Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise as a Senator who, as a teacher for 20 years, spends time about every 2\1/2\ or 3 weeks in a school in Minnesota. First my premise. I think education is the foundation of it all. I think it is the key to welfare reform. I think it is the key to reducing poverty. I think it is the key to a stable middle class. I think it is the key to helping us decrease violence in our communities. I think it is the key to successful economic performance of our country, and I think it is the key to a functioning democracy. The second point I wish to make. I heard my good friend from Indiana--and he is a good friend--talk about the need for shakeup. I think education needs to be shaken up as well, although I wish to start out with one point, and I am not talking about any of my colleagues here. I do not mean this personally. But I am absolutely convinced, having spent a lot of time in our schools, that some of the harshest critics of public education could not last 1 hour in the very classrooms they condemn. So now my point. You are right; education needs to be shaken up. We need to make sure that, first of all, children at birth have a chance, which means that every woman expecting a child has to have a diet rich in vitamins, minerals, and protein, and we cut nutrition programs, but somehow a voucher plan is going to help. Education needs to be shaken up. That is right. Children need to be ready to learn when they come to elementary school, but you know what. Some of the very folks who are talking about the voucher plan--not all--want to cut the Head Start Program. They do not want to fund adequate child care. We have children 2 and 3 years of age, as I see with my own grandchildren, that every 15 seconds are interested in something new; they are exploring all the unnamed magic of the world, but what we are doing, rather than igniting that spark of learning, we are pouring cold water on that spark of learning. We ought to make a commitment to these children when they are young, but we do not. That would be shaking up public education. It is hard to teach 38 kids in elementary school. We need to have class sizes much less. But we have not dug into our pockets to make that commitment of resources. When kids go to school and the buildings are dilapidated, the toilets do not work, and the heating does not work, it is hard to believe that as a matter of fact the adults care very much about you, but we have not committed the resources to dealing with this dreary, dilapidated physical infrastructure. Education needs to be shaken up. There is no question about it. But the problem is the context of this plan. We had a continuing resolution in the Chamber a couple of months ago--we are going to come back to it again--outrageous, a 20-percent cut in title I money for kids with special problems and vocational education and Head Start, and at the same time we are talking about starting on a voucher plan. I said to my colleagues before, I say it again, if you can marshal the evidence that shows me that we have made a commitment to children in this country, we have made a commitment to doing something positive about the concerns and circumstances of their lives, we have made a commitment to public education, we have made the investment and then that does not work, I would be the first to come to the floor and say let us try something different. We have not made that commitment at all, in which case this makes absolutely no sense. There is going to be a further reduction of funds, and that means what this gets to be is a zero-sum game. I say this with sadness to my colleague. It is less money for education for mathematics, for history, for English, for language. It is less money for public education for support services for students. It is less money for public education to recruit and train teachers. It is less money for public education to reduce the violence in our schools so that we can move forward to safer schools, in which case this plan is not a step forward. It is a great leap sideways. As a matter of fact, it is a great leap backward. That is what this is all about. We say to D.C. we will put a rider on your appropriations bill, telling them this is the money and you have to spend it for private vouchers. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because--I do not care how many speeches are given in the Senate Chamber--we have not backed up the photo opportunities we all like to have with children. We have not backed up all of our discussion about how the children are the future with an investment in resources for public education so every child will have the same chance to reach his or her potential. We have not done that. So do not talk to me about how a voucher plan is the answer when we have not even made a commitment to the answer. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe the Senate will make a mistake today if we pass this farm bill. I think I can understand why some believe this is the best way forward for American agriculture. But I profoundly disagree with that judgment. I have been saying for weeks, even months, that I have been prepared to debate the farm bill. Today's debate is overdue, and it has not exactly been what I had in mind. It has been limited due to time constraints. Our opportunity for amendments has been constricted. I am afraid that the best that can be said about this week's action on the farm bill is that farmers across the country now can see what this Congress might be delivering for a farm bill. Perhaps the House will act soon, and I expect that their bill will be close in principle to this one. I voted in favor of cloture last week. I did so not because I support freedom-to-farm. I do not. I favor long-term policy that would promote family agriculture and revitalize our rural economy. This is not that. I voted for cloture because I believe that American farmers need to know what programs they will be operating under this year. With no farm policy in place, I did not want to block consideration of new farm legislation even though I was quite certain I could not support the bill's final passage. Of course, yesterday's vote against cloture was due to the sudden inclusion into the bill of the Northeast Dairy Compact, which I have called a poison pill for Minnesota dairy farmers. I am extremely pleased, as I have already said here on the floor, that we were able to strike the compact from the bill, and I was proud to lay that amendment down on behalf of myself and other midwesterners late last evening. Let me address the freedom-to-farm proposal. There are some good things in this bill, particularly some of the conservation provisions which some of us have ensured are in the bill. I am glad that we finally have authorized the enrollment of new acres into the successful and popular Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], which I have been advocating for some time. And we Democrats ensured that permanent farm law is retained, and that oilseeds will be allowed some equity in marketing-loan rates. But freedom-to-farm, which is the core of this farm bill, is fundamentally bad policy. I believe freedom-to-farm is a dubious carrot followed by a very real stick. If it becomes law, it will likely lead to the elimination of farm programs, ultimately leaving farmers to the tender mercies of the grain companies and the railroads and the Chicago Board of Trade during years when prices are low. In the long term I believe it may have disastrous effects on family farmers and our rural economy. Some farmers believe that freedom-to-farm is the best deal they will get from this Congress. I understand that. Many in this Congress oppose farm programs, and those people have made a credible threat to the future existence of farm programs. This plan offers farmers payments this year even though prices are projected to be strong. And it promises to lock in at least some payments for 7 years. For some farmers, even those who know that it is bad policy, that is attractive. I have supported what I consider to be genuine reform of farm programs. I cosponsored a 7-year proposal last year which called for a targeted marketing-loan approach. That plan would provide farmers the planting flexibility they need. But it also would provide needed long- term protection from some of the uncertainties that farmers face-- uncertainties of weather, and of markets that are dominated by large multinational companies. It also would raise loan rates and target farm-program benefits to family-size farmers. The freedom-to-farm concept entails a transition to what is called market orientation. I support market oriented farm policy. That is why I advocate support for family-size farmers when prices are low--not so- called contract payments regardless of market conditions and regardless of what, or whether anything, is planted. In fact, what I really support is helping farmers getting a fairer price in the marketplace so that they do not need government payments at all. Fair prices are key to improving farm income. It must be remembered that the rationale for the transition payments in freedom-to-farm is that farm programs will end. There is no reason for decoupled payments called transition-payments unless farm programs will be ending. So we should not fool ourselves about the gesture of leaving permanent farm law in place underneath this bill. We