Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Rebecca Constantino, who is a fellow in our office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on the amendment I am about to propose.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me first of all thank my colleague from Utah for his remarks. He has been a real leader on this. He is tenacious; he never, never gives up. I have tremendous respect for his work as a Senator, even though we are in profound disagreement on this question. But I would like to thank him for kind of matching what he does on the floor of the Senate with the kind of words he speaks.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of a fine young person from Minnesota, Amy Nicolle Johnson. Amy Johnson grew up at her family's home on Lake Sarah and attended the Rockford public schools from kindergarten through her senior year of high school. At age 17, Amy died in a car accident early one morning on her way to the school she loved. An excellent student, talented athlete, and student leader, Amy was extensively involved in diverse activities throughout the year. A typical school year began for Amy with a class schedule that included band and choir in addition to the traditional academic subjects. Her 6-year commitment to band was most demanding in the autumn with extra practices for the flag corps of the marching band and many evenings devoted to playing the trumpet with the pep band. She also played volley ball for 5 years, 3 of which were spent on the varsity team. Gymnastics marked the beginning of the winter season for her. Competing on all four events for all of her 5 years and a varsity team member for 4, Amy's involvement in this sport exemplified the pride, perseverance, and commitment that she applied to every facet of her life. She enjoyed singing with the choir and participated in choral duets and the stage--jazz--band for several years in district and State competitions. Her musical talent and enjoyment of the dramatic arts led Amy to participate in musicals and plays. The spring brought Amy outdoors, where she played second base with the varsity softball team for 4 years. Even though the school year would come to an end each spring, the softball season continued into the summer. From the tee ball leagues in second grade to the State softball fast pitch tournament in 1995, Amy spent many hours of her summer vacation on the field. The past two summers she began saving money for college working at Len Busch Roses and the Hennepin County Baker Park Reserve on Lake Independence. Throughout all of the season's activities, Amy was a leader inside and outside of the classroom. She was an honors student and a member of the National Honor Society, as well as the secretary of her senior, junior, and freshman class. She was the cocaptain of the gymnastic and softball teams and was recognized in all three sports as an all- conference athlete. In her senior year she was chosen Homecoming Queen. Most of Amy's friends and teachers will remember her shining smile that simply defined her presence. It is her family's hope that this remarkable young woman's spirit will be perpetuated through a scholarship that was established in her memory. Amy valued respect, compassion, honesty, integrity, and responsibility. She made a sincere effort to live up to those values daily and she made a positive difference in the lives of all those she encountered. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to pay tribute to the memory of this remarkable young woman, Amy Johnson, who touched the lives of so many during her brief life.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as we turn our thoughts to the new century--and I have a different context about this debate--we can celebrate a great deal. The past 100 years have seen massive improvements in the quality of our national life, American leadership in getting the world past murderous global conflict and successful transcendence of economic crisis. Our population is more diverse than ever, and at midcentury, we dismantled the legal framework encasing our original sin of State- sanctioned racism. We are, in many varied ways, a model for much of the world. But there is at least one way in which we are not a model, one area in which in recent times we have been moving in the wrong direction. That is in fulfilling our national vow of equal opportunity. We said in 1776 that every American should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In 1997, that national commitment is in need of refurbishing and renewal. Mr. President, I will explain in a moment why I start out with this context. More than 35 million Americans--1 out of every 7 of our fellow citizens--are officially poor. More than one out of every four children in our country today are poor. One out of every two children of color are poor in America today. And the poor are getting poorer. In 1994, of the poor children under the age of 6, nearly half lived in families with incomes below half the poverty line. That figure has doubled over the last 20 years, as has the number of people who work full time, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and still are poor. Mr. President, minorities are poorer than the rest of Americans. African Americans are close to 30 percent and Hispanics at a little over 30 percent. And 44.6 percent of children who lived in families that are female-headed families were poor in 1994. Almost half of all children who were poor live in female-headed households. Women are disproportionately among the ranks of the poor in America. There is a convergence between race and gender and poverty and children. Mr. President, when I introduce my amendments in this debate that will ensue over the next couple of weeks, I am going to talk in very concrete terms about what it means to be poor in America. Context, Time magazine, ``Special Report: How A Child's Brain Develops, And What It Means for Child Care and Welfare Reform.'' This is startling. This is medical evidence that is irreducible and irrefutable, and the evidence says that the first 3 years are critical. We have to make sure that, first of all, women that are expecting children have an adequate diet. Otherwise, their children at birth may not have the opportunity and the chance that is the very essence of the American dream. And if children do not have an adequate diet during these early years, and decent health care, and children do not get a smart start and have nurturing care and stimulation by age 3, it may very well be that they will never be able to fully participate in the economic and political and social and cultural life of our Nation. What does this have to do with this debate? Let me be clear about who is at risk. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--by the way, Bob Greenstein and the work of this organization is impeccable. All of us on both sides of the aisle have a tremendous amount of respect for their work. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in entitlement programs in the 104th Congress came from programs for low-income people. Congress reduced entitlement programs by $65.6 billion over the period from 1996 to 2002. Of that amount, $61 billion out of the $65 billion came out of low-income entitlement programs. Entitlement programs not targeted on low-income households were reduced only $4.6 billion--whether it was nutrition, whether it was health care, whether it was early childhood development. I will tell you what was interesting. Those citizens in this country who do not have the political power, who do not hire the lobbyists, who are not the heavy hitters--let me make a connection to campaign finance reform, who were not the big givers--they are the ones who disproportionately were asked to pay the price. We had deficit reduction--talking about how to balance the budget-- based on the path of least political resistance. It was not the oil companies. It was not the pharmaceutical companies. It was not the big insurance companies. But it was children, disproportionately low-income citizens and disproportionately poor children in America. Mr. President, therefore, the first amendment that I am going to offer, which I think is a litmus test for all of us--I hope I will get support from the other side of the aisle--will read as follows: ``This amendment would exempt outlays that would disproportionately affect nutrition, health care, and education programs.'' Mr. President, this is an amendment that basically says that we want to make sure we would exempt outlays that would disproportionately affect the nutrition, health care, and educational programs and status of children. Mr. President, it is a simple amendment. We have been hearing speeches in which all of us have talked about education and children. We love to have photo opportunities with children. This amendment just says, ``OK, if you're going to lock us in to a balanced budget, I think we need to get a commitment, based upon the record of the 104th Congress, that you are not going to make disproportionate cuts in programs that deal with the educational, health care, and nutritional status of children.'' Everyone should vote yes for that. Let us go on record. Let us be clear that we are not going to target for cuts, we are not going to target for pain poor children in America, that we will not make those disproportionate cuts in nutritional programs for those children, in health care programs for those children, in educational programs and early childhood programs for those children. I think this amendment speaks to a very real concern that people have in this country. Exactly what is the agenda here? Mr. President, the second amendment--let me repeat the first amendment one more time: ``Federal outlays shall not be reduced in a manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition, and health care programs for children.'' That should be an amendment that I should get support on from both sides of the aisle. ``Federal outlays shall not be reduced in a manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition, and health care programs for children.'' Mr. President, the second amendment that I am going to offer is that ``Funding for the Women, Infants, and Children Program shall be exempted from the definition of outlays for balanced budget calculations, thus protecting such spending from cuts under a balanced budget amendment.'' Mr. President, it is pretty simple. The Women, Infants, and Children Program provided assistance in 1996 for 7.3 million women, infants, and children. However, it was only 60 percent of the eligible population, and 11 million mothers and children were eligible. Only 7.2 million were covered, leaving 4 million women, infants, and children vulnerable and not benefiting from the Women, Infants, and Children Program. We all know what the evidence suggests. And so my amendment just simply says, we will exempt that from the definition of outlays for balanced budget calculations, thus protecting this program. Are we going to protect it or not? I want to hear people tell me why we would not go on record saying we would protect it. The third amendment that I am going to lay out on the floor: ``Funding for Head Start shall be exempted from the definition of outlays for balanced budget calculations, thus protecting such spending from cuts under the balanced budget amendment.'' Mr. President, in 1996, Head Start served 796,500 children. According to the Census Bureau, there were roughly 2 million American children living in poverty. That leaves 1,200,000 children who were still unserved. This program, which gives children just what the title says it does, a head start, reached only 17 percent of eligible 3-year-olds and only 41 percent of eligible 4-year-olds. The medical evidence is in. These are the ages where we need to support these children. These children, just because they come from poor households, deserve every bit of support we can give them. This amendment lays itself on the line. If you are going to support this amendment to balance the budget and lock us in, then I want a commitment from this Senate that we will not target these children and we will not have cuts in this vital program that gives children a head start, some of the most vulnerable poor children in America. Finally, Mr. President, another amendment--and these are just four I am going to preview. ``Funding for education shall be exempted from the definition of outlays for balanced budget calculations, thus protecting such spending from cuts under the balanced budget amendment.'' I heard the President last night talking about education. I heard the President last night talking about early childhood development. Senators were on their feet applauding. So I am just saying since I saw what we did last Congress, I saw where we made the cuts, I want to hear Senators argue with me that, if there is another position here--almost all those cuts affected low-income citizens. Almost all those cuts affected poor children in America, the very citizens who do not get to the bargaining table, the very citizens who do not march on Washington, DC, the very citizens who do not have lobbyists. So I say to my colleagues who support this, how about giving me some reassurance and, more importantly, how about giving people in our country reassurance that when we do this we will make sure, one more time, that Federal outlays shall not be reduced in a manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition and health care programs for children; that we go on record that we are not going to cut benefits that deal with the Women, Infants, and Children Program; that we are going to make sure that a woman expecting a child has an adequate diet; that we are not going to make cuts in Head Start, we are going to make sure these children are given a head start; and we are not going to make cuts in educational programs. It is real simple. It is up-or-down votes. I want to know exactly where my colleagues want to take our country with this constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I want to know what the priorities are. I want to know where the cuts are going to be. My understanding, and I will talk much more about this when I bring the amendments to the floor, is that the majority party, roughly speaking, has about $500 billion of tax cuts, most of it accelerated beyond the year 2002--my colleague is shaking his head. We can have a debate upon that, and I will be very reassured if that is not the case. Mr. President, if we have hundreds of billions of dollars, even if it is not $500 billion, in tax cuts and then the tradeoff is going to be cuts, but where? What is going to be the offset? They do not want to go after the corporate welfare. They do not want to go after the Pentagon budget. They want to have hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts, most of it benefiting high-income, wealthy people. Where will the cuts be? In the last Congress almost all cuts focused on low-income families, low-income children, educational programs. All those programs were in jeopardy last time. This time I think we need a reassurance and we need a strong vote in favor of each of these amendments so that we can have a reassurance for many, many citizens in our country. The goodness of America says do not cut Head Start. The goodness of America says do not cut the Women, Infants, and Children Program. The goodness of America says do not cut health care programs that will affect the status of children. The goodness of America says do not make disproportionate cuts in any of those programs. They have worked. They are important. They are vital. I hope I will get 100 votes for each of these amendments. If not, then my colleagues will be making their point. My colleagues will be saying we refuse to vote for an amendment that puts us on record that we will not reduce Federal outlays in a manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition, and health programs for children. I cannot imagine why any Senator would vote against such an amendment. We should go on record and let the goodness of the Senate speak out on these amendments. I look forward to coming to the floor with each of these amendments. I will have much supporting evidence. I want to talk about what happened in the last Congress. I want to go over exactly where we made the cuts, and I want to see if I can get my colleagues to make a commitment that we will not continue down this path. I really do believe that the vast majority of people in America think it would be wrong to make more cuts in programs like WIC and Head Start, more cuts in programs that affect the health care, nutrition and educational status of our children. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I won't make some of the arguments that have been made in opposition to this amendment. With all due respect to my colleagues, we can look back with a sense of history, and I think there is probably plenty of blame on both sides--I am glad to say I wasn't here during most of that history--about budgets that were not in balance. But the fact of the matter is, people in our country have made it really clear that they want to see us get our fiscal house in order. We can do that, we should do that, and we don't need this amendment. I do, in a moment, want to talk about who is at risk and exactly what kind of priorities I believe this amendment is going to lock us into, which I don't think are the priorities and values of people in our country. Privilege of the Floor Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent that Jordan Cross, who is an intern, be granted privilege of the floor for the duration of this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will make clear that from now on, if you are convicted of beating your wife, your husband, or your children, your actions will result in you forfeiting your firearm privileges, no matter who you are. The bill amends the Federal law that prohibits someone with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence from possessing firearms or ammunition so that the law is applied prospectively only, from the date of enactment. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. We know that all too often the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is a batterer with a gun. Many of you are familiar with facts I have stood here and recited in the past: Four women a day are killed at the hands of their batterer; The California Department of Justice Law Enforcement reported in 1994 that 68 percent of the murder victims known to have been killed by an intimate were killed by firearms, 68 percent; The likelihood of a woman dying during a domestic assault is directly related to the type of weapon available. When a firearms is available, the assault is three times more likely to end in death than an assault with a knife. If no weapon is available the dispute is 23 times less likely to end in death; Fifty-seven percent of children under 12 who are murdered are killed by a parent. These are statistics based only on what is reported. We know that there are people watching who are victims of abuse in their own homes. It is happening to women that you know in your work place, in your church or synagogue and your neighborhood. Domestic violence is the most underreported crime in the country. We will not tolerate the violence. We will not ignore the violence. We will not say that it is someone else's responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on January 21 I cosponsored S. 212, the Senate leadership's version of President Clinton's education tax deduction and credit plan. As an educator for 20 years and a Senator who believes in education, I couldn't be more enthusiastic that the President and the leadership have chosen to invest $35 billion over the next 5 years into higher education in this country. This is a marvelous goal and I support it without hesitation. When it comes to investing a large sum of money into education, with the goal of making education more affordable for more students and working families, I think that it is important to explore every viable option. The tax system is one way to distribute money to working families. Another existing system is the Pell Grant Program, which is already geared toward targeting money at the students who are most likely not to attend college because of a lack of funds. Currently, Pell Grants go almost exclusively to lower income families. But that is not how Pell was designed. It was designed to reach families based on their need, not based on their income. If the Pell Grant Program were to be funded up to its authorized level, it would be of great benefit to many middle-class families as well as lower middle-class families. Because Pell is a proven entity and a great deal could be gained by investing in it, I rise today to introduce a second option on how to bring higher education into the reach of more Americans. It is both saddening and shameful that in this country, the best predictor of attending college is the family income. We have engineered a system in this country where the doors to college are closed for those who have the most to gain from higher education. Only 16 percent of college freshmen come from households earning $20,000 a year or less. Only half of them actually graduate by age 24, and those that drop out cite the expense of college as their No. 1 concern. Clearly, we are doing an inadequate job of addressing the financial needs of our Nation's college bound youth. According to David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal, three-quarters of higher income students attend college. Half of middle income students attend college. But just one- quarter of poorest income students attend college. As reported by the New York Times, ``the impact of [financial pressures on the poor] has been camouflaged by the steady growth in college attendance by more affluent students and by older people. But students from poor families have increasingly been left behind.'' The proportion of students earning college degrees by age 24 from families in the richest quarter of the population has jumped from 31 percent in 1979 to 79 percent in 1994. But the rate among students from families in the poorest population over the exact same years, 1979 to 1994, has stayed dead flat at 8 percent. Looked at another way, affluent students in 1979 were 4 times more likely to graduate from college at 24 than poor students, but 10 times more likely in 1994. According to Thomas Mortenson, a higher education policy analyst in Iowa City, ``there has been a redistribution of educational opportunity. We have a greater inequality of educational attainment by age 24 than at any time during the last 25 years. Lower income kids are having a terrible time in higher education.'' Mr. President, 25 years ago, the Pell Program was created to respond to these discrepancies. The goal of Pell grants was to target funds toward those families that were likely to send their children to college but couldn't afford to. Consequently, Pell grants have no income limit. Even a family with a very high income is eligible for Pell, if it can be shown that they have need--for example, if they have several children and all the kids are in college, they are supposed to fall under the umbrella of the Pell Program. Pell grant awards go first to the neediest students, and are phased out as need decreases. It was hoped that the Pell Program would pay off in three very important ways. First, it would enable more motivated but financially insecure students to gain the skills necessary to have productive lives. Second, it would increase the number of students enrolled in institutions of higher learning, and therefore reduce the cost of higher education for everyone. Third, it would provide to the Nation all the wonderful benefits of a well-educated population--a skilled work force, an improved ability to compete with other nations, a more financially secure country. The Pell Grant Program has done a world of good. Over the 25 years, 68.2 million awards have been given out to an estimated 30 million students. Millions of lower income students have been able to attend college thanks to Pell. While Pell itself has been unable to actually reduce college tuitions, it is frightening to imagine how expensive colleges would be without the Pell Program, and how few lower income families would be able to obtain diplomas. In terms of overall effect of the Pell Program on our country, it is almost impossible to overstate the significance of having educated so many people who otherwise would have been unlikely to have increased their standard of living and the standards of their families and those around them. When Pell was created, it bore a price tag of $47.5 million--in 1971 dollars, $118 million in 1997 dollars--and benefited 176,000 grant recipients. By 1980 it aided 2.7 million students, and today, the Pell Grant Program invests $6.4 billion a year into the education of 3.6 million grant recipients a year. We should not misinterpret the growth of this program as having successfully met the need for the program; however, Pell Grants are something of which the Congress should be extremely proud. Let me explain how the Pell Program works, and how it manages to invest money right where it is needed. The formula is simple. First, the ``expected family contribution'' is determined through a formula used for all Federal student aid programs. The nickname for the expected family contribution is EFC. The EFC takes into account the family income, the number of dependents in the family, the number of family members currently receiving aid or attending college, and certain assets if the family earns more than $50,000 a year. Here's an example. A typical two-earner family with an income of $50,000 that has one dependent child in college would be expected to contribute $4,000 per year toward their child's education. The EFC is then subtracted from the maximum Pell Grant award, which under current law is authorized to be $4,500. If you add up the cost of the child's tuition, fees, room, board, and books and it comes out to more than $4,500, then that family could expect to receive $500 in Pell grants. This example also succeeds in demonstrating the problem with the Pell grant system. Currently, the Pell maximum award is, indeed, authorized to be $4,500. However, because there was not enough money available for the Pell Program last year, the appropriators lowered the Pell maximum award to only $2,700. That means that the average three person family, which I have described above, will not receive a Pell grant award if their income is over $38,600. You see, Pell, as originally designed, is supposed to benefit the middle class. But for this to be successful, enough money must be allocated to the program so that the appropriations process can provide the statutory maximum award for each student. But this has seldom happened over the years. While the statute sets the maximum award, limited funds available for the program have meant that appropriations language has almost always reduced the maximum award. Because the appropriations process reduces the maximum Pell award every year, the purchasing power of Pell grants has dwindled in relation to college costs. During the 80's and 90's, college costs have increased at an annual rate of between 5 percent and 8 percent, increases that have always outpaced inflation. In 1980, the average Pell award of $882 paid 26 percent of the total annual cost of attendance for a 4-year public institution--$3,409--as compared to today, when the average award of $1,579 pays only 16 percent of total costs of $9,649. This, in light of the fact that, as stated in the Higher Education Act, the purpose of the Pell Grant Program is to provide an award that ``in combination with reasonable family and student contribution and--other Federal grant aid--will meet at least 75 percent of a student's cost of attendance.'' In real dollars, appropriations for the Pell Grant Program have increased by almost 50 percent since 1980. However, the appropriated maximum grant has increased only 34 percent, which means that if inflation is factored in, the maximum award has fallen 13 percent. The result is that few families with incomes above $30,000 are likely to qualify for Pell. Last year, 54 percent of Pell recipients had incomes of less than $10,000. This is where the bill I introduce today comes in. At a similar cost to the President's tax deduction and credit proposals--$35 billion over 5 years--my bill would increase the maximum Pell grant award to $5,000 from the present level of $2,700, thus bringing the award to the level at which it was created, adjusted for inflation. With the maximum increased, two intents would be accomplished. First, lower income students would be entitled to a larger award, thus having more opportunity to attend college. Second, because the maximum is increased, more students--including students from middle income families--would be eligible for Pell grants. Here are a few illustrations. Under