Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee and others in introducing the ``Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998,'' as an original cosponsor. This bill reauthorizes funding to extend and enhance many fine programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I am pleased to join in this important effort. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Frist for his work in developing this legislation to strengthen and expand Federal efforts to promote women's health. While there is still some work to be done to improve the bill as it moves through the normal legislative process, I believe this bill offers a good start and provides a solid foundation on which to build historic improvements in NIH research programs on breast cancer, heart attack, menopause, and other areas. Let me outline briefly a few critical issues that are not addressed by the bill, but which I hope to see addressed as we move forward. One notable gap is in the area of substance abuse. I believe this bill could be an important complement to the Substances Abuse Treatment Parity Act (S. 1147), which I introduced last September to improve access to equitable medical care to treat the disease of alcohol and other drug dependencies. Substance abuse is a widespread health concern for many women, who also experience associated health, psychological, and family problems. For example, expectant mothers and mothers with small children can be helped with treatment and support services. This is an investment for them, but as importantly for their children, who would have the opportunity to grow up in a healthy, chemical-free home environment. We have to take the problem of substance abuse as seriously as we do other aspects of women's health. Important information about this national problem will be highlighted in an upcoming five-part PBS series by Bill Moyers, where treatment programs such as the Hazelden program in my state of Minnesota are highlighted. In working with these and other treatment programs in Minnesota, I have learned a great deal about the problems of substances abuse, but also about the hope and success that occurs when effective treatments are available. The Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments Act could be substantially improved by an additional focus on substance abuse programs. Another notable gap is in the area of mental health and behavioral science. On page one of the New York Times today was an article on the criminalization of mental illness. The problem is that we as a nation have needed to focus on the humane, dignified treatment of mental illness, and having failed in that, more and more people who are suffering from mental illness are winding up in prisons where they are out of sight, but where they are not getting the care they need. We need to treat mental health as seriously as we treat cancer and heart disease, because mental illness can be just as serious, chronic, and life-destroying as other diseases. I intend to work closely with Senator Frist and others on the committee to improve the bill by including a recognition of the role that behavioral science and psychological factors have in the development of and recovery from disease. Many of the diseases mentioned in the bill are scientifically linked to behavioral or psychological factors that can be critical to prevention and recovery. Women also suffer unduly from specific mental health problems and experiences, such as depression and domestic violence. Depression, for example, is a pervasive and impairing illness which affects women at roughly twice the rate of men. Domestic violence places a significant resource and economic strain on our justice, health, and human services systems. Research conducted at urban hospitals has show that about 25% of emergency room visits by women resulted from domestic assaults. Women who have been raped or battered have significantly great physical health problems, as well as increased vulnerability to psychological and emotional suffering. My wife Sheila and I have worked for years to improve the federal response to the epidemic levels of domestic violence across the country; I want to make sure this bill adequately addresses these issues. Mr. President, it is my commitment to work closely with the committee to enhance these and other areas that are critical to women's health. A strong focus on research and prevention of mental illness and substance abuse for women is an important investment in the health of the nation and of the health and well being of countless families.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee and others in introducing the ``Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998,'' as an original cosponsor. This bill reauthorizes funding to extend and enhance many fine programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I am pleased to join in this important effort. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Frist for his work in developing this legislation to strengthen and expand Federal efforts to promote women's health. While there is still some work to be done to improve the bill as it moves through the normal legislative process, I believe this bill offers a good start and provides a solid foundation on which to build historic improvements in NIH research programs on breast cancer, heart attack, menopause, and other areas. Let me outline briefly a few critical issues that are not addressed by the bill, but which I hope to see addressed as we move forward. One notable gap is in the area of substance abuse. I believe this bill could be an important complement to the Substances Abuse Treatment Parity Act (S. 1147), which I introduced last September to improve access to equitable medical care to treat the disease of alcohol and other drug dependencies. Substance abuse is a widespread health concern for many women, who also experience associated health, psychological, and family problems. For example, expectant mothers and mothers with small children can be helped with treatment and support services. This is an investment for them, but as importantly for their children, who would have the opportunity to grow up in a healthy, chemical-free home environment. We have to take the problem of substance abuse as seriously as we do other aspects of women's health. Important information about this national problem will be highlighted in an upcoming five-part PBS series by Bill Moyers, where treatment programs such as the Hazelden program in my state of Minnesota are highlighted. In working with these and other treatment programs in Minnesota, I have learned a great deal about the problems of substances abuse, but also about the hope and success that occurs when effective treatments are available. The Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments Act could be substantially improved by an additional focus on substance abuse programs. Another notable gap is in the area of mental health and behavioral science. On page one of the New York Times today was an article on the criminalization of mental illness. The problem is that we as a nation have needed to focus on the humane, dignified treatment of mental illness, and having failed in that, more and more people who are suffering from mental illness are winding up in prisons where they are out of sight, but where they are not getting the care they need. We need to treat mental health as seriously as we treat cancer and heart disease, because mental illness can be just as serious, chronic, and life-destroying as other diseases. I intend to work closely with Senator Frist and others on the committee to improve the bill by including a recognition of the role that behavioral science and psychological factors have in the development of and recovery from disease. Many of the diseases mentioned in the bill are scientifically linked to behavioral or psychological factors that can be critical to prevention and recovery. Women also suffer unduly from specific mental health problems and experiences, such as depression and domestic violence. Depression, for example, is a pervasive and impairing illness which affects women at roughly twice the rate of men. Domestic violence places a significant resource and economic strain on our justice, health, and human services systems. Research conducted at urban hospitals has show that about 25% of emergency room visits by women resulted from domestic assaults. Women who have been raped or battered have significantly great physical health problems, as well as increased vulnerability to psychological and emotional suffering. My wife Sheila and I have worked for years to improve the federal response to the epidemic levels of domestic violence across the country; I want to make sure this bill adequately addresses these issues. Mr. President, it is my commitment to work closely with the committee to enhance these and other areas that are critical to women's health. A strong focus on research and prevention of mental illness and substance abuse for women is an important investment in the health of the nation and of the health and well being of countless families.