Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable section of that Act for the consideration of the pending amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have just a quick response, and we will move on. First of all, I say to my friend from Delaware that to talk in general terms about studies and evaluations and not to connect it specifically to the issue that I raised in this amendment, as to whether or not we will in fact be willing to look at the very real and important questions as to whether this legislation or provisions in this legislation have impoverished more children, and then take corrective action, again, it misses the point. It is not a response to that very real concern. Second of all, this it is not an agency that takes the action. Health and Human Services reports back to this body, and we are the ones that correct the problem. We are the ones that correct the problem. So, again, I do not really believe that the comments of my colleague are responsive to what this amendment speaks to. Finally, on welfare--I cannot resist--and then we can move on. But this reference to the CBO study. With all due respect, when I hear my colleagues talk about welfare and how welfare caused poverty, it is tantamount to making the argument that Social Security caused people to grow old. You have the cause and effect mixed up. Every 30 seconds, a child is born into poverty in this country. We are getting close to one out of every four children. That is true. There are a whole host of reasons why we have this poverty. Welfare is a response to it. To argue that the welfare system causes the poverty is like saying the Social Security system causes people to be aged. You just have the cause and effect mixed up. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, I will finish up with one other quick amendment with my time slot. First, I will respond by saying one more time that it just evades the point. It is not a question of academics or whether there will be studies. It is a question of whether or not we are willing, as an institution, as a body, to say we are doing something very different. We want to make sure that in this legislation we pass we have some provision here to take a look at what we have done, so that the results will come back to us, so that if in fact, God forbid, we have done something that impoverished more children, we will take quick action to correct the problem. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the opposition to such a proposal. I am really shocked. Excuse me for my indignation, but I am. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay this amendment aside and to offer my other amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Kentucky, absolutely. I will give but one other example. It was President Richard Nixon, a Republican, who said we better have some national standards for food stamps, because we had all these reports in the mid and late 1960's. I am sure my colleague from Pennsylvania has read about those reports on children with extended bellies and children suffering from rickets and scurvy. We decided there better be some national standards. If we are going to do something quite new, and we have Senators of the stature of Senator Patrick Moynihan who say this will impoverish more children, and we have two studies from OMB and Health and Human Services saying the same thing, I do not wish to cast judgment on it, but I cannot for the life of me understand why my colleagues would not want to at least have Health and Human Services study it and bring back a report to us, and if, in fact, some of the provisions of this legislation have increased poverty among children, we take corrective action. My colleagues have said that will not happen, so why would you want to vote against this? Why would you not want to have a study? Why would you not want to have some measuring of statistics? Why would we not want to err on the side of caution when it comes to what we are doing, as it affects the poorest children in America? Why would we not want to err on the side of caution? The silence is deafening; is there a response?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania evades the point. This amendment is not about collecting statistics about poverty in general. It is about this piece of legislation and doing something in the affirmative for children if, in fact, provisions in this piece of legislation should lead to an increase in poverty among children. Two years is hardly too tight a time line for children who might find themselves in more difficult economic circumstances because of what we have done. In all due respect, I find it absolutely amazing that Senators who make the argument that this is going to be a piece of legislation that will not hurt children would now be unwilling to support a study to see whether, in fact, provisions in this piece of legislation are going to impoverish more children. You cannot evade the point. I ask my colleague, what would be the harm in such a study? Gunnar Myrdal said, ``Ignorance is never random.'' Sometimes I guess we do not know what we do not want to know. Before I move on to my other amendment, is there any particular response as to why?