Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to describe briefly an amendment which I am offering today to correct an oversight in the military health care system. My amendment would permit preventive prostate and colon cancer screenings for male servicemembers, and preventive colon cancer screenings for female servicemembers. This commonsense amendment was offered in the House to the DOD authorization bill by my colleague from Minnesota, Congressman Oberstar, and was adopted by the full House of Representatives with broad bipartisan support. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to address a narrow, yet vitally important, shortcoming in current military health care law. Department of Defense health care law presently entitles current and former female servicemembers and dependents to receive preventive screenings for breast and cervical cancer and other diseases. Current and former male servicemembers and dependents, however, are not permitted to receive similar preventive screenings for prostate and colon cancer. Broadening the law to explicitly cover prostate and colon cancer screenings will save substantial money in averted health care costs, as well as countless lives. The need for this amendment was called to my attention recently by Congressman Oberstar, who has been a crusader for responsible Federal health care and research policies designed to combat the scourge of cancer, and provide expanded treatment options for those who fight these terrible diseases. I'd like to dedicate this amendment to Jim's deceased wife, Jo Oberstar, whose long and heartbreaking struggle with cancer, passionate commitment to her family, and fierce determination inspired all of us who knew her. Jim's commitment to fight cancer in all its forms is fired by her memory, and issues in his tireless efforts to honor and redeem her death by fighting to improve Federal policies in this area, and to ensure access to care and preventive treatment for millions of Americans. In the time since Congressman Oberstar offered this amendment to the House bill, the American Gastroentrological Association has brought to our attention the fact that colon cancer affects women in roughly equal numbers to men. The current list of available screenings for female servicemembers, however, does not include this necessary procedure. My amendment would take care of this oversight. In a time of increasing pressure on the Department of Defense to enlist and retain the highest quality personnel which our Nation has to offer, modest changes such as these are needed to demonstrate our continuing commitment to the well-being of our men and women in uniform. This amendment has generated broad bipartisan support, including in the House National Security Committee, in the full House of Representatives, and in the Department of Defense. I am grateful for the support of those Members of the Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, who have agreed to accept this amendment. It will be a modest, though important, advance in detecting and preventing colon and prostate cancer for those in our Armed Forces. It is sound social, economic, and medical policy, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Finally, Mr. President, in response to that, I was pointing out before the Senator came to the floor, we voted 100 to 0 for what I think is an important study of force structure and modernization yesterday, but my concern is that what we have here is an acceleration of weapons programs that may not be necessary, may be obsolete, and we ought to go forward with that study. I finish up quoting from Senator McCain's view on the Armed Services Committee. His comments: Again, I believe this is overall a very good defense bill, and I voted in favor of reporting the bill to the Senate. However, I feel that the additional $13 billion included in this bill may not survive the congressional budget review process this year. In the event that this bill must be reduced by $3 billion or $4 billion or more, I hope my colleagues will look carefully at these pork-barrel add-ons. We must protect the high-priority military programs which contribute to the future readiness of our Armed Forces. If this bill must be reduced, we should cut out the pork first. That is what this amendment is about. I really believe in cutting out this pork and doing the deficit reduction, going after the $13 billion above and beyond what the Pentagon requested, the President requested, the military leadership requested. I yield back the rest of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. I point out to the Senator from Georgia the wording of the amendment is important, because I listened to what he said about readiness and quality of life. On the allocation of reductions, the amendment reads, ``The Secretary of Defense shall allocate reductions in authorizations of appropriations that are necessary as the result of the application of the limitation set forth in subsection (a) so as to not jeopardize the military readiness of the Armed Forces or the quality of life of Armed Forces personnel,'' my assumption being that clearly the Pentagon and Defense Department in their budget request have already taken this into account. I wanted to be clear about the wording of this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think it will be very close, but it may not pass.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If you do that, please include me as a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator from Georgia, did I hear correctly that you intend to propose an amendment to bring the authorization down to $1.7 billion, down to the budget resolution?