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will keep it very simple. As a Senator from Minnesota, I rise in strong support of this Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, what we are calling the DBE program. For people who are watching, if you didn't catch it, it is Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. This program sets out a goal of 10 percent of the highway construction funds. The attempt is to make sure that 10 percent of these funds go to disadvantaged businesses, and the focus is on ``minority businesses'' and businesses owned by women. My State of Minnesota has essentially had the equivalent of this program since 1980. One of the reasons I am really proud of being a Senator from Minnesota is I think we have a really strong, progressive, justice tradition. In the last 5 years, Minnesota Department of Transportation has exceeded the 10 percent goal. We have been between about 11 and 13 percent for contracts that have gone out to ``minority''-owned businesses and to women-owned businesses. Mr. President, the important point to make for colleagues is that these businesses have been able to win these contracts because of a level playing field. It has enabled them to get their foot in the door. They haven't been able to obtain these contracts because they have a bid that comes in higher than other contractors. Other things have to be equal. They don't get these contracts because they do shoddy work. It is because these are effective businesses that do good work. What you have is a situation where around the country we have made the argument through this Disadvantage Business Enterprise Program, we are serious about entrepreneurship. We think it is indeed better that the people who make the capital investment decisions in the communities we live in are people who own businesses and live in those communities, not people who make decisions over martinis halfway across the world. We are not talking about big multinational corporations. Insofar as we are focused on our local economies and insofar as we are talking about entrepreneurship, I will tell you, as a member of the Small Business Committee, I have loved working on these issues. I am not ashamed to say that small businesses have been my teachers. I was a teacher, a college teacher. I never owned a small business, and I have learned a lot about what it takes to do so. But it is absolutely true that most of the growth in our economy is in the small business sector. It is absolutely true that if we want to expand opportunities and if we don't want to turn our gaze away from an unpleasant reality, which is that we still have discrimination in our country--does anybody believe that America is blind to issues of race? Does anybody believe that we have conquered all of this? Does anybody believe that we don't want to try and redress some major historical grievances? That is what we are doing through this program. It does just what the title says--it is the disadvantaged business enterprise program. It sets a goal of 10 percent of highway money going to these contractors which are owned by minorities and women. It has been enormously successful in the State of Minnesota. We exceed that goal. It enables people to get their foot in the door, start their businesses, and then they become successful in a whole lot of other areas as well. I think then you have this kind of marriage between, on the one hand, trying to expand opportunity, on the other hand trying to correct a historical injustice, and--although there are only two hands--on the third hand, also being serious about promoting entrepreneurship, also being serious about making sure that women and people of color in our communities are able to obtain some of the funding that comes out of these contracts. Instead, it will be a close vote. I hope we win. I think we should win. I do not believe that the U.S. Senate ought to be turning the clock back 30 years. I think we should be moving forward. I think a vote which would eliminate this program, the DBE program, would be an enormous step not forward for expanding opportunities, not forward for promoting entrepreneurship, not forward for women and minorities having these opportunities, it would be a giant leap backward. That is why I come to the floor to speak in behalf of this program.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I said to my colleague from Utah I will take less than 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to add my voice to those of my colleagues, Senators Lautenberg and DeWine, in support of this amendment to require states to pass .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) laws. People who drive while they are impaired are placing all of us in harm's way. The real issue is whether or not a person should be driving after consuming alcohol. There is no good reason that this should be accepted as a standard practice in our society. Opponents to this amendment will argue such things as ``this means that a 120-pound woman could not drive after drinking two glasses of wine''. I believe they are missing the point. The point is that if a person is impaired by alcohol, he or she should not be driving--period. The point is that someone's BAC might reach .08 after consumption of a certain amount of alcohol, and that BAC level might just be indicative of physical impairment that would affect driving ability. We are not talking about someone being fallen-down drunk, but perhaps a young woman whose reaction time might be slowed, so that as a young child darts out into the street in front of her car, she is unable to react quickly, enough to hit the brakes in time to stop the car from hitting the child. Was this woman ``drunk''? No, but the alcohol in her body slowed her reaction time. Here are some facts from the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse at NIH that help to explain the issue: The brain's control of eye movements is highly vulnerable to alcohol. In driving, the eye must focus briefly on important objects and track them as they and the vehicle being driven move. BAC's of .03 to .05 can interfere with these eye movements. Steering is a complex task in which the effects of alcohol on eye-to- hand reaction time are super-imposed upon the effects on vision, studies have shown that significant impairment in steering ability may begin at a BAC as low as .04. Alcohol impairs nearly every aspect of information processing by the brain. Alcohol-impaired drivers require more time to read a street sign or to respond to a traffic signal than unimpaired drivers. Research on the effects of alcohol on performance by both automobile and aircraft operators shows a narrowing of the attention field starting at a BAC of approximately .04. The National Public Services Research Institute reports the following: Approximately 10 percent of miles driven at BAC's of .08 and above are at BAC's between .08 and .10. Every year, crashes that involve drivers at BAC's of .08 to .99 kill 660 people and injure 28,000. Driving with a BAC of .08 is very risky. They estimate that crash costs average $5.80 per mile driven with a BAC of .10 or higher, $2.50 a mile for a BAC between .08 and .99, and only 11 cents a mile for each mile driven while sober. The preliminary evaluation of the .08 legislation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that this law will reduce alcohol-related fatalities by 5 to 8 percent. This is at least comparable to the impact of other laws such as zero tolerance for youth, administrative license revocation or graduated licensing. The evidence is clear. There is no good argument against the .08 legislation. In fact, responsible alcohol distributors and manufacturers should favor it. There is no excuse not to implement a law that could decrease traffic fatalities by 600 each year, and decrease traffic-related injuries by many thousands. We need to be responsible and encourage the implementation of .08 legislation in all states, and to provide incentive for doing so. Mr. President, again, I want to add my voice to my colleagues, Senator Lautenberg and Senator DeWine, and support this amendment to require States to pass the .08 blood alcohol content law. Mr. President, people who drive while they are impaired are placing all of us in harm's way. That is really the issue. Now, opponents of this amendment have argued that this is going to mean such a thing as, ``A 120-pound woman could not drive after drinking two glasses of wine.'' I believe they miss the point. The point is, if a person is impaired by alcohol, he or she should not be driving, period. There are some important facts laid out by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse. It lays out clearly why this amendment is so important. The evidence is really clear. There is no good reason and no good argument to be against this .08 legislation. In fact, responsible alcohol distributors and manufacturers should favor it. There is no excuse not to implement a law that could decrease fatalities by 600 each year and decrease traffic-related injuries by many thousands. We need to be responsible, and we need to encourage the implementation of the .08 legislation in all States and to provide those States incentives for doing so. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, on a personal note, I want to thank Minnesota Mothers Against Drunk Driving for all that they have done to educate all of us in my State, including me as a Senator. I have been at their gatherings, and I say to my colleague, Senator Lott, I absolutely accept what he says in the best of faith. I know he is committed to the general concept. But I believe, after spending time with these families who have lost so many loved ones in these accidents, that we ought to be as tough as possible. This is a matter of public health. We ought to make sure that we have as few people driving who are impaired from alcohol as possible around our country. This is an issue for our national community. This is a matter of public health. This is protection for families in our country. This is the right thing to do. I hope we get a strong majority vote for this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take 3 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, let me thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his graciousness. For those who might be watching this proceeding, my colleague could have just simply tabled this amendment. He didn't do that. He will eventually, but he has given me an opportunity to respond to his arguments. I want him to know that I appreciate it. Mr. President, I won't spend a lot of time on the question of this amendment on the ISTEA bill--which is essentially the highway bill for highways and, hopefully, more mass transit--because, as my colleagues know, Democrats and Republicans alike, we look for vehicles whereby we can come out and introduce amendments that really speak to what we think are some real concerns in the country. All of us do that all of the time. I am doing it now. I am not so sure there will be, I say to my colleague, a welfare bill that will be before the U.S. Senate any time soon. I introduce this amendment with some sense of urgency. I don't think there is any evidence whatever that we will have a welfare bill before the U.S. Senate. So if I am going to have an opportunity to make an appeal to my colleagues, now is the time to do so. Second, I want to just make it clear what this amendment does and what it does not do. I am puzzled by the opposition, with all due respect to my colleague from Rhode Island. This amendment just simply says to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, please give us a report based upon--not your going out and collecting all sorts of other data--but based upon the data that is available to you. My colleague just said that there will be some good data available. Most people that I know--I have a social science background--that have looked at this are saying you have a number of different people studying a number of different things and it is fragmented and does not focus on the main question I am asking. Exactly how many of the families are reaching economic self-sufficiency? This amendment just says to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, please pull together the data that is available, reports prepared by the Comptroller General, samples of the Bureau of Census, surveys funded by your own department, studies conducted by States, studies conducted by nongovernment organizations, and administrative data from other Federal agencies. Please bring that data together, coordinate that data and provide reports to us every 6 months as to exactly how many families are reaching economic self-sufficiency. The goal of that being to answer the question, Are these families now at 150 percent of poverty? Are they over poverty? What kind of jobs do they have? What kind of wages? Where are the children? Is child care available? How are people doing on transportation? Are they able to get to work? Have we had situations where people couldn't take jobs in rural areas because they couldn't get to the jobs? Have we had situations where people don't take jobs in the suburbs and metro areas because they couldn't get from ghettos to suburbs because of lack of transportation? That is all this amendment calls for. That is all this amendment calls for. So I say to my colleagues that, in a way, I think those that oppose this amendment are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they are arguing that we have already collected all of this data. I think not, but if so, it's hardly an onerous requirement to say to the Secretary: Please assemble this data and give us a report every 6 months as to what is really happening out there in the country. If the opposition to my amendment--which I have heard from some people on the other side--is, ``Wait a minute, you are going to be asking the Secretary for too much,'' I say eventually we are going to get to the point where there is going to have to be more of an investment. Because if the Secretary isn't going to be able to provide us with the data we need, with the report we need, based upon the data out there, then I say to you we will need more. That is all the more reason to go forward with this. So I am puzzled by the opposition. ``We already have these studies that are providing us with the information we need,'' they say. So what is the harm in having the Secretary present reports to us every 6 months so we can have some reassurance that these mothers, these single parents, have now been able to obtain employment that they can support their family on, and the children aren't home alone, and first graders don't go home alone after school, and more children aren't impoverished? Why in the world, if we already have the studies out there, would we not want to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide us with this report? If, on the other hand, the basis of the opposition is what I think it is--because I think this is the case--is that this is already being done, as a matter of fact what's being done is pretty fragmented. There is good work being done. Senator Moynihan would be the first to say that we can do better, and that is what this amendment says. Let's ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take the additional studies that are out there--and my colleague talked about some of them--and provide us with the report. If she cannot really provide us with the information we need, then we will cross that bridge when we come to it. I am not mandating that she has to provide additional information. I am saying what would be helpful to us, asking her to please bring together the data that is out there, based on these reports, and give us a report on the current situation. That is what this amendment is all about. Now, after having said that, I would make an appeal to my colleagues. I think on our side, I know Senator Baucus is going to support the amendment. On our side I think there is pretty strong support for this. I hope there will be support for this on the other side as well. I think the Senator from Rhode Island--we all have these great things to say about other people and half of it may be true--is a great Senator. I wanted to get his support. I am disappointed because I don't understand what the harm is in this amendment. With all due respect, you can get into all this language that sounds kind of impersonal and kind of cold like, ``We already have studies, we don't need it,'' or ``It is going to require us to obtain additional information, which might cost more money,'' and ``Somebody is going to have to make the investment.'' Well, Mr. President, imagine just for a moment, just ponder this question: What if I'm right? Maybe other Senators have traveled the country. I think I have done as much travel as any other Senator in this Chamber, at least in poor communities, low-income communities. I think I have tried to stay as close to this as any other Senator. I am telling you that in a whole lot of communities it is crystal clear that people live in communities where the jobs aren't there. And in a whole lot of situations--and you will have a lot of people from your States who will tell you the same thing--these women are obtaining jobs, but they hardly pay a living wage. And one year from now, or whatever, when they no longer