Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I just want to read one part of the editorial today in the Star Tribune: But since Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, better known as welfare reform, that self-regulated feature has vanished. States can kick families off assistance for many reasons--failing to find work, breaking administrative rules, or simply exhausting their benefits ``clock,'' a time as short as 18 months in some states. The context for this piece was that seven Midwestern welfare administrators have banded together, and they want us to ask questions about what is happening with the welfare bill in the country. I just want to say to colleagues that we would be making a mistake if we assumed that 2 million fewer families on welfare meant also that we had 2 million fewer families that were poor in America. What the New York Times front page article points to--and I had a chance to visit Letcher County, KY, this summer--what this editorial speaks to, I think, is a really important question. I am going to have an amendment that I am going to offer on the first bill that is appropriate which essentially says this: We cannot automatically equate reduction in caseload with reduction in poverty, and what we need to know as responsible policymakers is what is happening with these families. When I say ``these families,'' I am really talking about, in the main, women and children. I know that in my travels around the country--and I do no damage to the truth, I don't think I exaggerate at all--I met too many families where, as it turns out, 3- and 4-year-olds were home alone. The single parent is working now, but the child care has not been worked out. Or it is a very ad hoc child care arrangement, hardly what any of us would like for our own children, not really good developmental child care. In addition, too many first and second graders, I said before on the floor of the Senate, are now going home alone because their single parent, the mother, is working, but there is nobody there to take care of them when they are home. First and second graders are going home sometimes in some very dangerous neighborhoods. It is also true, Madam President, that wherever I travel, when I am told in any given State we have reduced the welfare rolls by X number of families, the question I have is, where are they? What kind of jobs do these mothers now have? Do they pay a living wage? Where are the children? Is it decent child care? And the interesting thing is that hardly anywhere in the country do we have the data. I can't get answers to those questions. So, the amendment that I am going to have on the floor of the Senate soon will essentially call on States to provide to Health and Human Services data, let's say, every 6 months as to how many families are actually reaching economic self-sufficiency. I am not trying to bias the conclusion one way or the other, but since, depending on the State 3 years from now or 2 years from now or a year and a half from now or 4 years from now, there is a drop-dead date certain where all these children--women and children--will be removed from any assistance, we ought to know what is happening. That is all I am saying to colleagues, let's have the data, let's make sure we know what is happening to those families. That will be an amendment I will bring to the floor soon. The second amendment I want to mention today is, I think, very much within the same context and, I think, important. Around the country, as I travel, I cannot believe how many women who are in a community college, who are on the path to economic self-sufficiency in school, are now being told that they have to go to work. It may be a $5.50-an- hour job, but they are essentially told they can no longer be in school. Madam President, I would argue that this is very shortsighted. This is very shortsighted. As a matter of fact, if these women can complete their 2 years in the community college or even get a 4-year degree, they and their families will be much better off. So the second amendment I am going to offer will essentially call for a student exemption. It will say, let's let these welfare mothers pursue and complete their education. They and their families will be much better off. I hope that the community colleges and the universities will speak up for these families, because they know what is happening. This is, I think, a profound mistake.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, there were two articles today, one article in the New York Times, a front page story: ``Pessimism Retains Grip on Region Shaped by War on Poverty,'' Booneville, KY, eastern Kentucky, Appalachia. At the same time, there was also an editorial in the Minnesota Star Tribune. I ask unanimous consent that both the New York Times piece and this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I say to Senators who are out here for the debate, I shall not take long. I rise to support the nomination of Dr. David Satcher to be the next Surgeon General of the United States and Assistant Secretary of Health. Dr. Satcher is a man above reproach, whose life path has brought him here today to serve as the 17th Surgeon General. We should not delay in confirming this nomination. What is it that makes Dr. Satcher such a wise appointment for Surgeon General of the United States? Look back over this man's life, for the fabric of a person is woven over the course of a lifetime. Dr. Satcher's fabric is tight knit, vibrant, trustworthy and strong. Where does he come from? Is it from his childhood, growing up in rural America in a poor family with poor access to medical care, nearly dying at the age of 2 from whooping cough? Is that what makes him such an outstanding spokesperson for childhood immunization, for childhood nutrition, for preventive health? Is that what makes him such a powerful role model for children to follow their dreams? Or is it from the tragic loss of his first wife, the mother of his children, at a very young age from cancer? This man knows the tragedy of disease, not just on an academic level, not just on a professional level, but also on a very personal level. Or is it from his professional, academic and public service careers that truly do make him very special? This is a man who has used his considerable skills to serve those people in our country who were quite often the poorest of poor and, in particular, I have in mind poor children all across our Nation. After graduating from Case Western Reserve Medical School, his life has been spent caring for patients, teaching students and promoting public health, and he has done it well. His most recent position has been as Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In his 4 years as Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Satcher had--a little bit of evidence--spearheaded initiatives that have increased childhood immunization rates from 55 percent in 1992 to 78 percent in 1996; improved the Nation's capability to respond to emerging infectious diseases; laid the groundwork for a new early warning system to detect and prevent foodborne infections; expanded the CDC's comprehensive breast and cervical cancer screening program from 18 States to all 50 States; and under Dr. Satcher's stewardship, the CDC has directed its attention to the causes and consequences and prevention of an epidemic which has long been a concern of my wife Sheila and of concern to me, and that is the epidemic of domestic violence against women in our country. Mr. President, I frequently come to the floor to talk about fairness, what is the right thing to do, what is the fair thing to do. And today I want to talk about fairness; yes, to Dr. Satcher, but even more so to fairness to the people in our country who are waiting for leadership from this Surgeon General; fairness to the families and children of inner cities I have visited all across America who are waiting for a spokesperson to tell them how to improve some of the unsafe conditions that they live under, how to improve their health care for themselves as parents and for their children; fairness to the residents of rural America who are medically underserved and are waiting for new ideas to make health care accessible; fairness to the youth of America who have been waiting for a clear and credible voice to lead them away from tobacco addiction before they light their first cigarette; and fairness to the victims of domestic violence and cancer and drug and alcohol abuse who are waiting for Dr. Satcher to speak from his bully pulpit about preventing these terrible tragedies. Mr. President, it is not fair for us to delay any longer Dr. David Satcher's nomination. We have the responsibility to vote. We have the wisdom, or should have the wisdom, to vote for this man who can do so much for our country. Elementary justice demands that the United States Senate vote for confirmation of Dr. David Satcher as Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998. I am joined today by Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin as original cosponsors of this measure. This legislation outlines a comprehensive strategy for providing critical assistance to refugees, asylees, and parolees who are torture survivors in the U.S. and abroad. It also protects asylum seekers from being involuntary returned to a country where they have reasonable grounds to fear subjection to torture. This legislation provides a focus and a framework for a newly re-energized debate about where torture survivors, and our response to the practice of torture by other countries, fit within our foreign policy priorities. Late in the 103rd Congress, I introduced with Senator Durenburger the Torture Victim's Relief Act, which laid down a bipartisan marker on the issue. I reintroduced it in the 104th, along with Republicans and Democrats alike, pressing forward on several fronts. I hope that enactment of this legislation will be a watershed in the movement to garner broader public and private support, both here and abroad, for much-needed torture rehabilitation programs. Specifically, the Torture Victims Relief Act would authorize funds for domestic refugee assistance centers as well as bilateral assistance to torture treatment centers worldwide. It would also change our immigration