the Compact does not protect Sierra Blanca. The Compact Commission would be able to accept low-level radioactive waste from any person, state, regional body, or group of states. All it would take is a majority vote of the Commissioners, who are appointed by the Compact state governors. Why should the people of Sierra Blanca expect unelected commissioners to keep waste out of their community? Is there anything in their recent experience that would justify such faith? The fact is, the state will have every economic incentive to bring in more waste. The November 1997 report by Dr. Hayden concluded that ``the small volume of waste available for any new site would not allow the facility to take advantage of economies of scale. Thus, it would not even be able to operate at the low-cost portion of its own cost functions.'' The new dump will need high volume to stay profitable. The Texas Observer reports, ``A 1994 analysis by the Houston Business Journal suggests that the Authority would open the facility to other states to keep it viable.'' We have here the potential for establishing a new national repository for low-level nuclear waste. Not only will Texas have an incentive to bring in as much waste as possible, but the same will be true of nuclear utilities. The more waste goes to Sierra Blanca, the less they will be charged for disposal. Rick Jacobi, General Manager of the Texas Waste Authority, told the Houston Business Journal: ``The site is designed for 100,000 cubic feet per year, which would be about $160 per cubic foot. But if only 60,000 cubic feet per year of waste arrives, the price would be $250 per cubic foot.'' That's a big difference. As Molly Ivins says, ``That sure would drive up costs for Houston Lighting and Power and Texas Utilities.'' And the going rate at one existing dump is a whopping $450 per cubic foot. In the end, it will be in the economic interest of everyone--from the nuclear utilities to the Waste Authority--to ship as much waste to Sierra Blanca as they can. My second amendment addresses this problem. Throughout the process of approving the Compact, supporters claimed the waste would be limited to three states. I want to hold them to that promise. My amendment puts that promise in writing. I doubt anyone would disagree that this understanding was shared by everyone who participated in the Compact debate. If Compact supporters truly plan to limit waste to three states, which has been everyone's understanding all along, they can have no objection to my amendment. It's nothing but a protection clause. A nearly identical amendment--called the Doggett Amendment--was attached to the bill passed by the House. I am pleased that the Senate has accepted my amendment, but I will insist that it be included in any final legislation passed by this Congress. There are other issues I will not be able to address with amendments. I think there is a fundamental concern about whether this kind of disposal is safe at all. The League of Conservation Voters warns that, despite the hazards involved, waste will be buried in soil trenches destined to leak, as have nuclear dumps in Kentucky, Illinois, and Nevada. LCV did score the House vote on final passage, and has announced that it may score Senate votes as well. There is also an obvious concern about the unsuitability of Sierra Blanca's geology--the exclusionary criterion from the 1985 Dames & Moore report. Sierra Blanca is situated right in the middle of the state's only earthquake zone. Its 1993 license application stated that this is ``the most tectonically active area within the state of Texas.'' In April 1995 there was a 5.6 earthquake 100 miles away, in Alpine, Texas. And there have been two tremors in the area in the last four years. The concern about the environmental impact of this dump extends well beyond the border. The Mexican equivalent of the EPA announced its opposition on March 5 on grounds that the Sierra Blanca dump poses an environmental risk to the border region. On February 11, the Mexican Congress, represented by its Permanent Commission, declared ``that the project in Sierra Blanca in Texas, and all such dumping projects along the border with Mexico, constitute an aggression against national dignity.'' Moreover, the project apparently violates the 1983 La Paz Agreement between Mexico and the U.S., which commits both countries to prevent pollution affecting the border area. My paramount concern, however, and the reason I have resisted a time agreement on this bill, was that I could not stand by and watch while a poor, politically powerless, Latino community was targeted to become the premier repository of low-level nuclear waste for the entire country. Much less give it my blessing. Not when I have the power to do something about it. At the very least, the amendments I included in this bill will keep Sierra Blanca from becoming a national dump, and will give local residents their day in court to seek elusive relief from environmental discrimination. I hope my amendments accomplish something more than that, as well. I hope they keep alive the spirit of community this controversy has ignited. The newspaper columnist Molly Ivins has written that ``this is community action and local organizing at its very best.'' I couldn't agree more. We have to maintain grass-roots pressure on the House or the conference committee, as case may be, to keep these amendments in the bill. And I hope the residents of Sierra Blanca will continue this struggle in every forum possible. I do believe they have right on their side, and I am still naive enough to hope and believe that right can beat might, and that justice can prevail against the odds.