Democrats rightly insisted upon that provision, but we have to admit it was a maneuver to help achieve a time agreement and should not be considered genuinely permanent. It may or may not survive conference. This bill will end payments to farmers within a few years. Meanwhile, its approach will discredit farm programs forever. High payments to farmers during good-price years will not wash in the public when we are cutting government spending on other much-needed programs. I am concerned that when prices drop back down, which is inevitable--I would say it is encouraged by the capping of loan rates in this bill--there may be no farm program there to help. I voted today to lift the loan-rate caps. I also note that I voted for amendments to retain the Farmer Owned Reserve and raise loan rates. And I voted to require that a farmer actually plant a crop in order to qualify for a so-called contract payment. Mr. President, I do not believe we are finished debating agriculture or rural policy. I will continue to speak here on the topic. I intend to continue to fight for rural Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just for a few moments while we are waiting, I thought I might think out loud with a few reflections about this farm bill. I said to my colleague from Vermont and my colleague from Indiana, they have been very cooperative. With the managers' amendment, there will be technical corrections to reflect a decision we made earlier this morning that I am very pleased about as a Senator from Minnesota, as a Senator from the Upper Midwest. That is to say we will not have a Northeast dairy compact. I will not go over that debate, but I was very pleased with the vote this morning. It is with some concern that I speak about the direction we are going because, Mr. President, I think what we are going to see with this freedom-to- farm approach is a kind of combination of carrot and stick. The carrot will be that farmers will get higher support payments that go with good price that farmers are getting right now. I am pleased to see that good price. But the question becomes in the medium run, in the long run, what happens when farmers no longer get that good price, whether it be because of the weather, whether it be because of a flood, or whether it be because of the position that farmers are in all too often, not so much as pricemakers but pricetakers. My concern about the stick is that I think where this takes us eventually is that farmers are going to find themselves on their own when it comes to dealing with Cargill, or on their own when it comes to dealing with the Chicago Board of Trade. Quite frankly, I wish we had Adam Smith's invisible hand. I wish we had real free enterprise in agriculture, but I see an industry where, I think, the conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table with tremendous concentration of power. So I worry about the cap on the loan rate and farmers not having a strong bargaining position as they look to an oligopolistic and, for that matter, monopolistic market. So I am proud of the vote this morning, 50 to 46. It was extremely important to my State. I felt like the compact was a poison pill for dairy farmers in Minnesota. We still are going to continue--I have been at it for 5 years--trying to reform this milk marketing order system. As I look at the overall bill, that was a victory for dairy farmers. I hope we will have a milk marketing order system that will be good for dairy farmers everywhere in the country. I have to say, I think this bill we are about to vote on is, as I said, a great carrot in the short run, good prices and contract payments, but in the long run, I think what it says to farmers is you are on your own with Cargill, with the Board of Trade. I do not think the farmers in Minnesota or across the country will fare well with that approach. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his exceptional leadership. Last night, when I laid down this amendment the Senator is speaking about, I did it because of what I think all of us in the Midwest feel very, very strongly about. First of all, many of us have been working for 5 years to have milk marketing order reform. That is what we really stand for. That makes all the sense in the world. We have had a system in place since 1933, and it worked in the beginning, but it is archaic and it has a discriminatory effect on dairy producers in the upper Midwest. We have lost thousands of dairy farms in my State of Minnesota. Mr. President, the problem with the Northeast Dairy Compact, above and beyond what the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken about, in terms of some of the regional barriers it creates, is that this also will forestall the kind of genuine reform that we really need of the milk marketing order system. Mr. President, it is not appropriate to cut a special deal for one region's dairy farmers to the detriment of dairy farmers in other regions, especially in the upper Midwest. So, Mr. President, I think this is a critical vote, and I am proud to stand with the Senator from Wisconsin. I hope that our colleagues will support this amendment. It is absolutely key to the future of the dairy industry in this country to have a fair milk marketing order system, to have real reform. This amendment really takes us in that direction.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, myself, Senator Pressler, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Grams, and Senator Hatch.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if the Senator would yield, to facilitate moving this along, I intend only to send this amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I cannot stand by while this deal is made which neglects the dairy farmers of my State. I will vote against cloture. I believe I owe it to Minnesota dairy farmers. And should cloture be invoked, or should the farm bill come up for consideration under some other time agreement, I intend to be part of an effort to strike the Northeast dairy compact from the bill. Madam President, I hope we can move quickly forward from here to consideration of a viable and acceptable farm bill. I look forward to a healthy debate. Exhibit 1 State of Minnesota, Washington Office, Washington, DC, February 6, 1996. Re Opposition to the Northeast interstate dairy compact. Dear U.S. Senator. I am writing to ask you to oppose the inclusion of the Northeast Intestate Dairy Compact in the Freedom to Farm Act. My state represents one of the top dairy states in the nation and our dairy farmers are among the smallest on average in the nation. The Compact, if approved by Congress, would be exempt from Commerce Clause challenge and would allow those states participating in the Compact to require a higher price to be paid to their producers than guaranteed by the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. I oppose the Dairy compact for the following reasons: (1) The Compact does nothing to correct the many failings of the archaic 1937 Federal Milk Marketing Order system; (2) Most of the Compact's vital provisions will be left to rulemaking and the rules will be written by those who benefit from the Compact; (3) The Compact Commission will erect trade barriers to less expensive milk coming in from other regions to maintain the higher Compact milk prices and these trade barriers will harm dairy farmers and processors in the rest of the nation; (4) Higher Compact dairy farm prices will likely encourage surplus dairy production in that region, thereby requiring additional federal government purchases and lowering the prices received by struggling producers in other regions due to the dumping of surplus milk into other markets; (5) Higher Compact prices in the Northeast will likely raise the cost of milk to Northeast dairy consumers and make Northeast processors less competitive; (6) Higher Compact prices will benefit only one region of the country, a region that already benefits form some of the nation's highest federally-guaranteed minimum farm Class I milk prices; and (7) Other regions will likely seek to enact dairy compacts as a defensive measure, thereby balkanizing the nation's dairy industry, raising consumer dairy prices nationwide, and encouraging inefficient milk production. If Congress is seeking ways to help the nation's struggling dairy farmers, it should reform or eliminate the archaic Federal Milk Marketing Order system so that the nation's dairy policy is evenhanded and beneficial to all of the nation's dairy farmers. Moreover, we should not protect one region of the nation from competition from outside its borders as we move toward free trade around the world. Please oppose inclusion of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact in the Freedom to Farm Act. The future of your state's dairy industry is at stake. Thank you for your consideration. Warmest regards, Arne H. Carlson, Governor of Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I hope we can fully debate the farm bill soon, and I will have more to say during that debate. Perhaps that will take place this evening and tomorrow. If not, then I hope we debate it very soon. Farmers across the country need a farm bill. We are many months overdue. It is unfortunate that we are in this current situation because farmers need to plan, they need to arrange credit with their bankers, and they have a right to know what programs they will