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is on behalf of myself and Senator Simon. This amendment is a very simple and straightforward amendment. And it is my fervent hope that this amendment will have strong bipartisan support. Mr. President, let me just assume--and I think it is probably a correct assumption--that there is not one Senator in this Chamber that wishes to impoverish any more children in America, that when people say that they think the passage of this bill will not hurt children, they mean it. I accept that as having been said in good faith. Mr. President, today the Washington Post, in an editorial, said that this welfare reform bill could be a profound mistake and called upon all of us to be cautious, that one out of every eight children in America is covered by the AFDC program, the welfare program. Mr. President, let me give you the context, and then let me go right to the amendment. The context is as follows. I think we are going to be very honest about this. As the old saying goes, people can be in honest disagreement about this bill. But the fact of the matter is, we do not know for certain. There are some ardent advocates for this welfare bill. And there are those who have spoken in strong opposition. One of those Senators who has been most vocal in his opposition is Senator Patrick Moynihan from New York, who has been a giant in the field, who has studied welfare longer than any of the rest of us, who is an acknowledged expert, and who has enormous intellectual and political and personal integrity. Senator Moynihan argues that this in fact would mean that there would be more impoverished children in America. That is his view. That is not the view of every Senator. Mr. President, what this amendment says is that Health and Human Services takes a look at what we have done over the next 2 years. I know that Senators do not want this to be the case. But if, in fact, as a result of some of the provisions in this legislation there are more impoverished children in America, that report comes back to us, and we fast track it. It comes back to the Congress, we fast track it, and it comes to the floor in 20 days, and we take action to correct the problem. Now, Senators, please understand what I am saying. I wish there was time to summarize this tomorrow. I am assuming everybody in this Chamber--and I believe it has been operating in good faith; we just have some honest disagreements. But I do not think any of us know for certain. What I am saying in this amendment is, at least have some safety net here or some fail-safe mechanism. At least be willing to evaluate what we have done. We cannot know what we do not want to know. We cannot be unwilling to study what we have done. We cannot be unwilling to have some sort of evaluation, have Health and Human Services study this, bring it back to us, and if, in fact, because of some of the provisions in this legislation, there are more impoverished children in America-- that is what the Office of Management and Budget said about the last bill we passed--then we would take a look at that study, and we, not Health and Human Services, we, as legislators, would take the kind of corrective action that would be necessary to make sure we do not continue to cause this poverty among children in America. Mr. President, I am really hopeful that there will be strong support for this. I think it is a most reasonable amendment. I think it would be reassuring to people in the country. Frankly, I think it is a way we can reassure ourselves. I offer this amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted. I withhold the balance of my time and ask for a response from the Senator from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. When is that? I might ask.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, can I ask unanimous consent that I be in order after the Biden-Specter amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have been trying to get----

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the FY 1997 Defense Appropriation bill. Once again Senate Republicans have sought to include over $10 billion extra dollars on military projects not requested by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Quite frankly, it is fiscally irresponsible to spend more than is needed on wasteful military programs at a time when many domestic programs are being reduced substantially in order to balance the budget. At the request of the Republican leadership, the Appropriations Committee has authorized $10.1 billion more than was requested. That's right. The majority wants to spend $10.1 billion more than the Pentagon has requested, or than they have indicated they will be able to responsibly use, next year. Much of that figure was not even included in the Pentagon's 5-year plan, or on so-called wish lists that were solicited by congressional defense committees. The Pentagon has said clearly: They don't need these funds now, the projects are not in their 5-year plan, and they're not even on their wish lists. Mr. President, there is no question that there is waste in the Pentagon. In fact, about a year ago, the Pentagon's own spending watchdog, its Comptroller General John Hamre, conceded that DOD could not account for over $13 billion in spending. It's just been lost in the ocean of paperwork at the Pentagon, and likely won't ever be sorted out. In fact, the Comptroller has all but given up on trying to find out what happened to most of the money, arguing it would be more expensive than it would be worth to account for these funds. It is particularly outrageous that the Appropriations Committee has proposed these hefty increases at the same time that the Defense Department is being called to task for not being able to account for billions of dollars in its own spending. Waste, possible fraud in Pentagon spending, certainly egregious abuses of basic accounting rules--this is a serious problem, and no one seems to be doing very much about it. Indeed, instead of vigorously overseeing spending in this budget, we are trying to foist off on the Pentagon an extra $10.1 billion in military hardware, new weapons systems, planes and ships, and other spending they have not even requested so