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, April 9 is National POW Recognition Day, and I rise today to pay tribute to all those U.S. service persons who guarded their country in past wars, who have been listed as POWs or MIA, and to their families. I especially want to pay tribute to Col. Richard A. Walsh III, an Air force pilot from Minnesota listed as missing-in-action in Laos. We must never forget Richard and the other MIAs for their courageous service and sacrifices. In addition, we must never forget the sacrifices made by their families. That is why I also want to recognize Richard's wife and a constituent of mine, Ms. Sharon Walsh. As the executive director of the Minnesota League of POW/MIA Families, Sharon has worked hard over the years on behalf of our POW/MIAs and their families, and I commend her. I can't imagine how difficult and painful it has been for Sharon and her family not knowing exacting what happened to Richard in Southeast Asia. Ms. Walsh asked me to enter into the Congressional Record a document outlining some of her concerns and questions regarding the issue of satellite imagery and American POW/MIAs during the war in Southeast Asia. She, along with a small group of my constituents, are frustrated with certain federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. These agencies are responsible for maintaining and publicly disclosing information about reported U.S. satellite imagery of possible pilot distress symbols, associated with American service personnel who are unaccounted for in Southeast Asia. The statement contains serious allegations about U.S. government mishandling of these matters. My constituents claim that since the war has ended U.S. satellite imagery has detected pilot distress symbols on the ground in Southeast Asia, and the U.S. government has willfully ignored key evidence in this matter. The Department of Defense POW/MIA office has repeatedly indicated to me, and in the media, that they have fully and carefully investigated these claims and found them baseless, attributing the reported symbols to unrelated, largely natural causes, and to mistakes in photographic interpretation of satellite imagery. Mr. President, I ask that the material from Ms. Walsh be printed in the Record. I know this issue has been addressed by Pentagon officials for years, and was carefully studied by the now-defunct Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. Nonetheless, I promised my constituents to share this information with my colleagues, for the record, at an appropriate time. I believe POW Recognition Day is an appropriate occasion for us to consider these issues, and I hope it will contribute to any further discussion of these matters in the Senate. The material follows: Minnesota League of POW/MIA Families. I am Sharon Walsh, Minneapolis, Minnesota, the wife of Richard A. Walsh III Colonel, USAF, a pilot who is or was missing in action in Laos. I represent the League of Minnesota Families of Missing and Prisoners in Southeast Asia. This letter and the enclosed referenced documents document the betrayal of branches of the U.S. government toward America's missing personnel in the war in Southeast Asia. In my lifetime, I cannot recall such disregard and callous behavior toward young men who thought they represented an honorable government. Actually it is criminal felonious purposeful malfeasance in government that many of us find shocking. In 1992, U.S. satellites recorded symbols on the ground in Southeast Asia exactly matched rescue codes assigned to pilots missing in the Vietnam War. Other symbols exactly matched names of POW/MIA pilots. The official U.S. government explanation is these symbols were created by vegetation and shadows and it is a coincidence they match names and classified codes of MIAs. It does not take a mathematical probability expert to realize the absurdity of the government story. Government officials have committed both unethical and illegal acts to misinform the nation about the satellite imagery. However, the existence of enough of these rescue symbols are verified in government documents to show the U.S. is now an accomplice to slavery and torture of human beings. The documents Senator Wellstone is introducing into the Congressional Record show exactly how the government has lied and mislead the public, the press, and the Congress. I urge every member of Congress who believes in the principles of liberty and justice to carefully examine these documents. The precedents of the POW/MIA issue--rewarding the corrupt and punishing the truthful, must be reversed if we are to survive as a free and democratic society. In the name of justice, please act swiftly to remove and prosecute those government officials who have betrayed both the missing men and our nation. Thank You, Sharon Walsh, Executive Director.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let's have a voice vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to have a recorded vote on it, but I assume, based upon the reaction, that there is overwhelming support for this amendment; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague my reading of it is different; otherwise, I would not have done the amendment. If you are right, there is no harm in a strong vote on this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, colleagues. The veterans' health care--some background--is funded by two sources: appropriations and a supplemental fund called the MCCR. The President's budget cut veterans' health care appropriations by $29 million, and the estimate is that the MCCR fund will generate $10 million less--a conservative estimate; CBO says much more than that. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment simply puts that $40 million back. It makes the budget whole, takes it to last year's level. I hope there will be a strong vote for this. This is a vote to restore the funding and to make the veterans' health care system whole, at least as good as it was last year. We ought not to be cutting veterans' health care benefits. I hope I get an overwhelmingly positive vote on this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I don't know how to say much in a minute and a half. Let me just say to my good friend from Idaho that I believe the second- degree amendment is not a step forward. I think it is a great leap sideways. A study is not what we are talking about. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what is at issue here. This is money that we believe should have gone to veterans for compensation. If it doesn't go directly for compensation, this $10 billion-plus ought to go into the VA budget. It ought to be there for disabled veterans. It ought to be there for health care for veterans. There are a lot of gaps. There are a lot of holes in this VA budget. As is, we are not living up to a contract for veterans. My colleagues are absolutely right in what they are doing, and I rise to speak on the floor of the Senate to support the Rockefeller-Specter amendment. I hope we will defeat the second-degree amendment and pass this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate's attention to a recent initiative that addresses a very important international issue: the use of torture. At its last session, the United Nations General Assembly decided to proclaim June 26th as ``United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.'' The General Assembly proclaimed the day ``with a view to the total eradication of torture and the effective functioning of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on 26 June 1987.'' Governments and non-governmental organizations are developing plans on how to observe this day in a manner that will recognize the needs of torture victims and the necessity of preventing torture. Torture is a most effective weapon against democracy. Torture victims are often in the forefront of the struggle for human rights and democracy in their own country. The advocates for these ideals are tortured in order to disable them and instill fear in anyone who might aspire for human rights and democracy. As a refuge for the persecuted, the United States may have as many as 400,000 victims of torture. They come from all regions of the world. Many come from Iraq, Iran, China, Ethiopia, Liberia, El Salvador, Guatemala and many other countries too numerous to mention. Because of their experience with torture, they often have special difficulties applying for asylum and adjusting to a new country. They must overcome the physical and mental effects of torture--the latter often requiring months or years of therapy. Nightmares, flashbacks, anxiety attacks, and depression are just some of the mental consequences of torture. In some cases it may be years before the victim recognizes that treatment is necessary to overcome these psychological roadblocks. Plans are being made around the world to recognize the contribution of torture victims. In Denmark, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims are planning a series of event and activities. In Greece, where torture was prevalent not so many years ago, the Medical Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims (MRCT) will hold an event at what was, during the dictatorship, the Special Interrogating Unit of the Military Police (a notorious torture and detention center). The building is now used for historical memorial purposes, and symbolically the area has been renamed Park of Freedom. A variety of activities are planned, including speeches by torture victims and refugees. I am very proud that the first and most comprehensive treatment center for victims of torture in the United States, the Center for Victims of Torture, is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It now treats an average of 150 clients a year who come from all regions of the world and are now settled in Minnesota. Many of the Center's clients and former clients are now making significant contributions to our communities and we are grateful to have them. The Center is planning a special event for June 26th. Mr. President, on February 4th I introduced the Torture Victims Relief Act (S.1606). My bill is co-sponsored by Senators Tom Harkin, Edward Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Barbara Boxer, Byron Dorgan, and Richard Durbin. The legislation provides a focus and a framework of the debate about where torture survivors, and our response to the practice of torture by other countries, fit within our foreign policy priorities. Providing treatment for torture survivors is one of the best ways we can show our commitment to fighting human rights abuses around the world. Mr. President, I strongly urge this administration and this Congress to undertake activities on June 26th to recognize the important contributions torture victims have made on behalf of human rights and democracy and the contributions they have made to our country as well. I suggest that President Clinton invite some torture victims to attend a ceremony at the White House where they would be recognized for their contributions. The invitees should be from countries representing a wide geographic and political distribution. On that occasion the President could announce some initiatives the administration is taking to support torture victims and prevent torture. I would suggest that the President consider taking the following initiatives: (1) Increase the U.S. contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund from $1.5 million to $3.0 million, as recommended in the conference report of the State Department authorization bill; (2) Direct the Agency for International Development to set aside $5 million in fiscal year 1998 funds to assist treatment centers for torture victims abroad; (3) Direct the Department of Health and Human Services to set aside $5 million in fiscal year 1998 funds to assist treatment centers for victims of torture in the United States; and (4) Announce administration support for the Torture Victims Relief Act (S. 1606). Finally, Mr. President, I would like to mention the valuable contribution being made by the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. It provides financial assistance to treatment centers for victims of torture throughout the world. These centers are providing both an essential humanitarian assistance program as well as an important strategic instrument for advancing human rights and democracy around the world. In 1997 the Fund assisted 104 projects in about 70 countries on a budget of little more than $3 million dollars. An article that appeared in Human Rights, a publication initiated by the new U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, tells why we need to increase our contribution to the Fund. I ask that the text of the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: U.N. Support to Victims of Torture (By Daniel Premont) Torture continues to occur on a worldwide basis, despite enhanced efforts by Governments and organizations in keeping with provisions contained