Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow Senator Cantwell, since we are both in the Chamber.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I assume we will have time to talk about campaign finance reform. Amendment No. 3038 As a matter of fact, I think I can do it in just a couple of minutes. Last week when we had the debate on the Jeffords amendment, to increase the renewable portfolio to 20-percent electricity, I spoke at some length. I just want to pick up on a couple of points that Senator Bingaman made, and probably my colleague from Washington can speak about this with more eloquence. Nobody, to respond to the Senator from Ohio, is making the argument that, by 2020, we will be totally independent from fossil fuels. No one is making that argument. It's really a ``straw man'' argument. I think the question is whether or not we will, no pun intended, continue to barrel down the fossil fuel energy path. Will we continue to rely primarily on oil, coal, or on other fossil fuel? Or do we want to take a new direction. I, frankly, think this is going to be a test vote for a new direction in energy policy. I think the Senator from New Mexico agrees that this is going to be a test vote on this bill. This 10-percent renewable energy portfolio, which is from my point of view too little, makes this legislation a reform bill--it makes this an energy bill that is sensitive to how we produce energy in connection with the environment. It takes us down a different energy path. The different path is significant for many States. For example, in Minnesota, we produce enough wind to produce all of our electricity through wind, when the technology is there. In fact, Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas could produce enough energy through wind generation to produce electricity for the whole country. So there is enormous potential here. In addition to wind, we have biomass to electricity, solar, and geothermal. When my colleague from Ohio was giving some projections, I think he missed the point about the potential of efficient energy use and where that figures in. Again, one more time, it is a marriage ready to be made between being much more respectful of the environment, clean technology, many more small business opportunities, keeping dollars and capital in our States and our communities, national security, and less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Look at what happened last year with natural gas prices. We would be much less dependent on a few giant energy conglomerates for energy. This is pro-environment, pro-consumer, pro-small business, pro-clean technology, and is going to be a huge growth industry in our country. Frankly, the only folks who are really opposed to this renewable portfolio standard are some Senators are opposed because they think it is a mistake to have a mandate or a subsidy. Although I have to tell you, the oil and gas industry have gotten huge subsidies over the years. Last year the House passed a bill with over $30 billion in tax breaks, most of them going to oil, coal, and the nuclear industry. Now that is a government subsidy. If I were to look back over the last 50 years of energy policy, it would be a massive amount of money we have given to the fossil fuel energy industry. We don't want to stack the deck against renewables. We want to nurture and promote energy policy for all of the good reasons I have tried to outline. Frankly, if we can't hold on to this 10 percent renewable energy portfolio, then I don't think we have much of a form bill here at all. This is a key vote. That is why I wanted to speak briefly about it. I hope we will get a strong vote against the Kyl amendment, and I think we will. I think it should be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. What I can do is--I would be pleased to speak for myself; I know Senator McCain wants to speak--if I could get 10 minutes before the vote tomorrow to speak, I would be pleased to relinquish the floor last.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that would be fine. I ask unanimous consent that I just immediately follow them.

Mr. WELLSTONE. And then I would be followed by Senator Cantwell as in the original agreement.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came to the Chamber in support of the amendment of Senator Jeffords. I am proud to join him on this amendment. We are talking about a portfolio that has to do with renewable energy for production of electricity. The bill would require the amount of electricity produced from renewable to increase from 2.5 percent in 2005 to 10 percent in 2020. This is certainly an improvement in the right direction. The amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator Jeffords argues that the Senate should go higher. We are talking about basically going up to 20 percent by the year 2020. I wish to make three or four points. First, I admit that I am speaking as a Senator from Minnesota. For Minnesota, this is a no-brainer. We are a cold-weather State. We are at the other end of the pipeline. When we import barrels of oil--although we are not talking about so much oil, because we also rely on natural gas and coal--we have the following consequences: First of all, we import the energy and we export the dollars--probably to the tune of about $11 billion a year. The more we can produce of our own energy, the more capital we keep in our communities, and the better it is for our States. On environmental grounds, I don't, frankly, know what we are doing with more reliance on coal. In our State, we love our lakes. We are the ``land of 10,000 lakes.'' But if you look in different manuals, you will see the warnings: If you are a woman expecting a child, don't eat fish. We love walleye. Don't eat too many walleye a week; or, don't eat any; or, for small children, don't let them eat walleye. One way to get to the hearts of Minnesotans is to talk about walleye. Why? Because of airborne toxins, poison, PCBs, acid rain, and coal. What in the world are we doing relying more on coal, relying more on fossil fuels, and relying more on utility industries that barrel us down a path which goes exactly in the wrong direction? Minnesota is rich in wind. In rural Minnesota and farm country, we are talking about biomass electricity. We are talking about solar. We are talking about renewables. We are talking about safe energy. We are talking about clean technology. We are talking about small business opportunities. We are talking about job-intensive and job-creating industries that are respectful of the environment, that