laws to give a priority to torture survivors and provide for specialized training for U.S. consular personnel who deal with torture survivors. Finally, the bill would allow an increase in the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims, which funds and supports rehabilitation programs worldwide. In 1997 this fund contributed about $3.4 million to nearly 100 projects in more than 50 countries. I believe that continuing to expand the U.S. contribution to the fund is necessary as a show of genuine U.S. commitment to human rights, and I will continue to push until these programs receive the funding they need and deserve. Mr. President, the practice of torture is one of the most serious human rights issues of our time. Governmental torture, and torture being condoned by officials of governments, occurs in at least 70 countries today. We need look no farther than today's headlines about Algeria, Turkey, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, China and Tibet to know that we will be dealing with the problems that torture victims face for many years. In many countries torture is routinely employed in police stations to coerce confessions or obtain information. Detainees are subjected to both physical and mental abuse. Methods include beatings with sticks and whips; kicking with boots; electric shocks; and suspension from one or both arms. Victims are also threatened, insulted and humiliated. In some cases, particular those involving women, victims are stripped, exposed to verbal and sexual abuse. Medical treatment is often withheld, sometimes resulting in death. In China, torture of detainees and prisoners is not uncommon, as exemplified by Chen Longde's case. In 1996, one month after his conviction without trial, Chen leapt from a two-story prison walkway in an attempt to avoid repeated beatings and electric shocks from a senior prison official as punishment for his refusal to write a statement of guilt and self-criticism. Richard Oketch was tortured by the Ugandan military. He was imprisoned for a total of a year in various military compounds near his home. His hands were shackled to his feet, he was denied food and sleep, and he was beaten regularly. Oketch managed to flee Uganda and eventually, with the help of the United Nations, he made it to the United States. However, the emotional scars of watching his family members and dozens of friends slaughtered left him for a time, unable to function in society. Today Oketch holds a master's degree and works as a program specialist for the St. Paul Public School. He credits his transformation to the treatment he received at the Minnesota Center for Victims of Torture. There Oketch received the services he needed to deal with his grief and become an active member of his community. Unfortunately, Oketch's story is the exception, not the rule. Most torture survivors, even those who are granted asylum in the United States, never receive the treatment they need. We can and must do more to stop horrific acts of torture, and to treat its victims. Treating torture victims must be a much more central focus of our efforts as we work to promote human rights worldwide. Providing treatment for torture survivors is one of the best ways we can show our concern for human rights around the world. The United States and the international community have been increasingly aware of the need to prevent human rights abuses and to punish the perpetrators when abuses take place. But too often we have failed to address the needs of the victims. We pay little if any attention to the treatment of victims after their rights have been violated. This commitment to protect human rights is one shared by many around the world. In 1984 the U.N. approved the United Nations' Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The U.S. Senate ratified it in April of 1994. Although Congress has taken some steps to implement parts of the Convention, we have not yet taken action to provide sufficient rehabilitation services in the spirit of the language of Article 14 of the Convention which provides that the victim of an act of torture has: ``the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible.'' We have also failed to adopt implementing legislation for Article 3 which states that ``No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' Without legislation implementing this article, it is possible for the United States to return someone to a country even where there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be subjected to torture. This legislation would help ensure that the U.S. is fulfilling its obligation under the Convention Against Torture. There also exists a great need for the rehabilitation programs supported by this legislation. Without active programs of healing and recovery, torture survivors often suffer continued physical pain, depression and anxiety, intense and incessant nightmares, guilt and self-loathing. They often report an inability to concentrate or remember. The severity of the trauma makes it difficult to hold down a job, study for a new profession, or acquire other skills needed for successful adjustment into society. In Minnesota, we began to think about the problem of torture, and act on it, over ten years ago. The Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis is the only fully-staffed torture treatment facility in the country and one of just a few worldwide. The Center offers outpatient services which can include medical treatment, psychotherapy and help gaining economic and legal stability. Its advocacy work also helps to inform people about the problem of torture and the lingering effects it has on victims, and ways to combat torture worldwide. The Center has treated or provided services to hundreds of people since its founding in 1985. Some of the often shrill public rhetoric these days seems to argue that we as a nation can no longer afford to remain engaged with the world, or to assist the poor, the elderly, the feeble, refugees, those seeking asylum--those most in need of aid who are right here in our midst. The Center for Victims of Torture stands as a repudiation of that idea. Its mission is to rescue and rehabilitate people who have been crushed by torture, and it has been accomplishing that mission admirably over the last ten years. It is a light of hope in the lives of those who have for so long seen only darkness, a darkness brought on by the brutal hand of the torturer. I would like to thank the distinguished human rights leaders who helped craft this bill, including those at the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis and others in the human rights community here in Washington and in Minnesota. Without their energy and skills as advocates for tough U.S. laws which promote respect for internationally-recognized human rights worldwide, the cause of human rights here in the U.S. would be seriously diminished. I salute them today. We must commit ourselves to aiding torture survivors and to building a world in which torture is relegated to the dark past. My hope is that we can help bring about a world in which the need for torture treatment programs becomes obsolete. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and I urge its timely passage. I ask unanimous consent that a partial list of organizations supporting the Torture Victims Relief Act be printed in the Record with a copy of the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998. I am joined today by Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin as original cosponsors of this measure. This legislation outlines a comprehensive strategy for providing critical assistance to refugees, asylees, and parolees who are torture survivors in the U.S. and abroad. It also protects asylum seekers from being involuntary returned to a country where they have reasonable grounds to fear subjection to torture. This legislation provides a focus and a framework for a newly re-energized debate about where torture survivors, and our response to the practice of torture by other countries, fit within our foreign policy priorities. Late in the 103rd Congress, I introduced with Senator Durenburger the Torture Victim's Relief Act, which laid down a bipartisan marker on the issue. I reintroduced it in the 104th, along with Republicans and Democrats alike, pressing forward on several fronts. I hope that enactment of this legislation will be a watershed in the movement to garner broader public and private support, both here and abroad, for much-needed torture rehabilitation programs. Specifically, the Torture Victims Relief Act would authorize funds for domestic refugee assistance centers as well as bilateral assistance to torture treatment centers worldwide. It would also change our immigration laws to give a priority to torture survivors and provide for specialized training for U.S. consular personnel who deal with torture survivors. Finally, the bill would allow an increase in the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims, which funds and supports rehabilitation programs worldwide. In 1997 this fund contributed about $3.4 million to nearly 100 projects in more than 50 countries. I believe that continuing to expand the U.S. contribution to the fund is necessary as a show of genuine U.S. commitment to human rights, and I will continue to push until these programs receive the funding they need and deserve. Mr. President, the practice of torture is one of the most serious human rights issues of our time. Governmental torture, and torture being condoned by officials of governments, occurs in at least 70 countries today. We need look no farther than today's headlines about Algeria, Turkey, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, China and Tibet to know that we will be dealing with the problems that torture victims face for many years. In many countries torture is routinely employed in police stations to coerce confessions or obtain information. Detainees are subjected to both physical and mental abuse. Methods include beatings with sticks and whips; kicking with boots; electric shocks; and suspension from one or both arms. Victims are also threatened, insulted and humiliated. In some cases, particular those involving women, victims are stripped, exposed to verbal and sexual