Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes to summarize the amendment that I just submitted which has been laid aside for the moment. This amendment deals with energy assistance. As I said to the Chair, I think there is broad bipartisan support. Mr. President, there are really two parts to the amendment. I mean part of what we are talking about is really bolstering the Senate's position about funding next year for energy assistance as we go into conference. This is a commitment that there at least be $1 billion for the whole Nation for energy assistance for people in our country. The second part of the amendment deals with the emergency assistance in the here and now. Mr. President, in my State of Minnesota last year there were 110,000 households who received this. This is a lifeline program for many elderly people, for many families with children, the low- and moderate-income citizens, and quite frankly it has enabled people not to be put in the position of ``heat or eat''. In my State this year, fewer households have been served. I think last year we received about $50 million. This year we received about $35 million. What is going to happen if there is no additional assistance as these bills accumulate? It is warm right now in Washington, but we have had brutally cold weather, and we are going to go back to more of that weather this month. The bills will accumulate, and the real concern is that people will not be able to afford those bills. Mr. President, this is an amendment that, as I said, I believe will have broad bipartisan support. I think it really is all about values and our priorities. I think what we are saying in this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is that in the United States of America people should not go cold. Surely in our country, we can extend a hand and help people who need that help. This is a program that has not required very much by way of investment in resources. But it makes a huge, very concrete, and important difference in the lives of many people. To the cold weather States, like my State of Minnesota, this is a program that is hugely important. So, Mr. President, I propose the sense-of-the-Senate amendment because this is an issue that is staring people in the face. It is extremely important that people do not go without heat. Therefore, I think it is extremely important that this amendment be agreed to. I can talk more about the amendment later on. Other colleagues are here on the floor. As I said, I hope there will be good bipartisan support for this. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I do not want to interrupt if there are other Senators with amendments. I want them to have an opportunity to offer them. If not, let me just take a moment to read a resolution that has been accepted on both sides extending sympathies to the people of Scotland: Whereas, all Americans were horrified by the news this morning that 16 kindergarten children and their teacher were shot and killed yesterday in Dunblane, Scotland, by an individual who invaded their school; Whereas, another 12 children and 3 adults were apparently wounded in the same terrible assault; Whereas, this was an unspeakable tragedy of huge dimensions causing tremendous feeling of horror and anger and sadness affecting all people around the world; And, whereas, the people of the United States wish to extend their sympathy to the people of Scotland in their hours of hurt, pain, and grief; Therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the United States that the Senate on behalf of the American people does extend its condolences and sympathies to the families of the little children and others who were murdered and wounded, and to all the people of Scotland with fervent hopes and prayers that such an occurrence will never ever again take place. Mr. President, I wanted to read this on the floor. This has been accepted. This is the unanimous voice of the U.S. Senate. I wish there was more that we could do. But I think it is important that we recognize what has happened and send our love and our support. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I actually do not have any prepared remarks, but I was thinking that maybe later on I would write up a resolution, or the leadership could write up a resolution, that there ought to be some words, some kind of statement by the United States Senate, maybe it is a message of love, to the people of Dunblane, Scotland. The slaughter of 16 children is just the ultimate nightmare. All of us who have children or grandchildren--or whether we have or do not have children or grandchildren, it does not make any difference--just in terms of our own humanity, I think we all can feel, and we know the horror of what has happened. So, as a Senator from Minnesota, I just wanted to send my prayers and my love to the people of Dunblane and to tell them that today, in the U.S. Senate, it is not as if they are not in our thoughts and prayers. Mr. President, I wish it was in my power to do more. I wish it was in our power to do more. But I think something should be said about it on the floor of the Senate, so I rise to speak, to send my love to the people of Scotland. I believe I speak for other Senators as well. Maybe later on today we can have a resolution that I know all of us will support. Sometimes when you do this it seems unimportant, but it really is not, because it is kind of a way in which all the people of the world reach out and hug one another at these moments. So, later on, maybe we can have a leadership resolution or some kind of resolution that all Senators can sign on to, and we can send that to the parents, to the families of Dunblane. I hope and pray this never happens again. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, there is no objection.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I could find out as to what the amendments are.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me say to the Senator from Utah, first of all, that there is no reason for apology. It is very gracious of him. I do not always agree with some of the positions he takes, and I do not agree with him on this amendment, but I believe that if you want to use the words ``class act,'' he is a class act. I have tremendous respect for him. Mr. President, I am very proud to introduce this amendment with my colleagues, Senator Biden and Senator Kerry from Massachusetts. Our constituents, citizens in our country, all of us, we plan our lives sometimes around crime--where we eat, how we treat our children, where we live, how we travel, where our kids go to school, how we answer the door, how we answer the phone. The crime and violence in our country and in our communities takes away freedom, the freedom of our loved ones, the freedom of our families, the freedom of our neighbors.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Utah.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield for a second?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will wait for a chance to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not really believe that there is any debate in my State of Minnesota about the need to have more law enforcement, more police, in our neighborhoods and in our communities. We must have more police out in the communities. Mr. President, because of the violence, because it is so important that we reduce the violence in our homes, reduce the violence in our schools, reduce the violence in our neighborhoods and in our communities, it is critically important that, as legislators, we, as Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, act powerfully, forcefully and immediately. That is what the crime bill of 1994 was all about. There is a brave initiative to this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation gave us an opportunity, I think, especially through community policing, to reclaim our cities and to reclaim our neighborhoods, to reclaim our schools, and to really reclaim our future. The community oriented policing service, COPS, was created by the Crime Act in 1994. So far, it has exceeded its hiring goals. Funds have already been authorized to add more than 31,000 police officers, over a quarter of the final goal. I think my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, had the figure higher than that--about 34,000, as I remember. Mr. President, in my State of Minnesota we have already been able to hire 435 new cops that have been put out in the neighborhoods and in our communities. Minnesota has received over $24 million under this program. This year, if our amendment passes, there would be 100 more law enforcement women and men out in our communities, working with the citizens in our communities, helping to reduce violence in our communities. Mr. President, Chief Leslie, the sheriff of Moorhead, tells me that the COPS' dollars have allowed him to institute a very effective community policing strategy and a citizens police academy for residents. He says, ``After 30 years in law enforcement and 17 years as police chief of Moorhead, the COPS Program is the best thing I have ever seen.'' ``The best thing I have ever seen,'' says the chief of police of Moorhead. St. Louis County Sheriff Gary Waller is equally enthusiastic about the program. Mr. President, I have spent time talking with the law enforcement community in my State of Minnesota. What they say ought to be heard loud and clear by all of us in the U.S. Senate. Minneapolis Police Chief Robert Olson, talking about the community policing program, the COPS Program. They have 17 community police so far. They see 23 in jeopardy. They hope to have 40 altogether. In Police Chief Olson's words the COPS Program has been successful and has led to a ``dramatic impact this