receive medical assistance, their families are going to be worse off. I am hearing from a lot of States, including my own State of Minnesota, which has a very low unemployment level and which is doing well economically. I am not here to bash States, but there are studies that raise a whole lot of questions, and there have been some articles that have raised a whole lot of questions about situations where some women haven't shown up for orientation sessions, and sometimes for good reason, and it's said that they don't necessarily want to work. There are communities that have incredibly long waiting lists. The city of Los Angeles had a waiting list of 30,000 for affordable child care before the welfare bill. Now, look, if I am right about this, if I am right that what has happened--because all too often we know what we want to know and we don't know what we don't want to know--all too often, what is going on here is, we say there are 4 million fewer recipients, a 4 million reduction in the welfare rolls. The reform is a huge success, but that doesn't mean we have seen a reduction of poverty. I am just saying, should we not know what the situation is in the country? Should we not know what kind of jobs, what wages, the child care situation, and should we not know whether these families are better off or worse off? Should we not know all of that, especially since built into that legislation is a date certain whereby, depending on the State, families will be eliminated from all assistance, the assumption being that all these people are now working and can support themselves and their children. Is that assumption valid? Now, why in the world, I say to my colleagues, would you oppose this amendment? Why would you oppose this amendment? One final time. This amendment just asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services to please provide to us a report based on the existing studies with data that is out there, on what the situation is around the country, on how many of these families are reaching economic self- sufficiency. Are they out of poverty now? Are their children better off? That's what we want. Or are more families impoverished? Are the jobs just minimum wage? Is there a lack of child care? Is the transportation available or not? Why would we not want to know that? You know, I didn't mention this earlier, Mr. President, but there is another amendment I will bring out here on the higher ed bill. I wonder if my colleagues know this. In all too many States, single parents who are in school and community colleges are now being told they have to leave college to take a job. Now, here are the parents that are on the path to economic self-sufficiency. They are in school. They are trying to complete their college education so they can get a good job and support their families. They are being told that, because of the welfare reform bill, they can't complete their education. Talk about something that is shortsighted and harsh, something that is myopic. Well, that is another story and another amendment later on. But for now, please support this amendment. Please ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide us with the data. Please, colleagues, at least let's have a focus on this, let's have the information before us, let's know what is going on, let's make sure that these women and children are doing better. That would make us more responsible policymakers. Finally, I say to my colleague, if it doesn't pass--and I hope it will--this is an amendment on ISTEA, but I will come back with these amendments over and over again. Because it is my firm belief as a U.S. Senator that we can't turn our gaze away from this. These are citizens who are not the heavy hitters, these are citizens that are not the givers, these are citizens that do not have the lobbyists. These are, in the main, poor people--mainly women and children. I think it is important that we understand what is happening to them, and it is important that we have the right information, and it is important that we do our very best to be responsible policymakers and make sure that these families aren't worse off and that these children are not in harm's way. How in the world, colleagues, can you vote against the proposition that we ought to have as much information as possible before us so that we make sure these children are not endangered, so that we can make sure these families are better off? I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I can probably try to keep my remarks about 20 minutes or so.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me cite two other pieces of evidence to support this amendment and to explain to my colleagues why I have been out here from the word ``go'' trying to get us to go on record on this question. This is a piece from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The title is ``Few Leave Welfare Earning Above Poverty Level.'' This is about a study of welfare recipients in Wisconsin. Only about 1 in 6 families that left welfare in Milwaukee County in 1996 earned more than poverty-level wages. This is in Wisconsin, which has really put an all-out effort to invest in this reform. Let me read again: Only about 1 in 6 families that left welfare in Milwaukee County in 1996 earned more than poverty-level wages in a three-month period, according to the most conclusive examination yet of what is happening to local families under Wisconsin's sweeping welfare initiatives. It goes on to point out that ``the turnover rate among those workers was extremely high--in part because the jobs were concentrated in industries that typically have plenty of part-time spots and a more transient work force.'' By the first quarter of 1997, welfare recipients had left most of the jobs for which they were hired the previous year. So again, let's just understand that this is a study that comes out based on what is happening in Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, saying one out of six families that left welfare earned more than poverty level wages--only one out of six. Moreover, a lot of the jobs are part-time jobs, jobs that people can't count on, and a lot of people had to switch from one job to another. Finally, Mr. President, an article that appeared in the Star Tribune in my State, ``Parents Face Cuts In Welfare Checks.'' Hundreds of Minnesotan parents are in danger of having their welfare checks reduced starting March 1, the first wave of penalties meted out under the state's new welfare law. Interestingly, in Hennepin County about 50 percent of the parents converting to the new welfare system are showing up for orientation meetings at work; about 70 percent are showing up in Ramsey County. A lot of these families are in crisis. Some don't plan well--the bus can be late, they can't work out arrangements for kids. The question is going to be whether or not we are going to basically be sanctioning people and cutting people off, even people who want to work. Now, summarizing what this amendment says, we call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take a look at those families who have now been moved off welfare around the country and to provide us with some data as to what the current situation is. The whole goal of this bill was to move families from ``welfare'' to ``workfare,'' to move families to economic self-sufficiency. That is what we said it was about. I have said to colleagues today on the floor of the Senate that from articles that are now coming out, looking at what is happening around the country, we see some evidence that a lot of people who have been moved off welfare have not been able to obtain jobs that pay a decent wage, have not been able to obtain employment that gets a family anywhere close to 150 percent of poverty--out of poverty. I am saying to colleagues that Secretary Shalala, who has been very direct and honest herself, has said we need to know more about what is happening with these reform efforts. I'm saying to colleagues today that there have been some pretty hard- hitting studies that have come out, the Tufts University study being one, which have said that actually it is pretty harsh what is happening around the country. I'm saying that as I travel around the country I have tried to spend time in low-income communities. I have tried to be with people. I have tried to understand what is happening. I don't have all the empirical data, but I am just saying to colleagues what I have observed, and I think I have been honest in my observation. I have been in too many communities with long waiting lists for affordable child care for working poor, moderate income families, and now welfare. Therefore, a lot of these mothers go to work but there is not adequate child care for their children. I don't want to see, nor should any of my colleagues want to see, more children put in harm's