Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me thank the Senator from Georgia for his graciousness and let me thank my colleague from Alaska. Madam President, I think there are two different issues that we are confronted with as we address the Coverdell bill. One of them has to do with just the substantive debate about education, which I want to talk about for a few minutes; and the other has to do with, I guess, the Senate process, which I think is equally important, as we think about the Senate and how we do our work together. On the substance, I simply say to my colleague I spend about every 2 weeks in a school somewhere in Minnesota. If I could think of any one area that I feel I have the most passion about, it is education: education of children, preschool, young people, high school, higher ed. For that matter, since I think education is preschool all the way to 85 or 90, education, period. As I travel the country, with a special emphasis in Minnesota, I say to my colleague, I can think of much better uses and a higher priority for $1.6 billion to be spent. I put the emphasis not in the direction that my colleague from Georgia goes in, which is people being able to put this money into IRAs. Not a whole lot of families I know have $2,000 they can put into IRAs. This disproportionately benefits people who are fairly well off. It benefits people who especially want to send their kids to private schools and who have the resource to do so. I would rather make an all-out effort to support the public school system. I would be pleased to come back to the U.S. Senate some day, the sooner the better, and maybe in a debate change my mind and say that I would be all for applying taxpayers' money to support for private education--and that is why I say the sooner the better--but not until we have made the commitment to public education, not until we rebuild crumbling schools around the country; I have been to too many of those schools in Minnesota, and all around the country as well, and not until we reduce class size, not until we get more teachers and teacher assistants into the classrooms, and not until we have more resources for professional development, not until we make an all-out commitment to really deal with the learning gap between children who do well in school and children who don't do well in school, which starts, I might say, with a real commitment and the resources to early childhood development. I think the medical evidence is irreducible and irrefutable; if we don't get it right for these children by age 3, many of them will never be able to do well in school or well in life. I don't understand what I think is a misplaced priority that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have about $1.6 billion that doesn't go directly to public education. And I put the emphasis, and I think the vast majority of the people in the United States of America would put the emphasis, on rebuilding the crumbling schools, on reducing class size, on making sure that we have the best education for our teachers and, I might argue, making sure we do our very best by way of children so that when children come to kindergarten, they come ready to learn. That is where we ought to be investing our resources--not in allocating resources to support private education, not in a Coverdell bill where the benefits disproportionately go to those families which least need those benefits. The second point speaks more to the majority leader than my colleague from Georgia. I don't have a corner on the truth and I do not want to come off arrogant, but this argument that the majority leader makes about getting to decide what kind of amendments are relevant and dramatically reducing the number of amendments that are out here on the floor presupposes that there aren't any number of different ways of thinking about what is really helpful for education and the development of children and young people in this country. I have a number of amendments that I think are important. I think the amendment on rebuilding crumbling schools is right on the mark. I think we devalue children and we devalue the work of adults who work with children when we don't make an investment in rebuilding these crumbling schools. I think reducing class size and more teachers in the classroom is extremely important. If I am going to think about ways of making better use of $1.6 billion, we ought to get back to making sure young people have the hope to go on to higher education. The HOPE scholarship with tax credits that aren't refundable doesn't help very many families in Georgia or Minnesota with incomes under $28,000 a year. Spend a little time in community colleges. The education is not affordable. I have an amendment to take that $1.6 billion and make higher education more affordable for these men and women from working families. I have an amendment, since we are talking about children and education, that deals with the cuts we made in the Food Stamp Program, the major safety net program for poor children in America. We made a 20 percent cut in food stamp benefits. The vast majority of the beneficiaries are children. The vast majority of beneficiaries are working poor families. Every single doctor and every single scientist and every single nutritional expert will tell you children don't do well in school when they are malnourished. They don't do well in school when they don't have enough to eat. I think we ought to restore that funding for the Food Stamp Program as it applies to children in America. That is a top priority education program. Now we have a majority leader who is saying, ``No, I don't want to have debate on all these amendments.'' What are my colleagues afraid of? Why would it be too much time to take 4 or 5 days or a week and debate this piece of legislation? I have another amendment which I think is terribly important and I think it has everything in the world to do with how well kids do in school. We, right now, all around the country, are saying to single parents--and I spoke about this last week--mainly women, you can't stay in college because of the welfare bill. You have to leave school. Take a job at $6 an hour with no health care benefits. You know what. If those single parents --that means they have children--are able to finish their college education, it means better earnings, better opportunities for their children, more self-esteem for the parent, better educational achievement by the child. I have an amendment which says we ought to make sure that those single parents, those women, are able to finish their college education. I may or may not be able to present that amendment here in this debate. I just want to make it crystal clear, Madam President, on both counts I am in opposition with the majority leader on this question. Madam President, $1.6 billion--put it into rebuilding crumbling schools, put it into smaller class size. Don't put it into a program that benefits mainly upper income people and private schools. It is that simple. Second of all, let's have a debate about education. You cannot decontextualize what happens to children before they go to school and what happens to children when they go home after being in school from how well they do in school. There are a whole bunch