year on the level of crime violence in the metro area.'' A city where we have seen entirely too much crime. They have seen fewer incidents since instituting the COPS Program of drive-by shootings and estimate that they have taken 50 percent more guns off the streets. Mr. President, the police chief of Minneapolis, Chief Olson, said to me, ``This is not the feel-good program, Senator. This is strict law enforcement. We have been able to shut down some of these crack houses. We have been able to target those neighborhoods most ravaged by this violence and crime and have police out in the communities, out in the streets, working with people, to reduce that violence.'' Mr. President, we need to listen to these law enforcement officers. The community police program is a huge success in the State of Minnesota. I have talked to sheriffs and police chiefs in the metro area, in greater Minnesota, whether it is suburbs, in cities, or smaller communities. You get the same response: ``Senator, this program is working. Don't kill the COPS Program.'' The League of Minnesota Cities said this yesterday, ``Look, we need to make some commitments as a Nation. One of those commitments ought to be to community police. Do not talk about block grants where the money may or may not go to this. You all made a commitment. You have a contract with us. You have made a commitment to the community policing program to make sure there are 100,000 police out in our neighborhoods by the year 2000, to make sure in my State we dramatically expand law enforcement in the communities. Don't renege on that commitment.'' I talked to Duluth Police Chief Scott Lyons. He said to me, ``Senator, this is a new philosophy. What we have been able to do through this community police program is establish more rapport than we ever had with the communities in our city. Senator, what we have been able to do''--and I use the police chief's own words, ``is empower citizens to be able themselves to take action --not vigilante action-- working with the police force to reduce violence in their communities.'' The police chief went on to say, ``Senator, we are no longer reactive. We are proactive. We are taking steps to prevent crime in the first place, in the city of Duluth, in some of the neighborhoods most ravaged by the crime.'' Why in the world would we want to weaken a program that the law enforcement community so strongly supports, as do the citizens in our States? It makes no sense. I talked to Stearns County Sheriff Jim Kostreba and he said, ``Senator, the COPS Program has enabled us to work with school officials, to work with kids. It has helped us to fight against teenage drinking, against drugs, against substance abuse, against teenage suicides.'' He went on. I thought it was very interesting. He said to me, ``Senator, at the beginning, through the community police program, when we had a presence in the schools, some of these young people were cynical. Some of these young people looked at our police officers as if they were the enemy. But not any longer. Through the community police program, we have our law enforcement people, men and women, working with these kids.'' I say to my colleagues, this program is a huge success. This is exactly what we ought to be doing by way of priority. I talked to Anoka Police Chief Andy Revering and he talked about what Anoka has done. He said only 4 years ago Anoka had the fifth-highest crime rate in the metro area. The demand exceeded their resource. Because of the COPS Program they have seen a dramatic decline, according to the chief, in crime. What they have been doing is they have been using the COPS Program law enforcement in conferencing. This is a program, for my colleagues' information, whereby you bring together some of these kids would have committed some of these crimes, you bring their families into a meeting, and you conference them, along with the victims so that these kids really know what it is they have done. By bringing these kids together with their families and also bringing them together with the victims, what has happened, says Chief Revering, there has been very little repeat of crime by these kids. I say to my colleagues, what in the world are we doing by trying to have in this continuing resolution essentially a proposal which says, yeah, we keep the Government going but we want to cut by half the number of resources that go to community policing? Mr. President, I have said it many times on the floor of the U.S. Senate: When three teenagers, regardless of color of skin, beat up an 85-year-old woman and leave her for dead, we hold them accountable for what they have done. We do not tell them we feel sorry for them. That is a strict law and order approach. By the same token, you can talk to the kids--and Sheila and I spend time with kids who are at risk--you can go to the schools in some of the tougher neighborhoods, you can talk to the judge, you can talk to the sheriffs, you can talk to the police chiefs, you can talk to the youth workers if anybody wants to because they are the ones that are dealing with this violence, and they will tell you we have to have opportunities for these kids. We have to have alternatives to the gangs and make sure the kids are able to do positive things in the communities. Mr. President, no matter who you talk to--whether it is people in the communities, whether it is the police, whether it is the chiefs, the law enforcement people who are in the communities--they all say the same thing: This community police program is important. We need more law enforcement in our neighborhoods. We need to reclaim our neighborhoods. We need to reclaim our cities. We need to reclaim our communities. We need to reduce this level of violence. I was talking to the police chief in Fergus Falls and he said, ``Senator, the reason the COPS Program is such a good program is because you do not limit the grants just to the large cities.'' He said, ``I want to tell you that this is a wonderful community, and it certainly is, but do not think for a moment we do not have problems with violence and problems with crime.'' This COPS Program has been a huge success. Same comment from the sheriff. It does not matter whether you talk to sheriffs or police chiefs in the big cities, Minneapolis- St. Paul, in Minnesota, or Duluth, or you talk to them in midsized cities like St. Cloud, or whether you are talking to law enforcement people in the small towns of rural communities, they all say the same thing. They all say the same thing: ``Senators, cut a program if it does not work, but do not cut a program that has been an astounding success.'' We need to reduce the level of violence. We need to be bold and we need to be dramatic. It is a huge mistake to block grant, to move away from what has been the commitment that we have made. We said, when we passed this crime bill, that we make a commitment to 100,000 community police, that we would make a commitment to community police all across my State of Minnesota. That is what law enforcement people expected. That is what we are doing now, with great success. That is what the people in our States expected. We need to live up to our commitment. That is why this amendment is so important, and I hope it will pass. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield, I did not mention the majority leader's name at all. I do not do that.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to speak in support of the pending amendment, particularly for restoring operating funds for the National Park Service. Without these funds millions of Americans will not realize the full majesty and spectacle of our national treasures. The $72 million restoration provides funding to manage the operational needs of our national parks. At its current level of funding the Park Service is merely treading water with respect to maintaining facilities. Additional funding provides for much-needed improvements and repair of our national treasures. This would also represent a boon to local economies as more visitors will be able to make use of upgraded parks. The proposed offset offered in the amendment ensures no additional taxpayer money will be spent. As some would seek to keep level funding in the face of increasing costs and demands, I think you now see sentiment throughout America that recognizes the need to stop irreparable damage being done to our national heritage. This funding restoration is necessary to ensure the future of a strong, accessible National Park System. As you know, I have been a strong advocate of promoting and strengthening our national parks. Minnesota is home to a truly wondrous area, Voyageurs National Park--the crown jewel of the north. This unique water-based park is a pristine wildlife habitat where one can see wolves in the wild, bald eagles soaring overhead, and fish breaking the water in pastoral settings. Voyageurs provides Minnesotans the opportunity to explore this national treasure by boat, snowmobile, floatplanes, skiing, or hiking. Last summer I had the privilege of boating in the park and I don't believe I've ever been so thrilled with the beauty of nature as I was on that trip. I want to see more people visit and enjoy this spectacular resource. As with other national parks, this cannot happen without adequate operating funds, money that will preserve and enhance the beauty of jewels like Voyageurs. I have fought to maintain the carefully managed multiple use nature of Voyageurs, to address water level problems, to achieve better safety for boaters, and at the same time benefit fish spawning and wildlife habitat. Northern Minnesota has a rich history of individuality; the proud people of this area have worked the land and provided for their families through toil and sweat. Maintaining