are respectful of our community, that lead tomorrow's economic development, and that make all the sense in the world. When we are able to rely more on renewable energy policy--we have the technology--we are far less dependent not only on Mideastern oil but we are far less dependent on large energy companies that end up being the ones making decisions that affect all of our lives, not always so much for the good. I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords. Frankly, I know the votes on this. I don't think we will get very many votes. As a matter of fact, maybe we will. I shouldn't say that on the floor of the Senate before the vote. But there are other amendments that want to go below 10 percent. I must admit that the position I take in this debate doesn't get me a heck of a lot of support from the utility industry. That is true. I am not sure I had much in the beginning anyway. But, with all due respect, I do know what is best for my State. I don't think it is just for Minnesota. I think it is good for people in this country. I will say this one more time. Our country is behind the curve. Clean technology is going to be a big growth industry. We can do so much better than we are doing right now. We can do that if we set a target, and we make it clear that we are committed to making sure that renewable energy is much more a part of the production of electricity. Look again at what we do that is good. We do a so much better job for our environment. Coal, I mentioned. Nuclear power. I am not giving a speech today in this Chamber that says: Let's dismantle all the nuclear powerplants. As a matter of fact, that is not my position. But we do not know what to do with the waste. We are going to now build more plants which are incredibly capital intensive. I think the Presiding Officer is one of the people here who knows the most about finances. I am not even sure it is a go from the point of view of cost-effectiveness. But beyond that, can anybody tell me whether or not we should be going forward with more nuclear powerplants when we do not even know what to do with the waste right now? In case anybody has not noticed, our good friends from Nevada do not want it there. If all of us were Senators from Nevada, we would take the same position. And there are some legitimate questions that are being raised about Yucca Mountain. Then others say: Well, maybe not. Then it should be above ground, in dry-cast storage. Then others will say: What about the transportation of it? So we do not know what to do with the waste. Yet we are now talking about maybe we are going to rely more on nuclear power. We do not know what to do with the expense. By the way, most people do not want the plants near where they live. There are all sorts of public health concerns. I have already mentioned coal. What do we need? More acid rain? Why do we want to rely on these big utility companies to basically be in charge of our energy future? Have the consumers of the country maybe noticed they are not always so kind to us in terms of the bills that we pay? We could make the decisionmaking much more back at the State level, much more back at the community level with renewable energy policy. Between the potential of wind and biomass electricity and solar, along with what we have been talking about with biodiesel and other clean alternative fuels, such as ethanol, we have a real opportunity. It is a perfect marriage. I will finish on this point and then take a question from my colleague. It is a marriage made in Heaven between being respectful of the environment and a huge growth industry, which is much more small business oriented, with the creation of more jobs and keeping capital in the community and having better economic development. It could be done, and it should be done. If we took a poll, 80 percent of the American people would agree. The only problem is, these utility companies and this big energy industry have too much clout. They have too much money, they have too much power, and they have too much influence. We should be reaching beyond 10 percent. I think Senator Jeffords and I are attempting to lay down a landmark because we want to be part of the debate and, at a very minimum, not turn the clock backward and even go below the 10-percent requirement. Frankly, we should be doing much better.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada because that is why I said to Senator Jeffords earlier today that I would be out here joining him on this amendment. Frankly, the rest of my time on this bill will be on this renewable portfolio because this is the only item left in the bill that is strongly proconsumer and also enables our country to reduce our energy consumption and presents some alternatives to barreling down exactly the wrong path. Absolutely. The sad thing--I know this sounds a little arrogant; and I don't mean to sound arrogant; and I don't think I am being arrogant--I used to be on the Energy Committee. If we took a poll, about 80 percent of the people in this country would agree, saying: Absolutely, more renewables. We really like that idea. We like it because of the environment. We like it because we can keep the capital in our community. We like it because small businesses can develop. We like it because it is job intensive. We like it because it is good for our country's independence. Remember, with electricity we are talking less about oil; we are talking about coal, nuclear, whatever. I am not arguing conspiracy. And I am not arguing every Senator who votes the other way votes that way because of money. That is a horrible argument to make. We could all say that about each of us on every vote. I will say this. Institutionally, from a sort of systemic point of view, the unfortunate thing is there are these huge energy conglomerates, these big utility companies. They do not want to budge from the monopoly they now have. They do not want to see this alternative future. But, boy, this is the direction in which we have to go. That is why I thank Senator Jeffords and am honored to be a part of this debate and do this amendment with him. Am I making sense?