of issues--some of them are direct education issues; some of them have to do with whether the parents are doing well employment-wise; some have to do with nutrition; some have to do with health care; some of them have to do with whether or not these young people think they can afford higher education--that dramatically affect how well children do in school. I don't think the majority leader ought to, as a priority, decide what are relevant amendments or what kind of debate we ought to have on education. I don't know why my colleagues are afraid of a full-fledged substantive debate about education. Let's take the next week and let's debate the education amendments up or down. I said to my colleague from Georgia, to end on a slightly different note, that I appreciated his effort. I said that a few days ago, that I think he is absolutely sincere in what he is doing, even though we disagree and that, most important of all, I look forward to a real debate. I hope we will have that real debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I can do it. I will need about 10 minutes. I am pleased to do it either way. Since I am on the floor, I wanted to make sure I had a chance to speak. If the Senator from Georgia would rather I precede him, and he wants to respond to all of us, we will get a chance to get back to this. I would love to respond to what my colleague from Georgia has to say, but I am pleased to do it that way.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I wonder whether or not, before the Senator from Arizona comes to the floor, I might have 10 minutes to speak on education following Senator Coverdell, if there is time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me quote a few relevant paragraphs from both pieces. The Washington Post piece: Governors across the country are boasting that welfare reform is successfully moving millions of people off the rolls and into jobs. But closer scrutiny of state and federal records shows that tens of thousands of families are being forced off welfare as punishment for not complying with tough new rules. Federal statistics show that in one three-month period last year, 38 percent of the recipients who left welfare did so because of state sanctions, ordered for infractions from missing appointments with caseworkers to refusing to search for work. The article then goes on: During the national debate over welfare reform two years ago, many assumed that the moment of truth would come years from now when recipients reached time limits that would end their benefits. But the widespread use of sanctions has moved up that moment. Energized by their welfare reform programs, states are moving swiftly to put their new sanction power to use. But social service advocates argue that in many cases, states are making bad judgments. Bill Biggs, a former welfare administrator from Utah, wrote in a recent publication that under a pilot program in his state, half of the sanctions ordered were done in error, often when a caseworker didn't detect that a recipient suffered from mental illness or some other problem. I go on: State officials and welfare experts say they believe that those who do get cut from the rolls represent the two extremes of the welfare population. At one end are people who are able to find jobs, or have other income, and simply choose not to comply. That is less of a problem, I say to my colleagues. They are working, they have a job, they are OK, their children are all right. At the other extreme are those unable to meet requirements because they are the most troubled families--plagued by mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence or such low reading levels that they have difficulty understanding the new regulations, much less finding work. . . . Rosy Saunders, a 29-year-old mother of twins in Columbus, Ohio, is frantically applying for jobs to avoid being sanctioned. ``I have asthma real bad,'' she said. ``I have two children on [disability]. I had an industrial accident. I have to take pills for depression.'' But ``I still have to get a job or they are going to cut me,'' she said. ``They told me there was no excuses.'' End of the Washington Post piece. Just to emphasize one point, I say to my colleagues, what may very well be happening right now is that, yes, we are reducing the rolls. It is happening State by State, but the sanctions are invoked on people who are not working, and many of these people are not working because they are unable to work, because they struggle with mental illness, they struggle with substance abuse, or you have women who have been battered over and over and over again, and they are not able to take a job right away. Don't we want to know what is happening to these families? Just because they are poor, does that mean they matter any less than any other family in our country? The New York Times piece, ``Most Dropped From Welfare Don't Get Jobs'': A vast majority of people who have dropped off New York State's rapidly shrinking welfare rolls have not obtained legitimate jobs, a state survey indicates. The survey found, among other things, that of the legions of people who came off the welfare rolls in New York City from July 1996 through March 1997, only 29 percent found full-time or part-time jobs in the first several months after they were no longer on public assistance. That is a long piece, which I have had printed in the Record. Let me just simply say that I think the key point in this article is that many are now worrying that these welfare reforms, rather than enabling families to reach self-sufficiency, are driving many of these families into deeper poverty. Mr. President, when I brought this amendment to the floor last week, I quoted from a speech that Secretary Shalala had given on February 6. At one point in her speech, she says: Today, fewer than 4 percent of Americans are on welfare. What we don't know-- And this is a direct quote-- is precisely what is happening to all of those former welfare recipients. Mr. President, I say to colleagues, I am going to be back with this amendment this week, and I am going to take a lot of time to talk about it. If it is not this amendment, it will be another amendment which will be an effort with Senator Moynihan. I had a chance to talk with Senator Moynihan this morning, someone for whom I have a tremendous amount of admiration and a great deal of respect. He has done more work in this area than any of us. I think I have done a lot of work in this area as a teacher and as a community organizer before ever becoming a Senator, but I think Senator Moynihan has, without a doubt, the most intellectual capital and has probably done some of the most important work dealing with welfare policy that has been done in our country. I look forward to joining efforts with Senator Moynihan. But I want to say to colleagues today, I will be back with this amendment. I came to the floor and I said the reduction in caseload-- and let me just be real clear, the same message goes to the administration. The President has touted the reduction of the caseload by 4 million people. That is only reform if it is a reduction in poverty. We need to know what is happening. As a matter of fact, as you travel around the country and you go to State