and improving facilities at Voyageurs, ensuring the multiple-use nature of the park, will allow more people to come and enjoy it, bring more jobs to the local economy, and lead to economic development. Northern Minnesota deserves it and I will work to make it happen. Some of my colleagues are all too often willing to turn back the environmental clock, to say get rid of Government regulation, to go back to the days of unregulated extraction and exploitation of our lands. I say we cannot go back, we must preserve nature's wonders for generations to come. We cannot back down from the gains we've made in protecting our great heritage. This must be a shared responsibility, one that accounts for the needs of the many and the few. When Congress voted to establish Voyageurs, we said yes to preserving this wonderful and pristine resource for all Americans. We said no to future lakeshore development, to building homes and putting up private property and no trespassing signs. We made a decision to provide multiple use recreation in a natural setting, free of development, free of timbering and free of the threat of losing this resource. Now we have to invest in this resource to ensure that all Americans and their children will experience our National Parks. We often say that someone has good common sense, but we are losing sight of what constitutes common sense--or what makes sense. It makes no sense to risk the loss of this treasure. Common sense should compel us to guard and protect our parks. Once we walk away--once we fail to provide adequate funding, it is too difficult to recover what we have lost. We must continue to support the gains we've made with respect to our national parks. We must maintain and improve the treasures we have set aside. We must make them accessible to all, to share the splendor of nature. Take some time, come to Minnesota, enjoy the beauty of Voyageurs. I promise you my friends, once you've experience the wonders of our northern jewel, you will support full funding for our national parks and you will help to ensure their beauty for generations to come.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program is cut by this omnibus appropriations bill a total of $266 million. That is a 57- percent cut. This omnibus bill slashes drug abuse and violence prevention programs for over 40 million young people. Mr. President, you have certainly taken a real leadership role in this area. The only thing I say is that I am immensely impressed not based upon debate on the floor of the Senate, not based on abstraction, but visits to schools at the mentoring programs, at the counseling programs, and really the success of the Safe and Drug Free School Program in doing everything we can to try and address what I think is apparent, the huge problem of substance abuse. Head Start Program, $137 million cut; denies 50,000 children services that help them become ready to learn. Now, Mr. President, again I remind my colleagues that the Head Start Program, which has overwhelming support in the country, does just what the title says it does. That is, gives children who come from families in very difficult circumstances, very tough backgrounds, a head start. I have taught Head Start mothers; I have taught and worked with Head Start families. There are two things that are very important about the Head Start Program: First, we better invest in children when they are young. That is what you have to do. That is what this program is about. The second thing is the involvement of the parents, and the education of their children. What are we doing cutting the Head Start Program? Does anybody think that is what people voted for in 1994? Summer jobs for youth, cut $867 million--I did not talk about that before--100 percent they want to eliminate it, preventing 673,000 high school students from gaining valuable work experience. Mr. President, I will just tell you right now that those publicly elected officials that are more down in the trenches--the commissioners, the school board members, the city council people, the mayors, and I do not mean just in our large cities but I mean in greater Minnesota as well--they will tell you that they have a tremendous amount of fear, I think is the right word, about this extreme House effort, this extremist agenda, of eliminating summer jobs programs for youth. What we want to do is get our young people involved with work. We want them to feel good about themselves. We want them to have these opportunities. This is a critically important program. What are we doing eliminating it? Mr. President, $362 million for dislocated workers assistance, a 29- percent cut, excluding 150,000 workers who have lost their jobs, in programs that teach new job skills. Mr. President, every day we are reading about downsizing and restructuring--which is euphemism for some of the large companies in this country--large multinational corporations just firing people. What are we doing cutting a program that provides people who maybe are middle aged who have been working hard all their lives who thought if they did work hard all their lives they would have secure employment, what are we doing cutting a program that provides the dislocated workers with some assistance to make a transition back into the workplace? Did anybody hear a hue and cry from people in 1994 that the kind of change they were voting for was to cut dislocated workers assistance or summer jobs for youth? Finally, Mr. President I talked about this earlier, school to work is cut $55 million--a 22-percent cut, curtailing efforts of 27 States, including Minnesota, to provide students the skills they need to get a good job. Mr. President, I heard the other day in a hearing from the business community that supports it, from labor that supports it, from youth workers that support it, from teachers that support it, and maybe most important of all, from young people, for whom this has made all of the difference in the world. Mr. President, the definition for family security in Minnesota is to focus on a good education for our children and our grandchildren and to focus on educational opportunities and job opportunities. Mr. President, good family values is to invest in children. Good family values is to invest in educational opportunities. Good family values is to make sure that children can have dreams and can fulfill their dreams. Good family values is to give children hope. Good family values is to give kids a lending hand when they need it. Good family values is to give children the careful consideration and nurturing and support they deserve to do better in reading, to do better mathematics. Good family values is to make kids feel good about themselves. Good family values, Mr. President, is to understand that education and educational opportunities are the essence of the American dream. This is one of the most important amendments, I think, that has been proposed on the floor of the Senate in my 5 years in office. I am very proud to be a Senator that brings this amendment to the floor, and I hope we will restore this funding. I have said it 10 times on the floor of the Senate. I will say it an 11th time and then be done. Now that I have grandchildren, I see these little children--they surprise me because our children are all 30, 26 and 23; I hope I have that right. Now three grandchildren. I see these kids. It is incredible. Every 15 seconds they are interested in something new. They can be in the same room and they can come back weekend after weekend and they always find something new. Those children are experiencing all the unnamed magic of the world. You take that spark of learning and you ignite it and it takes a child from any background to a life of creativity and accomplishment; you throw cold water on that spark of learning and that is the cruelest thing you can do as a Senator, as a government, as a country, as a society. By trying to enact the deepest cuts we have ever had in education as the price for not shutting the Government down--that is precisely what the Speaker and other Members of the House who support this have sent over to the U.S. Senate--an effort to pour cold water on this spark of learning is unconscionable, unacceptable, and Senators should vote for our amendment to restore this funding. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 My name is Susie Kay and I have been a 12th-grade American government teacher at H.D. Woodson Senior High School for the past five years. I am one of four non-minority teachers at Woodson, which has a 100% African American student population. H.D. Woodson is a D.C. Public High School, located in the inner city, east of the Anacostia River. Teaching at Woodson has been a powerful experience, and, while often disheartening, my days are filled with constant inspiration and small miracles. The noted education writer Jonathan Kozol has put my Woodson experiences in chilling perspective. He writes in Amazing Grace, ``No viable human society condemns its children to death. Yet, through public policy and private indifference, we have guaranteed that our poor inner city children will lead lives stunted by heart- break, violence and disease.'' He continues, ``. . . that each casualty, part of the beauty of the world is extinguished, because these are children of intelligence and humor, of poetic insight and luminous faith.'' The story of the inner city and its youth is all this and infinitely more. It is a tale of survival, not only from a culture of economic despair and hopelessness, where too often nothing seems to change, but survival against the temptations of ``easy money'' in an area where there are virtually no available jobs or means of ``legal employment.'' It is a tale of survival amidst drug dealings and drive-by