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. I say to my colleague, first of all, again, wind is near and dear to my heart. You should see Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota. We produce much of the wind power in the country in Minnesota. Brian Baenig, who does wonderful work here, points out that there have been two Department of Energy analyses, and they have found, under a 20-percent renewable portfolio standard, total consumer energy bills would be lower in 2020 than ``business as usual'' because this would also reduce the natural gas prices. This would be far better for our consumers. But also other countries--that is what I was saying earlier--are putting us to shame. The thing of it is, this isn't just an environmental issue. This is also, I say to both colleagues in the Chamber, a business issue. Mark my words--let me shout it from the mountaintop of Senate today-- clean technology will be a huge growth industry in this new century. We should be at the cutting edge of it, we should be nurturing it, and we should be promoting it. It is absolutely the right direction in which to go. That is what is so important about this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Senator, on the whole issue of air quality, I am out here with a little bit of a sense of urgency. I want to hold on to this standard, and I want to increase it because it is the best thing for my State. It is for all the reasons I just mentioned, but also having to do with what we love the most. We love our lakes and rivers and streams. In fact, I don't know how it came to be. It is as though people in the country have lost their sense of indignation. Their expectations are so lowered about the environment. I am surprised that people are not furious. I think they are, but they don't know what to do. As to a lot of our beautiful lakes, people are being told with regard to lake after lake after lake in Minnesota, if you are expecting a child, don't eat the fish. If you have little children, don't let them eat the fish because of the air toxins. This is acid rain. This is coal. This is mercury poisoning. I want to put a stop to it. That is in part what the amendment is about, much less all the good economic and energy efficiency arguments I could make. I yield the floor and thank both of my colleagues. I am proud to join them in this effort.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think this energy bill is critically important. The whole question of how we consume and produce energy in relationship to the environment is critically important, especially in my State of Minnesota at the other end of the pipeline where we import our oil in barrels and natural gas, and we export our dollars. I will be in the Chamber talking about energy policy a lot, especially as we focus on renewables and clean fuel. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I wish to speak about the Middle East because the news from the Israeli and the Palestinian territory grows dimmer and deadlier by the day. Terrorist attacks and reprisal raids have now merged into continuous carnage that looks increasingly indistinguishable from all-out war. The Israelis and the Palestinians are being drawn into a horrific cycle of revenge. Frankly, I think an eye for an eye and pain inflicted upon pain extended into the future will be an ever-wider river of blood that will be spilled. I wonder how wide the river of blood has to be before we get back to some kind of political settlement--some kind of political process. There is no future as I look at the status quo extended into the future--not for the people of Israel and not for the Palestinians. Let me start out on a personal note. I have used this example several times while talking to other Minnesotans and people I met with here in DC as well. I was at a gathering where I was in a fairly sharp debate with some citizens who were talking to me about what they consider to be the unfairness and the wrongness of Israeli policies towards the Palestinian people. In this discussion, I turned to them and said: Listen, you have a right to make the critique you are making. But I have not heard you express any indignation whatsoever about the Palestinian suicide bombers going to an Israeli teenager pizza parlor with fragmentation bombs and cluster bombs trying to basically murder as many Israeli teenagers as possible. I don't mind your critique of some of Sharon's policies. I have questions about some of them. But where is your indignation and your anger about the murder of Israeli teenagers? I condemn that. I condemn the deliberate targeting of innocent people and the murder of innocent people. As Camus said, murder is never legitimate. Frankly, some of Arafat's comments have become increasingly militant in the last several days. I certainly question some of his leadership. His statements in the last several days--and, maybe even more importantly, some of the actions taken by Arafat's people--give me pause. But, by the same token, I want to be really clear about this. I think it is really important that we have Tony Zinni in the Middle East. I think it is critically important that our country play a positive role. I think it is critically important, as the administration has made clear--I said this to Secretary Bill Burton as well--that we make it clear to the extremists that Zinni is not leaving on the basis of a terrorist act here, there, or somewhere else. We are engaged. Frankly, the only future is a political settlement. Senator Mitchell was right. The Mitchell report I think lays out a brilliant framework-- if we can just somehow get there again. I don't come to the floor with clear answers as to what to do, but I do know that an eye for an eye and the increasing cycle of violence takes us nowhere good--not for the Israelis, not for the Palestinians, not for our country, and not for the world in which we live. I do not know. I think there are many questions that can be raised about Crown Prince Abdullah's proposal and where Saudi Arabia is going. I myself have questions about some of the proposals. But, by the same token, at least there is some hope here. We shall see what happens at this Arab summit conference. We really need to be talking--on the part of Saudi Arabia and other countries--about the full normalization of relations with Israel. They cannot back down from that. That is the very essence of where we have to go. I am concerned that some of the Arab countries seem to be backing down from that. But I do not believe this proposal should be ruled out. I do not believe a proposal that at least attempts to move us towards some kind of negotiation and some kind of a peace process should be ruled out. Not all of it will be acceptable. I can tell you that right now. But I certainly would like to see the American Government in particular somehow play a role in moving from what has become an ever-growing cycle of violence and loss of life of innocent people to some kind of framework for negotiation and a political settlement. Ultimately, the truth of the matter is that I am an American Jew. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled from persecution in Ukraine. And then his family moved to Russia. At the age of 17, he fled to our country. I will be clear. I speak out of love for Israel. And Israel as a country will exist. The security of Israel and the need of Israel have to be met. It is also true that the Palestinian people will have their own nation. Palestinians and Israelis have to live next to one another, and they will have to respect one another. That will happen. My only question is, How much wider a river of blood has to be spilled before we get back to where we all know we need to go? So I want to, I guess in a way, applaud the administration, applaud Secretary Powell for sending Tony Zinni there. I simply say that we need to be engaged. Our Government can play a decisive, critical, and positive role. And we must do so.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise to express my puzzlement, my dismay, as to why, as soon as possible, we can't do a better job of helping people who are faced with some very compelling problems, very compelling needs. What I am getting at is very simple. And maybe this all becomes part of the budget resolution. I know the ranking member of the Budget Committee is in the Chamber. I was on the Iron Range in Minnesota. These are people who have been spat out of the economy. They are taconite workers. Royal TV has pulled the plug. Others are going into bankruptcy. But I thought the discussion would be about pensions, and that is part of what people are worried about. It is not just Enron. But I met more workers who were in their late fifties--57, 58 years old--mainly men, some women; and they were all saying the same thing: ``I had a bout with cancer,'' or, ``I had a heart attack and I can't get any coverage anywhere.'' They are terrified. They have no health care coverage. The COBRA plan is $1,000 a month. They can't afford it. They are out of work, and they have these preexisting conditions, and the premiums are so high. What are these people going to do? They are asking me for help. They are asking all of us for help. I have to figure out a way--I guess we can have a vote on it--as to how we can help people who are out of work through no fault of their own. People have no coverage. They are terrified. We would be terrified. So I keep thinking--my head spins--there is education, special education, and States saying: Please live up to your commitment. In Minnesota, some of our school districts are letting off 20, 25 percent of the teachers. The class size is going up. The prekindergarten programs are being cut. But then we say we don't have enough money. Other people are talking to me about affordable prescription drugs--a huge issue--but we say we really do not have enough money to make sure the premiums are down and the copays aren't too high and the deductibles aren't too high, and having catastrophic coverage that will work for people. We say we do not have money for that. Then on the whole question of what I just talked about, expanding health care coverage for people, we do not have the money for that. I just think it is unacceptable. I think we have to make some decisions about choices, about how much money goes to the tax cuts scheduled over X number of years, benefiting whom, and whether or not we are going to be able to do anything when it comes to other really critically important issues in our communities having to do with education, health care, job training, and affordable prescription drugs, to mention just three or four. I put affordable housing right up there as well. I am convinced affordable housing is becoming the second most important education program. It breaks my heart: I don't know how these 8- and 9- and 10-year-olds can do well in school when their families move two or three times a year because they do not have affordable housing. I do not know. I think soon we will get to this debate. I, for myself, have made it really clear. Listen, the Senator from New Mexico, he is one of my favorite Senators. The work we do on mental health is so important to me. I know he would not agree with what I am about to say, but I will say it in the Chamber. I say it in Minnesota all the time. Other people can have better alternatives. I am saying, forgo the tax cut for the top 1 percent of the population--families who earn around $297,000 a year--forgo it. And don't eliminate the alternative minimum tax. Don't do it. That alone is $130 billion. That would fund special education. That would put the Federal Government on a glidepath, within 5 years, to reach our full funding, and in another 5 years to have full funding. That would make all the difference in the world, just to educate our children. To me, it is a choice. I make that choice. I will probably have an amendment to give Senators a chance to decide. There is an old Yiddish proverb that says: You can't dance at two weddings at the same time. We either go forward with all these scheduled tax cuts the way we want to do it--in which case we will not have the money for all of these other things, and we will cut the Community Policing Program by 80 percent, cut the 7(a) Small Business Program by 50 percent, cut the Job Training Program, and cut the low-income energy assistance program by $300,000 and we will tell people we have no money to do any of these other things or we will not go forward with all these scheduled tax cuts. It is that simple. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today along with Senators Collins, Kennedy, DeWine and Bayh, I am proud to introduce the National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act. Modeled after the Day One project in Minnesota, the Act would create a web site that would allow National Domestic Violence Hotline operators, shelter based advocates and relevant State and local domestic violence service providers around the country to more quickly and easily find the most appropriate shelter for families seeking safety from abuse. The highly secure and confidential web site would keep a continuously updated, nationwide list of available shelter for victims of domestic violence and their families. It would also make available to the Hotline and to advocates information about services and facilities offered by these shelters, such as language, disability, transportation and children's services. In doing so, the new site would ensure that whenever a woman calls the Hotline or a shelter seeking help, the operator can immediately check the web