way because of action that we have taken. I am saying to colleagues that in too many inner-city communities and too many rural areas, people have said to me that the jobs aren't there, nor is the transportation available to enable them to get to some of the jobs, that they would work, for themselves and their families. I am saying to colleagues that you cannot argue that because there has been a reduction of 4 million recipients, that that represents reform if it hasn't led to reduction in poverty. You can't say something is working well if what is happening is that many of these families are economically worse off and many of these children are not better by what we have done. I am saying to colleagues that I have heard enough speeches on the floor of the Senate about children. I have heard enough speeches about the very early years being very important for nurturing of a child, very important to fire up a child's imagination. I am saying to colleagues that in a whole lot of cases these single parents--almost all women, even with children younger than 1--are being told they have to leave the home and take a job. We don't know what is happening to those 1-year-olds, those 2-year-olds, the 3-year-olds and their 4-year-olds. It is our obligation to know what is happening to those children. I am making a plea to my colleagues. This is, I say to Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, a moderate Paul Wellstone amendment. This is a moderate version. All this does is say, please, let's ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to pull together some data and make reports to us every half a year as to how many of these families are reaching economic self-sufficiency so we have some understanding of what is going on in the country. Before I yield the floor--and I am not prepared to yield the floor-- might I ask the Senator from Missouri, because I don't want to keep him waiting long, but before yielding the floor, might I ask my colleague whether he is here to debate the amendment or intends to introduce another amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me give my colleagues a bit of background on this amendment--some context. I am, if you will, changing the conversation. We are going to be getting into ISTEA amendments soon, and I will have some other amendments on ISTEA. But this is a vehicle out here on the floor and this is a time for me to raise another question, which I think is a very important one. This amendment would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report on the number of former welfare recipients, recipients of public assistance under the State Temporary Assistance to Needy Families programs, who are economically self-sufficient. In other words, what we want to do is have some clear understanding about what is going on in the country right now. When we debated the welfare bill, I had an amendment which said something like: Let's please get Health and Human Services to take a look at what is going on in the country. And if it should be the case-- and I certainly hope it will not be the case--that, as opposed to families being moved from welfare to work with more economic self- sufficiency, which is what our goal is, we are seeing families that are actually becoming more impoverished, children becoming more impoverished, then what we need to do is take corrective action. Let's at least monitor what is happening. That amendment was defeated. What I am saying to colleagues today is that by passing that piece of legislation, we have a certain responsibility to make sure that we know what is going on throughout the country. Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish sociologist, once said that ignorance is never random. I think we have to be very careful that we at least make an effort, as responsible policymakers, to understand what is happening. What I mean by ``economic self-sufficiency'' is we just need to know whether or not, as the rolls drop--and we have heard reports about how the welfare rolls have dropped by 4 million--whether this reduction in the rolls or reduction in welfare caseload is a reduction of poverty. It can't be viewed as reform unless we are talking about a reduction of poverty. We just need to know whether or not these parents, mainly women, are now working at jobs that provide them a decent wage. The operational indicator that I have in this amendment is we need to know whether or not these families are at 150 percent of poverty. Are they now out of poverty? We need to know whether or not there is child care available for the children. We need to know what the housing situation is. We need to know whether or not there is transportation available for people so they can get to jobs. We just do not know that. What I am saying in this amendment is, at the very minimum--and I hope there will be support for it--we ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based upon the data that she has--some reports from States, some Census Bureau survey statistics, some agency data--to pull together all the available data--someone has to do that--and provide to the Senate, to the Congress, a report 4 months from enactment of this amendment, and then every 6 months, as to what is going on in the country--whether or not these families are reaching economic self- sufficiency. Let me talk a little bit about some of my own travel, and why I bring this amendment to the floor, and also just let me draw from some documentation, empirical data, that I think will help colleagues as they make up their minds. This is very reasonable. This is very reasonable, Democrats and Republicans. The only thing I am saying is, please let us know. Now, when I travel around the country--and I have spent some time in low-income communities--I am not just focused on welfare. Personally, I think the most important policy goal for us is to make work pay. I think if people work almost 52 weeks a year and almost 40 hours a week, they ought not be poor in America. I think some of that is skills development for people who are looking for work. Some of that is access to capital, especially for small businesses, whether it be in Kansas or Minnesota, so we can have more entrepreneurs and have more economic opportunities. And some of that is affordable child care and affordable health care. If you can put that package together, that is probably the best single thing you can do for families in America, especially families, if you will, in the bottom 50 percent of the population. I hope that is the direction we will go. But as I travel the country--from Delta, MS, to East LA, Watts, to the Pilsin neighborhood in South Side Chicago, to public housing projects, the Ida Wells housing project, to the Robert Taylor Holmes housing project, to inner city Baltimore, to inner city Minneapolis, to rural Aitkin County, to Letcher County, Appalachia, eastern Kentucky--what I find is a bit of a disturbing picture. And I have been trying to check with people in other States. I am finding another thing. First of all, what I do when I travel around the country is say, OK, now you have seen a drop in caseload and you have fewer people on welfare. That is being applauded. But can you tell me where they are? Where are the people? What kinds of jobs do they have? At what wages? How about the children? Is there decent child care for the children? Generally speaking, the answer--and it will not just be what I am going to tell you on the basis of my own travel, but I also want to quote from some reports--is people do not know. People do not know. State by State they do not really know. There ought to be some way to assemble that data and at least get a report on what has happened. I can tell you, I talked a little bit about this on the floor of the Senate before. This is why I bring this amendment to the floor. It is why I am changing the conversation on the floor of the Senate at least at the beginning of this bill. It is why I think this is a matter of urgent importance. What I find is that I will go to a community, like in Delta, MS, or, for that matter--let us start with rural Aitkin County, MN, or, for that matter, maybe even more importantly, in Whitesburg, KY, and people will say in rural communities two things. No. 1--and in a lot of inner cities; I hope every colleague at some point in time can read William Julius Wilson's book, ``The Disappearance of Work,'' just an eminent sociologist, African American sociologist, who has done superb work; rave reviews for his very careful research. There are a lot of communities in our country where work still does not exist, even with a record low official unemployment rate. We have communities in our country where there are no jobs. So there are two issues here. If you are going to tell people they are going to be off assistance, we have to make sure the job opportunities