Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to thank the senior Senator from Massachusetts for raising very profound, important questions about this budget agreement. I came to the floor of the Senate yesterday, and I said that I really believed that there is a quiet crisis in our Nation when we don't make the kind of investments in providing opportunities for all the children in our country and that I find this budget to be woefully inadequate when it comes to such a question. Mr. President, an agreement is fine, but the question is: At what cost? We don't want to leave a whole class of citizens behind. Mr. President, as I look at this budget, I have two questions, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts raised these questions in a very eloquent and important way. The first question: If, in fact, we are going to have these tax cuts, which, as we look over the first 10 years and beyond, accelerate and you have cuts in the capital gains tax and estate tax disproportionately flowing to the top 1 or 2 percent, then cuts in programs that are important to vulnerable citizens--nutrition, education, housing, you name it--really are harsh. This represents no standard of fairness to have tax benefits disproportionately benefiting the wealthy and at the same time eliminating opportunities for some of our most vulnerable citizens, especially children. Second, Mr. President, I said yesterday that I really worry about the symbolic politics--and I speak only for myself here. I said it yesterday, and I say it one more time, I speak more to my own colleagues in the Democratic Party. It is going to become very difficult for us to be talking about the early years, childhood development, the importance of investing in children, and the fact that for one out of every four children under the age of 3 and 4 in America, and for one out of every two children of color in America, it is going to be impossible to talk about our schools and the physical infrastructure when we have a budget that does not invest in these children. We don't have one cent invested now in the physical infrastructure in our schools. Rotting schools don't send children a very positive message about themselves. We know--the medical evidence is compelling--that we have to do so much more on the nutrition front, on the health care front, on the child care front, on the intellectual development front if all of our children in our Nation are going to be prepared for school, much less prepared for life. And there is precious little by way of investment in children and in educational opportunities for these children in America. So, Mr. President, I rise to just simply say to my colleagues that it is going to become very difficult for Democrats or, for that matter, all of us in the House and in the Senate to say that we are for children, that we are for opportunities, that we believe in our national values and the quality of opportunity when we do not make the investment. Mr. President, this is a budget without a soul. This is a budget without a soul. This is a budget that leaves too many Americans behind. This is a budget that will further intensify the profound problem of two Americas. We should have one America. We should have one America where all of our citizens--and let's start with our children and grandchildren--each and every one of them have the opportunity to reach their full potential. This budget doesn't make an investment in these children. This budget doesn't provide these children with these opportunities, and for the sake of tax cuts that in the main go to wealthy people, I don't see the standard of fairness. And I don't see the soul of this budget. I think we are making a terrible mistake. So, Mr. President, as much as I respect colleagues--I see my good friend, Senator Domenici, on the floor--my work will be to try to raise the bar, have amendments, and improve this piece of legislation so that, as a matter of fact, we have a budget that represents an investment in the future. When I talk about an investment in the future, I talk about an investment in children. That includes poor children in America. I do not want to leave them behind. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the budget agreement. Let me start out with a little bit of context. I will just read a figure from the fine work of the Center on Budget Priorities. In the last Congress, the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in entitlement programs came from programs for low- income people. Mr. President, in the last Congress, we cut about $50 billion in assistance for legal immigrants and also in the major food and nutrition program in this country, the Food Stamp Program. Please remember, Mr. President, that the vast majority of the beneficiaries of the Food Stamp Program are children in working-poor families, on the average, with an income of below $6,500 a year. Those benefits were cut by 20 percent over the next 5 years--a 20-percent cut. Mr. President, I give that by way of background because now we have a budget agreement, and I suppose it can be argued that an agreement is good because you have people coming together. But the question is: At what cost? Mr. President, I don't see much of a standard of fairness in this agreement. I suppose, in many ways, my challenge is more to Democrats than to Republicans when I speak here on the floor. I think that when we go through this budget and we look at the cuts in discretionary programs, we will find, again, that, inevitably, the disproportional number of these cuts will be in programs that are most important to the most vulnerable citizens in this country. Many of them are poor children in America. I do know, Mr. President, that the discretionary part of this budget in relation to GDP is the lowest percentage it has been in 40 years. Mr. President, if I juxtapose what will be further reductions in assistance for some of the most vulnerable citizens in our country on top of what we did in the last Congress, with $85 billion over the first 5 years and another $165 billion over the next 5 years, $250 billion in tax cuts, and then looking from about 2008 to 2017, about an additional $400 billion as you look at the impact of cuts in capital gains tax and estate tax, many of those benefits will flow to the top 1, 2, 3 percent of the population. I want to just ask my colleagues, and I would like to ask the President: Where is the standard of fairness? Where is the standard of fairness? Where is our soul as a party that has a reputation for being willing to fight for ordinary people, being willing to fight for working people and working families, being willing to fight for opportunities for children. Mr. President, I think we have to be very careful about what I would call, for use of a better description, symbolic