be operating under. I voted in favor of cloture last week. I did so not because I support freedom- to-farm. I don't. I favor long-term policy that would promote family agriculture and revitalize our rural economy. This is not that. I believe freedom-to-farm is a dubious carrot followed by a very real stick. It would eliminate farm programs, ultimately leaving farmers to the tender mercies of the grain companies and the railroads and the Chicago Board of Trade during years when prices are low. I think in the long term it could have disastrous effects on family farmers and our rural economy. Some farmers believe that freedom-to-farm is the best deal they will get from this Congress. I understand that. Many in this Congress oppose farm programs, and those people have made a credible threat to the future existence of farm programs. This plan offers farmers payments this year even though prices are projected to be strong. And it promises to lock in at least some payments for 7 years. For some farmers, even those who know that it is bad policy, that is attractive. In fact, freedom-to-farm is bad policy. I will have more to say on this subject when we get to actual debate on the bill. I voted for cloture last week because I had told Minnesota farmers that I didn't want to block its consideration. I had my amendments prepared. I was ready to debate. I still am. My strategy is not to block or obstruct. But I will vote against cloture today. I have very strong reasons for doing so. And I am pleased to say that I do so on behalf of Minnesota dairy farmers, as I will explain in a moment. First, I would like to point out that I have supported what I consider to be genuine reform of farm programs. I cosponsored a 7-year proposal last year which I wish could have received a closer look from the Senate and from farmers around the country in recent months. I still believe it is the best approach. My colleagues and I, led by the minority leader, proposed a long- term, targeted marketing-loan approach. That plan would provide farmers the planting flexibility they need. But it also would provide needed long-term protection from some of the uncertainties that farmers face-- uncertainties of weather, and of markets that are dominated by large multinational companies. It also would target farm-program benefits to family-size farmers. I still hope we can vote on that proposal. I also intend to propose at least one amendment, if not two, to save money by eliminating loopholes that allow some people to collect the maximum farm payments three times. I want to use savings from that reform to raise loan rates for family farmers, or to help family-size farmers to invest in their own value-added processing cooperatives and marketing operations. Now, however, I would like to address the effort represented by this substitute bill to dress up the freedom-to-farm proposal to attract votes--to attract Democratic votes in order to get cloture. I especially would like to address a provision that has been added which I consider to be a poison pill: the Northeast dairy compact. I have to say that I've been working since I got here 5 years ago for meaningful dairy market-order reform. Minnesota dairy farmers suffer terrible discrimination under the current Federal order system. I'm strongly opposed to the Northeast dairy compact not only because it forestalls reform of that system. But it also cuts a special deal for one region's dairy farmers to the detriment of farmers in the Upper Midwest, and it sets the bad precedent of establishing regional barriers. We need to move to a farm bill. And we need to do it swiftly. But this deal is unacceptable. My office is hearing from Minnesota dairy farmers and their organizations. Minnesota's Agriculture Commissioner, a Republican whom I respect, also has sent a message. They are urging a vote against cloture. I also received a very strong statement of opposition to the Northeast dairy compact from the Governor of my State today. I agree with his position, and I appreciate his communication on this issue. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in opposition to the conference report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Deregulation Act of 1995. I regret that I cannot support this legislation, because it contains important protections for parents to be able to monitor what their children are viewing. I support the language in the conference report that requires manufacturers to include V-chips in new televisions. I also hope that the television industry will voluntarily develop ratings for video programming. Parents need this rating system so that they can more fully monitor what their kids are viewing. This bill also represents so much for our country. I can imagine workers in rural Minnesota telecommuting to and from work as far away as New York or Washington without ever having to leave their homes or families. As a teacher the possibilities really excite me-- schoolchildren in Minneapolis reading the latest publications at the Library of Congress via thin glowing fiber cables or rural health care providers on the iron range consulting with the top medical researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester to better treat their patients. All of this is before us. When the Senate debated this bill in June, I felt then and still feel now that this bill presents to each Senator a daunting responsibility. The concern that I still have now that we are voting on the conference report, has to do with whether or not we can make sure that there will be true competition, and that this technology and information will truly be available to everyone in the Nation, not just the most privileged or the most wealthy. The conferees maintained some very important Senate provisions, including language to keep telecommunication rates low for schools and hospitals. This will help to ensure that our communication technologies are affordable for future generations. I was proud to support this provision when opponents tried to strip this provision in the Senate. The conferees also kept language requiring V-chips in new televisions. I am proud to say that I supported this provision that will help keep adult-oriented video programs away from children. I believe that this will give those who know best, parents, the ability to control the flow of new services into their homes. What disappoints me the most is that this bill did not go far enough to assure competition and therefor does not go far enough to protect consumers. I am not just concerned about the alphabet soup corporations. I am concerned about the people that live in Eveleth or Fergus Falls or Virginia or St. Paul or Northfield or Pipestone. I was hoping that at least we could build in more protection for consumers and more guarantees that there would in fact be the competition that we all talk about. I ask my colleagues, after you remove the protections against huge rate increases, against monopoly, against service just for the privileged, what would you replace them with? Words, Mr. President. Promises, guarantees, reassurances that this time, although many of these companies have misbehaved in the past, and have been fined repeatedly for violating promises to protect consumers, that this time the corporations promise to behave themselves and to conduct themselves in the consumer's best interest. Mr. President, I have said it before, and I will say it again. I do not buy it. I would rather put my trust in solid protections, written in law, to make sure that rates remain affordable, services are available for everyone, and no one is left behind in the stampede for corporate profits. Protections that ensure affordability, fairness, and access in local and long distance phone service and cable TV. Mr. President, the need for the continuation of consumer protections and antitrust circuit breakers is clear. With every passing day, we see more integration in the telecommunications and information marketplace. Over the summer, we saw the Lotus Corp. agree to a friendly takeover by IBM. AT&T and McCaw Cellular will be joining forces, as will other companies, in preparing for this newly deregulated telecommunications environment. I am concerned that this integration will mean a broadcast concentration where consumers will get their news and information from fewer and fewer sources. This integration at the top corporate level and the market position of many of these companies demands that consumers be given a voice--a trusted voice--to speak for them in the coming years. No more trusted voice could be found on this subject than that of the Department of Justice. It was through that Department's courageous leadership that the old AT&T Ma Bell monopoly was broken apart--it was a long, tough fight, but this experience gained by the DOJ has been invaluable in guiding the breakup of the Bell system, and the development of competition in long distance and other services. It only makes sense that we allow the DOJ to put this experience to use again as we move into an exciting, but potentially risky, new market. I believe that DOJ oversight is essential to ensure competition and consumer protection to keep telephone monopolies from reassembling themselves. While I fully appreciate the potential of this legislation, I am really worried about where we are heading because I think there is going to be entirely too much concentration of