in domestic law and international human rights conventions whose objective is its total eradication. The practice of torture was first prohibited in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; the concept was reaffirmed in 1966 by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and more recently, in 1984, by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. what is the voluntary fund for victims of torture? The effects of torture should not be under-estimated. Physical and mental consequences of torture can endure for several years and may be irreversible, often affecting not only thousands of victims themselves, but also their relatives. One of the means of mitigating the subsequent effects of torture on victims and their families is to provide them with medical, psychological, social, legal and economic aid. With this in mind, the General Assembly created the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture in 1982. The purpose of the Fund is to receive voluntary contributions and distribute them to non-governmental organizations and treatment centres for assisting victims of torture and their relatives whose human rights have been severely violated as a result of torture, as well as for the funding of projects for training healthcare professionals specialized in the treatment of victims of torture. The Fund is administered by the United Nations Secretary- General with a Board of Trustees acting in an advisory capacity and comprising five members with wide experience in the field of human rights. The members serve in their personal capacity and are appointed by the Secretary-General for a renewable three-year term of office on the basis of equitable geographical distribution. Currently, members of the Board of Trustees are Jaap Walkate, Chairman, from The Netherlands; Ribot Hatano from Japan; Elisabeth Odio-Benito from Costa Rica; Ivan Tosevsky from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; and Amos Wako from Kenya. The inadequacy of available resources is a limiting factor in the field of assistance of victims; as a consequence, programmes of assistance are subjected to interruptions. For some 100 organisations the support of the United Nations Voluntary Fund remains essential. how does the voluntary fund work? The Fund receives projects which focus on providing medical, psychological, economic, social and legal assistance to victims of torture and to members of their families. A few projects also share the objective of organizing training seminars for health professionals specialized in the treatment of torture victims. Each May, the Board of Trustees makes recommendations on grants to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, in the following month, on the basis of those recommendations, the High Commissioner takes decisions on behalf of the Secretary-General. As a final step, grants are made available at the end of July. From 1983 to July 1997, the Fund has financed 255 projects for direct assistance to torture victims. From US$ 2.5 to US$ 3 million of voluntary contributions received from about 30 Governments and a few individuals are disbursed every year to projects in some 60 countries representative of all the regions of the world. Further information on the activities of the Voluntary Fund can be found in the latest annual reports of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly (UN document A/52/387) and to the Commission on Human Rights (UN documents E/CN.4/1998/37 and Add.1). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional Grants Grants Percent amount requested awarded granted required (US$) (US$) (US$) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1997........................................................... 6,800,000 \1\ 3,036,0 44.64 3,765,946 54 1996........................................................... 5,618,645 \1\ 2,535,5 45.1 3,083,145 00 1995........................................................... 5,827,645 \1\ 2,719,6 46.6 3,107,965 80 1994........................................................... 5,476,959 \1\ 3,698,0 67.5 1,778,879 80 1993........................................................... 5,289,413 \1\ 2,111,8 39.9 3,177,533 80 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Each year, the grants awarded correspond to the total amounts which the Board of Trustees is able to recommend to the Secretary-General for allocation. In view of the insufficient contributions received, the Board avoids the practice of carrying forward a reserve from one year to the next. The Secretary-General follows this recommendation by the Board. As at 30 November 1997 only US$ 1,174,499 has been paid into the Fund. Provided that the number of grant requested is maintained at the 1997 level, the Fund will need an additional amount of US$ 5,6 million to meet all requests. some projects recently submitted Torture involves not only physical but also psychological forms, sometimes with long-term sequelae: in this regard, the Fund is supporting a project whose objective is to provide global assistance to formerly disappeared children of victims of torture in Latin America. The organization identifies disappeared children as those born in detention, abducted by security forces and illegally adopted. Once located by the organization, the children may be returned to their biological families. The best interests of the child have to be taken into consideration. This project consists of two main parts: investigation--some 1,030 interviews were carried out in the past year in conjunction with blood tests and analyses of genetic data--and psychological support provided to some 431 persons during 1996. Most of these persons suffer from sequelae of post-traumatic stress disorder including anxiety, nightmares, depression, as well as affective and intellectual inhibitions and benefit from individual psychotherapy. The number of youths seeking assistance remains high while many children have yet to be found: to date, 172 children still need to be located and 6 who were found have yet to be returned to their biological families. Another project which was being implemented in Asia in 1996 focused on providing physical and mental relief to torture survivors and