politics. What do I mean by that? I mean, Mr. President, that if you look at this budget and you think back to just a few weeks ago, with the conference at the White House on the development of the brain and the importance of early childhood development and what we must do to make sure that every woman expecting a child has an adequate diet, make sure there is nutrition for children, to make sure that there is health care for children, and to make sure that there is intellectual development and good child care, remembering that one out of every four children in our country are growing up poor in America and one out of every two children of color are growing up poor in America. Mr. President, I don't see in this budget anything that advances the cause of these children. I see only a retreat. Where is the investment? Where is the investment in our children? Mr. President, we have been focusing on the budget deficit. How about the investment deficit? How about the spiritual deficit? I thought that now that the medical evidence is irrefutable and irreducible and so compelling that if we don't get it right for all of God's children in our country in their early years, they may never come to school ready to learn, and they certainly will not be ready for life. I thought we were going to make investments to make sure they had opportunities. This budget still doesn't fully fund the Head Start Program. I could explain that when there was a Republican President, President Reagan or President Bush. I have a hard time explaining that with a Democrat President. On the supplemental, in the Senate and House, we are still in a battle to make sure that we get the WIC funding that we need. We are still not there. Mr. President, I read a foundation report. David Packard, who used to be Undersecretary of Defense with President Reagan, points out that whether it is child care at home, or whether it is center-based child care, or whether you need to do to have more child care at a place of business, however you look at it--and we are not talking about just poor children or low-income families, we are talking about the vast majority of families in our country who are concerned about how to make a decent living and also how to give their children the care they know their children deserve. I think of our own children. Sheila and I have children in their twenties and early thirties. They have children, and I think of their incomes and the cost of child care and how important this is for families. Where is the investment? Where is the investment? Mr. President, I just suggest that there is something wrong. There is something terribly wrong. There is a quiet crisis in a Nation--our Nation--when we don't do better for our children. We have conferences and say we are for children and we love to have our photos taken next to children, and we don't make the investment. We now know the neuroscience evidence is compelling that children must have good nutrition and health care, and there certainly must be affordable, good child care, however delivered, at the local community level, and we know it is going to require some funding and investment. That is not in this budget agreement. Have we now locked ourselves in, over the next 5, 6 years, to saying we will not make this investment? Mr. President, I say to my own colleagues--Democrats--in the past month or so, we have beamed back to our homes pictures of dilapidated school buildings. We were going to focus on doing something about too many rotting schools in our Nation. We, as Democrats, were going to take a stand on this, and we should. Mr. President, it is not exactly the right message for children when they go into schools, whether it be in Anacostia, 2 miles from here, or in any of our States in some of our inner city neighborhoods and the buildings are dilapidated, the toilets don't work, the heating doesn't work. We are saying to these children: We don't care about you. We don't give a damn about you. Mr. President, that is a Federal responsibility. That is infrastructure. And Democrats, we beam these pictures back of these buildings and we are the party of commitment. Well, Mr. President, in this budget agreement, the $5 billion plan for school renovation was knocked out. Now, actually, it would cost much more than that. It was knocked out. It was abandoned. So, to my colleagues, let's not say that we are concerned about rotting school buildings for too many children in America and then sign on to a budget agreement that doesn't invest one cent --one cent--in making sure that these are safe buildings for our children. Let's not do that. That is just symbolic politics. That is symbolic politics at its worst. Mr. President, we don't even take a baby step toward investment in children and opportunities for children. We don't even make a dent at all. At the same time, we are going to have $250 billion of tax cuts, a large percentage of which benefits those at the very top of the income ladder, at the same time we have done precious little by way of reductions in Pentagon budget, and at the same time this other whole area that apparently we really don't want to go after in any significant degree, called corporate welfare, the loopholes and deductions for a variety of interests in the country, remains almost untouched. What kind of standard of fairness is that? Mr. President, we have a quiet crisis in a nation that believes we can go forward as a national community with two Americas. We can't do that. There is another America. Unfortunately, that other America includes many children who will never have a chance to reach their full potential if we as a Senate and a House of Representatives do not make some investment in their future. This budget is a budget without a soul when it comes to the concerns and circumstances of these children. So, Mr. President, when it comes to investment in children and education, I do not believe I am articulating a position that is one that people in the country don't support. I believe people believe that this is the goodness of our country. This is the American dream to make sure that every child has these opportunities. We have set the bar in this budget agreement right here. I want the bar to be set up here. If my colleague, Paul Simon, from Illinois was here today he would say that we can do better. Mr. President, we can do better. So I am going to come to the floor of the Senate with some amendments. These amendments are going to call for us to do better. These amendments are going to essentially say to the people in the country, ``Don't judge us by the words we speak. Judge us by the budgets that we write.'' These amendments are going to say to colleagues, ``Please don't separate the legislative lives you live from the words you speak.'' And, if you say you are for the children, and you