that certain Senators can protect jobs in their States that depend on continued high levels of defense spending. If we pass this bill, my Minnesota constituents will continue to pay their taxes to bolster the treasuries of bloated defense contractors, who are building ships and planes and weapons systems that we don't need, and can't use, and that won't make our Nation any more secure. So that there is no mistake, let me repeat that for those who are listening. We are considering today a defense spending bill that spends a full $10.1 billion more than the President requested in his budget. We are doing this despite the fact that there is no sudden, extraordinary threat to justify such an increase. And many of those in this body who are pressing for such a huge increase are precisely the same people who are out here on this floor, day after day, week after week, month after month, howling about how we simply must get the deficit under control. They are doing this while at the same time larding defense bills with billions in spending for their local shipyard, or weapons contractor, or plane manufacturer. Have we no shame, Mr. President? Is there no sense of limits in this body when it comes to wasteful and unnecessary weapons programs? Now, controlling the deficit is important, and I have supported responsible, fairminded deficit reduction proposals totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. We heard yesterday that the deficit has dropped from about $290 billion to an estimated $117 billion this year, due largely to the President's fiscal policies. And now we again are faced with outrageous overspending on military programs that are not even supported by the Pentagon. For the past couple of years, we've heard from many of our Republican colleagues who have sought to look like they were reducing the Federal deficit through various schemes and non-specific formulas. And even when they have offered something specific, they tend to first go after funding for education, Medicare and Medicaid; programs for those who cannot help themselves; programs which protect our air, lakes and rivers, and on and on. While I have serious concerns even about some of the President's underlying defense spending assumptions which require, for example, fighting two major regional conflicts at one time without help from our allies, at least his budget focuses on research and development, maintaining a high level of readiness, and improving the quality of life of our Armed Forces. We can meet our defense needs fully and responsibly. My question is, Why aren't we applying the same standards to wasteful military spending that are being applied to domestic programs that millions of average Americans rely on? There are three arguments that I want to make to counter Republican assertions that the President's defense request is too low. First, the appropriations bill provides more to defense, in dollar terms, than last year. This is in stark contrast to the fact that nondefense discretionary spending as a whole is frozen or declining precipitously in many areas. Second, Republicans are claiming that defense spending in the bill declines in real terms and as such their budget recommendation is actually a cut from last year. Think about that argument--defense spending is declining in real terms. Now contrast it with the Republican arguments as they seek to dismantle domestic spending programs. Do they ever seek to portray their domestic cuts in real terms? Or do they consistently recite that they are spending the same or more in the current year than they did last year. They can't have it both ways. Pick one methodology and stick with it, I say. Third, the administration estimates that due to lower inflation estimates over the next few years, we can buy as much for our defense dollar as we had planned, but spend about $46 billion less for it than was requested last year. By this calculation, the President's budget request actually represents a long-term increase over last year's defense program. The bottom line is this: The President's defense budget maintains a strong defense, no matter how the Republicans choose to craft their argument. It takes into account all of our current and future defense needs, and makes tough choices. Adding billions in additional pork barrel spending is unnecessary, wasteful, and wrong. Even if one acknowledges that defense spending has decreased by some measures since the mid-1980's, and that the administration's request continues that trend, it must be placed into context. That is, much has changed since the end of the cold war. And our country's priorities must change accordingly--we must maintain a strong defense, but accommodate increasing concerns for better education, health care, crime prevention, economy and the environment. Maintain a strong defense, but do it by increasing burden-sharing by our allies, imposing cost and accountability controls called for by GAO, eliminating unnecessary weapons programs. We must also re-assess the fundamental assumptions which continue to drive continued high defense spending, like the requirement that we be able to fight two major wars at once, without the help or support of our allies. We already spend vastly more on the military than all our potential major enemies combined--40 percent of the world's total military budget. Along with our allies, we spend about $510 billion on defense of our interests worldwide. All our major potential enemies combined spend about $140 billion per year. The billions spent on star wars, the Trident, the B-2 bomber, and the 600-ship Navy are but a few of the reasons why our deficit rose so dramatically during the 1980's. This administration however, has sought to maintain