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to make sure I understand. You do intend to propose an amendment to bring the authorization down to the budget resolution, the $1.7 billion, is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Carolina if I can reclaim my 3 minutes for a brief response to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from South Carolina, it certainly is agreeable. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, just a quick response to the Senator from South Carolina, whom I consider to be a good friend. I say this out of friendship. This amendment would not necessarily mean that we would be below the budget resolution because the amendment that he and Senator Nunn have introduced has not been agreed to yet. So it is not quite the case yet. But, more important, Mr. President, out of $267 billion, we cannot find $1.3 billion when you have the Pentagon's own spending watchdog saying last year they concluded they did not even know how they spent $13 billion, did not even know what happened to the money, and you are saying to me that we cannot find $1.3 billion to restore some funding for Pell grants, to restore some funding for Perkins low-interest loans, to restore funding so higher education is more affordable, to restore some funding for dislocated workers, for the School-to-Work Program, for the summer jobs program? I think it is just a distorted priority. I am tempted to ask my colleagues from every State, Democrats and Republicans alike, don't you find students that are just having an impossible time affording their college education? Don't you have parents coming up to you and saying, ``Can't you do something to make sure higher education is more affordable?'' Don't you find that in your States, there are all sorts of students who are not receiving the grants and the loans that they need? Don't you find that educational opportunities are being narrowed for your citizens? Don't you believe that this goes against the national interest for our country? Don't you think that the citizens back in your States, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, believe it is a reasonable proposition that we can take $1.3 billion out of a $267 billion authorization and transfer that so we can do a little bit better by way of supporting education; that we can take $1.3 billion--that is about 10 percent of the additional $11 billion that is over what the Pentagon even asked for, and less than 1 percent of the overall defense budget--and put it into education? I mean, I think that regular people believe that this amendment is eminently reasonable. I think the vast majority of citizens in this country believe that to be the case. Look, we heard all this discussion about a strong defense, and I admire my colleagues. I do not think there is anybody in the Senate who does not defer to Senator Nunn when it comes to his expertise, his commitment to our national security. His retirement from the Senate is a huge loss for the country. But I also know that we continue to have some of these problems of add-on projects, accelerating expenditures of money for weapons systems, some of which could be obsolete. By spending far more than the Pentagon requested, we are prejudging the major study that we all voted for yesterday, to really look at our force structure and to really look at modernization and a host of other issues. There is pork in this bill. There are special projects for Senators back in their States. There is waste and inefficiency in this bill, and out of $267 billion, we ought to be able to find $1.3 billion to support education and support dislocated workers and support job training and support summer youth jobs. I think I speak for the vast majority of the people in the country. Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Pell as a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment takes a small part of the over $13 billion more authorized for the Pentagon than the Pentagon requested, and out of this figure--initially it was $13 billion and now after adoption of the Nunn-Thurmond amendment it will be about $11 billion-- this amendment transfers by way of authorization $1.3 billion. In other words, out of the original $13 billion--that is over what the Pentagon says it needs for our defense, now pared down a little bit--this amendment would take $1.3 billion and transfer that to a number of different key education and job retraining programs. I am going to spend most of my time talking about higher education, because when I think about what regular people talk about I can tell you right now that in Minnesota, families are talking about the cost of higher education and how it can be more affordable for their children or their grandchildren, or for themselves. This amendment restores funding to the level authorized by the President for the following programs: Pell grants, $577 million-- Perkins loans, $158 million; direct student loans, $71 million. So the higher education total is about $806 million. In addition, there are some other programs that we want to at least get back to the level of authorization in the President's proposal. Dislocated workers, $193 million; summer youth jobs, $246 million; School-to-Work, $25 million; and One-Stop Job Training Centers, $40 million. I do not think it is too much to ask, given the priorities of regular people, of families across the country, that we transfer $193 million out of an overstuffed military budget, for dislocated workers; that is to say, men and women who are out of work because of plant closings, out of work because of restructuring and downsizing. This is the story of America. People can work hard all their lives and all of a sudden find themselves out of work. I am saying, what are we doing as I look at what the House has now proposed, cutting funding for dislocated workers? What kind of a distorted priority is that? Summer youth jobs: This is a program that has had strong bipartisan support for a good many years. We cannot restore $246 million for the whole Nation for summer