say early childhood development is so important, and you say you are for a quality of opportunity for every child, regardless of color of skin, regardless of rich, or poor, regardless of urban, or rural, then clearly we are going to have to do better. If you say that we should not have these rotting schools in our country--and what all of the local school districts say to us in their plea to us is important and please invest some money in infrastructure, then you have to invest. That has to be in the budget. And, if you say that you understand that these early years are so important, you know it as a father or as a mother, you know it as a grandfather, or a grandmother-- we have always known intuitively how important these early years are-- and they are important for all children. And children don't do well in school, if they don't have an adequate diet. And children don't do well in school, if they are in pain or discomfort because they haven't been able to receive medical care. And children don't do well in school, if they have not had really good child care that nurtures their development, whether they are at home, or one or both parents are working. And, if you say all of that--and almost all of you do--it is time to invest. Time is not neutral for these children. We keep talking about the children. So, Mr. President, I am going to introduce a number of amendments to take the bar up here. I might lose, or I might win. But I am going to really fight hard. I would just say to the President ``Mr. President,''--I am talking now to the President at the White House, President Clinton--``we can do better.'' I don't see the standard of fairness. I don't see an agreement with major tax cuts, and so much revenue lost over the next 10 years and 20 years to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars benefiting many people who do not even need the assistance, and at the same time a budget agreement that represents a retreat and abandon of too many children in America. We have had enough conferences. Enough books have been written. Enough pleas have been made. There has been enough blitz. It is time now that we match our words with the deeds. And the deed is to make this investment. Mr. President, this will be my major priority over the next month to come in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be brief. Minnesota is one of these States, too, and every day we come here and speak briefly because we just keep trying to pitch away. Could I ask one question? I think the Senator recognizes I would rather give a statement. I will not. But is it not true that when you talk to people in North Dakota--I certainly find this to be the case in Minnesota--they just do not understand at all how it can be that we just do not get this to them and how there can be this discussion of amendments having to do with budget cuts in education and budgets cuts in any number of other areas? I say to the Senator, if I could get his attention for a moment, the most difficult thing for me is to try to explain to people how it could be we are at this impasse and that we cannot get the help to people as quickly as possible. In terms of how they live their own lives, people do not understand this kind of discussion about strategy and tactics and they feel as if we are just playing with their lives. Does the Senator have trouble explaining to people why it is we cannot get this done for them?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a minute? Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will actually be relatively brief for now. We are going to have time for plenty of discussion and debate. In its present form--and I appreciate the words of my colleague from Missouri--this piece of legislation might better be called the Paycheck Reduction Act. I will just go over some bullet points and marshal evidence behind each. Pay cut eliminates the guarantee of pay for overtime work for 65 million American workers. Mr. President, we passed the Fair Labor Standards Act over half a century ago. It was an important piece of legislation. It represented real progress for working families. The idea was that if you worked over a 40-hour week, you would get paid time and a half. That is an important principle. This piece of legislation essentially turns the clock back over a half a century. In a way it is a nonstarter for that reason alone. Interestingly enough, we had an amendment when we were marking up the bill in committee which essentially said, at least don't give the employer all the power so that an employer is in a position to say to someone, Look, we will not give you time and a half compensation for overtime work. We will give you flextime. So the employer is in a situation to say to a worker, OK, you worked an hour over; we'll give you a flextime hour--that is hour to hour--but we won't offer flexible compensation at time and a half. That was voted down. Benefits cut. Health and retirement benefits based on hours worked would be slashed. Abolishes the 40-hour week. Employee could work up to 80 hours in a week without receiving overtime pay. That is just unbelievable. Everybody should understand this. This is a sacred principle. The reason we passed the Fair Labor Standards Act is that many employees, some the very employees Senator Ashcroft was discussing, do not have a lot of clout vis-a-vis their employers. The idea was to have some basic protection, so that if you were working hard to support a family and you worked overtime, you would get paid overtime. That assurance is abolished. Under this legislation, an employee could be working 50 or 60 hours a week or more and not get paid any overtime for that. To move away from the 40-hour week turns the clock back about a half a century. Finally, No employee choice. Employer chooses who and when. Employer determines who works overtime and when an employee can use comp time. This is, in many ways, one of the most troubling features of this legislation. Please remember, and we had testimony in our subcommittee on this, there are companies that really work well with employees. They have good partnerships, and there are situations where an employee works 4 days a week, 10 hours a day and takes off Friday. That can be done now. You do not need to overturn the Fair Labor Standards Act. You do not need to overturn the 40-hour week. That can be done now. Or what people can do is work 9 hours a day as opposed to 8 hours and then work half a day on a Friday or on a Monday. That can be done now within the existing framework of labor law. Or people can go in at 7 and come home at 3 or come in at 10 and go home at 6. There are all sorts of flexible arrangements. Right now, employers can give their employees this flexibility if they so desire. The problem is, a lot of employers do not do that. But it has