a strong defense while addressing critical domestic needs and reducing the deficit as well. But while the President has made tough choices, the Republicans have refused to stare down military contractors clamoring for even more than the Pentagon has said it needs. If Members are so concerned about a looming procurement problem, then maybe we ought to make some tough decisions about the size of our military forces, and their dispersion around the world, and scale back here. Instead, we are bolstering funding on fantastically expensive weapons programs, while we underfund key peacekeeping programs and the dual-use applications program that will benefit U.S. industry. I recognize that there are still real dangers out there for which we must prepare, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The need to combat weapons proliferation to rogue states poses new problems for the United States, and must be addressed forcefully and directly. But we can do that now. We have the largest and strongest military in the world, and there is nothing in the administration's request that does anything to diminish that fact. To the contrary, the administration's budget improves an already strong defense establishment. So why do the Republicans persist in adding to the Pentagon's request? Do they perceive some previously unidentified emerging threat that the intelligence or national security community has disregarded? No. I think at its worst it is simply their desire to pour billions more dollars into spending for large weapons programs, ships, fighters and the like built in the States of defense committee members. At best it is a misplaced desire to save jobs. Mr. President, we cannot afford these kinds of pet projects. How should we reduce wasteful military spending? I'll start with what arguably must be the most difficult problem to attack--the Pentagon bureaucracy. Several of my colleagues have recently railed against the Department of Energy, the Departments of Education, Commerce and others--but I hear a deafening silence on their part when it comes to the Department of Defense, the largest and most wasteful bureaucracy in the world. The same tough accountability standards should be applied to all Federal agencies, if we are to root out waste, abuse, and program duplication. Let me give a few examples of the size and scope of the defense waste we're talking about. The General Accounting Office, in a 1995 report on the Defense travel process, concluded that the Pentagon could save hundreds of millions of dollars in travel processing costs simply by following the examples of leading companies. This 1995 study identified a myriad of travel agents, voucher processing centers, and over 1,300 pages of regulations. DOD reported $3.5 billion in expenditures for travel and perhaps as much as $1.0 billion more in processing costs. Clearly, efforts to reform and streamline this process, and bring it into control, is urgently needed. I've already discussed the billions lost due to inadequate Pentagon accounting, so I won't rehash that here. But let's take a look at over $3.0 billion extra of procurement add-ons that were not even included in the Pentagon's 5-year plan. These items include procurement of four additional F-16 fighters for the Air Force at a cost of over $107 million. These were not even on the Air Force wish list. The Army gets an additional $120 million to purchase 12 more UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters than the Pentagon asked for. In true share-the- wealth tradition, the Navy receives an astounding $489 million in additional funding for the F/A-18C/D Hornet. The list goes on and on. The additional construction funds provided for the new attack submarine comes at a time when we're already building the Seawolf, after fierce fights by its opponents over the wisdom of building more of these. Why then, are we financing an additional $700 million for advance procurement of the new attack submarine, which is less capable than the Seawolf and only slightly less expensive? To top it off, as directed under the Defense authorization bill, the purchase has preempted any pretense of competition between shipyards by directing these submarines be built in both Connecticut and Virginia. At the same time that advance and unnecessary procurement costs are added, the bill seeks to reduce by $150 million funding for the Dual- Use Applications Program that supports development of technologies that can be applied to both commercial and defense systems, thereby reducing the cost of defense systems. Full funding of this initiative would have moved the Nation in the right direction as we seek to reduce Government spending and reliance on single source industries. Make no mistake: the post-cold-war defense budget is becoming less and less focused on our real national security needs, and more and more on the needs of particular members of Congress to sustain jobs in their home States. American taxpayers are paying for costly, obsolete, fantastically expensive cold-war-era weapons systems that are no longer justifiable, basically to help preserve the political health of certain Members of Congress. That is the sad, unvarnished truth. Many of the weapons systems we are still paying for were initiated during the 1980's defense build-up, and have little or no relation to the changed strategic situation we now face in the post cold-war-era. And yet we continue to fund them, terrified that scaling this spending back modestly will cost jobs in our States. This, despite the fact that under the authorization bill we accepted a proposal by Senator Lieberman that calls for a new study to determine the threat as we enter the 21st century. This study will go a long