current law, a single, independent student with no children is ineligible for even a minimum Pell grant award if she has an income of over $9,800. My bill would effectively double the income eligibility; a single student with no children with an income of over $16,200 would still be eligible for Pell. If that student is a single parent, with two children, her income could be as high as $50,600 and she would still be eligible for Pell, as opposed to current law, which would eliminate her eligibility at an income of $38,800. Parents trying to put a dependent child through college would also benefit from this bill. For example, a two-parent family with one child in college under current law is eligible only if their income is lower than $38,600. My bill would raise this eligibility to just under $50,000. Under Pell as it exists today, a family with four children in college receives the minimum award for each of their children as long as their income is lower than $72,600. Under this bill, an average family with four children in college would receive the minimum award for each child even if their income was as high as $107,300. Now let me take a moment to explain why my proposal and the Clinton proposal are so deserving of the attention and support of this body. These days, parents putting children through college, and young adults trying to do it on their own, are facing an increasingly daunting challenge. According to the college board, tuition costs have gone up more than 40 percent since 1985. Expressed in constant 1994 dollars, in 1985 tuition at the average private college was $10,058. By 1994, it was $14,486--a 44 percent increase. The average public college tuition was $2,095 in 1985. By 1994, it was $2,948--a 41 percent increase. Last year alone, college tuition went up 6 percent, more than double the rate of inflation. Since 1980, college tuition has risen faster than medical costs, and more than twice as fast as family income. For the last 10 years, tuition increases at State universities, community colleges, and technical colleges in Minnesota have ranged from 2 to almost 9 percent every single year. The largest trend in tuition increases began in the early 1980's. Since then, tuition at the University of Minnesota has risen 264 percent while the Consumer Price Index has gone up 71 percent--available chart shows only the increase between 1981 and 1992, that is why its numbers are smaller. Next academic year, a freshman at the UM Liberal Arts College will pay $3,618, plus a higher activity fee, plus a new $135 computing fee. All over Minnesota--at private schools, public universities and colleges--tuition is going up faster than personal disposable income per capita. Meanwhile, Government and private aid has declined. Federal appropriations for student aid fell 9 percent between 1980 and 1993 while States allocations fell 13 percent between 1986 and 1992. Corporate and private giving is far too small to offset these declines. Last year, the Federal Government spent nearly 40 percent less than it did the year before to help young people in Minnesota pay for college with Perkins loans. That's $1.5 million less in loans--3,214 fewer students getting help with their educations. Overall, public subsidies to higher education have shrunk from 45 percent of higher education's revenues in 1980 to 35 percent today, most of it to public universities. Today, more than 80 percent of America's college students study at public universities. The trend in Federal aid to post-secondary students is towards more loans and away from grants. Although more money is now available to college students, a greater proportion of it must be paid back. According to the college board, the Federal Government invested 80 percent of its higher education budget into Grants and only 20 percent in loans. Today, those numbers are almost exactly reversed. This is a trend that affects poorer students much more than those who are wealthier, as poor students are forced to ask themselves--what if I don't graduate, what will I do with my debt? For these students, Pell Grants are a lifeline that keeps being pulled out of their reach. Between 1985 and 1994, the share of college costs covered by the maximum Pell grant has steadily fallen for all types of institutions. For example, at a private university, a Pell Grant covered about 17 percent the cost of attendance in 1985. By 1994, that fell to about 10 percent. Similarly, at a public university, a Pell Grant paid for about 50 percent of college costs in 1985. In 1994, that figure was down to about 30 percent. As a result, the average debt of those emerging from higher education grows at a rate much greater than inflation. Six-and-a-half million students, nearly half of the Nation's enrollment, have loans totaling $23.8 billion. Student borrowing has grown at an average rate of 22 percent per year since 1990, outpacing personal income growth four times over. At Moorehead State University in Moorehead, MN, students are graduating with a staggering amount of debt. The average student graduating this spring who finished her degree in 4 years owes $10,762. For those who take 5 years to graduate, their debt is even higher, an average of $11,450. Those figures are both much higher than only 4 years ago. The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities report that students graduating from 2-year colleges incur debt of $8,000 to $10,000. Those attending State universities are coming out of school with $15,000 to $20,000 of debt. It should be no surprise that defaults cost the Federal Government over $2 billion a year. It's not only students that are increasingly saddled with debt. Parents are borrowing more and more in order to finance their children's educations. The average loan in the PLUS Program--parental loans for undergraduate students--between 1992 and 1993 jumped from $3,260 to $4,525. In addition, the loan volume for the program grew by 26 percent. If you are a student planning to attend college, or a parent planning on paying for your child, you'd better start saving now. Even if you plan to send your child to a State school, and even if you start saving 17 years in advance, you are going to have to start putting away a chunk of change. Put together, rising costs of education and decreasing Government aid spells a greater burden on students and their families--a burden that is often impossible to initiate, and at times, if attempted, impossible to sustain. But it's crazy for us to allow this to go on. Education is the key to the economic security of this Nation. By the year 2000, 50 percent of all new jobs will require a college education. It is not only our duty and obligation to assist these students in their higher education endeavors, it is essential for our country's future. Higher education pays off. Every year of higher education increases an individual's income between 6 and 12 percent. In fact, a college- educated male earns 83% more during his lifetime than a noncollege- educated male. Education is married to earnings potential. A high school dropout can expect to earn, on average, under $13,000 a year; a high school graduate, under $19,000; while a college graduate can earn over $32,000 and a master's degree recipient can earn over $40,000; a doctoral recipient can earn over $54,000; and a professional degree recipient earns, on average, over $74,000. A recent survey of managers showed that an investment in the educational level of their work force resulted in twice the return in increased productivity of a comparable increase in work hours and nearly three times the return of an investment in capital stock. Data from the Society of Research also reveals that poverty rate declines as education levels increase. According to the 1992 Census, almost a quarter of the children under the age of 6 in the United States live in poverty. For many, the opportunity for a higher education lies only in the availability of Pell grants. Therefore, the Pell Grant Program is integral in breaking the chain of poverty. In fact, a national study conducted in 1995 revealed that AFDC recipients receiving financial aid are 80 percent more likely to graduate college and obtain permanent jobs. Families who live in the middle or higher socio-economic bracket will send their children to college regardless of available financial assistance. Such is not the case for low income groups. Cut backs in financial assistance correlate to lack of enrollment and long term attendance among lower socio-economic groups. Without the availability of Pell grants, low income students will not have the opportunity for advanced degrees. Mr. President, these are the reasons that I am introducing this bill. Ultimately, education is what separates those who achieve from those who can never realize the American Dream. The Government needs to invest in its citizens if democracy is to flourish, if we are to compete in the global marketplace, and if we are to live up to our responsibility to the American people. As we plan for our country's future and that of its youth, let us be sure that a higher education is available and accessible for all. Let's create a system in the 21st century in which the No. 1 predictor of college attendance is not income, but rather desire. I urge my colleagues to support S. 212 and to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce a bill today that will address a serious problem faced by many Persian Gulf veterans--the denial of their claims for VA compensation based solely on the fact that their symptoms arose more than 2 years after they last served in the gulf. This bill is a companion to H.R. 466 introduced recently by Congressman Lane Evans, ranking minority member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and an outstanding, energetic, and dedicated veterans' advocate. This bill would extend from 2 to 10 years the time by which a veteran must develop symptoms after departing the gulf to be eligible to file for VA disability compensation. While this legislation is simple and straight forward, there are a number of reasons that I am introducing it that require some elaboration. Over a month ago Congressman Evans and I sent a joint letter to VA Secretary Jesse Brown asking him to administratively extend the presumptive period from 2 to 10 years. We pointed out that the VA had denied about 95 percent of Persian gulf veterans' claims for undiagnosed illnesses and noted that in House testimony last March Secretary Brown himself said that ``most of the people we are denying, a large percentage of the people that we are denying, do not have a disease within the 2-year period.'' The Secretary added that there was a need to examine health problems emerging after that time period. Mr. President, our letter also noted that continuing disclosures about possible exposures of our troops in the gulf to chemical weapons make it clear that it may take many years before we have a full understanding of what occurred during the Persian Gulf war and how these events affected our veterans. In closing, we stressed that gulf war veterans must be given the benefit of the doubt. Although Secretary Brown has not yet replied to our letter, I know that he is a fearless and deeply committed advocate of our Nation's veterans and fully shares my view that America's veterans must always be given the benefit of the doubt. Under his leadership, the VA is now reviewing 11,000 cases to ensure that Persian Gulf veterans are indeed given the benefit of the doubt in the development and adjudication of their compensation claims. Secretary Brown, at the request of President Clinton, is formulating a plan to expand the deadline for compensation which is to be submitted to the President in March. I anticipate that the administration will extend the deadline and believe that when this occurs they'll want congressional authorization. This bill is intended to grant them that authority. Mr. President, so that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will better understand my reasons for introducing this bill and why I believe the administration must and will extend the deadline for filing gulf war claims, permit me to list some of the key factors involved: Sick Persian Gulf veterans shouldn't be kept in limbo, waiting years for the completion of research that should have been done years ago on the long-term health effects of low-level exposures to chemical and other agents; In this connection, the experience of atomic veterans for over 50 years is hardly encouraging, with disputes among scientists persisting about the long-term effects of exposure to low-level radiation and about the validity of U.S. Government-funded radiation dose reconstructions--dose reconstructions which continue to be a major factor in denial of the vast majority of atomic veterans' claims for VA compensation; While I'm pleased that research is finally taking place after a delay of over 5 years stemming from DOD's contention that there were no chemical exposures and that low-level exposures had no health effects, I fear there is a possibility that the etiology of Persian Gulf illnesses may never be known because needed scientific data was not collected immediately after the war and because of the complexity of figuring out the synergistic effects of various combinations of harmful agents present during the gulf war. DOD and CIA are developing new information about possible chemical and other exposures during the gulf war that could further complicate the search for the causes of illnesses, while the media sometimes carry contradictory reports on such exposures that add to the uncertainties and anxieties of veterans and their families; There are a number of serious diseases that are not manifested until 10 years or more after initial exposure to harmful agents. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to the brave Minnesota veterans of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm whom I met with over a month ago. These Minnesota veterans who are my mentors told me about the illnesses and symptoms they developed after the war, including skin rashes, hair loss, reproductive problems, memory loss, headaches, aching joints, and internal bleeding. They said that they are scared to death about their health problems. I was deeply moved by their accounts and pledged to do all I could to help them. Moreover, I was distressed to learn that as of last month, out of 171 Minnesota gulf veterans who had filed disability claims, only 18 were receiving full or partial disability benefits. As part of an action plan to help Minnesota gulf veterans, I told them that Congressman Evans and I were writing to Secretary Brown to extend the 2-year period to 10 years. This initiative was supported both by Minnesota Persian Gulf veterans and State veterans' leaders and the bill I'm now introducing is a logical followup to the letter sent to Secretary Brown. I am very pleased to note that this legislation is supported by the American Legion and the Vietnam Veterans of America and I urge my colleagues to join these organizations in strongly supporting this bill. I dedicate this bill to the patriotic and courageous Minnesota veterans who served in the Persian Gulf war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on January 21 I cosponsored S. 212, the Senate leadership's version of President Clinton's education tax deduction and credit plan. As an educator for 20 years and a Senator who believes in education, I couldn't be more enthusiastic that the President and the leadership have chosen to invest $35 billion over the next 5 years into higher education in this country. This is a marvelous goal and I support it without hesitation. When it comes to investing a large sum of money into education, with the goal of making education more affordable for more students and working families, I think that it is important to explore every viable option. The tax system is one way to distribute money to working families. Another existing system is the Pell Grant Program, which is already geared toward targeting money at the students who are most likely not to attend college because of a lack of funds. Currently, Pell Grants go almost exclusively to lower income families. But that is not how Pell was designed. It was designed to reach families based on their need, not based on their income. If the Pell Grant Program were to be funded up to its authorized level, it would be of great benefit to many middle-class families as well as lower middle-class families. Because Pell is a proven entity and a great deal could be gained by investing in it, I rise today to introduce a second option on how to bring higher education into the reach of more Americans. It is both saddening and shameful that in this country, the best predictor of attending college is the family income. We have engineered a system in this country where the doors to college are closed for those who have the most to gain from higher education. Only 16 percent of college freshmen come from households earning $20,000 a year or less. Only half of them actually graduate by age 24, and those that drop out cite the expense of college as their No. 1 concern. Clearly, we are doing an inadequate job of addressing the financial needs of our Nation's college bound youth. According to David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal, three-quarters of higher income students attend college. Half of middle income students attend college. But just one- quarter of poorest income students attend college. As reported by the New York Times, ``the impact of [financial pressures on the poor] has been camouflaged by the steady growth in college attendance by more affluent students and by older people. But students from poor families have increasingly been left behind.'' The proportion of students earning college degrees by age 24 from families in the richest quarter of the population has jumped from 31 percent in 1979 to 79 percent in 1994. But the rate among students from families in the poorest population over the exact same years, 1979 to 1994, has stayed dead flat at 8 percent. Looked at another way, affluent students in 1979 were 4 times more likely to graduate from college at 24 than poor students, but 10 times more likely in 1994. According to Thomas Mortenson, a higher education policy analyst in Iowa City, ``there has been a redistribution of educational opportunity. We have a greater inequality of educational attainment by age 24 than at any time during the last 25 years. Lower income kids are having a terrible time in higher education.'' Mr. President, 25 years ago, the Pell Program was created to respond to these discrepancies. The goal of Pell grants was to target funds toward those families that were likely to send their children to college but couldn't afford to. Consequently, Pell grants have no income limit. Even a family with a very high income is eligible for Pell, if it can be shown that they have need--for example, if they have several children and all the kids are in college, they are supposed to fall under the umbrella of the Pell Program. Pell grant awards go first to the neediest students, and are phased out as need decreases. It was hoped that the Pell Program would pay off in three very important ways. First, it would enable more motivated but financially insecure students to gain the skills necessary to have productive lives. Second, it would increase the number of students enrolled in institutions of higher learning, and therefore reduce the cost of higher education for everyone. Third, it would provide to the Nation all the wonderful benefits of a well-educated population--a skilled work force, an improved ability to compete with other nations, a more financially secure country. The Pell Grant Program has done a world of good. Over the 25 years, 68.2 million awards have been given out to an estimated 30 million students. Millions of lower income students have been able to attend college thanks to Pell. While Pell itself has been unable to actually reduce college tuitions, it is frightening to imagine how expensive colleges would be without the Pell Program, and how few lower income families would be able to obtain diplomas. In terms of overall effect of the Pell Program on our country, it is almost impossible to overstate the significance of having educated so many people who otherwise would have been unlikely to have increased their standard of living and the standards of their families and those around them. When Pell was created, it bore a price tag of $47.5 million--in 1971 dollars, $118 million in 1997 dollars--and benefited 176,000 grant recipients. By 1980 it aided 2.7 million students, and today, the Pell Grant Program invests $6.4 billion a year into the education of 3.6 million grant recipients a year. We should not misinterpret the growth of this program as having successfully met the need for the program; however, Pell Grants are something of which the Congress should be extremely proud. Let me explain how the Pell Program works, and how it manages to invest money right where it is needed. The formula is simple. First, the ``expected family contribution'' is determined through a formula used for all Federal student aid programs. The nickname for the expected family contribution is EFC. The EFC takes into account the family income, the number of dependents in the family, the number of family members currently receiving aid or attending college, and certain assets if the family earns more than $50,000 a year. Here's an example. A typical two-earner family with an income of $50,000 that has one dependent child in college would be expected to contribute $4,000 per year toward their child's education. The EFC is then subtracted from the maximum Pell Grant award, which under current law is authorized to be $4,500. If you add up the cost of the child's tuition, fees, room, board, and books and it comes out to more than $4,500, then that family could expect to receive $500 in Pell grants. This example also succeeds in demonstrating the problem with the Pell grant system. Currently, the Pell maximum award is, indeed, authorized to be $4,500. However, because there was not enough money available for the Pell Program last year, the appropriators lowered the Pell maximum award to only $2,700. That means that the average three person family, which I have described above, will not receive a Pell grant award if their income is over $38,600. You see, Pell, as originally designed, is supposed to benefit the middle class. But for this to be successful, enough money must be allocated to the program so that the appropriations process can provide the statutory maximum award for each student. But this has seldom happened over the years. While the statute sets the maximum award, limited funds available for the program have meant that appropriations language has almost always reduced the maximum award. Because the appropriations process reduces the maximum Pell award every year, the purchasing power of Pell grants has dwindled in relation to college costs. During the 80's and 90's, college costs have increased at an annual rate of between 5 percent and 8 percent, increases that have always outpaced inflation. In 1980, the average Pell award of $882 paid 26 percent of the total annual cost of attendance for a 4-year public institution--$3,409--as compared to today, when the average award of $1,579 pays only 16 percent of total costs of $9,649. This, in light of the fact that, as stated in the Higher Education Act, the purpose of the Pell Grant Program is to provide an award that ``in combination with reasonable family and student contribution and--other Federal grant aid--will meet at least 75 percent of a student's cost of attendance.'' In real dollars, appropriations for the Pell Grant Program have increased by almost 50 percent since 1980. However, the appropriated maximum grant has increased only 34 percent, which means that if inflation is factored in, the maximum award has fallen 13 percent. The result is that few families with incomes above $30,000 are likely to qualify for Pell. Last year, 54 percent of Pell recipients had incomes of less than $10,000. This is where the bill I introduce today comes in. At a similar cost to the President's tax deduction and credit proposals--$35 billion over 5 years--my bill would increase the maximum Pell grant award to $5,000 from the present level of $2,700, thus bringing the award to the level at which it was created, adjusted for inflation. With the maximum increased, two intents would be accomplished. First, lower income students would be entitled to a larger award, thus having more opportunity to attend college. Second, because the maximum is increased, more students--including students from middle income families--would be eligible for Pell grants. Here are a few illustrations. Under current law, a single, independent student with no children is ineligible for even a minimum Pell grant award if she has an income of over $9,800. My bill would effectively double the income eligibility; a single student with no children with an income of over $16,200 would still be eligible for Pell. If that student is a single parent, with two children, her income could be as high as $50,600 and she would still be eligible for Pell, as opposed to current law, which would eliminate her eligibility at an income of $38,800. Parents trying to put a dependent child through college would also benefit from this bill. For example, a two-parent family with one child in college under current law is eligible only if their income is lower than $38,600. My bill would raise this eligibility to just under $50,000. Under Pell as it exists today, a family with four children in college receives the minimum award for each of their children as long as their income is lower than $72,600. Under this bill, an average family with four children in college would receive the minimum award for each child even if their income was as high as $107,300. Now let me take a moment to explain why my proposal and the Clinton proposal are so deserving of the attention and support of this body. These days, parents putting children through college, and young adults trying to do it on their own, are facing an increasingly daunting challenge. According to the college board, tuition costs have gone up more than 40 percent since 1985. Expressed in constant 1994 dollars, in 1985 tuition at the average private college was $10,058. By 1994, it was $14,486--a 44 percent increase. The average public college tuition was $2,095 in 1985. By 1994, it was $2,948--a 41 percent increase. Last year alone, college tuition went up 6 percent, more than double the rate of inflation. Since 1980, college tuition has risen faster than medical costs, and more than twice as fast as family income. For the last 10 years, tuition increases at State universities, community colleges, and technical colleges in Minnesota have ranged from 2 to almost 9 percent every single year. The largest trend in tuition increases began in the early 1980's. Since then, tuition at the University of Minnesota has risen 264 percent while the Consumer Price Index has gone up 71 percent--available chart shows only the increase between 1981 and 1992, that is why its numbers are smaller. Next academic year, a freshman at the UM Liberal Arts College will pay $3,618, plus a higher activity fee, plus a new $135 computing fee. All over Minnesota--at private schools, public universities and colleges--tuition is going up faster than personal disposable income per capita. Meanwhile, Government and private aid has declined. Federal appropriations for student aid fell 9 percent between 1980 and 1993 while States allocations fell 13 percent between 1986 and 1992. Corporate and private giving is far too small to offset these declines. Last year, the Federal Government spent nearly 40 percent less than it did the year before to help young people in Minnesota pay for college with Perkins loans. That's $1.5 million less in loans--3,214 fewer students getting help with their educations. Overall, public subsidies to higher education have shrunk from 45 percent of higher education's revenues in 1980 to 35 percent today, most of it to public universities. Today, more than 80 percent of America's college students study at public universities. The trend in Federal aid to post-secondary students is towards more loans and away from grants. Although more money is now available to college students, a greater proportion of it must be paid back. According to the college board, the Federal Government invested 80 percent of its higher education budget into Grants and only 20 percent in loans. Today, those numbers are almost exactly reversed. This is a trend that affects poorer students much more than those who are wealthier, as poor students are forced to ask themselves--what if I don't graduate, what will I do with my debt? For these students, Pell Grants are a lifeline that keeps being pulled out of their reach. Between 1985 and 1994, the share of college costs covered by the maximum Pell grant has steadily