after State, there is no information available. Mr. President, is it true that in all too many cases people didn't show up for the initial job interview or job training because there were problems with mental illness in the family, problems with substance abuse, women who came out of battered homes and weren't able to do it, and now we are cutting them off all assistance and, even worse, we are cutting their children off assistance? Is it true that many of these recipients are now in workfare programs where they work minimum-wage jobs with no benefits and they are told that if they should leave the job because the conditions are horrible--they are never allowed to take a break to go to the bathroom, they have a ruptured disk in their back, or it turns out there isn't good child care for their children--that they never again will receive any welfare benefits? That is happening around our country, I say to my colleagues. We ought to know what the situation is with these families. I just say to colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans alike, that I think the problem is we don't want to know. I think the problem with the administration is they don't want to know. Everybody was talking about how great this ``welfare reform'' was, about how we saw all this reduction, 4 million fewer people receiving benefits, and everybody was cheering. Then I came to the floor and I said to colleagues--I thought I would get 100 votes--how about we know exactly what is happening, how about at least we call for all of the States to provide to Health and Human Services every 6 months a report on these families--are they reaching economic self-sufficiency?--and then Health and Human Services would pull that data together and give it to us as responsible policymakers. And it was voted down. It was voted down. Mr. President, I have a GAO report that just came out dealing with Health and Human Services, noting that HHS missed the statutory deadline for implementing the high-performance bonus program. This was going to be a program where there would be bonuses for States that were doing real well in placing people in jobs. The idea is we would see more of that. That is what it is supposed to be about: While the law required HHS to implement this program by August 1997, HHS is still writing regulations that will define specific measures against which States are to be assessed. So on and so forth. The point is, finally, now we are coming around with the regulations. Mr. President, I recommend both of these articles to colleagues. This is a most serious problem. We don't know what is going on around the country, but now we have two front-page stories which suggest that a whole lot of people are being cut off assistance, but it is not because they are working. I have other studies that I can refer to today. I won't. I see other colleagues have now come to the floor to talk about the supplemental. But let me just conclude this way: I brought this amendment to the floor a week and a half ago. I said, ``Don't you think we at least ought to study this?'' I was arguing that the reason we needed to have the study is that eventually--in some States it will be a year and a half from now; in other States, 3 years; it depends on the State--there is going to be a drop-dead date certain where everyone will be eliminated from assistance. We ought to know whether people are working. We ought to know whether they have jobs. We ought to know whether the children are all right. Now what we find out is a whole lot of people who we thought would be in the most trouble, children who have children--and they don't have a high school degree, they don't have the job training, and they don't have the skills development--we were worried about whether they would be able to obtain employment and whether their children would be better off. We worried about people struggling with mental illness. We had an amendment out here on the floor called the ``family violence option,'' and the administration still has not made clear to States that they should be able to get a good-faith waiver for those women who come out of battered homes and that wouldn't be counted against their work force participation requirements. We worried about all these people. We didn't want women to be driven back into very dangerous homes because they were going to be cut off assistance, because they couldn't work, because they were being stalked, they couldn't go to job training, they had been traumatized, they suffered from posttraumatic stress syndrome from being beaten up over and over and over again. We didn't want them forced back into dangerous homes. A lot of that is happening around the country. I am coming back with this amendment, I say to my colleague Senator Stevens, not on this emergency supplemental bill, but on the first vehicle that is out here, I am going to come back with this amendment which essentially says to all of us as responsible policymakers, ``Please, let's find out what's going on around the country; let's make sure that families aren't going hungry.'' By the way, there has been a dramatic increase all around the country in demand for food shelves, a dramatic increase of families needing basic nutritional assistance, and you have to wonder whether or not part of the reason is people are getting cut off welfare assistance, but they are not being able to get the jobs, they are not finding the employment, and they are worse off. Mr. President, we ought to know, and I know that this is a critically important question. I am very pleased that I know Senator Moynihan will be a part of this effort, and I hope one way or the other I can get 100 votes so that all of us can get the data that we need and we know what is happening around the country. That is what we should do as responsible policymakers. I will be back with this amendment as soon as there is an appropriate vehicle. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came to the floor last week--maybe it was a week and a half ago--with an amendment that called on my colleagues to be willing, as responsible policymakers, to take a close look at what was happening around the country, to mainly women and children, as a result of the welfare ``reform'' bill that was passed in 1996. When I came to the floor, I marshaled evidence as to the need for us to know more, as to the need for some kind of study. What the amendment said was that we should call on States to provide data to Health and Human Services as to how many of the families that were no longer on the welfare rolls were reaching economic self-sufficiency, what kind of jobs people had, what kind of wages, and what about child care for children? Mr. President, that amendment I think received about 43 or 44 votes. Maybe the reason the amendment was not agreed to was because I put that amendment on the highway bill, or the ISTEA bill, because I wanted to call attention to what is happening around the country as, from some of my own travel, I have seen it. Today we have two front page stories, colleagues. I want to announce my intention on an amendment. One, in the Washington Post, ``Sanctions: A Force Behind Falling Welfare Rolls,'' and the other, in the New York Times: ``Most Dropped from Welfare Don't Get Jobs.