way to determining the weapons systems we will need to address the threat. I'll bet many of the weapons systems we are providing advanced funding for will be deemed obsolete as the results of the study are released. I believe that at a time when we are slashing budgets for hundreds of social programs that protect the vulnerable; protect our lakes and streams; provide health care for the vulnerable elderly, and create expanded opportunities for the broad middle class--such as student loans and job retraining--it is wrong to provide vastly more military spending than the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff have requested. We have dramatically reduced or frozen funding for many other non-defense programs, and yet we're pouring even more dollars than the Department of Defense can use into expensive weapons systems. In defense, as elsewhere in the Federal budget, there are responsible ways to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending; by cutting obsolete cold war weapons systems, imposing money-saving reforms within the bureaucracy, and streamlining procurement policy to make the system more efficient and more cost-effective. Over and over, in recent months, I have offered or cosponsored amendments to address this problem. These attempts have either been voted down here on the Senate floor, or the bills to accomplish these ends have been bottled up in committee. In the end, there is little Pentagon streamlining, little elimination of waste provided for in this bill. Instead, when faced with difficult choices between competing weapons systems, basic housing improvements for our troops, and other readiness requirements, the committee decided simply to appropriate funds to buy all of the big weapons systems, ships, and planes that $10.1 billion could buy, larding the bill with special interest funding for defense contractors, and accelerating purchases not scheduled to be made for many years, if at all. I believe this bill in its current form spends vastly more on defense than we can afford. The Joint Chiefs and the President agree with me. At a time when we are asked to spend billions less on education, health care, our children and our elderly, I urge my colleagues to vote against these huge and unwarranted increases in defense spending. If it passes, as I'm sure it will, I hope the President will veto it, and then require Congress to come to the negotiating table to more fairly distribute the burden of deficit reduction, eliminating defense pork while preserving our national security.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder whether I might ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute so my colleague can finish this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Democratic minimum wage amendment that is pending which I cosponsored is simple and straightforward. It would increase the Federal minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour. That is 90 cents over 2 years, not even indexed for inflation. Mr. President, the increase in the minimum wage for our Nation for working families in our Nation is a matter of simple justice. Mr. President, the Republican alternative to this bill is in many ways, I think, worse than the House-passed bill. It is certainly not a step forward; rather, it is a great leap backward. First of all, Mr. President, the Republican amendment argues that a family would not receive a raise until January 1, 1997. That would deny people an extra $500. That is important. We want this minimum wage to take effect right now. For people who have significant wages, for people who have significant incomes, $500 may not seem like much, but for many families, for many wage earners who just make a little bit over $8,000 a year, that additional $500 is a difference that makes a difference. Second of all, the Republican alternative would create a subminimum wage that would apply to all workers regardless of age for a 6-month period. Mr. President, this particular part of their alternative I find to be egregious. I know of no other word. In other words, we are saying there will be a 8-month period for wage earners, regardless of age, regardless of experience, regardless of background. They call this an opportunity wage. I, instead, call it an exploitation wage. It to me makes no sense at all. You are 55 years of age, you have been downsized, you had a good job, and you are saying through this amendment, that as a matter of fact, people who have been downsized now have to start out at $4.25 an hour, and for 6 months work at that. They cannot even receive $5.15 an hour. Mr. President, for a 55-year-old out-of-work steelworker in Hibbing, MN, that is not justice. For a 38- year-old waitress in Sauk Centre, that is not justice. For a 27-year- old young man working in a grocery store in Rochester, that is not justice. To make the argument that is not just teenagers, it is everybody, regardless of their age, regardless of their experience, that for 6 months they make $4.25 an hour, not even $5.15 an hour, I think, is no less than a scandal. Finally, Mr. President, the exemption, the small business exemption, is unprecedented, it is unnecessary, it creates a two-tier wage structure, and about half of the 10 million or so wage earners and families that would be benefited by this would no longer benefit. Mr. President, when I look at this alternative and I look at all of the exemptions, I look at all the delays, and all of the rest of it, it is hard to determine under the Republican alternative, who, if anyone, would actually receive an increase even if their bill was to become law. There are so many loopholes and so many exemptions to the Bond alternative that after all is said and done, if it was passed, it is hard to even figure out who would actually receive an increase. Mr. President, we should have no illusions about this on the floor of the Senate. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Bond amendment does not represent a step forward. Mr. President, I would like to talk about this minimum wage debate and this vote, which I think is a historic vote on the floor of the Senate, in a national context and in a family context. I do not think this is a vote really about the minimum wage. I think it is about more than a minimum wage. For the vast majority of Minnesota families and families in this country, they view this as providing a foothold into the middle class. Over 50 percent of the minimum wage workers are adults, they are not teenagers. Over 60 percent of the minimum wage workers are women, and for these women and these men and their families, an additional $1,800 is a difference that makes a difference. It means you can buy the groceries and put food on the table. In a cold weather State like Minnesota you can pay the heating bill. You might be able to afford your tuition at a community college. Mr. President, this is not about just the minimum wage. It is more important than the minimum wage. This is about the squeeze that families feel. This is about the concerns that people have that their children in their twenties cannot find employment that they can count on. That is to say, a job that pays a decent wage. This is about the concern that people have that they cannot afford to send their kids to college. This is about the concern that people have that they cannot make ends meet. This minimum wage amendment that we have introduced represents a step forward for our country. Justice delayed is justice denied. The Bond alternative does not represent a step forward, Mr. President. It represents a step backward. Now, I will not go through the whole political economy debate but I will make two final points. Point one, you look at Salomon Bros. report on this and they say if you raise the minimum wage you have people who can consume more and the economy does better and it creates more jobs, and then you have 100 economists that signed the letter, including a Nobel laureate economist, and they say this is a modest increase, it will not lead to a decrease in jobs. We use to have bipartisan support for raising the minimum wage. We used to believe it was the right thing to do. We used to believe it was a matter of fairness and justice. We should pass this minimum wage in its strongest form. Mr. President, the National Retail Federation, in talking about the Bond amendment said, ``Passing the Bond amendment is probably our best chance to kill the minimum wage increase.'' ``Passing the Bond amendment is probably our best chance to kill the minimum wage increase.'' Senators, colleagues, if you vote for this amendment, that is what you are doing. You are killing the minimum wage increase. There are so many exemptions built into it and so many loopholes that all of the wage earners and all of the families that could benefit will not be able to benefit. We are not going to be able to fool anybody. You cannot duck and run. You cannot hide. You cannot duck for cover. You cannot look for a political cover vote--and that is what this amendment is. We should vote for this minimum wage. It is long overdue. It is the right thing to do. I hope that there will be very strong support for it. Mr. President, let me just finish on a somewhat different note and just reference some of the remarks that my colleague from Illinois is going to make. I am concerned with the managers' amendment. We now just had a chance to see the specifics. It is very long, very involved, and there are a number of provisions in this amendment that I am extremely concerned about. My colleague from Illinois I might ask very briefly to speak about an important Supreme Court decision and what is in this managers' amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to extend my heartiest congratulations to Andy Aspin, who has been named Minnesota Police Officer of the Year. A member of the Minneapolis Police Department, Fifth Precinct, Officer Aspin is a most deserving recipient of this high honor. Throughout his career, Andy has shown admirable commitment and dedication to serving the police force and the entire Minneapolis community. He is especially worthy of this distinction because of the courage and confidence he exhibited in the August 22, 1995, pursuit of an armed murder suspect. Risking his life, he served his community above and beyond the call of duty. As a strong supporter of the law enforcement community, I am always gratified when a police officer receives such richly deserved accolades. Too often, our society focuses its attention and acclaim on the famous and the infamous. Rarely do we notice the role models among us; the everyday heroes who give so much and receive so little in return. Andy's fine work serves as a reminder of the goals to which we should all aspire: to serve others, to strengthen our communities, to live and work with honor and dignity and to help others to do the same. It is a privilege for me to recognize this outstanding law enforcement officer who has protected in an exemplary manner the lives and property of the citizens of Minneapolis. Officer Aspin is truly a role model for our children, a source of pride for all Minnesotans, and a hero to all Americans.