abuse. Medical treatment is often withheld, sometimes resulting in death. In China, torture of detainees and prisoners is not uncommon, as exemplified by Chen Longde's case. In 1996, one month after his conviction without trial, Chen leapt from a two-story prison walkway in an attempt to avoid repeated beatings and electric shocks from a senior prison official as punishment for his refusal to write a statement of guilt and self-criticism. Richard Oketch was tortured by the Ugandan military. He was imprisoned for a total of a year in various military compounds near his home. His hands were shackled to his feet, he was denied food and sleep, and he was beaten regularly. Oketch managed to flee Uganda and eventually, with the help of the United Nations, he made it to the United States. However, the emotional scars of watching his family members and dozens of friends slaughtered left him for a time, unable to function in society. Today Oketch holds a master's degree and works as a program specialist for the St. Paul Public School. He credits his transformation to the treatment he received at the Minnesota Center for Victims of Torture. There Oketch received the services he needed to deal with his grief and become an active member of his community. Unfortunately, Oketch's story is the exception, not the rule. Most torture survivors, even those who are granted asylum in the United States, never receive the treatment they need. We can and must do more to stop horrific acts of torture, and to treat its victims. Treating torture victims must be a much more central focus of our efforts as we work to promote human rights worldwide. Providing treatment for torture survivors is one of the best ways we can show our concern for human rights around the world. The United States and the international community have been increasingly aware of the need to prevent human rights abuses and to punish the perpetrators when abuses take place. But too often we have failed to address the needs of the victims. We pay little if any attention to the treatment of victims after their rights have been violated. This commitment to protect human rights is one shared by many around the world. In 1984 the U.N. approved the United Nations' Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The U.S. Senate ratified it in April of 1994. Although Congress has taken some steps to implement parts of the Convention, we have not yet taken action to provide sufficient rehabilitation services in the spirit of the language of Article 14 of the Convention which provides that the victim of an act of torture has: ``the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible.'' We have also failed to adopt implementing legislation for Article 3 which states that ``No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' Without legislation implementing this article, it is possible for the United States to return someone to a country even where there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be subjected to torture. This legislation would help ensure that the U.S. is fulfilling its obligation under the Convention Against Torture. There also exists a great need for the rehabilitation programs supported by this legislation. Without active programs of healing and recovery, torture survivors often suffer continued physical pain, depression and anxiety, intense and incessant nightmares, guilt and self-loathing. They often report an inability to concentrate or remember. The severity of the trauma makes it difficult to hold down a job, study for a new profession, or acquire other skills needed for successful adjustment into society. In Minnesota, we began to think about the problem of torture, and act on it, over ten years ago. The Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis is the only fully-staffed torture treatment facility in the country and one of just a few worldwide. The Center offers outpatient services which can include medical treatment, psychotherapy and help gaining economic and legal stability. Its advocacy work also helps to inform people about the problem of torture and the lingering effects it has on victims, and ways to combat torture worldwide. The Center has treated or provided services to hundreds of people since its founding in 1985. Some of the often shrill public rhetoric these days seems to argue that we as a nation can no longer afford to remain engaged with the world, or to assist the poor, the elderly, the feeble, refugees, those seeking asylum--those most in need of aid who are right here in our midst. The Center for Victims of Torture stands as a repudiation of that idea. Its mission is to rescue and rehabilitate people who have been crushed by torture, and it has been accomplishing that mission admirably over the last ten years. It is a light of hope in the lives of those who have for so long seen only darkness, a darkness brought on by the brutal hand of the torturer. I would like to thank the distinguished human rights leaders who helped craft this bill, including those at the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis and others in the human rights community here in Washington and in Minnesota. Without their energy and skills as advocates for tough U.S. laws which promote respect for internationally-recognized human rights worldwide, the cause of human rights here in the U.S. would be seriously diminished. I salute them today. We must commit ourselves to aiding torture survivors and to building a world in which torture is relegated to the dark past. My hope is that we can help bring about a world in which the need for torture treatment programs becomes obsolete. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and I urge its timely passage. I ask unanimous consent that a partial list of organizations supporting the Torture Victims Relief Act be printed in the Record with a copy of the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak from the floor of the Senate as a Democrat but really to all of my colleagues, and to the President, as well. I think that President Clinton's State of the Union Address was, indeed, an important step forward for our country in some of the initiatives that he outlined. When the President talked about education and talked about child care and talked about health care, I think what he said resonated with people throughout the country. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people are less interested in denunciation and more interested in enunciation. They really want to know what it is we stand for and whether or not we are thinking seriously, all of us, even if we have disagreement on some of these issues, about where our country needs to be. In that sense, what the President talked about was an important step forward. First, a response to what some of my colleagues had to say on the floor of the Senate, and then a response to some of the President's initiatives and to Democrats. On the Republican side, I think the argument that has been made, that I have heard colleagues make on the floor of Senate--and I summarize what any number of different Republican colleagues have said--in many ways amounts to the argument that when it comes to the most pressing issues of people's lives, there is nothing the Government really can or should do. This is not an appropriate role for the Government to play--to assure that there is affordable child care for working families, to assure that there is affordable health care, to invest in more teachers in our schools, reducing class size, and so forth. Quite frankly, that argument is a great argument for people who own their own large corporations or are wealthy, but it doesn't work for most of the people in the country. Most of the people in Minnesota and most of the people in the country are very focused, as I have said on the floor of Senate, as to how they can earn a decent living and how they can raise their children successfully. The President's proposals speak to that, at least part of the way. But what concerns me about what the President said, and I give credit where credit is due, what concerns me about the way in which Democrats are speaking about these proposals, is I think that we can do much better. This is our opportunity. The business cycle is up. We all talk about economic performance. This is the time where we can really make some of these critical investments. Mr. President, what I worry about is that we give the speeches, there is a lot of hype. We talk about the importance of early childhood development, we talk about the importance of education, we talk about health care, but we do not invest enough resources to put this on a scale where it is really going to make a significant difference. If we don't do that, if we have such a downsized politics and policy that we only reach a tiny fraction of those people that we are talking about, those children, those working families, then I think it invites mutiny because it becomes just symbolic politics. Let me give a few examples. Mr. President, as far as I can determine when we talk about child care, without going into all the statistics, and we think about families with incomes of $35,000 a year and under, we will probably reach, with the amount of resources the President has talked about investing in early childhood development, about 2 out of 10 children who could benefit--2 out of 10 children. If it is so compelling, and if the evidence is irreducible and irrefutable that we have to get it right for these children by age 3 otherwise many of them will never do well in school and will never be prepared for life, then why are we only investing in 2 out of 10 children? After-school program. Again, an important initiative, but as I look at the number of children who could benefit from this, and I think about my travel in some of our inner-city communities and rural communities, much less the suburbs, we will be reaching, with the President's proposal, about 1 out of 10 young people or children that are eligible. If it is important to have good positive things going on for young people in our communities after school, why is it only important to reach 1 out of 10 young people or children that would be eligible? Now I know what I am saying is counterintuitive because in a way I'm in the tiny minority on