their families. Firstly, fact-finding missions on the incidence of torture were carried out establishing that people had been subjected to torture by the police and other law enforcement agencies: this involved methods such as beatings all over the body, kicking them with police boots, applying electric shocks, scalding them with hot water, suspending them by the legs from roofs and inflicting them with bullet injuries. Long- term consequences, apart from obvious physical complaints, were psychological and included phobia, depression, sexual problems and mental disorders. The more commonly occurring complaints were social maladjustments at work, in the family and society in general, through the overall loss of social dignity and a departure from social values. In 1995, 263 victims between 15 and 45 years of age received treatment. The drug therapy included prescription of antipsychotics, physiotherapy as well as psychotherapeutic assistance. Parallel to the main objective of providing physical and mental relief to the victims, the Care Center organized other activities such as seminars on torture for health professionals, missions in collaboration with the national Human Rights Commission in order to establish contact with victims, encourage them to visit the Car Center and prepare a report for submission to governmental authorities asking for justice. The organization also established a legal division which has already successfully assisted in five cases. In North America, a treatment centre is currently providing clinical services to victims of torture who are now refugees, mainly from Africa and the Caribbean. 167 persons were assisted who had been subjected to rape, electric shocks, deprivation of human needs, as well as being obliged to eat excrement or perform acts of violence or murder often targeting their own family members. The treatment provided ranges from psychiatric and medical examination, to treatment in the form of crisis intervention and support counselling, psychotherapy, physiotherapy, social service, education, medical referrals, social support interpreters and legal assistance. In 1996, the center also established a children's art therapy branch as a medium for treating anxiety and dysfunctions related to traumatic experiences which children were unable to express verbally in the family setting. The Commission on Human Rights, by its resolution 1997/38 of 11 April 1997, requested that the General Assembly proclaim 26 June a United Nations international day in support of the victims of torture and appealed to all Governments, organizations and individuals in a position to do so to contribute annually to the Fund.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am here to support the Senator from Iowa in asking that we be allowed to vote on S. 1150, so that we may provide crop insurance to the farmers in this country and begin to restore food stamps to some legal immigrants who lost eligibility under welfare reform. It is a bill financed primarily by funds from reducing the federal dollars for the administration of food stamps and provides the perfect opportunity to start correcting the mistakes made under welfare reform in denying legal immigrants access to the food stamp program. In addition it could allow full funding for crop insurance for next year and beyond. The only way Congress could avoid leaving farmers exposed in this way, would be to provide significant increases to crop insurance during the appropriation process. It will be incredibly difficult to increase crop insurance through the appropriations process because of the tight discretionary caps and the tremendous pressure on all programs. As currently drafted, S. 1150 would provide just over $800 million for FY1999-FY2003 to restore benefits to approximately 250,000 people. That is less than a third of those who lost their eligibility under welfare reform. It is a step in the right direction and we as the Senate should have the right to vote on this legislation. We are not a country built on denying food to children and their parents. Yet that is essentially what we did when we passed Welfare Reform. Estimates suggest that around 900,000 legal immigrants lost their eligibility. In addition, 600,000 citizen children with legal immigrant parents have seen their family's food stamps reduced. Denying access to nutrition will indeed affect children. It might be in terms of reducing children's food or it might be in terms of family dynamics, job performance or children's accomplishments. The reality is food is a basic need that if lost or reduced has rippling effects on a family. The legislation that has been stopped would, if passed, begin to return food stamps to the neediest of those immigrants who lost eligibility under welfare reform: children, elderly and disabled. In addition it extends eligibility of asylees and refugees from 5 to 7 years to allow them the time required to apply for citizenship. The remaining $1.1 billion would ensure the much needed funding for crop insurance and increase the much needed funds for agriculture research. Agriculture research funds are critical to improving food safety and providing a better quality food supply for all consumers. I encourage the President to allow the Senate to vote on this legislation so that we may improve food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants and ensure crop insurance to our farmers.