shootings and too often its innocent casualties . . . ``dreams deferred.'' Mostly, it is a story of the survival and triumph of the human spirit through resilience and finding hope in even the darkest corners. Our students want to survive, and they want to succeed, despite the multitude of odds against them. My friends hear all of my stories day after day; it is a world so foreign to most of them, in fact to most people in this country, and one which too many people don't want to be bothered with. It can be symbolized in the paradox of Washington, D.C., this glorious, powerful city, where blocks separate these two worlds. My students do not feel the same reverence and respect for our government that I was taught growing up, but rather an alienation, abandonment, and disillusionment of it. I must say that it is often difficult to blame them for this. From what I have witnessed, those students that make it have truly survived against the odds. Many of their obstacles are so seemingly insurmountable, that there is an unwritten creed that making it to graduation day alive is, in itself, a victory. Death is a culture in the inner city, and one that is prevalent. One of the most incredible aspects of these children's lives is the amount of death that they must constantly deal with, and the accompanying complacency and acceptance of it. Every Monday brings with it a new list of immediate family members and close friends who have either been killed or died because of the critical lack of available medical attention. This year alone, I have attended the funerals of three of my graduating 1995 seniors. They were all bright and beautiful young people, rich with intelligence and talent. This is not a sane way to grow up, nor is it conducive to a clear mind ready to begin the school day. Too many of our students come to school weary from sleepless nights spent worrying about things that citizens of this country, the richest country in the world, should not have to worry about. Will I have a place to live this week-end? Will that next stray bullet come through my bedroom window? Where will my next meal come from? As if teachers don't have enough to worry about, feeding, clothing, and sheltering our students with our own money has become routine. It is just part of the job. For the past three weeks one of our students has been homeless. A few teachers and myself have spent a great deal of time feeding, sheltering and locating suitable housing for this young man. It has been frustrating, but as always, we have been inspired by his determination to get through this. And once the students do beat the odds and arrive at school safely, what awaits them? Too often they face deplorable physical conditions and severe lack of supplies and resources (yes this does include text books). They face no heat in the winter and no air conditioning in the sweltering warmer months of May and June. School should be a haven and a refuge from the ills of the outside world; instead it is a place where even the presence of metal detectors and too few security guards can only do so much to keep our children safe. We read daily about the lack of supplies, money and resources in the District of Columbia Public Schools. I am sure this is a story that is repeated in inner city school districts throughout the country, but these stories only scratch the surface. The reality is much worse, in fact tragic. Many classes did not have books until November of this year. Until recently, there was only one copying machine for use by the entire faculty, and now budget cuts have eliminated the repair of that machine. We were often relegated to using a hand-crank, 1950's style ditto machine located in the women's bathroom or expending our own funds to purchase copies of materials at Kinkos or Staples. Most teachers spend an average of $500-700 per year on supplies that are taken for granted in suburban schools through this country. Even the most basic supplies are now elusive . . . pencils, paper . . . what's left? It is impossible to teach effectively without spending our own money. We are often inundated with news about teachers who have given up . . . burned out . . . who are apathetic . . . who simply do not care. This is not a fitting description of so many of my colleagues at H.D. Woodson. Certainly it does not bespeak the endless hours of work done by teachers who increasingly are being called upon to fill so many abdicated roles in their students lives. It is not an accurate description of Barbara Birchette, the lead teacher of the accelerated charter school at D.H. Woodson, the Academy of Finance and Business. She daily and tirelessly performs the job of an army battalion. Nor does it describe Kenneth Friedman, the English teacher to whom students know they can go to be fed and so much more . . . nor Coach Bruce D. Bradford, the swimming coach who continuously teaches his students invaluable life lessons. The names and stories of dedicated teachers are endless. We daily confront multiple obstacles and see them as challenges to be surmounted, while fighting off the temptation to give up. Our reward is our students . . . it certainly is not monetary. The H.D. Woodson Swim Team placed 2nd in the DCIAA Championship over the past week-end . . . an amazing feat considering that we had no water in the swimming pool this entire season. Due to budget cuts, the necessary pool repairs have not been made. I guess there is nothing like dry land workouts for a swim team. Congress could learn a lot from our Woodson swimmers . . . how to do more with less. The Woodson Warriorsharks epitomize how success in these circumstances is still possible. So many of these students are the most creative, determined and loving people that I have ever met in my life. In spite of the odds, they desperately want to make it, and many miraculously do. In spite of the constant reinforcement of messages, both subliminal and blatant, our society, our government, our country is saying to these children that they are not valued as much, or deserving as much, as our (other) children. It is a race issue. It is a social class issue, and, if not quickly addressed, we will all suffer in the end. For those who think that this is not their problem, I say to you, you can run, but you cannot hide. For many of my 17-year-old seniors, I am one of the few white people with whom they have had a daily relationship. Their experience with my race has often been either non- existent, negative or at the very least, confusing. I am constantly faced with the challenge of answering logical questions that have no reasonable answers--at least ones which I find satisfactory as I face into the eyes of these children. Why do white people cross the street and hold their purses close and follow us around stores as if we are all criminals? Why do white people look at us with such anger and fear? Why does our government seem not to care about us? These are good kids growing up in a cruel world. Yet I'll say it again. The story is in the miracle . . . the thirst for knowledge and the will to survive. I have made a point of exposing my students to my friends and to their jobs as lobbyists, hill-staffers and lawyers in the hopes that stereotypes will be dispelled on both sides . . . they always are. One of the largest voids in these students' lives are contacts and positive exposure to people beyond their immediate community. We all know it's who you know, and by no fault of their own, those connections are just not there. It does not take a congressional study to understand this simple philosophy of how so many of these kids are sent off into the world to complete with those who have been economically and academically advantaged, equipped to succeed. Our students are not born criminals; they are not lazy or stupid. They just want, and so deserve, the same chances that this country is supposed to guarantee all of its citizens. The last thing that they need is to be set back by further budget cuts in education, cuts which would only serve to discourage students and the teachers committed to helping them beat the odds. H.D. Woodson literally survives from the assistance that the Title I Program provides. To cut any further into our resources would be nothing short of criminal. We should be doing everything we can do help them. Too many people ask me why I continue to reach and care about these kids. I respond . . . how can you not?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thought I would supplement earlier remarks that I made on the floor when proposing our amendment, along with the Senator from Massachusetts. I'd like to take a closer look at these education cuts. Look at this chart for a moment--Goals 2000 is cut by $82 million; that is a 22- percent cut. This slashes school improvement efforts in over 2,000 schools, serving over 1 million children. Title I, $679 million; denies 700,000 disadvantaged children crucial reading and math assistance. I tried, Mr. President, to give examples, many examples from my State, about what an important program this is. I will repeat what I said earlier: Little kids do not understand all this budget language and do not understand why we cannot help them be better readers and help them do better in school. I also want to provide information that has been given to me by Ms. Susie Kay, an outstanding teacher at the H.D. Woodson Senior High School in the District of Columbia. Mr. President, for examples of what education cuts mean to students, we need go no further outside this Chamber than a couple of miles away, to Ms. Kay's classroom. She writes: Our students are not born criminals; they are not lazy or stupid. They just want, and so deserve, the same chances that this country is supposed to guarantee all its citizens. The last thing that they need is to be set back by further budget cuts in education, cuts which would only serve to discourage students and the teachers committed to helping them beat the odds. H.D. Woodson literally survives from the assistance that the Title I Program provides. To cut any further into our resources would be nothing short of criminal. We should be doing everything we can to help them. Too many people ask me why I continue to teach. * * * I respond * * * how can you not? I ask that Ms. Kay's eloquent and impassioned statement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just take a couple minutes, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania. If he is getting ready to speak, I will just take probably 2 or 3 minutes. If not, I will take a little more time. Might I ask my colleague if he is ready to speak now? I had an opportunity to speak. I will be very brief.