this, but I think we can do much better. I will introduce child care legislation and I will talk about 5 out of 10 children, that we can at least reach half the children that really deserve to have nurturing child care, that deserve to have the highest quality child care. Why are we only talking about affordable child care that is only affordable for about 20 percent of the families that need the assistance? Why are we not making sure that every child in the United States of America, when he or she goes to kindergarten, knows how to spell her name, knows the alphabet, knows colors, shapes and sizes? Why can't we make sure that we make the investment in the public sector, private sector and volunteers and communities, that every single child comes to kindergarten, ready to learn? The President's proposal is a step in the right direction but we can do much better. We can do much better. A second example, health care. Mr. President, I'm all for expanding Medicare, but the current proposal that the President has outlined makes it impossible for most citizens between the ages of 55 and 65 to be able to afford the premium. Most won't benefit. Second of all, I don't know why--I guess I speak more to Democrats, my party--why have we abandoned the idea of comprehensive health care reform, universal health care coverage? Why are we not talking about a strategy for our country whereby the next century, next millennium, each and every citizen will be able to benefit from dignified, humane, affordable health care? Why, Democrats, have we backed away from this? I'm going to introduce legislation that will have a national progressive framework, a defined package of benefits. Remember, colleagues, remember what we talked about a few short years ago, that every citizen should have health care at least as good as what Senators and Representatives get? I believe that. I think all of us should believe that. It will also make sure that States agree that it will be affordable and it will also have strong consumer protection, but then it leaves it up to States as to how to get there. There will be Federal grants for each and every State that agrees to reach, within the next 5 years, universal coverage. Different states can do it different ways. We can decentralize it. But we ought not to give up on the goal of humane, affordable, dignified health care for each and every citizen in our country. The American people believe in that. It might be that the insurance industry, which has so much clout here, doesn't believe in it, but the majority of people in our country do, and Democrats and Republicans, we ought to be on their side. We ought to be on their side. The third example, Mr. President, which is near and dear to my heart, call it counterintuitive politics because we don't talk about it very much but I think we should. I have traveled all across the country. I have had a chance to meet with a lot of people in poor communities. I want to raise the minimum wage. I think we should do that. It is a matter of elementary simple justice. I am proud to join Senator Kennedy in this fight. We will raise the minimum wage 50 cents a year for the next 3 years and then index it. If people work full time 52 weeks a year 40 hours a week they ought not to be poor in America. If you had health care and child care, you really would be making a difference in terms of family income. Mr. President, I also visited communities, be they rural or urban, where there are no jobs, even with the economy being where it is, even with official unemployment at record low levels. I go to inner-city Baltimore or inner-city Chicago or Minneapolis, I can go to Appalachia, rural Appalachia, I can go to rural Minnesota, and in all too many cases the jobs are not there, or the jobs at decent wages are not there. Why don't we make a commitment to making sure that people find employment? That is dignity. We have communities where there are compelling needs--there is elder care, there is child care, there is housing rehab, there is community crime prevention, there is teacher's assistance, there is environmental cleanup, all sorts of work to be done and people who can't find any jobs. I will introduce a bill that will provide people--we have now a 5 million job gap between people that want to work and jobs vacant-- provide people with a transition whereby they have a job for a year at a decent wage with these benefits, and then can transition to private sector. We need to get more private capital in these communities. But when you have people in our rural areas, our ghettos and our barrios who have worked and worked on community-building jobs and have the dignity and build up some of the skills, then private sector gets more interested in these communities. But right now in a lot of communities in our country, people are crying out, where are the jobs? Mr. President, we can do much better. We have to make these investments. I am saying to my colleagues today on the floor of the Senate that as we go into the next century there are some contradictions we cannot live with. There are some contradictions in this city, Washington, DC, right here in this city, and all across the country. We have to make sure that we are investing in communities. We have to make sure we are investing in children. We have to make sure we are investing in education, and not just in education for some children, not just affordable child care for some children, not just health care for some citizens. If we are going to argue that these are priorities, then we have to back the rhetoric with the resources. We have to make the investment. Mr. President, I worry that at the very time where we have the best chance to make this investment--at a time of real optimism, at a time when I think people in the country feel good and know that we can do better, that justice, fairness, opportunity, building communities and building leadership are things that we can do--we are going to miss the opportunity by making speeches but not following up the speeches, by not really meaning what we say, and not really making the investment. President Clinton, thank you for pinpointing some of these initiatives. Republican colleagues, maybe in areas like child care we can come together. I hope we can. But for the President and all my colleagues, we can't outline problems and say we are committed to making a huge difference and then not make the investment that is anywhere near the scale of what needs to be done to make a difference. We can do much better than what the President outlined in his address for children, we can do much better for education, we can do much better for health care, and we can do much better when it comes to tackling problems with race, gender, poverty, and children in America. I appreciate what the President has outlined as a first step, but we ought to be doing much better here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. We ought to be doing much better. This is our chance to make an enormous difference. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I want to talk about the President's speech last night. Let me start out with where I disagree with some of what he had to say, and then let me talk about what I think were some of the sharp differences between Democrats and Republicans. That is not to say I am not interested in bipartisanship, but I think, frankly, if there are differences between the parties that make a difference, and people see a real debate and it is important to their lives, that will be all to the good. I think the President is dead wrong in what he had to say about welfare reform. I never called it reform because I think that takes for granted the very question in doubt, as to whether or not it is really reform. That there are a million or 2 million or 3 million fewer women and children--those are the welfare recipients on welfare today--than several years ago does not necessarily represent reform. A reduction of the caseload, reduction of people who are receiving assistance, has nothing to do with whether or not you have reduced poverty. It is reform when we have reduced poverty. I will just say for the record that, as I have had a chance to travel around the community, and a lot of poor communities in our country, there are several things which I found which are very troubling. I do not believe I do any damage to the truth when I say this, and think all Senators need to take note of it. First of all, it is simply true that there are 3- and 4-year-olds at home alone. It is simply true that there were long waiting lists for affordable child care, long before welfare reform, and many of these children are not receiving nurturing, important developmental care at the most critical years of their lives. This is wrong. It is also true, as I said the other day, that there are first and second and third graders who, when they go home, there is no parent there. I think it is poignant. I think it is wrong that there are fewer children playing outdoors now because when many of these kids go home they go into a housing project and they are told to go inside, not take any phone calls, not answer the door. That is happening in the United States of America. We need to take note of that. I think the President is also wrong because we don't know where these mothers are. We don't know what kind of jobs they have. And what is really astounding to me, Madam President, is at the State level we are not collecting the data. I think, as responsible policymakers, since 4 years, 3 years, 2 years from now, depending upon the State, all of these women and children are going to essentially be receiving no assistance, they are going to be cut off from all assistance, don't we need to know whether or not they have reached economic self-sufficiency? These parents, mainly women--do they have jobs that pay a decent wage? Do they have health care coverage? Can they afford child care? Where are their children? We need to know that. That is where I disagree with the President's analysis. And I will have some amendments almost on the first piece of legislation that comes to the floor of the Senate where I will try to get the Senate to address these problems. Second, I think we have to do much better in higher education. I was a college teacher for 