fallen for all types of institutions. For example, at a private university, a Pell Grant covered about 17 percent the cost of attendance in 1985. By 1994, that fell to about 10 percent. Similarly, at a public university, a Pell Grant paid for about 50 percent of college costs in 1985. In 1994, that figure was down to about 30 percent. As a result, the average debt of those emerging from higher education grows at a rate much greater than inflation. Six-and-a-half million students, nearly half of the Nation's enrollment, have loans totaling $23.8 billion. Student borrowing has grown at an average rate of 22 percent per year since 1990, outpacing personal income growth four times over. At Moorehead State University in Moorehead, MN, students are graduating with a staggering amount of debt. The average student graduating this spring who finished her degree in 4 years owes $10,762. For those who take 5 years to graduate, their debt is even higher, an average of $11,450. Those figures are both much higher than only 4 years ago. The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities report that students graduating from 2-year colleges incur debt of $8,000 to $10,000. Those attending State universities are coming out of school with $15,000 to $20,000 of debt. It should be no surprise that defaults cost the Federal Government over $2 billion a year. It's not only students that are increasingly saddled with debt. Parents are borrowing more and more in order to finance their children's educations. The average loan in the PLUS Program--parental loans for undergraduate students--between 1992 and 1993 jumped from $3,260 to $4,525. In addition, the loan volume for the program grew by 26 percent. If you are a student planning to attend college, or a parent planning on paying for your child, you'd better start saving now. Even if you plan to send your child to a State school, and even if you start saving 17 years in advance, you are going to have to start putting away a chunk of change. Put together, rising costs of education and decreasing Government aid spells a greater burden on students and their families--a burden that is often impossible to initiate, and at times, if attempted, impossible to sustain. But it's crazy for us to allow this to go on. Education is the key to the economic security of this Nation. By the year 2000, 50 percent of all new jobs will require a college education. It is not only our duty and obligation to assist these students in their higher education endeavors, it is essential for our country's future. Higher education pays off. Every year of higher education increases an individual's income between 6 and 12 percent. In fact, a college- educated male earns 83% more during his lifetime than a noncollege- educated male. Education is married to earnings potential. A high school dropout can expect to earn, on average, under $13,000 a year; a high school graduate, under $19,000; while a college graduate can earn over $32,000 and a master's degree recipient can earn over $40,000; a doctoral recipient can earn over $54,000; and a professional degree recipient earns, on average, over $74,000. A recent survey of managers showed that an investment in the educational level of their work force resulted in twice the return in increased productivity of a comparable increase in work hours and nearly three times the return of an investment in capital stock. Data from the Society of Research also reveals that poverty rate declines as education levels increase. According to the 1992 Census, almost a quarter of the children under the age of 6 in the United States live in poverty. For many, the opportunity for a higher education lies only in the availability of Pell grants. Therefore, the Pell Grant Program is integral in breaking the chain of poverty. In fact, a national study conducted in 1995 revealed that AFDC recipients receiving financial aid are 80 percent more likely to graduate college and obtain permanent jobs. Families who live in the middle or higher socio-economic bracket will send their children to college regardless of available financial assistance. Such is not the case for low income groups. Cut backs in financial assistance correlate to lack of enrollment and long term attendance among lower socio-economic groups. Without the availability of Pell grants, low income students will not have the opportunity for advanced degrees. Mr. President, these are the reasons that I am introducing this bill. Ultimately, education is what separates those who achieve from those who can never realize the American Dream. The Government needs to invest in its citizens if democracy is to flourish, if we are to compete in the global marketplace, and if we are to live up to our responsibility to the American people. As we plan for our country's future and that of its youth, let us be sure that a higher education is available and accessible for all. Let's create a system in the 21st century in which the No. 1 predictor of college attendance is not income, but rather desire. I urge my colleagues to support S. 212 and to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I always appreciate working with the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Massachusetts. We have been on the floor before talking about low-income energy assistance, and we really have to be on the floor today speaking about this. Sometimes we talk about these issues, and we just talk. It may not be connected to people's lives. But what we say today on the floor of the U.S. Senate is connected to people's lives in many of our States. It is between 8 and 15 degrees below zero in most of Minnesota today. It might get to zero this daytime. Mr. President, we have had a brutal winter in our State and, in addition, as the Senator from Vermont mentioned, natural gas prices are up 60 percent from last year's prices, heating oil is up 40 percent over last year, and the cost of propane is 60 percent higher than last year. Our State is colder than it was last year. It costs much more to heat a home. These oil prices have skyrocketed, and this means we have a crisis, all in capital letters. Mr. President, the Governor, Governor Arne Carlson, has used $9 million of the State's fund for additional assistance, but we have in fiscal year 1997 additional money, several hundreds of millions of dollars, for emergency energy assistance. It is an emergency. In Minnesota, we have about 300,000 citizens who are dependent upon this lifeline program. It is not a large grant. It averages about $350, but for many of these citizens--many of them elderly, many of them children--this is a lifeline program, without which either people go cold or people huddle in one room in their home. I wish that was an exaggeration, but it is not. I have visited with these families. Our people somehow figure out how to pay for their heat, but then they don't have enough money to buy food or they don't have enough money to buy prescription drugs that they need. This is a particular problem with the elderly. Mr. President, we are going to run out of assistance. We are going to have a dire situation in Minnesota. This is no melodrama on my part. It is time this emergency money be released. Almost every day I am on the phone talking to the White House, talking to Health and Human Services, the Office of Management and Budget, and I don't speak on the floor of the Senate today to point the finger, because I believe that in the next few days--the sooner the better--the White House will release this money. Last year, I went to the President--other Senators joined: Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and others--and just made the request face to face. I said, ``Mr. President, I don't want people to go cold in my State.'' This is not an exaggeration. I am sure that this money will be released, but today on the floor of the Senate, my appeal to the White House is: Please, make the decision. Please, make the decision today. Please release the funding. Time is not neutral. Time is not on our side. It doesn't do any good to get the funding in April. We need this assistance for vulnerable citizens in our cold-weather States, and we need it now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce a bill today that will address a serious problem faced by many Persian Gulf veterans--the denial of their claims for VA compensation based solely on the fact that their symptoms arose more than 2 years after they last served in the gulf. This bill is a companion to H.R. 466 introduced recently by Congressman Lane Evans, ranking minority member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and an outstanding, energetic, and dedicated veterans' advocate. This bill would extend from 2 to 10 years the time by which a veteran must develop symptoms after departing the gulf to be eligible to file for VA disability compensation. While this legislation is simple and straight forward, there are a number of reasons that I am introducing it that require some elaboration. Over a month ago Congressman Evans and I sent a joint letter to VA Secretary Jesse Brown asking him to administratively extend the presumptive period from 2 to 10 years. We pointed out that the VA had denied about 95 percent of Persian gulf veterans' claims for undiagnosed illnesses and noted that in House testimony last March Secretary Brown himself said that ``most of the people we are denying, a large percentage of the people that we are denying, do not have a disease within the 2-year period.'' The Secretary added that there was a need to examine health problems emerging after that time period. Mr. President, our letter also noted that continuing disclosures about possible exposures of our troops in the gulf to chemical weapons make it clear that it may take many years before we have a full understanding of what occurred during the Persian Gulf war and how these events affected our veterans. In closing, we stressed that gulf war veterans must be given the benefit of the doubt. Although Secretary Brown has not yet replied to our letter, I know that he is a fearless and deeply committed advocate of our Nation's veterans and fully shares my view that America's veterans must always be given the benefit of the doubt. Under his leadership, the VA is now reviewing 11,000 cases to ensure that Persian Gulf veterans are indeed given the benefit of the doubt in the development and adjudication of their compensation claims. Secretary Brown, at the request of President Clinton, is formulating a plan to expand the deadline for compensation which is to be submitted to the President in March. I anticipate that the administration will extend the deadline and believe that when this occurs they'll want congressional authorization. This bill is intended to grant them that authority. Mr. President, so that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will better understand my reasons for introducing this bill and why I believe the administration must and will extend the deadline for filing gulf war claims, permit me to list some of the key factors involved: Sick Persian Gulf veterans shouldn't be kept in limbo, waiting years for the completion of research that should have been done years ago on the long-term health effects of low-level exposures to chemical and other agents; In this connection, the experience of atomic veterans for over 50 years is hardly encouraging, with disputes among scientists persisting about the long-term effects of exposure to low-level radiation and about the validity of U.S. Government-funded radiation dose reconstructions--dose reconstructions which continue to be a major factor in denial of the vast majority of atomic veterans' claims for VA compensation; While I'm pleased that research is finally taking place after a delay of over 5 years stemming from DOD's contention that there were no chemical exposures and that low-level exposures had no health effects, I fear there is a possibility that the etiology of Persian Gulf illnesses may never be known because needed scientific data was not collected immediately after the war and because of the complexity of figuring out the synergistic effects of various combinations of harmful agents present during the gulf war. DOD and CIA are developing new information about possible chemical and other exposures during the gulf war that could further complicate the search for the causes of illnesses, while the media sometimes carry contradictory reports on such exposures that add to the uncertainties and anxieties of veterans and their families; There are a number of serious diseases that are not manifested until 10 years or more after initial exposure to harmful agents. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to the brave Minnesota veterans of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm whom I met with over a month ago. These Minnesota veterans who are my mentors told me about the illnesses and symptoms they developed after the war, including skin rashes, hair loss, reproductive problems, memory loss, headaches, aching joints, and internal bleeding. They said that they are scared to death about their health problems. I was deeply moved by their accounts and pledged to do all I could to help them. Moreover, I was distressed to learn that as of last month, out of 171 Minnesota gulf veterans who had filed disability claims, only 18 were receiving full or partial disability benefits. As part of an action plan to help Minnesota gulf veterans, I told them that Congressman Evans and I were writing to Secretary Brown to extend the 2-year period to 10 years. This initiative was supported both by Minnesota Persian Gulf veterans and State veterans' leaders and the bill I'm now introducing is a logical followup to the letter sent to Secretary Brown. I am very pleased to note that this legislation is supported by the American Legion and the Vietnam Veterans of America and I urge my colleagues to join these organizations in strongly supporting this bill. I dedicate this bill to the patriotic and courageous Minnesota veterans who served in the Persian Gulf war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, for just a brief period of time today, I want to talk about reform because I think the whole issue of the mix of money and politics and what we are going to do to change the system is going to become the key issue of this 105th Congress. People have been reading in the newspapers and they have been hearing on the radio or they have been seeing on TV all sorts of comment about the abuses which took place in this past campaign. My argument is that these abuses are embedded in the very ways in which we finance our campaigns. What has happened--and I do not think any of us should fool ourselves here, whether we are Republicans or Democrats--is that to most of the people in the country, from Pennsylvania to Minnesota to California, it does not even look like elections; it looks like auctions, and I think all too many people believe that national political leaders are for sale. I would like to say today on the floor of the Senate that I do not believe that is the case. I do not want to have anything to do with bashing of people in public service. I believe in public service. That is why I am here. That is why we are here. I also want to say today on the floor of the Senate that as a matter of fact we are talking about a certain kind of corruption, not as in the wrongdoing of individual officeholders, but it is systemic, and it is more serious. It has to do with the ways in which money determines what issues are on the table. It has to do with the ways in which money determines who has the disproportionate amount of access to decisionmaking. It has to do with the relationship between money and political clout. It has to do with the political system where too few people probably have too much wealth, power and say and the vast majority of the people feel locked out, not well represented. I would argue that the way big money has come to dominate politics has become the ethical issue of our time. I say to all of my colleagues--I make this appeal, and I want to follow up on this appeal with every bit of leverage I have as a Senator--that all of us in office should hate this system. On the one hand, it is a bit like the play ``Fiddler on the Roof''--you can argue that, well, no, people should not hate the system because in a way the current system is wired for incumbents. They can raise more money. But I really think all of us should hate this system, because even if you believe in your heart of hearts, even if you are absolutely convinced that the compelling need to raise money never has affected any position you have taken on any issue, even if you believe that, and hopefully it is the case, it sure does not look that way to people. If we want people to believe in this political process, and we want people to believe in our work, and we want people to believe in the Congress, and we want people to believe in us, then we better get this big money out of politics and we better turn this system not upside down--it is upside down right now--we better turn this system right side up. It is just crystal clear. The spending continues to skyrocket, and in 1996 spending was up and participation down--more disillusionment, more indignation, more people in the country losing faith in the elections and losing faith in this political process. There are any number of different approaches that can be taken, and I want to talk about three. I have for the better part of last year, year and a half, worked with Senators Feingold and McCain, Senator Kassebaum was involved in this--she will be sorely missed--Senator Thompson, Senator Graham, and this effort, this piece of legislation, which still keeps too many big private dollars in politics, sure represents a very important and positive step forward: getting rid of all the soft money, all of the huge amounts of money that people can contribute in the name of party building, getting the costs of campaigns down, voluntary spending limits, some resources for candidates to help challengers. It goes in the right direction, and I will work hard with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold. There is a separate issue of soft money and all the ways in which people can contribute huge amounts of money, way beyond any spending limit, again, all in the name of party building. With more time, I will go into all of this in specifics. We ought to abolish that. And that would be a focus of mine. I will have a bill on soft money. In the best of all worlds, if you want to talk about desirability, I will tell you something. People in the country are in a downright anti- status-quo mood, and I really think we ought to model ourselves after what Maine has done. Maine led the Nation. Maine passed the clean money option. And I will be introducing a bill, I hope with other Senators, as well, that essentially says, look, we are going to get all of the interested money out, and what we are going to essentially say to people in the country is, look, for around $5 per person, how about a system where the people own the elections? It is your election. And because it is your capital, it becomes your Government and we move all of this interested, big, private money out. We really do have a level playing field between challengers and incumbents, and we really do have clean money politics. I think that is the best system of all, and I look forward to introducing that bill with other Senators and pushing that forward as well. A final point. It may be that none of these approaches in their entirety will pass the Senate. And other people will have other ideas. But first, to people in the country who might be watching, and I will figure out other ways of having a wider forum: You have to turn up the heat, people. The citizens in this country have to turn up the heat. On February 22, in Minnesota, we are going to have a town meeting, hopefully with the whole congressional delegation. Lots of people are going to be there from Minnesota. They are going to come, and they are going to say: Senators and Representatives, we may not know all the specifics of each bill, but we want reform. We want you to change this system. We are tired of all the big money and we are tired of all the vicious attacks. People need to turn up the heat. I think we need something like Earth Day. I think we need Reform Day. I think we need to have congressional delegations from every State meeting with people back in the States on the same day within the next couple of months, because this Congress has to take action. And anybody listening, citizens who are listening, it has to happen in the first 100 days, because if it does not happen at the beginning of this Congress, the atmosphere is going to become poisonous. There will be finger pointing and accusations on both sides. Everybody is going to try to figure out their own angle, and it will not get done. But this is the time for the reform. Let us move towards real grassroots citizen action. Second, President Clinton, it is important for you to be outspoken. Presidential leadership, Presidential power--you need to push for the reform. Both parties have made plenty of mistakes. There have been plenty of transgressions. There is plenty of wrong, and the accusations can go back and forth in perpetuity. Why do we not, once and for all, change the system? Finally, for myself, at the beginning of this Congress--for a short period of time I had an interesting discussion with both leaders in which I maintained I did not know whether we should even go into recess. I thought between January 7 and January 20 we ought to focus just on reform. Now we have another recess period coming up in mid- February. I think we need to give very serious thought to focusing on reform at the very beginning. I am going to try to use whatever leverage I have as a Senator to push in that direction. In the Labor and Human Resources Committee the other day I suggested another possibility. Again, these are just proposals as we try to figure out how we can move this process forward. I suggested that maybe, until we have the reform, what we need to do in every committee is to have people come in and testify, file written testimony as to whether or not they have given contributions or the organizations they represent have given contributions to the members of the committee in the year prior to testimony and the year after testimony. I do not know whether that is something to push forward and have a vote on or not. But I think, again, all of these approaches are not efforts to point the finger at a Senator or Representative. That is bashing. I want nothing to do with it. Or, for that matter, at anybody who is testifying. But I want to bring into sharp focus what is wrong with this process, the perceptions people have about it around the country, all the ways in which it has undercut democracy. You cannot have all of these huge amounts of money pouring into politics and elections and at the same time have real democracy where each person counts as one and no more than one. This is the compelling issue for this Congress. Mr. President, we have to take action. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. First of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of the minority leader. I never really had a chance to serve with Senator Tsongas, and I really never had a chance to get to know him, but it is hard not to admire his work. He will be missed by his family and loved ones, and he will also be missed by our country. As a Senator from Minnesota, I certainly want to send my love to Paul Tsongas' family.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President. I am extremely pleased to be an original cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold-Thompson-Wellstone campaign finance reform bill. I hope the Senate will bring it to the floor very early in this Congress--preferably during the first three months of this year. Campaign finance reform is clearly one of the most crucial issues we face, and the public is more than ready for fundamental reform. I have been working hard with my colleagues on this bipartisan bill, which we hope becomes the vehicle for genuine reform this year. I hope that public dissatisfaction with campaign politics-as-usual, especially as exemplified by the abuses of the campaign season just past, will push this Congress to act decisively. We should choose the best aspects of the various bills that will be introduced this year and fix the problems which have made themselves so apparent. We know there will opposition to any significant changes in the way we organize and finance campaigns for federal office, but if there is sufficient pressure from around the country, we can pass real reform. So let us bring this bill to the floor and amend it. No reform bill is perfect. Let Republicans and Democrats offer their changes. As the only viable, bipartisan campaign finance reform bill, this proposal represents our best hope for taking a significant step toward genuine reform. In some ways this bill does not go as far as I believe will be necessary in order to repair our damaged campaign finance system. But it would ban ``soft money'' contributions to parties. It would impose voluntary spending limits and require greater disclosure of independent expenditures. It would restrict PAC contributions and ``bundling,'' and it would place more restrictions on foreign contributions. It is a good bill. Its enactment would be an excellent start toward restoring integrity to our political process. We must enact comprehensive reform. But I am especially committed this year to addressing the striking abuses in the areas of ``soft money'' and issue-advocacy ads. A system which invites circumvention mocks itself. Mr. President, I intend to speak at greater length in the coming days on the subject of campaign finance reform. Today, I enthusiastically endorse this bipartisan effort to move real reform and to begin to restore Americans' belief in our democratic institutions.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, children's health care coverage needs to be a priority in this Congress. We need to be committed to providing access to affordable coverage and care to all working families in America. We also need to provide coverage for uninsured pregnant women, in order to ensure that children get a healthy start in life. All children should have access to services that provide for their basic health care needs such as immunization, preventive services, acute care, and dental care services, regardless of whether they live in rural or urban areas. Employers are rapidly cutting health care coverage for children of their employees. When a family earning $16,000 each year is required to pay over 10 percent and sometimes as much as one-third of their income to purchase health insurance for their children, they are forced to make very difficult choices. They must choose between providing their children with basic needs such as food and shelter, and paying for health insurance. Health care coverage for children is an investment in the future. Children with undiagnosed or untreated health problems may have difficulty learning in school. A child with poor vision that has not been diagnosed or treated may be unable to see the blackboard. A child who is in pain from preventable tooth decay may not be able to eat an adequate diet, and the pain may make it difficult for the child to concentrate. A child with asthma who has poor access to care may spend many hours in an emergency department and many days in the hospital for treatment of problems that could have been prevented. This occurs at a significant cost not only in terms of dollars, but also in terms of lost opportunities to attend school, and loss of work time and income for the child's parents. These situations can be prevented with adequate health care coverage and access for children. Children in rural areas are especially vulnerable, as there are fewer services available in these areas, and some needed services are located at significant distances from their homes. In addition, these children often live in homes where their parents work for small employers, who are unable to offer dependent coverage at a low cost. Several States have demonstrated the cost savings available by providing assistance to working families. My home State, Minnesota, operates its own program that helps families buy private health insurance. Ninety-thousand people are covered, including 50,000 children. Over the years, more than 41,000 families have used MinnesotaCare to leave or stay off welfare, saving the taxpayers $26 million per year. It is essential that we address this issue and provide low- and middle-income families with the option to purchase affordable private insurance coverage for their children. These families must be provided with the means to purchase this coverage in a timely manner, so that they do not have to delay the purchase of coverage for their children. We need to build on successful private, State, and Federal efforts to help working families afford to provide health coverage for their children. Providing coverage for children through age 18 and pregnant women is the next logical step in incremental health care reform. It is sound policy and makes economic sense. It will ensure that all children in America have a healthy start in life.