power. The New York Times reported in a December 19, 1995, article: For Wall Street, a frenzy of deals would be a bonanza. For many consumers though, the activity is unlikely to make much difference in the price of quality of their phone service. Only in large metropolitan areas, where the lure of lucrative markets might intensify competition, could the average phone customer expect to see much benefit. The article goes on to report from one investment analyst that ``What you need to have is a large footprint to reach more customers with one network.'' He went on to say ``There's no reason on God's Earth why you have to have seven bell companies.'' Well this may be true if the only bottom line is to make money. But my bottom line is to ensure that consumers all over America have access to affordable, quality telecommunications services. I believe that this legislation will lead to too much concentration of power in a very, very important and decisive area of public life in the United States of America. I think we are making a mistake if we pass this piece of legislation. I will therefore, vote against it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask further that the following remarks from The Saint Paul Police Department 1994 Annual Report be printed in the Record. Dedicated to the memory of Officer Ron Ryan, Jr. and Officer Timothy Jones, it is entitled, ``August 26, 1994--Our Day of Tragedy.'' The material follows: August 26, 1994--Our Day of Tragedy The morning of August 26, 1994 broke with a beauty and clarity that is rare even during Minnesota's fleeting summer. The air was calm, warm and clear as the sun rose above the spire of Sacred Heart Catholic Church at 6th Street and Hope. Officer Ron Ryan Jr., 26 years old, walked up to check on the welfare of a man who was slumped down in the driver's seat of a red subcompact car, parked in the church parking lot. The officer's concern was met by a flurry of gunfire from the drifter. The evil ambush claimed Officer Ryan's life, shattered the calm of that morning, and set a sickening tone. During the search for the suspect that day, there would be a second ambush and the loss of Officer Timothy Jones and his canine partner, Laser. Offsetting the horror and disbelief of those events, was the professionalism of the Saint Paul Police force, who put aside grief, until the search for the suspect had been successfully completed. Only then did the grieving process begin; a grief shared by hundreds of thousands of metro area residents, by police officers across the country, and by many others who reflected on our day of tragedy. It had been 24 years since a Saint Paul Police Officer had fallen to gunfire, more than two decades in which Saint Paul officers had been spared the tragic realities of most other American cities. Some would say it was Saint Paul's reputation for treating suspects with respect. In the course of arresting literally hundreds of thousands of suspects, no Saint Paul Officer had been attacked with deadly force. But it all changed that morning in August. Guy Baker, 26, a man wanted on weapons charges in his native Iowa, had told friends in Mason City that he was thinking about shooting a police officer. For reasons which are still not clear, he decided to borrow a friend's car and drive to Saint Paul. As Officer Ryan walked up to the car that morning, Baker held a gun under the coat he was using as a blanket. He knew the officer would check his identity and then probably arrest him for the warrant. Baker ambushed Office Ryan and then took his service weapon after he had fallen. A resident who witnessed the attack fired a shot at the suspect vehicle from the window of his home, shattering the car's back window. But the suspect got away before the first squads arrived at the scene. Baker drove only a mile before he ditched the car and changed clothing. In a wooded area close to I-94, he waited for the officers he knew would be searching for him. Once again he assumed a position that would allow him to ambush an officer. Unlike the typical suspect who would be acting out of fear, Baker's actions were those of a demented, yet highly trained combat veteran. He took up a position inside an ice fishing shack in the back yard of a home on Conway Street. With a row of windows in the small structure, Baker had an unrestricted view on the world outside. But it would be nearly impossible to see him from the outside. He sat in his killer's perch and waited. Officer Timothy Jones, 36, a veteran canine officer who had won national awards, was enjoying a day off with his children when he heard the news about his friend Ron Ryan. Without hesitation he came into work to aid in the search for the killer. In retrospect, no one was surprised that he would be the first officer to locate the suspect. He was known as one of the best officers in a canine unit that had won the top national award four out of the last six years. As hundreds of officers fanned out searching for the suspect it was Tim Jones and Laser who picked up his scent and began moving toward the fish house. As the officer approached the structure, shots blasted from the inside, through the flimsy window and wall of the structure, hitting Officer Jones. He died less than four hours after his friend and co-worker Ron Ryan. As Baker exited the fish house, Laser attacked, latching onto the suspect with his powerful jaws. Baker shot the animal, but it attacked a second time. After being shot several times, the dying canine was still crawling towards the suspect with his last ounce of energy. Baker had made another getaway, but it was to be short lived. Within two hours he was arrested and taken to the hospital to be treated for the dog bites he had suffered. Eventually he would plead guilty to the two murders. Twin Cities television and radio stations were providing instant, live coverage of the events as they unfolded that Friday. The unprecedented coverage made it a very public tragedy, and that followed through to the funerals. Literally thousands of people lined the streets along the funeral procession routes. Officer Ryan was buried on August 30. In his eulogy, Chief Finney said Ron Ryan Junior ``brought youthful enthusiasm, warmth, friendship and loyalty to our department.'' More than 2,000 police officers from as far away as Canada attended the funeral. Officer Jones was buried on August 31. Chief Finney called him ``a talented leader, a loving husband and father, and a special friend.'' An estimated 400 canine officers from across Minnesota and many other states were on hand, along with hundreds of other officers. A four mile long procession of police cars stretched from the Cathedral to Elmhurst Cemetery. The memories of these two fine officers will live on in the history of our department. Ron Ryan Jr. gave much to us, in just a short time. Tim Jones shared his knowledge and maturity with his fellow officers. Without hesitation, they gave the ultimate sacrifice while serving their department and city. They will not be forgotten.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to two gallant police officers from Saint Paul, MN. On August 26, 1994, Officer Ronald Michael Ryan, Jr. and Officer Timothy James Jones gave their lives in the line of duty. It is important that the memory of their brave lives be a part of the official history of our country. I therefore ask that the following eulogies by Chief William Finney be printed in the Congressional Record on behalf of these two slain police officers: The eulogy by Chief William Finney in memory of Officer Ronald Michael Ryan, Jr. and the eulogy by Chief William Finney in memory of Officer Timothy James Jones. The eulogies follows: Ronald Michael Ryan, Jr.--Eulogy by Chief William Finney Ron Ryan junior brought youthful enthusiasm, warmth, friendship and loyalty to our department. He touched our lives in a very special way, and gave has all to his brothers and sisters in blue. The greatest thing this extraordinary young man gave to us was his commitment, to make our city a better place to live, to make our department a more pleasant place to work, and to add whatever he could to the lives of those around him. He represented the very best that a Police Officer can be, and in a very real way represented the spirit of the St. Paul Police department. Many people think it's easy for the son of a Police Officer to follow in dad's footsteps, especially when they work for the same department. And especially when the son shares the father's gift of gab, easy humor, and superior people skills. But Ron Ryan junior learned just the opposite. He learned that the trials and tribulations of being a rookie cop who is the son of a cop were extra hard, that there would be a little more razzing from the troops. Ron Junior had a routine of polishing the brass buttons on his uniform before coming to work. One time a supervisor asked to look at those buttons, and Ronnie obliged him. But when he got them back he noticed they were quite tarnished, and that the supervisor had switched them, for his own dirty ones. The gag went on and on, and eventually, Ron got to the point of bringing in an extra set of polished buttons to work. On a larger scale, Ron Ryan junior polished up the image and morale of this department with his tireless well of positive energy. Ron was a hard worker, never afraid to help out a fellow officer or be first on a call. And he was a quick thinker, quick to figure out what had to be done in tough situations. Just a year ago, he and two other officers formed a human pyramid to remove three children from the second story of a burning house. For that he received the Medal of Merit--our second highest award--an amazing accomplishment for a rookie cop. And he didn't let up. Just this year, he was given another commendation. Think about that. Two commendations in less than a year. Ron Ryan junior was one of the best young Police Officers our department has seen. He joined us in July of 1990, as a parking enforcement officer. Never losing sight of his real goal, he took our oath as a Police Officer on January 23rd, 1993. And in just 19 short months he made his mark, served his beloved east side, and made his department proud. Today, it is with the heaviest of hearts that I say goodbye to Ron Ryan Junior. We will all remember you for your courage, your heroism, your willingness to serve and that sparkle you gave to those around you. And let no one ever forget that Ron Ryan Junior was truly one of St. Paul's finest.