20 years and I believe that we didn't expand assistance gaining the best bang for the buck. The way of targeting the assistance to those students in most need would have been to dramatically expand the Pell grant program. And if you are going to have tax credits, they have to be refundable. If you don't have tax credits that are refundable and you have a student from a family earning less than $27,000, $28,000 a year--which, by the way, is the income profile of many, many community college students--it doesn't do you any good. You have no tax liability. You can't cash flow paying your tuition because you get it too late to pay your tuition, and you are not eligible anyway. So if we are going to talk about making higher education more affordable let's, for gosh sakes, talk about these working families. That is disagree. Agreement: I think the President's focus on education, on early childhood development, affordable child care, on health care, was extremely important. Let me make but a couple of points for my Republican colleagues. As I listened to some of my Republican colleagues talk about the President's speech last night, I felt like what they were saying is: Oh, this is just Government all over again. Americans, when it comes to these pressing issues of your lives, there is nothing the Government can or should do. Madam President, if you own your own large corporation and you are wealthy, then that's fine. But for most of the working families in this country, affordable child care is a huge issue. For most of the working families in this country, making sure that your children get a good education and a commitment to public education and lowering class sizes and having more teachers and having more teaching assistance is hugely important to you. If you are from a working family in our country, you want to make sure, vis-a-vis an increasingly corporatized and bureaucratized health care system--listen, managed care can be good or bad. It depends upon who manages the managed care. But the fact of the matter is, the nine largest insurance companies own and control well over 60 percent of the managed care plans, and for them the bottom line has become the only line. So of course we want to make sure that people have access to the care they need. Of course we want to make sure that nurses and doctors can provide that care. Of course we want to make sure there are some independent appeals processes for ordinary people in our country. Of course we want to make sure that there are some basic consumer protections. And I think the President is right on the mark. What I am worried about, it is a challenge to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, is that the Congress will sure enough pass a bill. It will have a great acronym. It will sound great and it will have that made-for- Congress look, because there will not be any teeth in it, enforcement teeth. By the way, one way in which I would love to amend some of what the President was talking about last night, and I think we could get bipartisan support for this, is we ought to think about --Families USA has talked about ombudsmen, you know, through nongovernment organizations, through nonprofits, where people would have somewhere to go so they can have basic information about what their rights are as consumers. We absolutely ought to do that. We absolutely ought to do that. It's a simple proposition. Either we are here to represent big insurance companies or we are here to represent doctors, nurses, nurse's assistants, other caregivers, and consumers. The third point I want to make has to do with jobs. I said it the other day on the floor of the Senate. I will summarize. I will say it again. No matter where I go, whether it be low-income communities, poor communities, middle-income communities, it doesn't matter--and for that matter upper-income communities. People are focused on how to earn a decent living and how to give their children the care they know they need and deserve. I am going, for a moment, to talk about low-income, since we don't talk that much about low-income, poor people. I will tell you that there are two challenges here. One, the President talked about raising the minimum wage. Senator Kennedy and I have been out on the floor. We talked about the legislation we have introduced, 50 cents a year for 3 years and then indexing it. I will tell you that is extremely important. Because it is wrong when people work full-time, all year round, and they are still poor in America. That should not be the case. When people work, play by the rules of the game, they ought not to be poor. My second point, however, is different. It doesn't do any good to raise the minimum wage if people live in communities where there is no work at all. We have communities in our country, ghettos and barrios in rural areas, where there is no work. And we really do need to figure out ways of combining our initiatives while at the same time providing some job opportunities for people to build up some skills and then be able to transition to private sector employers. If we are going to rebuild crumbling schools--and we should, God knows, when students go into schools that are so uninviting, with ceilings falling in. Imagine, could we do our work if the heating didn't work? If the plumbing didn't work? If the air conditioning didn't work during the summer? If we didn't have access to Internet? If we didn't have access to the best books? Could we do our work? A lot of students are going to school in decrepit buildings, unsafe, that tell those students we don't value them. If we are going to rebuild crumbling schools, invest some money in that infrastructure, I think we ought to also make sure that a certain percentage of the jobs go to the adults, the fathers and mothers of those children who live in these communities. Because these are communities that are ravaged by high levels of unemployment. Let's combine rebuilding the schools with some job training and jobs for some of the parents in the community. If we are going to reduce class size we can talk about 100,000 more teachers, but there is also a role for teaching assistants that can help a teacher in a classroom. That could provide employment for people who live in these communities without any jobs at all. So I would like to see us have more of a focus in this area. To a certain extent I am talking about people who all too often are faceless and voiceless here, but I think it is extremely important, as a matter elementary justice, that we focus in this area. Finally, Madam President--I hope I have stayed within 10 minutes--an issue that you care a great deal about, an issue that I wish all of us would care a great deal about, even if we disagree on the specifics. I do not know what other people find, but I tell you I think an awful lot of people in our country, I am sorry, I think it is well over 50 percent, are just disillusioned and disaffected with politics. It is terrible. I think people think that both parties are owned and controlled by the same investors. I think that people think that when it comes to their concerns and their hopes about themselves, their families, their communities, their loved ones, these concerns are of little concern to those of us in the Congress. I hate that. I have two Republican colleagues on the floor with me from Wyoming and from Colorado, both of whom I respect. It does not matter if we disagree on issues, this is one thing we do not want to have happen. I mean, we do not want people to just kind of become so disillusioned that participation becomes less and less. We lose our democracy. So, Madam President, the final issue the President talked about--I hope we can move some campaign finance reform. We cannot get all the big money out of politics. I wish we could. But if we could at least pass some reforms that would give people some confidence we are serious about trying to get some of the money out of politics and make politics more responsive to the concerns and circumstances of their lives, we would be taking a big step forward. I look forward to the debate. I hope we have a lot of debate. I do not want it to be acrimonious. But I think differences between the political parties are healthy. I think if the differences make a difference to the people we represent, it is even better. The sooner we get substantive, the sooner we have bills out here on the floor, the sooner we have the debate, and the sooner we get on with the work of governance, the better I will like it as a Senator from Minnesota. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I do want to say to my colleague from Wyoming that I shall stay within 10 minutes. He is here on the floor. We have had a chance to speak as Democrats for a while. So I will try and stay relatively brief. When I say 10 minutes I mean by clock time, not by Senate time. So I really will try to do this. I thank my colleague from Oregon for his fine statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator asked about Minnesota. Just two final points. One, I was speaking on the floor earlier and I said that I think most families are focused on how you earn a decent living and how you give your children the care you know they need and deserve. I think the minimum wage bill is an important step in that direction along with whatever we can do on affordable child care and health care. That is the key to family income in this country. I spoke earlier about the record of inequality. Secretary Reich had a very important piece in the New York Times about it. But now we see, Mr. President, a merger with education because, as a matter of fact, I say to my colleagues and my friend from Massachusetts what I find when I travel around Minnesota--and I was a college teacher for 20 years--is that many students are taking 6 years to graduate and not 4 years because now students are working on the average of 25 or 30 hours a week at two minimum-wage jobs. So we now are talking about a piece of legislation that speaks to the issue of how families can have more income and also how students can afford their higher education. Many of these students are 18 and 19. But let's not trivialize the teen part. They are young women and young men who are working hard to be able to go to school. You had better believe that this minimum wage bill is really of critical importance to these young people as to whether or not they are going to be able to complete their education and do well financially. So the Senator is absolutely correct. There is the strongest correlation to education and affordable education which I think all of us agree is an absolutely crucial issue. Mr. President, today I am co-sponsoring a bill introduced by my colleague and friend Senator Ted Kennedy, cosponsored by a number of others, a measure which I consider to be one of the most important items we can pass and enact this year--the ``American Family Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998.'' Our bill would increase the minimum wage by 50 cents a year during each of the next three years. After that, it would index further increases in the minimum wage to increases in the cost of living. This 3-year increase of $1.50--raising the federal minimum wage to $6.65/hour by September 1 of the year 2000, and pegging it to inflation in succeeding years--is the most immediate and practical step we can take to deliver to American working families a message of economic justice and principle. The message is this: if you work hard and play by the rules in America, you should not live in poverty. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case today for many working Americans with families. We need to address that problem. Full time work at minimum wage generates an income of approximately $10,700 a year. That's $2,600 below the poverty line for a family of three in this country. Minimum wage is not a living wage in America today. Even after the most recent increase, the federal minimum wage is worth far less in real dollars than it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Remember, the minimum wage disproportionately affects women. Sixty percent of those earning the minimum wage are women. Teachers' aides, child care providers, service-sector employees--some of the hardest working people in America, performing crucial tasks. Many of these women are single heads of households with child. One of the quickest ways we as a Congress could take a step toward real gender equity with regard to pay would be to pass an increase in the minimum wage and send it to the President. I am sure he will sign it. That would immediately improve the economic situation of millions of working women, many with families. Increasing the minimum wage will benefit those who need it most in America--adults, women, working families. Seventy-five percent of those currently receiving minimum wage workers are adults; 60 percent are women; 50 percent work more than 35 hours a week; 82 percent work at least 20 hours a week. Look at a few numbers which tell a story. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities recently released a report showing that income inequality grew in 48 of 50 states since the late 1970s. The decline in real incomes of the poorest one-fifth of families with children in America averaged 21 percent, or $2,500. Since 1968, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, grew by 115 percent while the purchasing power of the minimum wage declined by 30 percent. To reflect the purchasing power it maintained in 1968, today's minimum wage would have to be at $7.33/hour, not $5.15. So even a carefully charted increase to $6.65/hour will not make up the entire difference, but it will put us back on a road to responsibly representing our constituents. For nearly the last two decades, the bottom 20 percent of income earners in this country haven't experienced growth like most Americans. Instead, they have lost 9 percent in real family income growth, while the top 20 percent have gained more than 26 percent. Our bill is about justice. In recent weeks and months, I have traveled around this country: East and South Central Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, as well as in my home state of Minnesota. I have repeatedly seen the struggles of hard working, dedicated people who want to improve their lives, but they can't find jobs that will pay them a livable wage. Now increasing the minimum wage will not compromise the economy and it will not harm the falling unemployment rate. Consider that in September 1996, just one month prior to the minimum wage increase from $4.25 to $4.75, the national unemployment rate was at 5.2 percent. By December 1997, two months after the second annual increase to $5.15, the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.2 percent. And retail trade jobs, where a disproportionate amount of low wage workers are employed, increased slightly. Job opportunities in this country are not compromised by this legislation. In fact, the very importance and value of job opportunities to all Americans is exactly what is enforced by this legislation. Today's economy continues to perform well. Yet the minimum wage--part of that same economy--has progressively fallen back. In 1996, we started to pave the right path to justice by increasing the minimum wage, but more must be done. So I stand in support as the first co-sponsor of this bill and urge Democrats and Republicans alike to support Senator Kennedy's initiative and to support the American workforce by passing the Family Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is my time. I ask unanimous consent to have 4 more minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have one final question. The people who contribute don't have a lot. They are not the heavy hitters. They are not the ones always here in Washington to lobby us. How does the Senator think we could win this fight?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor. I am pleased to hear that because that is part of what I am here for as a Senator. Let me ask the Senator from Massachusetts one final question. We don't just look at polls. But does the Senator have, in terms of what people in the country have been saying about raising the minimum wage 50 cents a year over the next 3 years--and we index it after that--is there broad public support that is a matter of simple elementary judgment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have a couple of questions that I may want to put to my colleague in just a moment. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts touched on two concerns that I want to speak about for a brief period of time. The Senator mentioned welfare. Earlier when I was speaking I didn't talk about the welfare bill. But I want the Senator to know that as we see the reports that this has been a huge success because there are 4 million fewer people receiving welfare assistance, I think there has been a lot of confusion. Welfare reform doesn't mean that there are fewer people on welfare. It doesn't mean you reduce the number of people receiving assistance. It means you reduce poverty. That is what it is about. It works if you are reducing the poverty for these families which are 90 percent women and children. When I have been traveling around the country it is heartbreaking. The Senator talks about after school. There are 3- and 4-year olds home alone right now. That should not be the case because mothers are told to work. There are also preschoolers who are in very ad hoc arrangements with a relative for this week or that week, then somebody else the next week. We don't have affordable child care. In East LA in Los Angeles there is a waiting list of 30,000 for affordable child care. The President will be speaking about that tonight. Mr. President, there are first- and second-graders. I met a woman in Los Angeles who broke down crying because she is so scared because her first-grader goes home alone--she is at work--to a very dangerous housing project, and is told to lock the door, and take no phone calls. There are children who don't play outside right now. So when the Senator from Massachusetts talked about child care, I just want to emphasize the fact that welfare reform only means reduction of poverty. It means that children are in safe places receiving good child care. That is not happening. Mr. President, I also want to point out that there are too many mothers who in our community colleges who are now told, ``You cannot pursue your education. You have to work.'' The job is $5.15, and if the minimum wage isn't higher one year later they will be worse off. I am going to have an amendment for student deferment for those mothers because that is toward economic self-sufficiency, and another amendment that is going to require States to provide to Health and Human Services the data in 6 months as to how many families are moving toward economic self-sufficiency because you just can't eliminate people from assistance and cut off assistance if people do not have the jobs and decent wages. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator this question. The Senator from Massachusetts was speaking to an issue that I hear about everywhere I go, and it sounds like the President is going to be speaking to it, which is that I think people in our country believe that if you play by the rules of the game and you work 40 hours a week or thereabouts 52 weeks a year you ought not to be poor in America. That is what this is about. The last time we had a debate on the minimum wage the Senator from Massachusetts just insisted that the Senate would address this issue. Does the Senator intend to make this such a precise priority for his work that one way or another all Senators are going to be voting on this? Are we going to have it on the floor of the Senate? Are we going to have the debate? Are we going to have a vote on it so all Senators can be held accountable to working families, or not?