are there. Now, a lot of people in rural America are saying, ``Look, in our communities we don't have the jobs. And just as importantly, we don't have the transportation to be able to get to some of those jobs that are 50 or 60 miles away.'' So I think we need to know what is happening. I mean, in Whitesburg, KY, in Letcher County, KY, boy, I will tell you what--I say this to the Senator from Kansas--you want to talk about a group of people that are independent, you want to talk about a group of people that are self-reliant and self-sufficient--I am a little biased. That is where my wife's family is from. This is the community. People say, ``We want to be able to work. And if you give us the tools whereby we can have some access to capital, we can chart our own economic future.'' And there are jobs for people. We are all for this. But right now, in a couple of years from now, everybody please remember in that bill that we passed, there is a drop dead date certain where, depending upon the State, 2 years from now or 4 years from now or a year and a half from now everybody is going to be off assistance. All these parents--women; almost all women--and children will be cut off all assistance. Before that finally happens, Mr. President, we need to know whether or not these families are now reaching economic self-sufficiency. We need to know what is going on. We cannot just cut all people off assistance without knowing whether or not there are jobs available, whether or not any will be available, or, worse--and I am visiting a lot of communities around the country, and I think Senators are probably hearing this now as we implement this legislation--they are telling me there are no jobs. Same thing in a lot of inner cities I visit where people tell me in Baltimore. And you know what? I am in complete agreement on this. I want my conservative colleagues to know that I am now changing my ideology. I am becoming a conservative Democrat. I cannot go quite as far as being a Republican. But I am in complete agreement with the proposition that you can have all of the social services imaginable, you can have the WIC program, and you can have the Head Start Program, and you can have outreach programs, but it does not work unless people have an employment opportunity. That is dignity for people. But you know, when I visit some just great people in Baltimore--they are doing great work--what they tell me is, ``Look, all the social services in the world don't cut it unless there are job opportunities here. And the jobs are not available in our ghettos and boroughs. They are available in some of the suburbs, but people cannot get out to them. A lot of poor people do not own cars. And a lot of people rely on the public transportation.'' So what I am saying, colleagues, is, let us find out--find out-- whether or not people are moving to economic self-sufficiency. Let us find out what this reduction in caseload means. Because I think otherwise we could be doing something here in Washington, DC, that could be unbelievably harsh and unbelievably cruel and just really unconscionable, which is eventually supporting the idea that all families are cut off all assistance even when people have tried to find a job and have not been able to find a job, even when the child care isn't available. Now, as I travel the country--I wanted to also mention this to colleagues--I have met with entirely too many families who tell me that either their 3- or 4-year-olds, part of the time, are home alone because it is a single parent working because the child care isn't available, or their children, small children, age 2, age 3, one week are with a cousin, another week with another relative, another week with a friend somewhere, because there is no affordable child care. Or I talk to parents--and I would like for every Senator to put himself or herself in the place of some of these parents--who tell me that before this legislation passed, they would go to school, and they would pick up their first grader--this happened to me in East LA--and this mother, who was just weeping, she was saying, ``I work.'' She wanted me to know she was working. She wanted me to know that she wants to work. I was asking her, how was it going? And it was at that point that she broke down crying, when she said, ``It's fine until about 3 o'clock every day,'' because that is when she would pick up her first grader--now a second grader--at school, and walk her home, sometimes passing gangs in a pretty violent neighborhood. Too much violence still. And she would walk her child home, and then she would be with her child. Now she tells her second grader, ``You know, when you get home at the housing project, you're to lock the door, and you're to take no phone calls.'' Colleagues, I want you to know that even when there is good weather, there are too many children in America who are not outside playing because there is no supervision for them. Now, we ought to know what is happening around the country to these children. Just because these children are low-income children, just because their mothers are low- income mothers does not make them any less important than anybody else. They are all God's children. Mr. President, let me just read from a very important article that came out last week in the National Journal by Burt Solomon called ``Monitoring Welfare Reform--Sort Of.'' This is why I want to see us at least call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to assemble some data, to provide us with reports as to what is going on. That is all. How many families are reaching economic self-sufficiency? Are people who are now off welfare, have they found jobs? At what wage level? Are the children OK? Is there decent child care? That is all that says. We all ought to want to know that. There should not be one vote against this. We should want to know. We should want to know. Now, to provide some evidence or marshal some evidence for this amendment, let me just read from this very fine piece by Burt Solomon. In quoting one Federal official: ``I don't think we will be following enough people thoroughly enough''--or long enough--``to get a [strong] understanding of what's going on,'' a federal official steeped in welfare policy said. Queried about whether there are plans to better organize monitoring, the official replied: ``I think the answer is, not really.'' Mr. President, I think that is sort of an apt summary. We just do not right now have any coordination. We do not have anybody who is responsible for collecting the data to be able to tell us what is happening to these families. Secretary Shalala gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on Friday, February 6. I will start out at the beginning of her speech. She said: But we also have a moral obligation to keep making improvements in welfare reform, and in our social policies. She is talking about how, now that we have had this law for a while, it is time to ask the questions and figure out where we need to go from here. ``Today, fewer than 4 percent of Americans are on welfare. What we don't know is precisely what is happening to all of these former welfare recipients.'' We know that some have married or moved in with family or friends. Others have left the rolls and are holding on to jobs that they were already going to--what is sometimes called the smoke out effect. But what's important is that many are looking for work--and finding it. Many are looking for work and finding it. But the real issue is that we still do not know what is happening to these 4 million people who are no longer on the rolls. I go on to quote from her speech: States are working hard to enforce the mandatory work requirements in TANF. Sanctions were actually rising even before TANF. Still, most of the 33 states that were authorized by waivers to impose full-family sanctions rarely did so. Now, when sanctions are imposed, it's usually because recipients fail to show up for their initial appointments-- not because they refuse to comply with work requirements. Mr. President, I just want to make the point that one of the things that is happening--it is happening in my State of Minnesota--is a lot of people are basically getting cut off welfare because they are sanctioned. They do not show up for some of their initial appointments. But the question is whether they do not show up for their initial appointments because they do not want to work, or is it because they do not have transportation? Or is it because there is not adequate outreach? Or it is because we are imposing a kind of stability in the lives of people who sometimes have to deal with crisis after crisis? Or is it because, with a lack of child care arrangements, they cannot be there? I mean, we want to make sure that people are not just being eliminated from the rolls and then, not having any employment