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me conclude on a personal note. What I have tried to say on the floor of the Senate, and I want to summarize, because, again, I actually believe, without being melodramatic, I can truthfully say this has been one of the most difficult decisions. I do not believe for a moment that people who favor NATO ratification are doing it because of simplistic thinking or because they have not thought this issue through, although I think all of us before we cast the final vote should inform ourselves. Some people I have tremendous respect for strongly favor NATO ratification. I have met with people back in Minnesota--Czechs, Hungarians and Poles--people who feel so strongly about this, wonderful people, people who have been big supporters of me, and they are disappointed in me. I want to say one more time, I have done my best to really be a scholar and to study this matter. I have tried to meet with people representing different points of view. But I very honestly and truthfully believe that this would be a terrible mistake. I think the way to expand democracy and market economies, which is a very important goal for Hungary, for the Czech Republic, for Poland, for other countries, is membership in the European Union. Our country should be using our leverage to make that happen. I think there is no reason for NATO expansion. I see no military threat that calls for expansion of a military alliance. I think the downside is that we risk signing arms agreements with Russia, we risk poisoning relations with Russia, we risk putting the democratic forces in Russia in peril, and I think if we don't have a stable Russia, if we don't have a secure Russia, then all of Europe is threatened by that. I had a chance to travel to Russia a few years ago. I wanted to visit where my father grew up since he could never go back because the Communists ruled. I went there full of hope, and I came back with less hope. Of course, I am an optimist; I am always hopeful. The reason I had less hope is because of all the economic disintegration, how difficult a transition it is for this nation to move from a totalitarian government, to move from Communist rule to democracy and, indeed, too much economic pain for too many people in the country. I will never forget being on the Trans-Siberian Railroad and talking to a woman, I am sorry to say, through a translator and having her say to me, ``You can't eat freedom.'' What I worry about--I don't think this issue is the issue alone, and I know there have been public opinion polls recently taken--I am sure my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, has spoken about some of that--where a majority, not a large majority, but a majority says they favor NATO expansion. What I worry about is this can be a triggering event if things don't go well. I am worried if things do not go well economically; I am worried if there is a considerable amount of instability, if President Yeltsin should run into difficulty with an illness and should pass away; I am worried about what is going to happen in the future, not in the distant future but in the medium future and maybe in the near future. I do not think the benefits of NATO expansion come close when measured up against what I consider to be the very real dangers of doing this. I think we are making a fateful decision. I said in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--I like to say it because my father was my teacher. My father--I miss him, I wish he was alive. I wish he was here to provide me with advice. When I was growing up, I was a little embarrassed by my father because he was very ``old country.'' He was almost 50 when I was born. He wasn't cool and didn't fit in and really didn't fit in with my friends' parents. When I got to be high-school age, the age of some of the pages here, I realized what a treasure he was. For 3 years before I went away to the University of North Carolina, every night at 10 o'clock, except for the weekends, I would meet him in our kitchen and we would have sponge cake and hot tea, and he would talk about the world. For 3 years, I had a chance to just listen to my father and learn from him. I really believe that my father would say to me today that George Kennan is right and that we will make a fateful decision if we vote for ratification of this NATO agreement. Mr. President, it is with strength and feeling very strongly about my position--but nevertheless it is a difficult decision--that I speak today on the floor. I urge my colleagues to oppose ratification of NATO expansion. I shall vote no, though I am hopeful that maybe we will be able to pass some amendment which I think will make a huge difference. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Feb. 5, 1997] A Fateful Error (By George F. Kennan) In late 1996, the impression was allowed, or caused, to become prevalent that it had been somehow and somewhere decided to expand NATO up to Russia's borders. This despite the fact that no formal decision can be made before the alliance's next summit meeting, in June. The timing of this revelation--coinciding with the Presidential election and the pursuant changes in responsible personalities in Washington--did not make it easy for the outsider to know how or where to insert a modest word of comment. Nor did the assurance given to the public that the decision, however preliminary, was irrevocable encourage outside opinion. But something of the highest importance is at stake here. And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. And, last but not least, it might make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure the Russian Duma's ratification of the Start II agreement and to achieve further reductions of nuclear weaponry. It is, of course, unfortunate that Russia should be confronted with such a challenge at a time when its executive power is in a state of high uncertainty and near-paralysis. And it is doubly unfortunate considering the total lack of any necessity for this move. Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict? I am aware, of course, that NATO is conducting talks with the Russian authorities in hopes of making the idea of expansion tolerable and palatable to Russia. One can, in the existing circumstances, only wish these efforts success. But anyone who gives serious attention to the Russian press cannot fail to note that neither the public nor the Government is waiting for the proposed expansion to occur before reacting to it. Russians are little impressed with American assurances that it reflects no hostile intentions. They would see their prestige (always uppermost in the Russian mind) and their security interests as adversely affected. They would, of course, have no choice but to accept expansion as a military fait accompli. But they would continue to regard it as a rebuff by the West and would likely look elsewhere for guarantees of a secure and hopeful future for themselves. It will obviously not be easy to change a decision already made or tacitly accepted by the alliance's 16 member countries. But there are a few intervening months before the decision is to be made final; perhaps this period can be used to alter the proposed expansion in ways that would mitigate the unhappy effects it is already having on Russian opinion and policy.