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of an amendment that a number of us have introduced which adds back $3.1 billion to education programs to restore education funding to fiscal year 1995 levels. Mr. President, I will summarize. This amendment restores funding for the following programs: Goals 2000, title I, safe and drug-free schools, charter schools, vocational and adult education, educational technology, Head Start, dislocated workers, adult training, school-to- work, summer jobs for youth, and one-stop career centers. Mr. President, as the minority leader pointed out yesterday, we have offsets for this increased funding. Mr. President, let me, first of all, say to my colleagues, and especially to my very good friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, whom--you do not call people heroes unless they truly are, and he is to me, one of the great Senators in the history of the country. I really believe it was a terrible mistake for the House of Representatives to send over a continuing resolution with these very deep cuts in education. Mr. President, as I think about where we are in the country right now, it seems to me that people in our Nation are saying very clearly that they care about opportunities. They worry about their children, and they want all of God's children to have opportunities. Mr. President, I just think that slamming the door of opportunity for children is a huge mistake. I think that some of the discussion about children of the next generation--absolutely, we need to pay the interest off on the debt. But you do not save the children of the next generation by savaging the children of this generation. Mr. President, I think that as we look at where we are in the country and where we need to go together, Democrats, Republicans, independents, you name it, each and every time, I would emphasize a good education as a foundation of it all--for welfare reform, for reducing poverty, for a stable middle class, for economic performance, for a functioning democracy; each and every time, I would say you need to emphasize a good education and a good job. Mr. President, I have tried to be an education Senator. I spend time, about every 2\1/2\ or 3 weeks, at a school in Minnesota teaching. I was a teacher for 20 years. I have to tell you that the shame of all of this is that, for some reason, we have not looked very carefully--or at least the Gingrich-led House has not--at what these cuts will mean in human terms. I will not even give you the statistics, Mr. President. But I will tell you this: If I was to just take the title I program in my State of Minnesota, which is a $13.5 million cut right now in this continuing resolution, the very negative effects this will have on children is absolutely unbelievable. We want children at a young age to be wide-eyed. We want them to be experiencing all of the unnamed magic in the world before them. We want them to be nurtured. We want them to be encouraged. What do we do with title I money in Minnesota? Talk to the teachers and talk to the parents--the title I parents in Minneapolis-St. Paul. What do we do? We give kids at the elementary school level one-on-one--I know you, Mr. President, are very committed to children--one-on-one instruction. I met a mother yesterday. She said, ``My son was a slow reader falling behind, not doing well. From title I he received that special attention, one-on-one instruction, through some additional teachers and teacher assistants. He is now a seventh grader in junior high school, and he is a straight-A student. I come here today to tell you that if not for title I, I do not know where he would be.'' Title I money is not just a bureaucratic program. It works. I was at a school, Jackson Elementary School in St. Paul, with a wonderful principal, Louis Mariucci, which is a great hockey name in Minnesota from the Iron Range. He is committed to the inner-city school, and they are doing well. The students have high achievement levels. It is diverse. It is rooted in the neighborhood. When I was meeting with a class of third graders and then a class of fourth graders, I asked these kids how many languages are spoken at home. In one class there were three different languages spoken in the homes, and in another class there were four different languages. Then I met with the parents later on from the Hmung community and the Laotian community. Mr. President, we say we want the parents to be involved. Well, there were two young people who are translators. They are proud because they could use their ability. They were bilingual to help other kids that were younger. They had graduated from college. There are jobs for them. The parents could participate. I could understand what they were saying to me as a Senator. The teachers could and do understand what I was saying. Mr. President, that is funded out of title I money. That school, Jackson Elementary School, which is an outstanding success, does not know where it is going to be next year because of these deep, draconian, mean-spirited cuts in funds which provide opportunity for our children. Mr. President, is this not shortsighted? Other examples: Meet with some of the teachers that are title I teachers. They will tell you about the ways in which that money is used for literacy training for adults, the parents, so that they can be involved. They talk about ways in which parents are involved in the kids' education. In school after school after school, whether it is Minneapolis-St. Paul, whether it is Rochester, whether it is Fergus Falls, whether it is Bemidji, whether it is Duluth, whether it is the Iron Range, over and over and over again there are success stories where this title I money was used to provide kids from difficult backgrounds, kids who were disadvantaged, with the additional one-on- one support they needed in reading or mathematics so they could do well at the elementary school level and then go on and do well in school. And we are going to cut this program? What kind of distorted priorities are these? Mr. President, I wish every one of my colleagues was on the floor right now, especially on the other side. Little kids do not understand budgets. Little kids do not know what ``continuing resolution'' means. Little kids do not know what the ``Congressional Budget Office scoring'' means. Little kids in Minnesota, Massachusetts, Oregon, Ohio, and all across this country do not understand why they cannot receive help to be better readers. Do my colleagues have any answers for them? They do not understand the budgets. They do not understand why they do not get any help. They do not know why they are not getting help so they can do better in reading classes. They do not know why they are not getting any help so they can be better in mathematics. They do not know why they are not receiving help. Mr. President, a definition from an elementary school student on leadership--I say this to my colleague from Massachusetts. I think he fits this definition. An elementary school student's definition of ``leader.'' ``A leader is someone who gets things done to make things better.'' ``A leader is someone who gets things done to make things better.'' Kids know what is right, and I say to my colleagues that they know what is wrong. We should not kid ourselves. To cut title I money from my State of Minnesota, or any other State, to shut off children from the opportunities they need, from the support they need so they can reach their full potential, is not right. Leaders are Senators who get things done to make things better. This amendment that restores some funding for educational opportunities for children gets things done to make things better. Cameron Dick, from South Minneapolis, testified last week in a hearing. Cameron Dick had dropped out of school. He is a native American. He was ``going nowhere.'' But the School-to-Work Program saved him. Working with the American Indian Opportunities Center, he now goes to school, has a job, sees the connection between his schooling and a work opportunity, and in his spare time--you will love this--he tutors other children. I met a young woman yesterday in St. Paul, MN. I am embarrassed; I forget the last name. The first name is Erika. She is a Hispanic woman who came to Minnesota from California. She has lived in some communities with some very difficult circumstances. She had dropped out of school for several years and then went back to school in the School- to-Work Program at Humboldt High School on the west side of St. Paul and found herself an apprenticeship program with a business, began to study accounting, now has a job, is proud of her work, makes a decent income, and is now going to go on and pursue higher education. These are not the programs we ought to be cutting. I mean, what is the House of Representatives trying to say to people in this country? ``We will not