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. No, I do not, Mr. President.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the answer is, if we do not increase the allocation--and we must increase the allocation. I do not accept these priorities. What I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania is doing is putting some of us in the position of having to argue for a zero-sum-game situation. We do not believe that there should be these tax cuts to the tune of $245 billion. We do not believe in some of these other priorities. We believe some tax cut--some of which goes to people who do not need it--you should have enough revenue to make sure people do not go cold in Pennsylvania, or Minnesota, or Massachusetts, and, in addition, we do not make cuts in educational opportunities for children. You are presenting a false choice for the Senator from Minnesota and, for that matter, for the people of the country.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I feel a little uncomfortable out here in debate with the Senator from Pennsylvania because I think he cares fiercely about these programs, and I certainly do not think he represents the full priorities of some of those in the House who have sort of been the impetus for these programs. But let me just say, processwise, I view this as slash and burn on the installment plan. I think that is really what is going on here, and I think it is a backdoor way of making some fairly deep cuts in educational programs. I do not think that reflects the priorities of the people in the country. Altogether, on present course, this continuing resolution for the whole fiscal year would cut education by $3.1 billion. The Senator from Massachusetts mentioned this earlier, but I think it is worth repeating. Title I reading and math programs are cut by $1.1 billion, meaning that over 1 million children will lose services and 31,500 teachers could be laid off. The first argument we made was that, really, we cannot restore this funding for education and children because, if we do it, then that would mean less for low-income energy assistance or that would mean less for other very important programs. But that is not the tradeoff. We do not have to do the $245 billion of tax cuts. We do not have to have $7 billion in the Defense bill over what the Pentagon wanted. We do not have to go forward with B-2 bombers to the tune of $2 billion each. That is not the real national security of this country. The real national security is when we invest in the health and skills and intellect and character of our children. Mr. President, then the second argument, all of a sudden, as we were going through this debate, was a different one than I heard, which was OK. But the problem is that if this should pass, then the House will not accept it and we would have a Government shutdown. What that means to me, as I hear this argument, is that the House of Representatives, because, in fact, we decided to invest $3 billion more on the projected, year-wise, because we decided over this next critical period of time to invest more money in safe and drug-free schools, in support for children with special needs, in making sure that higher education was accessible for our young and not so young students--many of our students in higher education have gone back to school. Men and women, some having lost their jobs, are going back for additional education so they can be independent. What I am hearing is that, if we should restore funding for this investment in people in our country, the House of Representatives would find that so unconscionable that they would then shut the Government down. I mean, what kind of priorities are we talking about here in this Congress? Certainly it is not the priorities of people in this country. Mr. President, I am also concerned just thinking about my own State. I will not even talk about this numberwise. I will talk about it peoplewise. I am hearing from higher education people, from some of our colleges and universities, and they do not really know what the situation is with low-interest loans or Pell grant programs. Students need that assistance. By the way, Mr. President, I will tell you that in the State of Minnesota, many undergraduates are now taking 6 years because they are working two and three minimum-wage jobs. I mean, students sell plasma at the beginning of the semester in order to buy textbooks. These are students who need this financial assistance. They do not know what the situation is. Mr. President, school boards do not know what the situation is. They are trying to figure out what is going to happen with this title I money. These are kids with special needs, kids with special problems. Are we going to walk away from them? Are we going to provide fewer services? Is it going to be made up through higher property taxes? Nobody knows. I hear people from our school boards, whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents alike, saying to me, ``Senator, what in the world is going on? This is the last place we should be making these cuts.'' Mr. President, I mean, from Head Start, which is not a part of this amendment--but we now have proposed reductions in Head Start programs, which is nothing more than an effort to give some children who need a head start a head start all the way to higher education, all the way to kids with special needs and vocational education and safe and drug-free schools. These are distorted priorities. So today we are taking on those distorted priorities. We are not going to let this be slash and burn on the installment plan. We are not going to let this be a back- door disinvestment in education.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New York. Mr. President, I voted for this piece of legislation when it first came to the Senate. I asked the question, will this bill called ``reform'' lead to more children who are impoverished and more hunger among children? I said, if so, I would vote ``no.'' I voted ``no.'' Two studies have come out since that time that said that is exactly what would happen. Now we have a conference report even more harsh, even more punitive, without basic medical assistance, guarantees of medical assistance coverage, with even more drastic cuts in nutrition programs for children. Mr. President, this is too harsh. It is too extreme. It is beyond the goodness of America. It is punitive toward children. We should not vote for a piece of legislation that will mean there will be more impoverished children and more hungry children and more children without health care. That is not what we are about. That is not what America is about. I urge my colleagues to vote against this.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have been involved in intense negotiations over the course of the last few days to try to resolve a major problem with the conference report on HR 2539, the Interstate Commerce Termination Act of 1995. We have now resolved that problem, through an agreement to make a key change in the conference report which is designed to protect the collective bargaining agreements of railroad employees. With that change, I have agreed to allow the conference report to go through without extended debate that could slow it down and put at risk its final enactment. Since we are in the final days of this session, and I know it is urgent that ICC legislation be enacted to ensure continued consumer protections for all Americans, I am delighted that this change has now been agreed to, and I am grateful for the help and support of Senators Exon, Kennedy, Harkin, Kerry, Simon and others in this effort. The change will be made through adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution 37, submitted earlier today by Senator Exon and myself, which is to be taken up and agreed to concurrently with the conference report by unanimous consent. I am hopeful that both will also be taken up and agreed to by the House later tonight or tomorrow. I understand there are preliminary indications from the House Republican leadership, after fierce and sustained resistance that has lasted for months, that they are finally willing to make this change in order to help avoid a Presidential veto. The concurrent resolution would restore labor protections provided for in the Senate bill that were dropped in the