opportunities or having jobs that barely pay minimum wage, are worse off a year from now, and they no longer have any health care. I read from an editorial from the Minnesota Star Tribune entitled ``Life After Welfare--States Must Ask the Right Questions.'' I just quote one relevant section. The federal law requires states to submit lots of data on the number of clients who receive benefits and who find jobs, but it is almost silent on the issue of family well-being after clients leave welfare. As federal bureaucrats draft new reporting requirements, there's a danger that Washington and the governors will define ``success'' as merely cutting caseloads. And this is the conclusion of the editorial: It's worth remembering that Congress didn't tackle welfare reform because caseloads were rising--they were already falling by 1996. It wasn't because assistance costs were climbing--cash welfare to families has been stable at less than 2 percent of the federal budget since Richard Nixon was in office. It was because welfare was seen as a failed program that fostered other social pathologies: idleness, drug use, broken marriages and neglected children. Having blamed welfare for these problems, it seems only fair to find out whether welfare reform is solving them. Again, what I am saying to my colleagues is that I think it is terribly important that at least we understand--and to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide some reporting of data as to--what is happening around the country so that we have some understanding how many of these families have found work, how many of these families are reaching self-sufficiency. Or are matters worse off? What has happened to those parents? And what is happening to these children? If it is, colleagues, the best-case scenario, I am all for it. If we pass this amendment and the Secretary provides us with some data, assuming she has the data--if she can't pull together data, then we have to figure out what we need to do in order to understand what is happening in the country--if she provides data that shows us that, as we look at this reduction of caseloads by 4 million, that many of these mothers and many of these children are better off, great. But if, in fact, we find that people have been cut off but haven't found a job, or they find a job that barely pays minimum wage and there is not adequate child care and some of their children are in harm's way as a result of this legislation, then we need to know that as well. Certainly we can't just follow through on eliminating all assistance for all families until we understand whether or not these families have reached economic self-sufficiency. Mr. President, I quote from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on a recent study by Tufts University: Despite numerous reports of welfare reform's early success, most states have enacted measures that hurt the families they're supposed to help, a national study at Tufts University pointed out that only 14 states have welfare policies that are likely to improve the economic conditions of poor families. Let me read a hard-hitting statement by J. Larry Brown, who is director of the poverty center at Tufts University, which I concede has been controversial because they have issued reports over the years. They have been at this for decades, and they focus a lot on malnutrition, hunger and poverty, especially among children in America. Sometimes we don't like what they say because it is just unpleasant news. But I think their research is terribly important, and I will read from J. Larry Brown: The evidence shows that as of now welfare reform is failing, and it is failing badly. The vast majority of states are not developing programs to improve the economic circumstances of the poor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an executive summary of the Tufts University study be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me also associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Missouri. I think all of us owe a debt of gratitude to our colleagues, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, for their determination and doggedness in getting this bill on the floor. This is a very important piece of legislation, I think, for all of our States. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Rhode Island, in a moment or two, has some questions he wants to put to me. While I am waiting for that, let me just, for my colleagues' information, give the official poverty level income for a family of one woman and two children. It is $12,516. And 150 percent is $18,774. This amendment, everybody should understand, doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't say that every family of three ought to be able to make that income of $18,000. It doesn't mandate anything; it doesn't dictate anything. It simply says--look, I think people trust me, and I have traveled the country, and I am telling you that some of what is going on--I am not pointing the finger at any particular point, although it is uneven. It is harsher in some States than in others, but we do need to understand exactly what is going on, whether or not these families are able to find jobs and whether or not these are jobs with decent wages, and what is going on with their children. We need for the Secretary to kind of bring together some data and present reports to us so we have knowledge about this. I see the majority leader on the floor. I would be happy to yield to the majority leader. Then if my colleague has questions he wants to put to me, I would be pleased to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't want to keep my colleague from Missouri waiting. It would be fine with me, I say to the Senator from Rhode Island. I await eagerly his response. I hope we can reach some agreement on this. I do have more to say about this amendment, but I don't want to inconvenience my colleague from Missouri. I am pleased to relinquish the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask the leader as to whether or not he has any additional information as to how he wants to proceed?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I understand my colleague from Missouri, if he has a statement on the overall legislation or something else aside from the amendment, then I want to inquire of the Senator from Rhode Island as to whether or not this amendment will be accepted. If it will be accepted, then we can dispose of it and move on. If the Senator from Missouri means he has another point of view and wants to speak on this amendment, I am glad to yield the floor and then come back and respond to some of his arguments. I am not quite sure what he has in mind.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be given to Mikki Holmes, who is an intern with me, during consideration of this amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have talked to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. I will send an amendment to the desk, but I will not be asking for a vote until after we work together on this. I certainly hope there will be support for it. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his graciousness. Amendment No. 1679 to Amendment No. 1676 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report on the number of former recipients of public assistance under the State temporary assistance to needy families programs that are economically self-sufficient)

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Feingold, for his remarks about smaller class size and the importance of education. His remarks are very important, and I associate myself with and support his resolution.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I say to him that I will bring the amendment to the floor in good faith with some sense of urgency, because I think it is important that we know what is happening in this matter. I take the Senator at his word. I am pleased that we will proceed this way. I say to my colleague that I hope there will be support for it. That is, of course, the whole purpose of my effort. If there should be some disagreement, then I would want, of course, the opportunity to respond to whatever other positions are taken on this amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is accurate. Since we are not in court, and the Senator from Rhode Island is always gracious, let me go beyond the ``yes or no'' answer. It is not at all clear that there will be necessarily a welfare bill from the Finance Committee or a bill that I can raise this question on. We now have a vehicle out here on the floor. My feeling was that, since this amendment calls for nothing more than just to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide data and analysis to us, based upon what data she has as to what is going on with welfare reform, it doesn't seem to me that this really needs a hearing. It is pretty clear and straightforward and, I think, pretty noncontroversial.