nothing to do with the basic principle of the 40-hour week, and the principle that if an employee works overtime, he or she should get time and a half pay. This legislation undercuts that. Mr. President, that hardly represents a step forward for working people in this country. That is why, in its present form, this is the Paycheck Reduction Act. And that is why we are adamantly opposed to it. That is why most people in the country will be opposed to it when they learn all the provisions in the legislation. This is my last point for today. Mr. President, what is interesting about this is it is all done in the name of choice. But you know, we had some interesting amendments in committee that speak to this question. I offered an amendment which said we have a Family Medical Leave Act right now which says that there are up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in the case of sickness of a child or an adult, so why don't we say this: If an employee has banked 10 hours of earned comp time, and she calls her employer and says, ``Look, I need that time off because my child is sick,'' she gets it automatically. The employer does not get to shut her down and say no. If you want to give the employee choice, do not give all the power to the employers. But, Mr. President, that amendment was voted down. We had another amendment which took some parts of the labor force-- for example, garment workers--and said, we have a lot of people right now who, whatever the law of the land says, are not even getting paid minimum wage or earned overtime. We have a lot of examples of forced and unpaid overtime, and we have a whole backload of unfair labor practices. So couldn't we at least exempt some sectors of the work force where we know people are vulnerable and somewhat powerless and, as a matter of fact, have been exploited by some employers? Thank goodness most employers are not that way. But that amendment went down as well. Mr. President, one other example. We had discussion where we said, wait a minute, we have this backload, we have all sorts of potential for abuse. Can't we at least have a commitment of resources so we have some enforcement? You are going to need more people within the Department of Labor to enforce this to make sure that people are not forced to work overtime without overtime pay because no matter what you say in theory--about this being voluntary--the vast majority of people who work can tell you right now they do not always have a lot of choices. A whole lot of people put up with really awful working conditions. They put up with unsafe working conditions. They put up with situations that none of us would want to be in. But they do it to put food on the table. So couldn't we at least provide people with some protection? That is not here either. Mr. President, with all due respect, this bill is hardly giving people more flexibility. That is the way it sounds at first blush. But what really is at issue here is you essentially overturn portions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, you overturn the 40-hour week, you put people in the situation where the employer--and in most situations the employer has the power--is going to say to people, ``Hey, we're pleased to give you flextime,'' or, ``We're pleased to give you an hour off, but it's hour for hour, even if you worked overtime. Even if you've banked hours, we're not going to give you time and a half compensation when you want and need it.'' Let me tell you, the reason people work is because they need that pay to put food on the table. The reason you have so many families where both people work, both husband and wife, is because they need the income. I do not think people are interested in seeing their paycheck cut. I do not think people are interested in being put in a situation where they no longer receive time-and-a-half overtime compensation. I do not think people are going to be pleased with a piece of legislation that abolishes the 40-hour week. And I do not think people are going to be pleased with a piece of legislation which sounds great in theory about employee choice, but does not have any of the provisions in it which would really guarantee that that would be a reality. So, Mr. President, I have a budget meeting, and I apologize, because I like to debate with my colleague from Missouri. I promise him I will be on the floor whenever we get back to this, to hear what he says and go back and forth--and with my good friend from Ohio. These two are my good friends. We do not always agree, but they are two Senators I really do like and respect. I feel badly about speaking and leaving, but only because we have this budget meeting right now. In any case, Mr. President, what I said was so compelling, what I said is irrefutable and irreducible, and I do not think they could possibly respond to it anyway. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anne Wilson, who is interning with us, be granted the privilege of the floor during this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator DeWine, for his courtesy. Privilege of the Floor

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with over 1,400 of my constituents from Minnesota who have signed a petition calling for the payment of all of the United States' legal obligations to the United Nations by the immediate payment of all dues in arrears. I agree with my constituents that it is embarrassing that the United States, the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, expects the United Nations to provide peacekeeping and humanitarian aid in response to the world's conflicts but does not honor its financial responsibility to the United Nations. With several billion dollars of uncollected dues, the United Nations is now in dire straits. Consequently, it must borrow from scarce funds allocated for peacekeeping operations simply to pay staff salaries and to meet its other financial obligations. Of the unpaid dues approximately half are owed by the United States. Rather than providing other U.N. members with an example of international responsibility, our Nation is doing just the opposite. This makes the United Nations increasingly incapable of carrying out numerous tasks that are clearly in our Nation's interest but that we ourselves are either unable or unwilling to perform. I ask that the cover letter sent to me by the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers and the World Federalists Association with the petitions on this important issue be printed in the Record. The cover letter follows: World Federalist Association, Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, MN, April 19, 1997. Hon. Paul Wellstone, U.S. Senate Washington, DC. Dear Senator Wellstone: We, the undersigned representatives of the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers and of the Minnesota Chapter of the World Federalist Association, are honored by your willingness to meet with us in respect to some matters that bear closely on your duties as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That assignment is, in our view, among the most important that any member of the Senate could receive, given the complex and increasing political, economic, and ecological interdependencies within our ever- shrinking planet. While the world looks to the United States for leadership in this period of transition to a new post-Cold War era, we believe that, it would like to see such leadership exercised within the context of the United Nations System. However, as you are well aware, the viability of that system has been seriously jeopardized because of the non-payment or late payment of dues by many member nations. The principal debtor, by far, is the United States. This country's failure to meet its legal obligations as a UN member sets a deplorable example for others and is not a proper way to exercise leadership. Rather, it tarnishes the good name of the United States in the international community and diminishes our effectiveness in world affairs. For this reason, among others, we submit to you copies of petitions signed by 1417 Minnesotans calling on the United States to pay its current and back dues to the UN promptly and in full. The collection of these signatures is the result of a local drive by the Minnesota Chapter and a recent national drive by the national organization of the World Federalists Association, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. This initiative is consistent with one of the accompanying policy positions adopted by the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers on November 12, 1996. A copy of those proposals has already been forwarded to your office. The Alliance, be it noted, is a coalition of twenty-seven peace and justice organizations whose combined membership approaches 10,000 concerned and politically active citizens. We hope and trust that you will weigh our views carefully in the respective proceedings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and wish you much success and courage in the all important arena of foreign policy. Respectfully yours, The Rev. Lyle Christianson, President, Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers; Elsie Evans, Board Member, National World Federalists Assoc.; Evangelos Kalambokidis, Board Member, World Federalists Assoc. National & MN Chapter; Mary White, Vice President, Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers; and Joseph E. Schwartzberg, President, World Federalists Assoc./MN Chapter.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be introducing the Family Violence Option II, a bill to clarify the Wellstone/Murray Family violence option Act contained in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Last summer, Senator Murray and I introduced the family violence amendment to the welfare bill to give States the flexibility to identify victims and survivors of domestic abuse and, if necessary, to provide more time to remove the domestic violence barrier so that victims would be able to move into the work force. Our provision was changed to a State option, but that did not change the intent of the legislation. States helping battered women should not be penalized for not having the requisite number of women at work in a given month if domestic violence is the reason. Most importantly, battered women should not be competing with the myriad people with disabilities that prevent them from working. Abuse victims and survivors may simply need a little more time. That is why the family violence option allows States to grant temporary waivers, not exemptions. Many States have adopted the family violence option, others, some version of it, but most have had great difficulty figuring out what taking the option would mean. Senator Murray and I want to make sure States that take domestic abuse into account when setting work goals will not pay a price. Therefore, this bill makes it clear that victims of domestic abuse will not be counted in the 20 percent hardship exemption and States who grant temporary waivers of work requirements to abuse survivors will not be penalized if they fail to meet their work requirements. Evidence continues to emerge about the high number of incidents of domestic abuse or a history of abuse among welfare recipients. Most recently, a joint study from the Taylor Institute in Chicago and the University of Michigan confirmed that large numbers of women on AFDC are survivors or current victims. Four recent studies--conducted by Passaic County, NJ, Univ. of Massachusetts, Northwestern University, and the Better Homes Fund in Worcester, MA--document that at least 14 percent--Passaic County, NJ--and as high as 32 percent--Worcester, MA-- of women on AFDC were currently being abused. The numbers were more than twice those percentages for a history of abuse. Given the extent of this problem, it is imperative that States be able to work at a more individualized pace, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I would like to share a story about a woman from Minnesota who has used the safety net of public assistance to free herself and her children from violence, obtain job skills and training, and become self-supporting. Edith is a woman who has defied the odds. She had her first child at the age of 16. By the time she was in her early twenties, she had become an intravenous drug user, had three more children, and was in an extremely violent relationship. Edith's abuser beat her routinely and savagely, sending her to the emergency room again and again. As Edith says, ``Finally, I realized that to save my life and my mental stability, I had to get away.'' She waited until her abuser had passed out and carefully pried the car keys from his hand and fled Gary, IN, with her young sons. Edith fled to Minnesota because she had family there. Within months her abuser found her, forcing her to flee to a battered women's shelter. Edith quickly realized that if she was ever going to be able to support her children, she would need to get the educational and job training that she desperately needed. It was at that point that Edith contacted Cornerstone's Transitional Housing Program. Cornerstone is a successful women's advocacy program in Bloomington, MN. Edith and her children came into the program in 1992. Utilizing educational and vocational resources, Edith entered a vocational program for electricians. While in Cornerstone's Transitional Housing Program, Edith was able to address the many issues that had resulted from her battering, including parenting, bad credit, and chemical dependency, just to name a few. With support of the program staff, Edith completed the apprenticeship and graduated from the Cornerstone program. I am proud to tell you that Edith will become a licensed electrician this summer. She has just purchased her first home and has set a new goal to become a contractor. Edith would tell you that had she not been given the time and the opportunity to participate in a transitional housing program specifically for battered women, she could not have accomplished all of her goals. We need to insure that women like Edith have the support system in place to escape abusive situations, make the transition to work, and then stay working. When women can support themselves and their children they can stay away from abusive partners and keep themselves and their families safe. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be introducing the Family Violence Option II, a bill to clarify the Wellstone/Murray Family violence option Act contained in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Last summer, Senator Murray and I introduced the family violence amendment to the welfare bill to give States the flexibility to identify victims and survivors of domestic abuse and, if necessary, to provide more time to remove the domestic violence barrier so that victims would be able to move into the work force. Our provision was changed to a State option, but that did not change the intent of the legislation. States helping battered women should not be penalized for not having the requisite number of women at work in a given month if domestic violence is the reason. Most importantly, battered women should not be competing with the myriad people with disabilities that prevent them from working. Abuse victims and survivors may simply need a little more time. That is why the family violence option allows States to grant temporary waivers, not exemptions. Many States have adopted the family violence option, others, some version of it, but most have had great difficulty figuring out what taking the option would mean. Senator Murray and I want to make sure States that take domestic abuse into account when setting work goals will not pay a price. Therefore, this bill makes it clear that victims of domestic abuse will not be counted in the 20 percent hardship exemption and States who grant temporary waivers of work requirements to abuse survivors will not be penalized if they fail to meet their work requirements. Evidence continues to emerge about the high number of incidents of domestic abuse or a history of abuse among welfare recipients. Most recently, a joint study from the Taylor Institute in Chicago and the University of Michigan confirmed that large numbers of women on AFDC are survivors or current victims. Four recent studies--conducted by Passaic County, NJ, Univ. of Massachusetts, Northwestern University, and the Better Homes Fund in Worcester, MA--document that at least 14 percent--Passaic County, NJ--and as high as 32 percent--Worcester, MA-- of women on AFDC were currently being abused. The numbers were more than twice those percentages for a history of abuse. Given the extent of this problem, it is imperative that States be able to work at a more individualized pace, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I would like to share a story about a woman from Minnesota who has used the safety net of public assistance to free herself and her children from violence, obtain job skills and training, and become self-supporting. Edith is a woman who has defied the odds. She had her first child at the age of 16. By the time she was in her early twenties, she had become an intravenous drug user, had three more children, and was in an extremely violent relationship. Edith's abuser beat her routinely and savagely, sending her to the emergency room again and again. As Edith says, ``Finally, I realized that to save my life and my mental stability, I had to get away.'' She waited until her abuser had passed out and carefully pried the car keys from his hand and fled Gary, IN, with her young sons. Edith fled to Minnesota because she had family there. Within months her abuser found her, forcing her to flee to a battered women's shelter. Edith quickly realized that if she was ever going to be able to support her children, she would need to get the educational and job training that she desperately needed. It was at that point that Edith contacted Cornerstone's Transitional Housing Program. Cornerstone is a successful women's advocacy program in Bloomington, MN. Edith and her children came into the program in 1992. Utilizing educational and vocational resources, Edith entered a vocational program for electricians. While in Cornerstone's Transitional Housing Program, Edith was able to address the many issues that had resulted from her battering, including parenting, bad credit, and chemical dependency, just to name a few. With support of the program staff, Edith completed the apprenticeship and graduated from the Cornerstone program. I am proud to tell you that Edith will become a licensed electrician this summer. She has just purchased her first home and has set a new goal to become a contractor. Edith would tell you that had she not been given the time and the opportunity to participate in a transitional housing program specifically for battered women, she could not have accomplished all of her goals. We need to insure that women like Edith have the support system in place to escape abusive situations, make the transition to work, and then stay working. When women can support themselves and their children they can stay away from abusive partners and keep themselves and their families safe. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, whatever interpretation Senators want to make about project labor agreements--I am not here to debate that now--I think that really what we ought to focus on is the vote we are about to take. And whatever interpretation Senators want to make about how we reached agreement, I am not here to debate that. I thank Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their fine leadership. I do know this. Senator Specter I think was quite correct in his remarks. I think there has been concern around the country about the treatment of Alexis Herman, making sure there was fair treatment. Clearly we are going to have a vote, and I think it is going to be an overwhelmingly positive vote. Above and beyond Ms. Herman, I think the issue is this position. It has been 6 long months. The Secretary of Labor position is so important to the lives of so many families all across the Nation--Minnesota, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Vermont, and beyond. Bob Reich was a great Secretary of Labor--a great Secretary of Labor--and I think the reason he became beloved to so many people in the country was that he was such a forceable and outspoken advocate and he was talking