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. Let me just give an analogy. Take the Kaiser plan. It is well known, a managed care plan. You join the Kaiser plan and you are going to pay a given fee, the enrollees pay a given fee. Can you imagine what it would be like if all of a sudden doctors in the Kaiser plan could decide on their own, based upon what particular citizens they were seeing, that they would charge more for service? You join the plan just like people join Medicare. You join the Kaiser plan. Where Senator Kyl is taking us, it would be as if doctors in the Kaiser plan could now say to the enrollees, ``By the way, we have decided we are going to charge you more for coverage of this service.'' I mean, people would be furious. People would feel betrayed. People would say, ``Wait a minute, that is not the contract with us.'' Medicare is a sacred contract with senior citizens. We ought not create this gigantic loophole for too many providers who I fear rip off elderly people to charge fees for services that senior citizens cannot afford. We ought not tear up a very sacred contract. I hope we will have a strong vote against this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, again, colleagues should understand exactly what this sense of the Senate is about. What this amendment is about is what the Kyl legislation is about, which is really quite a change from current policy. Right now what we have said is that if a doctor or provider wants to charge more than the reimbursement he or she will get from Medicare, fine. Go ahead and do it. But if you do that with your own private contracting, then for 2 years you are not in the Medicare system. The reason for that is to protect people, elderly people, who rely on this program. Mr. President, again I present to colleagues a very important letter on private contracting, a GAO letter to Senator Moynihan of February 23, 1998: Nearly all physicians treat Medicare patients and accept new patients covered by Medicare. The recent data from the AMA indicate that 96.2 percent of all non-Federal physicians treated Medicare beneficiaries in 1996. Moreover, the percentage of physicians treating Medicare patients has increased to 95.2 percent in 1995 from 94.2 percent in 1994; over the last 2 years. Mr. President, here is the point. The point is that the Medicare Program is a program that seniors rely on. A lot of Senators may not understand where the Kyl amendment takes us. Where the Kyl amendment takes us is the following direction. By the way, people who are covered by Medicare are covered. They are able to get the care they need. My colleague was talking about the horrible example of someone who had a loved one who was struggling with cancer. It's the vast majority of people in the country who do not have insurance or are underinsured who need the most help. We really ought to be expanding Medicare for people in our country. We ought not to be about the business of dismantling Medicare. I will use the same example as my colleague from Arizona used, but I will reach a whole different set of conclusions. I will simply say to you: Imagine a situation where you have an elderly couple, age 70. The wife is now battling cancer. It turns out that in the community where they live, under the Kyl amendment, given where the Kyl amendment is taking us, the vast majority of doctors in the community have decided, ``Listen, we are going to charge more than Medicare reimbursement will give us. We are going to charge more.'' It just so happens that this couple can't afford it. They maybe have a total income of $20,000 or $25,000 a year. Now it is two classes of medicine. If you are wealthy, you are going to be able to afford it. But what about the vast, vast majority of senior citizens who can't afford now what doctors are charging them? That is really what we are going into. We are not talking about freedom of choice for elderly people. We are taking a lot of choice away. We are talking about a situation where conceivably in a given community doctors could get together, or the majority of doctors could get together, charge more, still be in the Medicare system, and decide for each and every elderly person and their loved one what they pay--what they pay. A whole lot of people who now can go and get the care they need, given the Medicare system, may no longer be able to afford it. The whole purpose of Medicare was that we said when you get to be older, you are going to incur more health care costs and we want to make sure that there is coverage for you, that we should at least do that for elderly people. Why in the world would we want to turn the clock back? Why in the world would we want to turn our backs on elderly people? Why in the world would we now want to create a situation where, if you are wealthy--and by the way most senior citizens are not--you have it made. Yes, you can contract with this doctor and these doctors. This doctor or these doctors can charge you anything they want to. But for the vast majority of people, Medicare beneficiaries, this will not work well. This will not work well.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for 4 minutes to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Arizona and to other colleagues, this amendment is profoundly mistaken. This amendment, if passed, I believe, really puts way too many senior citizens at risk. The Medicare Program is a universal coverage program. The Medicare Program is, for many seniors, the difference between survival and even life with dignity versus going under. To all of a sudden now say to doctors and other providers in this country that you can charge what you want and still stay in the Medicare system now, I am not in favor of that. But if they do it for 2 years, they are out of Medicare. To tell the doctors and providers they can charge what they want and stay in Medicare, that doctors can decide, for any senior citizen and their families, whether or not they have the money to pay for additional costs the doctors want to impose on them does a grave injustice to the Medicare system. I don't hear a lot of senior citizens--I say to my colleagues--in Minnesota saying they want to see the Medicare system ``fixed'' in this direction. I hear people talking about, ``Can there be coverage for prescription drug costs?'' I hear people talking about the problems they have when they are faced with catastrophic expenses, not wanting to spend the end of their lives in a nursing home and maybe going under because of that. I hear senior citizens talking about the need to have more funding for home-based health care so they can live at home in as near normal circumstances as possible with dignity. I don't hear senior citizens in Minnesota saying they want the Kyl amendment passed, which will enable providers, in too many cases, to gouge them, to charge what they want to charge to seniors, to put a whole lot of senior citizens at risk. This amendment is mistaken. This amendment undermines the Medicare system, and this amendment should be resoundingly defeated. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just say one more time to my colleague from Arkansas, I wish he wasn't leaving the Senate. I can't add too much to what he said. Let me just say to my colleague from Arizona, whom I really respect, that I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but I respect him. I mean that very sincerely. I think this amendment is mistaken, and I rise in strong opposition to it. I have just a few quotes. Families USA Foundation states that this provision, the Kyl amendment, ``may put increasing pressure on older Americans to choose between getting the health services they need or putting food on their table.'' I think Families USA has really had a great deal of credibility. I know what they mean. I think the fear is now, what would happen with the Kyl amendment is that doctors could charge an elderly person, a senior citizen, just about any fee for any visit or service. The problem is that if doctors are now going to be making this judgment and they can charge more than Medicare payments and stay in the Medicare system, the danger is that many will do so. I had two parents with Parkinson's, and neither one of them made much money. The Medicare Program was the difference for them between being able to live a life toward the end of their years with dignity, albeit a struggle, and going under. Who is to tell what a doctor decides in any given community? A lot of elderly people are going to be put under enormous pressure. Indeed, it could be a choice between whether or not people get the services they need or whether they put food on the table. Also, remember that senior citizens are paying more and more out of pocket. Since we had the debate on universal health care coverage, national health insurance, a few short years ago--a debate we should get back to--the fact is that seniors are paying even more out of pocket for health care costs. For many of them, it is the prescription drug costs. I don't know about other States, but my guess would be that in Minnesota the median income for senior citizens may be $15,000 or $16,000 a year. I suppose if you are a senior citizen with an income of $150,000 a year--there are very few, contrary to the stereotype--then you know a doctor could say, ``I want you to pay what I am going to charge and we will have this private contract.'' Those people would be all right, but for the vast majority of elderly people in our country-- and we are not talking about a high-income profile--the Kyl amendment is a very real threat to a system that has worked well for people. Catholic Charities USA, representing nearly 13 million people, states that the Kyl legislation would ``dangerously undermine the Medicare Program.'' They are right. It would leave ``average and low-income Medicare patients at grave risk of substandard care and second-class medicine.'' That was in a letter to all Senators from Fred Kammer, March 31--today, my son's birthday. The National Council of Senior Citizens, asserting that the Kyl legislation ``is fraudulent and should be defeated,'' says that the bill would ``essentially end Medicare as a national health insurance program for almost 40 million Americans.'' ``This proposal would essentially license doctors to gouge millions of seniors for Medicare services.'' That is from a letter to Senator Daschle from Steve Protulis dated today. If the Kyl amendment succeeds, ``seniors will be left with big medical bills and the doctors will have new weapons to exploit health needs for profit.'' That comes from a memo by the National Council of Senior Citizens. I ask unanimous consent that quotes from these organizations, along with a series of other letters from organizations representing senior citizens, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me start out on a personal note. I really consider it an honor to work with Senators. I consider it an honor to be here. Every time I come to the floor of the Senate, I still get goose bumps, and I think it is something I never expected to have a chance to do. Senator Dodd is one of the Senators I most love working with because he has been, over the years, such a strong and such a committed voice for children. I thank him for that. I think this amendment is extremely important, because all it is really saying is let's hold out a reserve fund for children so when it comes to our commitments here in the Senate, we make the investment. I will be brief. I have had a chance to travel the country. I have been in a lot of low- and moderate-income communities. I have been in a lot of other communities. Let me just say that the initial travel I did from Appalachia to Letcher County, KY, to Delta, MS, to inner city Baltimore, to public housing in Chicago, to urban and rural Minnesota, everywhere I go people ask the same question: Where is the equal opportunity for our children? Everywhere I go this focus on how we can make sure the children come to school ready to learn is the priority. We just have to do a lot better for our children. We have to do a lot better for all of our children. My colleague from California talked about the welfare bill. She is absolutely right, there are long waiting lists for affordable child care, even longer now, because of the welfare-to-work provisions. Above and beyond that, I say that I meet people, they are heroes and heroines of Head Start and child care, they do their very best, and they can make a huge difference for children, but we have long waiting lists all across our country for affordable child care. When you talk to middle-income families--this is not just low-income--working families, they will tell you that the expense may be up to $10,000 or more per child, and it can be up to a quarter of their income. This is a huge issue. If there is anything that we could do in the U.S. Senate that would be good for families, that would be good for our country, it would be to make this investment. I have said this before and I will say it one more time and I will not say it in a shrill way. I say to both colleagues--and I see my colleague from Washington here on the floor, as well--every time there is a discussion of child care, every time we have a discussion about