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is my understanding--although I think really what we are doing here is just making opening statements on NATO expansion--and my hope, if not this week then when we come back to this discussion, that a number of us will have amendments on the floor and that we will have, hopefully, a sharper and more focused debate. Mr. President, I speak on the floor of the Senate about a matter that I think is of great importance. I think the decision that we make here in the Senate about whether or not to support expansion of NATO will, as a matter of fact, crucially affect the quality or lack of quality of the lives of our children and our grandchildren. I have given this matter a great deal of thought. For the last year I have had a lot of discussions, a lot of briefings with a lot of people on both sides of the question. I have done my very best as a U.S. Senator from Minnesota to inform myself. This is a very difficult decision to make. There are thoughtful and knowledgeable Senators who are on the other side from where I am. Certainly there are thoughtful and knowledgeable Minnesotans, whom I respect greatly, who have urged me to vote in favor of expanding NATO. So have many of my colleagues. So has President Vaclav Havel from Czechoslovakia, who I believe is one of the giants of the 20th century, a playwright and former prisoner of conscience. When he speaks, with such passion, about the importance of expanding NATO, I listen. I will tell you, probably more than anything, I would like to cast a vote that would please President Havel. Why, then, do I oppose the expansion of NATO? Because I have come to believe that it would lead to the redivision of Europe and that we would needlessly poison U.S. relations with Russia for years to come and increase the prospects that in the post-Yeltsin world--President Yeltsin will not be there forever--the ultranationalists and anti-U.S. forces, militaristic forces, will gain power. Before I go into greater detail on the reasons for my opposition to enlarging NATO, just permit me to say a few words about the process that I have gone through to reach this decision. Again, I understand full well that our decision has enormous implications for our country and the world. I am a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We have had any number of different hearings on this. I have read as many articles as I can read and have talked with as many people as I can talk with. I want to assure my fellow Minnesotans and my colleagues that in reaching this decision I have done my homework. That does not mean I am arrogant about it. That does not mean that I believe the people who take a different position have not done their homework. But there are a number of questions and doubts that I have. I have submitted questions in writing to Secretary of State Albright and to other key administration officials. Last June I sent a letter to President Clinton, cosigned by my distinguished colleague Senator Harkin, where we raised a number of different questions. Unfortunately, at least from my point of view, a number of these questions are still out there and administration officials have not allayed my concerns about NATO expansion. So, as I give this matter a great deal of thought, carefully weighing the pros and the cons of NATO expansion and meeting with those who have strong expansionist viewpoints, I still believe that I must oppose NATO expansion. Permit me to outline my concerns. The best way is for me to summarize questions that I have had and to talk about some of the answers that have been given but which I do not think are persuasive answers. First, what military threat is NATO expansion intended to address? The Russian military has collapsed, the Russian Army's ability to quell tiny, ill-equipped Chechen forces raises doubts about Russia's capability to threaten its former Eastern bloc allies in the foreseeable future. Second, arms control agreements signed between 1987 and 1993, that were pushed through by Presidents Reagan and Bush working with President Gorbachev, have helped to establish a new security structure that makes a surprise attack on Central Europe virtually impossible. Third, there is peace between states in Europe, between nations in Europe, for the first time in centuries. We do not have a divided Europe, and I worry about a NATO expansion which could redivide Europe and again poison relations with Russia. Why, then, are we rushing to expand a military alliance into Central Europe? How can Russia not feel threatened by, one, the prospect of NATO forces moving hundreds of miles closer to its borders and, two, the possibility of further NATO expansions, including even the Baltic States? This has all been left, as my colleague the distinguished Chair knows, open-ended. Although the administration claims that extending NATO toward Russia's borders would not threaten Russia, there seems little doubt that many Russians feel threatened, especially, I argue, any number of the opinion leaders in Russia. Whatever explanation there is for the fact that Russian politicians, the reformers, the pro-Western democrats to the centrists to the Communists and even to the extreme nationalists, who may agree with us on little else, all strongly oppose NATO expansion. In pursuing the NATO expansion, why is the administration disregarding the warnings of George Kennan and other distinguished Russian scholars that NATO expansion is likely to sow the seeds for a reemergence of antidemocratic and chauvinistic trends in Russia? I am especially puzzled by this since it must be evident to both supporters and foes of NATO expansion that European security and stability--and I need to make this point twice--that European security and stability is greatly dependent on Russia's successful transition to democracy. That, I think, is the central point. A democratic Russia is unlikely to threaten its neighbors. I am worried, I am terribly worried. I think this is a profound mistake. I think this NATO expansion could threaten that democracy in Russia, and I think, if we do not have a successful transition to democracy in Russia, that, in turn, threatens European security and stability. Why then are we considering a step that is apt to strike at Russian ultranationalists who oppose democracy? George Kennan, who is probably over 90 now, a great scholar--George Kennan is probably as wise and profound a thinker as we have in our country about Russia, about the former Soviet Union. I might add--and I have said this to friends--my father, who was born in the Ukraine, born in Odessa, his family then moved to Russia--they kept moving to stay one step ahead of the pogroms--he was a Jewish immigrant; he came over in 1914 at the age of 17. He never saw his family again. My father had the honor many times-- he passed away in 1983--but he had the honor many times to speak with and meet with George Kennan. My father, who spoke 10 languages fluently--I am sorry to say I don't--but my father, who spoke 10 languages fluently, had such great respect for George Kennan's mastery of the language and his understanding of Russia. George Kennan has said that expanding NATO ``may be expected to inflame nationalistic anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion and to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy.'' I urge my colleagues to carefully consider George Kennan's words before they cast their votes on ratification of NATO expansion. I want to say this about the process: I am in sharp disagreement with the majority leader on the way we are doing this. We had hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I give Chairman Helms full credit for that. He and Senator Biden--who takes a very different position than I do--have been very respectful about the need to have a debate. But the way we are doing this is we are doing it in bits and pieces. We should have been on the education bill, and we have just come back to NATO as filler until we get back to the education bill. It is a way of avoiding debate about education and education amendments. This decision we are going to make about NATO expansion is as important a decision as we are ever going to make. But Senators coming out here, as I have, individually and then leaving after they give speeches is not enough. Yesterday, we had some good discussion. I hope next week, or whenever we take this back up, we will figure out a way to have Senators out here with amendments and we can have a give-and- take discussion and we can have an important debate about this. What basis is there for Secretary Albright's claim that expanding NATO will produce an ``undivided'' Europe? Rather than creating an undivided Europe, my view is that NATO expansion would re-create a dividing line in Europe, only further to the east than the original cold war dividing line, and I do not consider that to be progress for the world. In fact, President Clinton himself, before he decided to back NATO expansion, avowed that it would ``draw a new line through Europe just a little further east.'' This is hardly an academic question, for I believe that a Europe without dividing lines is vital if the continent is to be peaceful, prosperous and secure. That is why I think we will be making a fateful mistake if we vote for the NATO expansion, if we support this. Finally, Mr. President, I must ask whether it makes sense for the administration to contend that a key reason NATO expansion is necessary is that it will promote democracy, stability and economic reform in Central Europe. There are a whole lot of countries in the former Soviet Union for whom that challenge is out there. I am not even sure these countries would be the first countries by that criteria. But what I do know is that, if the administration really believes that a prime goal of NATO expansion is to solidify democracy and economic reform, then perhaps we ought to really think about other countries first. Yet I think that would be a mistake. And, most important of all, if we are going to be talking about expanding markets and expanding democracy, why don't we use our leverage--the United States of America--to promote membership in the European Union? I think that is the single best way that our country could exert its leadership. The single best way that we could exert our leverage for Poland, for Hungary, for the Czech Republic, if the goal of this is to expand markets and democracy, would be for the United States to be the leader, the leading voice in calling for expansion in the European Union. Let me simply say that I do not think a military alliance is the way to do that. I do not think a military alliance has as its primary goal expanding markets and democracy, and, moreover, I think we take a terrible risk. In closing, I would like to quote from a New York Times op-ed written over a year ago by George Kennan, a man who, as I said, I have long admired for his remarkable contributions to American diplomacy and scholarship and keen insights into Russian history, politics and diplomacy: . . . something of the highest importance is at stake here. And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view, that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-cold-war era. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, let me repeat this. I am quoting a profound thinker. George Kennan states: The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post- cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to . . . restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. And, last but not least, it might make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure the Russian Duma's ratification of the START II agreement and to achieve further reductions of nuclear weapons. George Kennan's words have already proved to be prophetic. The START II agreement is stalled in the duma, and troubling frictions have developed with Russia on a number of other issues, ranging from U.S. policy toward Iraq to the management of Russia's nuclear materials. I urge my colleagues to ponder George Kennan's powerful arguments and to join me in opposing ratification of NATO expansion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of George Kennan's article be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that Corey Perman, who is a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I could speak for 3 hours on this. But I agree with Senator Biden from Delaware. This is really one of the situations where words really do matter. I fully support this resolution. I am glad we are speaking out on it. Several years ago I had a chance to visit Kosovo. It was really an awe-inspiring trip. I, first of all, wanted to go to the former Yugoslavia--I know Senator Biden visited there--on my own to see what was in the holocaust taking place; at least the genocide. I never could get to Sarajevo. I never could fly in. But I was able to eventually drive from Zagreb to Belgrade. I met with Milosevic. It was really the only meeting I ever had with someone where I wouldn't shake his hand. We were talking about Kosovo. I was about to visit there. He told me that people were very happy there; that I would find out that there had been a tremendous amount of exaggeration. I couldn't believe he said that to me. It was just outright lying. It was unbelievable. I went to Kosovo and I met with people who were involved in the nonviolence. As they said then, ``We want to do this in a nonviolent way.'' But time is not neutral. People can't continue to bear their oppression. People couldn't go to medical school. They couldn't go to law school. There were police everywhere. It was an absolute police state where 90 percent of the Albanian people were oppressed by the Serbs. This is not the best of what the Serb people stand for. Now we have this resistance. Now we have the people in Kosovo who are taking a strong stance. I am opposed to terrorism. We are all opposed to terrorism. Murder is never legitimate. But I must say that I think it is important that we get behind this resolution, and I think it is important that Milosevic know that there will be pressure put on him, and that we are serious about trying to support the people of Kosovo. It is very important that we do this. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I could speak on this resolution.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair for his courtesy.