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have listened to my three colleagues, and having been sworn in today I understand their point about the occasion. So what I want to do, in the spirit of the special day today, I withdraw my objection, but I want to go on record, I am going on record today that I am going to have the same amendment dealing with our recess in February if we do not get to work on this. We should not be taking a recess in February if we are not going to take up this piece of legislation of reform as soon as possible, that we are dragging it out, and I can see what is going to happen. So today I will not object, but I will come out with a similar initiative, I say to my colleague from Arizona, and maybe we should be working today and saying we should not be in recess in February.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask my colleague from Arizona--I do not think it puts him on the spot--I have no question about his commitment or the commitment of any number of other Senators. I find it puzzling that the only thing I asked for today--because I do have a real fear this is just going to get put off and we are not going to take action--the only thing I asked for, and maybe my colleague did not hear this, was a commitment from the leadership to do everything possible, I used that word, and I started with 100 days, within 4 months, and get a bill on the floor. That is all I ask for. I think it would be very important to get that kind of a leadership commitment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, finally, and so we can move forward, just one more time for the context, this is the core issue. That is why I come to the floor. I know other Senators feel the same. I do not lay any claim to more righteousness about it. This is a core issue. People in the country have just absolutely lost their confidence in this political process. I do not think they are real optimistic about our taking any action. In all due respect to the leadership, I have heard too many of my own colleagues talk about reform and then dismiss it, saying it is not going to really happen. I already hear the discussions of how people can raise money for the next cycle. The only request I made of leadership today--and the wording really is, I think, very modest. It was just a commitment from the leadership. I started out 100 days, at least within the next 4 months, that the leadership would make a commitment to do everything possible to get a reform bill on the floor of the Senate. That is all I asked for. Now, Mr. President, the majority leader said, well, the only alternative is to go into recess. That is not the only alternative. That is not my alternative. We have a vote. We can have a vote on adjournment. I know what the vote will be. I am sure there will be an overwhelming vote for adjournment. But if there are only two people, one, or three that say, ``No, we are ready to take on this reform and get to work,'' I am proud to be counted as the one or two or three. This is not the only alternative.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will not drag this on. I have some mixed feelings. I think I will have to object because, again, I have tremendous respect for both leaders, but when I hear language about ``best effort,'' ``within as reasonable a time period as possible,'' it just represents really not any kind of specific commitment at all. I will just say that those who have worked on the reform--and the Senator mentioned many; the Senator mentioned Republicans as well as Democrats--every one of them has said, if we let this drag on, we are going to have more and more acrimony, given all sorts of hearings and whatnot coming up, and we are going to make a huge mistake. We need to make this a priority of this 105th Congress, and we need to focus on this, and we need to get the job done. I think a 4-month period is more than reasonable just to have a commitment from the leadership to make every effort possible. I am willing to go with that language to have such a piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate, understanding that this is the core issue. I think really this is an issue that people are talking about more than any other issue in the country right now. I do not think it is unreasonable. I thought 100 days, and I thought 4 months. I do not think it would be unreasonable at all for me to make this request. I do not know why the leadership would not be able to say we will make every effort possible to have this bill on the floor within the next 4 months. And if not, then I think I will object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the discussions that I have had with the majority leader and minority leader. I was trying to get back to them as they were going through the resolutions. I guess when I hear the majority leader and minority leader speak about this and other business that we have to transact, while I absolutely am convinced about their commitment, it just brings into even sharper focus for me the need for this body to make a commitment: that we will by the end of 100 days have a bill on the floor of the Senate. We have been talking about this for a long, long time. I don't have the experience some Senators do. I am just starting my second term. But every single time this has come up, speeches have been made, and then we end up not passing a reform bill. I think nothing could be more important than for us to make a commitment. What about within the first 4 months as opposed to the first 3 months? Can the majority leader make a commitment that he will do everything possible to try to have a bill on the floor of the Senate within a 4-month period? That is reasonable, and that is all I am asking for. I think the majority leader is committed to this. I want to say to my friend, and he is a friend, that of course I am not judging what the specific content will be. I am not requesting any commitment to a particular content, but I am requesting a commitment that we go on record and--you know, if we had to have a vote on this, then I think it would be a vote as to whether or not Senators, Democrats and Republicans, are serious about taking action within a 4-month period, which is very reasonable. I do not know how many votes there would be, but I think that is what it is about. I want to be counted as someone who is willing to make a commitment to this. Would the majority leader be willing to make a commitment that certainly with his considerable skill and ability he will, along with the minority leader with his skill and ability, that the two of them together as leadership, will make a commitment that within the first 4 months they will do everything possible to take action and have the debate that the people in the country are ready for and pass--and pass--the piece of legislation? We do not have to say ``pass,'' but at least bring a bill to the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have had some discussion with the majority and minority leaders on this question. I feel very strongly, and I think that an overwhelming majority of people in the country feel, that there is no more important thing we can do than to pass a reform bill and get a lot of this big money out of politics. In this last election cycle, we saw the worst of the worst on top of a system that has not worked well for the people in the country. I feel like we should not--go into recess and we ought to get started on this. I wonder if the majority leader can make a commitment that within the first 100 days, we will at least have such a bill on the floor of the Senate. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as we bring this Congress to a close, it is clear now that there will be no legislative action this year on changes to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness or Voyageurs National Park, even on a limited legislative rider which would allow trucks back onto certain portages within the BWCAW. A Federal appeals court, overturning a series of decisions by the Forest Service and by a lower Federal court, ejected trucks from the portages several years ago. This rider was designed to again allow anglers and others to portage boats by truck from one lake to another in the BWCA. Now, they are required to use alternative means to transport their boats across these portages. As I have said, I would be willing to consider changes to the current status of the portages, as long as it is part of an overall, agreed- upon resolution of the many BWCAW issues on the table in the Federal mediation process underway in Minnesota. I am hopeful that such an agreement can be reached soon. Mr. President, let me be clear. On many of the issues which have arisen in the BWCA and Voyageurs disputes, I believe the people of northeastern Minnesota have legitimate grievances, and that they should be addressed as promptly and effectively as possible. I have worked over the years to make sure that when other land and lake use issues in the region--including snowmobile use, lake levels, trails, and other matters--have arisen, they are addressed as swiftly as possible. For years, many of the people of northern Minnesota have believed that the Park Service and Forest Service have not been listening to them. Too many feel that they have offered constructive solutions to disputes and problems which have arisen, and yet often those solutions have been ignored, or rejected, by those who manage the wilderness and the park. That's why I think it's important that some means of expanding meaningful citizen input, which must be taken into account and then responded to by the Park Service and the Forest Service, is important. Months ago, I indicated that I would support a new mechanism to ensure that kind of regular, concrete citizen input, and I hope that the negotiators will consider including a proposal on this issue in their package of recommendations to Congress. There has been no action on any of the bills introduced this year on BWCAW and Voyaguers because they did not reflect a policy consensus in our own State, much less in the Nation as a whole. I am hopeful that in the coming months, and certainly by early next year, there will be such a consensus reached in our State, through the mediation process which I initiated, convened by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which has been making real progress in recent months. That mediation process is broad-based, open and public, and includes people representing all those competing interests which have made these disputes so difficult to resolve over the years. One of the reasons, I think, that they have been so tough to resolve is that too often those involved have chosen to try to fight it out, rather than to talk it out over a table in Minnesota, in a search for common ground. Some chose to try to fight it out here in Washington. Some chose to fight it out in the courts. I chose to initiate a process which would allow Minnesotans to talk it out, and then bring their recommendations to the Minnesota congressional delegation for ratification. I'm proud of that choice. I think it was the responsible thing to do, the right thing to do. I think most Minnesotans agree with that, and that the recent successes in mediation are bearing that out. I know that some people in northern Minnesota disagree--some fiercely--and are concerned that their interests won't be protected in the mediation process. I want to make them a guarantee today: your interests and views are represented in mediation, and they will be carefully considered by me here in the U.S. Senate. I will press hard to make sure that every voice in my State, including those whom I respect and have worked with for so many years in northern Minnesota, are heard in this process. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service prepared carefully for the process for months before it actually started, interviewing hundreds of Minnesotans to make sure that all interests were represented at the table, and to guarantee an open, broadly participatory process. I am very grateful to the Mediation Service, and to all those Minnesotans who have volunteered their time and talents to this mediation effort. I know it is not always easy to put yourself on the hotseat with friends, neighbors, and townspeople who might disagree with you, and to try to work out mutually agreeable solutions to major disputes such as those which have brewed over the BWCAW and VNP for many years. This kind of willingness to work at a local level to resolve disputes is an admirable act of responsible citizenship, an act of faith in the ability of neighbors to work together, and an act of hope that future generations will appreciate the legacy of a lasting solution that protects these important resources. I will be talking at greater length about these people shortly. The BWCA mediation group met last Thursday and Friday, and will be meeting again soon to address, among other matters, the portages. They have already agreed on several recommendations to be made to the congressional delegation, as part of a larger package of proposed changes to be ratified by them later. I am hopeful they will make further progress on the portages, and other issues, in the coming weeks. I have a few articles from last week's newspapers in Minnesota that I will ask to have printed in the Record following my statement, along with letters and other information on the dispute and on the mediation process which demonstrate the broad support mediation has garnered within our State as the most reasonable, sensible way to resolve these disputes. These documents should be able to give people looking back on this dispute a better understanding of the history of this dispute, and of how the mediation process is designed to work. As I've said, this sensible mediation process, which enjoys the support of a large majority of Minnesotans, and of the Clinton administration, is already producing results--including agreements on issues in Voyageurs and in the BWCA mediation groups--that many believe bode well for further agreements on both disputes. In addition to the few agreements reached so far on the BWCA, just in the last few days the mediation team on Voyageurs