shut the Government down, but the price we exact for not shutting the Government down is to cut Pell grants or to cut Head Start or to cut low-interest Perkins loan programs or cut vocational education or cut title I or cut safe and drug-free schools. These are not the priorities of people in this country. Mr. President, I believe that this debate on this amendment to restore $3 billion in funding for children for education and for opportunities is one of the most important debates that we are going to have. This is all about who we are as Senators, whom we represent, what values we believe in, and what our priorities are. I say to some of my colleagues, especially on the House side, that your agenda is too harsh, your agenda is too extreme, and it is a profound mistake for us to begin to divest from children. It is a profound mistake for this Nation to abandon children. It is a profound mistake for this Nation to move away from providing opportunities for children. I will conclude. Little kids do not understand budgets. Little kids do not understand why we cannot help them. Little kids who are trying hard do not understand why we cannot help them do better in school. And that is exactly what we ought to be doing because this is the very essence of the American dream. There is a former teacher from Northfield, Joanne Jorgensen, who is visiting with me today with her husband, Paul, who is an education professor at Carlton College. Much of politics is personal. Our daughter, Marsha, when she was in elementary school at least up through around fifth grade I would say, was put in a lot of the lower classes. No matter what we call those classes, ``blackbirds'' or ``redbirds,'' everybody knows who are the students that are not doing well. Some of the other kids were calling her a ``retard,'' and as parents it was painful to see your own little girl or to see any little girl or any little boy not feel good about himself or herself, but this was our daughter. Then Joanne Jorgenson became the teacher, and Joanne Jorgenson said to Marsha, ``Marsha, you are not stupid. You can draw. You are an artist. Marsha, you are not stupid. You can write poetry. You have rhythm. Marsha, you are a smart little girl. You are not dumb. You can do well.'' Now be a proud Jewish father. By the time Marsha finished high school, she was a great student and she went on to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, top Spanish student and she is a great Spanish teacher at the high school level. She is a public schoolteacher. I do not know whether she would have been able to do that were it not for Joanne Jorgenson. This is the kind of support that we give students. And Marsha did not come from some of the difficult background circumstances that a lot of the students come from that are able to receive the support they need from title I or vocational education or school-to-work Programs or, for God sake, the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program is what we say it is. We have decided as a nation that we are going to give certain kids a head start. This is a profound mistake. Do not divest from children. Do not divest from education. Do not divest from opportunities for children. Our amendment restores this $3 billion, and we should do so. Mr. President, my final point. My final two points, and I promise my colleagues only two points. Point No. 1. I do not want to stand out on the floor of the Senate and argue for this amendment just on the basis of reducing violent crime. I can think of a million reasons why we should invest in education for children beyond that. But I will tell you one thing. Investing in children when they are young and making sure they have the educational opportunities beats the heck out of having to spend money on prisons. There is a judge, Rick Solum--and maybe my colleagues have heard the statistic before. I have only seen one report on this and maybe it is not corroborated. It is a startling statistic. In Hennepin County, he tells me there is a high correlation between high school dropouts and incarceration, winding up in prison, and cigarette smoking and lung cancer. If the statistic is true, and the judge says it is, that tells a very large story. I also know, Mr. President--and I try not to do this top-down or outside-school-in--I spend time in schools, Jill and I spend time with street kids, with homeless kids, with at-risk youth, with youth workers, and all of them say the same things: Senators, you have to give these kids positive things to do. You have to give them opportunities. It starts when they are young. We are never going to stop this cycle of violence by just building prisons. We have to make sure our children in this country, all the children in this country, have hope, have a future that they can believe in, have goals, and have the ability to be able to live for their own dreams. That is what these educational programs mean. This amendment restores the funding. We should have the support for this amendment, and I look forward to the final vote. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a very brave man, to police officer Brian Klinefelter who sacrificed his life on January 29, 1996, in the line of duty. He was shot to death when he approached three robbery suspects whom he had pulled over on a dark county road. Backup was only 2 minutes away, and his shift had ended about 15 minutes before the incident occurred. It is a tragedy when any policeman falls in the line of duty. However, this occurred in St. Joseph, a small town were officer Brian Klinefelter was known by most on a first-name basis. Admired by young and old, his untimely death had an immediate impact on this close-knit, central Minnesota community. As a small boy, Brian Klinefelter had always dreamed of becoming a police officer. He was a 1988 graduate of Apollo High School where he played football and he received his police training at Alexandria Technical College. He had been a policeman with the six member St. Joseph Police for 2\1/2\ years, and he had proudly built his career on dedication and commitment. At the age of 25 he was nominated for the top award of Officer of the Year after talking an armed gunman into surrendering in August, 1995. Brian's death was especially hard for the citizens of St. Joseph because it was the first death of a policeman and the first in the St. Cloud area in more than 57 years. His slaying marked the 178th death of a peace officer in the line of duty in Minnesota in the past 114 years. Over 2,200 people attended his funeral, including over 1,600 law officers with a stream of more than 500 squad cars from the Midwest and Canada. Friends and colleagues remember Brian as a very caring person with a big heart who loved being a law enforcement officer. He was a devoted and loving husband, a wonderful father, a caring and beloved son, a generous and loving brother, a loyal friend, and a fine policeman who dedicated his life to defending the peace. As we honor him, I want to share with you a part of his family's memories, ``Brian's love and dedication to his profession should serve as a model for everyone in their lives.'' I extend my deepest, heartfelt sympathy to his devoted wife, Wendy and his baby daughter Katelyn, and his parents, siblings, and fellow officers. Officer Brian Klinefelter leaves a rich legacy of protecting the lives and property of his fellow citizens, and we will never forget this gallant man.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with great pleasure and enthusiasm I would like to recognize Mary Beth Blegen as the Minnesota Teacher of the Year. Not only has Ms. Blegen been awarded the 1995 Minnesota Teacher of the Year, but she has also been selected as one of the four distinguished finalists for the National Teacher of the Year program. Ms. Blegen arrived in Washington Sunday and has been giving a presentation sharing her dedication to the youth of Minnesota, attending press conferences, and giving interviews for the National Teacher of the Year Award. Despite her rigorous schedule I was delighted to meet with Ms. Blegen to give her my support and of course wish her the best in the competition. Mary Beth Blegen a dedicated educator for 30 years, is a teacher of English, writing, and humanities at Worthington Senior High School. Ms. Blegen illustrates the dedication Minnesotans have to providing quality education for our children. It is also my honor to note that three previous National Teachers of the Year have been from Minnesota and only California has contributed more teachers to this national award. I'd also like to recognize Minnesota's biggest education organization, the Minnesota Education Association [MEA], and it's 48,000 members, who represent over 80 percent of Minnesota's public school teachers. MEA has sponsored the Minnesota Teacher of the Year program for 33 years.