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask for order.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to briefly speak about this vote. What has just happened on the floor--and I do take exception to this, especially with the majority leader--is we had the Coverdell bill--I said to Senator Coverdell yesterday that I do not necessarily agree with the bill, but I said to him, ``Paul, I look forward to the debate. I am really ready for this debate. I have a lot of amendments; other Senators have prepared amendments. I think this is probably the most important thing we can do in the U.S. Senate is to have a really substantive debate about education.'' What has now happened is the majority leader filed cloture and said we are not going to have an opportunity over the next 2 days to offer any amendments. The proposal, as I understand it, was that if we would accept some kind of an arrangement where we could offer germane amendments, that would be acceptable, but not necessarily relevant amendments. It is just an outrageous proposition, because the test of germaneness is, if you offer an amendment on the education bill that expands education, expands educational opportunities for children, it is relevant. The Presiding Officer has had some very interesting hearings--I have been at those--dealing with early childhood development. If we want to come out with amendments and make the connection between early childhood development and education for children, that would not be viewed as germane. I have said to people in Minnesota, based on meetings with community college students and people in my State, ``Yes, I will come out here and try to make sure this Hope tax credit will be refundable,'' because right now if you come from a family with an income under $27,000 or $28,000 a year, it doesn't help you at all. The very students who need the help in being able to afford higher education--the Coverdell bill was about how to afford either K through 12 or higher education. Many students in Minnesota from working families cannot afford it. That would not meet the germaneness test. I have an amendment that deals with this awful problem--I think I can get good support--that too many welfare mothers are not able to complete their 2 years of college. They are told they have to leave school. They are on the path to self-sufficiency. It is a big mistake. It deals with the parent and child. Children do well in school when their parents are able to do well. My point is that what has happened, I think, on the floor really is a bit outrageous. We wanted to have a debate on education. I am ready to debate education with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike. I had amendments; other Senators had amendments. We were ready to bring those amendments out here. From my point of view, I would have agreed to time limits on these amendments. Instead, what has happened is the majority leader has come out, filed cloture, basically is saying he is not going to let us offer any amendments that are relevant and important to children's lives in America. Instead, he now moves to NATO. This vote on NATO--I asked for the yeas and nays, the minority leader asked for the yeas and nays--is not about what our position is on NATO. It is about saying we thought we were going to have a debate on education. We thought we were going to have an opportunity as Senators to speak to perhaps the most important issue or set of issues in our States, which has to do with expanding educational opportunities for children and for young people in America. That is what we thought this was about. Now what we have seen happen on the floor of the Senate is the majority leader basically comes out, files for cloture and says, ``I will only entertain the amendments that are germane.'' Do you know what? No one Senator, not even the majority leader, gets to decide before we have the debate what amendments are relevant and important when it comes to expanding educational opportunities for children. I would love to debate the majority leader, I would love to debate members of the Republican Party and Democratic Party on this. It looks right now like we won't have that debate. On the Democratic side--I am not the minority leader; he can speak better for Democrats--I think we are going to have unanimity on this and we are going to keep coming back and we are, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, going to insist on a debate. In order to be responsible Senators, in order for the U.S. Senate to be responsible, we should have a substantive, thoughtful, important debate about what we need to do to expand educational opportunities for all of our children. That is what this should be about. Now we move away from the bill. The idea is, the majority leader says, we will only take the amendments that are germane. That is it. That is not acceptable. That is not acceptable. We will come back over and over and over again and we will have a debate on the Coverdell bill. We should have that debate. I said that to Senator Coverdell yesterday. And it should be a good debate. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the bill I offer today will restore food stamps for all legal immigrants who lost eligibility under the 1996 welfare reform law. Representative Guiterrez and I began developing this legislation last fall, and in the second week of March he introduced an identical bill in the House. Today I introduce our legislation in the Senate. This bill is more comprehensive than the proposal included by the President in his budget request for FY 1999. I commend the President for making the effort to address this problem, but his proposal does not go far enough. It overlooks 100,000 immigrants who were formerly eligible. It seems to me wholly unreasonable to leave these people out, given their relatively small number. I say we must go further. It was a mistake to deny food stamp eligibility in the first place, and now is the time to make amends. The legislation Congressman Gutierrez and I have developed will restore eligibility for all legal immigrants. While the President proposes spending $2.43 billion dollars over the next 5 years, the cost of our bill would be only marginally higher--closer to $3 billion. The 1996 welfare bill denied legal immigrants the means to meet basic nutritional needs in order to save some money. But I believe that, in the end, this provision will not save us any money at all. In the long run, we as a society will have to pay this bill, and pay it in full. We will pay with more family conflict, more medical problems, and lower student achievement. The cost of this mistake will far outweigh the money saved. Indeed, I believe we are already paying the price. In searching for ways to save money, Congress conveniently chose to target a group of people who do not vote. On one level, it is easy to understand the politics of this decision. But on another level, I find it incomprehensible. Consider how much these hard-working people contribute to our society and our economy. They pay taxes and often perform jobs that American citizens refuse to do. The fact that they have no right to vote should not mean that we single them out for this kind of treatment. It was especially irresponsible to deny eligibility knowing