children, I think of Fannie Lou Hammer, the civil rights leader, Mississippi, daughter of a sharecropper, who said in one of her speeches, ``I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' Sometimes I get tired of the symbolic politics. Everyone loves children. Everyone wants to have a photo opportunity next to a child. Everyone says they are for children and education. Every breed of political person says that. But there comes a point in time when if we are really for children we have to dig into our pockets and make the investment. There is no more important national security issue than to invest in the health and skills of intellect and character of our children, all of our children. That is what this Dodd amendment speaks to, that is what the position that Democrats are taking speaks to, and I really think that this is where the rubber meets the road. This is where ``the differences make a difference.'' I am hopeful that colleagues on the other side, many of them good friends, many of whom I think do have this commitment, will support Senator Dodd in his amendment. It is just not enough to give speeches. It is just not enough to be talking about how we are for child care and children and education. We have to make the investment. That is what this amendment speaks to. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. First, I ask unanimous consent Joseph Goodwin, an intern, be allowed to be on the floor during the duration of this debate.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to put them in proper sequence.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could ask for 10 seconds to send three amendments to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Washington really brings to this debate her own life experience, both at the higher education level, training other men and women to be teachers, and also herself having taught really at the critical age, in the very early years of a child's education. We don't have that many Senators with this background. I think all of us are lucky that the State of Washington has sent Senator Murray here to the U.S. Senate. Quite often when we get into these discussions, they are very abstract and very theoretical and all about strategy. But Senator Murray has really lived this debate. She brings, I think, a special expertise and a special passion. I wish more Senators, as we get into this debate, could draw from the same kind of background. Mr. President, I did not teach at the elementary school level or early childhood development; I was a college teacher. But in the last 7 years I tried my very best to be in schools around the country, but in the main in Minnesota. I think I have been in a school probably about every 2 weeks. What I try to do is turn these assemblies or classes-- and there can be anywhere from 100 or 200 to 1,000 students and teachers and support staff in town meetings like all of us have in our States. I say to the students, look, it is kind of like everybody is talking about you but very few people are talking to you or with you. Give me your best wisdom as to what would make for the best education reform. What makes for a good education from your point of view? I say to my colleague from Washington, by coming to the floor with this amendment, she is right on target. Students talk about smaller class size everywhere I go. Now, I personally think--and my colleague from Washington mentioned this--that especially at the elementary school level, small class sizes really make a huge difference. I think actually as you look at from K through 12--actually, I argue, after that, in colleges and universities as well--smaller class sizes make a huge difference. With a smaller class size, we have an opportunity to get to know our teachers, they say, to have more rapport with teachers. Our teachers can give us more special attention. We have an opportunity to have teachers that can fire our imagination, teachers that are really free to teach. And teachers say it as well. So let me just be clear with colleagues. I remember when I first came here--and I haven't changed my view at all, I say to my colleague from Washington--I was debating with a good friend, Senator Hatch from Utah. I said to the Senator from Utah, ``I just feel that this debate is ahead of the story.'' When you can come to the floor, or any Senator can come to the floor, and say we have made the commitment to public education--we made the commitment to smaller class size; we made the commitment to making sure that children, by kindergarten, come ready to learn; made the commitment by way of equity financing to schools in districts where people don't have all the financial resources, don't have the good facilities and the textbooks, the buildings are in disrepair; we made the commitment to summer institutes for teachers to meet other teachers and get renewed and fired up about teaching--we have made all those commitments, and it still isn't working, then I say let's consider something else. But we have an amendment on the floor that Senator Murray has now introduced, based upon her own life's work, upon what people in communities around the country tell us is important for their children, tell us what is important to them--that is to get some additional Federal resources back at the school district level to reduce class sizes, so all of our children have an opportunity to do well in school, all of our children have an opportunity to reach their full potential. No one amendment, no one expenditure of money accomplishes this goal. I say to my colleague from Washington that I thank her for being out here on the floor with this amendment, because this is a concrete step that can make a very positive difference in the improvement of the lives of children in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. First of all, let me thank Senator Murray for her leadership. Senator Murray has an unusual background. She comes to the U.S. Senate having been a teacher. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator, what level did she teach? I believe it was elementary school or preschool.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, I shall not object as long as we will have a rollcall vote on----