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I want to take a few minutes of this debate, but offer my thoughts within a somewhat different framework. In a recent USA-CNN Gallup Poll of big issues facing Congress--and I am sure others have referred to this--virtually no one suggested Congress should be devoting time and resources to Whitewater--67 percent of the people said Congress should work on approving public education; 66 percent cited crime as a major concern; 64 percent said jobs and the economy; and 63 percent worried about health care. Madam President, this Senate, the majority-led Senate, has not held even one hearing on better jobs and wages. We have not had one hearing on better jobs and wages. Only 3 hearings have been held on improving public education, and 12 on crime control, drugs, and terrorism. Madam President, the majority party did not hold even one Senate hearing on what was an unprecedented plan to slash Medicare. The reason I mention this, Madam President, is that I think there is a disconnect between all of the time and all of the resources that have been devoted to this hearing versus what it is people are telling us in cafes and town meetings in our own States that they are really concerned about. I do not hear people talking to me about the Whitewater hearings, except they wonder why they go on and on and on and on, and they want to know how much more will be spent on them. I do hear people talking to me, not in the language of left or right, not in the language of Democrats or Republicans. People say to me, ``Senator, am I going to have a pension when I retire? I am really worried. I am 67 years old, and I am really worried.'' ``Will there be Medicare?'' Or, ``Senator, I have Medicare but I have to pay for prescription drug costs. I have Parkinson's disease. My father had Parkinson's disease. I cannot afford the price of these drugs.'' Or, ``Senator, you know the story about AT&T? That is my story. I worked for a company for 30 years. I worked 5 days a week and more. I was skilled. I was middle management and a responsible wage earner. I gave that company everything I had. I did a good job. I thought if you did that, at age 50 or 55 you would not find yourself fired with nowhere to go, just spit out of the economy.'' Or people in cafes say, ``Senator, this is for all of us, regardless of party. Senator, we have three children. They are in their twenties and the problem is that they are not able to obtain jobs that pay decent wages with decent fringe benefits. We do not know what will happen with our kids.'' Or ``Senator, I have a small business going and I do not know if I can continue to make a go of it.'' These are the issues that people are talking about--basic economic opportunity issues, basic bread and butter issues, basic issues about how to sustain their families and communities. Madam President, I raise this because I wanted today to focus on another one of these basic economic ``bread and butter'' issues, which is minimum wage. As the author of the only minimum wage legislation in the last Congress, I congratulate the minority leader, Senator Daschle, for his focus today on increasing the Federal minimum wage. Despite the increases that went into effect in 1990 and 1991, the current minimum wage is not a living wage. It is a poverty wage--$4.25 an hour. Should we not start talking about that on the floor of the U.S. Senate? A person working 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, works for a poverty wage. A person making a minimum wage earns just about $170 a week, and that is before taxes--income tax, Social Security tax, you name it. Madam President, the principle that a minimum wage ought to be a living wage served this Nation well for 40 years. From the enactment of the first Federal minimum wage law in 1938, through the end of the 1970's, Congress addressed this issue six times. Six times bipartisan majorities, with the support of both Republican and Democratic Presidents, reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to a fair minimum wage for working people in this country. But during the 1980's the real value of the minimum wage plummeted and, adjusted for inflation, the value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly 50 cents since 1991 and it is now 27 percent lower than in 1979, using 1995 dollars. To put it in another context, we need to realize that the minimum wage would have had to have been raised to $5.75 an hour last year to have the same purchasing power it averaged in the 1970's. When are we going to start talking about good education and good jobs? I said on the floor of the Senate before, real welfare reform would mean an increased minimum wage, good education, and a good job. If you want to reduce poverty: Good education, and a good job. If you want to reduce violence you have to focus, in addition to strong law enforcement, on a good education, and a good job. If you want to have a stable middle class, it is a good education and a good job. Do you want our Nation to do well economically? A good education, a good job. When are we going to focus on these issues, I ask my colleagues? We go on and on and on and on with these hearings, and now they want to go on and on again. And we do not focus on the very issues about which people are coming up to us, back in our States, and saying to us, in as urgent and as eloquent a way as possible, ``Senators, please speak to the concerns and circumstances of our lives. We are worried about pensions. We are worried about health care. We are worried about jobs. We are worried about being able to educate our children. We are worried about being able to reduce violence in our communities.'' When are we going to focus on that? When are we going to talk about raising the minimum wage? Madam President, 75, 80 percent of the people in the country say we must do this. And contrary, Madam President, to popular misconception, the minimum wage is not just paid to teenagers who ``flip burgers'' in their spare time. Less than one in three minimum wage earners are teenagers. In fact, less than 50 percent of those who receive minimum wage are adults 25 years of age and over. And more important, 60 percent of the minimum wage earners in this country are women. Madam President, we have talked about welfare reform. And, you know, I think it is true the best welfare reform is a job. But I think we ought to add to that and say the best welfare reform is a job that pays a living wage. Increasing the minimum wage will help in the welfare reform effort, because it is one means of making work pay. I guess that the reason that I use this opportunity to talk about a minimum wage is that I want to point out the disconnect between all these hearings, all this money we have spent on Whitewater, and a Republican-led Senate that is not focusing on raising the minimum wage, not focusing on living wages, not focused on what we are going to do to make sure people keep their pensions, not focused on opportunity, not focused on how people are going to afford education for their children or for themselves. People work hard in this country and they deserve to earn a living wage for their work. It is that simple. I would appreciate it if we would get some focus on this in this U.S. Senate. Pretty soon I am going to come to the floor with other Senators with an amendment so we can have a vote, so people can hold us accountable. Because people want to know what in the world we are doing as legislators to make a positive difference in their lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today we will be voting on legislation to codify permanently some of the most far-reaching, harshest economic and political sanctions the United States has ever imposed by law upon another country. While I support the goal of pressing Cuba toward democratic rule, this bill is not the way to get there. Let me be clear: Cuba's recent shocking attack against unarmed civilian aircraft, apparently in international waters, was an outrageous breach of international law, even considering the unwise acts of the Cuban-American pilots who had been consistently warned of the dangers. This action, and Cuba's detention of members of the Cuban Council--journalists, human rights activists, and others--has been met with widespread condemnation, both here and abroad. Cuba must respect international aviation law, internationally recognized human rights, and democratic freedoms if it is to reenter the community of nations. The President has responded with a series of firm economic and political steps, unilaterally and multilaterally. This bill simply piles on, in a way that I don't believe is in U.S. long-term interests. I know that in the wake of the air tragedy, it will pass by overwhelming margins in both Houses, and will be signed by President Clinton, despite his earlier strenuous opposition. While there are elements of the bill which I support, including its authorization of assistance to democratic organizations, human rights groups, and international observers, as a whole it embodies a fundamentally flawed policy. It's true that the people of Cuba have for too long been denied basic political rights, including the right to speak freely, to criticize their Government, and to associate with one another as they wish. And for too long, Cubans have been unable to improve their standard of living through much-needed economic reforms. I would of course support and vote for legislation if I thought it would achieve that goal. But unfortunately that's not the case. Instead we have before us the so-called Helms-Burton legislation, and we have to decide if it is likely to move us toward the twin goals of greater economic opportunity and greater political freedom in Cuba. Unfortunately, the answer, I believe, is no. So while I share the goal of my colleagues who support this bill--a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba--I do not believe this bill will get us to that goal. There are several major areas of concern that I want to focus on. First, as I observed, I fear that the burden of harsh sanctions often falls on innocent Cubans, not on the Government or on elites. Its provisions to enact into law prohibitions on families in the United States sending any significant funds to their own family members in Cuba, to all but cut off travel between the United States and Cuba so family members can at least visit one another, and to prohibit investments in open telephone communication between the United States and Cuba are especially unfair and counterproductive. Its provision to place in law a prohibition on sales of food and medicines to Cuba--even to