youth jobs? Again, I want Senators who are going to vote on this amendment to understand how modest this proposal is. I am talking about taking just $246 million and restoring the authorization level that the President requested to where it was, $246 million more than had been cut from summer youth jobs. Senators, if we are concerned about young people, if we are concerned about the violence in our communities, then we have to have positive alternatives for young people. When I talk to people who are working in their communities and are down in the trenches dealing with problems of violence, problems of recidivism, and problems of young people, they put a strong emphasis on summer job programs. School-to-Work: A sum total of $25 million. This puts students in, if you will, real life situations. It connects the schooling to a work experience. It is enormously successful. We had testimony in the Labor and Human Resources Committee from labor, from business, from people in metropolitan communities, from people in rural communities, all saying that the School-to-Work Program is a huge success. What are we doing cutting opportunity programs for children in America? Finally, One-Stop Job Training Centers, $40 million we want to restore--$40 million for a program, again, that has been enormously successful in Minnesota, with my State among those, by the way, taking the lead, eliminating a lot of the duplication, eliminating a lot of the bureaucracy and providing a job training program that makes sense for our citizens who are anxious to be retrained and to find employment. I thought that was what it was all about--employment opportunities for Americans, employment opportunities for Minnesotans, employment opportunities for men and women in our country. Mr. President, that is a total of $504 million for key job training efforts. I am talking about programs that work, that have a proven track record. I am talking about the fact that we do not or ought not to cut into assistance for dislocated workers. We ought not to cut summer youth job programs. We ought not to cut the School-to-Work Program, and we ought not to cut job training programs. These are distorted priorities. We do not know what the Senate appropriators are going to do yet in these areas. But we look at the House, and we already see where they are heading. They just do not get it. Well, this amendment is an effort to prompt the U.S. Senate to now speak on this question, and hopefully to temper the passions of extremists in the House who would slash these programs. Mr. President, let me talk about higher education and provide some context first. In terms of education funding, just looking from 1992 to 1997, which is a critical period of time that we ought to look at, the time the President came in until now, what you had was from 1994 to fiscal year 1995 small increases for funding for education across the board, higher education being the main piece for the Federal Government. But starting in fiscal year 1995 with the rescissions bill, and then with this year's appropriations bill and the fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 budget resolutions, each year since the new majority came in we have seen a percentage cut in the Federal commitment to education. For example, in the Federal commitment to title I, a program that gives kids that come from difficult backgrounds an opportunity; cuts in vocational education; cuts in School-to-Work; cuts in Head Start; cuts in Pell grants; cuts in low-interest loan programs; cuts in direct student loan programs. Mr. President, these are distorted priorities, and this amendment is but a small step to restore about $1.3 billion--$1.3 billion--from what was an original overrun of $13 billion, likely soon to be about $11.5 billion. Just take one-tenth--10 percent--of this additional expenditure of money that the Pentagon did not ask for, take 10 percent of it and invest it in education, take 10 percent of it and invest it in programs that benefit dislocated workers, invest it in job training, invest it in summer youth programs. I do not know how the Senate can vote no. This is such a clear priority to me. Mr. President, these education cuts deny opportunity to young people and, as a matter of fact, not so young people, since many of our college students, community college students are 40, 45 when they go back to school. I thought that we were all about expanding opportunities. Well, this is an effort to at least restore some semblance of funding to higher education. Newsweek, April 29, 1996, had a jarring front page: $1,000 a week The Scary Cost of College Private college, not every week of the year, but tuition, room and board and other expenses, $1,000 a week. Senators, if you do not think this is not a middle-class issue, if you do not think the cost of higher education does not cut across a broad spectrum of the population, and if you do not think a vast majority of people in cafes all across Minnesota and all across this country do not believe it appropriate to take just $1.3 billion out of a bloated military budget to cover the cost of higher education--Pell grants, low interest Perkins loan program, or the direct loan program--then I just think you're making a huge mistake. Look at this next chart. ``The Price of Public Universities.'' We talked about private universities. ``Average total expenses estimated for a 4-year public education.'' Just looking at the costs from 1980 to 1996, costs went from $6,000 to $9,000, in constant 1996 dollars-- $6,000 average cost for a 4-year public education, higher education, now up to $9,000, the price of public universities. Senators, this is why so many of the students that I meet in Minnesota take 5 or 6 or 7 years to graduate, because they are working two and three minimum wage jobs to cover the costs, and the financial aid package they get by way of