that two thirds of those affected would be children. Denying basic nutrition to children is not what this country is about, nor should it be. But that is essentially what Congress did in 1996. An estimated 900,000 legal immigrants lost their eligibility with passage of welfare reform. Another 600,000 children--children who are American citizens but whose parents are legal immigrants--have seen their family's food stamps reduced. Denying nutrition to parents will affect these children. Nutrition is a basic need which, if denied or reduced, has enormous negative effects on a family. This is no way for a country with a proud history of compassion and community to go about reducing the deficit. Today I offer legislation that would recognize this mistake and correct it. Ending hunger, whether among legal residents or anybody else, should remain a national responsibility. It cannot be done on a piecemeal basis. As of today, only three states have provided full eligibility for legal immigrants. A total of eleven states are providing coupons or the equivalent for some or all legal immigrants. Two states have set up independent programs to serve some of the legal immigrant population. But each of these thirteen states has the option and ability to change or terminate these commendable efforts at any time. That's not good enough. In my own state of Minnesota, food stamp cuts have had a major impact on our immigrant communities. While the state has offered temporary and partial food assistance for legal immigrants to make up for the loss of federal benefits, it has not been enough. Food banks have experienced a noticeable increase in demand for their services, especially in the Hmong and Somali communities. In fact, all across this nation the need for food assistance is on the rise, especially among immigrants. We can alleviate at least some of this problem by passing the bill I offer today. I believe we have a responsibility to both the children suffering under this new law who are American citizens, and to the legal immigrants who lost coverage. If we reinstate food stamp eligibility, these immigrants will once again be able to provide adequate nutrition for themselves and for their children. I believe this is what we must do to meet our responsibility, and it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the bill I offer today will restore food stamps for all legal immigrants who lost eligibility under the 1996 welfare reform law. Representative Guiterrez and I began developing this legislation last fall, and in the second week of March he introduced an identical bill in the House. Today I introduce our legislation in the Senate. This bill is more comprehensive than the proposal included by the President in his budget request for FY 1999. I commend the President for making the effort to address this problem, but his proposal does not go far enough. It overlooks 100,000 immigrants who were formerly eligible. It seems to me wholly unreasonable to leave these people out, given their relatively small number. I say we must go further. It was a mistake to deny food stamp eligibility in the first place, and now is the time to make amends. The legislation Congressman Gutierrez and I have developed will restore eligibility for all legal immigrants. While the President proposes spending $2.43 billion dollars over the next 5 years, the cost of our bill would be only marginally higher--closer to $3 billion. The 1996 welfare bill denied legal immigrants the means to meet basic nutritional needs in order to save some money. But I believe that, in the end, this provision will not save us any money at all. In the long run, we as a society will have to pay this bill, and pay it in full. We will pay with more family conflict, more medical problems, and lower student achievement. The cost of this mistake will far outweigh the money saved. Indeed, I believe we are already paying the price. In searching for ways to save money, Congress conveniently chose to target a group of people who do not vote. On one level, it is easy to understand the politics of this decision. But on another level, I find it incomprehensible. Consider how much these hard-working people contribute to our society and our economy. They pay taxes and often perform jobs that American citizens refuse to do. The fact that they have no right to vote should not mean that we single them out for this kind of treatment. It was especially irresponsible to deny eligibility knowing that two thirds of those affected would be children. Denying basic nutrition to children is not what this country is about, nor should it be. But that is essentially what Congress did in 1996. An estimated 900,000 legal immigrants lost their eligibility with passage of welfare reform. Another 600,000 children--children who are American citizens but whose parents are legal immigrants--have seen their family's food stamps reduced. Denying nutrition to parents will affect these children. Nutrition is a basic need which, if denied or reduced, has enormous negative effects on a family. This is no way for a country with a proud history of compassion and community to go about reducing the deficit. Today I offer legislation that would recognize this mistake and correct it. Ending hunger, whether among legal residents or anybody else, should remain a national responsibility. It cannot be done on a piecemeal basis. As of today, only three states have provided full eligibility for legal immigrants. A total of eleven states are providing coupons or the equivalent for some or all legal immigrants. Two states have set up independent programs to serve some of the legal immigrant population. But each of these thirteen states has the option and ability to change or terminate these commendable efforts at any time. That's not good enough. In my own state of Minnesota, food stamp cuts have had a major impact on our immigrant communities. While the state has offered temporary and partial food assistance for legal immigrants to make up for the loss of federal benefits, it has not been enough. Food banks have experienced a noticeable increase in demand for their services, especially in the Hmong and Somali communities. In fact, all across this nation the need for food assistance is on the rise, especially among immigrants. We can alleviate at least some of this problem by passing the bill I offer today. I believe we have a responsibility to both the children suffering under this new law who are American citizens, and to the legal immigrants who lost coverage. If we reinstate food stamp eligibility, these immigrants will once again be able to provide adequate nutrition for themselves and for their children. I believe this is what we must do to meet our responsibility, and it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that the text of S. 1636, a bill to provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. It is refreshing to meet a student group with its legislative message so clearly focused. As the consumer voice of higher education's largest sector, the community college students, nearly 12 million strong in annualized enrollment, represent, in a very large degree, the economic future of our nation and our workforce. I urge my colleagues to heed their message.