site, get an up-to-the-minute listing of available shelters and services around the country, then, place the caller in the most appropriate shelter to meet her family's needs for safety, location, language and other services without the caller ever having to hang up the phone. The web site will ensure that during one of the most stressful and dangerous times of their lives, victims of domestic violence and their families can get the help they need in a single, easy phone call. Minnesota's Day One Program, which is the model for this bill, has run a highly successful, confidential web site that links every shelter in Minnesota. Day One has shown what profound benefits this new technology can bring to the lives of battered women and their children. It has broken down barriers families face in their first attempts to find safety, resulting in faster, more appropriate placements. In fact, Day One reports that 90 percent of women and children who call are assured services and shelter in a single call. In other words, when and where they need them most. This is critical since needing to make and receive multiple followup calls to find the most appropriate shelter has been a major barrier for women trying to escape an unsafe situation. The website helps ensure that women and children are placed in shelters that are best for them, whether that means shelters that are near transportation or a school, shelters that provide language or disability services, or shelters that have special programs for children. Finding shelter in a place where families can get the unique supports that they need also overcomes more of the traditional obstacles to safety. Having an online network of shelters also allows survivors and their children to relocate to a broader number of areas in the state so that they can be as safe as possible from their batterer, if that is necessary. The Network also benefits families because it benefits the service providers who help families. The new technology has saved staff time by reducing the number of calls staff has to make to find the best placement for clients. The web site has also opened lines of communication between shelters in Minnesota and has allowed a better sharing of needs and ideas which has led to better relationships and cooperation between shelters. Further, it has led to expanded documentation of occupancy rates and services needed and provided in Minnesota. In a survey of Minnesota shelters, 95 percent of respondents said that their experience with Day One is ``excellent.'' All of this means better service for battered women and their families. We have used the most advanced technology to improve education, science, medicine and almost every aspect of our lives. None of us can have failed to recognize the powerful change the Internet has brought to our society. None of us can deny that we must embrace this change and use it to our greatest advantage. The National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act now will apply America's newest and best technology to help solve one of our nation's oldest, most confounding and brutal problems, domestic violence. This move is long overdue. The National Network to End Domestic Violence estimates that only 43 percent of shelters in the United States have Internet access, leaving well over half of all shelters without services the rest of us have come to think of as routine. In linking the shelters on an electronic network, this bill would help every shelter in the country have Internet access. It gives us the opportunity to use one of the century's greatest advances to save the lives of women and children. Last year at least 32 women and 10 children were murdered as a result of domestic violence in Minnesota. Across the Nation, a woman is battered every 15 seconds. Three to 10 million children nationally are estimated to witness domestic violence each year, 70 percent of whom are abused themselves. Domestic Violence is in all of our communities. Despite its pervasiveness, there is still nowhere where violence is more isolated from view, more difficult to combat and more far reaching in its impact than violence in the home. It is a problem we cannot afford to ignore. People who will try to keep family violence quiet and hidden behind the walls of the home ignore its tragic echoes in our schools, in the workplace and on the streets. I do not want to hear one more story about a woman being murdered by her husband or by her boyfriend. I do not want to hear one more story about a woman being beaten, or her child fighting in school because he saw fighting in his home. If we are going to put an end to this horrible pattern, we must put an end to the pattern where women seek shelter, but give up in frustration when they find none. We must put an end to the pattern that one quarter of homeless people on any given night are victims of domestic violence and their children. This bill is one step in that direction. Over the past six years, the National Domestic Violence Hotline has received over 500,000 calls from women and children in danger from abuse. If we ensure that a web site similar to the one in Minnesota were made available to all of these families seeking help, so that women can get shelter and services when and where they need it, we could take a strong step to ensuring the safety and well being of hundreds of thousands of families fleeing domestic violence around the country. Technology gives us the tools to help undo one of the greatest wrongs we confront as a society. We cannot turn our backs on this opportunity. I urge my colleagues' support of this important legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today along with Senators Collins, Kennedy, DeWine and Bayh, I am proud to introduce the National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act. Modeled after the Day One project in Minnesota, the Act would create a web site that would allow National Domestic Violence Hotline operators, shelter based advocates and relevant State and local domestic violence service providers around the country to more quickly and easily find the most appropriate shelter for families seeking safety from abuse. The highly secure and confidential web site would keep a continuously updated, nationwide list of available shelter for victims of domestic violence and their families. It would also make available to the Hotline and to advocates information about services and facilities offered by these shelters, such as language, disability, transportation and children's services. In doing so, the new site would ensure that