announced a couple of agreements on strategies to handle problems in the park having to do with public safety, improved Park Service consultation with local people, and other issues. It is becoming clearer each day that the mediation process is making real progress and has gained wide acceptance throughout the State. I have opposed all of the earlier legislation introduced on the BWCA--including strongly opposing the bill offered by Congressman Vento--because I thought a mediated solution was more likely to be durable, and to gain broad acceptance by Minnesotans, than approaches developed in Washington without broad, bipartisan support in Minnesota. As I have said consistently, I agree with the large majority of Minnesotans who believe, as polls continue to show, that the mediation process underway in Minnesota is by far the more sensible and appropriate way to resolve these disputes, and to develop durable solutions that will last not for weeks, or months, or even a few years, but for a generation or more. Let me publicly take a moment to specifically thank all of those who have been involved in this mediation process, and who have already dedicated so much time and effort to resolving these disputes. They are, in a sense, the people who are helping to create a new future for the BWCA and the VNP, helping to resolve longstanding disputes through a process which ensures that all interests in Minnesota are represented. First, let me thank those from Minnesota who are actually participating in mediation. I hope I have a complete list; if not, I apologize in advance to anyone I may have missed. I will not go into detail about the background and expertise of each person, but I know they each have a story to tell about how and why they are involved in this process, and each have made important contributions to the process. Let me first list and thank publicly, on behalf of all Minnesotans, the participants in the BWCA mediation: Barb Bergland, from Ely; Mitch Brunfelt, from Mountain Iron; Chuck Dayton, Minneapolis; Arthur Eggen, Crane Lake; Tony Faras, Grand Marais; Paul Forsman, Ely; Mike Furtman, Duluth; Bill Hansen, Tofte; Leon Jourdaine, Lac La Croix First Nation, Fort Francis, Ontario; Alden Lind, Duluth; Ted Merschon, Grand Marais; Gretchen Nichols, Minneapolis; Brian O'Neill, Minneapolis; John Ongara, Duluth; Stuart Osthoff, Ely; Bob Schultz, Ely; Paul Shurke and Laurie Larson, Ely; Barbara Soderburg, U.S. Forest Service, Duluth; George Sundstrom, Duluth; Rolf Thompson, Ely; Rod Sando, Minnesota DNR. And those involved in the Voyageurs National Park mediation: Beverly Alexander, Minneapolis; Phillip Byers, Long Lake; Chuck Dayton, Minneapolis; David Dill, Orr; Ron Esau, International Falls; Oliver Etgen, Virginia; Jeff Mausolf, Duluth; Brian O'Neill, Minneapolis; Paul Stegmeir, Ely; Tim Watson, Ray; Barbara West, Voyageurs National Park Superintendent; David Zentner, Duluth; Rod Sando, DNR. From the mediation service, I am grateful to Director John Wells and his very able and professional staff, both here in Washington and in the midwest regional office in Minneapolis. They have dug into this project with great skill and energy and commitment, and I believe the people of our State owe them a great debt. The U.S. Forest Service and Park Service have been most helpful in this process as well, helping to fund the mediation effort, providing technical advice and assistance, and agreeing to have their principal representatives in the state actually participate in the talks. I think their participation and cooperation have been essential, and that it will make for a much more durable resolution of these disputes. There are, of course, many others who have worked for countless hours to craft a balanced, fair, open mediation process and to make sure mediation provides a credible, effective forum for working out disputes. I am grateful to all of them for helping with this effort. I will be monitoring the mediation process closely in the coming weeks, and I hope they will be able to develop a sound set of recommendations to forward to Congress as soon as possible. I would like to be able to have a package of agreed-upon legislative recommendations ready for introduction early in the 105th Congress. I thank you, Mr. President, for this time. I hope this brief statement, along with the accompanying information, will give my colleagues some sense of what has been happening in my State recently on BWCAW and Voyageurs National Park, and the significant progress that has been made so far in the mediation effort to resolve disputes there. I hope they will work with me and my House and Senate colleagues from Minnesota to craft a comprehensive, durable solution to these disputes early next year. I ask that the material I referred to earlier in my remarks be printed in the Record. The material follows: Exhibit 1 Sen. Wellstone Announces Details of Federal Mediation Process to Help Resolve BWCAW/Voyageurs Disputes Washington, DC.--U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone today announced that he has reached an agreement with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to facilitate a formal mediated dispute resolution process to help resolve land use disputes in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) and Voyageurs National Park (VNP). Preparations for the process, which is to begin immediately, are already underway. ``I have said for months that I want to avoid another statewide battle over land management issues in the BWCAW and Voyageurs National Park. I believe there is a need for a coordinated, statewide mediated dispute resolution effort to bring Minnesotans together to identify mutually acceptable approaches to these issues. We in Minnesota can do better than we have in the past on these issues, and I intend to do what I can to make sure that happens,'' Sen. Wellstone said. FMCS will provide a team of experienced, neutral mediators to craft a process that is fair, impartial, goal-oriented, and that allows all interested parties in Minnesota a chance to be heard--and to listen to one another--about the issues in dispute, their goals, and their recommendations to resolve longstanding controversies. Questions regarding who would actually be represented in the process; the scope, timing and format of the discussions; the ultimate result of the process, including the nature and form of recommendations to federal agencies and lawmakers; and other similar issues would be answered through consultation with the parties. ``I have discussed this idea with Congressmen Oberstar and Vento, who as you know have been leaders on these issues for decades,'' Sen. Wellstone said. ``No one should be surprised that we now have competing legislative proposals from Congressmen Oberstar and Vento representing their sharply divergent views on these public lands issues. While they differ on the best way to manage these public lands, they have indicated their support for my initiative. The specific legislation proposed by Congressmen Oberstar and Vento and discussed by Senator Grams will not be the focus of the mediation process. Rather, the process will focus on the issues identified by the parties themselves. Like Congressman Oberstar's bill, Congressman Vento's legislation could undermine this mediation process, and therefore I do not intend to support either bill.'' The mediation process, explains Wellstone in his letter, is designed to prevent these historically contentious land use issues from further diving the state. ``Throughout my time in the Senate, I have held firm to the belief that locally- developed recommendations are likely to be more effective, and more durable, than those imposed from outside. Bringing Minnesotans to the table as part of a participatory process that takes in account the needs and interests of all in a search for common ground is my goal.'' Wellstone observed that unlike 20 years ago, today there are new tools available to help develop durable land use solutions, including new forms of public, mediated dispute resolution that have proven effective in some of our nation's most controversial land use disputes, even those where people believed at the outset that there was little chance for a productive discussion between the parties, much less for developing mutually agreed-upon solutions. For example, in one particularly heated case, a strong disagreement over the use of off road vehicles in the Cape Code National Seashore in Massachusetts was successfully addressed through dispute resolution. In another case, ranchers and wilderness advocates in New Mexico and Arizona used dispute resolution to help resolve fierce disagreements on rangeland management. Sen. Wellstone, who fully supports expanded citizen participation in the management of these lands, observed that a ``Minnesota solution'' is likely to be more effective than one imposed from Washington. ``Given the current deep divisions on these issues within our state, I believe that proposals to resolve BWCAW and VNP disputes that are developed in Minnesota, by Minnesotans, are more likely to be accepted by all parties, and as a result be more durable, than those developed in Washington without adequate efforts to bring Minnesotans together first to try to develop a consensus,'' Sen. Wellstone concluded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the U.S. Congress has failed this year to resolve a serious solid waste problem, that of flow control. Many solid waste management issues have been rightly addressed by State and local governments. State and local governments have decided how solid waste will be managed, preferring landfilling, incineration, recycling, composting, waste reduction, or a combination thereof. Similarly, they have also provided the needed funding for their solid waste programs. However, while State and local governments have played the key role, the Federal Government has also been involved in the management of solid waste. Through regulatory actions and federal court rulings, the Federal Government has dramatically influenced how State and local governments have approached their solid waste problems. For example, when the Supreme Court recently held that State and local governments could no longer designate where privately collected waste could be disposed of, some States and localities--including many in my State of Minnesota--were adversely affected. No longer could a State--except in rare instances--prohibit waste shipments from out-of-State or impose fees on waste disposal that discriminate on the basis of origin, nor direct where privately collected waste had to be disposed. As a result of this decision--and those of other courts--many local governments teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. Without the ability to guarantee a volume of waste flow to their waste facilities, local governments are less able to finance the facility, as well as to plan for future development. Recent Congresses, in addition to this one, have attempted to address the flow control problem. Legislation has been introduced to give States the authority to restrict the amount of solid waste imported from other States. However, the Senate and House have yet to agree on a solution. Due to Congress' inability to address flow control, many local governments are contemplating--or have already undertaken-- drastic actions such as laying off employees and raising taxes. In addition, some local governments have had their bonds downgraded. Alarmingly, it seems that if the flow control problem is not addressed soon, the financial problems of many communities in my State of Minnesota and elsewhere will only worsen. I have wholeheartedly supported flow control legislation in the past. While many in Congress continue to oppose such legislation, I will not rest. In the 105th Congress, I will continue to advocate flow control legislation to help communities in our country better manage their solid waste.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Senators Moseley-Braun and Baucus and I want to call attention to a matter that is very important to the small group affected. At the end of my remarks I will ask that a letter to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, signed by myself and Senators Baucus and Moseley-Braun, be included in the Record. We are asking the Secretary to review the criteria for income determination for the low-income housing tax credit and consider using the criteria and standards already in effect under the low-income guidelines for section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act as income guidelines for the low-income housing tax credit. Senators Baucus and Moseley-Braun have seen situations in Montana and Illinois similar to one facing the community of Hibbing, MN. Several years ago, the city of Hibbing organized a development program to purchase and restore the historic Androy Hotel in downtown Hibbing. The hotel was run down and had been abandoned. The rehabilitation was important to the city of Hibbing not only because of the history of the Androy Hotel, but because it symbolically dominates the downtown area. The rehabilitated hotel has been constructed for much needed senior citizen housing and there has been historic restoration of the hotel ballroom and lobby on the first floor. The low-income housing tax credit program made some of the funding provided by the city of Hibbing and a local bank possible. The low-income housing tax credit restricts the use of housing units to seniors of a certain income level. Unfortunately, because of a unique situation, many Hibbing seniors are just above the prescribed income level. This is because in Hibbing there is a long history of saving for retirement due to the commitment by the iron mining industry to solid pension programs and Social Security income for both spouses. Thus, almost all low-income seniors in Hibbing who would like to move to the Androy are not eligible to do so. If the Secretary were to apply different income guidelines such as section 8 low-income housing guidelines to the low-income housing tax credit, the Androy Hotel and other buildings rehabilitated for low- income elderly residents could be occupied. There is a great need for more affordable housing in many communities, particularly for those on fixed incomes. Many senior citizens welcome the opportunity to move to facilities for seniors that are in their own communities. I ask unanimous consent that our letter to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros be printed in the Record.