House-Senate conference. Without this change, the conference report would be strongly opposed by representatives of railroad employees nationwide because it would significantly reduce existing rights of workers employed by small- and medium-sized railroads. In fact, that is also one key reason why the administration has indicated its intent to veto this measure. I hope that if this change is made by the House, the administration would take another look at this legislation, and its decision to veto the bill announced yesterday. Let me briefly describe how we came to this point. At various points in this legislative process, employees were forced to give up labor protections on line sales to noncarriers, give up mandatory labor protections on line sales to class III carriers, agree to reduced labor protections on line sales to class II carriers, give up mandatory labor protections on mergers between class III carriers, and agree to reduced labor protections on mergers between class II and class III carriers. All these concessions were made by employees in return for the right that every other American worker has--to bargain collectively with their employers and have those collectively bargained agreements enforced in court. Employees asked for just one exception to the current ``cram-down'' practice of the ICC, which allows abrogation of collective bargaining agreements under certain circumstances. This may seem somewhat technical, but it is profoundly important to the lives and livelihoods of thousands of rail workers in my State and throughout the Nation. For mergers between class II and class III railroads, likely to become increasingly common over the next decade, railroad employees requested a provision contained in the so-called ``Whitfield Amendment'' adopted on the House floor by a vote of 241- 184, to require that a merger could not be used to avoid a collective bargaining agreement, or to shift work from a union to a nonunion carrier. But unlike the House and Senate-passed bills, the conference agreement does not provide such protection. Instead, it gives the carrier applying for the merger a choice of whether to preserve collective bargaining agreements or to abrogate them unilaterally through the successor to the ICC. The concurrent resolution will fix this problem by effectively restoring the language of the Whitfield Amendment, which prohibits abrogation of such agreements. I am pleased we reached agreement on this key change. At the same time, I understand why the administration has reservations about the conference report. Although I support much of it, which streamlines the Federal Government while maintaining a fair and responsible Federal regulatory structure, this final version is not perfect, and there are parts which I oppose. For example, I am concerned about a provision that changes the regulation of household goods shipping. I supported the Senate version which would have ensured no Federal preemption of State laws relating to the shipment of household goods. Unfortunately, conferees chose to include the House language that would allow Federal preemption of State laws relating to shipping these goods. I am concerned about this Federal preemption of State laws, because consumers deserve continued State protections when shipping their belongings to a new home. I intend to monitor the implementation of this provision carefully, and if it poses serious problems, as I expect it will, to try again to address these problems next year. But my overriding concern has been the fate of thousands of railroad employees across the Nation who could have been harmed under its provisions, and that is why we wanted to try to address this problem before it passed the Senate. I am delighted that this has now been done, and I am hopeful that the House will act on it immediately to ensure abroad, comprehensive labor protections for railroad workers. I want to go again thank Senator Exon for his help with this problem.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, just to try to cut through all the rhetoric--and we are trying to get past all of that-- the fact of the matter is, and we all know it, this is not just a debate about numbers. We are talking about policies that will dramatically affect people's lives, the quality or lack of quality of people's lives, depending on what we do. We do not just disagree about numbers. There are major policy differences in the health care area, in children's issues, environment issues, in terms of what constitutes fair taxes--you name it. The fact of the matter is--and people in the country know it--there should not be some rush to recklessness. These differences are not going to be worked out in 4 days. Nobody can force that or make a threat to make that happen. We all ought to be serious about the negotiations, and I think we all are. We should have difficult and substantive negotiations and debate, not hate. But you cannot shut the Government down and say, ``If we do not get exactly what we want when we want it, the Government will stay shut down.'' This does not serve the country well or serve any of us well. That is my first point. My second point is that I would like to thank the Senator from Nebraska, and others. I have been involved in many of these meetings, and many of us have worked very hard. I think there is much in the Democratic alternative that makes sense. That is to say, it is clear to me that there is no question when laid alongside what the Republicans have proposed, what the Democrats have proposed, I think, at least comes much closer to meeting the Minnesota standard of fairness. It does not make any sense when my colleague from Oklahoma says, ``We want to do something that benefits the American people.'' The question becomes: Which people? If you are going to have huge numbers of tax cuts, several hundred billion dollars of tax cuts, which, in the main, flow to the people who are most affluent, to the largest corporations, multinational corporations, and at the same time you have reductions in health care programs that are so important to seniors or children or working families, I am not sure that it does benefit most of the American people. To have zero in tax giveaways makes a great deal of sense. To make a strong commitment to medical assistance and children--everybody has heard our priorities--I think makes a great deal of sense. To do a little bit better in terms of asking some of the larger corporations to pay their fair share to eliminate some of the tax loopholes and outright tax giveaways, I think, meets a standard of fairness in this country. So, Mr. President, I think that this budget, compared to the Republican budget, comes much closer to meeting a basic standard of fairness. I congratulate colleagues for their work on this. Mr. President, there is, however, one question that I still have about all of this. That has to do with why it is that there is not more on the table in terms of where we can make cuts. There was a book written by Donald Barlett and James Steele, called ``America: What Went Wrong.'' It won a Pulitzer Prize. Then this book came out, which is called ``America: Who Really Pays the Taxes.'' On the first page, the sentence that caught my attention says: ``That when members of Congress talk about cutting entitlements, they mean yours--not theirs.'' Then they go on and they talk about tax law and they say there is ``one for the rich and powerful--call the Privileged Person's Tax Law; another for you and everyone else--call it the Common Person's Tax Law.'' Now I jump to a letter that the Senator from Massachusetts sent in response to some ads that have come out by some of the leading corporate executives calling for resolution of this budget crisis where the Senator from Massachusetts calls on them to agree that tax subsidies for wealthy individuals and corporations should bear their fair share of the reductions needed to reach a balanced budget. I now read from one paragraph I think is extremely interesting: I make the following proposal, the Republican plan would provide a reduction of 17 percent in the Federal budget in the next 7 years, exclusive of defense spending and Social Security. Reducing the $4 trillion in tax subsidies by 17 percent would achieve savings of $680 billion. If we applied the 17 percent reduction to only one-quarter of the tax expenditures, we would save $170 billion, a huge step toward providing the additional savings needed in the current impasse to balance the budget fairly in 7 years. This is the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country that I do not understand, because 70 to 80 percent of the country will say, ``Look, if you are going to ask everybody to tighten their belts, look at some of these tax giveaways to some of these huge multinational corporations and ask them to be a part of the sacrifice. Why focus on nutrition for children, or Medicare for seniors, but not these subsidies for oil companies, or tobacco companies, or pharmaceutical companies, you name it?" Mr. President, I do not understand why it is we cannot do more. As Senator Kennedy said in this letter, we are talking about a tiny percentage, which can net $170 billion. It seems to me that what explains the difference is sort of power in America. I really think if this deficit reduction is going to be based upon a standard of fairness, this corporate welfare has to be on the table, and we have to do a better job in terms of plugging some of these loopholes and doing away with some of these tax giveaways. The second point is the Pentagon budget. Mr. President, let me simply say that by a conservative estimate, over 10 years, you could have $114 billion of reduction in Pentagon expenditures. I have a chart of a variety of different ways. Many people have said, my God, can we not also look at the military contractors and have some reductions here? Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that the real national security is not more B-2 bombers that the Pentagon says it does not need, to the tune of $1.5 billion each. The real national security is when we invest in people in our own communities. I would argue that the corporate welfare and some of the military contracts ought to be on the table and that we can do better in terms of meeting the standard of fairness, since we all agree that we have to balance the budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank the Senator from Nebraska. I do not think there is probably one Senator here, Democrat or Republican alike, who does not have tremendous respect for the work that he has done. I am really sorry to see him leave the Senate. I think it is a great loss for the country. When I came here, I only knew about the Senator from Nebraska. Boy, as I had a chance to watch him, if you want to talk about a marriage of personal integrity with commitment to people and commitment to country, there is not anybody who does any better than the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I oppose the Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report on a number of grounds. There are some positive provisions, such as those concerning pay, family and troop housing, and other issues. But the conference report remains wholly unacceptable, indeed worse in some key ways than the Senate bill. If it passes today, I earnestly hope the President will veto the bill so that we can begin a more genuine effort to pass a bipartisan defense bill. I am all for a strong national defense, and I too want to ensure that our troops in Bosnia have everything they need to defend themselves. But that operation in its entirety is scheduled to cost about $1.5-2 billion; this bill provides over $260 billion in Defense spending overall--over $7 billion more than the President's request. I had urged the President to veto the DOD appropriations bill, and I also hope he will veto this one. The conference report moves in exactly the wrong direction concerning America's real priorities during extremely difficult fiscal times. At the very moment that Republicans are forcing a shut-down of parts of the Government over our disagreement about how much to cut from vital programs that benefit the country's working middle class, as well as those which serve the Americans, including the elderly and children, who are most in need of Government services, this bill substantially increases funding for weapons programs which are not needed. Let me offer just a few examples. The bill adds $493 million for new B-2 bombers, and it adds $925 million for ballistic and cruise missile defense initiatives. A number of weapons program earmarks and other pork projects have been included which do not represent rational defense policy and spending. Many were also included in the Senate bill. The bill also establishes an arms sales loan-guaranty program, further subsidizing militarization in other countries, flying in the face of U.S. arms control efforts around the world. It includes $50 million for unnecessary, even counterproductive, hydronuclear tests. In fact, the bill adds $7 billion overall to the Defense Department's own request for funding for the fiscal year. Over $7 billion more than the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President requested. That is astonishing, especially in this budget climate. How can we consider cutting food stamps, low- income heating assistance, Medicare and Medicaid before we even begin to tighten the military's belt in areas where the Department itself has said it can save? The bill would undermine major arms control treaties against nuclear proliferation. Through its requirement of deployment of a national missile defense system, beginning by 2003, many are concerned that the bill signals an intention on the part of this country unilaterally to violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty. I share that concern, as well as the concern that provisions of this bill could negatively affect Russian consideration of the START II Treaty. I have spoken on the floor regarding these topics in the past, and a number of my colleagues have done so today. Undermining these treaties would represent an historic error, and set us back many years in our arms control efforts. They have received bipartisan support in this body and were negotiated and approved by administrations of both parties. They should be strictly observed, not abrogated. And negotiations on the next phase should be pressed ahead quickly. Mr. President, I also would like to raise an issue about which a number of colleagues and I have communicated to the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. That is the issue of procurement. As a member of the Small Business Committee, I have attempted to follow closely issues that affect small businesses in the area of procurement, and this bill, as many of my colleagues know, has become contentious due to its actions in this area of policy. Provisions were added to the bill in conference in the name of acquisition reform which have generated some alarm in the small business community and among some who have worked carefully on Governmentwide procurement reform in recent years. In the very short time that has been available to study the provisions of the report, it has been difficult to assess all of its likely effects on procurement. But an initial reading indicates to me that there are areas of legitimate concern. On December 4, along with Senators Bumpers, Kerry and Moseley-Braun, I wrote to Chairman Thurmond of the Armed Services Committee and to Senator Nunn, who is the committee's ranking member. We expressed concern that provisions relating to acquisition, not only by the Department of Defense, but Governmentwide, were being included in the conference report: provisions that were not contained in the bill as originally passed by either the Senate or the House. Some of the provisions were derived from H.R. 1670, a House-passed bill, and some were derived from a Senate bill, S. 946. The provisions, as it turns out, underwent some modification before being added to this bill during the conference. But substantial changes to Governmentwide procurement policy are indeed contained here. The concern which my colleagues and I expressed in our letter, that such changes might undercut important procurement reforms undertaken by Congress in recent years, especially by weakening the practice, if not the principle, of full and open competition, remain. I therefore hope that following a veto of this bill by the President, the issue can be reexamined. I share these concerns not only with my Senate colleagues with whom I have worked on this issue in recent weeks. I also would like to point out the important work done on the House side by Small Business Committee Chair Jan Meyers of Kansas. Mrs. Meyers has championed small business interests during this process, and has reached similar judgments to those which I am setting out here. We both question the wisdom of undertaking significant Governmentwide procurement legislation, even in the name of ``streamlining,'' in the very restricted process of passing a Defense authorization conference report. And we both believe that the objections raised by a number of small business organizations to the provisions themselves have some merit. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post dated November 17, 1995, be printed in the Record. And I point out that the Small Business Legislative Council, National Small Business United, the National Association of Women Business Owners, the National Association for the Self-Employed and others all have expressed serious reservations about the procurement provisions. I hope we will have a chance to revisit the issue.