whenever a woman calls the Hotline or a shelter seeking help, the operator can immediately check the web site, get an up-to-the-minute listing of available shelters and services around the country, then, place the caller in the most appropriate shelter to meet her family's needs for safety, location, language and other services without the caller ever having to hang up the phone. The web site will ensure that during one of the most stressful and dangerous times of their lives, victims of domestic violence and their families can get the help they need in a single, easy phone call. Minnesota's Day One Program, which is the model for this bill, has run a highly successful, confidential web site that links every shelter in Minnesota. Day One has shown what profound benefits this new technology can bring to the lives of battered women and their children. It has broken down barriers families face in their first attempts to find safety, resulting in faster, more appropriate placements. In fact, Day One reports that 90 percent of women and children who call are assured services and shelter in a single call. In other words, when and where they need them most. This is critical since needing to make and receive multiple followup calls to find the most appropriate shelter has been a major barrier for women trying to escape an unsafe situation. The website helps ensure that women and children are placed in shelters that are best for them, whether that means shelters that are near transportation or a school, shelters that provide language or disability services, or shelters that have special programs for children. Finding shelter in a place where families can get the unique supports that they need also overcomes more of the traditional obstacles to safety. Having an online network of shelters also allows survivors and their children to relocate to a broader number of areas in the state so that they can be as safe as possible from their batterer, if that is necessary. The Network also benefits families because it benefits the service providers who help families. The new technology has saved staff time by reducing the number of calls staff has to make to find the best placement for clients. The web site has also opened lines of communication between shelters in Minnesota and has allowed a better sharing of needs and ideas which has led to better relationships and cooperation between shelters. Further, it has led to expanded documentation of occupancy rates and services needed and provided in Minnesota. In a survey of Minnesota shelters, 95 percent of respondents said that their experience with Day One is ``excellent.'' All of this means better service for battered women and their families. We have used the most advanced technology to improve education, science, medicine and almost every aspect of our lives. None of us can have failed to recognize the powerful change the Internet has brought to our society. None of us can deny that we must embrace this change and use it to our greatest advantage. The National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act now will apply America's newest and best technology to help solve one of our nation's oldest, most confounding and brutal problems, domestic violence. This move is long overdue. The National Network to End Domestic Violence estimates that only 43 percent of shelters in the United States have Internet access, leaving well over half of all shelters without services the rest of us have come to think of as routine. In linking the shelters on an electronic network, this bill would help every shelter in the country have Internet access. It gives us the opportunity to use one of the century's greatest advances to save the lives of women and children. Last year at least 32 women and 10 children were murdered as a result of domestic violence in Minnesota. Across the Nation, a woman is battered every 15 seconds. Three to 10 million children nationally are estimated to witness domestic violence each year, 70 percent of whom are abused themselves. Domestic Violence is in all of our communities. Despite its pervasiveness, there is still nowhere where violence is more isolated from view, more difficult to combat and more far reaching in its impact than violence in the home. It is a problem we cannot afford to ignore. People who will try to keep family violence quiet and hidden behind the walls of the home ignore its tragic echoes in our schools, in the workplace and on the streets. I do not want to hear one more story about a woman being murdered by her husband or by her boyfriend. I do not want to hear one more story about a woman being beaten, or her child fighting in school because he saw fighting in his home. If we are going to put an end to this horrible pattern, we must put an end to the pattern where women seek shelter, but give up in frustration when they find none. We must put an end to the pattern that one quarter of homeless people on any given night are victims of domestic violence and their children. This bill is one step in that direction. Over the past six years, the National Domestic Violence Hotline has received over 500,000 calls from women and children in danger from abuse. If we ensure that a web site similar to the one in Minnesota were made available to all of these families seeking help, so that women can get shelter and services when and where they need it, we could take a strong step to ensuring the safety and well being of hundreds of thousands of families fleeing domestic violence around the country. Technology gives us the tools to help undo one of the greatest wrongs we confront as a society. We cannot turn our backs on this opportunity. I urge my colleagues' support of this important legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the extraordinary service of Walter ``Bud'' Johannsen and the extraordinary dedication he has shown to the Lake George, MN community. It is extraordinary in its duration. It is extraordinary in its selflessness. And it is a wonderful example of community service at its best. Week after week for the past forty years Bud Johannsen has been on call twenty four hours a day, seven days a week as a volunteer firefighter for the Lake George Volunteer Fire Department, the only fire department that services this peaceful north central community and its surrounding area. And week after week he has accepted the risks inherent in a job of this nature. Week after week. For forty years. Voluntarily. Without pay. He has done this while maintaining a full-time job, raising a family and participating in community affairs. He has done this while demonstrating a positive attitude, a wonderful sense of humor and a willingness to lend a helping hand wherever and whenever needed. That is dedication. That is the American spirit at its best. Now I know that Bud Johannsen is not the first individual to ever volunteer his time. Nor will he be the last. But when I hear of such a milestone, 40 years as a volunteer firefighter, I feel the need to recognize and publicly thank that individual for his service, especially in light of the events of September 11 when we saw all too clearly the sometimes tragic consequences of such courage and commitment. So today I thank Walter ``Bud'' Johannsen. I thank his wife Kay and his daughter Tracy for sharing him with the Lake George community for so many years. And I thank all the members of the Lake George Volunteer Fire Department for the great work that they do. They are all truly inspiring.