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to save a unique, highly effective and invaluable program that assists homeless veterans to find employment, I am today introducing a bill that would reauthorize the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Projects [HVRP] for 3 years. This bill is identical to S. 1257 which I introduced last year after this low-cost program--funded at just over $5 million annually--had been zeroed out in the rescissions bill. With the invaluable help of my distinguished colleague, Senator Simpson, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee--a committee I am proud and honored to serve on--we managed to keep HVRP alive by authorizing a 1-year extension through the end of fiscal year 1996, at the same time authorizing an expenditure of $10 million. Unfortunately, for reasons I can't fathom, no funds were appropriated for HVRP for fiscal year 1996. While HVRP was partially revived in February 1996 when the Departments of Labor and Housing and Urban Development [HUD] each provided $1.3 million in discretionary funds to renew and support projects in cold weather areas of the Nation, the President's budget for fiscal year 1997 contains no funding for HVRP. I am frankly appalled and puzzled that this exceptionally cost- effective program which has done so much to help America's homeless veterans for the past 7 years, continues to face extraordinary difficulties and may not survive. The only possible explanation there is for the trials and tribulations of HVRP is that because it is such a modestly funded national program with annual appropriations ranging from $1.366 million to $5.055 million, it falls beneath the threshold of visibility of the Senate, which is accustomed to focusing on programs with price tags of hundreds of millions of dollars or more. When I sought to have the Veterans' Committee accept the 3-year extension of HVRP I proposed in S. 1257, I was told that only a 1-year authorization could be approved because not enough was known about the program, but that a committee hearing would be held early this year to inform Members about the program. Unfortunately, it now appears unlikely that hearings on HVRP will be scheduled. It is a pity that this exceptionally worthwhile program has such a low profile in this Chamber, because I'm confident that if my colleagues knew more about HVRP, there would be overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle for keeping this program alive and funded adequately. Mr. President, permit me to describe the daunting problems HVRP seeks to address, its outstanding accomplishments, and its methods of operation. On any given night, it has been estimated that between 250,000 and 280,000 veterans are homeless. And, as the Disabled American Veterans [DAV] testified before a House Committee, DOD projects a reduction of 250,000 active military personnel through the year 2000. DAV stressed that many ``at best will have `soft' transferable skills,'' particularly those trained in combat arms, concluding that while it's unknown ``how many of them will end up in the unemployment or soup kitchen line * * * we believe they are at risk.'' In effect we are being told that up to one-third of America's homeless are veterans and the number could well increase. Mr. President, in the face of this situation which can only be described as a national disgrace, HVRP, administered by the Labor Department's Veterans Employment and Training Service [VETS] is the only employment assistance program dedicated to homeless veterans. And, as Preston Taylor, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veteran Employment and Training has emphasized, unemployment, not the lack of affordable housing, is the main cause of homelessness among veterans. Permit me to briefly list some of HVRP's strengths and accomplishments: It is one of the most successful job placement programs in the Federal Government. Since its inception it has placed 13,000 veterans in jobs at a cost of approximately $1,500 per placement. HVRP grantees build complementary relationships with VA, JTPA, and other programs--they do not duplicate any other services. A unique aspect of HVRP is to utilize formerly homeless veterans who know how to approach and win the confidence and trust of other homeless veterans; they go into the streets, shelters, soup kitchens, and other places and tell them HVRP and other available services. HVRP provides grants to community based groups that employ flexible and innovative approaches to assist homeless, unemployed veterans to reenter the work force. Let me repeat--grants to community-based groups, not funding to some large impersonal Federal bureaucracy that some of my colleagues like to lambaste. This is precisely the kind of low-cost, locally focused, and result-oriented program that all of my colleagues, regardless of ideology or party should be able to support without reservation. The program is employment-focused, recognizing that homeless veterans need to become self-supporting to obtain permanent shelter. HVRP local grantees provide homeless veterans with a variety of services designed to maximize their chances of finding permanent jobs, including job counseling, resume preparation, on-the-job training, and instructions in job search techniques. The HVRP program, in collaboration with other service providers, effectively addresses the six major problems hampering homeless veterans seeking to reenter the job market: lack of transitional housing; inadequate substance abuse treatment; transportation problems; lack of job skills; depressed local labor markets; and resistance to hiring the homeless. In conclusion I want to make two points: First that the modest sums saved by eliminating HVRP will quickly be offset be the high costs of providing public assistance to the veterans who will remain homeless due to the lack of a permanent, paying job. Second, and more important, I was deeply moved recently by a letter I received from a disabled Vietnam veteran in Minnesota whom I'd spoken to on the phone and thanked for his service to our country. He mentioned that he'd always felt he'd been left in Vietnam, but that after our talk he felt that he'd at last been brought home. Fortunately, there are many Vietnam veterans who feel they have now come home again. But for some Vietnam and other veterans, the only homes they know are the streets and homeless shelters. To eliminate HVRP, the one program that could give them a job and permit them to escape the miseries and indignities of hopelessness so that they too could feel that they had at last come home, would be shameful. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and ensuring that HVRP receives the funding it needs to continue its invaluable work. Mr. President, I ask that a statement of HVRP of Ronald W. Drach, National Employment Director, DAV, before the Subcommittee on Education, Employment and Training of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, April 18, 1996, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. And I ask unanimous consent that an article by Sid Daniels, Director, National Employment Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars, entitled ``Sun Sets on Homeless Vets Program,'' appearing in the Washington Action Reporter, October 1995, also be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come here to the floor today to speak on a resolution that later will be submitted by Senator Bradley from New Jersey. It is a resolution that I intend to submit with him. Senator Bradley was unable to be here this morning at this time. I am faced with a personal health situation with my daughter back in Minnesota, so I do not have any prepared remarks, but I think the resolution is important, and I just want to take a minute or two to speak about it. This is going to be a resolution that deals with asking students throughout our country to declare that they will never bring weapons to school, that they will not use a weapon to settle disputes, and that they will use their influence among their friends to say, ``There's no place for guns and violence.'' As I said, I am not prepared to speak about the resolution at great length this morning, but I do think it is important--very important. I think the cynical view about such a resolution is, ``Sure, to ask students across the country to take such a pledge, how many of them are going to do it and is it really going to make any difference at all? Those students who bring guns to schools, for a whole myriad of reasons, will be the last ones to sign a pledge or who, if they sign a pledge, the last ones to ever live by it.'' I actually think maybe it is the cynicism that we ought to overcome. There is a wealth of talent. I am in a school in Minnesota every 2\1/2\ to 3 weeks during the school year. There is a wealth of talent and good will and positive attitudes in students across our country. We do not hear enough about them. There are other students who bring guns to school because they feel they have no other choice but to protect themselves. Someone has to light a candle. Somebody has to light a candle. I think this resolution we are going to submit and this pledge effort across the country is important, because I think the students are going to be the ones to light the candle. I think that this resolution and this pledge effort is important because it calls upon the students to be their own best selves, and I think the students are ready to do so. It is really shocking to me that when I am in schools and I ask students, ``What are the most important issues to you, what are the concerns of your lives; you do not have to be an expert, just tell me,'' almost always, whether it is in the inner-city schools or whether it is in rural Minnesota or whether it is suburban schools, they say violence. I do not remember the exact statistics, but I think about every 2 hours a young person is killed by someone using a gun in our country. I think every 4 hours a young person, that is 18 years of age and under, takes his or her life. These are pretty devastating statistics for any of us in the Senate to accept, for any of us who are parents or grandparents to accept, for any other citizens in our country to accept. I do not know that there is any guarantee of success for this resolution that Senator Bradley and I will submit, which will be part of a pledge effort around the country. But I think many students are willing to step forward and to light a candle. I think there are going to be students around the country who will do this as an exemplary action. You know what, Mr. President, sometimes it just takes a few people to step forward and, through their actions, they provoke the hopes and aspirations of other people. I think students will step forward and will sign this pledge in a lot of different schools across our country, in rural and suburban and inner-city schools. I think by doing so, it will not be cynical, it will be positive, it will be full of hope, and I think a lot of discussion will take place around this effort. I think those students who do this first will be setting an example, setting a model. I think just by signing the pledge and talking to others about signing the pledge, about not bringing guns to school, not using guns to settle disputes, taking a nonviolent approach, trying to deal with guns and violence among young people, it can be one really significant thing for our country. I am pleased to speak about this, although today I do not have prepared text. When Senator Bradley submits his resolution, I will be very proud to submit it with him. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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