Pell grants and the Perkins loan program does not cover it. I have said it before and I will say it again. I meet students over and over and over again that take 6 years to graduate because they are having to work 35 and 40 hours a week because we are not doing our job here. We have not responded. We have not responded to the basic concern of families in Michigan, in Minnesota and across the country because what they are saying to us is, if there is a role for the public sector and a role for Government, it certainly is in making sure higher education is affordable. Next chart. This is ``Growth in Per Capita Personal Income v. Tuition and Fees.'' Community colleges, as you look at this from 1978-79 to 1994-95, this period of time, for community colleges tuition fees have gone up 239 percent, per capita personal income 159 percent; technical colleges have gone up 416 percent, per capita personal income 159 percent; State universities have gone up 200 percent. The University of Minnesota has gone up 178 percent. So the point is that what we have is a situation where for the vast majority of families in Minnesota and in the country this is a huge economic squeeze. It is imperative that we provide some assistance. And this amendment says that if you are going to look at what our priorities ought to be, we should take at least $1.3 billion out of the Pentagon budget, with an authorization soon to be about $11 or $11.5 billion more than requested, we can take 10 percent of that and transfer that funding to at least provide more assistance in the form of Pell grants, low interest loans, summer job programs, and so on. Mr. President, just look at the Federal Pell grant awards from 1973- 74 to 1994-95. In 1975-76, the actual maximum award of a Pell grant was $3,649, in real dollar terms. It is now down to $2,268. So what happens with most students is that as they look at their financial aid packages, they get very little by way of grants, and middle-class families feel this more than anybody. If you are low income, you at least are going to be able to obtain some grant assistance. If you are wealthy and high income, you can pay for it, your family can pay for it. But for the bottom 80 percent of the population or certainly those people who are in the huge middle, they are fast becoming unable to afford higher education. What this amendment says, one more time, is that out of the total Pentagon budget, now authorized at over $13 billion more than the Pentagon even says it needs, we should be able to transfer $1.3 billion to at least get the Pell grants, to get the Perkins low interest loans, to get the direct student loans, to get school-to-work, to get summer youth jobs, to get key job training programs up to the authorization level the President requested. That is what this amendment is all about. Mr. President, I designed this amendment as a very moderate approach, and I am hoping to get widespread support for it. I do think this amendment represents a little bit of a test case as to what our priorities are all about, because it does seem to me that the vast majority of people in the country have spoken. They have spoken in polls, they speak to us when we have town meetings back in our States, they come up and talk to us when we are in cafes. All the time, people are coming up and they are saying, ``If you want to do one thing, Senator, that would really help my family, please try to make higher education more affordable.'' This amendment does exactly that. It is only a small step. It only transfers $1.3 billion out of a total defense budget of $267 billion. I would argue that affordable higher education is in our national security interests. Students having opportunities is in our national security interests. Investment in education is in our national security interests. Providing a little more funding for the Pell Grant Program is in our national security interests. Out of a $267 billion budget authorization for the Pentagon, with all the reports that we have had about the waste and the inefficiencies and the moneys that can be saved, we cannot transfer $1.3 billion for education? That is what this amendment is all about. That is what this amendment is all about. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Other Senators may be down here to speak. I reserve the remainder of my time to follow up on what my colleagues might say on the other side.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the compliments of my colleague from New Mexico about how cleverly designed this amendment and how creative this amendment is. I say to my colleague that since we are authorizing initially $13 billion and soon over $11 billion more than the Secretary of Defense requested, it seems to me only appropriate that the Secretary of Defense might be given the opportunity to, in fact, say, ``Yes, we did not ask for it, and we do not need it, and as the Secretary of Defense, I know what is critical to the defense of this country.'' It is not what my colleague called social welfare programs, but an investment in education. This amendment gives the Secretary of Defense the opportunity to say that for military readiness, for our country doing well economically, for children having opportunities, for higher education being affordable, this makes eminently good sense, to take $1.3 billion out of $267 billion and put it into Pell grants, put it into low-interest loans, put it into summer youth programs. Mr. President, again, we have the comptroller writing a report saying last year in the Pentagon budget they did not even know where $13 billion went. They did not know where it went. Other Senators, including Senators on the Armed Services Committee, talk about all the add-ons. We know about some of these special projects. We know about some of the pork. We know about some of the accelerated spending for some of these weapons