nongovernmental organizations, like churches or relief groups--is wrong, and likely to do further real harm to those whom proponents claim most to want to help. As is so often the case when ideology presses all other considerations into the background, the reality of people's lives--those innocent Cubans who will be most directly affected, and who struggle to maintain their families under Cuba's repressive government--is dismissed as inconsequential. Second, I do not believe it is in our national political or economic interest to codify into law, and then tighten, this already harsh U.S. embargo. I will offer a few examples later of the reasons why, including my concerns, as one who represents a State which borders Canada, about its impact on United States-Canada relations, on Minnesota firms which do business with our Canadian neighbors. Third, even if it were judged to be in our interest, I don't believe it will have the desired effect on Fidel Castro's government that its proponents intend. In fact, it could backfire on us, prompting Castro to become more repressive, and worsening social and political tensions there which could in turn lead to violence, and another major outflow of refugees to the United States. It was not long ago we had thousands of Cubans coming across the Florida Straits in leaky boats, who were stopped and then held at Guantanamo Naval Base for many months, at a cost of millions of dollars. Is that what Americans want to see again? I don't think so. But that very well could happen. Ultimately, additional harsh sanctions could undermine, not bolster, opposition-backed hopes for political and economic liberalization there by enabling Fidel Castro to play the nationalist card, using the U.S. sanctions as a rationale for tightening his grip on power. We have seen in Russia, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and to some degree even in China that the process of political and economic reform in these places has been accelerated by a more open exchange of ideas, people, information, technology, and other goods and services--not by increasing the isolation of these people from the outside world. North Korea is a good example of what happens when we isolate Communist states; a disaster for United States policy. In Cuba, as elsewhere, ensuring an open flow of Western, democratic ideas, information, and technology could be critical to helping to transform those societies. This bill flies in the face of almost all of our recent positive experience in helping to transform collapsing Communist states around the world. The bill could also prompt our allies and trading partners to retaliate, putting limits on U.S. firms which trade abroad, and eliminating the good-paying U.S. jobs that depend on such trade. Many are already voicing loud complaint, and some have threatened such retaliation. Over 50 countries now have substantial business interests in Cuba. Should we refuse visas to businesspeople--and their families-- from Britain, France, Germany, Japan, or other of our trading partners who want to do business and create jobs within the United States, if they hold an interest in a Cuban business? Under this bill, in many cases we would have to do just that. Americans expect a tough, firm response to Cuba's recent actions. But they also expect common sense, something which has been in short supply in America's policy approach to Cuba for a long time. Usually, if a policy doesn't work, you try something else. United States-Cuba policy, like the shop-worn Communist policies of the Cuban Government itself, has been frozen in ideological amber for too long, driven as much by domestic political concerns as by responsible foreign policy. Let me offer a few examples that I think highlight why this bill is not in our own national interest. Russia is now moving toward elections that could determine the fate of the reform movement there for years to come. United States aid has played a key role in helping the Russians to dismantle their nuclear arsenals, open up their economy, and become a more open and democratic society. But this bill would require substantial reductions in United States aid to any country, like Russia, that provides assistance to Cuba. The way I read it, we couldn't provide key assistance, including that designed to bolster Russia's ability to buy United States products, if they provide aid, however unrelated, to the Cubans. This is true not only of Russia, but of any of our allies or trading partners whose firms have long been doing business in Cuba. The tight and inflexible strictures this bill places on assistance to a transitional government there would also not be in our political interest. When the transition to a post-Castro, more democratic Cuba begins, we must be ready to move quickly to help to ensure its success, as we did in Haiti. The new rules proposed by this bill could leave us on the sidelines in a rapidly-moving transition--a dangerous place to be during such an unstable period. As in Haiti, the United States needs the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, sometimes even to overnight changes. But it takes months for Congress to act on simple bills declaring National Auto Safety Week, or National Ice Cream Day. It's unrealistic to think we would move quickly to provide aid to a new government. We should be there with resources, ideas, and the diplomatic flexibility to react just as the transition begins--not panting up to the finish line once it's over. Nor is this bill in our economic interest. Its provisions to effectively impose a boycott on third-party countries and businesses who are not the primary target of Cuba sanctions are especially unwise. For example, should Minnesota farmers who sell grain to Russian joint Venture partners be penalized because Russia trades with Cuba? Should Minnesota businesses who may be working in partnership with Canadian firms be subject to multimillion dollar lawsuits simply because their Canadian partner happens to sell computers, or medical equipment, or anything else, to a Cuban humanitarian organization? I don't think so. But this bill would do that, exposing firms in my State to huge potential liabilities for something they have little or no control over. That's not common sense, and it would endanger jobs and trade for Minnesotans. There are other objections that have been raised about the legal implications of this bill. As Senators Dodd, Pell and others have observed, the bill would open U.S. courts to potentially thousands of new property claims. This provision was dropped from the original Senate bill. Current law provides for a means of addressing property claims, through a Claims Settlement Commission. This bill would give special rights under United States law to a particular class of people, Cuban citizens who can make a claim that their properties were nationalized in the late 1950's by the Cuban Government, and who later became U.S. citizens by means of very generous United States immigration laws--more generous than for virtually any other group. Why are we giving these special rights to Cubans who became citizens? Why not give the same rights to Bulgarians, Russians, Poles, Vietnamese, Chinese, Hmong, Lao, too, who may have had unresolved property claims when they were citizens of their own countries? Providing access to U.S. courts for claims filed on behalf of those who weren't even U.S. citizens, and thus not entitled to U.S. court review when the claims originally arose, sets a precedent which I am sure we will regret, and which will likely be very expensive. Who pays to give this special treatment to this special group? U.S. taxpayers pay. Of course, this disparate treatment not only raises legal questions. It also raises constitutional questions, especially about equal protection of the law, which its proponents have brushed aside. Don't let anyone confuse the issue by leaving the impression that this bill is designed to protect small Cuban landholders who lost their homes and offices when Cuba overthrew the brutal Batista regime. These regular folks get left out. As is so often the case, the big corporate interests who reportedly helped to draft the bill, like the rum manufacturers and sugar processors, many of whom supported the brutal and corrupt Batista regime in the 1950's, and the big families that composed Cuba's elites for decades, are the ones who would most benefit from the new legal rights accorded by this bill. But they cloak themselves in the rhetoric of protecting the little guy who lost his shack on the beach in Havana, in order to persuade Congress, and other Americans, to protect their economic interests. Mr. President, it's clear that we must send a strong message to the Cuban Government, and that we must do all we can to help accelerate a democratic transition there. But this bill would harm innocent Cubans far more than it would serve to pressure the Cuban Government. It could undercut the very efforts at political and economic reform that its proponents support, escalating social tensions, and prompting another outflow of refugees to U.S. shores. Given the new frictions it will cause with our allies, and the other problems I've discussed, I do not believe it is in America's long-term interests. I know it will pass today. But I would be less than honest if I took the politically expedient route and voted with many of my colleagues who want to simply send a strong signal, whatever the vehicle, whatever the potential costs and unintended consequences, whatever the troubling legal precedents it sets. This bill does not meet the Minnesota common sense test. It does not meet the fairness test. It will not, in my view, have the effect its proponents hope. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.