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator asked about Minnesota. Just two final points. One, I was speaking on the floor earlier and I said that I think most families are focused on how you earn a decent living and how you give your children the care you know they need and deserve. I think the minimum wage bill is an important step in that direction along with whatever we can do on affordable child care and health care. That is the key to family income in this country. I spoke earlier about the record of inequality. Secretary Reich had a very important piece in the New York Times about it. But now we see, Mr. President, a merger with education because, as a matter of fact, I say to my colleagues and my friend from Massachusetts what I find when I travel around Minnesota--and I was a college teacher for 20 years--is that many students are taking 6 years to graduate and not 4 years because now students are working on the average of 25 or 30 hours a week at two minimum-wage jobs. So we now are talking about a piece of legislation that speaks to the issue of how families can have more income and also how students can afford their higher education. Many of these students are 18 and 19. But let's not trivialize the teen part. They are young women and young men who are working hard to be able to go to school. You had better believe that this minimum wage bill is really of critical importance to these young people as to whether or not they are going to be able to complete their education and do well financially. So the Senator is absolutely correct. There is the strongest correlation to education and affordable education which I think all of us agree is an absolutely crucial issue. Mr. President, today I am co-sponsoring a bill introduced by my colleague and friend Senator Ted Kennedy, cosponsored by a number of others, a measure which I consider to be one of the most important items we can pass and enact this year--the ``American Family Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998.'' Our bill would increase the minimum wage by 50 cents a year during each of the next three years. After that, it would index further increases in the minimum wage to increases in the cost of living. This 3-year increase of $1.50--raising the federal minimum wage to $6.65/hour by September 1 of the year 2000, and pegging it to inflation in succeeding years--is the most immediate and practical step we can take to deliver to American working families a message of economic justice and principle. The message is this: if you work hard and play by the rules in America, you should not live in poverty. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case today for many working Americans with families. We need to address that problem. Full time work at minimum wage generates an income of approximately $10,700 a year. That's $2,600 below the poverty line for a family of three in this country. Minimum wage is not a living wage in America today. Even after the most recent increase, the federal minimum wage is worth far less in real dollars than it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Remember, the minimum wage disproportionately affects women. Sixty percent of those earning the minimum wage are women. Teachers' aides, child care providers, service-sector employees--some of the hardest working people in America, performing crucial tasks. Many of these women are single heads of households with child. One of the quickest ways we as a Congress could take a step toward real gender equity with regard to pay would be to pass an increase in the minimum wage and send it to the President. I am sure he will sign it. That would immediately improve the economic situation of millions of working women, many with families. Increasing the minimum wage will benefit those who need it most in America--adults, women, working families. Seventy-five percent of those currently receiving minimum wage workers are adults; 60 percent are women; 50 percent work more than 35 hours a week; 82 percent work at least 20 hours a week. Look at a few numbers which tell a story. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities recently released a report showing that income inequality grew in 48 of 50 states since the late 1970s. The decline in real incomes of the poorest one-fifth of families with children in America averaged 21 percent, or $2,500. Since 1968, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, grew by 115 percent while the purchasing power of the minimum wage declined by 30 percent. To reflect the purchasing power it maintained in 1968, today's minimum wage would have to be at $7.33/hour, not $5.15. So even a carefully charted increase to $6.65/hour will not make up the entire difference, but it will put us back on a road to responsibly representing our constituents. For nearly the last two decades, the bottom 20 percent of income earners in this country haven't experienced growth like most Americans. Instead, they have lost 9 percent in real family income growth, while the top 20 percent have gained more than 26 percent. Our bill is about justice. In recent weeks and months, I have traveled around this country: East and South Central Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, as well as in my home state of Minnesota. I have repeatedly seen the struggles of hard working, dedicated people who want to improve their lives, but they can't find jobs that will pay them a livable wage. Now increasing the minimum wage will not compromise the economy and it will not harm the falling unemployment rate. Consider that in September 1996, just one month prior to the minimum wage increase from $4.25 to $4.75, the national unemployment rate was at 5.2 percent. By December 1997, two months after the second annual increase to $5.15, the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.2 percent. And retail trade jobs, where a disproportionate amount of low wage workers are employed, increased slightly. Job opportunities in this country are not compromised by this legislation. In fact, the very importance and value of job opportunities to all Americans is exactly what is enforced by this legislation. Today's economy continues to perform well. Yet the minimum wage--part of that same economy--has progressively fallen back. In 1996, we started to pave the right path to justice by increasing the minimum wage, but more must be done. So I stand in support as the first co-sponsor of this bill and urge Democrats and Republicans alike to support Senator Kennedy's initiative and to support the American workforce by passing the Family Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is my time. I ask unanimous consent to have 4 more minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have one final question. The people who contribute don't have a lot. They are not the heavy hitters. They are not the ones always here in Washington to lobby us. How does the Senator think we could win this fight?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor. I am pleased to hear that because that is part of what I am here for as a Senator. Let me ask the Senator from Massachusetts one final question. We don't just look at polls. But does the Senator have, in terms of what people in the country have been saying about raising the minimum wage 50 cents a year over the next 3 years--and we index it after that--is there broad public support that is a matter of simple elementary judgment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have a couple of questions that I may want to put to my colleague in just a moment. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts touched on two concerns that I want to speak about for a brief period of time. The Senator mentioned welfare. Earlier when I was speaking I didn't talk about the welfare bill. But I want the Senator to know that as we see the reports that this has been a huge success because there are 4 million fewer people receiving welfare assistance, I think there has been a lot of confusion. Welfare reform doesn't mean that there are fewer people on welfare. It doesn't mean you reduce the number of people receiving assistance. It means you reduce poverty. That is what it is about. It works if you are reducing the poverty for these families which are 90 percent women and children. When I have been traveling around the country it is heartbreaking. The Senator talks about after school. There are 3- and 4-year olds home alone right now. That should not be the case because mothers are told to work. There are also preschoolers who are in very ad hoc arrangements with a relative for this week or that week, then somebody else the next week. We don't have affordable child care. In East LA in Los Angeles there is a waiting list of 30,000 for affordable child care. The President will be speaking about that tonight. Mr. President, there are first- and second-graders. I met a woman in Los Angeles who broke down crying because she is so scared because her first-grader goes home alone--she is at work--to a very dangerous housing project, and is told to lock the door, and take no phone calls. There are children who don't play outside right now. So when the Senator from Massachusetts talked about child care, I just want to emphasize the fact that welfare reform only means reduction of poverty. It means that children are in safe places receiving good child care. That is not happening. Mr. President, I also want to point out that there are too many mothers who in our community colleges who are now told, ``You cannot pursue your education. You have to work.'' The job is $5.15, and if the minimum wage isn't higher one year later they will be worse off. I am going to have an amendment for student deferment for those mothers because that is toward economic self-sufficiency, and another amendment that is going to require States to provide to Health and Human Services the data in 6 months as to how many families are moving toward economic self-sufficiency because you just can't eliminate people from assistance and cut off assistance if people do not have the jobs and decent wages. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator this question. The Senator from Massachusetts was speaking to an issue that I hear about everywhere I go, and it sounds like the President is going to be speaking to it, which is that I think people in our country believe that if you play by the rules of the game and you work 40 hours a week or thereabouts 52 weeks a year you ought not to be poor in America. That is what this is about. The last time we had a debate on the minimum wage the Senator from Massachusetts just insisted that the Senate would address this issue. Does the Senator intend to make this such a precise priority for his work that one way or another all Senators are going to be voting on this? Are we going to have it on the floor of the Senate? Are we going to have the debate? Are we going to have a vote on it so all Senators can be held accountable to working families, or not?