programs, some of which may very well be obsolete. Nobody is sacrificing the national defense of our country. Ask any citizen in any cafe anywhere in the United States of America whether they think taking $1.3 billion out of $267 billion is some kind of a major transgression or is a step backward for our country. Ask the people in your different States, as they see their student enrollment grow in K through 12 and our commitment go down as we cut funds for kids in schools, while the enrollment grows in New Mexico, or Idaho, or Georgia, or Vermont, or Minnesota, whether they think it is unreasonable. I do not think the amendment is just clever. I think the amendment goes to the very heart of what our priorities are. I do not think the people in our States find unreasonable the proposition that we take $1.3 billion out of $267 billion and put it into these priority programs, take $1.3 billion out of the $13 billion that the Pentagon did not even ask for, and put it into Pell grants, low-interest student loan programs, summer jobs programs, dislocated worker programs, job training programs, school-to-work programs. I think a vote against this amendment is a vote against our national security. I think a vote against this amendment is a vote against our national defense because, surely, there is pork in this $267 billion, surely, there is some inefficiency, surely, there is a little bit by way of add-on projects so that we can, in fact, transfer $1.3 billion to what we say are our priorities. We all love to have photo opportunities next to young people. We all like to talk about their futures. We all like to tell them that they are the future. But when it comes to reaching into our pockets and making the investment, all of a sudden we are saying $1.3 billion is too much. I do not think that is credible. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are other colleagues who mentioned to me that they wanted to speak on the amendment. They have been trying to get down, so I am reluctant to give up all of the time. I wonder if Senators on the other side want to speak, or should we go into a quorum call? Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first of all, this gives the Secretary of Defense the opportunity to do this. It is not a violation of any firewall. There is no budget point of order. This is $1.3 billion. The reason it does not is because this is out of $267 billion. This is out of $13 billion, now $11 billion more than the Pentagon wanted. It is simple. Do you spend the money on some of the add-on projects, some of what is not needed, or do you spend the money on higher education, Pell grants, student loans? It is a simple choice. It is hardly what I would call welfare in a pejorative sense. It is all about whether or not we are going to restore some of this funding up to the President's request level for higher education and opportunities for young people.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues. Again, I do not think we are talking about any decline in the quality of life for the men and women who serve our country, or our national defense budget. We are talking about eliminating wasteful Congressional add-on projects here. We have pork projects here. Senators, we have inefficiencies. And we want to cut $1.3 billion, or transfer $1.3 billion, out of $267 billion. That is all we are talking about. Nobody is talking about sacrifice for the men and women that sacrifice for our country. That much is clear.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will yield time if the Senator from South Carolina has yielded all time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague. I want to point out that this authorization was initially $13 billion in extra military spending. Spending that was not requested by the President. That was not requested by the Secretary of Defense. And as long as we are talking about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it was not requested by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There is not one Senator here that is talking about not having a strong defense. The question is, what are we doing spending money that is not requested by the Defense Department, by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the President, people who do not want it, and at the same time we are not allocating money for kids who need it? In the State of Idaho, I do not remember the exact figures, the enrollment went up this past year in K-12 by about 3,000 and the State is going to be faced with a cut of about $9.3 million. It is not unreasonable to talk about this small transfer of funding. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to, in a moment, send an amendment to the desk in behalf of myself, Senator Bumpers, Senator Boxer, Senator Feingold, Senator Harkin, and Senator Wyden. We may have other cosponsors to add. I send an amendment to the desk

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer with Senator Harkin, Senator Dorgan, Senator Bumpers, and Senator Feingold, simply says, look, we now have an authorization, roughly speaking, $13 billion above and beyond what the Pentagon has requested, what the President has requested, and what the military leadership has requested. Too much of it is add-on projects. There is a question of whether or not these weapons systems are needed. We voted 100 to zero for the Lieberman amendment which is an important amendment dealing with force structure, dealing with modernization. Let us go through with that study but let us not start adding on projects. This is an amendment that really goes after some of the pork and add-ons. We should not be doing this. It is a deficit reduction amendment. It says this is a place where we can take $13 billion and put it into deficit reduction. That is what we should do.

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much?