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wanted to respond to some of my colleagues that had spoken earlier, and I will try to do this in a very substantive way. When colleagues speak and then they have to leave because they have other engagements, I think what you need to do is respond but in a very civil way, because you do not really have an opportunity for the debate when we are not all on the floor at the same time. Let me first of all thank Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts for his kind remarks about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I would like to thank the administration as well for releasing these funds on Sunday. Many people called from Minnesota today. Mr. President, this is a good example of a program that really affects people's lives. It is not a lot of money nationwide for the whole country. It is about $1 billion. And for Minnesota--it is a cold weather State, I say to my colleague who is presiding from North Carolina, a little colder than North Carolina right now, though I think the Presiding Officer has some pretty chilly weather. The problem is that for all too many people in my State, elderly, families with children, there were people who just could not afford the heat. And they have relied upon this small grant, which really was more of a survival supplement than an income supplement. It is called a cold weather lifeline program. We had situations that were being reported by the newspapers and by television, and I met with some of the families where people were trying to heat their homes by turning on their oven or people were just living in one room. It is very cold. It is about 8 degrees above zero, actually warmer today, but had been around 8 degrees above zero last weekend. Two weekends ago it was a 50-below wind chill. So it is extremely important to get some assistance out to people. We do not want people to go cold in America. None of us does. I thank the President for releasing that money. It makes a huge difference. Mr. President, my disagreement--and I think it is a profound disagreement--with some of my colleagues about where we are at this moment in Washington is two or threefold. First of all, the Government shutdown, I do not think it is necessary. I think it is quite independent of what decisions we make about what kind of a budget we have over the next 7 years and how we balance that budget. I mean these are big decisions. They are choices we make. We have some real sharp differences among us. I think we should continue to negotiate. I hope we can reach agreement. But I do not think the Government should be shut down. I think that is just sort of exerting leverage at its worst, and I think a lot of innocent people are being asked to pay the price. It is inappropriate, and I hope that no later than tomorrow we will go forward with a continuing resolution and we will continue to go forward with the negotiations on how it is you balance the budget. My second point is priorities. Talking about the energy assistance program, on the House side for the future it has been eliminated. This is the other debate. The total cost of this program to make sure people do not go cold in America is less than one B-2 bomber. The Pentagon is telling us they do not need all the B-2 bombers that have been funded over the next number of years in the Pentagon budget. So, Mr. President, I really believe that the debate is about balancing the budget, not so much whether we should or not. I think that all of us--and there is plenty of blame to pass around if you look at how this massive debt was built up. We are not even paying the debt off, we are trying to pay the interest off on the debt. That is what we are really talking about when we talk about balancing the budget. But the real question is how do we do it and whether or not it is based upon what I would call a Minnesota standard of fairness. Mr. President, I have to tell you, I would agree with the commentator Kevin Phillips, who two mornings ago essentially said, as I remember, that he thought that this balanced budget proposal on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually was not a serious effort to balance the budget. It was more about tax cuts or tax giveaways for wealthy people in the main and, in addition, eviscerating, ending safety net programs in this country for the most vulnerable citizens and very good for the bondholders. I think he is right. The reason I think Kevin Phillips is right--and I paraphrased his analysis, it is not a direct quote--is because there are all sorts of ways in which we can balance the budget, but it is interesting how much has been taken off the table. I say to people in the country who might be listening to this debate right now that when my colleagues talk about balancing the budget, one piece they leave out is the whole Pentagon budget. Here we are in a post-cold-war period, there is no longer a Soviet Union, and we are talking about $245 billion plus for the Pentagon budget--star wars, Stealth bomber, Trident submarine, lots of money spent on military forces to protect many countries in Western Europe and in Asia. I think that can be changed and scaled down with no threat to our national security, and it should be. As a matter of fact, the real national security of our country is not more Stealth bombers, more star wars; the real national security is jobs and adequate housing and affordable child care and decent transportation for people who live in our communities. The national security of the United States of America is the security of our local communities where people do not have to worry so much about the violence and the crime, where they have some confidence their children are going to good schools, where they can believe their children will do well economically, where they have decent jobs at decent wages, where they can look forward to a pension and, yes, where they do not have to worry about health care costs as they become elderly. That is the real national security. There is all this money on bombers and missiles and all of the rest, no reductions in the Pentagon budget, at the same time you have these deep reductions in nutrition programs for children, for God's sake. I think the Democrats are doing too much in that area, but it is a huge difference from what I see the Republicans are doing in cuts in education and cuts in health care, whether they be Medicare or whether they be medical assistance or whether they be environmental protection. People in our country, I think, want to see us fiscally responsible. They want to see us get serious about getting our economic act together. But there is a sense of fairness that people have in the country, and that is what is so wrong with this budget proposal that we have had before us, and that is why the President of the United States is doing exactly what he should do and which the vast majority of people want him to do. I think he commands a tremendous amount of respect for this, because what he is saying is, ``There are ways to balance the budget and there are ways to balance the budget, and I am interested in doing that, and I make a commitment to doing that, but I'm not going to do it if it means hurting children; I am not going to do it if it means taking away the quality of health care for elderly people; I'm not going to do it if it means we are moving away from a commitment we made as a national community to make sure there is care for the elderly or disabled or those people in nursing homes; I am not moving away from protection of the environment; and I am not moving away from the earned income tax credit which has been so important in encouraging families with incomes under $28,000 a year to work and provides people with incentives to work.'' He is on the mark. I just say to the Chair, and I say to my colleagues, if you want to balance the budget, you have to do it based on some standard of fairness. You cannot target so many of the cuts at working families, middle-income people, low-income people and, at the same time, have so many of these multinational corporations and the most wealthy citizens and the military contractors all essentially not asked to tighten their belts. It makes no sense by any standard of fairness, which I think the vast majority of people in this country are committed to. That is what this debate is all about. Mr. President, I could go on and on. I will not. I just simply wanted to, as long as we are having some discussion tonight on the floor of the Senate, inject a somewhat different perspective than the ones I heard from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I guess if I had a Hanukkah wish, being an American Jew and Hanukkah started last night, if I had a Hanukkah wish, much less Christmas wish, it would be that we tomorrow reach an agreement that there will be a continuing resolution, the Government will not be shut down. We should not have people who are really worried about being able to make a living not being able to work. We, of course, are involved in negotiations in good faith. We are not going to resolve these major questions in the next 3 days, but we will resolve these questions, hopefully, over the next month. I think we have to be involved in serious negotiations, substantive negotiations and good-faith negotiations, and if the differences are irreconcilable, then I suppose those differences and what people think about the position we take, as opposed to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the differences between President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich will be resolved in the election. But I do not think we should continue to hold a lot of people hostage. I do not think we should continue to make a lot of innocent people pay the price. So my hope is that tomorrow there is no more Government shutdown; that tomorrow we look forward to substantive negotiations in good faith, honest debate, not hate, with civility, trying to reach an agreement. These are big decisions we are going to make that are going to affect our country going into the next century. We ought to do it thoughtfully, carefully, and if we can reach an agreement in January, great, and if we cannot reach an agreement, then maybe, in fact, the differences are irreconcilable. Then the people of the country can make the decision. That is the way it is supposed to be in a democracy. Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas. I hope we soon get home to be with our loved ones. I yield the floor.