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to just speak briefly. I think we are all back. As the Senator from North Dakota said, I think most of us really are focused on the legislative work, Democrats and Republicans. I think that people want us to be focused on our work. But our work is connected to our conversations with people in our States, what people have said to us, and trying to connect what we do as legislators to the betterment of the lives of people that we serve. Mr. President, I was impressed with Secretary Reich's piece because I have found in my travels in Minnesota and around the country that while all of the macroeconomic statistics look good--for that I am grateful; the GDP and other indicators of economic performance, the official levels of unemployment, a record low, so on and so forth--that in many ways we have a paradox which is that we also, at least since we started collecting social science data, we have the most stratification in our society that we have ever had. We have the most glaring inequalities, and I think we have been moving to two Americas. It is not the other America that Michael wrote about in a very important book in 1963 about poverty, which I know the presiding officer has been concerned about, but it is two different Americas. You have one America with mounting access to all the things that I suppose you could say make life richer in possibilities, and you have another America struggling to make ends meet. You have one America that is barreling down the information superhighway, and you have another America without even the rudimentary skills to participate in our economy or to participate in our polity or to participate in our society. You have one America with the economic resources to purchase the security of gated communities, living in gated communities, and you have another America that is beset by the decay of some of our very important social institutions which we have to rebuild if we are to rebuild communities, libraries, hospitals, and schools. You have one America that is focused on a booming stock market, and you have another America that is faced with the insecurities of a job market still with all of the downsizing and the latest news about AT&T, I think, laying off 18,000 employees. You have one America that every summer sort of plans a trip to Asia or Europe, and you have another America where the discussion is, ``How can we scrape up enough money to take the family to a ballgame?'' Mr. President, I find that, in just touring the cafes in Minnesota--I want to draw from my data, which is now less social science data and just conversations with people. You know, most people in the country-- poor people, middle-income people, professional people, it does not really matter--from really almost all walks of life, I think first and foremost, are very focused on how they can earn a decent living and how they can give their children the care they know their children need and deserve. To me, that translates into lots of specific conversations. I could talk a lot about health care. But there is one conversation I cannot forget. It was with a woman. I met her a year ago. It was very sad. Her husband is about 40 and found out he had cancer and was given a couple months to live. I met them about 2 months ago, and she reintroduced me to her husband, who is now in a wheelchair. She said, ``You know, Senator, the doctors said that my husband had only 2 months to live, but he's a real fighter. And I want you to come on over and say hello.'' You know how that happens when we are out and about. Of course, I did and was pleased to talk to him. Then she took me aside and said, ``Every day it is just a nightmare. I'm constantly on the phone trying to find out what my insurance companies will cover, what they will not cover. It is a constant battle.'' Mr. President, I think, therefore, health care is very much on the agenda. I do not have time to talk about all the specifics of policy, but I am very interested in making sure it is not just bottom-line medicine. I am very interested in all of us, Democrats and Republicans, making sure there is some consumer protection and also that the caregivers are able to give the kind of care they went to medical school or nursing school to be able to give. I am very interested in our really thinking about a strategy, going into the next century, about how do we obtain universal coverage, comprehensive care. And I think it can be a decentralist thrust with States figuring out ways to do it within a national framework, within a package of benefits, affordable, and with consumer protection. That is a bill I look forward to introduce. I think we can do better. I loved working with Senator Domenici on mental health. I tell you, there is an area I am really looking forward to do work on as a legislator and that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell is going to be working with me on. That is in the whole area of the Substance Abuse Parity Act, trying to make sure that people--it is just wrong. People who are struggling with alcoholism, for example, where they get detox treatment once or twice, then there is no longer any coverage. We can do much better. There is a tremendous amount of discrimination here. We can do much better as a nation. I look forward to working on that legislation. Mr. President, above and beyond health care, I would like to talk just a little bit about jobs, and jobs with decent wages. I have had a chance to travel. It has been the best work I have done outside of Minnesota. I would love to travel with you, I say to the Presiding Officer, because I think as a Senator from Indiana you have focused a lot on these issues. We may have different approaches, but you have just a tremendous commitment to this. I have traveled in a lot of low-income communities from Letcher County, KY, where my wife's family is from, to Appalachia to Chicago to Baltimore to East L.A., to Watts to urban and rural Minnesota to the delta in Mississippi. There are two questions people ask in these communities. One of those questions is, ``Where are the jobs that we can be trained for and that we can find to support our families on?'' I think raising the minimum wage--I was speaking with Senator Kennedy about this--is absolutely on the mark. I think we must do it. I think it is a matter of economic justice. It is also true, however, as William Julius Wilson, in his fine book about a year and a half ago, makes the fine point that in some communities and ghettos there is the disappearance of work, there is no work. So the question is, how do we build the human capital and make sure there are jobs that are community-building jobs? And how do we link that with the private sector? How do we ultimately make sure people are able to get transitional jobs for a year to build those skills, to build community? And we can then at the same time have the job training and track the private-sector capital in those communities. I think it is a real priority, if we are concerned about these issues of race and gender and poverty and children. They are all far more correlated and interrelated than some of us want to admit. Another area I want to talk about is the President's initiative on child care. Two points I would like to make. Again, I do not do justice to the policy debate which we will have, but at least I want to just try to survey this. I think the President has really laid forth some good proposals. I think we can do more and should do more, and I want to talk about that. We have to make sure that the tax credits, if that is the way we go, are refundable so families with incomes under $28,000 who did not have a tax liability can benefit. I think the after-school care is extremely important. But you know what? I read in the paper--and maybe, Mr. President, you are a part of this that Senator Chafee and others were talking about--how it is we also can target resources to families where one parent stays at home. I think that is an excellent idea. I met with so many couples in Minnesota where one of them will say, ``You know, Senator, one of us is not working. We understand why both parents work, but we made the decision not to. We forgo the income. We think one of us should be at home during these early years. And why not have some of the funding stream go toward providing us with some assistance?'' I think that is an excellent idea. I hope we can really kind of combine efforts and do something about early childhood development. It is so important. The medical evidence--Mr. President, you have held some hearings--it is irrefutable and irreducible. We have to do well for these children. They are all God's children. And if we do not do well for these children--the private sector, public sector, community based--by age 3, many of them will never be ready for school. They will never be ready for life. And I cannot think of a more important investment. I want to talk some about that as well. Mr. President, I will finish up because I only reserved 10 minutes for myself. I just say to my colleagues, there is so much work to be done, so many problems. I was in East Grand Forks the other day. Last year we were on the floor talking about the floods. It was heartbreaking. James Lee Witt has just done a great job. I so appreciate what he has done for Minnesota. And FEMA came through. But you know what? We lost a third of our housing stock from the flood in East Grand Forks. There are seniors on fixed incomes, low-income people. They cannot find housing. We are going to have to build that housing. There is going to be State money. Maybe we can leverage Federal money. There are many real problems, many important issues that face families in Minnesota and all across the country. I have delineated some of them. I urge my colleagues, get out on the floor, do the work in committee, bring the bills and the amendments out here. Just do the work. I can't resist this, since the Chair happens to be one of my very good friends and is about to tell me I am out of time, I look forward to debating Senator Coats out here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.