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed after the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today once again to draw attention to the suffering of people in Chechnya. On behalf of myself and Senator Brownback, I am submitting a resolution urging the Russian government to seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict there, to end human rights violations by Russian soldiers there, to investigate and initiate prosecutions against those accused, and to ensure that refugees receive the assistance they need. The resolution also urges President Bush to promote peace negotiations between the parties, to obtain assurances from the Russian government that no security forces who are recipients of U.S. assistance are implicated in human rights abuses and to seek specific information on the status of investigations into reported abuses. The war in Chechnya has raged too long, and reports of egregious human rights violations by Russian soldiers continue to increase. Today, Human Rights Watch is releasing yet another report of such abuses, Swept Under: Torture, Forced Disappearances, and Extrajudicial Killings During Sweep Operations in Chechnya. Year after year we receive reports telling the same stories, yet nothing seems to change. Since September 11, Russian officials have argued more vigorously that they are fighting terrorism in Chechnya. Whether the Russian government believes this to be true or not is not the issue. What is clear is that Russia is acting illegally and immorally in Chechnya, and it must stop. I want to talk briefly about the United States and our relationship to this war. As we increase our cooperation with various governments in the war on terrorism, we cannot condone some of the actions these friends are taking in the name of fighting terrorism. Russia has been a key member of the anti-terrorist coalition since September 11. It has played a crucial role in our success in Afghanistan. I applaud and support this U.S.-Russian cooperation. But what is happening in Chechnya cannot be justified by the war on terrorism. Russian forces in Chechnya have acted illegally and with unspeakable brutality against the civilian population there. There continue to be credible reports of summary execution, mass detention, rape, torture, forced disappearance, arbitrary arrest and looting. The Russian government has so far refused to investigate such reports. The Russian government believes it is fighting terrorism in Chechnya. In fact, it frequently compares the U.S. war on terrorism to its own efforts in Chechnya. But the world community must remind Russia's leaders that even in a war on terrorism, ends do not necessarily justify any means. A war against terrorism does not permit abuses against civilians. We must remind Russia that the war against terrorism is a struggle for freedom and democracy. Free and democratic nations do not round up boys and beat them so badly that they have to be carried home when the are finally released. They do not torture and rape women. Today as I read the reports of intensified human rights violations on a massive scale in Chechnya, as well as of Russia's refusal to investigate such reports and hold responsible individuals accountable, I have to question Russia's commitment to democratic norms and to internationally recognized human rights standards. We have a moral duty not only to speak out against Russian atrocities in Chechnya, but also to ensure that we aren't unintentionally allowing them to continue. We must ensure that no security forces that are the recipients of U.S. assistance or participants in joint operations with the U.S. are implicated in human rights abuses in Chechnya. This resolution urges the President to provide that assurance. It saddens me to speak once again about a war that has now entered its third year. It is a war that has been conducted with such brutality that it has been hard at times to imagine the situation getting worse. Unfortunately, it has gotten worse. The Russian government apparently has intensified its campaign against civilians in the name of fighting terrorism. When I met recently with the Chechen Foreign Minister, he made it clear to me that he believes the post-September 11 period will be remembered as one of the most savage times in Chechen history. The New York Times reported recently that, according to Chechen police officials, Russian troops are killing civilians in a campaign of executions and looting that takes place alongside military operations aimed at destroying rebel forces. According to the article, Russian units roll into a town during the day to scout neighborhoods for residents who appear to have money or property worth stealing. Then, at night, the soldiers return in their tanks and burst into houses, stealing goods and killing witnesses. In one of the largest of Grozny's four districts, Chechen investigators have documented 17 cases in the last 12 months implicating Russian Interior Ministry troops in killing civilians during such looting. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both documented accounts of terrible human rights violations in Chechnya. Our own State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices reports the execution of at least 60 civilians last February in the suburbs of Grozny. It reports torture by police officers using electric shocks. It reports the rape of Chechen women by Russian soldiers. These are reports from 2000. The new report for 2001 will be released soon, and, sadly, no one expects it to be better. There have been credible reports of human rights violations on both sides of the conflict in Chechnya. I condemn human rights violations by all parties, as does the resolution we offer today. Chechen rebel fighters have increasingly targeted for murder Chechen civilians they believe are cooperating with the Russian government. Human Rights Watch World Report for 2002 reports that Chechen fighters murdered at least 18 leaders of district and town administrations and at least five religious leaders, as well as numerous Chechen police officers, teachers and low ranking officials. There are extremist groups in Chechnya--some with ties to Arab extremist groups and possibly to al- Qaeda. I condemn all acts of terrorism, but what is happening in Chechnya is a human tragedy, and nothing justifies the often brutal use of violence by Russian soldiers there. Credible reports estimate that the war in Chechnya from 1994-1996 left over 80,000 civilians dead. The State Department cities evidence that the current war has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. There is credible evidence of the displacement of nearly 40 percent of the civilian population, or close to 400,000 people. According to the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a group committed to finding a political solution to this conflict, a significant portion of the male population between the ages of 16-55 is simply gone. Doctors without Borders reports that the humanitarian situation for an estimated 180,000 refugees in camps in the neighboring Republic of Ingushetia is deteriorating. The majority of the refugees are living with families, but over 60,000 people remain in tents, empty schools, and factory buildings. Shelter and sanitation facilities are poor, worn out and far below acceptable standards. Sometimes one latrine serves 100 people or more. The government of Russia also refuses to register the refugees, arguing they are economic migrants. Since these refugees are being accorded no legitimate status, they are often unable to get the humanitarian assistance they need. The resolution we offer today urges the Russian government to secure the distribution of humanitarian assistance and to register refugees as required by both Russian and international law. The government of Russia must work to find a political solution to end the war in Chechnya. In must put a stop to human rights violations by its soldiers, hold those who are responsible accountable for their actions and ensure that refugees get the assistance they need. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Again, this resolution, which Senator Brownback from Kansas and I submit, urges the Russian Government to seek to negotiate a settlement to the conflict there. This deals with the suffering of the people in Chechnya, and it calls on the Russian Government to end human rights violations by Russian soldiers there, to investigate and initiate prosecution against those who are accused, and to ensure that refugees receive the assistance they need. The resolution also urges President Bush to promote peace negotiations between the parties, to obtain assurances from the Russian Government that no security forces that are recipients of United States assistance are implicated in human rights abuses, and to seek specific information on the status of investigations into reported abuses. Senator Brownback and I submit this resolution timed with a report that Human Rights Watch is releasing today, which deals with these abuses. The title of the report is ``Swept Under: Torture, Forced Disappearances, and Extrajudicial Killings During Sweep Operations in Chechnya.'' I recommend that my colleagues and their staffs look at this report, which is deeply troubling. I ask unanimous consent that a piece in the New York Times, written by Patrick Tyler, on January 25, 2002, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will read 2 paragraphs: In Leninsky, the largest of Grozny's four districts, Chechen investigators have documented 17 cases in the last 12 months implicating Interior Ministry troops in killing civilians during looting. One of the most notorious of the units is known as Obron-22, the Chechens say. In the central Leninsky district of Grozny, skeletal shards of buildings teeter above the landscape of debris that evokes scenes from European cities destroyed in World War II. The rubble now lies sealed under a winter blanket of snow as thousands of Chechen families eke out an isolated existence in bomb-damaged homes.' Let me summarize. The conclusions are as follows: It is the sense of the Senate that the war on terrorism does not excuse and is ultimately undermined by abuses by Russian security forces against civilians in Chechnya. It also is the sense of the Senate that Russia and Chechen leadership should seek a negotiated settlement. It is the sense of the Senate that Russian President Putin should: 1, end human rights violations, investigate them, and prosecute them; 2, provide secure access to international monitors and humanitarian organizations; and 3, ensure the registration of refugees and not force them to return against their will. Finally, the sense of the Senate says President Bush should: 1, ensure no United States assistance goes to Russian units implicated in these abuses; 2, seek specific information on the status of investigations, or lack of investigations, of the human rights abuses; 3, promote peace negotiations; and 4, reexamine the status of Chechen refugees in regard to possible resettlement in the United States. The reason we introduce this resolution today is, again, this very powerful report that came out by Human Rights Watch. I want the Russian Government to know, and I want the people in Chechnya and in Russia to know, that here on the floor of the Senate we are paying attention to what is happening. I will send this resolution to the desk, and we will take steps to pass it, and I think there is strong support for this resolution in the Foreign Relations Committee. Most important is the message. The message is that we want to see an end to the terrorism, to the murder of innocent civilians. But, quite frankly, much of what the Russian Government is trying to excuse--all in the name of a war against terrorism--is, unfortunately, rape, torture, and murder of innocent people. That is not acceptable. That needs to be settled before the Senate and we need to pass this resolution.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I ask the Senator a question first? Other Senators are here. There are three or four of us on the floor, which would be a little over 30 minutes. I wonder if we can modify that request.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.