about living standards for people, about educational opportunities, about job training, about jobs at decent wages, and about parents being able to support their children. The Secretary of Labor is the most important position we have in the Cabinet when it comes to these critical issues, these bread and butter economic issues, whether or not we fulfill our national vow of equality of opportunity, which is all about decent jobs and decent educational opportunities. I hope that there will be an overwhelming--and I think there will be--vote in support of Alexis Herman. I think, as Senator Kennedy said, her own journey is inspiring. I think in many ways for an eloquent African-American woman to be Secretary of Labor, with all of the skill she brings to this position and with all the leadership that she can provide on behalf of working families, it is an inspiring story. I think this is an enormous victory not just for one person and not just for people in the African-American community, but really for the country. So I hope we will have a very strong vote for her. I thank the chair of our committee, Senator Jeffords, and I thank Senator Kennedy and thank in advance all the Senators who I think will vote for her. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I say that I am interested. I don't agree with him, but I understand exactly why he wants to move forward.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield for a question, I want to ask this question of the Senator because I have to leave soon. I didn't want to walk out because he makes a very important point. Would the Senator agree with me that it would be best if we could come together as two parties and work out these disagreements when it comes to what is going to be on the disaster relief bill or when it comes to Alexis Herman or judicial appointments, that we can work out an agreement and stop basically leveraging different pieces of legislation? I don't agree with the Senator on some substantive grounds. But I am sorry the Senator is caught up in this. I mean that sincerely. Would he agree with me that we really have to come together and work these things out? Because I understand the Senator's conviction about this particular piece of legislation, but I also hope that the Senator will understand my conviction about the mistakes of now adding a continuing resolution and trying to put into effect all sorts of budget cuts onto a bill that should be a disaster relief bill. Does the Senator agree that we need to get away from all of this?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from South Dakota that that is precisely the case. I was simply trying to make the argument that I believe these cuts are not acceptable to people in the country, and this is not an intellectually honest or policy-honest way of doing it. We can have the debate on all these appropriations bills and we can have up-or-down votes and be accountable. I think this is a very cowardly way--and that is a pretty strong word to use--or a back-door approach to try to make cuts in some of these programs that are so important to the lives of the people we represent, and it is just adding junk onto what should be a straight disaster relief bill. Let's not play around with the lives of the people in the 22 affected States. I invite any of my colleagues, I say to my colleague from South Dakota, before you do something like this--and, again, I know Chairman Stevens has tried to be in there pitching for the people in our States--before you play this kind of game, come on out and look into the faces and eyes of some of the people. They are like refugees. The people in our States are like refugees. They are homeless and are trying to get back home and are trying to repair their homes. They are trying to move back into their homes with their children. Why play this kind of game with their lives? Let's bring this disaster relief bill before the Senate, and let's get the assistance out there to people who need it. If my colleagues then want to propose reductions in Pell grants and nutrition programs for senior citizens and reductions in the Women, Infants, and Children Program, and in all of the veterans benefits, go ahead and do it. We will debate it all. But this is an effort to essentially close off debate, not be accountable. I say to my colleague from South Dakota, the political part of it that I think is worst of all is those who are playing this game--and I hope it is very few, so they will back off--know the President will veto it. He would have no other choice. But then people are still waiting back in our States. So we urge our colleagues to please not go forward with this proposal. I cannot say anything more important right now. I say to my colleagues from Georgia and Wyoming, it is not the debate you and I will really soon finish up. But I know if you were out here and it was your States, you would be saying the same thing. Please, just get a disaster relief bill through, and then whatever you want to add or debate by way of priorities on the budget, or wherever you want to cut, or whatever, we can debate that. But don't do it on a disaster relief bill. Please don't add this continuing resolution onto a disaster relief bill. Please don't junk it up. Leave it the way it is. Let's try to get the best possible assistance program through the Senate and the House. Let's try to get relief to these people. These people are really down. But in our States we have seen the worst of times bring out the best in people. It is just amazing. We were talking about volunteer efforts. It is amazing the number of people who were sandbagging and who have taken strangers into their homes, and the number of people who have done food drives, and the number of people who are helping in every possible way. But it is really hard; it is really hard when you have been flooded out of your home, when you have had to leave your community. We need to give these people some hope now. The best way to give them hope is to try to get some of this assistance to the people. The reason I speak with some indignation is that I thought we were going to be able to move forward. I hoped we would be able to move forward Thursday in the Appropriations Committee. There are two different issues. No. 1, we have to make sure we have categories of assistance that provide the help to individual people. We have to have the flexibility and we have to give enough money to help people get on their own two feet to rebuild their lives. No. 2, we have the threat of adding a continuing resolution, which is a huge mistake. It is playing games with disaster relief. It is playing games with the agony of people. It is playing games with the pain of people. It is playing games with families in our States. It is profoundly mistaken, it is profoundly wrong, and I hope whoever is thinking about doing this will please not do it. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for letting me speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, in response to my colleague from South Dakota, first of all, he is quite correct about what this continuing resolution would mean in personal terms for people in our States. Actually, if you look at a 98-percent cut--we can see where other cuts have taken place. As a matter of fact--and my colleague outlined some of the figures--let's translate it into personal terms one more time. I do not believe that people in South Dakota or Minnesota or others across the country are interested in reductions in financial aid and Pell grants so that higher education can be more affordable. I do not believe that. We have been reading about and talking about the very early years being so important in the development of the brain, that we have to make sure children at a very young age have adequate nutrition. Do you know what? We can't play symbolic politics with children's lives. If we are going to be espousing that, we better make the investment. I don't think people want to see cuts in nutrition programs for children.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague--and I am pleased to take questions from both of my colleagues--he is quite right. It is a nightmare. It is something that nobody ever could have predicted, and everybody had to be evacuated from East Grand Forks. In other towns, like Breckenridge or Ada, not everybody in the town had to leave, but in Ada, the school is destroyed and has to be rebuilt. People had to be evacuated from a nursing home. There was a tremendous amount of damage. The community center was essentially destroyed. In Breckenridge, I met small business people who said, ``We need start-up grant assistance.'' Again, I say to my colleagues, I understand the importance of this piece of legislation that is on the floor. But at this point in time, I think the first priority ought to be to get this disaster relief to people. I believe we operate by the rule, Mr. President--I always have as a Senator--that it is ``there but for the grace of God go I.'' I have always voted for disaster assistance for other States because I know something like this could happen to people in Minnesota. We count on people being there with us. I don't want this to be something that is symbolic. We need to get assistance to people--not 100 percent replacement, but at least something to help them get back on their own two feet.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I actually think that I was able to do this in a minute. Again, I think that it really behooves the Senate to move forward on this nomination. I do not think the Senate looks good as an institution. I think people really do not like this kind of inside politics where a particular party--in this case it is the majority party--does not agree with a particular policy or particular action taken by the President or the executive branch and then chooses to hold someone else, in this particular case Alexis Herman, hostage. It is not the way we should be conducting our business. It is not fair to her, an eminently well qualified candidate to serve our country and, quite frankly, it is not fair to families all across Minnesota and all across the Nation that are focused on good jobs, education, and safe workplaces. These are workaday issues. This is the Secretary of Labor--6 months without a Secretary of Labor. Again, do not hold her hostage. Free her and let us move forward. If my colleagues want to vote against her, vote against her, but she deserves a vote in this Chamber. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his graciousness.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is blatant politics at its worst. Alexis Herman was voted unanimously out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. She is eminently well qualified. This is an extremely important position to working people, to working families. We have a lot of important legislation before us--the TEAM Act, comptime, flextime. We are supposed to be focusing on living wage jobs and educational opportunities for our citizens. The Secretary of Labor is a critical position. She should not be held hostage. If the majority party does not like an action taken by the administration, then oppose that action, but do not hold Alexis Herman hostage. Free her. Let her become Secretary of Labor and let her serve working families all across this country. Mr. President, I am pleased to go on but I think I used up my minute.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I actually think that I was able to do this in a minute. Again, I think that it really behooves the Senate to move forward on this nomination. I do not think the Senate looks good as an institution. I think people really do not like this kind of inside politics where a particular party--in this case it is the majority party--does not agree with a particular policy or particular action taken by the President or the executive branch and then chooses to hold someone else, in this particular case Alexis Herman, hostage. It is not the way we should be conducting our business. It is not fair to her, an eminently well qualified candidate to serve our country and, quite frankly, it is not fair to families all across Minnesota and all across the Nation that are focused on good jobs, education, and safe workplaces. These are workaday majority issues. This is the Secretary of Labor--6 months without a Secretary of Labor. Again, do not hold her hostage. Free her and let us move forward. If my colleagues want to vote against her, vote against her, but she deserves a vote in this Chamber. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his graciousness.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is blatant politics at its worst. Alexis Herman was voted unanimously out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. She is eminently well qualified. This is an extremely important position to working people, to working families. We have a lot of important legislation before us--the TEAM Act, comptime, flextime. We are supposed to be focusing on living wage jobs and educational opportunities for our citizens. The Secretary of Labor is a critical position. She should not be held hostage. If the majority party does not like an action taken by the administration, then oppose that action. Do not hold Alexis Herman hostage. Free her. Let her become Secretary of Labor and let her serve working families all across this country. Mr. President, I am pleased to go on but I think I used up my minute.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield one of my minutes to the Senator from Connecticut and tell him that he owes me a big time forever.