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I might ask the Senator from Rhode Island if he has any questions. He said he wanted to ask some questions of me. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will add a half minute to what the majority leader said. I think one of the most important things that the Senator from Kansas does--and I mean this--is that, regardless of whether or not he is in agreement with you, he is looking at you. A lot of the times that doesn't happen. It means a lot when you have somebody presiding who has the graciousness to be looking at you with respect and to be listening to the debate. He always does that. I can never tell whether he is in agreement or disagreement. That means a lot to me. I suspect that he is usually in agreement with me, but I am not so sure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the immediate issue, as the Post editorial points out, is whether or not the United States is going to sponsor a resolution at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights gathering in Geneva, which is going to be coming up, I think, this month, or maybe at the beginning of next month, but within a very short period of time. I had a chance to meet with Wei Jingsheng who wrote a wonderful book called ``The Courage to Stand Alone.'' He spent many years in prison in China, I think 16 years, for his courage to speak out. He has made it very clear, and I quote the Post editorial, that the resolution is `` `a matter of life and death' for reform in China. President Clinton explicitly promised, back when he delinked trade and human rights in 1994, that the administration `would step up its efforts' to get such a resolution approved.'' Mr. President, China remains as oppressive today as it was a few short years ago. I want colleagues to know that this is a separate question from whether or not you were in favor of most-favored-nation status for China. Some people believe trade policy is too blunt an instrument to be focused on human rights. Others do not. I do not share that sentiment. Regardless, let me repeat for colleagues what we know. The State Department's own human rights report, which has been somewhat controversial because some think it is a bit of a whitewash this year, still nevertheless paints a dismal picture of China's ``widespread and well-documented human rights abuses'': These include torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and sterilization, crackdowns on independent Catholic and Protestant bishops and believers, brutal oppression of ethnic minorities and religions in [countries like] Tibet . . . And the list goes on. Just this month, the FBI arrested two Chinese citizens for allegedly marketing human organs harvested from some of the 6,000 prisoners China executes each year. If prisoners are being killed in order to provide organs, it ``would be among the grossest violations of human rights imaginable,'' Stanley O. Roth, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, said last summer. We haven't yet heard from the White House as to whether or not they are going to be sponsoring a resolution which would raise all of these questions. I think this is a commitment we have made as a country. Let me conclude by reading the last paragraph of this Post editorial: It may be too late now for the United States to rally a coalition of countries that would guarantee a fair hearing for a resolution on China, but it is not too late for Mr. Clinton to support such a measure nevertheless. He can still send a message that America supports, or at least sympathizes with, the fighters for freedom inside China; alternatively, he can send a message that his friendship with their oppressors is too important to put at risk with any impolite words. For someone who hopes to become this year the first president to visit China since the massacre at Tiananmen Square, this should be an easy choice. The resolution that Senator Mack and I submitted yesterday calls on the President to move forward with this resolution at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which is going to be meeting in Geneva. My understanding was that we were going to mark up this resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, but one Senator on the committee has basically blocked that and has exercised his prerogative so we won't be able to mark it up in committee. I want to make it clear to colleagues that I have every intention-- and I hope I will be joined by other Senators--of bringing this resolution to the floor as an amendment on a bill, probably the ISTEA bill. I will wait and see and work, of course, very closely with my colleague Senator Mack. It is extremely important that the U.S. Senate go on record supporting a resolution passed by this U.N. Commission on Human Rights at its meeting in Geneva. Sometimes I get the feeling that when I speak on the floor of the Senate--in a few minutes we will have a debate, there will be more people here--but when I am on the floor of the Senate and speaking about something like this, I sometimes get the feeling it is unimportant. It is not unimportant. When Wei Jingsheng who spent all those years in prison, when Harry Wu, and others, who have given up years of their life because of their courage to speak up for just basic human rights, call on us in the U.S. Senate, ``Won't you please at least adopt a resolution''--I guess it is going to have to be an amendment now--``which really calls on the President and your country to take leadership at this U.N. Commission on Human Rights and have some criticism of what has been going on in China, the torture of people, the execution of people, the imprisonment of people just for speaking up, the persecution of religious groups, won't you at least do that,'' I am telling you, when I get a request from someone like Wei Jingsheng, who I think is a giant, then I am certainly going to follow through on it. I believe that in the U.S. Senate there will be overwhelming support for this resolution, which I think now will be an amendment since we have been blocked from being able to mark it up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I guess I will say to colleagues, if you don't agree that our country at the very least ought to be speaking up on these human rights questions and supporting people like Wei Jingsheng, that that is at least the minimum we can do at this very important U.N. Commission on Human Rights, then you can come to the floor of the Senate and you can debate it. From my own point of view, one Senator, who happens to be my colleague from Minnesota who doesn't agree and is not going to let this go forward on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I would be pleased to debate him and other Senators as well. But my hope is that we will have overwhelming support for this. Again, this doesn't say you are for or against most-favored-nation status. This doesn't say you are for or against assistance for IMF or not. This is not about GATT. This is not about NAFTA. This is about something else which we ought to have a consensus on, which is, at this upcoming meeting in Geneva--I think our Government has given people in China every reason to believe that we would--and I guess I will quote Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's famous phrase, ``Tell it like it is.'' We ought to tell it like it is. We ought to tell it like it is. The Post editorial is right on the mark, we ought to do it at this very important meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. That is the time for the United States to speak out. Silence is betrayal, and our country must not be silent in the face of these kinds of abuses of elementary human rights of citizens in China and, for that matter, in other countries as well. I hope that I will be doing this on the floor with Senator Mack. I certainly am going to be bringing an amendment to the floor. We have to have a vote on this. I can't let one Senator block a committee from marking up this bill and then have it delayed a month, which will be too late for this U.N. Commission on Human Rights. We will take action on it before the Senate. I hope we get 98, 99 Senators voting in favor of it. It is the least we can do. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be on the floor at 11 o'clock with an amendment to the ISTEA legislation, but let me pick up on comments I made yesterday on the floor of the Senate about a resolution that Senator Mack from Florida and I have submitted dealing with the whole question of human rights in China. There is an editorial today in the Washington Post--and I think it is a very important editorial--called ``A Choice on China.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.